Uganda Medical Association Condemns Suspension of Dr Robert Candia, Demands Reinstatement

The Uganda Medical Association (UMA) has condemned the suspension of Dr Robert Candia by the Minister of State for Health (General Duties), Anifa Kawooya, describing the decision as arbitrary and calling for its immediate reversal.

In a press statement dated October 16, 2026, UMA President Dr Frank R. Asiimwe said the association was deeply concerned about the public incident involving Dr Candia and the subsequent summary suspension announced by the minister.

The dispute reportedly arose from an alleged breach of etiquette, described as “pocketing” his hands during an exchange with the minister.

However, UMA argued that the alleged conduct did not constitute a recognised major disciplinary offence under Uganda’s laws or established clinical procedures governing healthcare delivery.

“While deference to authority is a cherished cultural value, neither the laws of Uganda nor the clinical algorithms of healthcare delivery recognise hand placement as a capital disciplinary offense,” the association stated.

UMA further criticised what it described as an episode of public humiliation and theatrical display rather than constructive supervision of health workers.

UMA questions legality of suspension

The association maintained that healthcare facilities should remain places for clinical practice, patient care and life-saving interventions rather than arenas for political confrontations.

It argued that administrative decisions affecting public servants must comply with established legal and disciplinary procedures, regardless of the circumstances surrounding an incident.

UMA cited Article 42 of the 1995 Constitution, which provides for just and fair treatment in administrative decisions, including the right to be heard.

It also referred to Section F-r of the Uganda Public Service Standing Orders (2021), which it said outlines procedures for disciplinary control, interdiction and investigations.

The association further cited the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, Cap. 272, which provides for the regulation of professional conduct and ethics among medical practitioners through the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council.

According to UMA, disciplinary matters involving medical professionals should be handled through legally established mechanisms rather than what it termed impromptu political tribunals. 

Doctors working under difficult conditions

Beyond the suspension, UMA highlighted the difficult working conditions faced by medical personnel in Uganda’s health facilities.

The association pointed to persistent shortages of medicines, broken diagnostic equipment, understaffing and exhausting work schedules, arguing that public humiliation and abrupt administrative punishment could undermine health workers’ morale.

It said accountability and supervision were necessary but should be constructive, structured and conducted by technically competent authorities within the Ministry of Health.

UMA also urged political leaders to allow the ministry’s technical departments to carry out their responsibilities without disruptive micromanagement. 

Three demands issued

The association outlined three demands in response to the suspension.

First, it called for the immediate rescission of what it described as the unlawful and arbitrary suspension of Dr Candia.

Second, it demanded strict adherence to statutory disciplinary procedures should a genuine administrative inquiry be necessary.

Third, UMA called for an immediate end to political theatrics in health centres across the country.

“Respect for the dignity of health workers and fidelity to the rule of law are non-negotiable,” the statement reads.

The association reiterated that supervision and accountability should focus on improving healthcare delivery and maintaining professional standards rather than turning administrative disagreements into public confrontations.

The statement was signed by Dr Asiimwe on behalf of the association.

The minister’s response to UMA’s demands was not included in the statement, and the circumstances surrounding the suspension could not be independently established from the document.