Uganda’s $14.7m debt-payment fraud case heads towards trial

The record

Uganda’s debt-payment fraud case has moved towards a contested trial. Nine Finance Ministry officials, including Lawrence Semakula, denied 20 charges on 12 October, according to Daily Monitor’s court report [1]. Their defence says prosecutors must prove the allegations. No conviction is established by these proceedings.

The money was supposed to reach international development lenders. Instead, the disputed September 2024 payments went to companies overseas: approximately $6.13 million to Roadway Company Limited in Japan and $8.60 million to MJS International in London, according to the central bank’s account reported by The Capital Times [3].

The Uganda Police Force’s 2025 annual report, printed page 86 [2], records $14,730,962.01 in diverted transfers, $8,205,163.81 recovered and approximately $6.526 million outstanding. That is the report’s recovery position, not a verified balance as of today.

These are three different measures: money redirected, money returned and money still unrecovered at the reporting date. Treating all of them as a single loss would obscure what the state is trying to establish. Equally, recovering part of a transfer does not answer who authorised it, who changed its destination or who ultimately benefited.

How a “hack” became a corruption prosecution

Early coverage used a larger headline number. In February 2025, Reuters reported allegations involving Shs62 billion, then about $16.87 million [4], and said the Finance Ministry had acknowledged officials’ detention. That contemporaneous estimate should not replace the later, itemised police total.

AFP’s report on the initial court appearance [5], based on a charge sheet it reviewed, described accusations including money laundering, electronic fraud, causing financial loss, abuse of office and corruption. Those offence labels describe the prosecution’s case; they do not establish the defendants’ guilt.

The central bank disputed the hacking narrative. In December 2024, Deputy Governor Michael Atingi-Ego said its systems had remained secure and that instructions originating outside them directed payments to the wrong beneficiaries, according to Eagle Online’s account of his briefing [6].

New Vision’s September 2026 court report [7] describes allegations of altered payment instructions, manipulation of the government financial-management system and failures to safeguard public funds. The prosecution’s theory therefore spans both operational access and supervisory responsibility. These alleged roles must be assessed individually.

That distinction matters for accountability. A system can process an instruction exactly as received while the instruction itself is fraudulent. Conversely, an employee’s position in an approval chain does not by itself establish criminal intent. The evidential task is to connect particular actions, access rights and decisions to particular people, rather than infer guilt from job titles.

Reinstatement orders and a prosecution that continued

The proceedings also sit alongside an administrative dispute. Daily Monitor reported on 3 September [8] that an August letter from Head of Public Service Lucy Nakyobe, citing President Yoweri Museveni’s instructions, sought reinstatement or contract renewal for the affected officials.

But Director of Public Prosecutions Lino Anguzu told Daily Monitor in its 1 September report [9] that the evidence before his office did not clear the accused and that aspects of the case were being revisited. The prosecution remained active.

The reported executive position and the prosecution’s position are different claims about the same case. Neither should be substituted for a court’s findings. Reappointment concerns employment; the criminal proceedings concern proof of individual offences. The eventual evidential record will matter more than the political significance attached to either decision.

What the next hearings need to resolve

The case has already involved restrictive bail conditions. New Vision reported in March 2025 [10] that Semakula was required to deposit cash, a land title and his passport, and needed permission to attend his office. Bail decisions concern release pending proceedings, not a verdict on the charges.

Uganda Radio Network’s 12 October update [11] places the preliminary hearing on 9 November and the substantive trial on 10–12 November. These are scheduled dates, not hearings that have already happened.

For the public, the unresolved questions go beyond whether a defendant is convicted. A complete account would reconcile the original instructions with the actual transfers, explain the failed checks and trace the recipients’ onward transactions. It would also show, with dated recovery records, how much has returned to Uganda. Until that evidence is established, the defensible account is a major public-money diversion under prosecution, with the defendants contesting criminal responsibility.

Based on reporting from: Daily Monitor — Finance officials deny 20 charges; Uganda Police Force — Annual Crime Report 2025, printed page 86; The Capital Times — Accountant General and finance officials arrested over debt-payment fraud; Reuters via MarketScreener — Uganda detains nine finance ministry officials; AFP via The Peninsula — Uganda finance officials charged; Eagle Online — Bank of Uganda recovery figures and denial of system hacking; New Vision — Court sets pre-trial date in debt-payment fraud case; Daily Monitor — DPP resists directive concerning finance officials; Daily Monitor — Finance officials face fresh proceedings; New Vision — Semakula granted bail; Uganda Radio Network — Trial of nine finance officials set for November.