Nameere defends public anti-corruption inspections despite legal criticism

Uganda’s State Minister for Local Government, Justine Nameere, has defended the government’s practice of publicly confronting and filming officials during anti-corruption inspections, saying the operations are supported by credible evidence and conducted within the law.

Speaking during a visit to the Acholi sub-region on Friday, Ms Nameere said the inspections are based on verified intelligence gathered through professional investigations, rejecting claims that the exercise amounts to trying suspects through the media.

The minister, who is also the Masaka City Woman Member of Parliament, has recently been leading nationwide anti-corruption inspection tours alongside Local Government Minister Balaam Barugahara. During the visits, several public officials have been questioned on camera over allegations including misuse of public funds, poor implementation of government projects and payroll fraud.

Ms Nameere said every operation follows extensive investigations carried out by technical experts and security agencies.

According to her, the inquiries rely on information from whistleblowers that is verified by engineers, officers from the State House Anti-Corruption Unit, the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI) and other security agencies.

She said those arrested during the inspections are backed by complete case files ready for prosecution.

“All the files are ready. Some suspects have already appeared in court, others are being arraigned. A state attorney cannot sanction a file without sufficient evidence because they know they will have to defend it in court,” she said.

Ms Nameere added that some suspects had admitted wrongdoing during the inspections.

She cited a case in Gulu District where a clinical officer at a government health facility allegedly admitted that another individual employed by Reproductive Health Uganda had been using his professional certificate.

She also defended the decision to record and broadcast the inspections, saying there is no law that bars the public identification of people suspected of corruption.

Beyond criminal prosecution, Ms Nameere said the campaign is intended to ensure delayed or mismanaged public projects are completed without waiting for court cases to conclude.

“If money meant for a road was stolen, we shall arrest the culprit but also return to the community and complete the road. If it is a bridge or maternity ward, we shall ensure it is completed so that the people do not continue suffering while court processes go on,” she said.

The government’s high-profile anti-corruption campaign has generated mixed reactions. Supporters say it demonstrates a stronger commitment to fighting corruption, while critics argue that publicly confronting suspects before conviction could undermine the constitutional principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Lawyer Kelly Komakech, based in Gulu City, said the ministers’ approach does not follow established legal procedures.

He argued that although tackling corruption is necessary, investigations should be conducted by institutions legally mandated to do so and in accordance with due process.

“Legally, it is not right. There are bodies that are tasked with carrying out investigations, and there are laws that clearly outline how those investigations should be conducted,” Komakech told Uganda Radio Network.

Mr Komakech also questioned the ministers’ authority to direct arrests and order the interdiction of public officials before independent investigations are completed.

“Whatever they are doing is illegal because they do not have the powers to execute anybody or direct arrests. I even saw permanent secretaries being directed to interdict officers based merely on suspicions. If we interdict everyone based on suspicion, who will be safe?” he said.

Uganda’s Constitution does not expressly prohibit the public identification of criminal suspects before they appear in court. However, Article 28(3)(a) guarantees every accused person the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, while Article 28(1) provides for the right to a fair, speedy and public hearing before an independent and impartial court.