The state minister for Local Government, Justine Nameere, has defended her approach of publicly confronting and filming officials during anti-corruption investigations, insisting the operations are backed by credible evidence and do not violate any law.
Speaking to URN on Friday during a visit to the Acholi sub-region, Nameere said the ongoing anti-corruption crackdown is based on verified intelligence and professional investigations.
She dismissed criticism that publicly exposing suspects amounts to trial by media. Nameere, who is also the Masaka City Woman member of parliament, has in recent weeks been leading anti-corruption inspection tours across the country alongside the minister of Local Government, Balaam Barugahara.
The inspections have seen several public officials questioned on camera over alleged misuse of public funds, shoddy government projects and payroll irregularities.
Defending the operations, Nameere said every inspection is preceded by extensive investigations conducted by technical experts and security agencies.
According to Nameere, the investigations rely on information provided by whistleblowers and verified by engineers, officers from the State House Anti-Corruption Unit, the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI) and other security agencies.
She said the arrests made during the inspections are supported by complete case files ready for prosecution.
“All the files are ready. Some suspects have already appeared in court, others are being arraigned. A state attorney cannot sanction a file without sufficient evidence because they know they will have to defend it in court,” she said.
Nameere added that some suspects have admitted wrongdoing during the inspections.
She cited an incident in Gulu district where a clinical officer at a government health facility allegedly admitted that his professional certificate was being used by another individual employed by Reproductive Health Uganda.
The minister also defended the government’s decision to record and broadcast the inspections, arguing that no law prohibits the public exposure of individuals suspected of corruption.
Beyond prosecution, Nameere said the government’s anti-corruption campaign is intended to ensure that stalled or fraudulent public projects are completed even before criminal proceedings are concluded.
“If money meant for a road was stolen, we shall arrest the culprit but also return to the community and complete the road. If it is a bridge or maternity ward, we shall ensure it is completed so that the people do not continue suffering while court processes go on,” she said.
The government’s high-profile anti-corruption inspections have drawn mixed reactions. Supporters say the approach demonstrates commitment to tackling graft, while critics argue that publicly confronting suspects before they are convicted risks undermining the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Kelly Komakech, a lawyer based in Gulu city, criticised the ministers’ approach, arguing that publicly exposing suspects before the completion of formal investigations is inconsistent with established legal procedures.
Komakech said that while combating corruption is important, investigations and enforcement should be undertaken by institutions legally mandated to do so and in accordance with due process.
“Legally, it is not right. There are bodies that are tasked with carrying out investigations, and there are laws that clearly outline how those investigations should be conducted,” Komakech told Uganda Radio Network.
He further argued that the ministers were exceeding their mandate by publicly directing arrests and interdictions of officials based on allegations that had not been independently investigated.
“Whatever they are doing is illegal because they do not have the powers to execute anybody or direct arrests. I even saw permanent secretaries being directed to interdict officers based merely on suspicions. If we interdict everyone based on suspicion, who will be safe?” he said.
Uganda’s Constitution does not expressly prohibit the public identification or exposure of criminal suspects before they are arraigned in court. However, Article 28(3)(a) guarantees every person charged with a criminal offence the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, while Article 28(1) provides for the right to a fair, speedy and public hearing before an independent and impartial court.
