Death is one of life’s most painful and inevitable realities. It brings grief, uncertainty and, in many circumstances, unanswered questions.
But in Uganda, an increasingly worrying tendency is emerging in which some deaths, particularly those involving people associated with political movements, are quickly transformed into political controversies, with accusations of murder and government involvement being circulated even before investigations establish what happened.
The growing tendency to attach political explanations to unexplained deaths raises serious questions about the country’s political discourse, respect for evidence, the credibility of public accusations and the responsibility of those who command large public followings.
Recent incidents involving the deaths of Charles Matovu and Kapere have once again brought this debate into the public domain. In the aftermath of such deaths, allegations of deliberate killing and suggestions of government involvement have featured in political discussions, particularly among sections of the opposition, including supporters of the National Unity Platform (NUP).
While every suspicious death deserves serious investigation, the concern is how quickly suspicion is sometimes converted into certainty, and how accusations become established narratives in the court of public opinion before forensic examinations or independent investigations have provided answers.
There is a fundamental difference between demanding an investigation into a suspicious death and declaring that someone has committed murder without evidence. Unfortunately, that distinction appears to be disappearing from sections of Uganda’s political conversation.
The rush to establish a political narrative
One of the most troubling aspects of this emerging culture is the apparent urgency with which some people seek to explain deaths through political lenses.
A person dies, relatives and friends are understandably devastated, and before the circumstances surrounding the death are fully established, allegations begin circulating that the deceased was deliberately eliminated because of political beliefs, affiliations or activities.
Social media platforms have made this tendency even more dangerous. A photograph of the deceased, an emotional statement, a video from a funeral or an allegation made by a political activist can quickly become the foundation of a widely accepted narrative.
In some instances, the allegations go beyond questioning the circumstances of death to directly implicating government institutions or security agencies.
The problem is not that citizens question government conduct. In a democratic society, government must be questioned, scrutinised and held accountable. Indeed, where there are credible grounds to suspect foul play, citizens have every right to demand answers.
However, accountability cannot be built on manufactured certainty. Neither should political affiliation become a substitute for evidence.
If a person dies under suspicious circumstances, the first responsibility should be to establish the facts. What was the cause of death? Were there injuries? Was the deceased ill? Were there witnesses? What do medical examinations and other forensic findings reveal?
These are questions that should precede definitive conclusions.
Why bury before establishing the cause of death?
Another issue that deserves public discussion is the apparent haste with which some families proceed with burial arrangements even when serious questions have been raised about the circumstances surrounding a death.
In an era when medical science has advanced significantly, it is difficult to understand why a death accompanied by allegations of murder would sometimes be followed by a burial before the necessary medical examinations have been completed.
A postmortem examination, where circumstances warrant it, can help establish the cause and manner of death. It can distinguish between natural causes, accidental death, suicide and homicide, although further investigation may sometimes be necessary.
Preserving the body for an appropriate forensic examination is therefore not merely a technical requirement. It can be central to establishing the truth and protecting the interests of the deceased and their family.
This does not mean every family should be forced to delay burial indefinitely. Cultural practices, religious beliefs, financial limitations and the emotional burden of losing a loved one are genuine considerations. Families also deserve timely communication from investigators and medical professionals.
However, where there are credible suspicions of murder, allowing a proper examination before burial can prevent the loss of potentially important evidence.
The desire to bury a loved one quickly should not be confused with the need to establish the truth. Equally, authorities must not frustrate families by delaying examinations or withholding findings without reasonable explanation.
The politics of grief and its consequences
There is also a disturbing tendency to turn bereavement into an opportunity for political mobilisation.
Funerals are traditionally spaces for mourning, comforting relatives, celebrating the life of the deceased and reflecting on the fragility of human existence. They should not become platforms for presenting unverified allegations as established facts.
Political leaders and activists have a responsibility to exercise restraint, particularly when addressing grieving families and emotionally charged audiences.
A political statement made during a funeral can have consequences far beyond the occasion. It can deepen mistrust, provoke hostility, damage reputations and potentially incite members of the public against individuals or institutions.
Politics founded on hatred and suspicion does not develop communities. It weakens social cohesion, encourages division and makes it increasingly difficult for citizens with opposing political opinions to coexist peacefully.
Ugandans should be able to disagree politically without regarding one another as enemies. A person’s political affiliation should neither make their death an automatic political assassination nor make their suffering less deserving of sympathy and justice.
The same standard must apply to everyone, regardless of whether the deceased supported the ruling National Resistance Movement, the National Unity Platform or any other political formation.
Every Ugandan deserves dignity in death and justice where a crime has been committed.
But government must also earn public trust
While unsubstantiated accusations are dangerous, government cannot dismiss every allegation of politically motivated violence as propaganda.
Uganda has a responsibility to ensure that every suspicious death receives a credible, impartial and professional investigation, irrespective of the political identity of the deceased.
Security agencies should not expect citizens to accept official explanations simply because they come from government institutions. Public confidence is earned through transparency, professionalism and accountability.
Where a death raises legitimate questions, authorities should communicate what is known, explain what remains under investigation and make relevant findings available to the family within the law.
If evidence points to criminal wrongdoing, those responsible must be prosecuted. If investigations establish that the death resulted from natural causes or another non-criminal circumstance, the findings should be communicated clearly and supported by medical or forensic evidence.
This is particularly important because unexplained deaths that are poorly investigated create fertile ground for speculation.
When authorities remain silent, delay investigations or fail to explain their findings, they leave an information vacuum that can easily be occupied by political narratives, rumours and conspiracy theories.
The answer, therefore, is neither to silence critics nor to tolerate reckless accusations. It is to strengthen institutions capable of establishing the truth.
The responsibility of political actors and security agencies
There is a need for political leaders, activists, opinion leaders and media practitioners to appreciate the consequences of spreading allegations that have not been independently verified.
Anyone who has credible information about a suspected murder should present it to the relevant authorities, preserve available evidence and demand an investigation.
Where individuals deliberately fabricate evidence or knowingly circulate false accusations that amount to criminal conduct, the law should take its course. However, investigations must distinguish between deliberate fabrication, mistaken information, legitimate criticism and good-faith demands for accountability.
Security agencies should similarly avoid treating political criticism as a security offence. Their responsibility is to investigate credible allegations of criminal conduct, not to protect public officials from scrutiny or intimidate people who question government.
The media also has a critical role. Journalists should resist the temptation to reproduce politically charged claims as facts simply because they are trending or have been made by prominent personalities. Every allegation should be attributed, verified and presented alongside responses from those implicated.
Finding solutions beyond political accusations
Uganda needs a more responsible approach to handling suspicious deaths.
First, police should strengthen their capacity to respond promptly to unexplained and suspicious deaths, working closely with qualified medical practitioners and forensic experts. Where necessary, postmortem examinations should be conducted before burial to preserve evidence and establish the cause of death.
Second, families should be properly guided on the importance of forensic examinations. Investigators should communicate with relatives respectfully, explain procedures and avoid unnecessary delays that could deepen their distress.
Third, findings from investigations should be communicated transparently. Where investigations take time, authorities should provide credible updates rather than leave families and the public to rely on speculation.
Fourth, political parties should establish internal standards requiring their leaders and supporters to verify serious allegations before presenting them publicly. Political competition should not become an excuse for manufacturing or spreading claims of murder.
Fifth, security agencies should investigate credible reports of deliberate misinformation, threats and incitement in accordance with the law, while protecting freedom of expression and the right to demand accountability.
Finally, civic education should emphasise the importance of evidence, responsible communication and peaceful political engagement. Social media users must understand that sharing an allegation does not make it true and that a false accusation can cause lasting harm.
The truth must come before politics
Ultimately, the question is not whether government should be questioned when a Ugandan dies under suspicious circumstances. It absolutely should be, where legitimate questions arise. The question is whether society can distinguish between demanding justice and exploiting tragedy for political advantage.
A dead person cannot defend their reputation, correct misinformation or explain the circumstances surrounding their final moments. That responsibility rests with the living.
We must therefore resist the temptation to turn every unexplained death into a political assassination before the facts are established. Equally, we must resist attempts to dismiss genuine concerns simply because they come from political opponents.
Uganda needs a culture in which evidence determines conclusions, not political loyalties; where investigations precede accusations; and where funerals remain occasions for mourning rather than battlegrounds for political hostility.
There is nothing wrong with demanding answers when someone dies under questionable circumstances. What is wrong is deciding who is responsible before establishing what happened.
Justice must be pursued, but it must be pursued through evidence, credible investigations and the rule of law.
Death should unite us in our shared humanity, not become another instrument for dividing an already politically polarised society.
By Ivan Kimbowa. Senior Journalist/Analyst
English 