BIG INTERVIEW: Gen Odongo may further embarrass Uganda over casino allegations - Nkunyingi
The available facts we need to investigate suggest that the person responsible for importing the machines is Minister of Foreign Affairs Jeje Odongo.
Recently, Parliament summoned the Minister for Foreign Affairs, General Jeje Odongo, to address allegations that his office is operating a casino business at the embassy in the United Arab Emirates.
Media reports have surfaced suggesting that the Ugandan consulate in Dubai, rented at the expense of Ugandan taxpayers, now houses a casino and gambling equipment. These reports claim that the items were imported into the UAE by Minister Odongo.
In an interview, Haroon Muwada Nkunyingi, the Member of Parliament for Kyadondo East, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, and member of the National Unity Platform, said the matter should be investigated and addressed according to the law to prevent further embarrassment to the country.
Excerpts;-
Let's start with the 'Walk to Parliament' protests targeting Parliament, now seen as the face of corruption. What does this mean to you as a major opposition political party, the National Unity Platform?
In a broader spectrum, Parliament is the legislative arm in terms of the governance structure of our country; we have the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature.
Now, it must come to a time where every institution and every arm of governance is put to the test. It should not be surprising that for this particular march to Parliament, it has largely focused on scrutinizing operations and affairs at Uganda's Parliament.
So, no one should be surprised because it's part of the governance institution. All these institutions must primarily serve the best interests of the people of Uganda and be aware of their strategic roles and purposes.
The public is watching, always watching, especially when it comes to parliamentary proceedings. They are all open to the public. When it comes to public expenditure, the risky part of appropriation at least by law must be through Parliament. Equally, Parliament must offer the required oversight over the other arms of governance, be it the executive or the judiciary.
Now, what has come up is public scrutiny. The public wants to understand how Parliament is being managed, how our public resources are being managed. Of course, needless to mention, we had a wider public campaign portraying public expenditure, how resources move from an institution of governance, be it the legislature, to other institutions. Of course, we also had issues regarding the budget and how the budget was returned back to Parliament because there has been partial rhetoric from the executive. Yes, when it comes to appropriation.
There has been rhetoric from the wider public when it comes to this other social media campaign. In terms of public expenditure, how resources are moving from one country to another, especially in the office of the speaker. And then the wider campaigns on commissioners. So the March to Parliament is a representation of people's concerns.
Your institution is scrutinised for corruption. Activists recently protested at your headquarters, throwing piglets labeled with your Leader of the Opposition's name and an alleged amount of money...
Now, ordinarily, when it comes to the censure motion, it is rooted in verifiable grounds. As we speak now, members of parliament have signed the required numbers for a censure motion challenging the legitimacy of the alleged payment of service awards to parliamentary commissioners. The commissioners are four in number, three from the ruling party and one from the opposition.
Being the former Leader of the Opposition, they have not denied receiving the money. They only attempt to justify why they received the money, a justification that has not been accepted, at least for now, by the members of parliament who have signed the censure motion and the public. That is one side of the discourse. The other allegation against the current Leader of the Opposition is just diversionary.
Why would you call it diversionary?
The current Leader of the Opposition has been the face of campaigning for accountability, and he is a few months into office. But since he stepped into the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, he has stood his ground as a member of the commission but has not been invited to attend or appear in the commission's sittings. He has publicly demanded and made his position clear since his appointment as the Leader of the Opposition.
Are the current accusations emerging as the Leader of the Opposition or his previous leadership of the parliamentary committee?
When he started demanding public accountability and as the face of the opposition as of now, so many forces may have felt threatened. It is obvious they will spread propaganda not rooted in any fact. When it comes to his performance as the Leader of the Opposition, as of now, there are no questions; he has stood his ground.
When it comes to his past service as the chairperson of a committee, the subject matter is already before the court. So any other argument or propaganda against the Leader of the Opposition is diversionary.
On the Shs1.7 billion received by the commissioners until he was thrown out as the Leader of the Opposition, am unable to provide real-time information or verify the accuracy of specific allegations or accusations against individuals. It's crucial to rely on verified news sources and official statements for accurate and up-to-date information on such matters.
But there was a demonstration...
No, no. That demonstration was orchestrated by the military and police because they had cordoned off NUP offices. The demonstration was carried out under the supervision of security agencies. The night before, the military had cordoned off the NUP offices, and all our leaders who tried to access the offices were arrested, detained, and only recently released on bail. This is indisputable.
When it comes to public concern, it is a chaotic public uprising. No one has asserted otherwise; even a political party stirring up the public protests.
Do you believe that every allegation should presume innocence, undergo proper investigation, and that the guilty should be prosecuted while the innocent are exonerated? Shouldn't this principle apply universally?
The principles of natural justice are immutable and are enshrined in our constitutional order. This is why, even in the case of a parliamentary censure motion, it must adhere to procedural rules that necessitate all parties, including the opposing side, to come forward and defend their position.
For instance, when the motion is brought to a vote on the parliamentary floor, the accused commissioners have the right of response to clarify and account for what transpired in simple terms, defending themselves and explaining why the motion is being proposed.
This right has not been denied; they acknowledge receipt but seek to justify their actions.
In Parliament, there is a debate regarding whether funds were approved or not. Some claim members did not scrutinise the details, while others deny granting approval. With the motion garnering the necessary signatures, shouldn't we adhere to principles of natural justice to determine the next steps and uncover the truth?
If the parliamentary rules of procedure are effectively implemented, they provide for the opposing party to present their case and defend themselves. In recent parliamentary proceedings, members have argued for a discussion on matters of public concern.
This motion brings to light the issue of public expenditure, particularly within the Parliament. As time progresses, we will observe how the motion is debated and the voting patterns that emerge. There is no need for concern regarding the principles of natural justice.
Your party asserts itself as a champion in the fight against corruption and maladministration. Given the ongoing accusations and disputes over accountability, isn't it challenging to uphold your position as leaders in this struggle?
Primarily, the fight against corruption is paramount. Every concerned citizen has the right to question and demand evidence thereafter. Advocating for public accountability and transparency is our constitutional duty as equal citizens.
As the opposition in Parliament, we carry the noble responsibility to lead and champion the fight against corruption. The demand for public accountability is firmly rooted in the belief that public resources should be spent transparently, justified, and with proper approval, not based on personal opinions.
All forms of accountability, including mismanagement and unauthorized expenditures, must be addressed. As the opposition, we are resolute in safeguarding and demanding public accountability through established forums, including accountability committees.
When it comes to public discourse, we stand in defense of Ugandans' rights to demand accountability and other issues. We uphold Ugandans' rights to voice their concerns and exercise their constitutional liberties where they see fit.
This is why, when it comes to the ongoing protests initiated by the youth, they have explicitly stated that they have no leader, and their concerns are clear. This aligns with our constitutional framework, which protects the right of citizens to demonstrate and express discontent.
What we are currently contesting is the attempt by the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the courts to propagate a conspiracy theory, seeking to criminalise peaceful protests as a form of expressing discontent.
As the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, we have been made aware of troubling allegations that our Dubai diplomatic mission has transformed into a casino amid corruption discussions. What information can you provide on this matter, and what can you share with the public at this stage?
It is disheartening that our Dubai consulate has been implicated in a criminal activity. Over the years, in Parliament, we have consistently presented our alternative policies on Foreign Affairs. One persistent issue has been the need to appoint career diplomats into the Diplomatic Service, as the majority of our diplomats are political appointees lacking fundamental diplomatic training and expertise.
Currently, we have more than 38 diplomatic missions with appointed ambassadors and deputy ambassadors.
The crux of the matter lies in clarifying the facts and evidence behind these accusations. Are they merely allegations?
We lack career diplomats in instances where the government appoints diplomats for representation in significant bodies. Adonia Ayebare's appointment signals that most of our ambassadors lack the trust of the sending state and are unsuitable for additional roles.
Regarding our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jeje Odongo, he is a military figure and has been embroiled in a diplomatic controversy at our Dubai Consulate and caused a diplomatic incident at an EU summit.
Regarding the situation in Dubai, reports suggest that gambling machines were imported through the Dubai consulate, leading to the establishment of a casino, which violates international conventions on the use and management of diplomatic properties.
Did these machines come through the consulate, or were they set up there for gambling? What are the facts? We seek clarity.
The available facts we need to investigate suggest that the person responsible for importing the machines is Minister of Foreign Affairs Jeje Odongo. The evidence indicates that the machines arrived at our consulate in Dubai.
The laws in Dubai, as well as those governing diplomatic premises, do not permit gambling or casino operations, and consulates are not allowed to be used for business purposes. The consulate is a diplomatic property, and it should be noted that the Republic of Uganda, as well as the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, pays rent for the building housing our consulate in Dubai. This means that whoever established the casino was using taxpayers' money, which funds the rent, to operate a business.
Apart from the fact that the business is illegal in Dubai, it is also illegal to conduct such activities in a diplomatic facility.
Therefore, we are calling for an investigation to determine the individuals involved. The Consul General, who heads the mission and other support staff must explain their roles. Minister of Foreign Affairs Jeje Odongo must also provide an explanation. We need to understand how this happened.
There is a risk that the UAE could declare some of our diplomats undesirable, as one option for the host country when engaging in illegal activities is to declare individuals unwelcome. This has been suggested in media reports, but we also want a substantive investigation.
Part of the reason we advocated for establishing a consulate in Dubai was to bring services closer to our people, as a significant portion of Ugandans in the UAE reside in Dubai.
Have you written to your counterpart, the substantive Minister for Foreign Affairs, to inquire about what is going on?
Under our procedures, I do not need to write to him directly. My role is to petition Parliament, which can then order the minister and the government to account and can also institute an investigation. There must be a parliamentary investigation into this matter.
The attack on the Uganda House in Nairobi has this issue captured your attention, and have you asked questions about it with the protesting Kenyan youth?
Yes, of course. Ugandan properties do not belong to Mr. Museveni or his government; they belong to the people of Uganda, and we have an interest in how these properties are managed and their security.
When it comes to our diplomatic and foreign relations, we are concerned about mismanagement. When we heard about the alleged arson at our embassy, we as the opposition were cautious about rushing to conclusions, since the building was not housing the Uganda Embassy but was property of the Republic of Uganda.
The same building, which was reported to have caught fire, had been built or repaired using taxpayers' money and was scheduled to open that same week. Our concerns remain.
It is regrettable that the building caught fire, but we do not wish to see the Ugandan regime rushing to conclusions about who was responsible. Diplomatically, the appropriate procedure would be for the Ugandan government to request an investigation from the Kenyan government.
Kenya is a sovereign country, and institutional comments on events in a foreign country are not appropriate. Instead, we use diplomatic channels both written and verbal notices. We insist on following proper procedures.
We want to maintain cordial relations with Kenya and other countries to ensure the safety of our nationals. We do not want to create an atmosphere of confrontation or conflict in our statements.
Regarding the alleged fire, we objected to the statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for several reasons: it could provoke a response, it was rushed, and under ordinary diplomatic procedures, concerns in a foreign country should be addressed by requesting an investigation from the host country.
With 2026 approaching, how is this playing out for your party, considering internal disagreements, parliamentary scrutiny, leaders’ arrests and releases, and supporters still incarcerated since the 2021 elections? How does NUP see itself preparing for the next election?
Generally, there are two main aspects to consider. The National Unity Platform (NUP) is focused on mobilising the public to resist the current governance and, where possible, to lawfully pursue regime change. Our discussions focus on Ugandans reclaiming their rights and power to manage their own affairs. So, our attention is on the present rather than a specific year like 2026.
Let's be honest: you are a Member of Parliament because there was an election in 2021, and you seek re-election because of the upcoming 2026 election.
We have a political wing called the National Unity Platform. In this wing, we have attempted to strengthen our political presence and have tried to open party offices nationwide. However, we face police barricades and resistance.
Currently, NUP is conducting a massive countrywide registration drive to build our membership register, though this also faces resistance, with many NUP registrars being arrested or kidnapped, and some areas denying us the right to operate.
We are dealing with a situation where the laws are one thing, but practical realities are different. The constitutional order provides that security forces should not participate in partisan politics, but their conduct often appears partisan, as they allow some parties to exist while hindering NUP.
