KAMPALA, Uganda — An anonymous officer of court has petitioned the Judicial Service Commission and senior Judiciary officials over alleged procedural irregularities and ethical concerns surrounding the issuance of a warrant of arrest in a commercial dispute involving Centenary Rural Development Bank and the National Forestry Authority.
The complaint, dated 29th April 2026, was reportedly addressed to the Inspector of Courts, the Chief Justice, the Principal Judge, and the Head of the Commercial Division of the High Court.
According to the whistleblower, the execution process in High Court Civil Suit No. 358 of 2023 raises serious concerns regarding procedural integrity, judicial oversight, and possible conflicts of interest involving judicial officers and court-appointed actors.
The complainant alleges that Centenary Bank accepted and valued land as legitimate collateral before later facilitating its sale, only for the National Forestry Authority to subsequently claim that the same land formed part of a protected forest reserve.
The anonymous officer further argues that there is no clear record showing that the bank compelled the NFA to provide strict proof of ownership during the mortgage and enforcement proceedings.
Following the sale of the contested property, Centenary Bank reportedly instituted recovery proceedings against the debtor seeking approximately Shs400 million.
The petition also raises concern over the conduct of the execution process, alleging that the same individual acted both as auctioneer and later as a court bailiff, a development the whistleblower says creates a possible conflict of roles and undermines confidence in the process.
The complaint additionally references Registrar Christa Namutebi, who is reportedly named as a defendant in Civil Suit No. 462 of 2025 arising from the earlier execution proceedings.
According to the petition, a ruling was delivered on March 23, 2026, in Miscellaneous Application No. 1474 of 2025 regarding the legality of an earlier warrant of arrest issued on November 5, 2025.
The whistleblower outlines a sequence of events that allegedly followed the ruling, including the issuance of summons for directions in Civil Suit No. 462 of 2025 on April 20, 2026, and the filing of another application on the same day seeking renewal of a warrant of arrest in HCCS No. 358 of 2023.
The complaint further alleges that on April 21, 2026, a return of warrant dated January 16, 2026, was filed by a bailiff referencing a warrant allegedly issued on December 10, 2025, despite no corresponding record appearing on the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS).
The anonymous officer claims that a renewed warrant of arrest was later issued on April 24, 2026, by Registrar Namutebi despite ongoing legal challenges concerning the earlier execution process.
According to the petition, these actions raise concerns regarding the renewal of warrants arising from processes already under judicial challenge, reliance on court documents allegedly absent from official records, and the continued involvement of actors previously linked to the contested proceedings.
The complaint also questions issues of impartiality and recusal, arguing that a judicial officer named in related litigation should not continue issuing warrants connected to the same subject matter.
Citing the Judicial Code of Conduct (2003), the whistleblower emphasized that judicial officers are required to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in the administration of justice.
The petition further references Section 10 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019, warning that personal liability may arise where judicial officers authorize or participate in actions that violate fundamental rights.
The complainant has asked the Inspector of Courts to investigate the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the April 24 warrant, review the integrity of the underlying court records, and determine whether disciplinary or administrative action is warranted.
By press time, the Judiciary, Registrar Christa Namutebi, Centenary Bank, and the National Forestry Authority had not publicly responded to the allegations raised in the complaint.
