Ezra Twino | Parliament of Uganda | Kampala
The Parliamentary Committee on Presidential Affairs chaired by Bardege-Layibi Division Member of Parliament, Hon. Ojara Martin Mapenduzi has put officials from State House, the Office of the President, Uganda AIDS Commission and the Directorate for Ethics and Integrity under intense scrutiny, raising questions about accountability, corruption, human rights and the relevance of some institutions within the Presidency.
The engagements, which marked the committee’s first interface with the entities since its constitution, were intended to familiarise legislators with the mandates, operations and current status of the different institutions under the committee’s oversight.
However, what began as an introductory engagement quickly turned into a searching examination of the conduct of presidential institutions and the performance of officials appointed to serve under the Presidency.
At the centre of the discussions were concerns about corruption, integrity, human rights and what some legislators described as the increasingly questionable conduct of certain presidential appointees.
STATE HOUSE EDUCATION SPONSORSHIP QUESTIONED
Hon. Harriet Nakwedde, the Presidential Affairs Shadow Minister, raised questions regarding access to education sponsorship programmes administered through State House.
Nakwedde also sought clarification on access to skilling hubs established under State House, questioning the criteria used to identify beneficiaries and whether ordinary Ugandans have equitable access to the opportunities.
Her concerns placed the spotlight on the broader question of how State House programmes are administered and whether they are sufficiently transparent, accountable and accessible to the citizens they are intended to benefit.
The questions come at a time when Parliament is increasingly demanding greater accountability from institutions that operate within or directly under the Office of the President.
‘ARROGANCE’ OF PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES
Members of the committee also expressed concern over what they described as the arrogance and conduct of some presidential appointees, arguing that such behaviour risks damaging the image of the President and the Presidency itself.
Among those cited in the discussion were Kisa Kya Mukama and musician-turned-politician Jennifer Nakangubi, popularly known as Full Figure.
The legislators questioned whether the conduct and public pronouncements of some presidential appointees are consistent with the standards expected of individuals entrusted with representing the President.
The concerns raise a fundamental question: What responsibility should presidential appointees bear for protecting the credibility and reputation of the institution they serve?
For Parliament, the issue is not merely about individual personalities. It goes to the heart of public confidence in government and whether presidential appointments are being used to strengthen institutions or inadvertently expose the Presidency to public criticism.
OPONDO QUESTIONS THE VERY EXISTENCE OF ETHICS DIRECTORATE
The most pointed interrogation, however, was directed at the Directorate for Ethics and Integrity.
Ophono Opondo questioned the continued relevance of the Directorate, arguing that its mandate substantially overlaps with responsibilities already assigned to other government institutions.
Opondo challenged officials from the Directorate to explain why the entity should continue to exist when other government agencies already have clearly defined responsibilities relating to corruption, ethics, accountability and prosecution.
He cited the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions as an example, questioning the institutional relationship and duplication between different government agencies.
His argument was essentially this: if other institutions already possess the legal authority to investigate, prosecute and deal with corruption and ethical violations, what unique function remains for the Directorate for Ethics and Integrity?
Opondo reportedly went as far as suggesting that the leadership of the Directorate should advise the President to consider disbanding the institution if its functions can adequately be performed elsewhere.
That proposal puts the Directorate in an uncomfortable position and raises a broader question about Uganda’s expanding public administration: How many institutions are necessary to fight corruption and enforce ethical standards, and how many merely duplicate each other’s mandates?
‘SHOW US YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS’ — NAKWEDDE
Nakwedde reinforced the challenge, demanding that the Directorate demonstrate tangible achievements that would enable Parliament to appreciate its continued relevance.
Rather than relying on its statutory mandate alone, the committee wants evidence of measurable impact.
The challenge effectively shifts the burden from explaining what the Directorate is supposed to do to demonstrating what it has actually accomplished.
For an institution established to promote ethical leadership and integrity in public affairs, this is arguably the most important test.
Ugandans have for years been confronted with corruption scandals, abuse of public resources, impunity and allegations of misconduct involving public officials.
The existence of multiple anti-corruption and accountability institutions has therefore not necessarily translated into a corresponding reduction in corruption or unethical conduct.
DIRECTORATE ASKS FOR TIME
Faced with the barrage of questions, the Executive Director of the Directorate for Ethics and Integrity requested time to compile a comprehensive response to the committee.
The response is expected to provide Parliament with a clearer account of the Directorate’s achievements, mandate, institutional relevance and contribution to the fight against corruption and the promotion of ethical leadership.
The committee’s demand for tangible results could become a significant moment in determining whether the Directorate can convincingly defend its continued existence.
THE BIGGER QUESTION: ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE PRESIDENCY
The first meeting of the Presidential Affairs Committee has already exposed a wider accountability dilemma.
Institutions associated with the Presidency wield considerable influence and resources, yet Parliament is increasingly demanding evidence that their programmes and officials operate with transparency, discipline and measurable results.
The concerns raised by legislators also point to a delicate balance between presidential authority and parliamentary oversight.
If presidential appointees are perceived as acting with impunity, the consequences may extend beyond their individual reputations to the credibility of the appointing authority.
Likewise, if an institution created to promote ethics and integrity cannot convincingly demonstrate its impact, Parliament is justified in asking whether taxpayers are receiving value for money.
The committee’s first engagement has therefore sent a clear message: being under the Presidency does not place an institution beyond parliamentary scrutiny.
The coming responses from State House and the Directorate for Ethics and Integrity will be crucial.
For the Directorate in particular, Parliament has placed a straightforward question on the table:
After years of operation, what tangible difference has it made—and why should Uganda continue funding it?