CHARACTER, NOT JUST CORRUPTION! Here’s Why Among Was Crucified & Tayebwa Spared!
By Amongi Betty Ongom, Outgoing Minister of Gender, Labour and Social Development
Let me begin by congratulating Hon. Oboth Oboth on his well-deserved attainment to the position of the Speaker.
Long before the Speakership contest heated up, 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 to refrain from endorsing 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; the cover was blown in May. Why? Because this was a matter of planning and timing. In politics, only about 20% of actual events appears in 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?
The answer, in my view, 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 places, corrupt dealings are concealed behind formal processes, legal cover, and institutional discretion. What made AAA’s case different was not merely the alleged misuse of office, but the reckless, arrogant, and overbearing manner in which power was exercised.
It was not corruption hidden behind sophistication; it was corruption executed with impunity, excitement, and public display.
She allegedly used parliamentary resources and state power not merely for personal or political survival, but to fight Ministers, MPs, and any other individuals who did not submit to her authority.
The message was clear: one either knelt before her or risked being targeted. If she believed the president favoured you, she would allegedly move even more aggressively to politically destroy you.
This turned political competition into intimidation and made public office an instrument of fear.
She could use her access to the President to send signal to the public that everything she was doing were sanctioned by the president.
So everyone feared and acted under her wimp because of her perceived a power emanating from the proximity to the president.
During the 2026 elections, many MPs complained of her interference in electoral processes, including sponsoring preferred candidates and frustrating systems in ways that enabled manipulation.
The cumulative effect of these actions was alienating senior NRM leaders from their party and severe damage to the image of both government and the NRM.
By the time complaints reached H.E. in overwhelming volume, from senior NRM leaders, parliamentary contestants, diplomats, business communities, investors, and the public, the matter had moved beyond internal rivalry and become a serious political liability.
Her troubles were compounded by her broader style of leadership. She alienated the majority of her fellow MPs while empowering only a small clique loyal to her. She centralized power around herself, antagonized key stakeholders, and projected the image of a leader who had become an alternative centre of power besides the president. Her frequent undiplomatic outbursts, including toward foreign partners, only worsened matters. In the end, she did not merely face questions of corruption; she faced the consequences of overreach.
That is where the contrast with Hon. Thomas Tayebwa emerges. He may also have participated in corruption, but he was seen as discreet, respectful, loyal, and careful not to use power in a way that threatened the wider system or publicly embarrass the state.
In politics, that difference matters. If AAA had exercised restraint, humility, and discipline, she might not have met the fate she did.
The lesson is simple: in politics, it is not always wrongdoing alone that destroys leaders. Sometimes it is the arrogance with which it is done, the enemies made along the way, the danger one poses to the image of the state, and the fear one creates within the system.
In the end, the establishment had to choose between continuing to carry AAA at the cost of alienating senior NRM leaders, creating greater reputational damage to government and the NRM, allowing her to amass even more power beyond her office, or sacrificing her to preserve the image of both government and party and restoring respect of presidential power to one centre of authority.
The choice was clear.
About Post Author
