Ugandan diplomat Eriya Tusubira, whose recent recall from Uganda’s High Commission in Abuja has triggered questions over discipline and management of the diplomatic mission, is facing fresh scrutiny over a private legal contract that allegedly earned him $400 (about Shs1.5 million) a month from the World Islamic Call Society (WICS) while he was serving at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Documents reviewed indicate that Tusubira was retained by WICS in his “individual and private capacity” as an advocate under a one-year legal-services agreement running from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020.
The contract entitled him to $400 every month, translating to $4,800 over the full year if paid in full. Litigation, travel, disbursements and assignments outside Kampala were to attract additional charges.
The arrangement is now raising questions about whether Tusubira disclosed the private financial relationship to his supervisors, sought authorisation to undertake outside professional work and declared his interest when dealing with government business involving WICS.
The documents do not establish that Tusubira drafted, negotiated or processed the government’s host-country agreement with WICS. However, they show that he accepted a broad private mandate from an organisation whose formal relationship with the Ugandan government was being handled through the Foreign Affairs Ministry.
Private lawyer for an organisation dealing with his ministry
WICS signed a host-country agreement with the Ugandan government on April 18, 2019, with then State Minister for Foreign Affairs Henry Okello Oryem signing on behalf of government. The agreement formally recognised WICS and provided a framework for its operations in Uganda.
The organisation was not an ordinary private entity with no government interface.
Its formal status later became the subject of litigation. In a 2022 High Court case, World Islamic Call Society v Tropical Bank Limited, the court confirmed that WICS had entered into a host agreement with the government in 2019 and had been accredited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Against that background, Tusubira’s private retainer raises a straightforward but potentially serious question: was a Foreign Affairs official simultaneously receiving private payments from an organisation whose official affairs were connected to the same ministry?
Under the agreement, Tusubira was expected to advise WICS on legal matters, prepare legal briefs, draft contracts and correspondence, handle property transactions and represent the organisation in negotiations, meetings, mediation and arbitration.
The contract also restricted WICS from engaging another provider for similar legal services during the period of the retainer.
The concern is therefore not simply that a public officer earned money from private legal work. It is whether the private engagement created an actual or perceived conflict with his responsibilities as a government official.
Standing Orders put disclosure at the centre of the issue
Uganda’s public-service ethics framework requires public officers to put the public interest ahead of private interests and avoid situations in which personal interests conflict with their official responsibilities.
Section 4.6 of the Code of Conduct and Ethics requires an officer conducting government business to avoid placing himself or herself in a position where personal interests conflict with official duties.
Where such a conflict exists, the officer is required to inform the supervisor of the nature and extent of the interest.
The applicable 2010 Standing Orders also required public officers to maintain professional integrity, avoid using public office for personal benefit and obtain the necessary authority before engaging in outside activities that could interfere with their official responsibilities.
That makes the alleged failure to disclose the WICS retainer potentially more significant than the $4,800 value of the contract itself.
The key issue for investigators is whether Tusubira disclosed the arrangement, obtained the required approval and recused himself from any government business in which WICS had an interest.
Sources familiar with the matter have called for a formal disciplinary inquiry to establish the extent of Tusubira’s official dealings with WICS, whether those duties overlapped with his private legal mandate and whether the relationship created an actual or perceived conflict of interest.
The WICS connection was not insignificant
The timing of the agreement is particularly sensitive.
WICS had been operating in Uganda for years, but the April 2019 host agreement gave the organisation formal recognition and autonomy to conduct its activities in the country. At the time, government said the arrangement would facilitate closer relations and enable WICS to expand projects in Uganda, including work in education, health and religious infrastructure.
WICS later obtained diplomatic protections under Uganda’s legal framework. The High Court has also recognised the organisation as an accredited international body operating under the host agreement.
This makes the alleged private retainer particularly worthy of examination by the Foreign Affairs Ministry and other accountability institutions.
The available documents, however, do not independently prove that Tusubira used his public position to secure the contract or that the contract influenced a specific government decision.
Those questions would have to be established through a proper investigation.
Abuja crisis brings old questions back into focus
The latest scrutiny comes as Tusubira is already facing questions over his conduct at Uganda’s High Commission in Abuja.
On May 8, 2026, 17 locally recruited employees staged a strike at the mission, reportedly over unpaid salaries. Tusubira, then serving as accounting officer, called Nigerian police to the diplomatic premises as tensions escalated. The confrontation was captured on video and became a public embarrassment for the mission.
The incident triggered intervention from Kampala.
Foreign Affairs Permanent Secretary Vincent Bagiire subsequently removed Tusubira from his accounting-officer responsibilities. He was later recalled to Kampala amid inquiries into the problems at the mission.
New Vision reported on August 24 that Bagiire said Tusubira had been recalled on August 20 with immediate effect following what he described as acts of indiscipline.
The ministry’s own Abuja diplomatic-staff listing currently identifies Tusubira as a First Secretary, while the mission’s earlier profile had identified him as accounting officer.
Tusubira’s recall, however, is not itself a finding of misconduct or guilt.
Abuja mission already under scrutiny
The controversy is unfolding against a wider backdrop of investigations and management problems at Uganda’s Abuja mission.
The mission has previously faced scrutiny over allegations involving financial management, including concerns surrounding the construction of Uganda’s chancery and foreign-exchange transactions.
Recent reporting has also highlighted disputes involving the construction project and correspondence in which Tusubira, while serving as accounting officer, questioned issues raised by technical advisers and audits concerning the Abuja chancery project.
The wider Abuja saga has prompted investigations and inquiries involving several Ugandan accountability institutions, according to recent reporting.
Questions now confronting Foreign Affairs
The WICS contract puts the Foreign Affairs Ministry before a fresh test of its internal accountability systems.
Among the questions that require answers are:
- Did Tusubira disclose the WICS retainer to his supervisors?
- Did he obtain permission to undertake the private legal work while serving as a public officer?
- Did he participate in any official ministry business involving WICS while receiving private payments from the organisation?
- Was he required to recuse himself from WICS-related government business?
- Did the ministry know about the arrangement at the time?
- Were the payments made in full, and were they properly declared for tax and public-service purposes?
The answers will determine whether the contract was merely a private professional engagement or part of a wider breach of public-service ethics.
For now, the documents establish the existence and terms of the private legal retainer, but they do not by themselves establish corruption, bribery or that Tusubira influenced government decisions in WICS’s favour.
What they do establish is a relationship that warrants scrutiny—particularly because it involved a public official, a privately paid legal mandate and an organisation whose formal relationship with Uganda was being managed through the same government ministry.
With Tusubira now recalled to Kampala amid a separate disciplinary controversy, the WICS contract adds another potentially uncomfortable chapter to the growing questions over accountability, conflicts of interest and professional conduct within Uganda’s diplomatic service.
