Gen. (Rtd) Kahinda Otafiire
HABARI DAILY I Kampala, Uganda I The battle on the ownership of Njeru Stock Farm land has dragged in a media personality, Charles Etukuri, a senior reporter at Uganda’s leading daily, The New Vision, after Gen. (Rtd) Kahinda Otafiire launched a blistering attack against the veteran journalist, accusing him of abandoning professional journalism in favour of advancing what he described as a one-sided campaign in the long-running dispute over the contested land.
In a lengthy statement posted on his official X account on Friday, July 17, 2026, Otafiire, the Minister of Water and Environment, accused Etukuri of acting as either “a hired advocate” or the unofficial spokesperson for State Minister for Animal Industry Bright Rwamirama and other parties involved in the controversial dispute.
The minister opened his statement with a proverb to explain why he had initially refrained from responding publicly.
“There is an African proverb that says, ‘When you are on a journey and encounter a barking dog, do not stop to engage it in a barking contest.’ I have therefore taken note of the growing intensity with which Mr. Etukuri of the New Vision, a journalist who should know better, has either chosen to become a hired advocate or the de facto spokesperson for Hon. Bright Rwamirama and his associates in the ongoing Njeru land dispute,” Otafiire wrote.
Attack on independent media
The remarks represent one of the strongest public attacks by a serving Cabinet minister against an individual journalist in recent years, highlighting the increasingly bitter contest over ownership of the former Njeru Stock Farm land in Buikwe District.
Otafiire questioned the credibility of media reports surrounding the dispute, arguing that the reporting had ignored critical historical and legal facts while presenting changing narratives about the ownership of the land.
“I appreciate the old English saying that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’ Yet one would reasonably expect that the tune played should, at the very least, serve the interests of truth. Instead, the narrative that has repeatedly been presented to the public regarding the Njeru matter reflects either remarkably poor research or a deliberate abandonment of basic investigative journalism,” he said.
Initial ownership
According to the minister, published accounts have shifted significantly over time. “The story initially claimed that the stock farm comprised Plots 2, 3, 4 and 5. It was later revised to assert that only Plots 2, 3 and 4 belonged to the Late Ham Mukasa, were leased to the Crown Government, and subsequently subleased by Njeru Municipal Town Council to the Ministry of Agriculture for the stock farm. Such shifting narratives deserve scrutiny rather than unquestioning repetition.”
Otafiire devoted much of his statement to reconstructing what he described as the true legal history of Plot 2, tracing ownership from the late Ham Mukasa to his daughter Barbara Lakeeri Nalubaale and eventually to beneficiaries Sarah Namusisi and Ham Ssali.
He explained that following Sarah Namusisi’s death, George Kasedde became trustee for Brenda Nanyondo, Sarah’s only daughter, before subsequent legal proceedings changed the ownership landscape.
“It was Ham Ssali and George Kasedde who instituted proceedings against Njeru Municipal Council through Arbitration Cause No. 08 of 2005 arising from Civil Suit No. 80 of 2009 for breach of the lease agreement and failure to pay rent on the stock farm land. The arbitration, presided over by Sam Mayanja (then Arbitrator), concluded with an award cancelling the lease and ordering re-entry in favour of the landowners because of the persistent non-payment of rent.”
Disputed Letters of Administration
The minister further stated that when Brenda Nanyondo became an adult, she successfully obtained Letters of Administration from the High Court before later securing a consent judgment that resulted in the lawful subdivision of the estate.
“Brenda Nanyondo subsequently sued Ham Ssali to be included among the administrators of the estate. The matter was resolved through a Consent Judgment before Justice Eludes Keitirima on 26 August 2025. The land was thereafter lawfully subdivided between the beneficiaries, and portions of Plot 2 were sold to third-party purchasers. Curiously, this is one part of the story the current narrative prefers to ignore.”
Otafiire also cited presidential directives that, in his view, undermine claims that the entire property remains protected stock farm land.
“Equally significant is the fact that on 17 January 2024, following the commissioning of the Modern Tiles plant occupying approximately 50 acres of former Plot 4, the President directed the Ministers of Agriculture, Lands and Justice to allocate 450 acres of the Njeru Stock Farm land to Modern Ventures Ltd for industrial expansion.”
He posed what he described as a fundamental contradiction.
“This raises an obvious question: if the land is genuinely being preserved as a stock farm, why is a substantial portion simultaneously being earmarked for private industrial development?”
The minister also relied on correspondence allegedly authored by Rwamirama himself. “Further, in a letter dated 14 March 2025, Hon. Bright Rwamirama the Minister of State for Animal Industry himself acknowledged to the President that following the arbitral award by Hon. Sam Mayanja and the High Court order of re-entry in 2011, the stock farm had lost its legal interest in the land due to non-payment of rent and currently has no valid written lease or agreement with either Brenda Nanyondo or Ham Ssali.”
Acreage disputed
Otafiire said a survey undertaken by the Ministry of Lands established that the stock farm occupied only 190 acres on Plot 2 and that much of the land frequently portrayed as stock farm property actually lay on Plots 3 and 4.
“The Ministry of Lands survey undertaken pursuant to the Presidential directive established that the stock farm occupied only 190 acres on Plot 2. The remainder had long since been subleased by Njeru Town Council for residential development. The report further concluded that land widely portrayed as belonging to the stock farm actually extended into Plots 3 and 4, which were never part of the stock farm’s ownership.”
Responding directly to allegations linking him personally to the disputed land, Otafiire insisted that his property is entirely separate from Plot 2.
“I, Maj. General (Rtd) Kahinda Otafiire, do not own any land on Plot 2. The 90 acres that I own are situated entirely on Plots 3 and 4, whose ownership history is legally distinct from that of Plot 2. None of the recognised owners of those plots have challenged either my ownership or my occupation.”
He added that several companies and individuals collectively own substantially larger portions of land than he does.
“It is equally important to note that Modern Ventures Ltd, together with related companies including Modern Tiles Ltd, Modern Laminates Ltd, Modern Agro Ltd and Modern Organizers Ltd, collectively own approximately 160 acres. Other entities, including Keshwala Group (46 acres), Seyani Brothers (60 acres), Shreeji Glass (19 acres), and Musa Were (39 acres), collectively control more than 320 acres on Plots 3 and 4.
“Yet public attention has been disproportionately directed at my comparatively modest 90-acre holding.”
Selective version of the truth?
The minister concluded by questioning the motives behind what he described as selective reporting and selective disclosure by those pushing claims over the stock farm.
“The inevitable question therefore is this: Why are Hon. Bright Rwamirama and his associates presenting a selective version of the facts while concealing their own interests?
“If the objective is truly to protect the stock farm, then the facts, the court records and the official survey reports should speak louder than political rhetoric.”
Otafiire’s statement significantly escalates the already contentious Njeru Stock Farm dispute by shifting attention from the ownership battle itself to the role of the media, placing veteran journalist Charles Etukuri at the centre of a widening political and legal confrontation that shows little sign of ending soon.
