How oil cash bonanza beneficiaries failed to hide an elephant
The oil cash bonanza continues to arouse public anger. The anger reached fever heat with the dubious suit filed by Eric Sabiiti, a lawyer employed by the Electoral Commission. Sabiiti sued the Attorney General. The Attorney General was represented by a government lawyer who refused to object to the spurious interim order banning any discussion of the scandalous bonanza. That is how we ended up with an unprecedented court order against the whole world banning any debate on the matter. Parliament was specifically gagged by the order. The whole thing appeared like a conspiracy against parliamentary oversight and freedom of speech. It was a puppet show.
Kadaga, as chief defender of Parliamentary privileges, did the only thing possible. She denounced the order in very strong language and ordered the Attorney General to move court to quash the order. This alone caused panic among the conspirators. What they had done had backfired. It was like launching a missile from a canoe. They had bitten more than they could chew and they were now choking.
The puppeteers must have panicked in the face of overflowing public outrage. If Sabiiti was a puppet then who were the puppeteers? This question can be answered by the events that took place earlier in the corridors of Parliament. NRM Parliamentary Chief Whip, Ruth Nankabirwa went to meet the Speaker with URA Commissioner General Doris Akol and other officials in tow. Their mission was to pressurise the Speaker to stifle the planned motion to debate the oil cash bonanza. Having failed to arm-twist Parliament, they then ran to court. Why did they choose to use Sabiiti who is a lawyer paid by government? The answer lies in the list of beneficiaries. On the list is Robinah Gureme Rwakoojo, wife to former Lwemiyaga MP and EC Secretary Sam Rwakoojo. She reportedly received a handshake amounting to Shs93,333,333. Could it be a coincidence that an employee of the EC supervised by the husband of a beneficiary of the oil cash bonanza is the petitioner in a case banning public debate on the subject? The petitioner’ demeanor as he faced TV cameras to apologise spoke volumes. I think he was not apologising because he accepts any wrongdoing. He apologised because he was caught and exposed! Those whose interests he was serving realised that it was impossible to hide an elephant.
It is also interesting to inquire into how the light of public scrutiny penetrated this otherwise well-concealed theft. A few months before the thing erupted, a well placed URA official had been caught soliciting a bribe of Shs1 million. In line with the zero tolerance policy of the URA, this man was disciplined and his mug shot published as a way of naming and shaming him.
This incensed some officials in URA. They tried to persuade Doris Akol to show clemency. Akol flatly refused saying there will be no compromise on the policy of zero tolerance to corruption. Naturally, the incensed officials who have access to a lot of information decided to adopt the Samson Option and bring the pillars tumbling down on the powers that be. Their aim was to show that the even those projecting a holier-than-thou attitude have feet of clay.
Some of them are hardened anti corruption crusaders and are transformational leaders with solid records of achievement. How they could not foresee that this golden handshake would bring their integrity into question is a mystery to me. By accepting this handshake they have made themselves vulnerable. Powerful opportunists on whose toes they have stepped over the years are now taking advantage of the scandal to maul them.
One good thing that has come out of this episode is that there is now evidence that demands a verdict and Parliament’s oversight role has been vigorously defended. Everyone now agrees that there should be a select committee set up to inquire into this matter. The terms of reference of the committee should include finding out where the rest of the money and other incomes from our oil has gone over the years. The alternative approach is to set up a judicial commission of inquiry. The other option is for the beneficiaries to hold a closed meeting and offer to refund the money.
If we don’t deal with the moral hazard inherent in this oil cash bonanza, every public servant in this blessed republic will never do a faithful job without first asking “what is in it for me”. I don’t see any other way the ghost of this oil cash bonanza can be laid to rest.
