Makubuya seeks Museveni’s pardon

Letter. Below are the excerpts of the contents of Former Attorney General Prof. Khiddu Makubuya’s letter to President Museveni.

I wrote to Your Excellency reference on November 26, 2011. This was a brief on issues on which I had been summoned to testify before the Public Accounts Committee. I wrote this brief before I made a substantive appearance in PAC. I made two substantive appearances in PAC.

On my first appearance in PAC, I applied that my evidence be heard in camera. The Chairperson of PAC, Mr Kassiano Wadri, even without waiting to hear what other members had to say strongly opposed my application essentially insisting that the facts I was called to testify on were already in public realm.

He insisted that the high level correspondence I wanted to be secretive about were already in their possession, among others. He was supported by the rest of the members; overwhelming majority who were NRM members.
I was, therefore, constrained to testify in the open. The going proved rough and after some ineffectual threats the committee swore me in to testify on oath which did not change much. On its own motion the committee told the press to leave at some stage. I also declined to respond to one of the questions.

I outline the roles of the Attorney General and Solicitor General. PAC found these to be in issue. The power to process compensations is embedded in Article 119 and was also buttressed by Cabinet decision. The AG approving compensation arrangements did not violate accounting procedures.

It was lawful for the Solicitor General to act for and on behalf of the AG in specified situations. The mandate of the AG is elaborated in the judgment of Justice Kanyeihamba in Bank of Uganda versus Banco Arabe Espanol (civil Appeal No.1/2001).

The AG is a major clearing centre of government activities but his role, whatever language he may use, remains essentially advisory. The Okumu Ringa case (attached) clearly indicates that the AG is not a commander. My view is that if the Solicitor General receives advice from the AG to arrange compensation and she considers that the advice is irregular in certain material particulars, it is within her mandate to point out the irregularities and decline to effect the compensation. The AG is not he who must be obeyed.

In 2006, the AG advised the Electoral Commission that a prisoner on remand, charged with treason, misprison of treason and rape was disqualified from being nominated as a Presidential candidate. The EC ignored the advice and was supported in this act of defiance even in high government corridors of power.

One jumps the gun if the eyes first focus on compensation. The matter should begin with Kampala City Council deciding to give out management contract in the form of subleases to developers.

KCC publicised this policy and called for bidders. The above companies were successful bidders and they took possession of St. Balikuddembe Market a.k.a. Owino, Shauri Yako Market and Nakasero Market.

The traders in the markets objected in some cases, violently. Government rightly stepped in to restore order.

The formula was to kick out the developers and hand the markets to the traders or to government. The developers had put some money into the market project and expected to make profits for the duration of the subleases.

In all fairness, government undertook to pay them compensation. Compensation was proposed as part of a solution to disentangle KCC, the market traders and the developers. It was to buy out the interest of the developers.

It started off with an inter-ministerial technical committee. Part of its recommendations on St. Balikuddembe and Shauri Yako were mutually accepted by government and the developers.

The original committee recommendations on Nakasero Market and City Square were challenged by the developers with petition to the President.

Ultimately the President directed the methodology used to deal with M/S Rhino Investment that is Kisekka Market Ltd. be used to settle Nakasero Market and City Square claims.