A whistleblower has called on President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni to intervene in a growing leadership dispute at Exodus Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Limited (Exodus SACCO), alleging a plan to remove the institution’s current leaders through a proposed Special General Meeting.
In a report addressed to the President, the whistleblower raises concerns about alleged efforts to discredit senior officials and replace the existing leadership despite what the source describes as significant financial progress under their administration. The report urges Museveni to ensure that any leadership changes are conducted transparently, lawfully and in the best interests of the SACCO and its members.
Established on September 19, 2007, Exodus SACCO serves personnel and families of the Uganda Police Force (UPF). The institution is registered with the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives under registration number 8404/RCS and is headquartered at Uganda Police Headquarters in Naguru, Kampala. According to the report, the SACCO has more than 43,000 members and operates through over 13 branches across the country.
The institution is chaired by Senior Commissioner of Police (SCP) Dr. Omoding Wilson Otuna. However, the whistleblower alleges that several senior officials and management members are being targeted as part of efforts to change the current leadership through a Special General Meeting.
Those reportedly affected include SUPBO AIGP Namutebi Hadijah, Board Chairperson SCP Dr. Omoding Wilson Otuna, Treasurer SP Ssekanjako, Chief Executive Officer SP Ashaba Osbert, ASP Maale Arnold and other management officials.
The report further alleges that Inspector General of Police (IGP) SP Adilu, his personal assistant and ACP Emitu are involved in mobilising delegates ahead of the proposed meeting. According to the whistleblower, there are concerns that the gathering could be used to replace the current leadership with individuals favoured by those allegedly pushing for the changes.
However, the allegations have not been independently verified, and no responses from the individuals named in the report have been provided in the information available. The claims therefore remain allegations and require further investigation and clarification from all parties involved.
A major concern highlighted in the report is the SACCO’s reported financial performance under its current leadership. The whistleblower claims that the institution’s capital base has grown from approximately UGX 3 billion to UGX 104 billion, describing the increase as a significant achievement that should be considered in any assessment of the current administration.
The source argues that leadership decisions should take into account the institution’s performance, accountability and long-term interests. However, the reported financial figures would need to be independently confirmed through official financial records before they can be treated as established facts.
The whistleblower also raises concerns about the potential impact of the dispute on an agricultural production capitalisation programme previously supported by President Museveni. According to the report, prolonged disagreements within the SACCO could interfere with the implementation of the programme and disrupt other development initiatives intended to benefit members.
With more than 43,000 members reportedly relying on the institution, the source argues that the dispute goes beyond disagreements among individual officeholders. The whistleblower maintains that uncertainty over the SACCO’s governance could undermine members’ confidence and affect programmes designed to advance their financial and economic interests.
The report consequently appeals to Museveni to provide timely guidance and help prevent the alleged dispute from escalating. It calls for delegates to be allowed to make decisions freely, without improper influence or pressure, while any complaints against the current leadership are addressed through established institutional procedures.
Another key request is for the existing leadership to be allowed to complete its contractual tenure, provided it continues to meet the applicable legal, regulatory and governance requirements. The whistleblower argues that maintaining leadership stability would enable the SACCO to continue implementing its plans while ensuring that any legitimate concerns are handled through the appropriate channels.
The source further urges the relevant authorities to protect the agricultural production capitalisation programme and other development initiatives associated with the institution. According to the report, internal leadership disagreements should not be allowed to derail projects intended to strengthen the SACCO and improve the welfare of its members.
The whistleblower insists that transparency, accountability and respect for established procedures should guide any decisions concerning the institution’s leadership. The report argues that proposed changes must be supported by legitimate reasons rather than improper pressure or manipulation, while ensuring that all individuals mentioned in the allegations have an opportunity to respond.
The dispute has therefore raised broader questions about the SACCO’s governance, the circumstances surrounding the proposed Special General Meeting and the reported growth of its capital base. The whistleblower wants these issues examined alongside the possible implications for the institution’s members and ongoing development programmes.
The report concludes by urging President Museveni to intervene before the situation worsens and to ensure that any action taken follows established laws, regulations and institutional procedures. It maintains that protecting members’ interests, preserving accountability and ensuring the continuity of legitimate development initiatives should remain central to resolving the dispute.
The key issues awaiting clarification include whether the proposed Special General Meeting is intended to change the current leadership, whether the reported increase in capital from UGX 3 billion to UGX 104 billion can be independently verified, how the agricultural production capitalisation programme may be affected, and what the individuals named in the report have to say about the allegations.
