Uganda’s High Court has ruled that the Inspector General of Government (IGG) cannot compel advocates to disclose information obtained through their professional relationship with clients, reaffirming legal protections surrounding lawyer-client confidentiality.
In a judgment delivered by Acting Justice Simon Peter Kinobe, the court held that advocates enjoy legal privilege over information received while representing clients and that such confidentiality can only be lifted with the client’s consent or through a court order issued under exceptional circumstances.
The ruling arose from a legal challenge filed by Kampala lawyer Frank Kanduho Rwabosy, who contested a decision by the IGG to summon him as part of investigations into compensation paid by the Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL).
Kanduho had represented Charles Tumwesigye Kahirwa in a land compensation case involving property affected by the construction of an electricity transmission line. The courts later awarded Tumwesigye compensation totaling about 1.26 billion Ugandan shillings.
The IGG subsequently opened an investigation after allegations that Tumwesigye had received an overpayment of more than 288 million shillings and sought information from Kanduho because he had acted as the claimant’s lawyer during the transaction.
Justice Kinobe ruled that while the IGG has constitutional authority to investigate corruption, abuse of office and financial loss involving public institutions and officials, those powers do not extend to requiring lawyers to reveal confidential information acquired through legal representation.
The judge said any attempt to compel an advocate to disclose such information would require either the client’s consent or a court order issued after due legal process.
The court also found that the IGG cannot use its investigative mandate to revisit or undermine matters that have already been conclusively determined by the courts.
Justice Kinobe noted that although the IGG may investigate allegations of fraudulent payments involving public entities and beneficiaries, its jurisdiction does not extend to advocates whose involvement was limited to providing legal services to their clients.
The ruling further clarified that complaints concerning an advocate’s professional conduct fall under the jurisdiction of the Law Council, the statutory body responsible for regulating and disciplining lawyers in Uganda.
The judge said only allegations involving direct criminal conduct could justify action against an advocate outside the ordinary disciplinary framework, adding that the IGG would exceed its legal mandate by attempting to discipline lawyers for matters arising from their professional duties.
The decision is expected to reinforce legal protections for lawyer-client privilege while clarifying the limits of the IGG’s investigative authority when inquiries involve members of the legal profession.
