The public takedown of former speaker Anita Annet Among has become more than a corruption probe. It is a referendum on women’s ability to lead, one that is anchored on patriarchy. Raids on her homes, the sealing of her office, and external sanctions dominated headlines. But look closer: when a powerful woman stumbles, Uganda doesn’t just interrogate her. It scrutinises her entire gender.
We saw it plainly in the race for her successor. After critics declared that women had ‘failed’ in leadership, the contest for Speaker of the 12th Parliament featured only men. The message was blunt. One woman’s alleged misconduct was enough to push women out of contention for one of the most strategic offices despite being 51 percent of Uganda’s population. That is not accountability. That is collective punishment. Contrast this with the Karamoja iron sheets scandal. More than 24 officials were implicated, the majority men. Yet no one suggested that male leadership had failed or that men, as a group, were ‘too emotional’ or ‘too corrupt’ to govern.
The debate focused on individuals and the system. With Among, the script flipped. Misogynists claimed her case proved affirmative action ‘lowers standards.’ Others deflected, framing criticism as a foreign plot tied to her support for the Anti-Homosexuality Act. Both sides obscure the real issue: accountability within Uganda’s political system. Let’s be clear. Feminist politics does not mean shielding women from scrutiny. In fact, some of the strongest calls for accountability came from women activists. Agather Atuhaire’s Parliament Exhibition investigations exposed excessive spending during Among’s tenure and demanded transparency because corruption disproportionately harms women.
That critique was anti-corruption, not anti-woman.
For decades, Uganda’s women’s movement has advocated for transformative leadership that promotes gender equality, accountability and social justice. Organisations like the Forum for Women in Democracy opened spaces historically dominated by men and have continued nurturing women leaders to champion the women’s agenda. Reducing this struggle to one individual’s actions is unfair and politically dangerous. The numbers matter. The reality is that women remain underrepresented despite affirmative action.
Women hold 34.7 percent of parliamentary seats in Uganda, but many seats are reserved rather than won in direct constituency contests. Globally, the imbalance is stark, where women hold 26.9 percent of parliamentary seats worldwide, but only 9.8 percent of heads of state. Political financing, patronage networks, and party gatekeeping still favour men. According to UN Women, countries with higher shares of women in parliament are more likely to pass legislation on social protection, healthcare, and education. A 2022 World Bank study found that a 10 percent increase in women’s parliamentary representation correlates with a 4-5 percent reduction in corruption levels across developing countries.
Despite this, political empowerment remains the widest gender gap in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index, and women leaders face harsher moral scrutiny than men. Female politicians are more likely to be judged on personal conduct and appearance, while male counterparts are judged on policy. Yet we must also resist romanticising Among simply because she is a woman. Feminist leadership is defined by political choices and commitment to justice, not gender alone. Critics note her tenure did little to advance transformative gender policy and was instead linked to patronage networks and the concentration of parliamentary power. Among represents a woman in power, not necessarily feminist leadership.
Uganda has seen transformative women leaders before. Rebecca Kadaga, Winnie Byanyima, and Miria Matembe built legacies tied to expanding women’s rights and democratic participation. Their contributions should not be erased because of one leader’s misconduct allegations. Corruption is not female. It is structural. Uganda’s problem is a political culture where loyalty beats accountability, where enforcement is selective, and where scandal is a weapon, not a principle. If we are serious about integrity, the standard must apply to everyone. Selective outrage breeds cynicism.
Among’s case should not decide whether women can lead. It should force us to ask why systems reward loyalty over service. The feminist demand is not special treatment. It is equal treatment. Investigate. Prosecute. Reform. But do it for all leaders, not just the ones who make convenient scapegoats. Judge leadership by its commitment to equity, dignity, and the public good. Not by gender. Uganda deserves nothing less.