Nicholas Muloni Ochakara, buy http://crijpa.fr/wp-content/plugins/googleanalytics/class/ga_hook.php the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of Kabarole District is in trouble over sacked NAADS officials’ salaries.
In June this year, viagra dosage http://comeduraredipiu.com/wp-admin/includes/noop.php government terminated the services of sub county NAADS coordinators and service providers replacing them with UPDF soldiers and promised to pay them three months salaries, information pills http://crfg.org/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/sal/class.json-api-platform.php allowances and transport in accordance to the civil servants law.
This money for over 40 former NAADS officials was deposited on the district’s accounts but the CAO as head of finance had reportedly refused to release it to the beneficiaries.
A fortnight ago, upon hearing that the money had been banked on the district treasury, the Sub County NAADS coordinators and service providers stormed the office of the CAO and that of the district chairman, Richard Rwabuhinga demanding their three months’ salary arrears.
The CAO who was rushing to Kampala calmed the aggrieved officials that their money would be banked on their accounts before Friday of that same week but this was in vain.
During the district council sitting at Kitumba on Friday, the district boss, Rwabuhinga stunned council when he disclosed that the officials are lamenting that they have not yet received their salaries on their accounts yet it was deposited on the district accounts two weeks ago.
Rwabuhinga described the CAO’s failure to transfer the money to the officials’ accounts’ as a disservice.
He said majority had been thrown out of their houses after failing to pay rent and that those that had acquired bank loans were about to be arrested because they had no means of servicing them.
The fuming chairman therefore directed the CAO to effect the payment of the officials by Monday 3rd November 2014 before another action is taken.
In response, Ochakara pushed the blame to the District Production coordinator, Amos Mugume who he said had failed to submit requisitions to his office for payment.
Embattled musician Desire Luzinda is considering securing a court order blocking media houses against publishing lurid content about her private life after it emerged Tuesday morning that a sex clip in which she is reportedly involved had leaked.
Luzinda’s close associates said they would not look on idly as her reputation is being destroyed by a jilted lover who last week released the music star’s private photos.
“This is unacceptable. You can’t keep someone on the edge threatening to release her sex videos, and http://conocity.eu/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-filesystem-ssh2.php ” said a source who also promoted Luzinda’s music.
“I think we have reached a level where court action can’t be ruled out. We are consulting with friends and family members on the way forward but I think we will have to act firmly against this defamation.”
Luzinda has since described the leakage of her photos in which she is seen touching and exposing her private parts as a “breach of trust”.
Her Nigerian lover Franklin, http://centristnetblog.com/wp-includes/rest-api.php says he was penalising Luzinda over her alleged “unfaithfulness.”
The mother of one is not known to be married but has since been associated with a string of men in Kampala.
ChimpLyf has seen a video in which Luzinda is thought to be performing private acts but could not fully establish its authenticity.
In the 6-minute film, http://cbvsalvail.ca/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-posts-list-table.php a lady is seen having a good time with his lover in what appears to be a hotel room.
Luzinda’s known telephone lines remain off, making efforts to secure a comment from her futile.
Ugandans have since stood behind Luzinda, condemning Franklin’s betrayal.
Ugandans on social media said Luzinda should not be blamed for the leakage as she was “madly in love” with Franklin.
But conservatives contend Luzinda’s actions do not boost the status of “African women” and that had she avoided taking nude photos, the country would have been spared of this drama.
Can Luzinda legal battle succeed?
Observers say while Luzinda has strong grounds on which to challenge the circulation of her private photos on social media and in the mainstream papers but doubt police’s ability to enforce such a court order especially on the private WhatsApp.
Police publicist, Fred Enanga, says “we will help to identify the person who leaked Luzinda’s photos because this contravenes our laws.”
Peter Magelah, a researcher and lawyer, says, “As we all know such offenses are rarely enforced, but you never know when someone gets caught up on the wrong side.”
He opines that, “sharing of nude photos or obscene publications is illegal in Uganda and it does not matter the purpose.”
The lawyer cites the Penal Code Section 166 which punishes “traffic and distribution of obscene materials by way of trade or for purposes of distribution (sharing on social media is distribution).”
Section 166(d) provides that a person who “advertises or makes known by any means with a view to assisting the circulation of, or traffic in, any such matters …” this is very broad and can affect any form of sharing and discussion of the matter.
The law provides that the “circulation of, or traffic in, any such matters or things, that a person is engaged in any of the acts referred to in this section, or advertises or makes known how, or from whom, any such matters or things can be procured either directly or indirectly; or publicly exhibits any indecent show or performance or any show or performance tending to corrupt morals, commits a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for two years or to a fine of two thousand shillings.”
Magelah says another interesting section is 128 which deals with indecent assault.
“This can easily be used to cover those taking photos of the “V pose” mimicking Desire,” he argues.
The section provides that “any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults any woman or girl commits a felony and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, with or without corporal punishment”, adding, “Any person who, intending to insult the modesty of any woman or girl, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman or girl, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman or girl, commits a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for one year.”