The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has stepped in to handle the criminal proceedings against businessman Patrick Bitature and his wife, Carol Bitature, in the $26 million commercial dispute with South African money lender Vantage Mezzanine Fund 11 Partnership. The DPP’s intervention follows criminal prosecution proceedings initiated by Kirunda & Company Advocates against the Bitatures.
Buganda Road Resident Chief State Attorney Joan Keko, acting on behalf of DPP Jane Frances Abodo, confirmed the state’s takeover of the case in a letter to Kampala High Court dated January 23. The move is in accordance with Article 120 of the Constitution, granting the DPP the authority to assume control over and continue prosecutions.
The dispute stems from a 2014 lending agreement where Vantage loaned $10 million to Simba Group. Financial distress, exacerbated by challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and delays in government decisions, led to difficulties in meeting payment obligations. Despite attempts to negotiate with Vantage, the dispute escalated into a criminal prosecution.
Bitature, defending the actions as essential to save the group, cited changes made under the authority of the group’s Articles of Association. The dispute was initially deemed commercial, and in 2020, Justice Wamala referred it to arbitration.
However, Vantage’s attempts to transfer shares in Bitature’s company were rejected by URSB, leading to legal challenges. The Court found Vantage’s business operations in Uganda illegal, and the matter is under appeal.
Arbitration proceedings in London concluded in July 2023, with Bitature ordered to pay over $65.7 million to Vantage. Bitature’s lawyers contest the award, considering it exorbitant, and plan to object to its enforcement in Kampala High Court.
Despite ongoing negotiations between Vantage and Bitature, the High Court ordered the Bitatures’ prosecution on January 8, 2024, for alleged alteration of company shares with the intent to defraud Vantage. Bitature has appealed this order, emphasizing the commercial nature of the dispute.
In response, Bitature criticized the use of unfounded criminal prosecution tactics and questioned the authority of a private prosecutor acting on behalf of an entity declared non-existent and unrecognized.
