The Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court in Kampala has denied bail to businessman Gilbert Tumwebaze Bafanabyo in a high-stakes case involving alleged fraud and money laundering of $546,860 (Shs2 billion), with the court finding that he failed to present sufficiently credible and financially capable sureties to justify his temporary release pending trial.
In a detailed ruling delivered on April 27, 2026, Justice Okuo Jane Kajuga examined the legal principles governing bail, the seriousness of the offences, the value of the alleged proceeds, and the credibility of the individuals presented to stand surety, ultimately concluding that the application could not succeed despite several factors that would ordinarily favour release.
“This bail application fails for lack of sufficient sureties, essentially for the applicant’s failure to prove their competence to pay bond sums that the court may impose. The court must be satisfied that those presented as sureties have the financial standing, independence and influence necessary to compel the accused to attend trial, especially in cases involving large sums of money and serious charges,” the judge ruled.
Bafanabyo is facing two counts of obtaining money by pretense, two counts of money laundering, and one count of personation, with the prosecution alleging that between July 2022 and April 2023, he orchestrated a scheme that led to the fraudulent acquisition of more than half a million dollars from a foreign investor linked to Ascend Group.
According to court records, the accused allegedly obtained $240,000 after falsely representing himself as a manager of Skylink International, before securing an additional $286,910 through a law firm account at Exim Bank under the pretext that the funds were performance security for a government project involving the construction of six model technical schools. A further $19,950 is said to have been received through another advocate’s account under similar circumstances.
Prosecutors contend that the accused then facilitated the movement of these funds through different law firm accounts, knowing or having reason to believe that the money constituted proceeds of crime, in a deliberate effort to conceal its origin, forming the basis of the money laundering charges now before the court.
During the hearing, the defence urged court to grant bail, arguing that the applicant is a first time offender with no criminal record, has a fixed place of residence in Wakiso District, and suffers from health conditions that require attention. The defence also maintained that the accused is a family man who would not abscond and presented four individuals as sureties to guarantee his appearance in court.
The State, however, opposed the application, arguing that the gravity of the offences, the sophistication of the alleged scheme and the sheer volume of money involved created a real risk that the accused could abscond or interfere with the judicial process if released.
In her ruling, Justice Kajuga acknowledged that the applicant has no known criminal antecedents and that investigations into the case appear complete, noting that a related case involving a co accused is already at an advanced stage before the same division of the High Court. She also observed that there is no indication of inordinate delay that would justify release on bail purely on that ground.
“The applicant has no previous criminal record, and there is no evidence that he has ever failed to comply with bond terms in the past. The investigations appear complete, and the matter is likely to proceed to trial without undue delay. These are factors that would ordinarily weigh in favour of granting bail, as courts are enjoined to lean towards release where the ends of justice can still be met,” she noted.
However, the court emphasised that in financial crimes of this magnitude, the availability of strong and reliable sureties becomes a central consideration, particularly where substantial bond sums are expected.
Court analysis of the four proposed sureties revealed that only one, a salaried public servant employed by the Uganda Registration Services Bureau, satisfied the legal requirements relating to residence, financial capacity and ability to influence the accused.
“I am satisfied that the first surety, being a salaried public servant with a verifiable income and employment record, demonstrated the capacity to either pay or mobilise the funds required under any bond terms that may be imposed. His status and relationship with the applicant also place him in a position to influence compliance with court orders,” the judge explained at length.
The remaining three sureties were rejected for failing to meet the same threshold. The court found that the businessman presented did not provide up to date financial records or proof of assets, raising doubts about his actual capacity. The applicant’s brother, a farmer, was faulted for presenting no financial profile at all, while the applicant’s wife was deemed unsuitable due to lack of independent financial standing and her dependence on the accused.
“The other proposed sureties lacked verifiable and current financial profiles, and in some instances failed entirely to demonstrate any measurable capacity to meet the bond obligations. In the case of the applicant’s wife, her financial dependence on the accused raises serious questions as to her ability to compel him to attend court, which is a fundamental requirement of a surety,” the judge held.
On the issue of exceptional circumstances, which can be relevant in money laundering cases, the court found that the applicant did not meet the strict legal definition despite presenting medical documentation indicating ailments such as gout, arthritis and HIV.
“The medical evidence presented does not meet the strict threshold required to establish grave illness as an exceptional circumstance, particularly in the absence of certification by a medical officer from the place of detention. Similarly, the applicant’s age does not qualify as advanced age under the current legal framework. However, failure to prove exceptional circumstances is not in itself fatal to a bail application where other conditions are satisfied,” Justice Kajuga clarified.
Significantly, the judge indicated that she would have been prepared to grant bail had the sureties met the required standard, underscoring that the application failed on a single but critical ground.
“I am inclined to grant bail in this matter, given the absence of criminal antecedents and the stage of the proceedings, but the insufficiency of suitable sureties renders it impossible for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant at this stage. In cases of this nature, strong sureties and adequate security are indispensable,” she stated.
The court also highlighted that given the value of the alleged fraud, any future grant of bail would come with stringent conditions, including substantial bond sums and possibly property security. Although the applicant offered to present a land title as part of the security, the court noted legal limitations surrounding family property.
“Considering the magnitude of the sums involved, the bond terms would necessarily be high and accompanied by strict safeguards, including security such as land. However, any such property offered must comply with legal requirements, including spousal consent where applicable, which has not been demonstrated in this instance,” the judge added.
In its final orders, the court declined the application but left open a clear pathway for the accused to secure release if he meets the legal requirements.
“The applicant may, if he finds better sureties or secures the required evidence, present them before court without having to file a fresh application. The failure of this application is therefore not absolute, but contingent upon compliance with the legal standards governing bail,” the ruling added.
