Selective Prosecution or Genuine Reform? Uganda’s Anita Among Controversy Raises Tough Questions

Ronald Kasirye | The Hoima Post

In Uganda’s increasingly polarized political climate, the scrutiny surrounding Anita Among has reopened a longstanding national debate about corruption, political loyalty, and accountability under President Yoweri Museveni.
Critics argue that Among’s wealth did not emerge suddenly, nor was it accumulated in secrecy. Over the years, the Speaker has openly expanded her profile through investments in hospitals, schools, sports facilities, luxury vehicles, and real estate many of them publicly commissioned in the presence of senior government officials.
One of the most notable moments came in 2024 when President Museveni personally presided over the commissioning of Bukedea Teaching Hospital, a flagship project associated with Among’s growing influence and wealth. The President’s visible endorsement at several public functions has since become central to the opposition’s argument: if questions about unexplained wealth exist today, why were they absent when these projects were being celebrated by the state itself?
Political observers say the issue cuts deeper than one public official.
“This is ultimately a debate about the credibility of institutions,” said Dr. Frederick Golooba-Mutebi, a respected governance researcher who has extensively studied patronage politics in East Africa.
“In systems built around political patronage, accountability is often inconsistent. Enforcement tends to depend less on principle and more on shifting political interests.”
That perception has fueled accusations of selective prosecution from critics of the ruling establishment.
Among’s defenders argue that the government cannot credibly portray itself as uncompromising on corruption while simultaneously maintaining a decades-long history of protecting politically connected figures. To them, the current pressure against the Speaker reflects internal political management rather than a genuine anti-corruption campaign.
Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo has previously cautioned against the politicization of justice systems in governance disputes.
“The legitimacy of anti-corruption efforts depends on consistency. Once accountability appears selective, public trust in institutions begins to erode.”
Supporters of the government, however, insist that investigations into public officials should not automatically be dismissed as political persecution. They maintain that no leader, regardless of rank or influence, should be exempt from scrutiny if questions arise concerning public accountability.
Still, skepticism remains widespread among sections of the public.
For many Ugandans, the controversy surrounding Anita Among reflects broader frustrations with governance under a system that critics say has normalized corruption over nearly four decades of rule. Opposition voices argue that the state’s anti-corruption posture becomes difficult to defend when investigations appear concentrated on individuals who may have fallen out of political favor.
The unfolding debate therefore extends beyond Anita Among herself. It speaks to larger questions about institutional independence, political protection, and whether Uganda’s anti-corruption fight is driven by justice or political calculation.
As the controversy continues to dominate public discussion, one unresolved question lingers in the minds of many observers: if the wealth was always visible, why is accountability only emerging now