Mao Vs Among : Smear Politics Won’t Silence Anti Corruption Message.

By Peterson Hiirya.

As the race for the Speakership of Uganda’s 12th Parliament intensifies, Norbert Mao has emerged as a vocal contender, positioning his campaign on accountability and institutional reform.

His recent remarks describing Parliament as the “headquarters of corruption” have injected urgency—and controversy—into an already competitive contest.

However, instead of engaging directly with the substance of these allegations, sections of his critics and political opponents appear to be shifting the debate into murkier territory.

A wave of carefully paid and planned propaganda commentary has surfaced online, attempting to link Mao to foreign influence and LGBTQ+ advocacy, framing his candidacy as part of a broader ideological agenda rather than a governance challenge.

Such cheap talk is regrettable and shows a clear lack of direction and ideology and must be treated with the contempt it deserves.

This shift raises an important question: Are Ugandans being offered a genuine debate about corruption and leadership, or are they witnessing a diversion?

Mao’s central argument has been consistent—he is calling for the scrutiny of Parliament’s integrity and leadership under Anita Among. These are serious claims that warrant clear, evidence-based responses.

Notably, concerns about corruption in Parliament have also been acknowledged in broader political discourse, including statements attributed to Yoweri Museveni emphasizing the need for accountability.

In contrast, much of the criticism directed at Mao relies on insinuation, malice, and blackmail rather than verifiable evidence. Allegations about foreign gay backing or ideological alignment are presented without substantiation, often drawing tenuous links between academic programs, civil society organizations, and political motives. Such arguments risk reducing a national leadership debate into speculation and cheap personal attacks.

It is also important to separate policy positions from political labelling. Mao has publicly addressed Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality legislation in the past, expressing views aligned with prevailing, our culture, and national policy.

Whether one agrees with his stance or not, it is part of the public record and should be debated on its own terms—not distorted into unrelated narratives.

The broader concern is that identity-based accusations—particularly those aimed at discrediting individuals through Smear campaigns —can undermine meaningful political discourse.

When campaigns rely on character attacks and  blackmail  rather than addressing policy questions, voters are left without the clarity they need to make informed decisions.

If Mao’s critics believe his claims about corruption are unfounded, the appropriate response is to challenge them with facts, transparency, and accountability. Similarly, if his leadership credentials are in question, those concerns should be articulated clearly and debated openly.

Uganda’s political landscape deserves more than rhetoric driven by rumor or fear.

The Speakership race is an opportunity to confront real issues facing Parliament—governance, integrity, and public trust. Reducing it to smear campaigns risks trivializing those challenges.

Mao is steadily offering clear ideology , vision and leadership and attaching the required decorum to the speakership race , those vulgarizing the race are traitors who have nothing to offer , we need to raise above ordinary cheap propaganda , this country is bigger than all of us

In the end, the electorate will be best served by a contest grounded in ideas, evidence, and leadership vision—not distractions.