A ruling has sent shockwaves through Uganda’s corporate and legal circles, the High Court’s Anti-Corruption Division has acquitted two directors of ThreeWays Shipping Company who were accused of masterminding a $3.8 million fraud against MTN Uganda.

The directors, Mr. Bihamaiso and Mr. Baitwa, faced charges of theft and conspiracy to defraud following the submission of 125 fake invoices between 2009 and 2012.

Prosecutors argued that the fraudulent invoices resulted in substantial payments made by MTN Uganda to the ThreeWays account, which was controlled exclusively by the two men.

The case, which has dragged on since 2016, involved a total of six suspects, including insiders from both MTN Uganda and ThreeWays Shipping. However, only the two directors remained on trial by 2024, after plea bargains, death, and dismissals reduced the list of accused.

On April 30, 2025, Hon. Justice Lawrence Gidudu acquitted the accused of all charges, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove their criminal intent or direct participation in the scheme. The judge acknowledged that fraud had indeed occurred and that the funds were stolen from MTN Uganda’s accounts. However, he held that the fraud was executed by MTN insiders and low-level employees of ThreeWays Shipping, and that there was no 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,” the judge ruled.

The judgment has been met with strong criticism from legal experts, corporate leaders, and anti-corruption advocates who say the court ignored compelling circumstantial evidence. They argue that the directors’ exclusive control over the bank account used as the “exit facility” for the stolen funds should have been sufficient to infer knowledge and complicity, especially given the duration and magnitude of the fraud.

“The ruling defies logic,” said one prominent legal analyst. “You cannot accept all the factual and legal underpinnings of a fraud case, and then abruptly absolve those who directly benefited from it without coherent explanation.”

Indeed, observers have expressed confusion over the court’s apparent internal contradiction agreeing with the prosecution’s arguments at every legal turn, only to make a dramatic reversal in the final judgment.

“What could possibly have changed the mind of the judge at the last minute?” one senior lawyer asked. “It is baffling.”

The ruling has broader implications beyond this particular case. Legal and corporate observers warn that the acquittal will severely erode investor confidence in Uganda’s judicial system, especially among multinational corporations.

“Multinational companies operating in Uganda are increasingly vulnerable to internal fraud, and the judiciary is supposed to be their final line of protection,” said a risk analyst working with an international telecom consultancy. “If even a case as clear-cut as this one, backed by forensic bank evidence and witness testimony, cannot lead to a conviction, then legal remedies in Uganda are essentially a roll of the dice.”

The prolonged duration of the case
nearly a decade has also been costly for MTN Uganda in both financial and operational terms. Legal costs, reputational damage, and the loss of over $3 million have strained corporate resources and contributed to growing unease in the investor community.

Legal comparisons have also been drawn between this case and Uganda v. Jeff Lawrence Kiwanuka (2017), where the same presiding judge Justice Gidudu lifted the corporate veil to convict a director for corporate fraud under nearly identical circumstances.

“In the Jeff Lawrence case, the veil was lifted to expose the real beneficiaries of stolen funds,” one lawyer noted. “But in this case, despite clear evidence that for three years the accused were withdrawing stolen money from MTN, the judge refused to pierce the veil. Why?”

This inconsistent application of precedent has fueled speculation that rulings in such high-profile economic crimes are now being swayed by ‘clandestine means’ rather than legal merit.

In light of these concerns, there are growing calls for the DPP to appeal the judgment. Legal experts argue that the evidence particularly the flow of money, control of the account, and circumstantial proof of benefit justifies further judicial review.

“Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done,” said one former appellate judge. “This ruling falls short on both counts.”

MTN Uganda, as the complainant in the case, is legally entitled to petition the DPP for an appeal. It remains to be seen whether the office, now under the supervision of the former defense attorney for several accused, will take up the challenge.

The acquittal of Bihamaiso and Baitwa has not only left legal experts bewildered but has also raised fundamental questions about the integrity and reliability of Uganda’s justice system particularly in the eyes of international investors and multinational corporations.

With public trust wavering and legal certainty slipping, this case may yet prove to be a turning point in how Uganda addresses white-collar crime
and whether its judiciary can rise above perception to deliver credible justice.