A resurfaced video of veteran journalist Andrew Mwenda has stirred debate on social media after he openly acknowledged his close personal and financial ties with businessman Sudhir Ruparelia, particularly during the period when the latter owned the now-defunct Crane Bank.
In the widely circulated clip, which was shared by Galaxy TV on X (formerly Twitter), Mwenda is heard making a candid remark about his relationship with the businessman. “When Sudhir owned a bank, I also owned the bank… when he lost the bank, I also lost the bank,” he says in the clip, a statement that has since drawn varied reactions online.
While some social media users treated the remarks with humour and sarcasm, others questioned the implications of such a relationship between a prominent journalist and a powerful figure in the business community. The exchange has reignited conversations about the intersection of media influence, business interests and elite networks within Uganda’s public sphere.
Crane Bank, founded in 1995, grew to become one of the country’s largest indigenous financial institutions before it was taken over by the Bank of Uganda in October 2016. The central bank placed the lender under statutory management, citing undercapitalisation and regulatory concerns.
A few months later, in January 2017, the bank’s assets and liabilities were transferred to DFCU Bank, a move that triggered significant public debate and a series of legal battles between the central bank and shareholders linked to the Ruparelia Group.
In 2019, a case filed by the Bank of Uganda against Mr Ruparelia was dismissed by court, with costs awarded against the central bank. The dispute has since been the subject of additional legal proceedings in different jurisdictions, with courts examining various aspects of the takeover and the processes followed.
Throughout the controversy, Mwenda has been one of Ruparelia’s most vocal defenders, frequently criticising the central bank’s handling of the Crane Bank collapse and arguing that proper legal procedures were not followed. Critics, however, say his advocacy raises questions about journalistic independence given his acknowledged personal ties to the businessman.
Supporters of the journalist argue that his position reflects personal loyalty and his interpretation of the events surrounding the bank’s takeover rather than a compromise of professional ethics.
At the height of the Crane Bank saga, Mwenda was also reported to have participated in high-level discussions involving senior government officials, placing him in a unique position as both a public commentator and a participant in conversations related to the matter.
The resurfacing of the video has renewed public attention to the Crane Bank episode, which remains one of the most consequential financial controversies in Uganda’s recent history and continues to shape discussions about banking regulation, corporate governance and accountability within the country’s financial sector.
Efforts to obtain comment from both Mwenda and Ruparelia on the viral clip were unsuccessful by press time. As related legal processes continue, the Crane Bank case remains a reference point in debates about the management of Uganda’s banking industry and the relationship between powerful actors in the media, business and political spheres.
