The announcement by Minister Balaam Barugahara that samples in the late Paul Kafeero paternity dispute may be sent to South Africa or the United Kingdom for confirmatory DNA testing has reignited an already emotional public conversation.
Everyone is entitled to seek a second opinion, particularly in a matter as personal and consequential as determining biological parentage. If obtaining an independent test offers reassurance to those directly affected, that is entirely understandable.
However, beyond the family dispute lies a much bigger national question.
What precedent are we setting for Uganda’s scientific institutions?
The DNA analyses that have so far informed this matter were conducted by the Uganda Police Forensic Services and the Directorate of Government Analytical Laboratory (DGAL). These are not private laboratories operating without oversight. They are state institutions established, funded and mandated to undertake forensic investigations on behalf of the country.
If every time their findings are challenged the immediate response is to seek confirmation abroad, what message does that send about the confidence we have in the very institutions we have spent years building?
Strong institutions are not built only when they produce outcomes that everyone likes. They are built by trusting established scientific processes, demanding transparency where questions arise and continuously improving their capacity. If flaws exist, they should be identified through professional peer review, quality assurance mechanisms and, where appropriate, judicial scrutiny, not by creating the impression that a scientific conclusion only becomes credible once it carries a foreign stamp.
The Kafeero matter also deserves to be viewed in its full context.
DNA remains the internationally accepted scientific standard for establishing biological parentage, and nothing should replace that. Yet this case has never existed in a vacuum. During his lifetime, Paul Kafeero publicly acknowledged some of his children in his music. Family members and individuals close to him have, over the years, consistently spoken about aspects of his family life that have remained largely outside the public domain. While such evidence cannot substitute for forensic science, it forms part of the broader narrative surrounding the dispute and, in some respects, aligns with the scientific findings already presented.
This is why the conversation should not simply be about whether another laboratory can repeat the tests. It should also be about how Uganda strengthens confidence in its own forensic systems.
Today it is the Kafeero case. Tomorrow it could be a murder investigation, a land dispute, an election petition or any other matter where forensic evidence becomes central. Will every disputed result now require confirmation in South Africa, the United Kingdom or elsewhere before Ugandans are willing to accept it?
That is not a sustainable path for any country seeking to build resilient institutions.
Confidence in national systems cannot be outsourced. It must be cultivated through investment, accountability, transparency and consistent professional standards. Where legitimate concerns exist, they should be addressed openly through established scientific and legal processes.
As Uganda continues investing in modern forensic science, this moment should challenge us to strengthen our institutions, not inadvertently diminish them.
The Kafeero case may be about one family, but the questions it raises are about the future credibility of our national institutions.
The writer is a Ugandan Journalist, PR & Communication Practitioner whose work spotlights the intersections of Policy & Culture
Don’t want to miss out on any story? For updates on all Sqoop stories, follow this link on Telegram: https://t.me/Sqoop