Uganda’s Parliament has been drawn into a heated confrontation over the government’s failure to account for citizens allegedly abducted by state security agencies and detained without trial. The matter has sparked growing frustration among opposition lawmakers and human rights advocates, who accuse the executive of delaying answers while affected families continue searching for their missing relatives. Tensions escalated after Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa declined to set a firm deadline for the government to present its official report on the alleged disappearances.
The latest confrontation followed concerns raised by Leader of the Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi, who questioned why the government had failed to deliver a comprehensive statement within the two-week period it had previously indicated. Ssenyonyi expressed concern that some Ugandans had reportedly been missing since August 2025, leaving their families uncertain about their whereabouts and well-being. He challenged the government to explain the delay and provide clear answers about the fate of those allegedly taken by security operatives.
In his response, Tayebwa explained that the Cabinet had instructed the Minister of Internal Affairs to first present the draft statement to the National Security Council before submitting it to Parliament. He argued that the council operates according to its own meeting schedule, which Parliament cannot directly control. On that basis, the Deputy Speaker maintained that imposing a strict deadline on the executive would be inappropriate while the required security consultations remained incomplete.
However, Ssenyonyi was unconvinced by the explanation, warning that the process could become an excuse for indefinitely postponing accountability. He questioned what would happen if the National Security Council failed to meet for several months, arguing that the families of missing Ugandans could not be expected to wait endlessly for answers. His concerns highlighted the growing disagreement between lawmakers demanding immediate explanations and government officials insisting that the report must undergo the necessary procedures.
The debate took another turn when Ofwono Opondo, the NRM representative for older persons in Eastern Uganda, raised the alleged mistreatment of activist Praise Aloikin. According to allegations cited during the discussion, Aloikin was lured to a police station before being seized by operatives identified as members of the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI) and subjected to beatings. The claims added another dimension to the parliamentary debate, raising questions about the conduct of security personnel and the treatment of citizens accused of no offence.
Opondo questioned whether the alleged actions were consistent with the values and principles of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM). His remarks triggered a point of order from Kabula County MP Enos Asiimwe, who defended the party and objected to attempts to associate the NRM with arrests carried out by law enforcement agencies. The exchange reflected the political divisions surrounding allegations of abductions and mistreatment, with legislators disagreeing over where responsibility should lie.
Meanwhile, Government Chief Whip Jane Ruth Aceng appealed to members of Parliament to exercise patience, explaining that the relevant ministries were still harmonising their positions before presenting a coordinated statement. Her remarks suggested that the government was still working towards a unified account of the allegations. However, her appeal did little to address the central concern raised by opposition legislators: the absence of a definite date by which Parliament and the public can expect the report.
With no firm deadline announced, uncertainty continues to surround the fate of Ugandans reported missing after alleged encounters with security agencies. The parliamentary standoff has intensified calls for transparency, lawful detention procedures and accountability for any violations established through credible investigations. For families seeking answers, the immediate concern remains whether the promised government statement will finally clarify the whereabouts of their loved ones, explain the circumstances of their disappearance and establish who should be held responsible where wrongdoing is proven.
About the Author
