US joins UK in sanctioning Speaker of Parliament Among on questionable grounds

It isn’t far fetched to extrapolate that Muhammad Kakembo’s ‘whistle blower story’ published on 24^th April 2024 in The Observer and titled: “MPs bribed to save government agencies” may be among that which provided justification for the United States to join the United Kingdom in sanctioning Speaker Anita Annet Among on questionable grounds, allegedly for her “involvement in corruption tied to her leadership of Uganda Parliament”.

The trend of irresponsible journalism with impunity is taking root in Uganda, seemingly backed by significant exogenous resources and which undermines governance institutions of Uganda. Truly patriotic Ugandans should not celebrate this; should call it out ; and demand better from the fourth estate.

The five Ws – who, what, when, where, why – and how, are the litmus test for professional journalism. A trained journalist knows to use the ‘5Ws and How test’ to self-check the veracity of the stories that they author. A professional editor will also know to use it to fact-check stories before okaying them for publication.

Let us fact check Kakembo’s story using the ‘5 Ws and How test’. Who was the original source of the allegations “MPs bribed to save government agencies?” According to Kakembo’s story they are “multiple sources interviewed by The Observer.” “Multiple sources” is too vague and does not meet internationally accepted standards for journalism. How many is multiple?

Without naming his sources, good journalism requires Kakembo to have specified who those sources are, by better describing them and stating their quantities. For example, are they staff of Parliament? How many? Are they staff at the agencies that bribed? How many? Are they MPs who were bribed? How many? Knowing who the “multiple sources” are enables an independent verification of the facts of the story.

Furthermore, Kakembo’s story doesn’t say when and where the interviews were conducted and what exactly those interviewed said. As in it generates questions:

Did those interviewed say they witnessed the payments being made?
Bribes paid to how many MPs?
Bribes to all MPs as the story insinuates?
Who was bribed, was it MPs of the 11^th Parliament or of those serving previously or both?
Did the sources simply say they heard a rumour the payments were made?
How are the sources in position to know about the bribes?

Knowing when The Observer conducted its interviews is important in this context, because the move to rationalize government agencies started before the term of office of the 11^th Parliament. Case in point, a story in The Sunrise, “Gov’t Rationalisation under review,” published in 2018; and which is an example of good journalism.

So, when did the “influential figures in government and parliament,” as alleged by Kakembo, start the lobbying and bribe paying? According to Kakembo’s story, it had been ongoing for a year. Really? Aside from the vague description “influential figures”, it is hard to believe that they waited until the last year to influence. Afterall, lobbying and incentivising politicians to pass legislation is not unique to Uganda; it is practiced world over intra-nation and inter-nations.

Without knowing the who, what, when, and where it is difficult to establish why The Observer sources said what they said. As in, it is difficult to rule out the biases and or contextualize what they said, in order to fully appreciate its veracity. It is even the more difficult to deduce the how they were informed enough to be able to provide empirical evidence of the alleged “clandestine payments” to MPs – all or some MPs, we don’t know.

Worse more, there are MPs that Kakembo’s story alleges confessed to being approached to be given bribes and or apparently took bribes. Journalism responsibility requires that Kakembo and The Observer should have named those MPs, the bribing individuals and or agencies so that they may be investigated for corruption, including abuse of office.

By protecting those individual MPs who allegedly took bribes, Kakembo and or The Observer become accomplices to the very crime or unethical practice that was the subject of the story. And so, as Kakembo’s story stands, as published, there is a good foundation to warrant the Uganda Media Council to summon the Editor of The Observer.

“The Media Council of Uganda was established by Section 8 (1) of the Press and Journalist Act, Cap 105 and charged with regulation of the Mass Media. The objective of the Law is to ensure the freedom and responsibility of the press, and regulate the Mass Media.”

Among the functions of the Council are “9. (1) (a) to regulate the conduct and promote good ethical standards and discipline of journalists; 9. (1) (c) to exercise disciplinary control over journalists, editors and publishers.”

Whereas legally constituted, the Council is currently composed of only six of the thirteen members that are provided for by law. A seventh member who was serving on the Council, Venis Omona, died in 2020. Meaning that until 2020 the council composition was at 54 percent; and after Ms. Omona’s death to date it is at 46 percent as follows:

Paulo Ekochu

Chairperson – Paulo Ekochu, a senior partner at GP Advocates
Secretary – Kyetume Kasanaga, Acting Assistant Commissioner at Ministry of ICT and National Guidance
Member – Peter Okello Jabweli, advocate, media and governance specialist
Member – Michale Kawooya Mwebe, Managing Director of CBS FM Radio
Member – Linda Nabusayi Wamboka, a Media Personality
Member – Assumpta Kemigisha Ssebunya, Managing Partner at Ssebunya & Turyagenda Advocates

Be that as it may that the Council is not fully constituted at present, however, the Law provides that its powers are not affected by vacancy – “30. Powers of Certain bodies not affected by vacancy, etc. (1) Any body to which this section applies may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership. (2) The Bodies to which this section applies are – (c) any board, commission or similar body (whether corporate or unincorporated) established by any Act.”

Meaning that albeit it being with vacancies and albeit it not having all categories of representatives stipulated for its composition, the Council current possesses legal power to summon the Editor of The Observer.

Honoring the summons would have given the Editor the opportunity to demonstrate how it was unwarranted for the Council on 8^th May 2024 to write to the Editor summoning the Editor to appear before its disciplinary committee of the Council on 20^th May 2024.

It would have given The Observer the opportunity to assure “journalistic principles of accuracy and balance have been exercised to the letter,” in writing and publishing Kakembo’s story. It is baffling why the Editor did not utilize this opportunity as such.

Unchallenged, Kakembo’s story and a myriad of others published on Uganda devoid of facts, with ‘half-truths’, insinuations and conjecture significantly tarnish all the five arms of the Government of Uganda. Sadly, is such that are legitimized by the Machiavellianism of the UK and US governments in their application of sanctions on Ugandan leaders on questionable grounds.