A four-year-old 50 million shillings pledge to the Uganda Parliamentary Press Association (UPPA) Savings and Credit Cooperative Society (SACCO) has revived one of journalism’s oldest ethical questions: can journalists remain independent when their welfare is financed by the institution they are expected to scrutinise?
The renewed demand comes at a particularly sensitive time. Uganda’s Parliamentary Press Association has faced sustained public criticism over its coverage of the 11th Parliament, which was dogged by allegations of corruption involving its top leadership, including former Speaker Anita Among. Media critics argued that parliamentary journalists did not sufficiently investigate or sustain scrutiny of Parliament during some of its most controversial moments.
Although there is no evidence linking the unfulfilled SACCO pledge to editorial decisions, governance experts say the existence of such financial commitments risks reinforcing public perceptions of institutional closeness between Parliament and the journalists who cover it. The issue resurfaced during the induction of more than 120 accredited parliamentary journalists on Thursday, where UPPA President Samuel Ibanda Mugabi reminded Parliament’s Director of Communication and Public Affairs, Chris Obore, that members were still waiting for the 50 million shillings pledge made by the previous parliamentary leadership.
The UPPA SACCO, established in 2019, was created to improve members’ financial welfare through savings, affordable credit, and investment. It seeks to cushion journalists against declining newsroom revenues, irregular employment, and low pay. Responding to the demand, Obore confirmed that the pledge existed but said Parliament had approached its implementation cautiously. He explained that, although the commitment originated under the former Speaker, Annet Anita Among, Parliament considered treating it as an institutional obligation rather than a personal donation.
However, implementation has reportedly stalled because of concerns about public perception. “Paying the money directly to journalists’ SACCO could create the perception that Parliament is attempting to influence or reward journalists responsible for covering its activities, thereby undermining public confidence in the independence of parliamentary reporting,” Obore said. Governance expert Timothy Msobor Chemonges of the Centre for Policy Analysis says the debate extends beyond financial assistance.
“While journalists require decent welfare to perform their duties effectively, financial relationships with the institutions they oversee risk eroding public trust, even where no actual editorial interference exists,” he said. He argues that the issue is less about whether Parliament intends to influence journalists than whether citizens believe parliamentary reporters remain sufficiently independent to hold legislators accountable.
According to Chemonges, democracy depends not only on an independent press but also on public confidence that journalists are free from institutional influence. Similarly, Dr. Imokola John Baptist, a lecturer in the Department of Journalism and Communication at Makerere University, says accepting financial assistance from institutions journalists are expected to scrutinise raises profound ethical and legal questions.
He notes that journalism derives its legitimacy from public trust rather than financial security. “Even where no editorial interference occurs, the perception that journalists receive financial support from Parliament could weaken public confidence in their ability to report independently,” he said. The debate reflects internationally recognised journalism standards. The International Federation of Journalists’ Global Charter of Ethics requires journalists to avoid conflicts of interest and reject benefits that could compromise, or appear to compromise, their independence.
The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics similarly urges journalists to avoid both real and perceived conflicts of interest. Uganda’s Press and Journalist Act and the National Institute of Journalists of Uganda Code of Ethics also emphasise editorial independence, fairness and accountability. Although no law expressly prohibits Parliament from supporting journalists’ welfare schemes, governance experts argue that the larger issue is one of public confidence rather than legality.
Questions also remain unanswered about the pledge itself. Was it formally approved by the Parliamentary Commission? Was funding ever budgeted? If so, why has it remained unpaid for four years? Neither Parliament nor UPPA addressed these questions during Thursday’s event. The renewed appeal also raises questions for UPPA itself. Given the longstanding public debate over the relationship between Parliament and its accredited journalists, media ethicists say the association must demonstrate not only that it remains independent, but that its financial arrangements cannot reasonably be perceived as compromising its watchdog role.
When the SACCO was launched in 2019, it received approximately 13 million shillings from the then State Minister for Microfinance, Haruna Kasolo, and the then Speaker, Rebecca Kadaga. At the time, leaders encouraged members to build sustainable investments capable of supporting the cooperative beyond donations. Some observers nevertheless warned that direct financial support from Parliament risked creating dependency.
Later that year, UPPA formally requested Parliament to consider contributing regularly to the SACCO and paying monthly allowances to accredited journalists. Although the then Speaker reportedly undertook to present the proposal to the Parliamentary Commission, no public decision was announced. The debate remains unresolved, not simply over whether Parliament should honour a fifty-million-shilling pledge, but whether accepting such support is compatible with the independence expected of journalists assigned to hold Parliament accountable-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
