Court Acquits URA Tax Officer in UGX 301 Million VAT Assessment Case

The Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court has acquitted former Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) Tax Officer Francis Wodero of charges of abuse of office and causing financial loss of more than 301 million shillings in Value Added Tax (VAT) assessments.

 Justice David  Makumbi ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against Wodero, leading to his acquittal before he could be called upon to defend himself.

Wodero had been accused of improperly uplifting VAT assessments worth 301.1 million shillings in favour of Service and Computer Industries (U) Ltd on December 29, 2021. 

Prosecutors alleged that while serving as a tax officer at URA, he adjusted the company’s tax obligations under the pretext of accounting for credit notes, an action they said lacked lawful justification and resulted in revenue loss to the tax authority.

The Directorate of Public Prosecutions and URA investigators charged Wodero with abuse of office under Section 10(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act and causing financial loss.

During the trial, the prosecution presented five witnesses, including URA officials, a digital forensics expert, a representative of Service and Computer Industries, and a police officer attached to URA’s Staff Compliance Department. The state also relied on documentary evidence, including tax assessment records and investigation reports.

However, Wodero’s defence team argued that the charges were fundamentally flawed and that the prosecution had failed to prove any unlawful conduct.    The defence maintained that the tax adjustments were made in response to genuine credit notes issued by the taxpayer and were permissible under the Value Added Tax Act.

Wodero’s lawyers further argued that he acted within the authority granted to him as a URA tax officer, using official systems and procedures available at the time. They also challenged the credibility of key prosecution witnesses and contended that no evidence had been produced to show manipulation of tax records or deliberate wrongdoing.

Justice Makumbi criticized the manner in which the charges had been framed, describing the indictment as defective and lacking sufficient clarity to adequately inform the accused of the exact nature of the allegations against him.

He observed that the particulars contained in the charge sheet were unclear and appeared to require explanation through witness testimony, a situation he said undermined the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

“The prosecution witnesses are meant to testify to prove the indictment against the accused person and not to clarify the indictment,” Justice Makumbi stated.

He noted that the prosecution had failed to clearly identify and prove the alleged arbitrary act that formed the basis of the abuse of office charge. The court said that it could not establish that Wodero’s conduct was prejudicial to the interests of his employer, URA.

Judge Makumbi further held that the evidence presented did not demonstrate that Wodero knew or had reason to believe that his actions would cause financial loss to the government.

The court noted that Service and Computer Industries had acknowledged ownership of the disputed credit notes and that there was no evidence linking Wodero to any conspiracy with the company. 

The judge also found that the prosecution’s claims regarding violations of internal procedures and authorization requirements were not supported by sufficient evidence.

Although the court accepted that the VAT assessments in question had the potential to occasion a loss of 301.1 million shillings, Makumbi ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the critical element that Wodero knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct that would result in such a loss.

“The evidence as it stands against the accused is not sufficient to safely convict the accused were he not to be put to his defence,” the judge ruled.

The court found that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case on either count and acquitted Wodero under Section 74(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act.

Justice Makumbi ordered that Wodero be set free immediately unless he is being held on any other lawful charges. He also informed both parties of their right to appeal the decision.