Court orders for the trial of Public service principal Accountant Gasasira

Former Public service principal Accountant Mr Nestor Machumbi Gasasira leaving court after hearing his petition against the IGG report that recommended his prosecution over allegations of illicit enrichment. File Photo

What you need to know:

Section31(1)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act applies to property that a person is in control or possession of and is disproportionate to his current or past known sources of income or assets

KAMPALA

Nearly four years without trial, the Constitutional court has directed the Anti-corruption court to try former Public service principal Accountant Mr Nestor Machumbi Gasasira on allegations of illicit enrichment.
A panel of five Justices led by Augustine Nshiimye made the order after throwing out Gasasira’s petition challenging his prosecution by the IGG saying the report which recommended his prosecution, had been quashed by the High court .
The judges observed that the report might have been set aside on procedural errors during investigations, but this did not mean that other avenues were closed for IGG to prosecute Gasasira.
IGG wants Gasasira to answer to how he accumulated his wealth including eight apartments at Banda and a residential house at Luzira all amounting to Shs878 million shillings which is way above his past and current known sources of income.

“The offence looks to the present possessions of the applicant and had he disposed of them previously, then he would be outside the ambit of the said section (Sec31 of the Anti-Corruption and Article 28). The fact that the property is still in his possession after the Anti-Corruption Act came into effect and is to this day in possession means that his ownership of the property comes under the Anti-Corruption Act’s jurisdiction of inquiry,” ruled the judges.
The 2009 IGG report included information from independent valuations reports from 2006 and determined that Mr Gasasira had misstated the value of various assets and withheld the disclosure of others. It also come with a recommendation to have his properties confiscated because they were alleged to be inconsistent with his income.
The report further recommended his removal from public office and that he be prevented from being allowed to hold public office for 5 years, under the provisions of the Leadership Code Act.

Section31(1)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act applies to property that a person is in control or possession of and is disproportionate to his current or past known sources of income or assets.