The case of the estates of the late Zura Mama Kasuku and the late Ahluwalia Guido has become a striking example of how the very institutions entrusted with justice can be accused of denying it. In a petition dated July 16, 2026, members of the Wallia and Ahluwalia families have taken the extraordinary step of appealing directly to President Yoweri Museveni, alleging misconduct by the Administrator General of Uganda, Manzi Victor, and Justice Deepa Verma. Their complaint is not only a family dispute but a broader indictment of how authority can be wielded to silence, exclude, and dispossess.
The complainants — Bunny Wallia, Johnny Wallia, Ronnie Wallia, and Jassie Ahluwalia — open their petition with a stark declaration: “We hereby lodge this legal complaint and request for urgent investigation into the alleged irregular, improper, unlawful and abusive conduct in the processing of the estates of the late Zura Mama Kasuku and the late Ahluwalia Guido.” This sets the tone for a document that is both legal in its framing and deeply personal in its grievances. They accuse officials of manipulating procedures, excluding rightful heirs, and rushing through decisions without consultation. The irony is clear: those charged with safeguarding justice are accused of orchestrating injustice.
At the heart of the complaint is the allegation that a family meeting was convened on June 12, 2026, without notifying or inviting the complainants. They write: “We were neither notified nor invited to the meeting, yet decisions purporting to bind the entire family were taken.” This exclusion is not presented as a mere oversight but as a deliberate act designed to sideline certain family members. The complainants argue that the meeting was staged to create a veneer of legitimacy, paving the way for subsequent actions that would strip them of their rights. The very next day, certificates of no objection were issued, a speed of bureaucratic action they describe as “suspiciously convenient.” In their words: “The issuance of certificates of no objection on June 15, 2026, without due consultation, demonstrates collusion and abuse of office.”
The complaint goes further, alleging that Administration Causes Nos. 599 and 600 of 2026 were filed before the High Court without informing the rightful beneficiaries. They insist: “We were deliberately kept in the dark, and filings were made before the High Court without informing us, the rightful beneficiaries.” This exclusion from judicial proceedings is framed as a denial of natural justice. The complainants argue that the Constitution guarantees fairness and transparency, yet they have experienced the opposite. They write: “The Constitution of Uganda guarantees fairness, transparency, and accountability in public administration. What we have witnessed is the opposite: secrecy, manipulation, and abuse.”
The paradox is striking. A judge, entrusted with upholding justice, is accused of presiding over a process that denies it. The Administrator General, tasked with ensuring orderly estate administration, is accused of collusion and abuse. The complainants highlight this contradiction repeatedly, pointing to actions that appear to undermine the very principles these offices are meant to protect. They declare: “No one is above the law, and those who abuse their offices must face consequences.” Their words underscore the irony of justice being denied by those charged with delivering it.
The petition is meticulous in its evidentiary approach. The complainants list documents they intend to rely upon, including a newspaper publication in the New Vision dated July 10, 2026, notices and applications in Administration Causes Nos. 599 and 600, files from Administrator General’s Causes Nos. 1258 of 2026 and 3460 of 2011, and documents establishing family relationships and estate properties. They state: “We shall rely on these documents to demonstrate the irregularities and improprieties complained of.” This careful documentation reflects their determination to substantiate their claims and to expose what they describe as manipulation and abuse.
Their requests to President Museveni are sweeping. They call for registration of the complaint, an independent and impartial investigation, examination of all supporting documents, disciplinary or criminal action where misconduct is established, and a written response on actions taken. They write: “We request that this complaint be registered and investigated without delay, and that appropriate action be taken against those found culpable.” By appealing directly to the President, they signal both their desperation and their belief that lower institutions have failed them.
The petition is copied to a wide array of officials, including the Deputy Chief Justice, the Head of Secret Service, the Chief of Defence Forces, State House Legal Affairs, the Foreign Affairs Division, the Anti‑Corruption Unit, and Justice Deepa Verma herself. This breadth of distribution underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the complainants’ desire to ensure transparency. They explain: “We have copied this complaint to relevant offices to ensure transparency and accountability.” The wide circulation also reflects their fear that the complaint might otherwise be buried or ignored.
The complainants’ narrative paints a picture of a process hijacked to serve particular interests. They allege that certificates of no objection were issued without proper scrutiny, that family meetings were staged to create legitimacy, and that court filings were made in secrecy. Their language is uncompromising: “The process has been hijacked, and the estates of our loved ones are being mismanaged.” This accusation is not only about property but about the integrity of institutions. The complainants argue that the manipulation of estate administration reflects a broader pattern of abuse in public office.
Beyond legal arguments, the petition highlights the emotional toll of the dispute. The complainants confess: “We have endured anguish and distress, watching our family heritage being dismantled through irregular and unlawful means.” They describe themselves as victims of a process that has stripped them of agency and dignity. They lament: “Our pleas have been ignored, our rights denied, and our heritage endangered.” These words convey the human cost of what they describe as institutional betrayal. The irony is that those entrusted with justice have become, in their view, agents of injustice.
The petitioners insist that accountability is essential. They declare: “No one is above the law, and those who abuse their offices must face consequences.” This assertion reflects their belief that the dispute is not merely about inheritance but about the integrity of Uganda’s institutions. They argue that if officials can manipulate estate administration with impunity, then the rule of law itself is endangered. Their appeal to the President is framed not only as a family matter but as a national concern.
The closing of the petition is marked by unity and determination. Signed by Bunny Wallia, Johnny Wallia, Ronnie Wallia, and Jassie Ahluwalia, the letter affirms: “We stand united in our demand for justice, and we shall pursue this matter until fairness is restored.” Their collective voice underscores the seriousness of their appeal. They present themselves not as isolated individuals but as a united family demanding accountability.
The controversy surrounding the estates of Zura Mama Kasuku and Ahluwalia Guido illustrates broader concerns about transparency and accountability in Uganda’s judicial and administrative systems. The complainants’ decision to escalate the matter to the President reflects both their desperation and their resolve. Whether their appeal will yield intervention remains uncertain, but their words leave little doubt about the depth of their grievances. Their petition is more than a legal complaint; it is a denunciation of abuse and a plea for accountability. They write: “We seek not only the protection of our family rights but also the preservation of the rule of law in our country.”
The case raises profound questions about the role of judicial officers and administrators. How can those charged with delivering justice be accused of denying it? How can institutions meant to protect rights be accused of stripping them away? The complainants’ words highlight this paradox repeatedly. They argue that the very offices meant to safeguard fairness have become instruments of exclusion. Their petition is a reminder that justice is not only about laws and procedures but about trust in institutions. When that trust is broken, the consequences are profound.
In analyzing this case, one sees the tension between authority and accountability. The Administrator General and Justice Verma hold positions of power, yet they are accused of using that power to stifle justice. The complainants’ appeal to the President reflects their belief that only the highest office can restore fairness. Their words are a warning that when justice is denied by those entrusted with it, the legitimacy of institutions is at stake. They insist: “We shall not relent until justice is done and the truth is revealed.” This determination reflects both personal grievance and a broader demand for accountability.
The petition is a powerful document, heavy with quotations and accusations, meticulous in its evidence, and uncompromising in its demands. It illustrates how family disputes can expose systemic issues, how personal grievances can become national concerns, and how the denial of justice by those charged with delivering it can undermine trust in institutions. The complainants’ words resonate beyond their family, raising questions about the integrity of Uganda’s judicial and administrative systems. Their appeal to President Museveni is both a cry for help and a call for accountability.
Whether it will succeed remains to be seen, but the petition itself is a testament to their determination to fight for justice.
The post TOP STORY: Family Drags Mpigi Resident Judge Deepa Verma to Museveni Over Multi-Billion Family Estate Fraud appeared first on Watchdog Uganda.