By Spy Uganda
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Lino Anguzu, has discontinued criminal proceedings against three ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) legislators accused of soliciting bribes, a move that has reignited a national debate over selective justice and the credibility of Uganda’s anti-corruption campaign.
The withdrawal, effected through a nolle prosequi filed on January 6, 2026, abruptly ended the prosecution of Yusuf Mutembuli (Bunyole East), Paul Akamba (Busiki County), and Cissy Namujju (Lwengo Woman MP) before the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court. Akamba, however, remains before court on unrelated charges.
The lawmakers were implicated in a 2024 scandal in which they allegedly demanded a 20 percent kickback from the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) budget in exchange for influencing parliamentary allocations. UHRC Chairperson Mariam Wangadya had been listed as a key prosecution witness and cited audio recordings said to capture the alleged solicitation.
The decision has drawn sharp condemnation from the Uganda Law Society (ULS), which described the unexplained withdrawal as unconstitutional and damaging to public trust in the justice system.
In a strongly worded statement issued on January 7, ULS Vice President Anthony Asiimwe warned that the DPP’s discretionary powers must not become “a veil for impunity.”
“When credible evidence exists, the public deserves transparency,” Asiimwe said. “The authority to halt prosecutions should never serve as an escape route for politically influential individuals. Ugandans will not accept shadows where accountability is due.”
Asiimwe contrasted the decision with what he described as the harsh treatment of civil society actors, citing cases in which anti-corruption activists, including Sarah Bireete, have faced charges such as public nuisance and inciting violence for protesting graft.
“This double standard entrenches a dangerous perception that justice is deployed against dissenters while shielding the politically connected,” he added.
Article 120(3)(d) of the 1995 Constitution empowers the DPP to discontinue criminal proceedings at any stage before judgment. However, Article 120(5) requires such decisions to be guided by public interest, the interests of justice, and the need to prevent abuse of legal process. Article 17(1)(a) further obliges all citizens and public officials to combat corruption.
Legal analysts note that a nolle prosequi does not amount to an acquittal and allows for re-arrest should new evidence emerge. Critics, however, argue that its opaque use in politically sensitive cases fuels public cynicism and weakens deterrence.
The withdrawal adds to a growing list of high-profile corruption cases that have collapsed in recent years, including charges against former Finance State Minister Amos Lugoloobi over the 2023 iron sheets diversion, which were dropped in November 2025.
Uganda’s struggle with corruption dates back to independence but intensified under successive administrations. Although President Yoweri Museveni’s government came to power in 1986 pledging to eradicate graft under its Ten-Point Programme, major scandals, from the 2007 CHOGM funds misuse to defence procurement controversies, have persisted.
Transparency International currently ranks Uganda 141st out of 180 countries on its Corruption Perceptions Index, with billions of shillings in public funds estimated to be lost annually, often through patronage-linked networks.
Timothy Chemonges, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Analysis, acknowledged the DPP’s constitutional discretion but warned of its effect on public confidence.
“Whether legally defensible or not, repeated withdrawals involving powerful figures leave citizens deeply frustrated,” Chemonges said. “Without explanations, it signals unequal justice. The fight against corruption is not over, but public faith is dangerously eroding.”
Others have defended the DPP’s decision, arguing that insufficient evidence may have rendered prosecution untenable and that abandoning weak cases preserves prosecutorial integrity.
The DPP’s office has yet to formally respond to ULS demands for an explanation, though sources suggest evidentiary gaps may have informed the decision, a recurring challenge in complex corruption cases.
As Uganda grapples with economic pressures and an intensifying electoral season, the episode highlights a familiar tension between prosecutorial independence and public accountability—one that, if left unresolved, risks entrenching corruption as a normalized feature of governance.
