Following revelations about his contentious role in a Shs 28.8 billion land compensation deal, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka is embroiled in a complex ethical and legal situation.
The controversy centers on a recent agreement between the government and the Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL) to compensate eight individuals whose land was requisitioned for the construction of a 132 kilovolt (KV) transmission line from Namanve to Luzira. It is reported that Shs 8 billion has already been disbursed to these claimants.
Kiryowa Kiwanuka, in his capacity as attorney general, is facing allegations of conflict of interest, breach of fiduciary responsibility, and violations of anti-corruption laws. These accusations stem from the fact that his law firm, K&K Advocates, also serves as the external legal representative for UETCL.
Kiwanuka played a key role in the negotiations that led to the agreement and the subsequent disbursement of funds. The deal was brought into the spotlight in 2022 by Lands state minister Sam Mayanja, who accused the claimants of potential fraud. Mayanja alleged that the claimants, some of whom were purportedly given title deeds in wetlands along the proposed transmission line route, may be engaged in fraudulent activities.
It has come to light that the eight land titles involved in the compensation case were acquired in 2014, despite the area having been designated as a wetland as early as 1995 and 1998. The ministry of Lands had warned UETCL about these irregularities in a letter dated February 8, 2017, advising against proceeding with the compensation. Despite these warnings, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka approved a consent judgment authorizing the payment.
The controversy primarily revolves around Kiryowa’s dual involvement in signing the consent judgment—first in his official capacity and then through his private law firm, K&K Advocates. This dual role has raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
In response to inquiries about the deal, Kiryowa took to social media under the hashtag #AskAG. He asserted that there was no conflict of interest, emphasizing that the legal process is transparent, and decisions are made based on legal arguments. He argued that any interest disclosed does not imply a conflict as long as proper procedures are followed.
However, legal experts have pointed out potential violations of legal standards. Phillip Karugaba highlighted that mere disclosure of interest is insufficient. According to Section 13(3)(b) of the Leadership Code Act, Kiryowa should have refrained from further involvement in the matter once his personal interest was declared.
Isaac Semakadde, a human rights lawyer, criticized Kiryowa for conducting the consent meeting through his private firm, suggesting that the attorney general’s office should have verified the authenticity of the parties involved rather than endorsing the consent form.
DOGGED OFFICE
The issue surrounding Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka casts a shadow over his tenure, echoing the controversies faced by his predecessors. In 2001, Joseph Ekemu, who served as attorney general at the time, was charged with embezzling Shs 30 million in interest funds from the ministry of Justice.
Similarly, in 2009, Attorney General Kidhu Makubuya resigned, following allegations of misconduct related to a compensation case involving businessman Hassan Basajjabalaba. Makubuya was implicated in a scandal where Basajjabalaba received billions of shillings in market compensations under questionable circumstances.