KAMPALA. The Chief Magistrate’s Court in Kampala has set free the interdicted Mr Baker Mugaino, the Commissioner for Land Registration. This came after the High Court quashed corruption-related charges that had been filed against him by the Inspectorate of Government (IGG).
Chief Magistrate Racheal Nakyazze of the Anti-Corruption Court in a Thursday ruling, said her court was duty-bound to comply with the orders of the High Court issued by Justice Collins Acellam, who nullified the charges contained in a June 4, 2025, charge sheet.
“This court has only one option: to abide by the orders of the High Court. Since the charges have been quashed, the accused is hereby discharged and set free unless held on another lawful charge,” Nakyazze ruled.
The ruling followed an application filed by Mr Mugaino’s lawyer, Mr Anthony Bazira, on October 22, 2025, seeking the termination of the proceedings in line with the High Court’s decision.
Mr Bazira argued that the High Court’s ruling rendered the ongoing case in a lower court null and void.
“Court orders do not operate in vain. An appeal does not operate as a stay, and neither should a lawful court order be interpreted to suit the convenience of a dissatisfied party,” his lawyer argued.
However, the prosecution, led by Mr William Moses Ntumwa from the IGG’s office, had objected to the application, insisting that the High Court order did not specifically mention the case number.
“The order does not refer to this specific case and therefore, cannot be assumed to have quashed these proceedings,” Mr Ntumwa submitted. He added that the IGG intended to appeal the High Court ruling and urged the magistrate not to act prematurely.
Mr Ntumwa also argued that the case before the magistrate’s court had progressed beyond the charge sheet, since committal papers had already been filed to prepare for Mugaino’s trial in the High Court Anti-Corruption Division.
But Ms Nakyazze rejected the prosecution’s submissions, stating that a valid High Court order had been filed in her court and must be obeyed.
“In practice, a court order begins to operate once a certified copy is filed. An appeal does not stay its enforcement. This court cannot rely on an anticipated appeal to delay compliance,” she ruled.
She further directed that Mr Mugaino’s bail money be refunded.
“I so order,” she concluded.
Earlier, Justice Collins Acellam had ruled that the IGG acted illegally, irrationally, and procedurally improperly when she directed the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Lands to interdict Mr Mugaino over allegations of corruption and abuse of office.
In his decision, Justice Acellam held that the IGG had no constitutional authority to interdict senior public officers of Mr. Mugaino’s rank, noting that “the power to exercise disciplinary control over officers of the rank of Head of Department and above is vested in the President.”
He also faulted the IGG for denying Mr Mugaino a fair hearing before his interdiction and for proceeding to charge him in court despite an existing order restraining the action.
Justice Acellam subsequently issued orders quashing the interdiction letters, prohibiting further implementation of the IGG’s directives, and nullifying the criminal charges filed on June 4, 2025. The court also awarded Mr Mugaino Shs50 million in damages, describing the IGG’s conduct as a “blatant abuse of power and total disregard of the law.”
“The sanctity of the rule of law demands that court orders be respected irrespective of whether a party is happy with the decision,” the judge emphasised.
Museveni intervention
His release comes months after President Museveni questioned the IGG’s interdiction of him.
Mr Mugaino is a presidential appointee.
In a strongly worded letter dated May 24 and addressed to Lands Minister Ms Judith Nabakooba, President Museveni expressed outrage over Mr Mugaino’s interdiction, which he said was carried out without his consultation, despite being the appointing authority.
“I have now been informed that the Commissioner of Land Registration, who is implementing this solution, has been removed from office on unspecified grounds, apparently acting on the directives of the IGG,” the President wrote.
He added, “How convenient! Do you have the authority to interdict such an officer [a presidential appointee] without my involvement? Why was I not consulted prior to this action being taken?”