The Uganda Law Society has strongly condemned the decisions by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Lino Anguzu’s to withdraw corruption charges against NRM MPS, Yusuf Mutembuli, Paul Akamba, and Cissy Namujju without public explanation to the public.
Anguzu, who is barely two months in office, on Tuesday wrote to the registrar of the High Court notifying the office that the Government of Uganda intended that the proceedings against Yusuf Mutembuli, Akamba Paul, and Cissy Namujju, charged with corruption under section 26 of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009 (as amended), shall not continue.
The charges against the three MPS arose from allegations of corruption involving an alleged demand for 20% kickback from the budget of the Uganda Human Rights Commission to influence parliamentary budget decision or what the then furious President Museveni described as budget corruption.
The DPP in November withdrew charges against State Minister for Finance Amos Lugolobi, letting him off the hook in the controversial OPM Karamoja iron sheet scandal. The court had found that Amos Lugolobi had a case to answer in relation to the iron sheet scandal.
The most recent withdrawal of charges against the legislators, together with the past ones, has attracted mixed public reaction, especially since the beneficiaries are members of the ruling party.
Uganda Law Society Vice President, Asiimwe Anthony, in a press statement on Wednesday, said the withdrawal of charges is particularly alarming given that the chairperson of the Commission, Mariam Wangadya, previously testified in court as a prosecution witness and indicated the existence of audio recordings allegedly capturing the solicitation of the bribe by the accused MPS.
Asiimwe notes that while the DPP is empowered under Article 120(3) (d) of the constitution to discontinue proceedings, that power must be exercised in the public interest. And in the interest of Justice as required by Article 120(5).
The unexplained withdrawal of a serious corruption case violates the constitutional duty to combat corruption under Article 17(1)(a), Asiimwe said in a statement.
The Uganda Law Society said it decries what it described as double standards in the administration of justice.
In 2022, the then DPP, Jane Frances Abodo, withdrew corruption charges against businessman Basjjabalaba, which included forgery of a judicial document, uttering false documents, and conspiracy to defeat tax law.
The withdrawal was justified on the basis that investigations were ongoing and the matter would be reinstated. Four years later, no charges have been reinstated, and there is no indication to do so. Basajjabalaba is the current chairperson of the NRM Entrepreneur League,” said Asiimwe.
Asiimwe said that, in contrast, citizens and activists who speak against corruption and demand accountability, such as Dr Sarah Bireete, continue to face baseless charges, including public nuisance, unlawful assembly, inciting violence, and related offences, resulting in punitive, harsh sentences.
“The recurring pattern fuels a legitimate and unavoidable public perception of selective justice, where members of the NRM are insulated from accountability, while the law is weaponised against opposition and civil society activists who demand integrity in public service,” he said.
Asiimwe urged that the DPP’s power to withdraw charges must never be used as a shield for impunity, nor as a political escape route in cases involving powerful actors.
“Where credible and evidentiary material exists, the public is entitled to transparency and accountability.”Asiimwe went to demand what he described as a clear, public, and reasoned explanation from the office of the DPPP for the withdrawal of the charges.
“The people of Uganda are entitled to answers, and the people of Uganda are entitled to answers, and the State must be accountable,” he demanded.
The DPP, Lino Anguzu, could not be reached to comment on the statement by the Uganda Law Society.
In the Lugolobi case, Anguzu, in December 2025, stated that he was not the DPP when the charges were withdrawn.
“I don’t have any facts on that case, so I can not explain why the prosecution was terminated. But I can explain that the decision to terminate prosecution in the office of the DPP is not taken lightly. I can assure you that for every case where charges are withdrawn, or prosecution is terminated after it has commenced, there are a minimum of three or four levels of review of the case to convince the DPP that this case is not worthy to remain in the system,” said Anguzu while being hosted on an X space hosted by Lawyer, Elision Karuhanga.
“I actually thought that you would be very happy with us that we are assisting in the backlog of cases in our system by dropping some of those cases. We can understand that it is one of the public interest cases. I’m sure that my predecessor had very good reasons backed by elaborate legal opinions written by the very senior, from the lowest to the very senior officers of the DPP, advising the director of public prosecution to withdraw or drop the case,” said Anguzu while referring to the Amos Lugolobi case.
Having served in the DPP’s office for a long time, Anguzu explained that cases may be terminated or withdrawn because of a change of circumstance.
“A lot of the time, by the time you go to court, you believe in your case based on the evidence that you have in your possession from the police. You may have one or two pieces of evidence. And sometimes, the case develops, and you start doubting your evidence. Through cross-examination, you find a lot of evidence in your case. Some of your strongest evidence, you find that it is no longer holding. You really have to make a judgment call sometimes, it is all about this whole thing you call justice, if you see that the case has no future, why do you insist?” he explained.
As he assumed office, he had promised to close the taps related to premature sanctioning of files for prosecution.
“Because when you turn the taps, the message I’m taking to the police and my officers is close the taps. Only sanction cases are deserving of trial, and for the court.”He promised that any case not well investigated by the police will not be taken to court for trial.
“Any case not well investigated will not be taken to court. I want to close the taps first. Because when you close the taps, you close the inflow an then you can deal with what is inside,” he pledged.
Anguzu promised to ensure that his prosecutors are guided by the decision to charge guidelines by the decision to charges guidelines. The guidelines provide that the decision to charge should be based on an evidentiary test and the public interest test.
“So, before you sanction the charge, it must pass the evidentiary test. That means that the evidence must be credible and it must be admissible. If that is passed, there is the public interest test. If that is passed, there evidence? Is it worth putting all state resources? Is this really a case that must occupy the magistrate for two weeks?” he asked.
He promised that all undeserving cases that are in the system will be ended. “I met all the regional prosecutors, and I asked them t review all the cases in their possession. I have asked them to review the capital offence cases.” But there is concern that some undeserving cases are ending up in the courts under his watch.
