By Kabuye Ronald and Robert Segawa
The Director of the Criminal Investigations Directorate (CID) in the Uganda Police Force (UPF), Assistant Inspector General of Police (AIGP) Tom Magambo, has publicly distanced himself from an ongoing property dispute involving educationist Prof. Badru Kateregga and his wife, Mrs. Jolly Shubaiha Kateregga.
For months, AIGP Magambo’s name has been mentioned in connection with the highly publicised family dispute, prompting the Uganda Police Force to issue an official clarification dismissing claims of police interference or influence. Police reiterated that the matter is purely civil in nature and therefore outside the mandate of the police.
Responding to the allegations, AIGP Magambo categorically stated that the CID has no authority to intervene in civil disputes.
“My team has brought to my attention a WhatsApp message circulating on some groups dragging my name into the family wrangles of Professor Kateregga and his wife,” Magambo said.
“As you may recall, the Police Public Relations Officer publicly updated the country on their family conflict and advised that it be handled as a civil matter. As CID, we have no powers to intervene in such matters.
“For the record, I have never in my life met Prof. Kateregga or his wife personally, and the insinuation by diversionary forces that we are known to each other should be rejected with the contempt it deserves. Let us focus on building our motherland, Uganda.”
It should be recalled that in July this year, the Uganda Police Force issued a detailed clarification regarding the Kateregga family dispute.
In a statement, police noted that the domestic dispute between Prof. Kateregga and his wife was reported on 7th November 2024 and was investigated under CID HQRS/GEF 306/204. The case file was subsequently submitted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) for legal guidance.
On 18th February 2025, the ODPP advised that the dispute stemmed from property ownership and management issues, which fall outside police jurisdiction and are best resolved through a civil court.
Police further clarified that this position was formally communicated to both parties through their lawyers. Any expectation that police or CID could remove Mrs. Jolly Shubaiha Kateregga from the disputed premises was described as being outside the law.
“The alteration of possession of property under dispute can only be effected by a court order,” the statement emphasized, adding that police cannot act outside established legal procedures or in defiance of ODPP guidance.
The Uganda Police Force reaffirmed its commitment to acting strictly within the law, working in close collaboration with the ODPP, and urged all parties involved to pursue lawful avenues to resolve their differences.
