In a spate of coincidental events, both speakers of South African parliament and Ugandan Parliament are under some form of heat, not about anything else, but corruption allegations. South African prosecutors said on Monday they intended to charge the parliamentary speaker with corruption, alleging she took $135,000 (£107,000) and a wig in bribes over a three-year period while she was defence minister. Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, the speaker of the National Assembly, has not been arrested or charged but there is progress in events which knows that at some point, she will be brought to book.
While in Uganda, Speaker Anette Anita Among over the past month with her parliamentary administration has been on spot after a social media campaign dubbed “UgandaParliamentExhibition” exposed some top leaders at the institution and legislators for receiving questionable chunks of money. Others legislators have been accused of involvement in irregular recruitments at the institution. The corruption allegations gained traction following reports that the former Leader of Opposition, Mathias Mpuuga had received Shs500 million as “service award”.
The responses of the Speakers of Parliament in Uganda and South Africa to corruption allegations exhibit significant differences in approach and tone.
- Denial and Blame Shifting:
- In South Africa, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula denies allegations of corruption but is willing to cooperate with authorities. She has taken special leave from her position due to the seriousness of the allegations. Despite maintaining innocence, she acknowledges the legal process by cooperating with investigators and even filing urgent court papers to address her situation.
- On the other hand, Anita Among, the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, responds by deflecting blame onto the LGBTQ+ community, claiming that “homosexuals” are behind the allegations. She uses homophobic slurs and refuses to address the allegations directly, dismissing them as hearsay and social media rumors. Her response lacks acknowledgment of the seriousness of the allegations and focuses instead on discrediting the whistleblowers.
- Legal Cooperation:
- Mapisa-Nqakula in South Africa hands herself over to the police amid the ongoing investigation. She takes steps such as filing urgent court papers and cooperating with investigators, demonstrating a willingness to engage with the legal process transparently.
- Among in Uganda does not respond to requests for comment and her director of communications dismisses the allegations without providing substantial evidence. There’s a lack of proactive engagement with the legal process or willingness to address the allegations transparently.
- Public Perception:
- Mapisa-Nqakula’s decision to take special leave and cooperate with authorities may be seen as a responsible move to address the allegations and uphold accountability, potentially preserving some public trust.
- Among’s response, characterized by denial, deflection, and homophobic rhetoric, could lead to further erosion of public trust and credibility, especially given the serious nature of the allegations and the lack of substantive response from her or her office.
- Political Implications:
- Mapisa-Nqakula’s case reflects broader corruption issues within the African National Congress party in South Africa, potentially impacting the party’s image ahead of national elections.
- Among’s response involves politicizing the allegations by linking them to her role in passing anti-gay legislation, suggesting an attempt to divert attention from the corruption allegations by framing them within a larger political narrative.
- Transparency and Cooperation:
- Mapisa-Nqakula welcomed investigators into her home and cooperated fully during the search operation. She has also taken special leave from her position due to the seriousness of the allegations, demonstrating a willingness to engage with the legal process transparently.
- Among, on the other hand, has blocked debate on the corruption allegations against her and refuses to respond directly to the accusations. She dismisses the allegations as rumors and deflects blame onto the LGBTQ+ community and her role in passing anti-homosexuality legislation, rather than addressing the substance of the allegations. Her response lacks transparency and accountability.
- Public Accountability:
- Mapisa-Nqakula expresses concern about corruption posing a significant threat to democracy and good governance, indicating an acknowledgment of the seriousness of the issue and its implications for public trust.
- Among’s response suggests a reluctance to address the allegations directly, as she avoids engaging with the substance of the accusations and instead focuses on discrediting the whistleblowers and deflecting blame onto external factors.
- Political Context:
-
- In South Africa, there is a broader context of efforts by President Cyril Ramaphosa to tackle corruption in the country, following allegations against his predecessor Jacob Zuma. Mapisa-Nqakula’s case is situated within this broader anti-corruption narrative.
- In Uganda, the corruption allegations against Among come at a time when the country is grappling with issues of accountability and transparency within its political institutions. Among’s response, characterized by deflection and refusal to engage with the allegations, reflects broader challenges in addressing corruption within the Ugandan political landscape. Instead in the subsequent days, she opened a mega nurses training school where she invited the president to be the chief guest at her home district in Bukedea, when asked by President Museveni how she got the money to build the hospital, she instead told the president that he had given her the money. It is interesting to learn that the president gave Among an amount good enough to build that facility and he couldn’t recall it. Further, she said that students at the institute paid school fees which was partly used to build the institute. The institute has been functional for less than a year prior to its launch, also for those who know Ugandan businesses well enough will understand that the amount paid for fees at the school in that area would need a miracle to contribute any substantial figures towards paying for that facility. To cushion the questions, Among patronisingly named the blocks at the institute with names from within President Museveni’s family including himself, son, daughter, daughter in law. This was to marinate the supposed to be questioning authority. Among went ahead to make groaning speeches swearing unsolicited allegiance to the president during the launch among others, which simply show that she had a weak link somewhere and needed protection than reason.
- Parliamentary Oversight:
- Mapisa-Nqakula’s case involves the Parliament of South Africa taking steps to address corruption allegations against one of its own members, indicating a degree of institutional accountability and oversight.
- Among’s response highlights challenges in parliamentary oversight and accountability in Uganda, as she blocks debate on the corruption allegations within the parliament and avoids engaging with demands for transparency and accountability from opposition members.
Commitment in fighting corruption:
While in South Africa, the law is taking its course as expected against the speaker, in Uganda, Museveni has moved forward to clear Among of any wrongdoing making it near impossible for any credible government institutions to investigate the corruption allegations against the institution of parliament.
While both cases involve allegations of corruption against parliamentary speakers, Mapisa-Nqakula’s response in South Africa demonstrates a greater willingness to engage with the legal process transparently and acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations. Among’s response in Uganda, however, reflects a lack of transparency and accountability, as she avoids addressing the substance of the accusations and deflects blame onto external factors.
