Politics 8 June 2026 Daily Monitor (Uganda)
Court Tosses Beti Kamya's Defamation Suit Against Miria Matembe
The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a defamation case brought by former IGG Beti Kamya against ex-Minister Miria Matembe, ruling that Matembe's critical remarks were protected political commentary. Source: https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/court-dismisses-beti-kamya-s-defamation-suit-against-miria-matembe-5488874
A Kampala High Court has thrown out a defamation lawsuit filed by former Inspector General of Government (IGG), Beti Olive Kamya, against ex-Ethics Minister Miria Matembe. The court ruled that statements made by Matembe, describing Kamya as a “political prostitute,” constituted protected political commentary rather than actionable defamation.
Justice Bonny Isaac Teko, presiding over the Civil Division, stated that the phrase, within the context of political discourse, refers to opportunism, ideological inconsistency, or frequent party switching for personal gain. The court noted that Matembe had provided evidence of Kamya’s shifting political affiliations and past criticisms of the current government before joining it.
Kamya had sued Matembe in 2022, alleging that public statements made on television in 2021 had damaged her reputation, portraying her as dishonest, corrupt, and unfit for public office. She sought various declarations, an injunction, an apology, and damages.
Matembe, however, defended her statements as fair political comment on matters of public interest concerning a public official’s conduct, protected under Article 29 of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression. The court agreed that an ordinary viewer would interpret the phrase as criticism of political opportunism, not a literal allegation.
Furthermore, the court found that Kamya failed to prove substantial damage to her reputation. While she testified about receiving concerned calls, she did not present independent witnesses to substantiate reputational harm.
The judge emphasized that courts should be wary of converting political disagreements into defamation claims, noting that while the criticism was harsh and potentially offensive, offensiveness alone does not establish liability. Issues of integrity and suitability for constitutional office are subjects where differing opinions are legitimate.
In dismissing the suit, Justice Teko concluded that the statements were substantially protected political commentary and expressions of opinion on matters of public interest. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs due to the public interest and constitutional implications of the case.