Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka is at the center of a major legal and ethical controversy following revelations of his dual role in a Shs28.8 billion land compensation deal. The scandal, which has sparked public outrage and raised questions about conflict of interest, revolves around the Attorney General’s decision to sign a consent judgment both in his official capacity and through his private law firm, K&K Advocates.
The case has drawn intense public scrutiny, with allegations of conflict of interest, breach of fiduciary duty, and potential violations of anti-corruption laws. The controversy came to light after an explosive exchange on X (formerly Twitter) on July 18, during which journalist and legal activist Agatha Atuhaire questioned Kiwanuka under the hashtag #AskTheAG. Atuhaire’s inquiries revealed that the land titles involved in the compensation were issued in 2014, despite the land being classified as a wetland in 1995 and 1998.
The Ministry of Lands had previously advised the Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL) against compensating for the land in question, citing its illegal status in a letter dated February 8, 2017. Despite this, the Attorney General approved a consent judgment authorizing the payout.
At the heart of the scandal is Kiwanuka’s decision to sign the consent judgment twice—once in his official role as Attorney General and again through K&K Advocates. Legal experts have raised concerns that this action may violate Section 10 of the Anti-Corruption Act, which criminalizes abuse of office. The Act stipulates that any public officer who acts arbitrarily or prejudicially against the interests of the government or another person, thereby abusing the authority of their office, commits an offense punishable by up to seven years in prison, a fine, or both.
Additionally, Kiwanuka’s involvement in the Shs28.8 billion deal could be seen as a breach of Section 19(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, which prohibits actions that knowingly cause financial loss to the government or any public body. The penalties for such violations are severe, carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment or a substantial fine.
The scandal casts a shadow over Kiwanuka’s tenure as Attorney General, bringing to mind the legal troubles of his predecessors. Comparisons are being drawn to the prosecution of former Attorney General Joseph Ekemu, who faced charges for misappropriating funds, and the resignation of Kiddhu Makubuya in 2009 over a controversial compensation case.
In Kiwanuka’s case, the stakes are particularly high, given his role in revising the Leadership Code, which explicitly bars top government officials from engaging in business activities that could lead to conflicts of interest. Article 113(4) of the Constitution emphasizes the ethical obligations of Cabinet ministers, particularly the avoidance of conflicts that could compromise their duties. By involving his private law firm in the Shs28.8 billion deal, Kiwanuka appears to have flouted these guidelines, placing himself in a precarious legal and ethical position.
The consent judgment, signed by multiple representatives including the Court Registrar, UETCL, and Magna Advocates, has become a focal point of suspicion. The involvement of unnamed company officials and holders of powers of attorney further complicates the narrative and raises concerns about the transparency of the process.
As the scandal unfolds, Kiwanuka is facing mounting pressure from the public and legal community. The once-untouchable Attorney General now finds himself under intense scrutiny, with the laws he is sworn to uphold seemingly closing in on him. Whether this case will lead to his downfall or a legal battle in court remains to be seen. Attempts by the media to reach out to Kiwanuka have so far been unsuccessful, as he has not responded to calls or inquiries.
The case has also drawn criticism from legal watchdogs, with Isaac Ssemakadde, Executive Director of Legal Brains Trust, highlighting the ethical concerns raised by Kiwanuka’s continued association with his private law firm. Ssemakadde noted that the Attorney General’s actions undermine public trust in the office and the rule of law, stating, “By trying to straddle both roles, the Attorney General risks scattering the very principles of justice he is sworn to uphold.”
