President Yoweri Museveni’s letter questioning the interdiction of Commissioner of Land Registration, Mr Baker Mugaino, has triggered sharp criticism from lawyers and civil society. Legal experts argue that the directive undermines the independence of the Inspector General of Government (IGG) and weakens constitutional safeguards.
In his May 24 letter to Lands Minister Judith Nabakooba, the President condemned the decision to interdict Mr Mugaino without his consultation. He insisted that, as the appointing authority, he should have been involved. Museveni stated that Mugaino was on special assignment to address fraud in the Land Information System. He claimed that Uganda had already lost $140 million through double tilting, tax evasion, and fraudulent land transactions.
“How convenient! Do you have the authority to interdict a presidential appointee without my involvement? Why was I not consulted?” Museveni asked in the letter. He then directed the Minister to lift the interdiction and continue with the reforms.
Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo criticised the President’s stance. “No one is above the law, not even the President. The IGG has the mandate to act when there is misconduct. Overriding her undermines constitutional order,” he said. Lawyer Caleb Alaka added that the IGG must remain independent. “Her role is to check government excesses. If I were the IGG, I would have resigned,” he noted.
Civil society leaders echoed these concerns. Marlon Agaba of the Anti-Corruption Coalition Uganda said the clash highlights overlapping mandates. “The President appoints while the IGG interdicts. If each acted independently, we would avoid such friction,” he argued. Parliament’s PAC chair, Medard Sseggona, offered a blunt reminder: “Appointees are indictable.”
Legal provisions back the IGG’s position. Article 227 of the Constitution guarantees that the Inspectorate of Government operates without direction or control from any authority and remains accountable only to Parliament. Moreover, rights advocates argue that this safeguard exists precisely to protect citizens from unchecked executive influence.
However, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka defended the President. He said Article 172 grants Museveni disciplinary powers over certain public officers, including commissioners. “I do not think this directive undermines the IGG’s independence. Any interdiction of a presidential appointee requires consultation with the appointing authority,” he explained.
Meanwhile, the IGG maintains serious allegations against Mr Mugaino. Prosecutors accuse him of abuse of office between April 8 and 25 while serving as Commissioner of Land Registration. He allegedly cancelled land titles belonging to Tropical Bank, Gerald Akugizibwe, and Namayiba Park Hotel without lawful authority. The land in question sits on Kibuga Block 12, Plots 658, 659, and 665 in Kisenyi.
The IGG argues that Mugaino’s actions caused major harm to landowners and compromised the credibility of Uganda’s land registry. He was arrested and charged, but the President’s order threatens to derail the interdiction process.
As the standoff continues, analysts warn that Uganda faces a governance test. Therefore, the outcome of the Museveni–Mugaino–IGG dispute will shape public trust in the fight against corruption and the independence of oversight institutions.
The clash over Museveni Mugaino IGG powers highlights deep constitutional tensions. While the President insists on his authority as appointing officer, legal experts and rights groups stress that the IGG’s independence must remain intact. The unfolding case could redefine the balance of power between Uganda’s executive and its anti-corruption watchdog.
READ: Uganda Lawyers Urge High Court to Reform Bail for Court Martial Civilians
