KAMPALA, UGANDA— A civil case challenging the three-year contract extension for a retired water official has intensified, with a recent court ruling failing to halt the process and questions raised over the impartiality of the Ministry of Water and Environment’s Permanent Secretary and the guidance provided by the Solicitor General.
The controversy centers on Eng. John Mary Vianne Twinomujuni, the retired Commissioner for Urban Water and Sewerage Services, who has remained in office past his mandatory retirement age despite a legal challenge to his re-employment on contract terms.
The integrity of the appointment process has been scrutinized, specifically focusing on the actions of Permanent Secretary Dr. Alfred Okot Okidi, a respondent in the suit.
An affidavit by Head of Public Service Lucy Nakyobe Mbonye, dated Oct. 3, 2025, revealed that Dr. Okidi recommended Twinomujuni’s appointment despite the availability of “eleven qualified Assistant Commissioners” for the post within the ministry.
Petitioners argue that Dr. Okidi’s recommendation contravenes the Public Service Standing Orders (2021), which permit the re-employment of a pensioner only if the post requires “special skills” and the pensioner is the “only suitable candidate available.” They note the contradiction with customary practice, where previous commissioners, including Eng. Joseph Oriono Eyatu, Eng. Christopher Tumusiime, Eng. Richard Cong, Eng. Dominic Kavutse, Mr. Samuel Otuba and Mr. Joseph Epitu retired and handed over under the oversight of the Permanent Secretary.
Dr. Okidi defended his action in a separate affidavit, stating it was done in “good faith” and that stopping Twinomujuni’s duties would “gravely prejudice public service delivery” and create a “vacuum in leadership.”
The legal dispute escalated following an advisory letter sent by Solicitor General Pius Perry Biribonwoha to the Public Service Commission (PSC) on Sept. 25, 2025, a week before the court ruling.
The letter, Ref: DCL2025080046, advised the PSC that “in the absence of any injunctive court order,” nothing barred the commission from concluding the appointment process. Critics point out that the guidance was incomplete because it omitted reference to the Public Service Standing Orders (2021), section A-J(1), the clause governing the re-employment of pensioners that is central to the legal challenge.
The applicants contend that the Solicitor General’s move, acting as a legal representative of the state alongside the Attorney General, was premature and supported the continuation of a process that is subject to judicial review.
High Court Justice Collins Acellam, on October 2, 2025, dismissed Miscellaneous Application No. 704 of 2025, which sought an interim order to stop the processing of the contract and restrain Twinomujuni from occupying the office.
Justice Acellam ruled that while the applicant, Atuhire B., successfully demonstrated a prima facie case and a pending substantive application, he failed to prove an “imminent threat” of injustice that would render the main application nugatory. Twinomujuni remains in office under an “Administrative Stop Gap Measure” authorized by the Head of Public Service, citing a Presidential Directive to award him a three-year contract.
The main application for a temporary injunction, Miscellaneous Cause No. 0696/2025, remains pending before the court.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
