Jacob Markson Oboth-Oboth began his tenure as Speaker of Uganda’s 12th Parliament with the right words and, importantly, at the right moment.
A promise of zero tolerance for corruption. A call for stricter accountability. A commitment to transparency. A reminder that Parliament must first discipline itself before demanding accountability from the Executive.
“In the next five years, we will hold the Executive and other government bodies accountable, but we must start with ourselves,” he said. “We cannot demand accountability from others if we are not accountable in the use of public resources.”
That message matters. But Uganda has heard such promises before. The deeper question now is not whether the 12th Parliament can speak convincingly about reform. It is whether it can become independent enough, disciplined enough and transparent enough to regain public trust after years of bruising controversy.
That is no small task. Parliament’s reputation has been damaged not only by allegations of corruption but by a growing public perception that the institution too often bends with political pressure instead of standing firm under it.
Parliament has increasingly felt distant from ordinary struggles and too closely tied to the priorities of power. That matters because Parliament is not ceremonial. It approves national budgets. It scrutinises taxes. It oversees government spending. It debates laws that affect hospitals, schools, roads, land rights and the cost of doing business.
When Parliament fails, citizens pay for it directly. A weak oversight committee can mean misused health funds. A compromised budget process can mean delayed classrooms or roads that never get built. A House that stops asking difficult questions leaves the public with fewer answers.
That is why Oboth-Oboth’s words deserve to be taken seriously and tested rigorously.
His pledge that “oversight should not be a postmortem” may be the most important promise of all. Uganda does not need accountability after billions are lost and investigations begin.
It needs institutions capable of identifying abuse before public money disappears. That means committees with real authority. Transparent procurement. Timely publication of parliamentary expenditure. Open debate guided by evidence rather than political theatre.
It also means protecting Parliament’s independence.
This may be the hardest part. The ruling NRM commands a strong majority in the House. That gives the Speaker a politically powerful chamber but also creates obvious institutional tension.
Can Parliament effectively hold the Executive to account when the Executive enjoys overwhelming support inside the same House?
That is the democratic test before Oboth Oboth. And public trust will not return because Parliament says it values transparency. It will return when citizens see real changes.
When debates become more substantive. When oversight reports lead to visible action. When corruption allegations are handled openly, regardless of rank or political loyalty.
When journalists can report freely because, as Oboth-Oboth himself put it, “The media are not our enemies, but the public’s eyes and ears. If we are doing the right thing, there is no reason to hide.”
That statement should become institutional practice. The Speaker inherits a House under scrutiny and enters office with a rare opportunity to reset its culture.
But ceremonies fade quickly. Public patience fades faster. Trust is rebuilt through repeated acts of fairness, discipline and courage, especially when those choices become politically inconvenient.
Uganda’s 12th Parliament does not need better messaging. It needs visible and structural change. Oboth-Oboth has made his vows clearly and publicly. The responsibility now is to live by them.