By Aggrey Baba
Kampala business tycoon Hassan Basajjabalaba on Wednesday once again dodged Parliament when the COSASE committee summoned him to explain the circumstances surrounding a UGX140 billion Bank of Uganda (BoU) financial obligation, sending lawyer Calvin Ojambo of Magina Advocates instead, hence reviving memories of his previous failure to personally appear before Parliament over the same matter.
The development prompted Buzaaya County MP Martin Mugabi Muzaale of NRM, to raise a point of information and caution the Muwada Nkunyingi-led committee against being too trusting of the explanations being advanced on Basajjabalaba’s behalf, reminding fellow MPs that this was not the first time the tycoon had been invited to Parliament over the matter.
Muzaale told colleagues that even during the previous Parliament, Basajjabalaba had been summoned over the same issues but refused to come. He urged COSASE to be cautious because, in his view, Parliament was dealing with a person who was not unfamiliar with the corridors of power and who, among other things, enjoys strong links to the NRM.
Muzaale’s point was that such political and institutional connections should not be allowed to become a shield against accountability.
The warning was significant because COSASE was not simply dealing with a private commercial disagreement. It is trying to establish what happened to a UGX140.487 billion financial exposure that has remained unresolved for years, with BoU being pressed to explain how the transaction came about, who benefited from it and why the money has not been recovered.
The matter exploded into the public eye again during the committee’s recent grilling of BoU officials.
When the BoU team appeared before COSASE, MPs repeatedly demanded to know who was behind the financial obligation and why the bank had failed to recover the money since the guarantee was issued in 2017.
At first, BoU officials were hesitant to disclose the company behind the exposure, forcing the committee to push harder.
Eventually, officials disclosed that the guarantee had been issued for HABA Group, a company linked to the Basajjabalaba family, hence changing the complexion of the inquiry.
COSASE chairperson Nkunyingi became particularly demanding of the central bank officials, questioning how an institution holding itself out as the custodian of public money could spend nearly nine years engaging in correspondence while more than UGX140 billion remained unrecovered.
Bank of Uganda’s head of legal, Dorothy Masifa Ochola, during BoU’s COSASE appearance explained that the matter was a legacy issue and that the central bank had been engaging its external lawyers, MMAKS Advocates, on possible recovery options. Nkunyingi was not satisfied, at one point demanding that Ochola take an oath before giving further answers.
It was after that encounter that COSASE summoned Basajjabalaba to personally appear and explain his side of the story.
But when Wednesday came, the businessman was nowhere to be seen. Instead, Magina Advocates sent Ojambo to represent him, telling the committee that Basajjabalaba had not personally appeared because the invitation from Parliament had reached the lawyers late on Tuesday evening, September 15, and that their client needed additional time to access documents concerning transactions dating as far back as 2009 to 2011.
While explaining the no-show, Ojambo also sought to portray Basajjabalaba as a businessman of considerable standing, describing his client before the committee as a businessman and a man of high repute, while also pointing out that he is an NRM cadre, to which Muwada Nkunyingi subsequently replied saying Basajja’s being NRM was no business for his committee.
“Whether he’s NRM chairman or not, we don’t care,” Muwada said.
The lawyer also told MPs that some of the matters raised by the committee had previously been the subject of litigation in different courts and that the legal team needed time to study the issues before Basajjabalaba could appear and respond to them.
Ojambo therefore asked the committee to give his client another date, proposing September 23 or 24.
That request immediately put the lawyer in the uncomfortable position of having to defend not only Basajjabalaba‘s absence but also the decision to have a law firm respond to a parliamentary summons.
Nkunyingi pressed him on the circumstances surrounding the invitation and why the businessman himself had not appeared, while MPs questioned whether Parliament was being drawn into another cycle of correspondence and requests for more time.
The issue of service itself also became a point of contention, with Muzaale questioning why Parliament had served the invitation through the law firm instead of directly reaching Basajjabalaba, whose address was known.
But beyond the technical argument about whether the invitation had been properly received, what worried some MPs was the pattern.
Why, they asked, should a businessman whose company is at the centre of a UGX140 billion public-money recovery dispute fail to personally face the committee and instead send lawyers to ask for more time?
This was where Muzaale’s earlier warning became particularly relevant.
The Buzaaya legislator reminded colleagues that the committee was not starting from a clean slate. Parliament had previously tried to secure Basajjabalaba‘s appearance, and the businessman had not turned up.
He therefore cautioned that the committee should not allow legal representation, court cases or requests for additional preparation time to indefinitely frustrate its work.
Other MPs equally argued that while Basajjabalaba was entitled to legal representation, the committee had a duty to establish what happened to the money.
One member argued that the investigation should not be reduced to chasing Basajjabalaba while Bank of Uganda escapes responsibility for its own role in the transaction.
The argument was that Basajjabalaba may be required to explain his side, but Bank of Uganda must equally account for why it guaranteed the loan, what due diligence was undertaken, what security was obtained and why the money has remained outstanding for almost a decade.
Indeed, officials from the central bank told Parliament that the guarantee was issued in 2017 on instructions from the Ministry of Finance, while the BoU has been criticised for the length of time taken to recover the money.
Nkunyingi, who is also the Kyadondo East MP and a lawyer, consequently refused to let the committee lose sight of the bigger picture.
He reminded members that the investigation was still at the investigative stage and that COSASE had to establish the roles of all the parties involved before making findings.
In other words, the committee was not prepared to simply blame Basajjabalaba or HABA Group without examining the conduct of BoU, the Ministry of Finance and any other institution or individual whose role may emerge from the investigation. But neither was Nkunyingi prepared to allow the investigation to stall.
After listening to Ojambo and the arguments from members, the chairperson guided that Basajjabalaba should be given another opportunity to appear.
This time, however, the committee decided to tighten the process, with members resolving that Basajjabalaba should appear in person on September 23, 2026, and that a fresh summons should be served through a police officer.
The decision effectively closes the door to another simple request for the connected businessman to send a lawyer in his place, as the next invitation will not merely ask Basajjabalaba to cooperate with COSASE, but will require his personal attendance.
And this is precisely the point at which the matter has become uncomfortable for the Kampala International University founder.
Basajjabalaba is one of Uganda’s most prominent businessmen, with HABA Group interests spanning several sectors. His name has also featured prominently in previous government compensation controversies involving companies associated with him and former Kampala City Council market arrangements.
The UGX140 billion issue has its roots in that wider history. According to accounts presented before Parliament, the government-backed financial arrangements arose after compensation-related claims involving Basajjabalaba‘s companies, with BoU ultimately guaranteeing a facility for HABA Group in 2017. BoU has since been left with the obligation after the commercial lender recovered its money from the guarantee.
Now, nine years later, Parliament wants to know why the money has not been recovered.
