Inside The Masaka Bijambiya: UPDF’s Lt. Mabonga Names Nyonga Tony In Shocking New Allegations, Ssegirinya And Ssewanyana Were Framed

New claims have reignited controversy surrounding the deadly Bijaambiya attacks in the greater Masaka region after Lt. Matanda Mabonga publicly made allegations about individuals he believes were involved in the killings.

In a video that has circulated online, Mabonga reportedly mentioned Nyonga Tony as one of the individuals allegedly connected to the attacks. He further claimed that elements within the government may have had a hand in the violence, introducing a new dimension to a case that has remained controversial for years.

However, the claims have not been independently verified, and no publicly available evidence has so far established the alleged involvement of the named individual or government operatives.

The Bijaambiya killings involved a series of brutal attacks that left several people dead across Masaka and neighbouring areas, triggering widespread fear among residents and placing security agencies under intense public scrutiny.

The case attracted even greater political attention following the arrest of two opposition legislators, Muhammad Ssegirinya, then Kawempe North MP, and Allan Ssewanyana, who represented Makindye West.

The lawmakers were arrested in September 2021 over alleged links to murders associated with the Masaka violence. They remained in detention for nearly two years while facing criminal charges, which they denied.

Their prosecution generated heated debate across the country, with opposition leaders, human rights defenders and other critics questioning the investigations, the evidence presented and the lengthy period the legislators spent behind bars.

Ssegirinya, popularly known as Mr Updates, later died in January 2025 following a prolonged period of illness, bringing renewed attention to the legal and political battles he had faced.

Mabonga’s latest remarks could once again place the Bijaambiya investigations under the spotlight, particularly regarding whether investigators pursued all possible leads and examined alternative explanations for the attacks.

His claims also raise questions about the identities of those responsible for the killings and whether individuals beyond those initially prosecuted were ever seriously investigated.

Nevertheless, the allegations remain claims and should not be interpreted as established facts without independent verification and supporting evidence.

The renewed controversy is likely to intensify calls for a transparent review of the Bijaambiya case, with victims’ families and concerned Ugandans continuing to demand accountability and answers about the killings.