Calls to Access Among’s Asset Declarations reignite more trouble

Uganda’s leadership accountability system is facing renewed public scrutiny following a petition demanding access to wealth declarations submitted by Speaker of Parliament Anita Among.

The petition, filed by lawyers and civil society activists, was confirmed on Friday by Inspector General of Government Aisha Naluzze Batala, who said the matter is now formally before the Inspectorate of Government (IGG).

Speaking to journalists at the Uganda Media Centre in Kampala, Justice Batala said the petition would be handled within the framework of Uganda’s laws governing leadership declarations and public accountability.

The development has reignited national debate over corruption, unexplained wealth and transparency among senior government officials, particularly those holding powerful public offices.

At the centre of the petition are demands for disclosure of the Speaker’s declared income, assets and liabilities under Uganda’s Leadership Code regime. The activists behind the request argue that citizens have a constitutional right to demand accountability from public officials entrusted with state authority and public resources.

The petition emerges after months of controversy surrounding Among’s leadership, including repeated allegations of corruption, abuse of office and accumulation of unexplained wealth. Although the Speaker has consistently denied wrongdoing and dismissed the accusations as politically motivated, criticism surrounding her office has continued to intensify both online and within political circles.

Analysts say the petition marks a significant escalation in efforts by civil society groups to compel accountability institutions to scrutinize politically influential figures more aggressively.

Uganda’s Leadership Code framework is rooted in Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, which establish standards of conduct for public officials and empower the Inspectorate of Government to enforce compliance.

The framework is implemented through the Leadership Code Act, enacted in 2002 and later amended in 2017 and 2021 to strengthen enforcement and widen the range of officials required to declare their wealth.

Under the law, political leaders, senior civil servants and specified public officers must declare their income, assets and liabilities within three months of assuming office and thereafter every two years during the official declaration period.

These declarations are submitted to the IGG, which is legally mandated to verify compliance and investigate cases involving false declarations or unexplained wealth.

According to the Inspectorate, more than 302,800 public officers were registered during the latest 2026 electronic declaration exercise. Of these, about 241,230 officials submitted their declarations, representing an 80 percent compliance rate.

The IGG described the figures as evidence of improving compliance with leadership accountability requirements but warned that non-compliant officials risk sanctions including dismissal, demotion, removal from office and confiscation of illegally acquired assets.

Despite the growing compliance numbers, anti-corruption campaigners argue that the biggest weakness in Uganda’s declaration system lies in verification and enforcement rather than submission itself.

Governance activists have long questioned whether politically connected leaders undergo meaningful scrutiny regarding the source and accuracy of their declared wealth.

Critics contend that while lower-ranking public officers often face disciplinary action for non-compliance, senior political figures rarely experience rigorous investigations into their financial declarations.

The Inspectorate recently acknowledged these concerns, announcing plans to strengthen electronic verification systems capable of identifying “high-risk public officers” for deeper investigation.

The anti-corruption agency has also appealed to whistleblowers, media organizations and members of the public to report suspicious wealth, extravagant lifestyles and unexplained assets linked to public officials.

Observers say those appeals have inevitably intensified public pressure for greater scrutiny of declarations submitted by high-profile government figures, including the Speaker of Parliament.

The petition against Among therefore arrives at a politically sensitive moment for Uganda’s accountability institutions.

Public concern over corruption and wealth accumulation among senior officials has increasingly attracted international attention in recent years, particularly following sanctions and travel restrictions imposed by foreign governments against several Ugandan leaders accused of corruption and abuse of office.

Those actions fueled wider debate about whether Uganda’s domestic accountability institutions are sufficiently independent and capable of investigating politically influential individuals without external pressure.

Civil society organizations argue that dependence on foreign sanctions reflects weaknesses within Uganda’s own anti-corruption systems and insist that institutions such as the IGG should independently enforce accountability laws against all public officials regardless of political status.

Political analysts now view the petition involving Anita Among as a potential test of institutional independence and credibility.

If pursued transparently and decisively, observers say the case could strengthen public confidence in the Inspectorate’s willingness to investigate powerful leaders. However, delays or dismissal of the petition could reinforce criticism that Uganda’s anti-corruption framework applies accountability selectively.

The Speaker’s office remains one of the most influential positions within Uganda’s political system, overseeing parliamentary business, legislative procedures and the administration of Parliament itself.

Among has in recent years emerged as both a dominant political figure and a highly polarizing national personality. While she retains strong backing within government circles, she has simultaneously become a major target of opposition criticism and anti-corruption activism.

Her tenure has coincided with several controversial debates involving parliamentary spending, service awards for legislators and allegations concerning procurement and financial management within Parliament.

Those controversies have fueled growing public calls for greater transparency regarding the personal wealth and financial dealings of senior state officials.

The petition also raises complex legal questions concerning public access to leadership declarations.

Although the Leadership Code Act requires leaders to submit declarations, the law also contains confidentiality provisions regulating access to those records.

Legal experts say the Inspectorate may now be required to balance demands for public transparency against privacy protections contained within the law.

Some governance advocates argue that senior constitutional office holders should be subjected to a higher standard of public accountability because of the influence and resources attached to their positions.

Others caution that leadership declarations were originally intended primarily as investigative and compliance tools rather than publicly accessible records.

The Inspectorate’s handling of the petition is therefore expected to shape future debates over transparency, public accountability and access to information involving senior government officials.

As scrutiny intensifies, political observers say the case could become a defining moment for Uganda’s anti-corruption institutions and a broader test of public confidence in the country’s accountability system.