Byabagambi: I was arm-twisted by firms

Take us briefly through the scandal that you got yourself into.
First and foremost, the truth will always remain the truth regardless of whether people believe you or not.
In January 2012, the government of Uganda signed an MoU with CCECC to rehabilitate the existing line of the railway. I think everyone of sound mind can understand what is meant by rehabilitating an existing line. You cannot rehabilitate what is not existing.
As CCECC was doing its work, then in June 2013 the heads of state of Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda at their meeting in Entebbe resolved that they should construct a new line—the Standard Gauge Railway—stretching from Mombasa to Kigali with a link to Juba; and I was appointed the chair of the cluster/committee to steer the project. The cluster comprised technical people from all the governments and we came up with a protocol which guided the deal that the Presidents signed with the Chinese Vice President, in Kenya. I personally I got involved in June 2013 when I was appointed.
Before I knew it, CCECC was on my door demanding me to sign a contract for them to start work on the SGR. That is where everything started but it was never a scandal.

If the MoU with CCECC was to revamp the old line and not the SGR it means you never even talked about it with them. So what then did you “terminate”?
It is true CCECC was supposed to rehabilitate the old line. But after the three heads of state signed the protocol CCECC said they could also build it and wanted to sign a contract.
But remember I was not party to the first MoU they signed and as chairman now of the SGR, they were arm-twisting me. We had several discussions over the matter and before I knew it; things were in the press and they had run to court. When I wrote to the Attorney General for his legal opinion, he said cancelling their MoU would be dangerous for government.
On the other hand CCECC was saying we should now sign a contract. When they continued to twist my arms that is when I terminated the MoU and indicated to them that now the presidents have agreed to build a new line and rehabilitating the old one was not necessary.

Was this out of emotion?
Not at all. I had even put in place a committee to study the feasibility studies they had submitted and it was all found wanting; the report had several inadequacies, glaring short comings, did not contain what we thought and ideally should be in any technical work. I am an engineer by profession and the committee has engineers too; who subjected their study report to many tests but it was all wanting. What else was left, even if it was to rehabilitate an old line!

But CCECC claims it was an agreement for a new railway project. They wanted to undertake it at a reported cost of $1.25 billion compared to CHECL’s $1.75 billion. It terms of cost analysis wouldn’t you bend down a bit after all they have the experience and Uganda is behind schedule?
These were claims that were made when they put me in the fix to make me sign the contract. Even if they had the lowest offer it would turn out expensive in the long run. As the person in charge, engineer by profession and citizen I did what I thought was best for my country and I stand by my decision. If no conclusive studies had been carried out to establish the engineering designs, how then did they reach this price?
And there are reports that some government officials took kickbacks from CHECL to take and make their expensive deal the best. Could it be the reason?
There are so many allegations about bribery whatsoever; let whoever has the evidence step forward.
Two days after CCECC had won the court case against you on July 23, you met and briefed President Museveni about the seriousness of the situation. What exactly was his role in this and couldn’t he have influenced everything?
The SGR protocol was signed by presidents, and he is/was bound to be informed about every development. I don’t deny I met him a couple of times because even you people (media) were doing a lot of negative reporting which poisoned so many people. At one time he even asked me if I was sure on what I was doing and I told him what I was doing was good for the country.

But there is a letter in which the President introduced to you CHECL; which was also reportedly introduced to him by this “black compatriot” called Rosa Whitaker. In the letter he actually directed that the deal be awarded on “first come, first serve basis.” What was all this supposed to mean?
Yes, I am aware of the letter but still I think it was written in 2012 before we even started the SGR. And as a matter of fact, it was not addressed to me (if you have seen it you will agree) so whatever I was doing was strictly out of my own professional conscience. You see these Chinese companies have the money and want all the juicy contracts and they will stop at nothing to make sure they get the deal; including paying commission agents to meet the President, meet the Minister, to lobby and get the deal.
When we started the SGR the President advised me to work with the two companies--CCECC and CHECL.
But you went ahead and signed an MoU with CHECL to start work on the eastern route and CCECC seems to be left out. What was the reasoning?
When we invited the companies to negotiate afresh, CCECC refused and said there was a court injunction against any further development. But remember the High Court judge had also stated that we go back to the table and negotiate so this was a blessing in disguise for us.
Also note that when CHECL came in they were quick to strike a partnership with the UPDF; to train army engineers and technicians at the Jinja barracks and also construct a polytechnic at the barracks in Tororo—all in the east and it is why we gave them the eastern route to make work easier for them.
We told CCECC to take on the western route—from Kampala to Mirama Hills-but they said no! We injected our money to conduct studies on the eastern route and they were making us go in circles. They still want to pursue their cause in Court.

Is this deal sharing as you might call it still on?
In August we signed an MoU with CHECL and they are on track with feasibility studies. We also separately hired another German consultant, Gauff [Ingenieure] to conduct for us independent studies from Malaba to Mirama hills—to the West in Rwanda, which we will compare and contrast with the reports submitted by CHECL and on CCECC (if they are still interested) then we shall sign the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) or the final contract.

But in the negotiations, CCECC says you were also unfair to them, appointed biased individuals and at one time they requested for certain concessions which you declined. was it logical?
Well, I don’t recall ever being unfair to them. They complained about some of the members on the technical team negotiating but some of them are the best engineers we have in this country. They wanted me to drop them and bring in people they wanted. But even in any case negotiations would be handled by engineers not their large number of lawyers they have.

In the aftermath of cancelling CCECC’s MoU why did you move first to hire a private law firm - Agaba & Muhairwe Company advocates - to formulate a legal opinion of the crisis instead of using State Attorneys?
It was my decision and I think I have a right to hire a personal lawyer; if I think his advice would be fit on how to proceed. I did nothing wrong and the legal opinion was simply to guide me. Unless you want to suggest that It was bad because I am a minister.

But one of Agaba’s recommendations was that you further review CCECC’s feasibility studies and establish more loopholes to justify your action of terminating their MoU
The termination had already been effected regardless of what his opinion said. I will state it again that the MoU was for rehabilitation of the old line and the technical teams had already found holes in their report. Now if they could not get everything right for what they had signed on for what would they do on the SGR?

Talk of experience in building railways, CCECC is noted have vast experience—having constructed the Tazara line and others Nigeria, Algeria, etc as compared to CHECL’s who known expertise is in harbours and a few lines. Did you carry out due diligence?
Due diligence was carried out fully and this helped us determine what each can do. It’s true CCECC constructed the Tazara line but hasn’t to date hasn’t it failed to take off? Similarly CHECL has moved away from constructing harbours ad have done a few railway lines in China which were commended.

How is the SGR different from the existing railway line?
The SGR is a modern line that will run on electricity; with power lines running across the rails from Mombasa to Kigali. It is expected to be up and running by March by 2018 and China recently agreed to inject in $3.6 billion into the first phase—the 609.3 kilometres section from Mombasa-Nairobi and whose construction is ongoing. Kenya will also undertake construction of the section from Kisumu to Malaba.

The line will provide effective and least-cost rail transport for both freight and passengers. According to specifications, freight trains will travel at 80 kilometres per hour while those for passengers will have a speed of 120 km an hour which is a lot better that what the old line can offer.
As a solution to the power crises we have, the line will have a 132 Kilo Volts (Kv) transformer and backup generator at each station in about every kilometre. The line will be competitive; meaning that whoever—especially companies-can afford to buy and operate locomotives will have to apply for a licence from government.

In terms of economic sense; the existing line built by the colonialists to facilitate the booming export trade of cotton, tobacco, coffee, name it. But 28 years in power, the government, ruined all this and the economy depends on more imports than exports. Did you just think of the line to be listed as an achievement?
Japan is one of, if, not the leading importer of iron ore. But on the other hands it is among the leading exporters of iron-related products. South Korea 30 years ago embarked on massive infrastructure campaign without any slightest idea of what it will be today.
Such analysis from the economic perspective is good but as government our mandate is to develop infrastructure. Who ever knew that South Sudan would be our biggest trading partner and for all the small road we have laid down, now we are supposed to make them more bigger.

When does work on the SGR start?
We are slightly behind schedule as compared to Kenya, which is fast tracking the route from Mombasa to Nairobi and from Nairobi to Malaba and to Kisumu. However, we hope to have ground breaking here this October. The Chinese government through EXIM Bank will be providing 85 per cent funding to the project and each individual country will foot the five (5) percent for each individual route which amounts to 15 per cent.