By Ceasar Ivan Okello
Let me begin by congratulating Oboth Oboth on his well-deserved elevation to the office of Speaker
Long before the Speakership contest reached its climax, some of us already understood the direction events were taking. As early as March 2026, when I was consulted on the position UPC MPs should adopt, I advised them against endorsing AAA for Speaker of the 12th Parliament because the State had already settled on Hon. Oboth Oboth.
By the end of April, that reality had become even clearer through information available to some of us. During the State House dinner marking the end of the Cabinet term, I jokingly asked colleagues to take a selfie with the “incoming Speaker,” Hon. Oboth Oboth. What appeared to be humour was, in fact, informed by prior knowledge of decisions that had already been made behind closed doors.
The Rolls-Royce had reportedly arrived in Uganda as early as January 2026, though the public only became aware in May.
Why? Because politics is often about planning, timing, and concealment. In reality, only a small fraction of what shapes political outcomes ever becomes public knowledge.
The question many Ugandans continue to ask is this: if corruption was truly the issue, why was AAA politically sacrificed while Hon. Thomas Tayebwa appeared to survive the storm?
In my view, the answer lies not merely in corruption, but in character, conduct, temperament, and political judgment.
Across the world, politics and business frequently operate through networks of influence, patronage, and quiet transactions. What made AAA’s situation different was not simply allegations of corruption, but the reckless, arrogant, and overbearing manner in which power was allegedly exercised.
This was not corruption concealed behind sophistication or institutional discretion. It was power exercised with open impunity, excitement, and public display.
Parliamentary resources and state influence were allegedly used not only for political survival, but also to intimidate Ministers, MPs, and anyone perceived to be unwilling to submit to her authority.
The message became unmistakable: either align yourself with her power structure or risk political isolation and destruction.
Worse still, she allegedly weaponized her proximity to the President to create the impression that every action she took carried a presidential blessing.
That perception generated fear across political circles, with many believing her authority had effectively become untouchable.
During the 2026 elections, numerous MPs reportedly complained about interference in electoral processes, including sponsoring preferred candidates and manipulating systems in ways that tilted the political field.
Over time, these actions alienated senior NRM leaders, weakened internal party cohesion, and severely damaged the public image of both government and the ruling party.
By the time complaints reportedly reached H.E. from senior NRM figures, parliamentary contestants, diplomats, investors, business communities, and ordinary citizens, the matter had evolved beyond internal political rivalry into a full-scale political liability.
Her troubles were further compounded by her leadership style. She allegedly alienated the majority of MPs while empowering only a small inner circle personally loyal to her.
Power became centralized around one individual, creating the perception that an alternative centre of authority was emerging parallel to the Presidency itself.
Her frequent undiplomatic outbursts, including against foreign partners and influential stakeholders, only deepened the crisis.
In the end, she did not simply face allegations of corruption; she faced the consequences of political overreach.
That is where the contrast with Hon. Thomas Tayebwa becomes politically significant. He may also face accusations and criticism, but he has generally been perceived as more discreet, restrained, respectful of political hierarchy, and careful not to embarrass or threaten the broader establishment.
In politics, that distinction matters enormously.
Had AAA exercised restraint, humility, discipline, and strategic caution, she might never have encountered the political downfall she ultimately faced.
The lesson here is simple but powerful: in politics, leaders are not always destroyed solely because they did wrong. Sometimes they fall because of the arrogance with which they exercised power, the enemies they created, the fear they inspired within the system, and the threat they came to represent to the image and stability of the State itself.
Ultimately, the establishment was confronted with two choices: continue carrying AAA at the risk of alienating senior NRM leaders, deepening reputational damage to government and party, and allowing her to accumulate even greater influence beyond her constitutional office — or sacrifice her politically in order to preserve party cohesion, restore institutional balance, and reaffirm that presidential authority remains concentrated in one centre of power.
In the end, the choice became inevitable.