Shs 20bn Heist: Why Ggoobi Opposed Lifting Ex Accountant General Semakula’s Suspension

KAMPALA: Uganda’s finance ministry opposed reinstating suspended Accountant General Semakula Lawrence because the allegations against him relate directly to the government’s financial systems, raising risks to public funds and institutional integrity, court documents show.

Semakula is challenging his continued interdiction following a $6.5 million (Shs 20bn) loss linked to altered transactions initiated within the Ministry of Finance in September 2024.

He argues the suspension should have been lifted after investigations exceeded the six-month period provided for under public service rules.

But Permanent Secretary and Secretary to the Treasury Ramathan Ggoobi told the High Court the decision to maintain the interdiction was justified by the seriousness of the allegations and the need to protect public financial systems.

According to an affidavit cited in a ruling by Justice David S.L. Makumbi, Ggoobi relied on legal advice that lifting an interdiction is an administrative decision that must be exercised “judiciously,” taking into account the gravity of the case and potential risks.

He warned that allowing Semakula to return to office would be problematic because the charges stem from alleged failures in the very systems he oversees.

The court summarised the government’s position as cautioning against “the risk and absurdity” of permitting an official “to operate or superintend over the very financial systems” he is accused of compromising.

Ggoobi also argued that, despite the presumption of innocence, public interest considerations required that Semakula remain out of office until his case is concluded.

Header advertisement

“The decision was lawful, rational, procedurally proper, and made in the public interest,” he said, rejecting claims that the continued suspension violated the applicant’s rights.

Semakula, who was arrested in February 2025 and charged with corruption-related offences, maintains that authorities failed to complete investigations or initiate disciplinary proceedings within the required timeframe.

He says that delay entitles him to reinstatement and has challenged a decision by the ministry declining to lift his interdiction as “illegal, irrational and ultra vires.”

The High Court did not rule on the merits of the dispute.

Instead, it transferred the case to the Civil Division, holding that the matter concerns an administrative decision rather than a criminal proceeding within the Anti-Corruption Division’s jurisdiction.

The case is expected to be heard afresh, where the court will determine whether the prolonged interdiction is lawful and whether the government’s public interest argument outweighs procedural safeguards for suspended officials.