Academic and political commentator Jim Spire Ssentongo has weighed in on the corruption investigations surrounding Speaker of Parliament Anita Among, following reports of a Saturday raid on her residence as the probe intensifies.
His remarks come amid heated public debate and widespread reactions online, with sections of the public interpreting the developments as a major breakthrough in Uganda’s long-running corruption battle.
Ssentongo, however, cautioned against what he described as emotional celebrations, arguing that the fight against corruption has often been shaped more by political convenience than consistent institutional enforcement.
“The sustainable fight against corruption will be by building institutions (not individuals) and letting them do their job. The current celebration can be understood. Naturally, we celebrate the ongoing action against AAA because of the anger we have towards her displayed insensitivity, with on-camera extravagance, theft, and impunity. Her biggest fault is rubbing it in our faces and persecuting critics/opponents, otherwise corruption per se is normal now.”
He noted that public reaction reflects accumulated frustration over years of perceived impunity, especially in a system where corruption cases rarely lead to sustained accountability.
According to him, the current moment is also being shaped by broader political dynamics, rather than a straightforward anti-corruption drive.
“The moment is also used as an outlet for the accumulated frustrations in the public. In a place where corruption is hardly ever genuinely fought, this isolated action had to be exciting - no matter its political intentions.”
Ssentongo warned that the unfolding developments should be examined critically, arguing that several other actors accused of corruption remain untouched and continue to operate freely.
“We need to remain cynical because many other known corrupt people who are still in good books are walking heads high. There is no new beginning being announced with regard to integrity; it is more of an announcement of the might of a new power base.”
He further questioned the role of key accountability institutions, suggesting that their past inaction has contributed to the scale of corruption scandals now emerging.
“We know why the IGG and Auditor General developed cold feet during the earlier Parliament Exhibition, as they often do around big political darlings. We watched Parliament become the casino that it is. Government can’t act shocked, except in announcement of incompetence. We know why many relevant bodies can’t do their job.”
Ssentongo also raised concern that the handling of the case could be shaped in a way that channels political credit to specific actors, warning that such patterns risk repeating the same cycle of patronage.
“We can also see that the AAA issue has been choreographed and performed in a way that politically channels credit to an individual who shouldn’t have been at the center of it in a healthy system.”
He stressed that Uganda’s challenge is not a lack of concerned individuals, but a system that selectively activates anti-corruption efforts when politically convenient.
“We have not failed to stop corruption because of lack of individuals who care. It is because of a political system that thrives on corruption and only affords an occasional performance of fighting it where some political interests are at risk or when we want to politically manufacture credit and power for special individuals.”
Ssentongo called for a more consistent and institutional approach, insisting that accountability must be constitutional, non-selective, and insulated from political influence if meaningful change is to be achieved.