As Uganda faces serious economic challenges, the response to the small number of monkeypox (Mpox) cases has come under scrutiny. Health Minister Dr. Jane Ruth Aceng is being accused of using this small outbreak to gain political mileage and attract donor funding, similar to her strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2022 Ebola crisis. Critics allege that part of the funding she garners is diverted for personal political gain, particularly in her bid to retain her seat as Woman MP for Lira City.
The Uganda Virus Research Institute first confirmed two Mpox cases in Kasese District in July 2024, followed by eight more cases in subsequent weeks. Despite the relatively low numbers, Dr. Aceng has activated the Incident Management System, a full-scale emergency response. This approach has drawn criticism for being excessive, especially when compared to other nations dealing with Mpox outbreaks. Notably, countries in Europe and the United States are also dealing with cases of Mpox, but their communication and public relations strategies have been much more measured. While these countries efficiently manage the health threat, they avoid creating widespread panic, protecting their economies and tourism sectors.
In contrast, Uganda’s response has drawn international attention, leading countries like France to issue travel advisories. This has resulted in a wave of tourist cancellations during peak season, severely affecting Uganda’s tourism sector. Meanwhile, neighboring countries like Rwanda, Kenya, and Tanzania, which have reported more Mpox cases, have maintained calm, focusing on public education and effective disease management without causing alarm.
This aggressive public response has raised questions about the minister’s motives. Uganda’s economy is already fragile, ranked 33rd out of 47 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the government is struggling to pay salaries, maintain essential services, and fund key infrastructure projects. Critics argue that Dr. Aceng is leveraging the Mpox situation to attract donor funding from international development partners. While health sector funds are needed, accusations have surfaced that some of the funds are being diverted to support her political campaign.
The real issue, critics claim, is not the health crisis itself but how it is being communicated. Uganda’s economy is too fragile to handle the repercussions of exaggerated health alerts, especially in the tourism industry, which is a major revenue source. Unlike Europe and America, which have managed their Mpox outbreaks without instigating fear, Uganda’s messaging has caused unnecessary panic. Dr. Aceng’s strategy, many argue, is more about enhancing her public profile and securing financial gain than it is about addressing the real issue.
While no one denies the seriousness of public health threats, the need for calm, responsible communication is critical to avoid harming Uganda’s reputation and economic stability. The focus should be on effective disease control, transparent public education, and rebuilding confidence in Uganda’s ability to manage health crises without turning them into political or financial opportunities for individual gain.
