URA Recruitment Mess: Questions Grow Over Senior Contracts, Succession, and Alleged Backdoor Appointments

By Deep State Investigations

Questions are mounting at the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) over the management of senior positions, contract extensions, and succession arrangements, with insiders alleging that a number of roles are being lined up for preferred individuals without a clear recruitment process.

The latest controversy comes amid unresolved disciplinary proceedings involving Asadu Kisitu, the former Commissioner of Customs, whose whereabouts have recently become a subject of public interest as he faces a disciplinary hearing.

Information obtained by Deep State suggests that the Kisitu matter may only be one part of a much wider problem inside the tax body: how URA handles senior officers whose contracts are expiring, employees approaching retirement, and vacancies created at the top of the organisation.

At the centre of some concerns is Alex Rubanga, currently an Assistant Commissioner at URA.

Sources familiar with the developments allege that efforts are underway to secure an additional contract for Rubanga, even as questions arise over his retirement status and the basis upon which such an extension would be granted.

The allegations have raised questions over whether the authority is applying its human-resource rules consistently or whether senior appointments are increasingly being handled through individual arrangements rather than an open and competitive process.

Questions Over Retirement

One of the central questions is whether URA’s human-resource framework permits an officer who has reached the applicable retirement threshold to simply receive an additional contract, and under what circumstances.

If such extensions are permissible, the question becomes whether the same criteria are being applied to all eligible officers.

If they are not, what makes one officer eligible for an extension while another is required to retire?

URA, as a public institution, is expected to operate within its governing legislation, Board-approved policies, and its Human Resource Manual.

The Uganda Revenue Authority Act gives the Board significant responsibility over the authority’s staffing policy and the appointment of senior officers.

This makes the Board’s role particularly important in determining whether proposed extensions and appointments have been properly authorised.

Who Replaces Asadu?

The other question emerging from the controversy concerns the future of the Customs department.

Asadu Kisitu’s disciplinary proceedings have created uncertainty around the substantive leadership of Customs.

URA’s own published management information currently lists Henry Kwalingoza as Commissioner Customs (Acting).

That raises a straightforward question:

Has URA begun a formal process to fill the substantive position, and if so, what process is being followed?

Sources allege that there are attempts to position individuals for senior roles before a vacancy has been formally and transparently filled.

Among the names being discussed is Rubanga.

However, the question is not simply whether Rubanga is qualified.

The bigger question is whether the position has been subjected to the recruitment and selection process required by URA’s own rules.

Was it advertised?

Were eligible officers given an opportunity to apply?

Was an interview panel constituted?

Were candidates shortlisted?

Was a recommendation made?

Was the Board involved where required?

And, crucially, what provision of the URA Human Resource Manual or other applicable law authorises the proposed arrangement?

A Recruitment System That Promises Merit

URA publicly presents its recruitment system as one based on equal opportunity, transparent screening, and merit.

Applicants are expected to compete on qualifications, experience, and the requirements of the advertised position.

That raises an important accountability question.

If ordinary applicants must compete for URA positions, should senior positions be treated differently?

And if they are treated differently, where is the policy that permits that distinction?

These questions become even more important where a position is allegedly being filled through an extension or internal arrangement rather than a competitive recruitment process.

Is This Happening Elsewhere?

Deep State has also been informed that the issue may not be limited to one position.

Sources claim that similar arrangements are being contemplated for other roles involving senior officers whose contracts are ending or who are approaching retirement.

If confirmed, this would point to a systemic issue rather than an isolated personnel decision.

The authority would then need to explain how many senior officers have had contracts extended beyond the normal retirement point over the past several years.

It would also need to disclose the criteria used to approve those extensions and whether the same criteria were applied consistently.

A particularly important question is whether these arrangements are being made before vacancies formally arise, effectively determining who will occupy a position before other eligible candidates are given an opportunity to compete.

Where Is the Paper Trail?

For every disputed appointment or contract extension, there should be an administrative trail.

That includes the applicable HR provision, recommendation, approval, appointment instrument, and, where applicable, Board resolution.

For this reason, the controversy cannot be settled by simply saying that management has discretion.

The public question is:

Where does that discretion come from?

And where the Human Resource Manual is being relied upon, the relevant provision should be identifiable.

If the provision does not exist, URA should explain what other legal or policy instrument gives it the authority to make the appointment or extension.

Board Accountability

The URA Board is therefore central to this story.

The Board is responsible for important aspects of staffing policy and senior appointments. It cannot therefore be assumed that decisions affecting senior positions are purely administrative matters.

If contracts are being extended, positions restructured, or senior officers being moved into new roles, the public deserves to know whether the appropriate governance structures were followed.

The issue is particularly sensitive because URA is one of Uganda’s most important public institutions.

It collects the taxes that finance government operations, and its credibility depends not only on how it treats taxpayers but also on how it manages its own people.

A tax authority demanding compliance from the public must itself be seen to operate transparently and according to established rules.

URA Must Answer

The emerging controversy therefore leaves URA with several questions.

Is Alex Rubanga’s contract being extended?

If so, when does his current contract expire, and what is the basis for the extension?

Has he reached the applicable retirement age?

If he has, what provision allows him to remain in service?

Has the URA Board approved the extension?

Is the position he would occupy being advertised?

Was a competitive recruitment process conducted?

Is Rubanga being considered for the substantive Customs Commissioner position or another senior role?

What process is being followed to replace Asadu Kisitu, if his position becomes vacant?

And are similar contract extensions or appointments being contemplated for other senior officers?

These are not merely questions about one employee.

They go to the heart of governance, fairness, succession planning, and accountability at URA.

If there is a lawful basis for the decisions, URA should make it clear.

If there is no such basis, then the authority has a much bigger recruitment problem on its hands.

Deep State has sought clarification from URA on the allegations and will update this story when the authority responds.