Court pours cold water on UCI move to fire deputy ED
Dr Victoria Walusansa, the Uganda Cancer Institute deputy executive director. PHOTO/ COURTESY
The High Court in Kampala has prohibited the Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) from replacing its deputy executive director, Dr Victoria Walusansa. Justice Musa Ssekaana ruled that Dr Walusansa is still validly holding the position and cannot be replaced.
"An order of prohibition is issued barring the respondents and any of the Cancer Institute's officers, servants, agents, or Board of Directors from proceeding with or relying on the internal job advert No. 2 of 2022 signed by the second respondent (Dr [Jackson] Orem) and from interfering with the applicant's holding of the position of Deputy Executive Director," the court ordered.
The judge also issued an order restraining the Institute and its agents from victimising, intimidating, or harassing Dr. Walusansa regarding her replacement.
The court's decision followed Dr Walusansa's application challenging her replacement, despite still being the substantive deputy director. She was appointed to the position by President Museveni, and the appointment was communicated in a March 5, 2013, letter.
Court records show that in December 2022, Dr Orem issued an internal memo titled "Internal Advert" inviting heads of departments to apply for her position. However, Justice Ssekaana ruled that Dr Orem's decision was unjustified, and there was no reasonable cause for attempting to remove Dr. Walusansa.
Justice Ssekaana quashed the internal job advert declaring the deputy executive director position vacant, stating it was improperly motivated. He emphasised that public decisions should not be influenced by improper motives such as fraud, dishonesty, or personal interest.
"The Cancer Institute management and Dr Orem must correctly understand and apply the law governing their decision-making power," the judge said.
He further noted that the Uganda Cancer Institute Act should not be undermined by policies aimed at asserting authority over those providing life-saving care to cancer patients.
The judge concluded that courts can and should intervene when statutory powers are exercised improperly, even if the legitimate purpose is ultimately achieved.
