Details on Mugambe's UK court verdict

OXFORD - When sentencing Justice Lydia Mugambe on Friday, the Oxford Crown Court in the UK pinned her on how she failed to exemplify her status of upholding the rule of law.

New Vision’s Michael Odeng delves into the highlight of the sentencing and why the Ugandan High Court judge was jailed for six years and four months after being found guilty of forcing a young woman to work as a slave.

On March 13, 50-year-old Mugambe was convicted of four offences of conspiracy to do an act to facilitate the breach of UK immigration law by a non-UK national, arranging or facilitating the travel of the complainant (name withheld) with a view to exploitation, requiring the complainant to perform forced or compulsory labour and conspiracy to intimidate a witness. 

Mugambe was battling the charges contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and Section 2 (1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Justifying his sentence, Justice David Foxton said Mugambe had no legal right as the holder of a Tier 4 student visa to sponsor anyone to come and work for her in the UK. 

The court heard that Mugambe initially planned to bring the victim to the UK on a tourist visa. 

However, a fateful encounter with the Ugandan Deputy High Commissioner, John Leanord Mugerwa, at a reception held by the High Commission for Ugandan students studying in the UK on March 20 2022, led Mugambe to embark on a serious breach of the UK immigration laws, through the use of dishonest scheme.

Foxton explained that Mugambe and Mugerwa agreed that he (Mugerwa) would sponsor the victim’s visa under a special immigration scheme for personal servants of accredited diplomats, on the basis that the victim would take up a job as Mugerwa’s housekeeper and live with him.

However, the judge said there was no such job and Mugambe’s intention was that, once she (victim) arrived in the UK, she would live in her (Mugambe’s) house and work as a maid and she paid the necessary fees for the visa.

False employment contract 

According to the judge, to assist in the dishonest scheme, Mugambe and Mugerwa worked together to produce a false employment contract between the High Commission and the victim, which gives particulars of a job which did not exist. 

The judge noted that the document and a similarly false Certificate of Sponsorship from Mugerwa for the non-existent job was used to obtain a visa for the victim. 

“You arranged for the victim to sign those documents and carefully managed the application process. Those false documents were, as you intended, filed in support of the victim’s visa application and a visa under the special immigration scheme was in due course issued on the basis of those documents,” Foxton observed.

Justice Lydia Mugambe

Mugambe promised Mugerwa court favour 

The UK Court noted that Mugambe had promised to help Mugerwa in a court case in Uganda by speaking to the judge handling the matter, if he (Mugerwa) provided means for the maid to enter the UK unlawfully. 

“You tried to contact the judge handling Mugerwa’s case, but they refused to take your calls. Your attempt in evidence to suggest that you were acting entirely appropriately in these attempted contacts, under an “open door” policy by which litigants were encouraged to make direct contact with judges about the status of their cases in Uganda, is belied by your suggestion in a message to Mugerwa that the reason the judge you had tried to contact had not returned your calls was because the judge “fears talking on the phone”, the judge noted.

Ordered to pay sh59m

Justice Foxton said not only did Mugambe engage in a dishonest conspiracy with Mugerwa to obtain a UK visa for the victim on a false basis, but she brought the victim to the UK intending to force the complaint to work for her, under the threat of a penalty if the victim did not do what she wanted. 

“You did not intend to pay the victim for her work for you in the UK, as you had in Uganda, and you did not do so. Instead, the victim was required to undertake a wide range of household tasks, including cooking, cleaning, and childcare responsibilities, in return for her food and the opportunity to take paid employment outside the home, which you initially helped her secure,” he observed. 

The judge noted that Mugambe overtime limited the victim’s opportunities to work outside her home because it interfered with the unpaid work she wanted the complainant to do for her, and the victim felt that she had no alternative but to comply with Mugambe’s demands. 

“When you allowed the victim to work outside the home, it was only on terms which suited you,” he noted, saying Mugambe was not remorseful throughout the trial. 

The UK Court heard that when Mugambe became desperate about the forthcoming trial, she organised a number of attempts to contact the victim through her niece, Gloria Serugga, the victim’s pastor and her family, for the purpose of intimidating her so she would not give evidence against her. 

This, according to the judge, was a clear breach of Mugambe’s bail conditions and that she interfered with the administration of justice. The judge also made a compensation order, requiring Mugambe to pay £12,160 (sh59m) to the victim within a period of six months from the date of the judgement. 

The judge observed that the victim was not exposed to physical harm, but was undoubtedly caused psychological harm in being forced to work for Mugambe without pay. 

The case was prosecuted by Caroline Haughey KC, who said Mugambe abused her authority by preventing the young woman from seeking paid employment and instead forcing her to work unpaid as a maid and childcare provider.