The Inspectorate of Government (IGG) is facing questions over alleged delays in paying whistleblowers promised rewards for information leading to the recovery of public funds, as Parliament examines gaps in Uganda’s anti-corruption framework and the institution’s capacity to fight graft.
The concerns emerged after COSASE Chairperson Muwada Nkunyingi revealed that he had received five petitions from whistleblowers accusing the IGG’s office of failing to pay them the 5% reward provided for under the Whistleblowers Protection Act.
According to Nkunyingi, the petitioners claim they supplied information that helped authorities recover funds but have not received their expected rewards.
The complaints raise questions about how the government implements incentives intended to encourage members of the public to expose corruption and assist authorities in recovering stolen public resources.
In its January–June 2026 performance report to Parliament, the IGG acknowledged a gap in the existing legal framework governing whistleblower rewards.
The report cites Section 19(1) of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, noting that the law provides for a 5% reward where information leads to the recovery of funds but does not provide a similar incentive when a disclosure prevents a financial loss before it occurs.
“However, where the disclosure ultimately leads to preventing any loss from occurring, the Law does not provide any incentive,” the IG is quoted as stating.
The Inspectorate has urged the Directorate for Ethics and Integrity and the Uganda Law Reform Commission to accelerate a review of gaps in anti-corruption laws.
Such a review could help clarify the circumstances under which whistleblowers qualify for rewards and address situations in which information helps the government avoid losses without resulting in the recovery of money already lost.
However, the five petitions received by Nkunyingi raise a separate concern: whether people who believe they qualify for existing rewards are receiving them in accordance with the law.
The report also highlights staffing shortages at the Inspectorate, which could affect its ability to investigate corruption and respond to complaints across the country.
By June 30, 2026, the institution had filled 428 of its 596 approved positions, leaving 168 vacancies, representing approximately 28.2% of its workforce.
With Uganda’s population projected at 49.6 million by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics at the same date, the report indicates that the Inspectorate had roughly one staff member for every 116,000 people.
The IGG further reported that each of its 16 regional offices had an average of five technical officers responsible for covering at least 10 local governments.
The institution says this staffing level is insufficient to effectively carry out its mandate at the grassroots, where many complaints concern local government operations.
The Inspectorate has asked Parliament to provide adequate funding to recruit and retain qualified personnel
The report recorded 630 corruption complaints between January and June 2026, up from 499 during July–December 2025.
The increase represents 131 additional complaints, or approximately 26.3%, over the two reporting periods.
While the figures show a rise in complaints received, they do not by themselves establish whether corruption has increased by the same proportion. They nevertheless point to a substantial workload for an institution already reporting staffing and resource constraints.
The ability of the Inspectorate to investigate complaints, pursue suspected offenders and follow up on cases remains central to public confidence in the fight against corruption.
The report has also drawn attention to concerns about what happens after suspects are arrested and whether investigations consistently lead to prosecution.
Joel Ssenyonyi, who commented on the IGG’s submission to Parliament, questioned whether people arrested in different parts of the country were subsequently prosecuted, warning that arrests without meaningful follow-up risk turning anti-corruption operations into public spectacles.
He also raised concerns about the criteria used to prosecute some suspects while others appear to be spared, saying the approach was confusing to the public.
His remarks highlight the importance of transparency and consistency in the handling of corruption cases, although decisions on prosecution depend on the available evidence, applicable law and the relevant authorities.
The issues raised in the report present Parliament with several areas requiring scrutiny, including the handling of whistleblower reward claims, staffing shortages, the effectiveness of investigations and the gaps in legislation governing anti-corruption incentives.
For whistleblowers, the payment of legally provided rewards could be an important factor in encouraging people to report wrongdoing. Delays or unresolved claims, if established, could undermine confidence in a system that relies partly on public information to detect and investigate corruption.
The review of the Whistleblowers Protection Act could also determine whether incentives should extend to disclosures that prevent public funds from being lost in the first place.
As Parliament examines the IGG’s January–June 2026 performance report, the central question will be whether the legal, financial and institutional support available to the Inspectorate is sufficient to translate corruption allegations into effective investigations, accountability and the protection of public resources.
