The Chief Administrative Officer of Lwengo District, Mr. Lujumwa Nathan, is once again in the legal spotlight after the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Masaka issued fresh criminal summons compelling him to appear on June 26, 2025, to answer charges related to alleged concealment of a public document.
The charge is in connection with Section 45(b) of the Access to Information Act, Cap. 95—a rarely enforced provision intended to safeguard citizens’ rights to government-held information.
The criminal proceedings, now under case reference MSK-00-CR-CO-0377-2025, stem from a complaint by Volunteer Uganda Extra Limited (VUEL), a local civil society organisation advocating for good governance and accountability.
According to documents filed in court, VUEL accuses Mr. Lujumwa of unlawfully withholding a requested document, despite the organization having followed all legal and procedural steps, including submitting a formal request and paying the required UGX 20,000 processing fee.
The summons, issued on May 27, represents the latest twist in what has become a protracted legal battle. VUEL insists the matter is more than a dispute over one document; they describe it as a critical test of Uganda’s commitment to the principles of transparency and the rule of law.
In their filings, the organisation provided a trove of supporting materials, including a sworn complaint, affidavits, payment receipts, and official correspondences addressed to the CAO.
The case has not been without controversy; During a hearing on May 22, confusion marred proceedings when a new State Attorney, unknown to the complainant, appeared without prior notice and attempted to assume control of the case.
Adding to the disorder, the case was presided over by a Grade One Magistrate instead of the Chief Magistrate who had been overseeing the file since its inception. VUEL’s legal team strongly objected, calling the appearance irregular and warning of potential procedural violations, especially in a matter initiated through private prosecution.
According to VUEL’s lawyers, the law stipulates that a private prosecution under the Access to Information Act must be handled by a Chief Magistrate.
They argued that any substitution without formal explanation undermines the integrity of the process and risks derailing the case.
There was also confusion surrounding the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the matter. The DPP had earlier taken over the case through State Attorney Caroline in April.
VUEL now claims that the recent attempts to re-enter the matter amount to duplication and potential abuse of judicial process.
“This case cannot be taken over twice. The court record must be respected,” a VUEL lawyer emphasized during the hearing.
This is not the first time Mr. Lujumwa has been summoned over the same matter. He failed to appear in court on April 14 under Criminal Case No. 271 of 2025, and again ignored a rescheduled session on April 22, despite a direct warning from the court.
VUEL expressed growing concern that the CAO is deliberately evading justice, possibly with the intent to recast the issue as a civil disagreement and escape criminal liability.
Legal experts and human rights observers are watching the case closely, noting its potential to set a powerful precedent.
“Few prosecutions have tested the strength of Uganda’s Access to Information Act in this manner, and its outcome could have lasting implications for public accountability,” said one of the observers.
Volunteer Uganda Extra Limited has been vocal in its call for the enforcement of transparency laws.
The organization, active in Lwengo and Masaka districts, recently received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Lwengo District Local Government for its work in community mobilization and anti-corruption.
That recognition, signed by District Chairperson Ibrahim Kitatta Almalik and Speaker Hon. Ssenozi Peregrino, has added institutional weight to their pursuit of justice.
As the next court date approaches, pressure is mounting on the Judiciary to ensure the matter proceeds without further delay. VUEL has made it clear they will not back down, warning that further attempts to frustrate the process could erode public faith in the judicial system.
“If public officers can defy the law and withhold public information with no consequences, then the spirit of transparency is lost,” one of the lawyers stated. “This case goes beyond Lwengo. It is about whether ordinary citizens can hold those in power accountable.”
Should Mr. Lujumwa fail to appear again on June 26, the court may be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest, setting the stage for an even more consequential chapter in this landmark case.
