KAMPALA – A fresh storm is brewing in Uganda’s Parliament after opposition MPs were ordered to return Shs100 million each, a payout many are calling a bribe. The directive came from acting Leader of the Opposition (LoP), Muwanga Kivumbi, during a tense closed-door meeting held on April 10, 2025.
The meeting followed the absence of official LoP Joel Ssenyonyi, who is currently out of the country. Kivumbi didn’t mince words, calling the payout a “satanic and dirty temptation” designed to buy support for controversial government bills.
“This is not just bad money—it’s a stain on Parliament’s integrity,” Kivumbi declared. “Keeping it means selling your conscience and betraying the voters.”
The Alleged Link: Bribe or Development Aid?
Sources suggest the Shs100 million is tied to two contentious proposals: the National Coffee (Amendment) Act, 2024, which seeks to dissolve the Uganda Coffee Development Authority, and the UPDF Amendment Bill, 2025.
Both pieces of legislation have sparked public debate, with critics accusing the government of trying to silence dissent through financial incentives.
A Show of Integrity: Signing the Resolution
In a bid to reclaim moral ground, opposition MPs resolved that those who refuse the money must publicly sign a resolution denouncing the payout. Kivumbi confirmed that the list of signatories will be made public to enhance transparency.
Already, several MPs have taken the moral stand:
- Yusuf Nsibambi (FDC Party Whip)
- Joan Namutaawe (Masaka District Woman MP)
- Joyce Bagala (Mityana Woman MP)
- Timothy Batuwa (Jinja South West)
- Hellen Nakimuli (Kalangala Woman MP)
- Hanifah Nabukenya (Mukono Woman MP)
- Allan Ssewanyana (Makindye West)
MPs abroad—including Joel Ssenyonyi and Gorreth Namugga—will be allowed to sign electronically.
Turning Bribes Into Public Good?
Still, a new question lingers in the public mind: instead of returning the funds, could MPs redirect the money toward community projects? Schools, hospitals, roads, or youth employment initiatives could all benefit from such funds—if handled transparently.
Could this approach flip a dirty trick into a clean win for Ugandans? Some argue that such a move could set a precedent where public interest triumphs over political gamesmanship.
However, Kivumbi dismissed this idea as dangerous, warning that accepting the money in any form sets a bad precedent for corruption.
What Happens Next?
All eyes are now on the remaining MPs. Will they follow their colleagues in rejecting the money—or choose a different path, one that perhaps puts community impact above political loyalty?
One thing is clear: this saga is far from over. As Uganda grapples with issues of integrity, leadership, and accountability, this moment could define the future tone of the 11th Parliament.
