The fallout from the collapse and takeover of Crane Bank continues to echo through Uganda’s financial system, exposing what appears to have been a coordinated, opaque process spearheaded by key individuals in both regulatory and corporate circles.
Central to this controversy are three prominent figures: Justine Bagyenda, the former Director of Supervision at Bank of Uganda (BoU), Juma Kisaame, former Managing Director of DFCU Bank, and Jimmy (Jim) Mugerwa, former Chairman of the DFCU Bank Board. Their actions, both individually and collectively, have drawn allegations of sabotage, insider collusion, and regulatory malpractice that facilitated a flawed and fraudulent transfer of Crane Bank to DFCU.
Justine Bagyenda played a pivotal role in the entire saga. As head of supervision at BoU, she was tasked with ensuring due process in bank resolutions. Instead, she is alleged to have initiated private conversations with DFCU Bank before any formal valuation of Crane Bank was conducted. Evidence revealed during both parliamentary investigations and court proceedings shows that Bagyenda personally invited DFCU’s top management to access Crane Bank’s internal data before the bank was formally placed under receivership. This unprecedented move gave DFCU an unfair commercial advantage and directly violated basic principles of transparency and regulatory neutrality.
Juma Kisaame, who was then Managing Director of DFCU admitted during parliamentary inquiries that his bank was approached before any official valuation of Crane Bank had been made. Kisaame oversaw DFCU’s internal due diligence into Crane Bank and later led negotiations that resulted in DFCU acquiring assets and liabilities without BoU first seeking competitive bids or independently verifying Crane Bank’s true market value. This has led to questions about whether DFCU, under Kisaame’s leadership, was not only a beneficiary of insider dealings but a willing participant in what Crane Bank shareholders have described as a corporate hijack.
Jimmy Mugerwa, then Chairman of DFCU Bank’s Board, was the public face of DFCU during the stormy hearings of Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) in 2018–2019. During those sessions, Mugerwa and other DFCU executives failed to present coherent documentation justifying the acquisition, including asset valuation reports, timelines of negotiations, and minutes of board deliberations. At one point, MPs threw out the entire DFCU team for presenting unsigned and undated documents. This conduct not only embarrassed DFCU but also increased suspicions that the bank’s acquisition of Crane Bank was shrouded in impropriety.
The Auditor General later confirmed that BoU had sold Crane Bank without an independent valuation. Instead, the central bank relied on DFCU’s internal assessments to determine asset values. Properties worth over Shs500 billion were sold for Shs90.5 billion without competitive bidding. COSASE’s final report described the process as “irregular, flawed and done in bad faith,” implicating BoU officials, particularly Bagyenda, in deliberate sabotage.
The UK High Court has since ruled that Crane Bank shareholders, led by Sudhir Ruparelia can proceed with claims against DFCU and its top executives, including Mugerwa and Kisaame. The court found the allegations of fraudulent asset seizure serious enough to warrant a full trial. Crane Bank’s owners are seeking over £170 million in compensation.
Public outrage has not been absent. Civil society groups once dumped piglets labeled “Kisaame” and “Bagyenda” outside BoU headquarters to protest what they called “elite corruption” and collusion. Media houses, legal scholars and banking analysts have echoed the same concern: that Crane Bank’s collapse and DFCU’s takeover were less about insolvency and more about an orchestrated transfer of assets designed to benefit a select few at the top.
Today, the saga remains a case study in how regulatory manipulation and corporate greed, enabled by powerful insiders, can undermine public trust in financial institutions. As legal proceedings continue in London and scrutiny mounts at home, the roles of Bagyenda, Kisaame, and Mugerwa will remain under the microscope. Their actions, once obscured by bureaucratic privilege, are now etched in public record as part of Uganda’s most notorious banking scandal.
