Category: Daily Monitor

A tax dispute between Continental Tobacco Uganda and Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) has laid bare tensions between negotiated tax settlements and continued enforcement action, with a case before the Tax Appeals Tribunal revealing contradictions in the handling of a multi-billion shilling assessment. The dispute, according to documents before the Tribunal originated from an initial tax liability exceeding Shs10b.

Tribunal records show that Continental Tobacco had been assessed Shs2.2b in Value Added Tax (VAT) and Shs7.89b in Income Tax, forming the basis of URA’s enforcement actions. However, the dispute took a significant turn on January 30, 2026, when both parties entered into an Alternative Dispute Resolution agreement executed by the URA Commissioner Legal Services, which substantially altered the company’s tax position.

Under the settlement, the VAT liability of Shs2.2b, documents show, was vacated to nil, while the income tax assessment was revised from Shs7.89b to Shs2.14b. Despite the revised obligations, Continental Tobacco argues that URA continued to enforce recovery measures that were premised on the original, higher assessments. According to filings before Tribunal, these actions included the issuance of agency notices to banks, sealing of business premises, and placement of caveats on properties belonging to the company and its directors. The company contends that these enforcement measures remained in place even after the Alternative Dispute Resolution agreement had redefined its tax liabilities, raising questions about the legal effect of such settlements within the tax administration framework.

Under the Tax Procedures Code and Alternative Dispute Resolution Regulations, a settlement agreement is recognised as binding and enforceable. Continental Tobacco argued that once the January 2026 agreement was concluded, URA was obligated to adjust its enforcement actions in line with the revised figures, including lifting restrictions tied to the initial assessments. URA, however, defended its actions by pointing to new information that allegedly undermined the the settlement.

Tribunal records indicate that URA informed Continental Tobacco that it had received intelligence suggesting that the Alternative Dispute Resolution agreement may have been concluded based on misleading disclosures. In particular, URA claimed that Continental Tobacco disclosed only one bank account held at KCB Bank, while allegedly maintaining additional accounts in Centenary Bank and Stanbic Bank that were not revealed during the Alternative Dispute Resolution process.

Following these findings, URA initiated further investigations and, in April 2026, formally notified Continental Tobacco while requesting additional documentation covering a review period from 2014 to 2022. The move reopened scrutiny of the company’s tax affairs, signalling URA’s position that settlement agreements may be revisited where fraud or misrepresentation is suspected. The dispute, however, presented a series of legal questions for determination, key among which included whether the Alternative Dispute Resolution agreement remained valid and binding, and whether URA’s continued enforcement actions, despite the revised tax figures, were lawful.

Continental Tobacco argued that allegations of fraud had to meet a high evidentiary threshold, insisting that such claims could not be presumed and must be pleaded and proven. The company further contended that URA lacked the statutory authority to unilaterally revoke or disregard a concluded settlement agreement, describing the continued enforcement as an abuse of process. Continental Tobacco also maintained that the persistence of enforcement actions, such as business closures, despite compliance with the revised obligations, amounted to a breach of its rights to fair hearing.

Tribunal settles the dispute

In its ruling, the Tax Appeals Tribunal found URA’s actions unlawful and upheld the integrity of the settlement agreement, affirming that the Alternative Dispute Resolution was valid, binding and enforceable, and ruled that the revocation letter issued on May 26, 2026 was null and void. It further held that the continued sealing of the company’s premises and the maintenance of caveats were unlawful, ordering URA to immediately unseal the business premises and directed URA to remove and vacate all caveats, effectively restoring the company’s control over its properties.

In addition, the Tribunal issued a permanent injunction restraining URA from taking any further enforcement action in respect of the liabilities covered under the settlement agreement, unless the agreement is set aside by a competent court or the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal also awarded the company general damages of Shs50m with interest at 6 percent per annum until payment in full, and granted costs of the application to Continental Tobacco. URA is also expected to submit a report to the Tribunal by August 15, 2026, detailing the execution of the orders, but in the event that it wishes to challenge the settlement agreement, it must formally apply to the Tribunal, where the matter would be considered in accordance with the law.

The court in Kamuli District has handed a five-year jail term and ordered John Isabirye, 45, to pay Shs8m for the theft of three cows belonging to Mr John Mitala, a livestock farmer in Bugeywa Parish, Butansi Sub-County.

Chief Magistrate Paul Owino Abdnoson of Kamuli Magistrate’s Court found Isabirye guilty of the 2025 offence during the ruling issued on Wednesday.

He said the jail term was a deterrent measure to all would-be cattle thieves, while the money was meant to compensate the complainant for financial loss incurred.

“I have considered the circumstances of this offence. Cattle theft has become rampant, affecting household incomes and livelihoods. I hope this sentence will deter would-be offenders,” Mr Owino said.

“Every person has the right to own property, either individually or as a member of a community. It is the duty of the State to protect that right. I am confident that this judgment will contribute to changing attitudes in society and discourage cattle theft,” Mr Owino added.

John Mitala, the owner of the stolen cattle and a resident of Bugeywa Parish, welcomed the court’s ruling, saying it would bring relief to livestock farmers affected by cattle theft.

“It was indeed a just ruling, considering the number of cattle we have lost to thieves. I hope other magistrates will take a similar stand in the fight against this vice,” Mitala said.

The prosecution, led by Charles Akol, told the court that on February 19, 2025, the convict stole three cattle belonging to John Mitala and slaughtered one of them, which was pregnant.

Law enforcement agencies in the Busoga Sub-region have intensified efforts to curb the rising cases of livestock theft that have affected the region.

As part of the crackdown, security agencies adopted a range of measures to curb livestock theft and protect farmers’ livelihoods.

A 28-year-old man accused of unlawfully practicing law and falsely presenting himself as a qualified advocate has been remanded to prison after appearing before the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court.

Andrew Nsubuga Sekibaamu Jenkins, a resident of Najjera in Kira Municipality, Wakiso District, was arraigned on Tuesday before Senior Magistrate Winnie Nankya Jatiko, who read the charges against him.

According to the charge sheet, Nsubuga faces two offences under the Advocates Act, Cap. 295.

The first count alleges that, contrary to Sections 70(1) and 85 of the Act, he acted as an advocate despite being unqualified. Prosecutors allege that between February and December 2025 at the High Court Land Division in Kampala, Nsubuga “directly acted as an advocate or agent for Nagadya Linda Witney in Civil Suit No. 188 of 2024, conducting and defending the matter while not authorized by law to practice as an advocate.”

The second count accuses him of, contrary to Sections 71(1) and 85 of the Advocates Act, knowingly holding himself out as a qualified advocate.

“The prosecution alleges that during the same period, he falsely pretended to be an advocate despite not being qualified or recognized by law to practice,” the charge sheet states.

He denied both counts and was subsquently remanded to Luzira prison until August 19, 2026.

When Esther Ainembabazi stepped behind her preferred candidate during Tuesday’s Local Council One (LC1) elections, she had no regrets. Unlike a secret ballot, where choices remain private, the queue voting system meant everyone in the village could see exactly where she stood. ‘I supported whom I believed in, and I was okay and loud about it,’ she says. She did not feel pressured by family members, neighbours or local leaders to vote a certain way. Yet, as the celebrations and disappointments faded, she noticed something else lingering in the village. ‘People took sides, and some family members and friends did not stand behind their own people, which ruined relationships.

I also saw arguments and name-calling after the results,’ she says. Her experience captures the debate surrounding Uganda’s queue voting system, where voters line up behind candidates instead of casting secret ballots. While supporters praise it for promoting transparency and making election results instantly verifiable, critics argue that exposing voters’ choices can deepen divisions long after polling ends. For Ainembabazi, and many others, both systems have strengths.

‘Public voting builds accountability, but a secret ballot gives people the freedom to choose without pressure,’ she says. She believes the openness of queue voting can make elected leaders more accountable to the communities they serve. At the same time, she warns that it may influence how people vote. ‘It increases accountability, but it can also make people vote out of fear, group influence or even because of bribery instead of their own choice.’

Politics should end with the election

The newly elected LC1 chairperson of Ssanga Village, Abdallah Ahmed, agrees that the system has advantages but believes it should evolve. ‘The queue voting system is simple, transparent and allows results to be known immediately. However, because votes are cast openly, some people felt uncomfortable expressing their true choice,’ he says. Although the election generated excitement and differing opinions, Ahmed says the village largely remained peaceful.

‘Now that the election is over, it is time to put politics aside and work together for the good of our village.’ Having won the election, he says his responsibility extends beyond those who stood behind him. ‘As the LC1 chairperson, I will represent everyone equally, regardless of how they voted. My door has always been, is and will always be open.’ He believes the system’s transparency should be preserved while introducing safeguards that better protect voters’ privacy.

People fear voting freely

Not everyone shares that view.

For Edith Kyomukama, the NRM flag bearer in Kigongi B, Kabale District, who lost to the incumbent, queue voting discourages free choice altogether. ‘It is not fair because most people fear voting freely,’ she says. According to Kyomukama, some voters feel obliged to support candidates from whom they accepted money, while others choose not to vote at all to avoid conflicts with neighbours and relatives. She also alleges that there were irregularities at her polling station, including people she believes were not on the voters’ register taking part in the exercise, and criticised what she described as inadequate security.

These claims could not immediately be independently verified. ‘I did not use money to get people on my side. The people who lined up behind me did so because they wanted to,’ she says. Despite losing, she says leadership should not be determined by political support alone. ‘If I am to get information from the government or serve this community, I have to work with everyone and that includes those who voted for me and those who did not.’

Chaos in some villages

In Gombe Village, Kagoma in Jinja District, residents did not vote on Tuesday after disputes reportedly broke out over voter eligibility. Namukose Saidah says disagreements emerged when some people attempted to vote despite their names allegedly not appearing on the voters’ register. ‘The chaos brought police, and voting was suspended,’ she says. Like other interviewees, Namukose believes queue voting has both advantages and disadvantages.

‘It is good and bad at the same time because it creates misunderstandings among people. You may think people are going to line up behind you, only to watch them join another queue,’ she says. She believes the public nature of the process can be emotionally difficult for candidates, particularly because the outcome is known instantly. ‘With a secret ballot, people only learn the results later when everyone has settled down. With queue voting, everything happens there and then,’ Namukose says.

Electoral Commission implement the law

Responding to concerns about the queue voting system, Electoral Commission spokesperson Julius Mucunguzi said the Commission does not determine how LC1 elections are conducted.

‘The method of voting is not determined by the Electoral Commission,’ he says. He explains that Section 123 of the Local Government Act requires LC1 chairperson elections to be conducted by voters lining up behind their preferred candidates. ‘The Electoral Commission implements the law as enacted by Parliament. If anyone has concerns about the voting method, the appropriate institution to petition is Parliament.’

Mucunguzi says Parliament is responsible for making and amending electoral laws, while the Commission’s role is to organise elections in accordance with the law. He also defended the credibility of the process, saying the vast majority of villages completed the elections peacefully. ‘LC1 elections were conducted in 71,214 villages across the country. In 98.4 per cent of those villages, people lined up openly and transparently and elected their chairpersons without violence or major disruptions.’

According to the Commission, only about 1.6 per cent of villages experienced challenges that prevented elections from being completed on Tuesday, with repeat polls scheduled where necessary. On reports of intimidation and post-election conflict, Mucunguzi says such matters fall under the mandate of the Uganda Police Force and the courts, although the Electoral Commission also receives and investigates written complaints related to the conduct of elections. He further clarifies that the voters’ register, not the voting slip, is the primary document used to verify eligible voters before they are allowed to participate.

Uganda’s nominee for the position of United Nations Secretary-General, Olara Otunnu, has revealed that he never intended to contest for the world’s top diplomatic office, saying his nomination by President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni came as a surprise.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with this reporter on Tuesday, Otunnu said the nomination unfolded “rapidly”.

‘This is not something I was plotting to do or angling to be a candidate or working towards. It came very suddenly and moved very fast. It was a bit of a roller coaster,” Otunnu said.

Otunnu said he was deeply honored by President Museveni and the Ugandan government’s decision to nominate him, describing the endorsement as a privilege to represent Uganda on the global stage.

The nomination marks a dramatic shift in his relationship with government. More than three decades ago, his reported bid to secure Uganda’s endorsement for the same position failed to materialize amid political differences.

Asked to explain the ‘sudden’ change, Otunnu declined to speculate on President Museveni’s decision, saying the focus should be on the present. “What I’m focusing on now is that the government, the President and the country have seen it fit to nominate Olara Otunnu on this occasion. I remain Olara Otunnu, my convictions, my views and my dream for Uganda and Africa remain the same,” he said.

Otunnu insisted that accepting the government’s endorsement did not mean abandoning his long-held political beliefs or criticisms of President Museveni. “What is important is not the divergence between President Museveni and me. What is important is that despite our differences and despite the unfortunate history, we as Ugandans have been mature enough to say we have a national project that can bring us together for the honor and benefit of the country,” he said.

The veteran diplomat was endorsed by President Museveni last week for the UN Secretary-General position. He joins six other aspiring candidates to replace António Guterres.

Other contenders include Rebeca Grynspan of Costa Rica, a former Vice President and early frontrunner in Security Council straw polls; Rafael Grossi of Argentina, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet; former UN General Assembly President María Fernanda Espinosa of Ecuador; former Senegalese President Macky Sall; and Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett of Guyana.

Former State Minister for Foreign Affairs Henry Okello Oryem on Tuesday praised President Museveni for endorsing Otunnu, describing the move as “historic and timely”. “I thank President Museveni, in his respectful wisdom, for this timely and historical action, to not only nominate Dr Otunnu but also give a son of the soil an opportunity and possible chance to represent Uganda and Africa in this very high office,” Oryem said.

Oryem urged Ugandans to rally behind the former UN diplomat in what he described as a difficult but significant international contest.

Otunnu previously served as Uganda’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1980 to 1985 and as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1985 to 1986. He later served as UN Under-Secretary-General and Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict from 1997 to 2005.

Otunnu, who has been a fierce critic of President Museveni, returned to Uganda in November 2009 after more than two decades in exile. He led the opposition Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) between 2010 and 2015 and contested against President Museveni for the presidency in 2011 but lost.

Every August, Uganda joins the rest of the world in commemorating World Breastfeeding Month, a moment to celebrate one of the most powerful, affordable and life-saving public health interventions available.

This year’s global theme is, ‘Breastfeeding for a sustainable start in life. Strengthen what works’. It reminds us that we already possess the knowledge, policies and evidence needed to improve child survival and nutrition. The challenge before us is to reinforce these proven interventions and ensure that every mother receives the support she needs to breastfeed successfully.

Breastfeeding is far more than a feeding practice. It is a child’s first source of nutrition, first protection against disease and first investment in lifelong health. Breast milk contains all the nutrients an infant requires during the first six months of life while providing antibodies that protect against diarrhoea, pneumonia and other infectious diseases that remain major causes of illness among young children. It also supports healthy brain development, strengthens immunity and lays the foundation for improved educational achievement and productivity later in life.

The World Health Organisation recommends that every newborn be breastfed within the first hour after birth, exclusively breastfed for the first six months, and continue breastfeeding alongside appropriate complementary foods until at least two years of age.

These recommendations are supported by decades of scientific evidence demonstrating that optimal breastfeeding saves lives and improves maternal and child health. Uganda has made encouraging progress.

According to the Ministry of Health, exclusive breastfeeding among infants under six months has increased significantly over recent years, reaching approximately 94 percent, while early initiation of breastfeeding has also improved substantially.

These achievements reflect the dedication of health workers, Village Health Teams, development partners and communities that have worked tirelessly to promote infant and young child feeding. They also demonstrate that when evidence-based interventions are implemented consistently, meaningful progress is possible. However, success should not make us complacent.

Many mothers continue to face challenges such as inadequate breastfeeding support after delivery, early return to work, misinformation, cultural misconceptions and the growing influence of breast milk substitute marketing. These barriers often prevent mothers from achieving their breastfeeding goals despite their willingness to do so.

This year’s theme calls upon us to strengthen what works. We know that skilled breastfeeding counselling during pregnancy and after childbirth improves breastfeeding outcomes. We know that baby-friendly hospital practices help mothers initiate breastfeeding early. We know that maternity protection, supportive workplaces, father involvement, community education and strong health systems all contribute to successful breastfeeding.

Rather than searching for new solutions, Uganda must continue expanding these interventions so that every family benefits. Breastfeeding is not solely a mother’s responsibility Investing in breastfeeding is also an investment in Uganda’s economy. Healthy children require fewer hospital visits, perform better in school and grow into healthier, more productive adults. Families spend less on treatment for preventable illnesses and avoid unnecessary expenditure on infant formula. Every shilling invested in breastfeeding promotion yields significant returns through improved health, reduced healthcare costs and enhanced national productivity.

As we commemorate World Breastfeeding Month 2026, let us move beyond awareness campaigns and translate commitment into action. Let every health facility strengthen breastfeeding counselling. Let every employer support breastfeeding mothers. Let every father stand beside his partner. Let every community protect, promote and support breastfeeding.

Most importantly, let every Ugandan recognise that breastfeeding is not only a mother’s choice it is a national responsibility.

There came a season when the hyenas took over the forest. At first the hyenas laughed a great deal, as hyenas do, and there was something about that laughter that made them easy to dismiss.

One could always tell oneself laughter was only laughter, though theirs had a habit of stopping the moment another creature dared to join in.

Then, slowly, stealthy step by stealthy step, they moved into the clearing where the elders had always sat beneath the old fig tree. One day the animals looked up and found the elders gone, and the hyenas seated in their place, as though they had always belonged there.

Kalulu the hare watched from deep in the elephant grass, and for once his quick wit, the gift for which the whole forest knew him, brought no comfort.

Cleverness, he found, could outwit a hunter’s trap, slip past a jealous crow or a foolish leopard. But it offered poor defence against teeth. The hyenas, it turned out, had grown hungry for a different sort of thing.

Meat no longer seemed enough. They hungered for silence, for lowered eyes, for bent backs, for the slow surrender of every creature in the forest. So when the young buffalo protested, in a voice that shook but never failed him, the hyenas took him down into the valley at the edge of the papyrus swamp.

When something came back up the path afterwards, it was no longer quite the buffalo. Only a creature with a thin voice and frightened eyes, urging the others to keep their heads low and be thankful for whatever scraps were thrown their way.

Even Kalulu’s own cousin, a quick little hare, was taken one night for nothing worse than repeating a joke about the size of the head hyena’s belly. He never returned. For a while Kalulu thought seriously about running away to the far hills, where nobody had ever heard the hyenas’ names and where the grass still grew the way grass was supposed to grow, undisturbed.

But when at last he reached the very edge of the forest, his legs would not carry him any further, not because he was especially brave, but because leaving felt too much like agreeing with the hyenas that the forest was theirs to empty.

So he stayed, and because he stayed, he suffered, as almost every creature in the forest suffered that season. He grew thin, and his fur lost its old shine.

He watched animals he had once trusted begin smiling when the hyenas made one of their jokes, because smiling had become safer than silence. There was one night above all others, the worst of them, when the hyenas gathered every small and gentle creature into the clearing to watch what would happen to a young antelope who had refused to clap during one of their songs.

Kalulu stood among the crowd with his long ears pressed flat against his head, feeling the others’ fear sweep through the clearing. That same night, an old tortoise found Kalulu shivering beneath a mango tree and spoke in a quiet voice.

“The hyenas have great teeth, little one,” he said, “but teeth cannot count. That is your work now. Not to fight them tonight, but to remember everything, so carefully and so completely, that one day the whole forest will remember it with you.”

So Kalulu did the only thing left to a creature too small to win by force alone: he remembered. He remembered every name that had been snatched away, every joke that cost somebody dearly, every clap made out of fear, every animal who swallowed their anger to live through the night. But no cruelty keeps watch forever. No tyranny, however noisy it becomes, stays alert to its own ending.

But hyenas cannot help themselves forever, and cruelty that has never once had to answer for itself always reaches, sooner or later, for one throat too many.

The hyenas grew so certain the forest had forgotten how to be angry that they never noticed the ground shifting beneath their feet. Every creature Kalulu had spoken to in the dark was still there. Still listening. Still keeping count in the old, patient way forests do, remembering more than the hyenas thought possible.

It did not happen quickly. There was no single trick, no sudden burst of laughter that split the night open. It happened slowly. Then, at last, for those who had almost stopped believing in daylight altogether, it happened all at once. The forest does not forget forever.

That was the lesson the hyenas never learned in time to save themselves. And Kalulu, small and thin and marked by all he had carried, was still standing quietly beneath the mvule tree when the sun finally rose over the hills.

In many Ugandan villages, the LC1 chairperson is the first person called when a boundary is disputed, a family quarrel turns bitter, or a resident needs a letter to travel, seek treatment, enrol in school or access a government service. Whether someone is buying land, reporting theft, applying for electricity, proving residency or seeking mediation, the village chairperson is often the gateway to the next step. Yet the office that carries so much responsibility remains one of the least supported in Uganda’s governance structure. Many LC1 chairpersons receive little or no regular remuneration despite being expected to serve their communities almost daily.

It is therefore a position that is sometimes left to those who can afford to work almost voluntarily or, more worryingly, to those who see it as an opportunity to recover their investment through unofficial charges. The irony is that this seemingly small office has one of the biggest impacts on ordinary Ugandans. Long before citizens interact with Members of Parliament, Resident District Commissioners or ministers, they interact with the LC1. The quality of leadership at this level can determine whether a dispute is resolved peacefully, whether a land transaction proceeds smoothly or whether a vulnerable family receives timely help.

Strategic position Sooner or later, almost every Ugandan finds themselves requiring that LC1 stamp for a matter that could change their lives, as Isaac Ssejjombwe found out. ‘Seven years ago, my brother called me with what sounded like the opportunity of a lifetime. A plot of land had just been put on the market in Buloba. It was not particularly large, but it was spacious enough to build a decent family home. Even better, the asking price was only Shs5 million. At the time, I could only raise Shs2m. My brother, who is a land broker, assured me that this was enough because many land sellers are eager to sell quickly and, once you make a substantial deposit, they are usually willing to give you time to clear the balance.

True to his word, the seller accepted my Shs2m deposit and allowed me three months to raise the remaining Shs3m.’ Three months later, when he had put the balance together, he needed the LC1 chairperson to verify the land, witness the sale and stamp the agreement. ‘I had been told that I would need to pay Shs10,000 for the stamp, which was fine with me. Imagine my shock when the chairman demanded a commission of Shs500,000. At first, I thought it was a joke but I soon discovered he was serious.’ After lengthy negotiations and repeated pleas, the chairman reluctantly reduced his demand to Shs350,000. He then added a transport charge of Shs150,000 to inspect the plot before signing the agreement.

‘Although the distance from his office to the land could easily be covered by a boda boda costing about Shs2,000, he said he only uses cars and that his Toyota Corona needed that amount of fuel. No amount of pleading changed his mind. Instead, he reminded us that he had many other people waiting for his services and that if we were not willing to meet his demands, we should leave so he could attend to them. Cornered and desperate to secure the land, we paid.’ Ssejjombwe discovered as many other Ugandans sooner or later do that the LC1 chairperson occupies such a strategic position. Delaying a land agreement, withholding a recommendation letter or refusing to witness a transaction can cost someone an investment, a school opportunity or access to an essential service.

While many LC1 chairpersons carry out these duties with honesty and dedication, others have turned public service into a private revenue stream. The consequences extend beyond the individual paying an unofficial fee. Land remains one of Uganda’s most valuable and contested resources. Every year, families spend millions of shillings resolving disputes that often begin with poorly documented transactions or disagreements that were never properly mediated. A diligent LC1 chairperson who insists on involving neighbours, verifying boundaries and documenting agreements can prevent conflicts that would otherwise end up before local councils, magistrates’ courts or clan elders.

On the other hand, a careless or compromised leader can unknowingly legitimise fraudulent land sales or fuel disputes that divide families for generations. The same applies to community justice. In many villages, minor assaults, domestic misunderstandings, noise complaints and property disputes are first reported to the LC1. An impartial chairperson who listens to both sides can restore peace before tempers escalate. However, where favouritism, tribal loyalties, political affiliation or financial influence determine decisions, conflicts often become deeper and more expensive to resolve.

Enabling government programmes

Ugandans have also witnessed how strong village leadership can make government programmes succeed. Josephat Mukisa confesses that he did not know his LCI Chairperson until Covid-19 hit and he needed his stamp. ‘I remember feeling very embarrassed meeting him for the first time in the 12 years I had lived in the village. But after that awkward meeting, my chairman became a useful ally in the development of the village. It has been easier to mobilise community activities with his help,’ Mukisa says. Mukisa notes that perhaps the biggest mistake Ugandans make is treating LC1 elections as insignificant.

‘When it comes to village elections, many voters simply support a friend, a relative, a drinking companion or someone from the same tribe without asking whether that person possesses the integrity, patience and fairness the office demands. Ironically, the LC1 chairperson often has more influence over an ordinary citizen’s daily life than leaders occupying far higher offices,’ he notes. When communities elect honest, approachable and competent leaders, everyone benefits. Investors gain confidence to buy land. Families resolve disagreements peacefully. Government programmes reach deserving beneficiaries.

Residents spend less on unnecessary charges and avoid disputes that consume years of litigation. Alternatively, when communities elect leaders who view the office as a business, everyone eventually pays. Some lose money through inflated fees. Others lose property through questionable transactions. Businesses face delays. Trust in local government weakens. Citizens begin to assume that every signature has a price and every public service requires a personal payment.

Four family members have petitioned President Museveni to order investigations into the handling of an estate dispute involving High Court Judge Deepa Verma and the office of the Administrator General, alleging irregularities in the administration of their grandparents’ estates.In a petition dated July 16, 2026, Bunny Wallia, Jonny Wallia, Ronnie Wallia and Jassie Ahluwalia accuse Justice Verma and the office of the Administrator General of presiding over what they describe as an irregular and potentially unlawful process relating to the estates of the late Zura Mama Kasuku and the late Ahluwalia Gudo in Mbarara.The four, who describe themselves as beneficiaries with legitimate interests in the estates, allege that succession proceedings were initiated without their knowledge, consultation or participation.”We, the above-named complainants and members of the family and persons with a legitimate interest in the estates of the late Zura Mama Kasuku and the late Ahluwalia Gudo, hereby lodge this formal complaint against Her Lordship Justice Deepa Verma…,” the petition states.They are asking the President to ensure that the matter is urgently investigated and that appropriate administrative, disciplinary, judicial or criminal action is taken should any wrongdoing be established.Mr Sandor Walusimbi, the Senior Presidential Press Secretary to President Museveni, when contacted on Monday, said he hadn’t gotten any information regarding the response to the petition by the head of state.According to the petition, Justice Verma and her brother, Jessa Wallia, allegedly initiated the opening and processing of files relating to the two estates at the Office of the Administrator General on June 12, 2026.The complainants further allege that on the same day, the Office of the Administrator General convened what was presented as a family meeting attended by only four people, excluding other beneficiaries.They contend that they were neither notified of nor invited to the meeting despite being direct descendants with interests in the estates.The petition also questions the speed with which the Office of the Administrator General issued certificates of no objection on June 15, just three days after the purported family meeting.”The complainants are seriously concerned about the speed and circumstances under which the certificates of no objection were issued,” the petition reads.According to the complaint, Justice Verma and her brother subsequently filed succession proceedings before the Family Division of the High Court without notifying other beneficiaries.The four say they only learnt of the proceedings after they had been advertised in the media.The complainants also argue that the matter raises concerns because one of the applicants seeking to administer the estates is a serving judicial officer.In an earlier letter addressed to the Principal Judge, they reportedly stated that before her appointment to the Bench, Justice Verma had served as the family’s lawyer and had longstanding ties to the family.Justice Deepa respondsWhen contacted on Tuesday evening, Justice Deepa branded the petition as pure jealousy from her cousins now that she is a judge of the High Court.’These are my cousins, and this is pure jealousy because now I’m a judge and they want to bring down my reputation. If truly the petition is before the President, I’m yet to see it, and I will respond accordingly if it’s brought to my attention,’ Justice Deepa said.She added, ‘The matter is in court, and actually, it’s coming up on Thursday for mediation before Justice Richard Buteera (retired Deputy Chief Justice). They (complainants) can’t run from the long arm of the law.’According to court records, it’s Justice Deepa who sued her cousins.When asked about the processing of the certificate of no objection within three days, the judge wondered why they were opposed to efficiency in government institutions.’So our institutions shouldn’t be efficient to get things in three days,’ she wondered.She went on to explain that when she was still a practicing lawyer, she was very busy and entrusted the complainants with running the said estate, but they allegedly mismanaged it. ‘These boys mismanaged the estate, and they are now riding on my position to bring me down. These boys are just jealous and vindictive. They think if they mess up my reputation, I will back out; I will not,’ she vowed.Adding, ‘The letters of administration that they had got expired in 2025, and since they had mismanaged the family estate, we had to move in,’ Justice Deepa further explained.She also defended her being the family lawyer in an extended family setting because she had earned their trust.awesaka@ug.nationmedia.com

In a pre-dawn enforcement operation at the Malaba border, officers from the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) intercepted a smuggling syndicate attempting to sneak 80 prohibited used computer monitors into the country under the cover of darkness.

According to an official statement released by the URA on August 4, 2026, the operation targeted illegal cross-border trade conducted through non-gazetted, porous pathways-locally known as panya routes-connecting Kenya and Uganda.

The tax body revealed that its Malaba Enforcement Team acted on actionable intelligence gathered on the night of July 31, 2026. The intel indicated that a group of five motorcyclists planned to cross into Uganda via the Nile B panya route at approximately 3:00 a.m.

Positioning themselves strategically along the suspected route, enforcement officers ambushed the incoming convoy and successfully intercepted the lead motorcyclist.

Sensing danger, the four remaining riders aborted their mission, turned around, and retreated to a nearby temporary storage facility across the border area.

The enforcement push continued into the following day. On August 1, 2026, fresh intelligence pinpointed the exact location where the remaining consignment had been hidden.

URA officers executed a follow-up raid on the identified premises, recovering the entire lot.

Verification confirmed a total of 80 used computer monitors, all illegally transported into the country.

Under the East African Community Customs Management Act (EACMA), the importation of used electronics like laptops and monitors into Uganda is strictly prohibited due to environmental protection measures and local electronic-waste regulations.

A 50-year battle: Why border smuggling persists

While the URA celebrated the successful interception, the incident highlights a deeply entrenched economic challenge.

Smuggling along Uganda’s eastern border, particularly between Busia, Malaba, and Kenya, is not a new phenomenon-it is a shadow industry that has persistently thrived since the early 1970s.

During the economic collapse and trade sanctions of the 1970s under Idi Amin’s regime, cross-border smuggling-then famously dubbed magendo-became a primary survival mechanism for border communities facing acute shortages of essential goods.

Over the decades, what began as informal survival trade transformed into sophisticated, organized criminal networks.

The vice has proven stubbornly difficult to eradicate due to several deep-seated structural and geographic challenges:

Porous Borders and Complex Terrain: Uganda shares hundreds of kilometers of unfenced, highly porous borders with its neighbors. Intersected by rivers, dense vegetation, and informal paths, these panya routes make total physical border surveillance near-impossible without vast technological coverage.

Economic Disparities and High Tariffs: Differences in regional tax rates, import tariffs, and product bans within the East African Community (EAC) create lucrative profit margins. For small-scale traders, high taxes or outright prohibitions make smuggled goods far more profitable than legal, duty-paid alternatives.

Community Dependence: Decades of economic reliance have normalized illicit cross-border trade in border towns. Many local youth and boda-boda riders are lured into the trade as couriers (panya boys) to earn quick income amidst high local unemployment.

Adaptive Smuggler Tactics: Smugglers continuously evolve their methods-shifting from night-time boda-boda convoys to utilizing fake compartments in heavy transit trucks, lake transport via fishing boats, and corrupting local networks.

Estimates indicate that Uganda loses millions of dollars annually in unpaid taxes to cross-border smuggling, depriving the national treasury of critical revenue meant for infrastructure and social services.

Despite the persistent hurdles, the tax body emphasized that its intelligence-led operations and digital tracking mechanisms are steadily closing the gap on illegal operators.

“Whereas smugglers may prefer operating under the cover of darkness, enforcement officers are proving they can be just as comfortable with an early morning wake-up call,” the URA statement concluded, warning syndicates that border operations will continue around the clock.