By Spy Uganda
A senior judge of Uganda’s Anti-Corruption Court has issued a stark warning that the country’s fight against graft is being weakened by outdated and lenient penalties, calling on Parliament to urgently reform the law.
Delivering her ruling in the case against former State Minister for Karamoja Affairs Agnes Nandutu, Justice Jane Okuo Kajuga said the current fines under the Anti-Corruption Act Uganda are too low to deter modern corruption—especially among senior public officials.
Under Section 21(1) of the law, a person convicted of corruption faces a maximum fine of just UGX 3.2 million, seven years in prison, or both.
“By all standards, that amount is inadequate,” Justice Kajuga ruled, emphasizing that such penalties no longer reflect the scale or impact of corruption in today’s public sector.
Her remarks came as she rejected a request by Nandutu’s defence team for a non-custodial sentence. The lawyers had asked the court to impose a fine instead of imprisonment, but the judge dismissed the proposal, warning that financial penalties alone are too weak to deliver justice.
“It may be useful for the legislature to reconsider the ranges of fines prescribed in the law. They are so low that a sole fine cannot reflect the gravity of the offence,” she stated.
Justice Kajuga stressed that sentencing must be both “rational and justifiable,” aligning punishment with the seriousness of the offence and its wider consequences on society.
The ruling adds momentum to long-standing concerns from anti-corruption bodies and civil society groups that Uganda’s legal framework has not kept pace with inflation, growing public expenditure, and increasingly sophisticated corruption schemes.
Legal analysts argue that the current fines are negligible compared to the value of resources lost in major scandals—effectively weakening their deterrent effect.
In court, Nandutu’s lawyers had also raised concerns about selective prosecution, noting that more than 190 officials allegedly received iron sheets under the Karamoja programme but were not charged. However, Justice Kajuga declined to address that claim.
“The duty of this court is to adjudicate on the evidence before it,” she said, adding that it could not speculate on prosecutorial decisions.
In her findings, the judge pointed to evidence that the diversion of iron sheets meant for vulnerable communities in Karamoja was deliberate and coordinated.
She noted that Nandutu personally received 2,000 out of the 9,000 iron sheets, describing the distribution as part of a “structured and deliberate scheme designed to avoid scrutiny.”
The scandal—linked to relief items intended for the Karamoja sub-region—sparked national outrage and renewed scrutiny over the management of public resources.
Uganda’s anti-corruption regime, anchored in laws such as the Anti-Corruption Act and enforced by institutions like the Inspectorate of Government and the Anti-Corruption Court, is designed to promote accountability. However, Justice Kajuga’s remarks have reignited debate over whether existing penalties are still fit for purpose.
Her call now puts pressure on Parliament to review and strengthen sentencing provisions—particularly fines—to match the scale of corruption in Uganda today.
As high-profile graft cases continue to emerge, the message from the bench is increasingly clear: without tougher penalties, the fight against corruption risks losing its bite.
