When One Woman Is Used to Silence Many.

By Dr Sarah Bireete 

In recent debates on leadership and accountability, male chauvinists have increasingly weaponised the case of Anita Among to discredit women in leadership as a whole. Instead of interrogating individual conduct on its own merits, they present her example as “proof” that women are unfit to lead. This line of argument is not only dishonest; it is deeply patriarchal. Men accused or convicted of wrongdoing are rarely used to indict all men, yet when a woman falters, her gender is put on trial.

The principle of gender parity in parliamentary leadership and the cabinet is grounded in equality, justice, and representation. It recognises that women make up more than half of the population and therefore deserve fair and meaningful participation in decision-making spaces; committee leadership, speakership positions, and senior ministerial roles. Gender parity is not about tokenism or immunity from scrutiny; it is about equal opportunity, equal responsibility, and equal accountability.

Crucially, criminal or unethical conduct is individual, not biological. The law does not recognise guilt by gender. Accountability must attach to the person who commits an offence, not to women as a class. To argue otherwise is to abandon justice and embrace prejudice. If integrity is the standard, and it must be, then it should apply uniformly to men and women alike, without chauvinistic shortcuts that seek to roll back hard-won gains for women’s leadership.

Using one woman’s alleged failures to undermine gender equality is not accountability; it is backlash. True reform demands that we challenge wrongdoing while defending the principle that women belong in leadership, on merit, in parity, and without prejudice.

For God and My Country