Controversial lawyer Fred Muwema has refuted media claims that the ruling government bribed him with a staggering Shs 900m to compromise the election petition in which Amama Mbabazi was challenging the victory of President Museveni.
Muwema, online http://dayacounselling.on.ca/wp-content/plugins/contact-form-7/wp-contact-form-7.php who was among Mbabazi’s lawyers, cialis 40mg described the allegations as “utterly false” and “reckless.”
The lawyer, who recently partied ways with his partners over lack of trust and has been repeatedly accused of engaging in fraudulent acts, also denied masterminding the raid on his office.
“Whereas it is true that our offices at Windsor Crescent Kololo were raided and some information in support of the presidential petition was stolen, neither Fred Muwema not any member of the firm participated in that ugly and wanton incident,” the lawyer’s firm said in a statement on Monday morning.
“The matter was reported to the police and investigations are ongoing. Any person with useful leads or information should come forward in person and not hide behind pseudo internet names to defame and insult others,” the statement further read.
On bribery, the firm said, “We are not in the business of taking bribes,” adding, “that claim reads like a stanza from some comical script, a reality we shall not interfere with.”
The raid on the offices of Muwema and Mohmed Mbabazi, all lawyers of the former presidential candidate, sparked mixed reactions from the public.
Mbabazi’s sympathisers said the security apparatus intended to take away crucial evidence from the lawyers’ premises to frustrate Mbabazi’s case at the Supreme Court.
Yet, government through its spokesperson Ofwono Opondo said the raids bore hallmarks of an “inside job.”
Allegations that Muwema had been compromised to sacrifice Mbabazi left the law firm’s reputation in tatters.
The law firm’s rebuttal is seen as an attempt to restore public confidence in the middle of a whirlwind of damaging reports.
Muwema confirmed that while his firm aided the preparation of the petition, “the reasons why we did not participate in the trial of the presidential petition were discussed with the client and are known to him.”
“Since communications with our client are privileged and we are not at liberty to disclose them to anybody without his consent or approval we find the attacks against us in this regard unjustified and misguided.”