The debate surrounding Operation Ufisadi continues to intensify in Uganda after outspoken legislator Daudi Kabanda strongly dismissed accusations that the anti-corruption drive is targeting specific regions or political opponents. Speaking with confidence, Kabanda insisted that the operation is a national fight against theft and abuse of public resources.
According to Kabanda, a growing campaign has emerged attempting to portray the crackdown as a political witch hunt. He argued that such claims are being deliberately spread by individuals who fear accountability and are trying to weaken public trust in the operation.
Kabanda defended Muhoozi Kainerugaba, saying the anti-corruption campaign under his influence is not guided by tribal identity, religion, or political loyalty. He maintained that the objective is to confront corruption wherever it exists.
He further stated that no public official should expect protection because of their political connections or regional background. According to him, the era where powerful individuals escaped scrutiny simply because of influence must come to an end.
The comments come amid public discussion surrounding investigations involving Anita Among, who hails from Eastern Uganda. Her inclusion in ongoing corruption probes has sparked mixed reactions across the political landscape.
Some Ugandans have questioned why Thomas Tayebwa, the Deputy Speaker who also serves within the parliamentary leadership structure, has not reportedly faced similar scrutiny. Critics argue that this difference in treatment raises concerns about selective enforcement.
Kabanda, however, rejected those accusations and insisted that investigations are guided by evidence rather than regional considerations. He argued that corruption cases cannot be handled based on public emotions or assumptions.
He emphasized that being from the same region does not automatically place leaders under the same legal circumstances. According to him, every investigation depends on available findings and the strength of evidence collected by authorities.
The lawmaker also warned against turning the anti-corruption campaign into a tribal debate. He said doing so risks distracting the country from the real issue, which is the misuse of public funds and abuse of office.
Supporters of Operation Ufisadi argue that the campaign is long overdue and necessary to restore public confidence in government institutions. Many believe strong action is needed regardless of the political consequences involved.
Others, however, remain skeptical and believe some political figures may be receiving softer treatment than others. These concerns have fueled heated discussions on social media and within political circles.
Kabanda insisted that critics should allow investigators to complete their work before rushing to conclusions. He maintained that corruption investigations are complex and cannot always move at the same pace for every individual involved.
He also accused corrupt networks of attempting to manipulate public opinion by framing accountability efforts as attacks on certain communities. In his view, such narratives are designed to divide Ugandans and shield those implicated.
Political observers note that the controversy highlights the sensitive intersection between corruption, politics, and regional identity in Uganda’s governance system. Anti-corruption campaigns often attract scrutiny because of their potential political impact.
Despite the criticism, Kabanda remained firm that Operation Ufisadi will continue pushing forward. He declared that the campaign is intended to send a clear message that public office should never be used for personal enrichment.
He further argued that corruption has damaged service delivery, weakened institutions, and frustrated ordinary citizens for years. Because of this, he believes decisive action is necessary regardless of who becomes uncomfortable.
The ongoing investigations have also reignited broader conversations about transparency and accountability within Parliament. Many citizens are closely following developments to see whether the campaign will produce meaningful results.
Analysts say the success of the anti-corruption operation will largely depend on whether authorities apply the law fairly and consistently. Public confidence could increase if investigations are seen as independent and balanced.
At the same time, any perception of favoritism or selective justice could undermine the credibility of the campaign. This explains why the current debate has become so politically charged across the country.
For now, Kabanda continues to stand by the operation and those leading it, insisting that the fight against corruption is about protecting national resources rather than targeting tribes, regions, or political enemies.
