Uganda’s Anti-Corruption Drive: Are Arrests Enough to Deliver Justice?

Uganda has launched another major push against corruption, with hundreds of suspects arrested and billions of shillings linked to complaints now under investigation. But beyond the arrest figures lies a more important question: how do we turn anti-corruption operations into lasting improvements in public service delivery?

On 7 October 2026, the State House Anti-Corruption Unit reported that the nationwide Expose the Corrupt campaign had resulted in 267 arrests and the interdiction of 253 government officials. Approximately Shs22.7 billion was linked to complaints and cases under investigation. The campaign is examining alleged irregularities involving procurement, recruitment, land administration, roads, schools, health facilities and government development programmes.

These figures are significant, but they require careful interpretation.

The head of the Anti-Corruption Unit, Brigadier General Henry Isoke, clarified that the Shs22.7 billion has not been conclusively established as stolen or lost. Investigations, audits and verification must determine whether financial losses occurred and who, if anyone, bears criminal responsibility. He also explained that an arrest does not automatically lead to prosecution because investigators must establish sufficient evidence.

This distinction matters because being suspected of corruption is not the same as being found guilty of corruption. Effective enforcement must be accompanied by evidence, fair procedures and accountability for the outcomes of investigations.

But there is another issue worth examining: what happens after an arrest?

If public funds were misappropriated, are they recovered? If a road was poorly constructed, is it repaired? If money intended for a health centre never reached it, does the facility eventually receive the resources it needs? And if weaknesses in procurement or supervision allowed abuse to occur, are those weaknesses corrected?

These are the outcomes citizens ultimately need.

The campaign's own leadership has acknowledged that success should not be measured by arrests alone. It should also be measured by the recovery of public resources, stronger controls and better service delivery.

Uganda therefore needs transparent reporting on the progress of cases, the findings of completed investigations, prosecutions, court outcomes, recovered funds and corrective measures. Such reporting would help citizens distinguish allegations from proven offences and understand whether enforcement is producing tangible results.

Citizens also have a role to play. Residents are often the first to notice when a public project is incomplete, a school imposes questionable charges or a government programme fails to reach its intended beneficiaries. Reporting concerns can help authorities identify problems, although complaints must still be independently investigated.

Ultimately, an anti-corruption campaign should be judged not simply by how many people are arrested, but by whether wrongdoing is established through fair processes, public resources are protected and government services improve.

The real test is whether the campaign leaves Ugandans with better roads, functioning health centres, properly equipped schools and development funds reaching their intended beneficiaries.

What should Uganda publish regularly to help citizens track whether anti-corruption investigations are resulting in justice, recovered funds and better public services?