OPINION: Of the Monkey, the Forest & the Scourge of Conflicted Decision Making

By Asuman Kiyingi, Sr Advocate

1. On 15th January 2026 Ugandans will be electing the country’s president and members of Parliament. 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.
2. The notions of the rule of law and justice were not an importation from Britain. In traditional Buganda society, a profound saying highlights the importance of impartiality in decision-making: “enkima tesala gwakibira” – a monkey cannot be judge in a matter where cutting of 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.

3. 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 of Uganda emphasizes 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.

4. 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 government ministries, local governments, agencies and public bodies where nepotism and favoritism characterize recruitments and promotions in the public service. There is hiring of unqualified relatives and friends, awarding supply contracts for services and goods to own companies or those of family members, relatives and friends, in violation of the law and established procedures. These practices not only undermine the integrity of government institutions, eroding public confidence, but also impair service delivery.

In June this year Mama Mrs. Nyerere almost lost her life in a lift at Entebbe airport, courtesy of an unqualified staff irregularly recruited who could not do his job.

5. While some public officers have been sanctioned for conflict of interest, the cases are few, and many offenders remain at large and in charge. This impunity has emboldened others to engage in similar practices (especially when under political cover), perpetuating a culture of corruption and abuse of office.
6. The consequences have been disastrous and far-reaching. When the referee is a player on one of the teams playing the game is rigged and the public suffers.

7. In 2002, a Select Committee of Parliament investigated the 2001 election violence and made startling findings about Uganda’s Electoral Commission. In its report the committee noted that EC officials had gotten entangled in various cases of conflict of interest which had compromised the performance of the commission and led to the loss of billions of shillings of taxpayers’ money. In one case the commission had, contrary to the opinion and advice of the Public Service Commission, recruited a commission secretary who lacked the requisite experience  without the job being advertised.  The said secretary was at the time a business representative of Lithotec, a South African company that was doing business with the commission. This was a clear case of conflict of interest.

8. The committee had also found that 11 out of the 21 senior employees were not qualified to hold the jobs they did. Majority of them had been recruited irregularly on secondment by ‘’big people’’.  The commission technical portfolios like data processing, finance, and human resource management, were all in unqualified hands. The parliament select committee had further found that all phases of the electoral process  from equipping it to voter registration, civic education, supervision of the process, the tallying process, had all suffered serious challenges. The committee reported instances where civic educators paid by the EC also doubled as campaign agents for Movement candidates. The Electoral Commission Chairperson and three of the commissioners had shares in, or fully owned companies that were doing business with the EC. When questioned, the commissioners’ explanation was that they never influenced the EC to give business to their companies! Tendering processes were botched, illegal payments made to the commissioners and other beneficiaries; and the election itself was grossly mismanaged in violation of the law as the Supreme Court confirmed.

Hopefully the current Justice Byabakama-led EC  picked lessons from this and effected the necessary reforms.

9. There have been other equally disturbing cases of conflicted decisions. The privatization exercise, for example, saw many public corporations and companies sold to well placed government functionaries, or their proxies. Recall the UCB sale fiasco involving Westmond and Greenland Bank; the USD 12,000,000 junk chopper deal, where the line docket officer who midwifed the deal, pocketed USD 800,000 as commission; there was CHOGM, the OPM PRDP scandal, the pension scam, the Karamoja Mabaati theft, the cooperatives funds bonanza; and more recently, legislators’ budget “tinkering”, the parliament exhibition and commission service awards.

10. 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.

11. In his book, ‘’Constitutional and Political History of Uganda, from 1894 to Present’’, Prof. Kanyeihamba 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 constituent assembly that drafted Uganda’s 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. He says that the decision to reject the proposal by CA delegates led to the creation of a large parliament which has been found to be unaffordable for a small and poor country like Uganda.  Delegates were motivated by  the desire to increase their chances of being elected.

Kanyeihamba further notes that the rejection of the proposal to reinforce the separation of powers, which would have prevented members of parliament from holding cabinet positions, was also motivated by personal interests, self-enrichment, and desire for power, rather than the public good.  He notes that the CA widened the president’s powers of patronage by allowing him to appoint ministers from within and outside parliament.  This created an opportunity to constitute a huge cabinet, which was contrary to the assembly’s original intention. Hence, since the promulgation of the 1995 constitution, the president has maintained a large cabinet invoking Article 113(2), which,  empowers the president, with the approval of Parliament, to appoint more cabinet ministers beyond the set 21 limit. Parliament, always with many hopefuls for ministerial slots, has never declined a request to increase the number of cabinet ministers. Additionally, under Article 85 of the constitution, the CA left it to parliament to determine their own emoluments.

12. The country witnessed more self-serving conflicted legislation, hardly ten years later, when it came to the removal of the term limit and later the age limits. Embarrasing scenes of violence and fighting in parliament were witnessed, plus bribing of legislators (a terrible practice slowly becoming a culture whenever unpopular legislations are tabled in Parliament). President 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.
13. We have to listen to Mwalimu and chart a new course from where the rain started beating us.

In a 1998 article, “Good Governance for Africa,” President Nyerere wrote:

“A scrupulous respect for the constitution is the basis of the principle of the rule of law. This is an area where we need to be very careful. Presidents, prime ministers, and sometimes all members of a government, seek to amend a constitution in their own favor even when they come to office through, and because of,  the provisions of a constitution they have sworn to honor. Too often, for example, we have seen presidents seek to lengthen the number of terms they serve despite the limit laid down in the Constitution.  This practice is wrong. It cheapens the constitution of the country concerned.

If and when experience shows that the restriction laid down in the constitution is too restrictive and needs to be changed (which, in my view, should be very, very rare), the change should not lengthen the term of the current office-holder, who is bound in honor to observe the restriction under which he or she was elected in the first place. And, in any case, and more importantly, the first president to be elected under a restricted term of office must never change the constitution to lengthen that term. If he or she does it, it is difficult to see how subsequent presidents can honor the new restriction.

Furthermore, if the provision of the limited term of office irks one president or prime minister, another provision of the constitution could irk another president or prime minister.  We might then expect the constitution of the country to be changed after every election.  This is a point which, in my view, needs great emphasis.  No Respect for the Constitution leads to no Basis for the Rule of Law.” (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).