Uganda’s Supreme Court on 18th September, delivered a landmark ruling in the long-running dispute between businessman Hassan Bassajjabalaba and public interest watchdog Legal Brains Trust (LBT), led by outspoken lawyer Isaac Ssemakadde, affirming the watchdog’s right to challenge government transactions involving public funds.
At the heart of the case is the controversial UGX 142 billion compensation that Bassajjabalaba and his companies received from the government in 2011 after losing contracts to manage Kampala markets and Constitution Square.
The payouts triggered public outrage, parliamentary scrutiny, and years of litigation, with LBT seeking to overturn what it called “illegal and unconstitutional enrichments.”
Supreme Court Backs Public Interest Litigation
In its judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed Bassajjabalaba’s attempts to block LBT’s case, ruling that the watchdog had proper standing to bring the matter to court.
“The Constitution empowers every Ugandan, directly or through associations such as Legal Brains Trust, to hold government accountable for misuse of public resources,” the Court observed, stressing that public interest litigation is a critical safeguard for transparency.
The ruling rejected the businessman’s argument that LBT had no locus standi (legal standing), a technical challenge that had stalled the case for years.
The Court further noted that attempts to muzzle civic watchdogs amount to an abuse of process and cannot be tolerated in a constitutional democracy.
The UGX 142 Billion Compensation Saga
The roots of the controversy stretch back to the early 2000s, when businessman Hassan Bassajjabalaba, through his companies, secured contracts to manage some of Kampala’s most strategic public assets.
These included Nakasero Market, Shauriyako Market, St. Balikuddembe (Owino) Market, and the iconic Constitution Square. From the outset, the deals were mired in tension.
Market vendors, city authorities, and a cross-section of politicians pushed back, accusing Bassajjabalaba of using his influence to unfairly acquire control over prized public facilities.
By 2005, the mounting resistance forced government to cancel the contracts. But the cancellation did not end the matter. Bassajjabalaba and his companies turned to the state, demanding compensation for what they argued was a breach of contract.
What followed was a protracted standoff marked by years of negotiations and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering.
In 2011, the government eventually capitulated, authorizing a massive payout that would become one of the most controversial transactions in Uganda’s recent financial history. Bassajjabalaba’s companies were awarded a staggering UGX 142 billion.
The breakdown of the payments highlighted the scale of the compensation: approximately UGX 65 billion for St. Balikuddembe Market, UGX 37 billion for Constitution Square, UGX 24 billion for Nakasero Market, and UGX 12 billion for Shauriyako Market.
On top of these figures, additional interest, legal fees, and other associated costs pushed the total well beyond the UGX 142 billion mark.
The payments were processed through the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Uganda, an arrangement that would later ignite fierce scrutiny.
Both the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General launched investigations into how and why such an enormous sum had been approved, fueling suspicions of irregularities and misuse of public funds.
What began as a series of cancelled market contracts had, by then, ballooned into a full-blown national scandal that continues to echo in Uganda’s legal and political discourse.
Fallout and Political Firestorm
The payout sparked a national firestorm. MPs accused senior government officials of conniving to enrich the businessman at taxpayers’ expense.
The Culture of Excuses: How Performance Slips One Conversation at a TimeReports linked the deal to top-level approvals, including at State House, though accountability for the payout remained elusive.
In 2012, then-Attorney General Peter Nyombi and former central bank officials were grilled in Parliament over their role in approving the payments.
Civil society organisations also condemned the payout as “daylight robbery of the public purse.”
The controversy significantly damaged public trust, becoming one of Uganda’s most emblematic cases of alleged state capture and impunity.
Legal Brains Trust Steps In
Against this backdrop, Isaac Ssemakadde and his organisation, Legal Brains Trust, launched a public interest case challenging the legality of the compensation.
LBT argued that the payments violated constitutional provisions on prudent management of public resources and should be nullified.
But Bassajjabalaba and his companies fought back, filing applications to strike out the case on grounds that LBT lacked standing.
For more than a decade, the battle over locus standi dominated the litigation, delaying any substantive hearing of the legality of the payout.
Bassajjabalaba’s Defeat
With the Supreme Court’s decision, Bassajjabalaba has lost his final appeal to block the case. The ruling clears the way for the High Court to hear the substantive petition on whether the UGX 142 billion compensation was unconstitutional and unlawful.
For Bassajjabalaba, once a politically connected businessman and former NRM chairman of the Entrepreneur’s League, the defeat marks a sharp reversal of fortunes.
A Victory for Accountability
For Isaac Ssemakadde, widely known as the “people’s lawyer” for his courtroom activism, the decision is a resounding victory.
“This is a decisive blow against impunity and an affirmation that Uganda’s courts will not be used as shields for corruption,” he said after the ruling.
Legal analysts argue that the judgment cements public interest litigation as a cornerstone of accountability in Uganda. It signals that civic groups can—and should—use the courts to challenge questionable government transactions.
“This case is not just about one businessman,” said a Kampala-based constitutional lawyer. “It is about protecting the principle that public funds belong to citizens, and they have every right to demand accountability in court.”
Wider Implications
The ruling is expected to embolden more civic watchdogs to challenge misuse of state resources, adding a judicial dimension to Uganda’s broader anti-corruption struggle.
It also revives scrutiny of one of the most notorious payouts in recent history, ensuring that the UGX 142 billion saga remains alive in the courts—and in public memory.
