Ssenyonyi Exposes Fresh UGX 1.6Bn ‘Service Award’ Payout to 4 MPs

Fresh allegations have emerged pointing to Parliamentary Commissioners who reportedly, secretly allocated themselves UGX 1.4 billion under yet another dubious “service award.”

The accusations, unveiled on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, by the Leader of Opposition (LOP) Joel Besekezi Ssenyonyi, have reignited public anger over financial excesses within the House barely a year after a similar scandal rattled the institution.

“Four Parliamentary Commissioners, Esther Afoyochan, Mathias Mpuuga Nsamba, Solomon Silwanyi, and Prossy Mbabazi Akampurira, have once again allocated themselves UGX 400 million each as ‘service awards’,” Ssenyonyi told reporters at Parliament.

“There is propaganda claiming that I also benefited from this dubious payment to conceal their misconduct. I have not received any such money, and if it ever lands in my account, I will refund it immediately because it is irregular.”

“I have reliably been informed that this money was processed through the Parliamentary SACCO,” Ssenyonyi said, dismissing claims on social media that he too was among the beneficiaries as “a deliberate smokescreen to sanitise corruption.”

According to Ssenyonyi, the payments were allegedly channelled through the Parliamentary Savings and Credit Cooperative Organisation (SACCO), a financial institution established in 2003 to provide savings and loan services to MPs and staff. He claimed the funds were intended to bankroll campaign activities for the four commissioners ahead of the 2026 general elections.

The accused commissioners include Afoyochan (Zombo District Woman MP), Mpuuga (Nyendo-Mukungwe Division MP and former LOP), Silwanyi (Bukooli Central MP), and Akampurira (Rubanda District Woman MP).

Repeated attempts by this publication to obtain a comment from the four were futile by press time. Parliament’s communications department also remained tight-lipped on the allegations.

The Parliamentary Commission, established under Article 87A of the Constitution and the Administration of Parliament Act (Cap. 257), is the highest decision-making body of Parliament. It is mandated to manage the institution’s budget, determine allowances, and recommend remuneration for MPs and parliamentary leaders.

However, the Commission’s integrity has been under scrutiny since May 2022, when it controversially approved a UGX 500 million service award for then-LOP Mathias Mpuuga and UGX 400 million each for three Commissioners. The decision, exposed in early 2024, triggered public outrage and a legal challenge by a concerned citizen, Daniel Bwette, who petitioned the High Court.

In its August 2024 ruling, the court upheld the Commission’s decision, citing that the payments were lawfully embedded in Parliament’s approved budget. Yet, it faulted the Clerk to Parliament, Adolf Mwesige Kasaija, for procedural lapses and ordered the Secretary to the Treasury to initiate disciplinary action. The court did not order the recipients to refund the money, leaving critics to decry what they termed “budgeted impunity.”

Ssenyonyi now argues that the latest round of “service awards” mirrors the 2022 episode and exposes Parliament’s failure to learn from past scandals. “If Commissioners want to reward themselves like former leaders who receive benefits after leaving office, they should bring an amendment to the Emoluments and Benefits of the President, Vice President and Prime Minister Act, not steal public money under the table,” Ssenyonyi said.

While defenders of the Commission cite its constitutional autonomy in managing parliamentary affairs, governance experts argue that these repeated “service awards” erode public trust and stretch the limits of accountability.

In a country grappling with a debt crisis, rising poverty, and underfunded public services, Parliament’s appetite for self-allotted perks has rekindled debate over whether the institution’s internal checks have been captured by privilege and impunity.

As the dust settles, the question remains: if the courts legitimise such payments on procedural grounds, who will safeguard the spirit of accountability in Uganda’s legislature?