Why Museveni’s pardon of Anita Among is about stability, not impunity

By Sam Opeto

The controversy over President Yoweri Museveni’s decision to pardon former Speaker Anita Annet Among merits calm, practical scrutiny beyond social‑media heat.

When the Chief of Defence Forces, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, told Ugandans on 25 August that, “She made mistakes but Mzee has decided to forgive her,” many instantly framed the pardon as selective justice or an abandonment of the fight against corruption. That reaction is understandable — accountability matters — but it misses a more fundamental question: can Ugandans distinguish between the legitimate demand for justice and the strategic necessity of preserving state cohesion when the person at issue is a politically consequential pillar of government?

Museveni ordered Among’s release from more than 100 days of house arrest in Nakasero and directed that she not be prosecuted.

Among is not an ordinary MP. She served as Speaker of the 11th Parliament (2022–2026), steered crucial legislation, managed a deeply polarised House and delivered significant political support for the NRM in Teso. That does not place her beyond scrutiny.

Leaders must be judged on merit, integrity and public accountability. But there is an important distinction between disciplining a leader internally and destroying a politically valuable cadre through public prosecution that weakens the government itself. That distinction appears central to Museveni’s intervention.

This is about government stability, not merely Anita Among

Some responses reduce the matter to a moral contest between corruption and forgiveness. That is a false binary. As Speaker, Among was an institutional actor — her role and influence extended beyond tribe and region.

The same calculation would apply whether the Speaker were Muganda, Munyankole, Acholi or Mutooro. A sober national debate should therefore ask practical, strategic questions: Is Anita Among politically important to the NRM’s survival?

Is her mobilisation capacity in eastern Uganda credible? Can the government afford to lose her as Parliament transitions into its next term under Jacob Oboth Oboth? To insist that every former official must be prosecuted simply because donors or opponents demand it risks allowing external pressure and populist fury to fracture the internal cohesion that sustains governance.

There is internal logic to Museveni’s choice. He acknowledged she made mistakes. There is nothing contradictory about a revolutionary leader disciplining a cadre while recognising that the cadre can still be useful to the movement. Among’s political importance — and the risks of prosecuting her publicly — help explain why stability often trumps a headline‑grabbing conviction.

As Speaker, Among transformed the office into a mobilising force: she funded party structures, mediated between independents and the NRM, and helped prevent the House from becoming an opposition platform.

Bukedea and the wider Teso sub‑region are not mere footnotes; they are electorally sensitive areas where local elders and voters can swing between parties. Among’s capacity to deliver votes and keep those networks aligned with State House is a strategic asset that a public trial might dissipate.

Retaining her within the broader movement, even in a demoted role, preserves institutional memory and know‑how — particularly around parliamentary finances and committee management — that would be costly to lose if she were pushed into exile or opposition.

None of this excuses the serious concerns surrounding her tenure. May 2026 raids on properties in Nakasero, Kigo, Ntinda and Bukedea, the impounding of luxury vehicles, and investigations into alleged illicit enrichment and under‑declaration of assets created a damaging public perception. She previously faced sanctions abroad.

Allegations of financial mismanagement during her speakership and reports that some officials remain in custody point to oversight failures. Her refusal to step aside in the 12th Parliament speakership contest brought her into direct conflict with party leadership and forced an avoidable confrontation. These are real problems that demand answerability.

Yet historically, movements have often addressed such shortcomings through internal discipline, demotion and rehabilitation rather than criminal trials that convert a former ally into a permanent enemy.

Across the region, leaders have repeatedly chosen political pardon over protracted prosecution of prominent figures. In Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Nigeria, Algeria, Chad, etc, rulers have judged that the political cost of relentless prosecutions often outweighs the benefits.

The state can investigate, restrict and expose wrongdoing; it can demote and sanction. But governance ultimately requires balancing justice with stability.

If Uganda truly wants a serious anti‑corruption agenda, the long game matters: strengthen the Inspectorate of Government, reinforce the Auditor‑General, improve procurement transparency and make prosecutions impartial and rule‑based.

Public prosecutions that appear selective or politically motivated will undermine trust far more than they deliver accountability. The aim should be a system that punishes misconduct consistently and transparently without weakening the capacity to govern.

Museveni’s pardon signals a strategic choice: expend energy on cohesion and reform within the movement rather than on public humiliation of a cadre whose networks still matter.

The objective should be to reform, correct and redeploy talent where possible. That requires discipline — not vengeance; it requires separating justice from vengeance, accountability from public lynching, mistakes in office from betrayal of the movement, and legal prosecution from strategic forgiveness.

If Anita Among fails to serve Bukedea well as Woman MP, voters will judge her at the ballot box.

But Ugandans should not demand that the President dismantle his political infrastructure simply because they dislike how that infrastructure was built. The pardon is not the end of accountability; it can be the start of political maturity — the idea that a state can punish mistakes without destroying its capacity to govern. No amount of prosecution in Kampala will build public trust if it leaves the government unable to govern.

The Author is The Field Administrator at The Office Of The President.

Email opetosamuel@gmail.com