Hon Thomas Tayebwa may also face accusations associated with the broader culture of patronage and corruption within politics, but he has generally been viewed as more discreet, measured, respectful, and careful not to exercise power in ways that publicly embarrass the State or threaten the broader political system.
By Betty Amongi Ongom: Let me begin by congratulating Hon Oboth Oboth on his well-deserved elevation to the position of Speaker.
Long before the Speakership contest intensified, some of us already knew where events were heading. As early as March 2026, when I was consulted on the position UPC MPs should take, I advised them not to endorse AAA as Speaker of the 12th Parliament because the State had already settled on Hon. Oboth Oboth.
By the end of April, that position had become even clearer to me through my sources. At the State House dinner marking the end of the Cabinet term, I even joked with colleagues about taking a selfie with the “incoming Speaker,” Hon Oboth Oboth. What appeared to be humour was, in fact, informed by what some of us already knew.
The Rolls-Royce was imported and arrived in Uganda in January 2026, but the cover was only blown in May. Why? Because politics is often a matter of timing and planning. In politics, only about 20 percent of actual events ever become public.
The question many Ugandans are asking is this: if corruption was the issue, why was AAA singled out while Hon Thomas Tayebwa was spared?
In my view, the answer lies not simply in corruption, but in character, conduct, and political judgment.
Across the world, politics and business often operate through networks of influence and exchange. In many systems, questionable dealings are concealed behind formal procedures, legal cover, and institutional discretion. What made AAA’s case different, however, was not merely the alleged misuse of office, but the manner in which power was exercised — recklessly, arrogantly, and with a sense of impunity.
The perception that emerged was that parliamentary resources and state power were allegedly being used not only for political survival, but also to intimidate ministers, MPs, and other individuals perceived as unsupportive. The message many interpreted was simple: submit politically or risk being targeted.
There was also a growing belief among some political actors that proximity to the President was being used as a signal that all actions taken enjoyed State backing. This created fear within political circles and contributed to the image of unchecked authority.
During the 2026 elections, several MPs reportedly complained about interference in electoral processes, including alleged sponsorship of preferred candidates and manipulation of systems in ways that disadvantaged opponents.
The cumulative effect, according to critics within the ruling establishment, was the alienation of senior NRM leaders and reputational damage to both government and party structures. By the time complaints reportedly reached the President from political leaders, parliamentary aspirants, diplomats, business figures, investors, and sections of the public, the issue had evolved beyond ordinary internal rivalry into a broader political liability.
Her troubles were further compounded by a leadership style many perceived as centralizing power around a small loyal clique while alienating a wider section of MPs and stakeholders. Over time, she increasingly projected the image of an alternative centre of power rather than a subordinate institutional actor within the system.
Her frequent public confrontations and undiplomatic remarks, including toward foreign partners, only deepened those concerns. In the end, she was not simply confronted with allegations of corruption, but with accusations of political overreach.
That is where the contrast with Hon Thomas Tayebwa emerges. He may also face accusations associated with the broader culture of patronage and corruption within politics, but he has generally been viewed as more discreet, measured, respectful, and careful not to exercise power in ways that publicly embarrass the State or threaten the broader political system.
In politics, those distinctions matter.
Had AAA exercised greater restraint, humility, and political discipline, she may not have faced the outcome she did.
The lesson is simple: in politics, wrongdoing alone does not always destroy leaders. Sometimes it is the arrogance with which it is carried out, the enemies accumulated along the way, the fear created within the system, and the extent to which one becomes a liability to the image of the State.
Ultimately, the establishment appears to have faced a choice: continue carrying AAA at the risk of alienating senior NRM leaders, deepening reputational damage to government and party structures, and allowing the perception of a parallel centre of power to grow — or sacrifice her in order to preserve institutional authority and restore the image of centralized presidential control.
In the end, the choice was clear.
Ms Betty Amongi Ongom is Outgoing Minister of Gender, Labour and Social Development
What’s your take on this story?
Posts
0 Comments