Arrest by Ministerial Command is Not the Rule of Law

What the report says

Nile Post published an opinion piece arguing that Uganda’s anti-corruption drive should not rely on ministerial arrest orders that bypass due process. The article, written by Sirajeh Katantazi Mukasa, says citizens have reason to demand action on corruption in local government, but that accountability must still follow constitutional procedures and respect the roles of police, prosecutors and courts.

The piece points to recent inspection visits involving the Minister of State for Local Government, Balaam Barugahara, where officials were reportedly ordered arrested in Bulambuli, Mbarara City and Mitooma over separate allegations linked to misuse of public resources and a job-seeking bribery claim. It argues that allegations are not proof, and that a minister should refer suspected wrongdoing to the proper investigative bodies rather than act as complainant, investigator and judge at once.

The author also warns against detention practices that allegedly keep suspects in custody without clear charges or beyond the constitutional 48-hour limit, saying arrests must be accompanied by immediate explanation and lawful handling, including access to bond where appropriate. The article cites Uganda’s Constitution and police law to stress that arrest decisions require independent legal grounds, not political instruction.

To support its argument, the piece refers to a recent court decision involving Attorney General Sam Mayanja, then a lands minister, where a judge reportedly found ministerial directives on arrests and police bond unlawful in a land dispute context. The broader significance, according to the article, is that anti-corruption enforcement can lose credibility if it is seen as political theatre rather than evidence-based process.