A fresh legal argument has emerged in the ongoing Karamoja iron sheets scandal, with former legislator Ssimbwa John calling for broader prosecutions of all implicated officials, rather than the selective application of charges.
In a detailed opinion, Ssimbwa, who moved amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act 2009 during the 9th Parliament, argues that the offence of “dealing in suspect property” should apply to all ministers and government officials who received iron sheets meant for vulnerable communities in Karamoja.
Questioning selective prosecution
The controversy stems from the decision by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to charge some suspects under different provisions of the law, while prosecuting Agnes Nandutu specifically under Section 21A of the Anti-Corruption Act.
Ssimbwa contends that this approach risks creating unequal accountability in a scandal that has drawn widespread public scrutiny.
“I don’t see why the DPP decided to prosecute other suspects under different sections of the law and only prosecuted Hon. Nandutu under Section 21A,” he argues, insisting that the same legal threshold applies to all those who benefited.
The legal case: “dealing in suspect property”
At the centre of the debate is Section 21A, which criminalises possession or handling of property reasonably believed to have been unlawfully obtained.
According to Ssimbwa, the iron sheets—procured under a government relief programme for Karamoja—clearly qualify as “suspect property” once diverted from their intended beneficiaries.
He outlines key elements required for prosecution, including possession, knowledge (or reasonable suspicion), and lack of lawful justification.In his view, ministers and officials who received the iron sheets meet these criteria by virtue of their roles in government.
“They knew or should have known that the iron sheets were meant for Karamoja,” he states, arguing that public officials are held to a higher standard of awareness.
Burden of explanationThe former MP further argues that once possession of such property is established under suspicious circumstances, the burden shifts to the accused to provide a credible explanation.
Courts, he notes, often rely on circumstantial evidence in corruption cases, particularly where actions suggest awareness of wrongdoing.
He adds that “constructive knowledge”—where an individual is expected to know based on their position—can be sufficient to establish liability, even if direct knowledge is denied.
Call for fresh charges
Based on this interpretation, Ssimbwa is urging the DPP to revisit the case and bring additional charges under Section 21A against all implicated individuals.He maintains that doing so would promote fairness and reinforce the principle of equal accountability before the law.
“We believe the DPP should open fresh charges against those not charged under this section to ensure equal culpability,” he states.
Broader implications for anti-corruption fightThe analysis also revives debate over the enforcement of anti-corruption laws in Uganda, particularly provisions introduced to strengthen asset recovery and deter illicit enrichment.
Ssimbwa notes that while amendments such as mandatory confiscation of illicit property were introduced, their full implementation has faced delays, limiting their impact.
Nonetheless, he argues that existing provisions—if consistently applied—are sufficient to hold public officials accountable.
A test for institutions
The Karamoja iron sheets scandal has become a litmus test for Uganda’s anti-corruption framework, raising questions about enforcement, political will and the consistency of prosecutions.
As legal interpretations continue to emerge, attention is now turning to how institutions such as the DPP will respond to calls for broader and more uniform application of the law.
For many observers, the outcome could shape public confidence in the country’s ability to tackle high-level corruption, and determine whether accountability extends to all, regardless of position.
