Social media was set abuzz after Miss Uganda 2024/25, Natasha Nyonyozi, visited the Kiteezi Landfill dressed in all her pageantry regalia, complete with her crown. Many people debated the appropriateness of her outfit as the visit was intended to relate to and offer support to the victims of the harsh conditions in the landfill.
In the course of the visit, Nyonyozi was in the company of Brenda Nanyonjo, the Chief Executive Officer for the Miss Uganda beauty pageant, and other staff. The team, through a representative, shared condolences but promised foodstuff and other materialistic amenities to support life among the victims.
On behalf of the group, Nyonyozi assured the victims of their services toward their continued and improved livelihood as much as possible.
We have indeed reached out to the victims to sympathize with them and help in any possible gestures that we can. I want to thank the Red Cross and the Miss Uganda for the help given in kind terms of food and other amenities,
she said
She thus urged others of goodwill to contribute:
I want to urge all those who can help to reach out and do so. We are also talking to all our sponsors to see that they help the victims. Most of all, don’t forget to pray for these people.
However, good-intentioned as it may have been, the ultimate choice of wearing the crown and gown during the trip has shifted attention away from Nyonyozi’s actions to the attire, thus getting bashed across social media. The skeptics, therefore, wondered if it was too much of an overdress for the moment and actually went further to even insinuate that it would be received as a marketing gimmick for her music brand rather than a genuine act of showing concern.
On the flip side, others were out to defend Nyonyozi, saying that people had to look at the positive side of the visit rather than her outfit. They angled in the point that, other than the awareness created by her visit and calls on others for help, the focus should be turned to the message of support and aid from the attire she was putting on.
The debate unfolds, pointing to the very layers of public perception—intention vs. interpretation in these public acts of charity.
