The Kiteezi Dilemma: Audit Warnings, Institutional Reports & The Peril Of Prosecutorial Misuse

The prosecution alleges that the Executive Director (ED) and Deputy Executive Director (DED) failed to act on critical warnings contained in internal audit and technical reports related to the Kiteezi Landfill (KLF). However, this line of argument fundamentally misrepresents the role of internal assurance functions, distorts administrative structures, and ignores both procedural norms and statutory boundaries.

The claim seeks to transform non-binding internal observations into criminal indictments, ignoring the realities of how large public institutions operate; and worse, deliberately bypassing the officers who were both informed and empowered to act.

🔹 Internal Audit Reports: Advisory in Nature, Not Executive Orders: By design, internal audit units serve an independent oversight function. Under the Public Finance Management Act, 2015 and KCCA’s own governance framework, the Director of Internal Audit (DIA) is mandated to: –

Identify and assess internal risks,
Issue reports to improve controls and accountability,
Recommend, but not enforce, operational responses.
These reports are routed to line directorates for action, in this case, the Directorate of Public Health and Environment (DPHE), which has legal and operational responsibility for waste management.

There is no evidence that the weekly internal audit report cited by the prosecution (dated 15th–19th July 2024):

Was escalated to the Executive or Deputy Executive Director,
Was discussed at the Senior Management Team (SMT) level,
Or resulted in any decision memo, minute, or directive at the executive level.
Therefore, to suggest that failure to act on a report that was neither escalated nor actionable by the accused officers constitutes criminal negligence is procedurally baseless and doctrinally unsound.

🔹 Technical Warnings Must Be Actioned by Those with Technical Mandate: Similar reliance is placed on reports by the Project Coordinator for Solid Waste Management, whose supervisory and budgetary line lies entirely within the DPHE. This position is not administratively or operationally accountable to the ED or DED for technical decisions.

KCCA’s internal structures, codified in its Administrative Structures Manual and aligned with the KCCA Act, Sections 17–18, assign solid waste operations, including KLF site supervision, to the DPHE. This includes: –

Receiving and reviewing site risk assessments,
Issuing safety instructions,
Preparing and submitting budget requests for risk mitigation.
Notably, no evidence has been adduced that: –

These reports were copied to or acknowledged by the DED,
Any escalation memo was submitted to the executive level,
Any risk flag from the DPHE was ignored or declined.
Thus, the prosecution’s inference of executive negligence is built on presumptive awareness, not proven accountability; an argument that fails under established legal precedent.

🔹 The DPHE’s Absence from Prosecution: A Disturbing Omission: The most damning evidence of prosecutorial selectivity is this: the very officer responsible for receiving, interpreting, and acting upon the internal audit and technical reports, the DPHE, has not been charged.

Yet the prosecution seeks to indict the DED, whose only connection to these reports is by virtue of his title, not through action, omission, or statutory duty. This reveals a deeper agenda: – the pursuit of symbolic accountability over factual culpability, using executive visibility to compensate for institutional failure.

🔹 Financial and Operational Constraints Precluded Immediate Action: Even if the reports had reached the ED or DED, which is not supported by the evidence, the ability to implement emergency measures would still have been constrained by:

The absence of discretionary funds within their control,
The lack of procurement-ready designs or approved emergency protocols,
The requirement for DPHE validation, technical specification, and prioritization,
The broader reality that the entire KLF decommissioning plan required UGX 235 billion, against an annual allocation of just UGX 3.1 billion.
It is illogical, and legally indefensible, to assert that executive officers can be criminally liable for not actioning technical recommendations that were never procedurally escalated, and that required operational and fiscal authority they did not possess.

🔹 No Admissible Evidence of Personal Knowledge or Neglect: There is no paper trail linking the DED to these specific reports or warnings. The prosecution has not produced: –

SMT minutes discussing these reports,
Internal memos addressed to or authored by the DED on the matter,
Emails, endorsements, or tasking instructions assigning him specific responsibilities.

In criminal law, especially in cases involving alleged negligence by omission, the burden is on the State to prove actual or constructive knowledge, legal authority to act, and culpable failure to do so. None of these elements are satisfied here.

👉 This Is Not Accountability, It’s an Administrative Misfire: When non-binding audit observations and intra-departmental technical reports are used to criminalize executive officers with no documented knowledge, no statutory mandate, and no operational control, we cross the line from lawful prosecution into institutional persecution.

This approach not only erodes the doctrine of personal culpability but also destabilizes the very principles of delegation and administrative responsibility that uphold public service governance.

In truth, the ED and DED are being held liable for: –

Reports they did not receive,
Failures they did not cause,
Decisions they were not empowered to make.
This is not justice. It is a strategic deflection of institutional guilt, repackaged as accountability, and delivered through selective prosecution.