pressug.com News 24 7
Related Articles
×
Hon Kiconco Katabazi Patrick is the newly elected Rukiga Member of Parliament. He is also a lawyer from Pathways Advocates and has been handling payments of beneficiaries of supplied tea seedlings under the NAADS/Operation Wealth Creation programme.
He got issues and was called to Parliament’s PAC-COSASE committee where he was grilled some time back. He later dragged the attorney General to court on grounds that he was illegally summoned by Parliament and later lost the case. Check the details of the case below;
What the case was about;
Patrick Kiconco, a lawyer from Pathways Advocates, represented tea nursery bed operators who had supplied tea seedlings under the NAADS/Operation Wealth Creation programme but had not been paid.
The nursery operators sued Government/NAADS, and the case ended in a consent judgment. Government agreed that large sums were owed, including:
Tea saplings valued at about UGX 42.6 billion
Outstanding balance of about UGX 27.3 billion
Interest of about UGX 25.6 billion
Further payment after verification of saplings not collected
Government later paid about UGX 39 billion through the lawyers for onward payment to the nursery bed operators.
Why Parliament got involved;
Parliament’s PAC-COSASE committee was reviewing the Auditor General’s report on NAADS. The report raised issues of domestic arrears and public funds.
PAC-COSASE summoned Kiconco to explain whether the money paid by NAADS through his law firm had actually reached the intended nursery bed operators.
The Committee wanted documents such as:
Proof that NAADS paid money to the law firm
Proof that the law firm paid the nursery bed operators
List of beneficiaries and acknowledgements
Representative order
Agreements authorising the lawyers to represent the beneficiaries
Kiconco’s argument;
Kiconco argued that Parliament and police had gone too far.
He said: Parliament was interfering with a court judgment; the consent judgment was still being implemented and that Parliament was violating separation of powers.
The documents requested were protected by advocate-client privilege
Bank details, client agreements, and payment lists were confidential
Parliament had no power to investigate the execution of a court order
Government and Parliament’s argument;
The Attorney General and Parliament argued that PAC-COSASE was not questioning the court judgment.
They said Parliament was only asking:
“Public money was paid. Did it reach the intended beneficiaries?”
Their position was that:
Parliament has power to monitor public expenditure
PAC-COSASE can summon private individuals
Parliament can compel production of documents
The issue arose from NAADS’ audited accounts
The public has a right to know whether public funds were properly used
The Committee was not trying to overturn or review the court judgment
What the Court decided
The Court agreed with Parliament;
Justice Stephen Mubiru held that PAC-COSASE was acting within its constitutional oversight mandate. Parliament has power to monitor public funds and can summon witnesses or demand documents where public money is involved.
The Court found that the Committee was not interfering with the judiciary because it was not questioning how the consent judgment was made. It was only checking accountability for money already paid under that judgment.
On advocate-client privilege;
The Court accepted that advocate-client privilege is important.
However, it said the privilege does not protect every fact connected to a lawyer-client relationship. It mainly protects confidential legal communications made for purposes of legal advice or litigation.
The Court found that the requested information — especially proof of payment to beneficiaries — related to accountability for public funds, not confidential legal advice.
The Court said there were compelling public-interest reasons for Parliament to access the information.
Final outcome
The application failed.
The Court ruled that:
PAC-COSASE acted within its mandate
The police/parliamentary investigation was not illegal
There was no unlawful interference with judicial independence
Advocate-client privilege did not block Parliament from demanding accountability documents
The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents
The simple meaning
This ruling means that where public money is paid through a lawyer’s account, Parliament can demand proof that the money reached the intended beneficiaries.
A lawyer cannot simply say “advocate-client privilege” to avoid accountability, especially where the money came from Government and was meant for many public beneficiaries.
The unspoken truth: this case is really about the line between legal confidentiality and public accountability. The Court made it clear that once public funds are involved, confidentiality becomes weaker if Parliament needs the information to verify whether taxpayers’ money was properly.
Hon Katabazi before PAC(file photo)
HE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (CIVIL DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 012 OF 2024 KICONCO K. PATRICK :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS ATTORNEY GENERAL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE BONIFACE WAMALA RULING Introduction [1] This application was brought by Notice of Motion under Sections 33 and 38 of the Judicature Act Cap 13, Rules 3 & 6 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009, as amended, and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act seeking the following declarations and orders; a) A declaration that the investigation by the Public Accounts Committee on Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (PAC-COSASE) of Parliament of Uganda against the applicant to inquire into payments made through M/s Pathways Advocates to beneficiaries under an order of court leading to their report dated 17th October 2023 was illegal, ultravires and procedurally improper. b) A declaration that the PAC-COSASE as an agent of Parliament of Uganda acted ultravires, illegally and was biased in its proceedings when it commenced investigations upon the applicant without any formal complaint and made recommendations without properly applying the rules of natural justice leading to an outcome that was unfair, ultravires, null and void.
more details here; Kiconco v Attorney General 2025 UGHCCD 116 (23 July 2025)
It was not possible to reach Hon Katabazi for a comment on this case. This may have to be a troubling matter to the young legislator.
, https://eastafricanwatch.net/check-the-details-of-the-summary-of-hon-kiconco-patrick-v-attorney-general-others-miscellaneous-cause-no-0086-of-2023-and-how-he-was-defeated/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=check-the-details-of-the-summary-of-hon-kiconco-patrick-v-attorney-general-others-miscellaneous-cause-no-0086-of-2023-and-how-he-was-defeated
