Category Legal issues

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.”

H.O

Advertisements

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.

GEORGE OKELO
LONDON

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

FROM: CHARLES RWOMUSHANA

This is no way to treat a lawyer serving a court order even if you think the order is not authentic


GUN2
This is no way to treat a lawyer serving a court order even if you think the order is not authentic. Actually, it’s no way to treat a fellow human being. IT IS WRONG simply WRONG and I hope folks involved are held to account. I think the legal fraternity should act coz this manner can’t be tolerated.

gun

They have broken all the basic principles of decency. Anyway apart from walking naked on the streets, there is nothing the regime can do now that can surprise anyone. At that time he was an officer of court because he was having a court document and police was mandated to give him security so that he could serve it on the Minister and the ED.

The police are aware of this coz in the nine months they spend in Masindi they are taught basic legal concepts among which is to use reasonable force and to me that force was too excessive since even the victim of the violence had only come to serve them with a court order. Ugandans don’t deserve this kind of treatment! Am deeply hurt by this torture perpetuated by policemen who are expected to be the custodians of the law!
The lawyer had to do that to make sure Frank Tumwebaze never denies that he was served with the injunction. There are three basic methods are used for service of process:
a) Actual, or personal, service,
b) Substituted service, and
c) Service by publication.

Although each method is legally acceptable, PERSONAL SERVICE (which was used in the instant case, as shown in the photo below) is preferred because it is the most effective way of providing notice and it is difficult for the defendant to attack its legality. Personal service means IN-HAND DELIVERY of the papers to the proper person. The arguments that followed strengthen the lawyer’s case.
Where an order of court is not stayed, either by a successful application or by operation of a specific law, that order is executable and /or complied with by whomever it is directed to and/ or by whomever it has to be complied with.

In the Lukwago scenario, the court order was granted about 45 Mins before the vote at KCCA was made. Suffice to say, minutes before the vote was made, notice / knowledge of the said order was brought to the attention of the presiding chair Frank Tumwebaze; but he trashed it as ‘unauthentic.

Efforts by Hon. Segona to get in in the chambers turned futile as police blocked him from entering, but it was given to a one lukwago supporter who was in the premises and there after passed to Allan Sewanyana one of the LCs who latter brought it to the attention of Frank T. who in effect trashed it as ‘unauthentic’

Needless to state that an interim order is made in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient so to do. This is for the protection of the court when it is overwhelmed with matters for disposal. Therefore such orders are given under compelling circumstances. ONCE THEY ARE ISSUED THEY HAVE TO BE OBEYED. They are lawful court orders, DISOBEDIENCE OF WHICH WOULD RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS A NULLITY

See the cases of:
a) Burundi Tobacco Co. S.A.R.L & Leaf Tobacco & commodity (U) Ltd v BAT (U) Ltd Civil Appeal Reference No. 22 of 2010,
b) Lweza Clays Ltd & Anor vs Tropical Bank Ltd & Anor, Civil Application No. 129 of 2009.
c) Muwema & Mugerwa Advocates & Solicitor vs. Shell (u) Ltd & 10 others CA CA NO. 18 OF 2011

The issue of whether the order came in late or not or whether there was no service of the court order is not a legal one. What is pertinent for court’s consideration is whether the opposite party was aware of the issuance of that order. That the opposite part had knowledge that an order was issued is itself sufficient. It goes without say that the court order was issued about 45 minutes before the KCCA vote was made & the information about the order went viral.

Adherence to court order is not determined by who serves the order. That it was issued by court is itself sufficient, Period! The legality of wrongful service is a matter that can be contended in the courts of law, if any

The difference is Tumwebaze does not care what the law says, he simply cares what his boss says, Ugandans have made M7 to be above the law, let’s not act like we are surprised about the results.

Do you remember what happened to kasibante, when the EC refused to accept the court orders for interim relief? Don’t be surprised when the Lukwago matters ends up in his favour just as Kasibante did. Lukwago, will undoubtedly will this case on technicality.

There is need to emphasized that the principle of law is that the whole essence of litigation as a process of judicial administration is lost if orders issued by court through the set judicial process, in the normal functioning of courts, are not complied with in full by those targeted and/or called upon to give due compliance/effect. A State organ, or agency or person legally and duty bound to give due compliance must do so. Court orders cannot be issued in vain.” Per HON. JUSTICE MR. BASHAIJA K. ANDREW in the case of MURIISA NICHOLAS Vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & Others MISC CAUSE NO. 035 OF 2012.

The general principle regarding respect for court orders was stated in Chuck Vs Cremer ( I Coop Temp Cott 342) cited in the judgment of Rooner L. J. in Hadiknson Vs Hadkinson that:

“A party who knows of an order whether null or void, regular or irregular cannot be permitted to disobey it …. It would be most dangerous to hold the suitors or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null or void – whether it was regular or irregular.

That they should come to the court and not take it upon themselves to determine such a question. That the course of the part knowing an order, which was null or irregular, and might be affected by it was plaint. He should apply to the court that it might be discharged. AS LONG AS IT (the Court order) EXISTED, IT MUST NOT BE DISOBEYED.”

H.O

Once a party knows of a Court Order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, he cannot be permitted to disobey it.


This is Councillor Allan Ssewanyana serving the court order to Frank Frank K Tumwebaze. Is there any more proof you need?

This is Councillor Allan Ssewanyana serving the court order to Frank Frank K Tumwebaze. Is there any more proof you need?

Just pondering on the legal ramifications of the continued seating of the KCCA assembly, notwithstanding the issuance of the court order! Imagining if this will not turn out like the Kasibante saga during the recounting of his votes at the Mengo C/ Magistrate court.

Secondly, in as much as i have no problem with the appointment of the 4 professional body of councillors; their swearing in however, under the Local Governments’ Act is so intriguing to brood over; Given the fact that Kampala is no longer a district subject to the aforesaid law, but rather it’s a City governed by an independent law, The KCCA Act.

For record purposes, let us all keep this court order safely if we are to write book about this drama in future.
Once a party knows of a Court Order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, he cannot be permitted to disobey it.

In the Locus Classicaus case of GEOFFREY GATETE & ANGELLA MARIA NAKIGONYA VS. WILLIAM KYOBE SCCA NO. 7 OF 2005 it was noted that: ‘… the word “effective (service)” means (service of) “having the desired effect; producing the intended result”.’ Thus the intended result is always achieved, once the defendant is aware / informed of the purpose of the Order. And once he is aware, that is sufficient.
guts2

guts3

There can be no doubt that the desired and intended result of serving the court order on the defendant’s agent (Frank Tumwebaze) in the Lukwago Misc Appl was to make the defendant aware of the Orders granted against it / him so that he /it has the opportunity to adhere to the order of the court. The surest mode of achieving that result is serving the defendant in person through its presiding chair (The Minister of kampala- Frank Tumwebaze).

The Gatete case discusses both the concept of ‘effective service’ & ‘what is deemed to be good service’. If fact, it distinguished the two issues. My interest is not on ‘what is deemed to be good service’ because it is not relevant in the present scenario. As long as the service is effective, who effected it, is inconsequential. What is vital is; has the intended purpose of effecting the service been achieved? That is what is of paramount consideration. That the service has been effective supersedes who effects it; and to me that’s what matters the most.

The issue of whether the order came in late or not or whether there was no service of the court order is not a legal one. What is pertinent for court’s consideration is whether the opposite party was aware of the issuance of that order. That the opposite part had knowledge that an order was issued is itself sufficient.

It goes without say that the court order was issued about 45 minutes before the KCCA vote was made & the information about the order went viral.

The validity or invalidity of the court order is not a matter for non adherence of the court order. Whoever has a problem with the regularity of the order has the only recourse of challenging it in the courts of law; but not to disobey it.

I have heard that Justice Nyanzi Yasin has stayed the removal of Lukwago until Thursday.May be council will sit again on Friday this time at 7am.
H.O

Charles Onyango-Obbo:both the Mayor of London and the Lord Mayor are elected figures with executive powers!


I disagree with Charles Onyango-Obbo in his recent article in the Daily Monitor on the link below.Jennifer Musisi has not achieved whatever can be legitimately attributed to her due to her compentence; she’s has been facilitated and enabled by President Museveni, in order to paint Mayor Lukwago as incompentent, and therefore, unfit for the office.

http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/OpEdColumnists/CharlesOnyangoObbo/Jennifer-Musisi-Lukwago-who-would-you-want-to-run-your-city/-/878504/2080528/-/m819cp/-/index.html

In fact, Museveni fulfilled this prophesy by his government-appointed Tribunal that gave him the conclusion he had set out with originally.

Onyango-Obbo is also referencing to the Nairobi City Council, and applauds its management acheivements. Apparently, Charles does not know the history of NCC under President Moi in the 1980’s.

Like Museveni is on Lukwago and Baganda, Moi set out to frustrate and eventually removed Mayor Nathan Kahara for fear that Kahara’s Kikuyu tribesmen were gaining wide economic clout in the city.

Moi had his Local government minister, Moses Mudavandi dissolve the City Council, and named a Commission to run it. The Commission was packed with Moi loyalists.

Lukwago’s fate is a sad commentary of how low Museveni has stooped in his phobic war with Baganda. If Onyango-Obbo still believes that Lukwago simply failed to make an impact in managing Kampala, then his ear must not have touched the ground.

Edward Pojim
————————————

Obbo has written tongue in cheek. What he describes about London is wrong. Please see below a brief description of the role of the Mayor of London, as distinguished from that of the Lord Mayor of the City of London. The City of London is one of 32 boroughs that make up London City or Greater London. The City of London is therefore governed just like any other borough of London. Its elected leader is called Lord Mayor, just like all other boroughs of London, except these other boroughs don’t use the prefix “Lord”. Lewisham where I live has its own Mayor.

The Mayor of London on the other hand is the executive Mayor of all London, including the City of London. He stands above all of the other 32 Mayors including the Lord Mayor. He is an Executive Mayor and his roles are the following :

Mayor of London – role

The Mayor’s role as the executive of the strategic authority for London is to promote economic development and wealth creation, social development, and the improvement of the environment. The Mayor also has a number of other duties in relation to culture and tourism, including responsibility for Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square.

What can the Mayor do?

The Mayor has a range of specific powers and duties, and a general power to do anything that will promote economic and social development, and environmental improvement, in London. Before using many of his powers the Mayor must consult with Londoners, and in all cases, the Mayor must promote equality of opportunity.

The Greater London Authority Act 2007 supplemented and updated the GLA Act 1999 and granted some additional powers to the Mayor of London and the London Assembly.
Setting strategies for London

The Mayor sets out plans and policies for London covering transport, planning and development, housing, economic development and regeneration, culture, health inequalities, and a range of environmental issues including climate change, biodiversity, ambient noise, waste disposal and air quality.

These individual plans fit together to help deliver the Mayor’s policies. Between them, these plans must also contribute to sustainable development and the health of Londoners.

Planning and housing

The Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy – the London Plan – sets out the policies for new building and land use in London. London boroughs must refer their local development plans and any major planning applications to the Mayor. The Mayor is responsible for London’s housing strategy, and for the annual regional housing budget.
Funding services for London

The Mayor sets the annual budget for:

-the Greater London Authority
-the Metropolitan Police, who provide policing in the capital, under the oversight of the Metropolitan Police Authority
-Transport for London, which is responsible for London’s buses and the Underground, manages river services and some light rail services, maintains London’s main roads and regulates London’s licensed taxi and private hire services
-The London Development Agency, which works with business to sustain and improve London’s role as a business centre, while increasing economic opportunity for all Londoners
-London Fire Brigade, which responds to fires and promotes fire prevention, under the oversight of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

The Lord Mayor of the City of London does not have any of these powers that the Mayor of London has got. What makes the City of London stand out is that it house the “Square Mile”, which is the area where most of the UK’s and in fact world financial services are located.

The roles of Musisi as Executive Director, and Lukwago as Lord Mayor can not therefore be compared to the arrangement in London, because both the Mayor of London and the Lord Mayor of the City of London are elected figures with executive powers, unlike Lukwago who has got only ceremonial powers or very limited executive powers. Secondly, the roles of the Mayor of London and the roles of the mayors of the 32 London boroughs are clearly defined in law and so there is no clash of any nature. Each of these 32 boroughs, including the City of London also elect members to represent them on the London Assembly. A good example to give you a take of the separation powers and differences are emergency situations regarding terrorist threats even inside the Square Mile. It is the Mayor of London responsible for it, not the Lord Mayor.


George Okello

If we go by Hon. Lady Justice Bamugemereire’s evaluation of evidence for the establishment of a primafacie case, then we will open a can of worms


Folks,
You, who are bashing the Honourable Justice Catherine Bamugemereire, have you read the report in total? Do you know what ‘prima facie case’ means? She has not adjudged that Mr. Erias Lukwago is guilty; neither has she held that he be removed from office- she executed her duties with admirable integrity and in an expeditious manner. Politicians should stop bashing the bench- when it rules in their favor, all of a sudden it has admirable qualities. Against them, it is rotten, political, etc. man up! Hire good lawyers for instance, not political actors camouflaging as such.

Our public should also be pro active; the report has been on line since it was released. Their press should have published it in full- though World Cup qualifiers seem to occupy most pages; tellingly.

Every person who is convicted or acquitted by the Courts of Judicature in Uganda, goes through a process where the prosecution has to prove there is on the ‘face of it'(prima facie) bearing in mind the evidence on the file, a case to answer. After that initial step, the person is subjected to a full trial to determine his innocence or guilt. A finding of a prima facie case does not mean one is guilty. I hope that helps.

Justice is a virtue. So is truth. If you look at the evidence tabled before the Justice, I wonder what she should have arrived at other than her conclusion that on the face of it, the Lord Mayor had indeed abused his office and not carried out the duties he was meant to carry out competently. The truth therefore undid Mr Lukwago. People should take the time to read the report before they render an opinion.

In the report she duly clarified on the issue some of you have brought up on UAH and in her opinion the Act phrases the offenses in criminal terminology. The proceedings are of a civil nature. The purpose of the tribunal was to investigate and not prosecute the Lord Mayor. However, I daresay, there are endless possibilities open to Lukwago and his ilk to seek redress even after the impeachment. Cue, Theodore Ssekikubo and Niwagaba’s appeal process.

if there is one thing the tribunal emphasised then it is the positivist school of law idea that, ‘the law is what it is not what it ought to be.” the failure of LORD MAYOR as found by the tribunal could be attributed to several factors not of his own making but then the result was that he failed. And that is what the tribunal pointed out. Now I don’t think it wise to say that because the president or any other person has failed in their duties and are still standing, lukwago should not be brought to account. As selective as it seems, it is important that he was asked to account.

Mai

———————————–

‘prema facie’ means on the face of it. For example, if you see a pregnant woman you cannot ask her if she is pregnant yet the evidence is there. So please ‘prema facie’ means the evidence that you can see with your open eyes. Please revisit your law books again.

Justice is a virtue, and it is possessed in the senses of every human being. You and I know that provisions in the law for removal from office are reserved for the rarest occasions. for example, the same provisions appear in the constitution for removal of a sitting presidency, inability to perform the functions of the office, incompetence, abuse of office, etc. If you go by Hon. Lady Justice Catherine’s evaluation of evidence for the establishment of a primafacie case, then you will open a can of worms, unless of course such provisions were only written to be read to the members of opposition. It is easy to blame the opposition because it doesn’t matter how careful they trade, they are bound to be found on the wrong side of the law.

There were no circumstances warranting invoking the said provisions, if you read the Watergate scandal, you will find that almost in all cases which warrant removal from office, criminal prosecution must follow, if indeed lukwago had abused his office, the judge would have included a recommendation to forward his file to the DPP for investigation and prosecution. Equally so, since the allegations connote criminal elements, she should never have evaluated the evidence on an ordinary balance of probabilities.

For example, on incompetence, the evidence that was adduced was failure to convene meetings, but there were conflicting accounts of meetings convened and boycotted.

The common law position is that once the facts disclose criminal tendencies, the burden of proof must be slightly higher than a mere balance of probabilities. This is well stated in the law textbook called “learning the law: Prof. Glaniville william”. See also sexual offences, proof of paternity, and it’s the same reason used in election petitions.

Almost all the grounds that the Councillor relied on ought to have been particularized, for example, they should have pleaded the particulars of facts constituting abuse of office in the petition and not wait for the tribunal to fish them in the body of evidence. I also think it was wrong for the tribunal to constitute itself into a Trier of fact as opposed to a tribunal of inquiry into the conduct of the office of the mayor and that’s where the theory of a primafacie case becomes defeatist. You do not establish a primafacie case after listening to the evidence of the accused. It must come before. The point is that if before choosing to hear the lukwagos, her lordship had subjected the evidence and accusations of the councillors to the test of a primafacie case, she would have found no case to answer.

The government (read minister of trade) is incompetent and should be blamed for the tax fiasco. The government conceded in parliament that a review of the tax regime (in particular to UTODA or taxi) needed urgent review. The minister even promised parliament that she is going to suspend the SI “immediately” but she did not. Taxes ones paid to government are not refundable. A tax payer can have that credited to his account but that’s only if every tax payer has an account. In the circumstances, the politician in Lord Mayor told him some action is needed which the minister has reneged on. Legally one can fault Lord Mayor for not adhering to the letter of the law. But taxes are the lynch pin of a political economy. Courts (or tribunals) should be aware of the politics and economy and that’s why the Supreme Court held against Kiza Besigye petition in 2001. Never should courts look at issues in purely legal lenses otherwise a single ruling can trigger unthinkable chaos.

I like how lawyers know how to hide simple issues in layers and layers of long-winding-statements and old Latin! Who can’t see what is happening??? Why now? Has the top echelon suddenly developed “feelings” for the people of the city after watching for 2 decades Individuals who by any standards are more incompetent, negligent and/or ignorant than the (soon to be booted) Lord Mayor! Let’s keep this as political as it should be, arguing the law in a plain-to-see will cause us to think “who cares about the law after-all!!!

I therefore disagree with the analogy of ‘prima facie’ case in criminal trials obtaining in your arguments. The process after the prima facie case in the tribunal finding will entitle the KCCA to constitute to begin impeachment process. That process does not require any law or evidence as opposed to criminal trials. The councillors will vote basing on whims (perhaps political) and not law or evidence. Anyway, I think the spirit in which the tribunal was appointed was so bad and does not set a good precedent for our country. The KCCA has never been constituted and the minister had never bothered to have it fully constituted. Why now???? What was so hard with that two years running? Now, the last four councillors they have elected are all from western Uganda as if other regions don’t produce professionals. As such, I cannot make any value criticism of the tribunal of fact or law headed by Justice Bamugemereire because of its inception.

I do not think that the mayor is incompetent, he is educated, knows the law and meets all the requirements for the office but most importantly he was elected by the people. He never abused office; did not embezzle any money and did nothing outside his mandate. I even have a feeling that the report was not authored by the judge; it contradicts itself in several material particulars. But anyway who cares, we have new councillors none of whom resides in Kampala and all westerners!

H.OGWAPITI

THE LAW IS ON LUKWAGO’S SIDE!


Prima facie means “on the face of it”. It is a cursory or initial judgement that is reasonable to make without having carried out a detailed examination. For eg, Ofwono Opondo is seen entering Karanga’s house in the middle of the day and a few minutes later is seen running away, covered in blood. Karanga is then discovered stabbed to death the next day. Now this is prima facie evidence that may lead to the conclusion that Opondo is the murderer of Karanga: The fact that he is seen entering the house, the fact that he spent a few minutes there, and the fact that he is seen covered in blood while running away.

But if you subject this evidence to more detailed examination or inquiry, you may well reach a totally different conclusion, for eg self-defence, or that Opondo intervened in a fight between Karanga and some other assailant, or that Opondo was trying to take the rap or cover up for his sister, Karanga’s wife, who had earlier phoned him and confessed she had stabbed her husband to death. There are so many other possibilities, including one that the man may have been dead already by the time Opondo stabbed him, so technically no offence of murder would have been committed.

I think some people are attempting to argue that there was a “prima facie” case against Lukwago ; there was some evidence produced to show that Lukwago did not convene meetings or sign off minutes, but the crucial issues here are 1- Whether the evidence presented against Lukwago was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of incompetence, or abuse of office; and 2, Whether Lukwago sufficiently rebutted the prima facie evidence on a balance of probabilities. Certainly, reading from the judgement, it is clear that the judge made an error because the prosecutor in the case did not adduce evidence that would support all of the elements of the offences with which Mr Lukwago is charged.

On the contrary, I think in rebuttal, Mr Lukwago did adduce several instances of deliberate obstruction by KCCA officials, making it difficult or impossible for him to perform his duties. There were doubts raised about Lukwago’s competence and fiduciary responsibilities or lack thereof, but not sufficient, on a balance of probabilities, to make a definitive and affirmative verdict of guilt.

George Okello

Hon Justice Amos Twinomujuni is especially remembered in the trial of the trial of Bob Astles


twino2I am so sorry to learn about the death of Amos Twinomujuni. I knew him well, both personally and professionally. Twino, as he was known, was a lawyer with outstanding intellect and acute forensic mind. He is the best prosecutor I have ever seen in action in Uganda. He raised the bar of criminal prosecution to a level that would have graced any of the criminal courts of the UK.

I first got to know Twino when I was a student at the Law Development Centre and I went to do my legal practice internship at the High Court as a clerk to the late Justice Ouma. I was the only LDC student working at the High Court at that time and that gave me a unique opportunity to do research for Justice Ouma and as well as Chief Justice Manyindo, both of whom were trial judges in all the major criminal trials brought against the officials of the fallen dictatorship of Idi Amin who were arrested after his overthrow and charged with offenses such as murder, kidnapping, abduction, torture, robbery, rapes, among others. These included Nasur, Bob Astles, Obura and others. These were seminal criminal cases that tested the newly re-constituted Uganda’s commitment to the rule of law.twino

There was great interest in Uganda and even internationally to see all these high ranking members of the Amin regime put on trial, and significantly, Twino, who was the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, personally took on these cases himself. This in itself was rare, because hardly would one see the Deputy DPP personally prosecuting cases.

I watched in absolute awe and admiration, especially the trial of Bob Astles from beginning to end. The tussles that Twino had with the late George Ayigihugu, who was the main defence counsel in a majority of these cases, were very educative to me as a law student. In the Astles case, he was represented by two English QCs. In fact, I think the standard of both the prosecution and the defence in these post-Amin murder trials was so high that they have never again been replicated in Uganda. Never again in Uganda can you witness a lawyer at the top of his brief. Never again can you see a lawyer make a closing speech lasting three days that it took Twino to close his case against Bob Astles.

Bob Astles was acquitted against the odds by Justice Manyindo, because there was no direct evidence linking him to the murders ordered by Idi Amin (the same likelihood in the trials of Kenyatta and Ruto at the ICC). I learnt a lot about criminal prosecutions from Twino, just by watching and observing him, a master at work, displaying a phenomenal capacity to absorb humongous amounts of information and even the tiniest of data. Twino would recall these all with ease.

Later on, I was to work under Twino when I joined the DPP’s office as State Attorney, reporting directly to him. Again there, his commitment to the administration of criminal justice was palpable and despite all of the challenges of reforming the department after the ravages of the Amin years, he still took on the huge challenges with energy and determination. We had a very huge back-log of cases to prosecute, some had been lying on files for years, and many of these we tried toclear, with some success.

Later, after I left the Department, I heard he had been seconded to the LDC to replace the long-serving, Mr Philip Iya, as Director and subsequently was appointed as a judge.

In him, Uganda has lost a great lawyer and scholar, a person who served the legal profession with distinction in various roles, first as public prosecutor, then as academician and professional tutor of lawyers and finally as a judge.

I wish his family well at this difficult time. Those of us who knew him will always remember him as a dedicated professional who was true to his calling.

George Okello
UAH member in London

Museveni should stand for Mayor of Kampala and relinquish the presidency!


MEETING
A lot of things have changed in Uganda since the Obote and Amin days. The NRM revolutionaries brought their fundamental change and the population is paying a huge price. Schools are bad, hospitals are bad, the climate is getting worse, e.t.c. Human Instinct and Acclimatisation is so amazing and profound, imagine; by the time one of my grannies (RIP) died in 2004 aged 86, she would perfectly predict whether the coming months were going to be rainy or shinny with great precision. She would do this depending on the night roars from the mighty Bujagali falls, a stone-throw distance from our homestead.But today, people hardly make reliable predictions on weather, despite de availability of technical equipment.

The opposition is now aware of how M7 steals the elections but their hands are tied with ropes. Like they say: “When the hunter learns to shoot without missing, the bird learns to fly without flapping”

Lukwago was elected by the people not to dance to political m7 and his cronies but to put into force wat he promised them in his Manifesto. His “ceremonial role “is o open car parks and markets! Instead the president has taken over his duties and now declared him incompetent!!! Why would a judge, Catherine Bugemereire ( a true cadre of the nrm era) become a laughing stock all in the name of throwing some stubborn lord mayor who is simply ceremonial? And if he is ceremonial as it’s said then why move earth on heaven to uproot him? Why disrupt his champagne popping evenings, and corporate dinners because according to law that’s what’s he is “supposed” to do.

Surprisingly even now that they call him ceremonial, he has been barred from attending ceremonies. The latest being Musisi’s Kampala festival.

The battle in Kampala is not about politics. It’s about the funds. You see KCCA is collecting a lot of money in taxes, the money according to the political leader (Mayor) is being mis-used. The roads are being done BUT at a bloated cost. The KCCA Public Accounts Committee that would deal with accountability has not been put in place despite the Lord Mayor appointing several people including Oduman Okello to that crucial committee. The minister of Kampala refused to approval the names for his own reasons. KCCA has no substantive contract committee.

The Lord Mayor was found guilty for inciting Tax drivers not to pay the 250,000 Shs Tax, BUT he called council to discuss the tax matter so that an amicable solution could be found.The council meeting was sabotaged and it flopped. Court later ruled that the levy was illegal and that it was important that council approves it just as the Lord Mayor had argued. So the tribunal report writers were even too blind to see that??? But surely, who wrote that report?

Secondly, the report ignored all evidence from the cross examining. Musisi and other councillors made fools of themselves during the tribunal and it was watched on TV, but all this was scrapped from the report. What kind of report is this? What was it reporting?

Lastly, the report notes that Musisi made mistakes but it concludes the she should go ahead with her team to correct them! So the mistakes of Lukwago were grosser?? Why was Musisi left in office??

The committee of parliament on Government Assurance and Implementation says it has discovered that KCCA is spending exorbitant money to carry out several road projects in Kampala. The committee carried out an inspection of several road projects in Kampala including the construction of an underground drainage tunnel on Kafumbe-Mukasa road and according to the committee chairman also Aruu county Mp Odonga Otto the cost quoted is too high

Otto says that their report to be tabled in parliament shows that KCCA is paying 3 billion shillings for repairing a kilometer of a road which is above the average figure of 1.8 billion paid when a new road is being opened up

He also says that KCCA is paying 3.2 billion shillings for the construction of 300 meter underground drainage channel along the Kafumbe Mukasa road

If m7 is interested in the mayorship, it’s simple, let him declare his intentions, go thru the party primaries, pick the form and seek for votes instead of dragging the city into chaos, tukooye. De plans to unseat lukwago started be4 de birth of the tribunal. There is evidence dat lukwago’s work was being antagonised by musisi. Meetings were convened but being blocked by the director. Each city Councillor who went to state house returned home with a personal bodyguard this can’t get any better.

We are tired of M7’s dictatorial tendencies. Ugandans elected their mayor and his ego is telling all of them that they are idiots. Enough is enough!

Most people were already well aware of what has transpired. The Banyoro and Batooro people have an old saying: “ekiija omanyire kitwaara bike” which similar to our old Luganda proverb: “ekijja omanyi kinyaga bitono” similar to the English proverb “forewarned, forearmed.”

it is a poorly rehearsed coup against the 229,325 voters who chose Lukwago.For all intents and purposes, the purported report is misconceived, unfounded , lacks legal merit and unknown in law. Delay defeats equity and does not afford justice. What a shame it is to de tribunal members. From the public order management bill to the recommendations to impeach Lukwago and appoint a mayor, this regime has reached its peak.There is no single convincing evidence which shows that the body of six(6) panel members namely Daniel Rutiba, Catherine Bamugemereire, Ocaya Lakidi, Alred Okello Oryem, Titus Kamya, Robert Kirunda, which was appointed by the MP for Kibale MP County and Minister for the Presidency and Kampala, was an impartial, independent and competent “judicial tribunal” established by law.

It’s findings are legally inconsequential and cannot be legally enforced. The attempts to use the legal process to achieve improper political objectives, was a sheer wastage of public time and funds.

It’s very shameless for the Head of the State to stoop this low to meddle in the affairs of the city of Kampala. In all aspects of life it always a good thing to have opposing forces bse they help one discover the hidden issue. The difference between madam Musisi and the previous leaders is that she’s entirely enjoyed the full backing and support of HE.

%d bloggers like this: