The High Court in Kampala has quashed an investigation report by the Auditor General into allegations of financial and administrative impropriety against former Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) Chief Executive Officer Kaddunabbi I. Ibrahim Lubega, ruling that the investigation was tainted by illegality and that its subsequent use violated the principles of procedural fairness.
In a ruling delivered on November 9, 2026, in Miscellaneous Cause No. 198 of 2026, Justice Bonny Isaac Teko held that the Permanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury (PSST) (Ramathan Ggoobi) acted unlawfully to the extent that he assumed responsibilities reserved for the Minister in relation to Kaddunabbi’s contract renewal.
The court also declared that the use of the adverse investigation report without demonstrated genuine and open consideration of Kaddunabbi’s representations was procedurally improper and inconsistent with Article 42 of the Constitution.
The decision represents a significant legal victory for Kaddunabbi, who had challenged the circumstances surrounding the investigation, the authority under which it was commissioned and the manner in which its findings were subsequently used in the process concerning renewal of his contract.
Court questions circumstances surrounding investigation
Kaddunabbi’s fixed-term appointment as IRA Chief Executive Officer ran from June 1, 2021, to May 31, 2026.
The dispute arose after the IRA Board raised concerns about his financial management and implementation of Board policies, including remuneration, leave payments, travel expenditure and recruitment.
On February 16, 2026, the Board communicated its recommendation against renewing his contract to the Minister.
Following that communication, the PSST wrote to the Auditor General on March 19, 2026, requesting an independent assessment of the allegations raised by the IRA Board Chairman.
The Auditor General subsequently completed an investigation report dated May 15, 2026, which was forwarded to the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and subsequently to the IRA Board for consideration in connection with Kaddunabbi’s contract renewal.
However, Justice Teko observed that the Board’s recommendation against renewal had already been communicated on February 16, 2026, before the investigation was commissioned.
Consequently, the report could not have caused the Board’s original recommendation, although its subsequent use in the administrative process remained subject to judicial scrutiny.
Auditor General’s statutory mandate questioned
One of the central questions before court was whether the Auditor General had acted within the constitutional and statutory mandate of the office when undertaking an investigation whose scope was closely connected to an individual employment dispute.
The Auditor General had relied on Article 163 of the Constitution and provisions of the National Audit Act, Cap. 170, including Section 22, which provides for special audits and investigations.
The first respondent also invoked Section 38 of the National Audit Act, which provides statutory protection for reports of the Auditor General published for the benefit of Parliament.
In opposing the application, the Auditor General relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Auditor General v Achimo Ruth Etibot, Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2021 [2023] UGCA 110.
However, Justice Teko distinguished that authority from the circumstances of Kaddunabbi’s case.
The judge placed particular emphasis on the Auditor General’s own description of the assignment in the report.
At paragraph 1.7, the Auditor General stated that the report had been prepared solely to communicate findings to the PSST pursuant to his request of March 19, 2026, and should not be utilised for any other purpose without the Auditor General’s consent.
The report further restricted its scope to allegations contained in the IRA Board Chairman’s communication, particularly alleged irregular increases in the CEO’s salary, irregular payment of leave allowances and payments in lieu of leave.
Justice Teko consequently rejected the argument that the report was necessarily protected by parliamentary reporting immunity.
“I am unable to accept the Auditor General’s assertion that this report related to his execution of his constitutional and statutory mandate,” the judge ruled.
He added that the Auditor General had been auditing Kaddunabbi and that the report could not be regarded as one prepared for the benefit of Parliament within the meaning of Section 38 of the National Audit Act.
The judge cautioned against treating the Court of Appeal decision in Auditor General v Achimo Ruth Etibot as blanket authority for the Auditor General to undertake assignments without regard to the law governing the office.
He concluded that the particular report was not for the benefit of Parliament and therefore did not enjoy the statutory protection claimed by the first respondent.
PSST found to have acted illegally
The court also examined whether the PSST had lawful authority to commission an investigation into matters connected to Kaddunabbi’s contract renewal.
Kaddunabbi argued that the Insurance Act, Cap. 191, reserves the appointment and reappointment functions of the IRA Chief Executive Officer to the Minister responsible for Finance, acting upon the recommendation of the Board.
The Attorney General, however, maintained that the PSST had acted in the public interest following concerns raised by the IRA Board Chairman.
The government also relied on transitional arrangements following the presidential elections, under which the Head of Public Service had issued guidance authorising Permanent Secretaries to facilitate ministerial functions pending the appointment and assumption of office by Ministers.
In his analysis, Justice Teko distinguished between the PSST’s general administrative responsibilities and the statutory powers specifically reserved for the Minister.
The judge noted that Section 20 of the Insurance Act assigns appointment and reappointment functions to the Minister upon the Board’s recommendation, while Section 9 of the Public Service Act provides for the administrative and management responsibilities of Permanent Secretaries.
He held that the PSST’s administrative responsibilities did not transfer the Minister’s employment powers.
The court further observed that a letter dated May 13, 2026, could not retrospectively confer authority to act as Minister on March 19, 2026.
The judge concluded that where the PSST undertook a responsibility reserved for the Minister while the substantive Minister was still in office, such action amounted to an unlawful usurpation of the Minister’s powers.
The finding of illegality was, however, limited to the PSST’s intervention in relation to the reappointment process.
Court finds violation of procedural fairness
On procedural fairness, the court found that the subsequent administrative use of the investigation report failed to demonstrate that Kaddunabbi’s representations had received genuine and open consideration.
The evidence showed that the IRA Board had already recommended against renewal on February 16, 2026.
After completion of the Auditor General’s report on May 15, 2026, the Board convened an extraordinary meeting on May 25, 2026, during which Kaddunabbi was given an opportunity to respond to the adverse findings.
The Board nevertheless maintained its earlier recommendation.
While acknowledging that the earlier recommendation preceded the investigation, Justice Teko held that the existence of a subsequent hearing did not automatically establish that procedural fairness had been observed.
The judge explained that a fair hearing must be genuine and that the decision-maker must be prepared to consider the affected person’s representations with an open mind.
He emphasised that the right to be heard is not satisfied merely by inviting someone to speak after the material decision has effectively been settled.
“The opportunity must be meaningful and capable of influencing the decision,” the court held.
Justice Teko found that the evidence did not demonstrate a genuinely fresh and open reconsideration of Kaddunabbi’s response before the adverse report was relied upon in the process affecting his interests.
The court therefore declared that the report’s subsequent administrative use was procedurally improper and inconsistent with Article 42 of the Constitution.
Importantly, the judge clarified that the ruling did not determine whether the allegations concerning Kaddunabbi’s financial management were true or false, nor did it determine whether his contract ought to have been renewed.
Court rejects irrationality claim
Although Kaddunabbi challenged the evidential basis of several findings in the investigation report, the court declined to find that irrationality had independently been established.
The judge relied on the established principles in Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] 2 EA 300 and Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.
He held that disagreement with the evidential weight attached to documents or the conclusions reached by an investigating authority does not automatically establish irrationality.
The court found that the evidence did not demonstrate that the investigative findings were so devoid of a rational evidential basis, or so disconnected from the subject matter, as to warrant intervention on grounds of irrationality.
However, this did not absolve the respondents of responsibility for the separate findings of illegality and procedural impropriety.
High Court issues orders in Kaddunabbi’s favour
In its final determination, the High Court granted relief in favour of Kaddunabbi, including the following orders:
- The use of the adverse report without demonstrated genuine and open consideration of Kaddunabbi’s representations was declared procedurally improper and inconsistent with Article 42 of the Constitution.
- An order of certiorari was issued quashing the first respondent’s decisions contained in the Investigation Report on Allegations of Financial and Administrative Impropriety in the Insurance Regulatory Authority dated May 15, 2026, for the reasons determined under Issues Two and Three.
- Any further lawful consideration of Kaddunabbi’s employment interests must comply with the applicable law and Article 42 of the Constitution, including genuine consideration of his representations.
- The report shall not be used as a report to Parliament or as a basis for instituting prosecution against Kaddunabbi, in view of the procedural flaws and limitations identified by the court, including the Auditor General’s own caveat concerning the scope and intended use of the report.
- The prayer for damages was declined.
The court also awarded Kaddunabbi the costs of the application.
A significant distinction on constitutional accountability
In its concluding remarks, the court reaffirmed that constitutional independence does not place public institutions beyond the law.
Justice Teko stressed that the Executive, the Auditor General and the Judiciary must each operate within their respective constitutional and statutory mandates.
The court was careful, however, not to assume the functions of the IRA Board, which was not a party to the judicial review proceedings.
It therefore declined to determine the legality of the Board’s separate recommendation or direct that Kaddunabbi’s contract be renewed.
The responsibility for any future employment decision remains with the authority legally empowered to make it, subject to compliance with the law and constitutional requirements of fairness.
The ruling was delivered electronically through the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) on November 9, 2026, by Acting High Court Judge Bonny Isaac Teko. Kaddunabbi was represented by Arcadia Advocates, while the Auditor General was represented by Okello Oryem & Co Advocates. The Attorney General was represented by the Attorney General’s Chambers.
