It is interesting that during the attempted assassination of General Katumba Wamala, there was confusion around the role of the boda boda rider who helped get him to medical care.
The record actually distinguishes between the bodyguard, Sgt. Khalid Koboyoit, who evacuated Katumba from the scene, and Hakim Kasibante, the boda boda rider who took him to Malcolm Clinic for first aid. Katumba himself publicly thanked both men.
But what caught my attention was how quickly different people can begin attaching themselves to a dramatic event and positioning themselves as the person who saw, rescued, intervened or understood what happened.
That is the bigger question I am interested in. Because once several people begin supplying competing versions, the public is left with more narrative than evidence.
And then, as the investigation progresses, some of those early characters disappear from the evidentiary trail. Now look at the death of Moses Matovu.
We have different accounts about where he had been, who was with him, how the confrontation unfolded and who actually witnessed the decisive moment.
One account describes an eyewitness seeing an altercation; another describes the woman being involved and a man confronting Matovu; another local account described Matovu travelling with several people before dropping people off.
Police themselves have said the exact circumstances were still being established. So I keep coming back to the same uncomfortable question: when a high-profile incident happens, why do so many people suddenly emerge to become narrative anchors?
Is somebody deliberately planting these stories, or are individuals independently inserting themselves into the story because being close to a major event gives them recognition, status or credit?
I am not saying which explanation is true. I am saying that when testimony keeps multiplying while the underlying evidence remains unsettled, that contradiction itself deserves scrutiny.
Bukedde