News
Why Supreme Court upheld conviction of ex-Equity Bank manager in sh4.6b case
Sserwamba had argued that the trial court relied on hearsay evidence and improperly admitted certain material in reaching the guilty verdict.
Why Supreme Court upheld conviction of ex-Equity Bank manager in sh4.6b case
By: Edward Anyoli, Journalist @New Vision
________________
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a former Equity Bank operations manager who was found guilty of embezzling sh4.6b.
The court justices, led by Justice Percy Tuhaise and comprising justices Elizabeth Musoke, Stephen Musota and Christopher Madrama, dismissed the appeal filed by David Musoke Sserwamba, who had challenged both his conviction and sentence.
Sserwamba had argued that the trial court relied on hearsay evidence and improperly admitted certain material in reaching the guilty verdict.
In 2017, the Anti-Corruption Court, presided over by Justice Margaret Tibulya, convicted Sserwamba alongside Isaac Ssewamba, Reagan Ojok, a lobbyist, Moses Kalungi, businessman Mubarak Shafik and Mathew Keeya in connection with the case.
The court found that between March 28 and May 19, 2015, the group converted, transferred and concealed sh4.6b with the intention of disguising its illicit origin, despite knowing the funds were proceeds of crime.
Prosecution’s case
The prosecution told court that the money was withdrawn and disguised as having been accessed by two Sudanese businessmen, Cisco Majok and Ajang Achang, who allegedly travelled from South Sudan to Kampala and withdrew funds from Equity Bank’s Oasis Mall branch, a claim prosecutors said was false.
“The appellant’s submissions do touch any of the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in Article 28(3) of the Constitution and we find that as a matter of fact, the trial court (High Court) and Court of Appeal were satisfied with evidence adduced by the prosecution that proved the involvement of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt after being satisfied that the money was fraudulently withdrawn,” Justice Tuhaise said.
The justices noted that Sserwamba’s guilt was not based solely on sh255m, but also on his participation in accessing and transferring the money to other fraudsters.
The court found that between March 28 and May 19, 2015, the group converted, transferred and concealed sh4.6b with the intention of disguising its illicit origin, despite knowing the funds were proceeds of crime.
Prosecution’s case
The prosecution told court that the money was withdrawn and disguised as having been accessed by two Sudanese businessmen, Cisco Majok and Ajang Achang, who allegedly travelled from South Sudan to Kampala and withdrew funds from Equity Bank’s Oasis Mall branch, a claim prosecutors said was false.
“The appellant’s submissions do touch any of the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in Article 28(3) of the Constitution and we find that as a matter of fact, the trial court (High Court) and Court of Appeal were satisfied with evidence adduced by the prosecution that proved the involvement of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt after being satisfied that the money was fraudulently withdrawn,” Justice Tuhaise said.
The justices noted that Sserwamba’s guilt was not based solely on sh255m, but also on his participation in accessing and transferring the money to other fraudsters.
The Supreme Court, in its June 8, 2026, ruling, said the withdrawals involving $700,000 (about sh2.66b), $500,000 (about sh1.9b) and $250,000 (about sh950m) were supported not only by identification of fraudsters in video footage by bank officials, but also by testimony from investigating officers.
The Court upheld the order requiring Sserwamba to refund the stolen funds, as earlier directed by the trial court.
It further found that the evidence against him went beyond possession of stolen funds and clearly showed active participation in the fraud scheme.
The justices noted that Sserwamba was linked to the movement and withdrawal of large sums from victim accounts, including sh2.6b, sh1.9b and an additional sh950m, all unlawfully withdrawn without the account holders’ authorisation, Majok and Ajang.
The Court also considered testimony from investigating officers, including detective superintendent of police Taban Kiruga, who said a search warrant was executed and sh255m was recovered.
He added that interviews conducted with Sserwamba and other accused persons, including Isaac Ssewamba, helped trace proceeds of crime. The Court noted there was no credible evidence supporting claims that Sserwamba was tortured during investigations.
The justices agreed with testimony from Godfrey Emojong, who stated that during interrogation, some convicts revealed that Sserwamba received and transferred $10,000 (about sh37m) to another account.
Further evidence from investigators indicated that additional information provided by Sserwamba led to the recovery of assets, including land valued at about sh87.5m and cash transfers exceeding sh100m allegedly given to his girlfriend.
Bank statements also showed large suspicious withdrawals linked to the fraud scheme.
Investigators further traced concealed assets, including vehicles in Naguru, while searches at properties linked to Sserwamba’s family also yielded relevant evidence.
The Court concluded that the prosecution had established a consistent chain of evidence linking the appellant to fraudulent transactions, asset acquisition and concealment of proceeds of crime. On that basis, it found no reason to interfere with the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal.
The Court upheld the order requiring Sserwamba to refund the stolen funds, as earlier directed by the trial court.
It further found that the evidence against him went beyond possession of stolen funds and clearly showed active participation in the fraud scheme.
The justices noted that Sserwamba was linked to the movement and withdrawal of large sums from victim accounts, including sh2.6b, sh1.9b and an additional sh950m, all unlawfully withdrawn without the account holders’ authorisation, Majok and Ajang.
The Court also considered testimony from investigating officers, including detective superintendent of police Taban Kiruga, who said a search warrant was executed and sh255m was recovered.
He added that interviews conducted with Sserwamba and other accused persons, including Isaac Ssewamba, helped trace proceeds of crime. The Court noted there was no credible evidence supporting claims that Sserwamba was tortured during investigations.
The justices agreed with testimony from Godfrey Emojong, who stated that during interrogation, some convicts revealed that Sserwamba received and transferred $10,000 (about sh37m) to another account.
Further evidence from investigators indicated that additional information provided by Sserwamba led to the recovery of assets, including land valued at about sh87.5m and cash transfers exceeding sh100m allegedly given to his girlfriend.
Bank statements also showed large suspicious withdrawals linked to the fraud scheme.
Investigators further traced concealed assets, including vehicles in Naguru, while searches at properties linked to Sserwamba’s family also yielded relevant evidence.
The Court concluded that the prosecution had established a consistent chain of evidence linking the appellant to fraudulent transactions, asset acquisition and concealment of proceeds of crime. On that basis, it found no reason to interfere with the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal.