The High Court in Kampala has ruled that the Inspector General of Government-IGG has no power to summon an advocate in order to provide information on his or her clients. In a ruling by Acting Judge Simon Peter Kinobe, the court said advocates enjoy immunity that can only be waived in extraordinary circumstances.
“While the IGG can investigate private persons in cases where the private person is involved in the illicit use of public funds, it cannot summon an advocate to enumerate or divulge information brought to his or her attention as a result of the client-advocate relationship. This would require the client’s consent or a court order, which must arise from a hearing to justify its issuance,” Judge Kinobe ruled.
His ruling follows an application filed by Kampala lawyer Frank Kanduho Rwabosy challenging the decision of the IGG to summon him in relation to the investigation of over payment to a one Charles Tumwesigye Kahirwa, by the Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited.Kanduho was Tumwesigye’s lawyer in a case where he was demanding Shs 1.26billion for compensation for his 8acres land in which a transmission line was passed.
The matter was heard and determined by the court which allowed Tumwesigye to recover the money from UETCL. However, the IGG launched investigations after allegations that Tumwesigye had been paid in excess of Shs 288million which UETCL had earlier paid him. The IGG wrote to Kanduho to provide her with information on the transaction seeing that he was the lawyer of Tumwesigye.
But in his ruling, Kinobe said, the IGG has no powers over advocates in as far as their professional duties are concerned.“The IGG’s mandate extends only to investigating corruption, abuse of authority, or financial loss arising from neglect of duty or intentional connivance by government officials,” Kinobe ruled. “It does not extend to reviewing or altering judicial determinations…Also, while the IGG may investigate UETCL as payer and Charles Tumwesigye as payee if there is credible suspicion of fraudulent overpayment, it cannot commence investigations with the effect of undermining or revisiting a court’s final decision and its jurisdiction does not extend to advocates who merely encountered information in the course of their professional duty to a client.”
He added that if there was any impropriety on the side of Kanduho as an advocate, it is only the Law Council that has power over him, and ruled thus:“I find that, save for acts of outright, direct criminality, the entity charged with the responsibility to discipline advocates for professional misconduct is the Law Council and not the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent would be acting ultra vires if it undertook responsibility to discipline advocates for professional misconduct.”-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
