On January 15, 2026, Ugandans will be electing the President and Members of Parliament (MPs). The elections have provided yet another opportunity for citizens to exact accountability from incumbents and voice their concerns on what needs to be done.
Concerns have been expressed over increasing corruption, erosion of the rule of law, economic mismanagement, and weakening of institutions. The public expects the next government to address these issues.
The public expectation is that the three arms of government – the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary – are strong and effective, working harmoniously, but at the same time acting as checks on each other to serve the country’s best interests.
The notions of the rule of law and justice were not imported from Britain. In traditional Buganda society, a profound saying highlights the importance of impartiality in decision-making: ‘Enkima tesala gwakibira’ (a monkey cannot be a judge in a matter where cutting down the forest is the issue).
This proverb underscores the concept of conflict of interest, where an individual’s personal interests or relationships may compromise their objectivity and judgment.
In the context of public office, this concept is critical. Leaders and public officers are entrusted with serving the public good, making decisions that benefit everyone in the community without allowing personal interests to cloud their judgment. The 1995 Constitution emphasises that ‘all public offices shall be held in trust for the people’. However, the sad reality in Uganda today is far from this desired ideal.
A conflict of interest arises when a public official’s private interests clash with their public duties, leading to potentially abusive and corrupt practices. The Uganda Leadership Code Act prohibits leaders and public officers from placing themselves in positions where their personal interests conflict with their duties.
Despite this, conflicted decision-making has become an entrenched feature of public life in Uganda. Manifestations of conflicted decision-making are visible in most ministries and public bodies where nepotism and favouritism characterise recruitments and promotions in the public service.
The consequences have been disastrous and far-reaching. In 2002, a select committee of Parliament investigated the 2001 election violence and made startling findings about the Electoral Commission (EC).
In its report, the committee noted that EC officials had got entangled in various cases of conflict of interest, which had compromised the performance of the Commission.
There have been other disturbing cases of conflicted decisions. The privatisation exercise, for example, saw many public corporations and companies sold to well-placed government functionaries, or their proxies.
Conflicted decision-making by lawmakers is a grave matter, especially when it compromises their judgment in carrying out their oversight functions over the Executive and agencies. It smacks of institutional and State capture where anti-democratic legislations or constitutional amendments are originated and pushed through Parliament by the beneficiaries themselves or on behalf of powerful partisan interests for a fee.
In his book, Constitutional and Political History of Uganda, from 1894 to Present, Prof George Kanyeihamba (RIP) asserts that the selfish practice of conflicted decision-making had its origins in the Constituent Assembly (CA).
Himself a CA delegate, Kanyeihamba reports that the CA that drafted the 1995 Constitution was plagued by conflicted decision making, which laid the foundations for patronage politics, ultimately hurting the public good.
He notes that despite warnings from professionals, CA delegates rejected a proposal to disqualify themselves from contesting in the first parliamentary elections after the Constitution’s adoption. The proposal was meant to dissuade delegates from building mechanisms within the Constitution to fit their own personal interests.
The country witnessed more self-serving conflicted legislation, hardly 10 years later, when it came to the removal of the term limit and later the age limits.
Former Tanzanian president Julius Nyerere had passionately warned African leaders about the danger of term limit removals.
He said this would destroy the tenets of constitutionalism and erase the gains Africa had made on the road to stability and unity through peaceful transfer of power.
Sadly, many African countries, including Uganda, ignored Nyerere, and the painful consequences keep unfolding every other year, with thousands of lives lost as Africa’s Gen Z take matters into their hands.