The recent acquittal of two directors from ThreeWays Shipping Company in a $3.8 million fraud case involving MTN Uganda has sparked widespread backlash, raising serious questions about the integrity of Uganda’s judicial system.
On April 30, 2025, the High Court’s Anti-Corruption Division acquitted Geoffrey Bihamaiso and Oscar Baitwa, who were accused of orchestrating the fraudulent withdrawal of millions from MTN Uganda through 125 fake invoices submitted between 2009 and 2012. The funds, prosecutors argued, were paid directly into a bank account controlled exclusively by the two directors.
The case, which dates back to 2016, initially involved six suspects, including staff from both MTN and ThreeWays Shipping. Over time, plea bargains, dismissals, and the death of one co-accused left only the two directors standing trial by 2024.
Justice Lawrence Gidudu ruled that while fraud had indeed occurred and MTN Uganda had lost substantial funds, the prosecution failed to establish the directors’ criminal intent or direct involvement. The court concluded that the fraud was executed by MTN insiders and junior employees of ThreeWays, and that there was insufficient evidence linking the directors to the conspiracy.
“The fact that money was deposited in an account they controlled is not, by itself, proof of intent,” Justice Gidudu stated.
The ruling has triggered sharp criticism from legal experts, corporate leaders, and anti-corruption advocates. Many argue that the exclusive control Bihamaiso and Baitwa had over the account into which the stolen funds were paid is strong circumstantial evidence of their involvement.
“The ruling defies logic,” one senior legal analyst commented. “You cannot validate every element of a fraud case and then absolve the individuals who controlled the exit route for the stolen money—without a sound explanation.”
Observers have also pointed to what they see as internal inconsistencies in the judgment, where the court agreed with the prosecution’s narrative but ultimately absolved the main beneficiaries of the fraud.
“What could possibly have changed the judge’s mind at the last minute?” one lawyer asked. “It’s baffling.”
The judgment is seen as potentially damaging to investor confidence, particularly among multinational corporations operating in Uganda.
“Multinational companies depend on an impartial legal system to protect them from internal fraud,” said a risk consultant with an international telecom advisory firm. “If even a case backed by forensic evidence and witness testimony cannot secure a conviction, then judicial outcomes begin to look arbitrary.”
MTN Uganda has already incurred substantial losses—over $3 million in direct fraud, along with legal fees and reputational harm—during the nearly decade-long legal process.
Legal observers have drawn comparisons with Uganda v. Jeff Lawrence Kiwanuka (2017), where the same judge, Justice Gidudu, lifted the corporate veil to convict a director under similar fraud circumstances.
“In the Kiwanuka case, the court held directors accountable. Why not here, when the same pattern of benefit and control exists?” one legal expert questioned.
This perceived inconsistency has led to speculation about undue influence in high-profile economic crime cases.
There is growing pressure on the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to appeal the ruling. Legal experts argue that the combination of money trails, account control, and circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to warrant appellate review.
“Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done,” a former appellate judge said. “This ruling falls short on both counts.”
MTN Uganda, as the aggrieved party, is entitled to petition the DPP for an appeal. However, it remains unclear whether the office—now led by a former defense lawyer for several accused in related matters—will act.
The acquittal of Bihamaiso and Baitwa has left many in the legal community stunned. For some, it has exposed deeper concerns about consistency, fairness, and the rule of law in Uganda’s handling of white-collar crime.
As public trust wavers and legal certainty falters, this case may yet mark a defining moment in how Uganda addresses corporate fraud—and whether its judiciary can uphold justice free from suspicion and influence.
