In a closed-door meeting on Thursday 10 2025, opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) were directed to return the Shs100 million each reportedly received in what is being widely criticized as a political bribe. The meeting, chaired by acting Leader of the Opposition (LoP), Mr. Muwanga Kivumbi, came in the absence of LoP Joel Ssenyonyi, who is currently out of the country.
Kivumbi emphasized that the money was a “satanic and dirty temptation” aimed at influencing support for controversial legislation, and urged recipients to return it immediately.
Are the Opposition who received Shs100 Million in a Link to Controversial Legislation?
The funds are suspected to be linked to MPs’ support for two key government initiatives: the dissolution of the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) under the National Coffee (Amendment) Act, 2024, and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill, 2025.
“This is not just bad money—it’s a stain on the integrity of Parliament,” Mr. Kivumbi told reporters. “Accepting it means selling your conscience and betraying the voters.”
Also, read about Nalukoola
Resolution Signing as a Show of Integrity
The opposition caucus resolved that all MPs who reject the funds must publicly sign a resolution denouncing the payout. Kivumbi added that the list of signatories will be made public as a way to promote transparency and accountability.
Some of the MPs who signed include:
- Mr. Yusuf Nsibambi (FDC Party Whip)
- Ms. Joan Namutaawe (Masaka District Woman MP)
- Ms. Joyce Bagala (Mityana Woman MP)
- Mr. Timothy Batuwa (Jinja South West)
- Ms. Hellen Nakimuli (Kalangala Woman MP)
- Ms. Hanifah Nabukenya (Mukono Woman MP)
- Mr. Allan Ssewanyana (Makindye West)
MPs currently abroad, such as Mr. Joel Ssenyonyi and Ms. Gorreth Namugga, will be allowed to sign the resolution electronically.
Moral Stand or Missed Opportunity?
While the opposition’s collective stance against the funds is seen as a bold moral decision, an intriguing counter-narrative has emerged: what if the MPs accepted the money but used it for the good of their communities?
What if, instead of rejecting the funds outright, they redirected them transparently toward building schools, improving healthcare, fixing roads, or supporting youth employment in their constituencies? Would that not set a new standard in leadership—where public service triumphs over personal gain?
Such an approach could challenge the behavior of other MPs alleged to have accepted the funds for selfish reasons, and position the opposition as a force that can turn even the darkest political maneuver into light for the people.
Looking Ahead
As the public awaits the full list of MPs who have rejected the money and signed the resolution, the controversy continues to stir debate over ethics, accountability, and the role of money in Uganda’s legislative process.
Will more MPs step forward to return the money—or will some take an alternative path that benefits their people? Time will tell.
