The Kampala High Court has ruled in favor of the government as court dismisses bid to stop President Yoweri Museveni from reappointing Engineer John Mary Vianney Twinomujuni, the Commissioner for Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Services. The court confirmed that Twinomujuni’s continued stay in office is lawful, emphasizing his technical expertise as crucial to Uganda’s ongoing infrastructure projects.
Justice Collins Acellam delivered the ruling, stating that allowing the engineer to remain in office was “an administrative measure to ensure leadership continuity” until the President makes a final appointment decision. The decision came after Atuhairwe B, described as a citizen advocating for good governance, petitioned the court, arguing that Twinomujuni’s stay beyond the mandatory retirement age of 60 violated the Constitution and blocked opportunities for younger officers.
Court Dismisses Bid after Finding No Illegality
The application also sought to restrain Public Service Head Lucy Nakyobe Mbonye, Water Ministry Permanent Secretary Alfred Okidi, and the Attorney General from processing a new three-year contract for Twinomujuni. However, the court dismisses bid on grounds that there was no evidence of illegality or imminent harm that would render the main case ineffective.
State Attorney Danielle Amucu defended the government, revealing that President Museveni had authorized the extension due to the engineer’s “specialized skills and institutional knowledge” vital for ongoing national water and sewerage projects.
Justice Acellam agreed, noting that halting Twinomujuni’s duties would “frustrate public projects in the water sector,” which is against national interest. He cited the Supreme Court precedent in Yakobo Senkungu & Others vs Cerensio Muiasa (2013), clarifying that injunctions are reserved for “cases of extreme urgency requiring quick relief.”
Continued Hearing on Main Case
The High Court ruled that the court dismisses bid without costs and allowed the main case challenging the legality of Twinomujuni’s reappointment to proceed for a full hearing. Justice Acellam concluded there was no “substantial evidence of imminent danger or irreparable harm,” reaffirming that the government acted within the law.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s position on balancing administrative continuity with legal process, particularly in cases involving high-level technical officers essential to public infrastructure delivery.
