Proof of either "knowledge" or "reason to believe" is sufficient to establish the mental element. An objective, circumstantially-grounded standard applies, not subjective ignorance. High Court Rules

Case Summary

In a decision delivered on 8 April 2026, the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court convicted the accused of the offence of dealing with suspect property contrary to section 21(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act. The Court found that the accused knowingly dealt with iron sheets that were proceeds of a corrupt diversion from a government programme intended for the Karamoja sub-region.

Facts

The prosecution’s case arose from the diversion of 10,000 iron sheets procured under a government programme for the Karamoja sub-region. Evidence established that the iron sheets were intended for community empowerment initiatives and were not meant for disaster relief in other regions such as Bududa.

At the official launch in Moroto, attended by senior government officials including the accused, only a portion of the iron sheets was distributed, and further distribution was halted following presidential directives. Despite this, the accused received 2,000 iron sheets approximately ten days later.

Rather than delivering them to any verified beneficiaries, the accused retained the iron sheets, initially with her political assistant and subsequently at her farm, for nearly ten months until they were recovered by law enforcement authorities.

There was no documentary evidence showing that the iron sheets were allocated to Bududa or that any formal requisition had been made. Delivery documentation did not indicate the intended recipients, and key sections were left blank.

Legal Representation

David Bisamunyu (Chief State Attorney), Innocent Aleto (Senior State Attorney)

and Joy Kayiiyi (SA) from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

appeared for the prosecution. Advocates Nanda Wamukota, Evans Ochieng

Caleb Alaka and John Nalera represented the' accused.

Submissions of the Parties

Prosecution Submitted

The prosecution submitted that they had adduced sufficient evidence to prove that the accused had guilty knowledge. They argued that such knowledge could be inferred from her position in the Ministry, her attendance at the launch in Moroto, the manner in which she moved the iron sheets to her farm and held them for ten months, and her failure to communicate to the Bududa community that she had received iron sheets allegedly allocated for them. They characterised her defence as untruthful and urged the court to disregard it.

Defence Submitted

The defence submitted that no cogent evidence was adduced to prove the element of knowledge or having reason to believe. They argued that the prosecution's case was built on assumptions.

They contended that even if the prosecution proved that the iron sheets were meant for Karamoja, there was no reason to believe that the accused had knowledge of this.

They submitted that the accused had been sidelined in Ministry operations and that her duties had been restricted to the education sector, as evidenced by documentary exhibits, corroborated by a defence witness.

They further submitted that since Minister Kitutu had not been convicted of any offence, it was not tenable to conclude that her releasing the iron sheets amounted to a corrupt offence.

They also argued that the prosecution's failure to call Minister Goretti Kitutu as a witness significantly weakened their case.

Assessors Advised

The assessors advised the court to convict the accused on the charge preferred by the prosecution.

They reasoned that, given the accused's own testimony that the Minister was politically fighting her and that they had a very bad relationship which crippled her work, it was incongruous that the same Minister would allocate her 2,000 iron sheets unless something irregular had occurred.

Court's Findings

The court found that the 2,000 iron sheets were public property acquired under the OPM community empowerment programme specifically for the Karamoja Sub-region. No prosecution witness testified that any portion was intended for Bududa.

The delivery voucher (PEX 13) listed the accused as consignee under her title as "State Minister of Karamoja," with the field designating final beneficiaries left blank in contravention of established procedures. The Ledger extract (PEX 12) made no reference to Bududa next to the accused's name.

"I am satisfied, on the basis of the evidence adduced before me, and which I have evaluated, that any iron sheets so distributed are proceeds of corrupt acts."

The court held that the iron sheets had been diverted at will, without any formal procedures, requests, or documented evidence of need. The Ledger Book revealed an "iron-sheet bonanza" benefiting recipients unrelated to Karamoja, with no planned budgets, no proven need, and no traceable final recipients. The court held that ordinary practice of the OPM making donations did not, of itself, render the issuance legal, correct, or procedurally proper.

On the element of mens rea, the court applied both the standard of "knowledge" (conscious awareness) and "reason to believe" (sufficient cause to believe, assessed objectively). Relying on academic commentary from the International Journal of Law Management & Humanities (2019), the court noted that either standard, if established, is sufficient to prove the required mental element.

"I am convinced that the accused knew or ought to have known the iron sheets were part of the batch meant for activities in Karamoja. There is uncontroverted evidence that she attended the launch in Moroto and was privy to the President's direction to halt the distribution programme."

The court rejected the defence that the accused was sidelined in Ministry operations. Her own defence witness (DW 4 Francis Lowoth Okori, Assistant Commissioner of Programs) confirmed that he had been specifically assigned to guide and assist her after taking office, that he prepared the Ministry's budgets and work plans, and that the accused was involved in the Ministry's budgeting process. The court found this fatally undermined her claimed ignorance.

The defence claim that the iron sheets were for Bududa was found to be unsupported by any independent evidence. DW 3, the LCV Chairman of Bududa, admitted that the accused never informed Bududa officials that she had the iron sheets in her possession, and that they only learned of this when the scandal broke in the media. The court noted the District Disaster Management Committee had been writing to the OPM requesting iron sheets, oblivious that the accused had already received a batch allegedly meant for them.

"I do not find merit in the accused's defence that she had no knowledge or reason to believe that the iron sheets were proceeds of a corrupt act. Her claim that the iron sheets were for Bududa falls flat. I consider this defence an outright lie."

On the evidentiary significance of unchallenged evidence, the court applied the principle in James Sawo Abiri and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 5/1990), that an omission to challenge material evidence in cross-examination gives rise to an inference that such evidence is accepted as true. The defence's failure to cross-examine PW 4 on the events in Moroto was treated as acceptance of that testimony.

The court agreed with the assessors and concluded that the prosecution had proved all three elements of the offence of Dealing with Suspect Property contrary to Section 21(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act Cap 116, beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was accordingly convicted.

Holding

The accused, Hon. Agnes Nandutu, was convicted of Dealing with Suspect Property contrary to Section 21(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act Cap 116. The court found that all elements of the offence were proved beyond a reasonable doubt: the iron sheets were public property; they were obtained as a result of an offence under the Act; and the accused, at the time of dealing with them, knew or had reason to believe that they had been so acquired.

Read the full case

Uganda v Nandutu Agnes 2026 UGHCACD 11 (8 April 2026).pdf

Download PDF • 15.05MB

Key Takeaways

Mens rea and "reason to believe"

The court confirmed that proof of either "knowledge" or "reason to believe" is sufficient to establish the mental element. An objective, circumstantially-grounded standard applies, not subjective ignorance.

Procedural irregularity is telling

The absence of a formal requisition, blank delivery voucher fields, and informal allocation of public resources were treated as powerful indicators of diversion, not mere administrative oversight.

Silence on cross-examination

Applying Sawo Abiri, uncontested evidence in chief is treated as accepted. Defence practitioners must challenge every material prosecution assertion or risk conceding it.

Own witnesses can undermine a defence

DW 4's evidence directly contradicted the accused's claim of ministerial sidelining. DW 3 admitted she withheld information from the very Bududa community she claimed to be serving.

Ministerial status and knowledge

Holding ministerial office imports a duty to understand one's ministry's programmes, budget, and operational procedures. Claimed ignorance from a senior official will be scrutinised critically.

Conduct after receipt is relevant

Storing property for ten months, moving it to a private farm, and withholding information from purported beneficiaries all weighed heavily against the accused's defence of innocent receipt.