Security experts have raised concerns over the handling of the money laundering investigation involving former Speaker of Parliament Anita Annet Among, warning that procedural mistakes could weaken the case and expose the government to costly legal challenges.
According to the experts, investigators allegedly failed to follow the standard process for handling money laundering cases by seizing assets before obtaining court orders to freeze them and before securing a conviction linking the property to criminal proceeds. They argue that the approach could make crucial evidence vulnerable to legal challenges and leave the state open to compensation claims if the affected parties successfully challenge the investigation.
Click here to join our WhatsApp Group and Receive Daily News
The investigation, launched on May 16, 2026, has seen detectives from the Criminal Investigations Directorate (CID), forensic experts and defence intelligence officers search properties associated with Among in Nakasero, Kigo, Ntinda and Bukedea. Authorities also impounded six luxury vehicles, including her Rolls-Royce.
A retired senior CID detective, who served during the tenure of former CID director Grace Akullo, and private investigator Fred Egesa, both experienced in financial crime investigations, said the inquiry had not followed established procedures.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the retired detective explained that money laundering investigations are usually based on an underlying offence such as theft, fraud or robbery, with investigators first establishing that assets were acquired using proceeds of crime before seeking their recovery.
“The proper procedure is to begin with asset tracing. Upon confirming ownership of a company, building or vehicles, investigators should seek a court restraining order to prevent the disposal of identified assets. The money laundering case is then presented in court, and upon conviction, asset recovery is pursued,” he said.
The detective said investigators appeared to have reversed the legally accepted process.
“All the required procedures were ignored. They did at the beginning what should have been done at the end. The standard money laundering investigation process is asset tracing, freezing, prosecution and recovery,” he said.
He also argued that assets cannot legally be confiscated before a court determines they are proceeds of crime.
“Given her position, I doubt she wants to be in conflict with government. But you cannot confiscate assets without a court conviction establishing that they are proceeds of crime. In this instance, however, the process began with confiscation. If you seize someone’s property without convincing court that it’s proceeds of crime, you give them grounds to sue government. And if they win for violation of their rights, the financial hit to government can be huge,” he added.
The retired detective further questioned the decision to keep Among’s vehicles at the Naguru police forensic services unit, saying the facility lacks the expertise required to assess and preserve high-value vehicles.
“What are they going to do with that vehicle? If the issue is identification of the type and specifications, the ministry of Works should provide a chief government engineer, not forensic officers. They lack that expertise. Forensics only handle paper trails. Do they even know how to establish the market value of a Rolls-Royce for Uganda Police?” he asked.
He said such assets should instead be held by an independent institution with the technical capacity to preserve them while court proceedings continue.
Private investigator Fred Egesa shared similar concerns, saying the investigation appeared rushed despite involving a senior political figure.
“Where politics is involved, you must be conscious of public perception. You can’t just go after Among first. She is a political figure with a following. Right now she is almost vindicated of fraud, not because of innocence or guilt, but because of the high-handed and vindictive way the investigations began,” Egesa said.
He argued that investigators should have first built their case by targeting officials responsible for managing parliamentary funds before pursuing those suspected of benefiting from the alleged proceeds.
“What they have done now is the right thing. Audit and charge, and let those who had custody of the money lead you to the end user. Not charge and then audit. Anita was not the accounting officer, so there was no way she would be the first person to be targeted,” Egesa said.
Last week, seven parliamentary officials, including director of communications and public affairs Chris Obore Ariko, director of human resource Daniel Adilo, executive secretary in the Office of the Speaker Leonard Okema, principal research officer Rajab Kaaya Ssemalulu, principal protocol officer Emmanuel Emuron Okwi and capacity development officer Vincent Otebata, were charged before the Anti-Corruption Court and remanded to Luzira Prison.
The officials face charges including corruption, embezzlement, money laundering and causing financial loss over the alleged mismanagement of Shs37 billion.
The experts said Uganda has experienced investigators capable of handling complex financial crime cases but alleged that the investigation had not followed established investigative practice. They suggested the reported procedural shortcomings could explain delays in Among’s anticipated court appearance as investigators seek to strengthen the case.
They warned that unless the alleged gaps are addressed, the prosecution risks weakening its case and undermining public confidence in the investigation.
Also Read: Amama Mbabazi’s Daughter Wanted Over Unpaid Shs 450m Loan
