The corruption case that has shaken Uganda’s Parliament has entered a new and potentially consequential phase, with the Anti-Corruption Court committing seven parliamentary officials to the High Court for trial over allegations involving billions of shillings in public funds.
The development, however, has been accompanied by an unusual twist: Stella Itute, a Parliament office supervisor who was initially charged alongside the officials, was not included in the final indictment after her lawyer, Asuman Basalirwa, told court that he had lost contact with her and no longer represented her.
The development leaves a major question hanging over a case that began with revelations about questionable parliamentary expenditure, grew into a nationwide accountability campaign and eventually resulted in arrests of some of the institution’s most senior administrative officials.
The accused officials include Parliament’s former 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.
Methods Murebe, the Chief Executive Officer of the Uganda Parliamentary Cooperative Savings and Credit Society (SACCO), is also among those committed for trial.
Itute, who had been charged in absentia, is the conspicuous omission.
From Parliament controversy to criminal prosecution
The case did not emerge overnight.
For nearly two years, Parliament had been under intense public scrutiny over its spending practices, particularly the movement of large sums of money through the accounts of parliamentary staff for donations and purported Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities.
The controversy exploded into the public domain in early 2024 during the so-called Parliament Exhibition organised through the civic platform Agora Discourse.
Investigators and activists published documents purporting to show billions of shillings moving from Parliament accounts through the personal bank accounts of junior and senior officials.
One investigation by Agora Discourse reported that Parliament staff, including Leonard Okema, Emmanuel Okwii Emuron and Chris Obore, had received substantial sums associated with donations and CSR activities.
The investigation questioned why a constitutional institution funded by taxpayers was operating a CSR programme in a manner normally associated with private corporations.
The revelations generated an extraordinary public debate.
Parliament’s leadership faced questions about why government money intended for public activities was being channelled through individual employees rather than being spent directly through conventional institutional procurement and accountability systems.
Obore, who was then Parliament’s communications chief, defended the transactions, saying the money was intended for donations and CSR activities and was not for the personal benefit of the employees through whose accounts it passed.
But the explanation did little to end the controversy.
Instead, the questions grew.
The service-award controversy added fuel
The CSR and donations controversy was not the only financial storm surrounding Parliament.
Earlier allegations surrounding a Shs1.7 billion service award paid to four Parliamentary Commissioners had already generated intense public criticism.
The service-award controversy, coupled with questions surrounding luxury vehicles, foreign travel, recruitment and other expenditure, created a broader narrative about financial accountability within the 11th Parliament.
By 2026, the controversy had become one of the defining scandals surrounding the institution.
A May 2026 review by Daily Monitor described the expenditure controversies as among the scandals that had defined the 11th Parliament, including allegations concerning billions channelled through junior staff for donations and CSR activities.
Another Monitor investigation published in June reported that the Speaker’s budget had grown sharply over a six-year period and linked renewed public scrutiny to the Agora Discourse exhibition, which had raised questions about billions passing through private accounts of employees close to former Speaker Anita Among.
Importantly, the allegations against Parliament’s former leadership have not automatically translated into criminal liability. No court has found former Speaker Anita Among guilty of the offences now before the Anti-Corruption Court.
The criminal case currently before court is against the officials named in the charge sheet.
IGG moves in
The public controversy eventually acquired the weight of a formal state investigation.
The Inspectorate of Government intensified investigations into Parliament’s financial and administrative affairs, eventually summoning a number of officials to provide statements.
On July 2, 2026, the investigation dramatically escalated.
Seven senior Parliament officials were arrested by the Inspectorate of Government and taken before the Anti-Corruption Court.
The officials were charged with offences including embezzlement, causing financial loss to government and money laundering.
Itute was also charged, although she did not appear in court.
The prosecution alleged that the accused had used their positions to access Parliament funds and that money intended for donations and CSR programmes was not properly accounted for.
The alleged loss to government was put at Shs27.201 billion.
The individual figures contained in the prosecution’s case were striking.
Obore was accused of embezzling Shs5.253 billion; Adilo Shs14.609 billion; Okema Shs3.489 billion; Kaaya Ssemalulu Shs2.170 billion; Okwi Shs1.105 billion; Otebata Shs5.253 billion; and Itute Shs75 million.
Six of the accused, excluding Murebe according to the charge-sheet accounts reported at the time, also faced money-laundering allegations involving Shs10.893 billion.
Prosecutors alleged that between January 2023 and April 2026, the money was processed, approved and received despite the accused allegedly knowing that it represented proceeds of crime.
The accused denied the allegations through their lawyers and have not been convicted.
Why the Anti-Corruption Court did not take their plea
The case immediately ran into an important jurisdictional hurdle.
Although the officials appeared before the Anti-Corruption Court, Magistrate Esther Asiimwe did not take their pleas on the money-laundering counts.
The reason was straightforward: money laundering is triable by the High Court.
The prosecution was therefore required to prepare committal papers before the accused could be sent to the High Court for trial.
That procedural process has now reached its next stage.
The seven officials have been committed to the High Court.
Then came the Stella Itute mystery
Itute’s case has taken a markedly different path.
When her co-accused were arrested in July, she was reportedly away from Parliament and had not been taken into custody.
On July 27, the Anti-Corruption Court issued a warrant for her arrest after prosecutors said they had failed to locate her.
The Inspectorate’s Manager of Prosecutions, Brenda Kimbugwe, told court that efforts to trace Itute had been unsuccessful and asked for an arrest warrant. Magistrate Asiimwe granted the request and directed police officers across Uganda to arrest her on sight and produce her before court.
Itute was accused of embezzling Shs75 million — considerably less than the amounts attributed to most of her co-accused.
But her absence became increasingly significant because she was the only one of the accused who had not been arrested and brought before court.
The court was initially told that she had been represented by Basalirwa.
But the lawyer’s position has now changed.
During the latest proceedings, Basalirwa informed court that he had lost contact with Itute and no longer represented her.
The fact that she has now been left out of the final indictment adds another layer of uncertainty to the case.
It does not, by itself, amount to an acquittal or a judicial finding that she committed no offence. Nor does it necessarily mean that prosecution against her can never resume. What it means for the moment is that she is not among the seven accused persons sent forward for trial under the indictment now before the High Court.
A case that has grown bigger than the courtroom
The prosecution of the seven officials represents one of the most significant criminal accountability actions against Parliament’s administrative machinery in recent years.
The significance goes beyond the personalities in the dock.
At its heart is the question of how a constitutional institution that scrutinises government expenditure can itself account for billions of shillings passing through its financial systems.
That question was first raised in public through leaked documents, investigative journalism and social-media campaigns.
The Parliament Exhibition turned what might ordinarily have been an internal accounting dispute into a national conversation about public money.
Agora Discourse’s investigations specifically focused on parliamentary expenditure, including money transferred through staff accounts for donations and CSR activities.
Monitor reported in 2024 that Parliament acknowledged billions had passed through junior employees’ accounts, while its communications department maintained that the money was meant for parliamentary and Speaker-related CSR activities rather than personal enrichment.
Two years later, some of the same transactions are now at the centre of criminal proceedings.
That progression is perhaps the most important part of the story.
What began as questions on social media became political controversy. The controversy triggered demands for investigations. Investigations produced arrests. Arrests produced criminal charges. And the charges have now moved from the magistrates’ court toward the High Court.
Defence prepares for the next battle
The accused have consistently challenged aspects of the prosecution’s approach.
During earlier proceedings, lawyers questioned why suspects were being arrested while investigations were still continuing and pushed for bail.
Basalirwa had also argued that some cases could be separated and that accused persons facing offences within the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction should not necessarily remain in custody because of money-laundering charges involving other accused persons.
The prosecution, however, maintained that the gravity of the money-laundering counts meant the matter belonged before the High Court.
Obore separately petitioned the High Court for bail, arguing that he had a fixed residence, had never previously been convicted and was willing to comply with court conditions. He also denied being a flight risk or threat to the investigation.
The accused were subsequently further remanded as prosecutors completed the committal process.
The Inspectorate has maintained that its actions are aimed at protecting public resources and enforcing accountability regardless of the status of the individuals involved.
The bigger question now
With seven officials committed to the High Court, the case is moving away from the preliminary stage and toward a substantive criminal trial.
The prosecution will now have to prove its allegations against each accused person beyond the applicable criminal-law standard.
For the defence, the next battle will be to dismantle the prosecution’s evidence, challenge the alleged financial trail and establish that the accused did not commit the offences attributed to them.
And hanging over the proceedings is the unresolved position of Stella Itute.
She began the case as the eighth person accused.
She disappeared from the proceedings.
A warrant was issued for her arrest.
Her lawyer says he no longer has contact with her.
And now her name is missing from the final indictment that has sent seven of her former co-accused toward the High Court.
That unusual turn means the Parliament corruption saga is entering its most consequential phase yet — one in which the allegations will finally have to be tested against evidence in a full trial rather than documents, public accusations and political arguments.
For Uganda’s Parliament, however, the damage to public confidence has already been done.
The institution that is supposed to demand answers from government ministries about every missing billion is now itself being asked to explain how Shs27.201 billion allegedly disappeared through a network of officials and accounts.
The High Court will ultimately determine whether the allegations can be proved.
But whatever the outcome, the case has already established one uncomfortable fact: the controversy that began with questions about Parliament’s spending has travelled all the way from social media exhibitions and leaked financial documents to the doors of Uganda’s highest trial court for criminal cases.
