November 2013
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
« Oct   Dec »

Day November 28, 2013

Tumwebaze says that Lukwago wont be mayor again regardless of the court’s decision today


28th November 2013

The former Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago filed an application against the Attorney General and the tribunal investigating the petition against the Lord Mayor vide Miscellaneous Application 445 of 2013, seeking interim orders to bar myself, the Authority councillors, agents and any other persons from convening a meeting to deliberate on the Tribunal’s report and not to conduct any further acts pursuant to that report.

By this time, I had convened a meeting of the Authority scheduled for the 25th of November at 9.00 a.m. at KCCA Authority chambers. On the said date, the Authority councillors in attendance voted on a resolution to remove the Lord Mayor from office when twenty nine Authority councillors voted in favour of the Lord Mayor`s removal and three voted against. The Lord Mayor ceased to hold office at 9.30 a.m. when the said resolution was passed.

Today, I have learnt that the High Court has issued an interim injunction barring myself, the Authority councillors and agents and other persons from convening a meeting to deliberate on the Tribunal’s report and not to conduct any further acts pursuant to that report until the main cause is heard. 2

I have further learnt that the Attorney General drew it to the attention of the Learned Judge both in his letter to the Court on 26th November 2013 and in his statement before the Court today that the impeachment proceedings had been concluded prior to grant and service of the initial interim order. The Learned Judge has instead chosen to proceed and pronounce himself on the second interim order as if these facts had not taken place.

The interim injunction has thus been issued on the 28th of November 2013 seeking to stop the meeting that occurred on 25th November 2013. The interim injunction is therefore impossible to implement as we cannot stop a meeting that has already occurred. Infact the seat of the Lord Mayor has already been declared vacant and the Electoral Commission has been accordingly informed.

We are not able to implement the order since clearly it has been overtaken by events which the Court was not able to consider in these applications. We have however sought the legal advice of the Attorney General on this matter.

Frank Tumwebaze


Musisi and Tumwebaze have been breaking laws ever since they set foot at City Hall

Musisi and Tumwebaze have been breaking laws ever since they set foot at City Hall:

ED Musisi to-date has failed to account for colossal sums of taxpayers’ money amounting to Shs148 billion for the financial year 2011/12. She also failed to transparently account for Shs58 billion found on the bank accounts of the former KCC. There is a very big body of cogent evidence which shows fraudulent procurement at KCCA by ED Musisi, contrary to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations 2003 (“PPDPA Act”).

why did ED Musisi fail to set up be a Capital City contracts committee as required by law?In the recent past, without advertising, she has been secretly awarding lucrative public contracts, to her close personal friends and family members. Section 61(1) & (2) of the KCCA Act states: “there shall be a Capital City contracts committee. The Capital City contracts committee shall comprise a chairperson, and four other members, all of whom shall be nominated by the executive director from among the public officers of the Authority and approved by the Secretary to the treasury.”Section 140 (2) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Regulations 2003 (“PPDPA Act”) states that “a bid notice shall be published in at least one newspaper which must be of wide circulation to reach sufficient prospective bidders to ensure effective competition.”

To-date Jenifer Musisi has refused to publish quarterly summary reports of all procurements and disposals. Section of 66(1) of the KCCA Act re: “reports of contracts committee” says the Capital City contracts committee ‘shall publish quarterly summary reports of all procurements and disposals’ made by it during the quarter concerned containing such particulars as may be prescribed by regulations made under section 82.

The Minister for Kampala Frank Tumwebaze failed to fulfil his legal obligation to setting up a Metropolitan Physical Planning Authority required by Law? Section 79(1)(d) of the KCCA Act says: “The Minister shall have the power to appoint and remove members of the Metropolitan Authority.”Section 21(1) of KCCA Act says: “There shall be a body to be known as the Metropolitan Physical Planning Authority.”


Lukwago has to prepare himself for a political rather than legal battle

Look at how the dictatorship agents are just smiling against the true peoples representative trying to fight for justice.We elect representatives to represent our views they end up being bought cheaply to serve the NRM dictatorship.

Look at how the dictatorship agents are just smiling against the true peoples representative trying to fight for justice.We elect representatives to represent our views they end up being bought cheaply to serve the NRM dictatorship.

Injunctions can be obtained at any time, even in the middle of the night. Ask your immigration lawyers who deal with deportation issues or banking lawyers who deal will international money transfers. In some of these cases even a second matters. In the UK, an injunction was obtained to prevent a deportation at 4AM in the middle of the night, 7 minutes before a suspected terrorist was about to be flown out of a UK air base on a deportation order.

It is all a charade. Courts always have judges on duty at night. Injunction applications are often even made by phone, not personal appearance in court. Lukwago has to prepare himself for a political rather than legal battle because these people are not interested in the law.

I have not read the KCCA Act, but I think the problem here is really whether the Minister has the power to call a meeting of the KCCA and to chair it. It would be very odd to make such a provision. Ordinarily it is the Mayor or the Secretary who should call meetings, after having agreed the agenda with the Executive Director. If the Mayor for whatever reason, wilfully or unwillfully, cannot call a meeting, then I am sure there are emergency provisions in the Act that would allow the members themselves to call the meeting and elect one amongst themselves to chair it. The Executive Director herself cannot call a meeting of the Council since the Council technically is her employer- her job is to report to the Council.

As for the validity of service of injunctive order, it seems this is satisfied if the relevant official was served or notified of the order before the vote on impeachment was taken. Obviously in this case, it seems clear the government prevented notice of the injunctive order from being served. Reading briefly through the proceedings, it seems clear that a councillor called into question the validity of the meeting, on a point of order, but she was over-ruled. If the point of order was because she had knowledge or copy of the injunctive order and was not allowed to present it to the meeting, this defect would render the impeachment motion and decision a nullity.

Secondly, one could also argue that, disruptive as he was, a second councillor who climbed on to the table and tried to serve notice of the order on the the minister, would have been within his rights to do so, desperate as he was to prevent the council from proceeding with an illegal meeting.

Service of notices of injunctive orders are normally made by either court appointed officials or by legal representatives of the parties. In certain cases in law, it has been decided by courts that merely bringing the attention of a party to be served that an order exists, for eg by throwing it at him, amounts to a valid legal service.

However, you should note here that an injunction would have brought very little relief to Mr Lukwago as it would have been temporary and very limited in scope. I believe it would have set a date for the parties to argue the issue of the legality of the impeachment meeting. Lukwago may well appeal, but I think court will most likely rule that, although there was an existing injunctive order in place at the time the impeachment motion was passed, no significant harm or damage was caused. It will then restore the status quo ante by either nullifying the impeachment decision and restoring Lukwago to post, or setting a firm date for for a full hearing of the substantive motion, with the Mayor’s post remaining vacant.

In other words, what I am arguing here is that Mr Lukwago can only survive on legal niceties and procedures for a short while, because the present Council of the KCCA as constituted has already sealed his fate and the law is not going to be his saviour here, unfortunately. Even if the courts declare his removal unlawful, there is no doubt in my mind that this biased or compromised council will find yet another excuse to impeach him.


Mr. Rwakakamba statement on Lukwago is wanting!

You may have read Mr. Rwakakamba statement. I sincerely believe he is adequately ignorant and I would therefore reluctantly offer him some free information to save him further embarrassment.

1: The application by Mr. Lukwago before the Registrar was not exparte. The Attorney General was represented. Of course Mr. Rwakakamba thinks the Attorney General is only limited to Mr. Peter Nyombi. Not at all. It stretches to any officer duly nominated to represent the Attorney General in court. Court minuted the presence of the Attorney General.

2: According to our Drone intelligence intercepts, the Attorney General Officer was being directed by a one Mr. Kiryowa. The Drones monitored Mr Kiryowa send Madam Musiisi a what’s up message that “they have got a the order, we are finished” to which Madam Musiisi replied via whats up, “don’t worry I will handle”

3: The strategy then was to seal the KCCA premises to forestall the court order service, and then argue your situation, ie you were served after the process of impeachment. That strategy was a fiasco.

4: According to intelligence intercepts by our Drones deployed at KCCA, Lukwagos lawyer informed police he was going to attend court at the KCCA court and used that cover to access madam Musiisi ‘s office. He served the secretary who went in to consult Madam Musiisi. That sent in panic and could possibly explain why the whole situation turned chaotic, for Madam Musiisi wondered how the court order had accessed her office.

5; You don’t need to issue a receipt as an acknowledgment of service. Not at all. The court order serve only needs to swear an affidavit as prove of service and that is sufficient.

6: Hon Frank Tumwebaze argues on how one would pay court fees before the opening of banks. You now can pay taxes on mobile money and the facility is operational 24 hours a day.

7; Hon Frank Tumwebaze also wonders how court would be open by 0800am. Court has handled election petitions late in the evening. Is there a law that bars court being that early? Is there any law that nullifies court decisions on account of doing business that early? And what was the Attorney Generals officer doing there that early? Your argument would have held water if you had been denied representation on the basis of failing to be in court by late coming. You were as vigilant as court. You were all early in court and keep that spirit. That is the NRM spirit. The “spirit of Vigilance”. Mr. Rwakakamba could be alien to this.

8: Court is final in determining whether the process was lawful or a nullity. Court has duly pronounced itself. That is final. The Attorney General’s opinion doesn’t bind court. I suggest you obey court so as to reduce tension. Any other pedestrian path you may wish to take my exacerbate the situation, result in unnecessary loss of lives to your detriment.

9: The earlier you adopt to the court process the better, for after the expirely of two weeks, Lukwago will be un- impeachable. This is the argument you should have with due diligence put before court and invited court to examine the fate of the councilors’ right to impeach the Lord Mayor if Court facilitated the expiry of the two weeks before the impeachment. The Lukwago cause has been legitimized by court and your resort to the use of or threat of use of force will culminate into a total disaster and with catastrophic results. Sober down so that our critics will not have their laugh that when power was given to young ones, they got excited and abused it. Over to you, Rwakakamba and Hon Frank Tumwebaze


%d bloggers like this: