Former IGG Beti Kamya loses defamation case against Miria Matembe

Kampala, Uganda | URN | The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a defamation suit filed by former Inspector General of Government (IGG) Beti Kamya against former Ethics Minister Dr. Miria Matembe. In a judgment delivered by Civil Division Judge Bonny Isaac Teko, the court held that Kamya failed to prove that the statements in question damaged her reputation, noting that the remarks largely amounted to protected political commentary on matters of public interest.

The judge found that while Kamya may have considered the statements offensive and politically damaging, she did not sufficiently demonstrate that her standing in society had been lowered as a result of the broadcasts. The case arose from statements made by Matembe during television interviews aired on NTV Uganda and NBS Television in July and December 2021, following Kamya’s appointment as IGG.

Kamya, through her lawyers Anguria & Co. Advocates, sued Matembe, accusing her of making false and defamatory statements that portrayed her as corrupt, dishonest, unethical, and unfit to hold the constitutional office of IGG. She sought declarations that the statements were defamatory, a permanent injunction restraining Matembe from repeating them, a public apology and retraction, as well as general, punitive, and exemplary damages.

The court heard that Matembe questioned Kamya’s integrity and suitability for office, describing her as “a person of questionable character” and alleging that she interfered with land compensation processes during her tenure as Minister of Lands. She was accused of generating lists containing fictitious beneficiaries, facilitating compensation to nonexistent persons, and enabling double compensation payments.

Matembe, who was among the framers of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda, argued during the televised interviews that such actions amounted to abuse of public office for improper purposes. Kamya also objected to being described as a “political prostitute,” arguing that the term was degrading and intended to ridicule her. However, Matembe defended the remarks as fair political comment made in the public interest.

She further argued that her statements were based on publicly known controversies surrounding compensation payments, parliamentary investigations, and Kamya’s political conduct over the years. In his judgment dated May 11, 2026, Justice Teko emphasized that public officials are subject to greater scrutiny and criticism than private individuals.

“The plaintiff was a senior political actor who had occupied high constitutional and ministerial offices and who voluntarily entered the arena of public debate. Such persons inevitably attract scrutiny, criticism, and strong public opinion,” the judge stated. The court held that statements regarding Kamya’s integrity, character, and suitability for office were largely expressions of political opinion rather than assertions of proven fact. It noted that issues of integrity and fitness for public office are matters on which citizens may reasonably hold differing views.

Justice Teko further found that the comments were made within the context of a broader public discussion on governance, accountability, and anti-corruption. On allegations that Kamya facilitated compensation to ghost claimants and interfered with land administration processes, the court noted that these issues had already been the subject of parliamentary scrutiny and public debate.

The judge ruled that Matembe’s comments reflected concerns already in the public domain and were not presented as definitive findings of criminal guilt. The court also considered the phrase “political prostitute,” which Kamya argued was defamatory. Justice Teko held that the expression was used metaphorically within a political context and would ordinarily be understood as criticism of perceived political opportunism rather than a literal accusation.

“The phrase complained of was plainly metaphorical and political in character. No reasonable listener would interpret it literally,” the judge held. A key factor in the court’s decision was Kamya’s failure to provide independent evidence showing that the broadcasts had lowered her reputation among members of the public. Although she testified that she received calls from concerned individuals after the broadcasts, she did not call witnesses to demonstrate that their opinion of her had changed because of Matembe’s remarks.

The court also accepted Matembe’s defenses, including justification, fair comment on matters of public interest, and constitutional protection of freedom of expression. Justice Teko noted that documentary evidence, including findings from Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE), showed that concerns had been raised about compensation processes during Kamya’s tenure as Lands Minister.

While some of those findings were later challenged in court, the judge held that they provided a factual basis for public discussion and criticism. The court further warned against using defamation suits to suppress political criticism, emphasizing the importance of free expression in a democratic society. “It is not the function of defamation law to sanitize political discourse or prohibit citizens from expressing strong political views,” the judgment stated.

The judge concluded that the impugned statements substantially constituted political commentary, rhetorical criticism, and expressions of opinion on matters of public concern. “Courts must distinguish between actionable defamation and protected political expression. In constitutional democracies, public officials are subject to intense criticism and scrutiny,” he added. The court accordingly dismissed Kamya’s suit in its entirety and ordered each party to bear its own costs, noting that the matter involved public interest issues.