The Inspector General of Government (IGG), Justice
Aisha Naluzze, recently criticized Local Government Minister Balaam Barugahara
over his methods of exposing and apprehending alleged corrupt officials. Her
remarks came on October 12, 2026, while presenting the Inspectorate’s
January–June 2026 report to Parliament Speaker Jacob Oboth Oboth.
Although Naluzze acknowledged the campaign, her
criticism of its execution raises questions about whether the country’s
anti-corruption institutions fully appreciate the public’s frustration with
persistent graft.
Across the country, many citizens appear more
concerned about ending corruption than the procedures used to apprehend
suspects. For communities that have endured decades of alleged embezzlement,
bribery, abuse of office and financial impropriety, Barugahara’s approach
represents a welcome break from what they perceive as ineffective conventional
methods.
During rallies I have attended upcountry, citizens
have expressed support for the campaign, viewing it as evidence of a renewed
commitment to fighting corruption. Nevertheless, concerns remain about the
fairness of some interventions and the risk of political interests influencing
investigations.
One important lesson for the IGG and other
anti-corruption agencies is the campaign’s ability to encourage citizens to
report suspected wrongdoing and believe their concerns will receive immediate
attention. Restoring public confidence requires more than official statements;
it demands visible, consistent and impartial action.
Hon Balaam Barugahara carrying out the corruption crusades
However, urgency must not replace due process.
Reports of innocent officials being targeted, political groups interfering with
apprehensions, and individuals being punished for the alleged misconduct of
their predecessors highlight the need for safeguards. In Bugweri and Bugiri,
concerns have emerged over the treatment of officials and disputes involving
local political interests. Such allegations require independent verification
and fair investigation.
The campaign would therefore benefit from a
dedicated civilian follow-up mechanism to review complaints, protect wrongly
accused individuals and address minor administrative misconduct that may not
warrant prosecution.
Justice Naluzze should consider engaging directly
with communities participating in the rallies before dismissing the campaign’s
methods. Constructive dialogue with Barugahara and the relevant authorities
would help strengthen the initiative while addressing legitimate concerns about
fairness and accountability.
Ugandans have watched corruption allegations persist
across public institutions, including concerns about public funds, land
grabbing, bribery and the mismanagement of development programs. The public’s
appetite for decisive action is understandable.
Ultimately, the success of Balaam’s campaign will depend not only on how many suspects are apprehended, but also on whether investigations lead to fair, lawful and lasting accountability.
The message to the IGG is simple: listen to the
public, strengthen the campaign’s safeguards and ensure that the fight against
corruption delivers justice without becoming a tool for political persecution.
