Wakilii

Uganda v Etuusa Lubega (HCT-00-ACD-SC 3 of 2017)

High Court · [2021] UGHCACD 6 · 2021 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial in the Anti-Corruption Division on four counts of abuse of office
Decision
Accused convicted on all four counts of abuse of office

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that a Deputy Academic Registrar at Makerere University who procured service providers for phone handling, food and drink vending, and flower vending services during a graduation ceremony without following the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act procedures committed abuse of office. The accused acted arbitrarily by awarding contracts outside the procurement process, bypassing the Ceremonies Committee and Contracts Committee, thereby prejudicing the University's interests through negative publicity and denial of value for money. Convictions entered on all four counts of abuse of office.

Outcome

Accused convicted on all four counts of abuse of office

Facts

The accused, Deputy Academic Registrar in charge of Ceremonies at Makerere University, was charged with four counts of abuse of office. In preparation for the 67th graduation ceremony in February 2017, the Ceremonies Committee resolved that phones and cameras were prohibited from the graduation ground and the University would not safeguard them. Despite this, during the ceremony it was discovered that phone handling services were being provided by M/s EXXON Contractors Ltd at a fee, and other service providers were offering food, drinks and flower vending services. The accused had issued award letters on University letterhead to these service providers (EXXON Contractors Ltd, JAALC Uganda Limited, Mirembe Juliet/EPRC Restaurant, and Milton Egayu) without following the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act procedures. The Contracts Committee, which is mandated to handle all procurements, was never involved. The University received negative publicity when the Sunday Monitor published a story criticizing the University for allegedly collecting money from graduands and parents. The accused claimed she was authorized by the security subcommittee to award the contracts.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused was employed in a public body.
  2. Whether the accused did or directed to be done arbitrary acts by procuring service providers in contravention of the PPDA Act.
  3. Whether the acts were prejudicial to the interests of her employer.
  4. Whether the accused abused the authority of her office.

Orders

  • Conviction entered on count one (abuse of office relating to phone handling services).
  • Conviction entered on count two (abuse of office relating to food/drink vending services by JAALC (U) Ltd).
  • Conviction entered on count three (abuse of office relating to food/drink vending services by Mirembe Juliet).
  • Conviction entered on count four (abuse of office relating to flower vending services by Milton Egayu).

Rules and key headnotes

Abuse of Office — Burden and Standard of Proof
In a prosecution for abuse of office, the state bears the burden of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and where any doubt exists in the prosecution case it must be resolved in favour of the accused.
Abuse of Office — Elements of the Offence
To establish abuse of office under the Anti-Corruption Act s.11(1), the prosecution must prove that: (1) the accused was employed in a public body; (2) she did or directed to be done an arbitrary act; (3) the act was prejudicial to the interests of her employer; and (4) she abused the authority of her office.
Public Procurement — Definition of Arbitrary Act
An arbitrary act within the meaning of the Anti-Corruption Act s.11(1) is an action, decision or rule not seeming to be based on reason, system or plan and at times seems unfair or breaks the law. The arbitrary act or omission must be done wilfully, that is, deliberately doing something which is wrong knowing it to be wrong or with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong or not, including doing things based on individual discretion rather than going by fixed rules, procedure or law.
Public Procurement — Procurement by Public Institutions
Procurement processes in public institutions must comply with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. Where a public officer awards contracts to service providers outside the procurement process by issuing letters of permission that trigger provision of services, such actions constitute procurement regardless of the procedure used, and amount to arbitrary acts in contravention of the PPDA Act.
Public Procurement — Role of Contracts Committee
Under the PPDA Act, the Contracts Committee is the body mandated to handle procurements on behalf of a public institution. It is not proper for a public institution employee to handle procurements in a personal capacity outside the laid out guidelines and procedures that a public institution must follow.
Abuse of Office — Mens Rea
Criminal intent (mens rea) for abuse of office may be inferred from conduct showing heightened interest in participating in an irregular process, secretive actions in issuing impugned letters without involving relevant committees or informing superiors, and awareness of prohibitions and guidelines that the actions contravened.
Abuse of Office — Prejudice to Employer's Interests
Acts are prejudicial to the interests of a public employer where they result in negative publicity portraying the institution as disorganized, deny the institution value for money through lack of competitive procurement, and prevent due diligence such that the extent of financial loss or value for money cannot be determined.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kiraga v Uganda (HCB 305 of 1976)
  • Uganda v Atugonza (ACD CR CS No. 37 of 2010)
  • Uganda v Kazinda (ACD CR CS No. 138 of 2010)
  • Ignatius Barungi v Uganda (HCB 68 of 1988-1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Uganda v Etuusa Lubega (HCT-00-ACD-SC 3 of 2017) [2021] UGHCACD 6 (25 August 2021)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.