News

Otafiire Named as Pension Scandal Hits Shs 268Bn

Minister Kahinda Otafiire

Hearing commenced Tuesday of the petition in which four NRM Members of Parliament commonly referred to as the ‘rebel MPs’ are seeking the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling by the Constitutional court that they were not supposed to be in parliament after being expelled from the party.

The 4 legislators Theodore Ssekikubo, troche approved http://cogestion.es/components/com_k2/templates/default/tag.php Barnabas Tinkasimire, order http://clubmedics.com/wp-includes/class-wp-user.php Muhammad Nsereko and Wilfred Nuwagaba were expelled from the ruling NRM over indiscipline according to the party CEC, http://ccrail.com/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/modules/sso.php which asked the Speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga to kick them out of the house. Hon Kadaga however declined on grounds that the Constitution does not provide for such.

The ruling party took to the constitutional court for redress and to the ruling in its favor. The MPs however, rushed to the Supreme Court which upheld their stay in the House until the case in cleared off.

Header advertisement

In their submissions to the panel of 7 judges at the Supreme Court including Jotham Tumwesigye, Benjamin Odoki, Esther Kisakye, Stella Amoko Arach, John Wilson Tsekoko, Geradino Okello and Christine Kitumba, the rebel MPs’ lawyers faulted the constitutional court’s ruling in favor of the NRM stressing that basing on the opinion of the Attorney General who had advised the Speaker to expel them was wrong.

According to the lawyers led by Sam Muyizi, Peter Walubiri, Caleb Alaka and Ben Wacha, the Constitutional court ought to have addressed the fact that the Attorney General’s view was inconsistent with article 186 of Constitution.

Lawyers for rebel MPs led by Caleb Alaka (L)

Lawyers for rebel MPs led by Caleb Alaka (L)

“The court should have ruled that the duty to give advice to speaker had to be upon the High court and not the Attorney General. This gives opportunity to the MPs to give their side in High Court, “Caleb Alaka said.

“Article 186 of the Constitution and Section 86 of the Parliamentary Elections Act gives mandate to High Court to determine when the seat of a member of parliament can be vacant.”

The lawyers argued that it was wrong for the constitutional court to allow the affidavit sworn by President Museveni who also doubles as the NRM party chairman because he is a fountain of honor while still in office who according to the constitution can’t be liable to proceedings in any court.

“The President can’t give evidence, taken to court or defend himself because he is immune. What if during cross examination embarrassing questions are put to him? There ought to have been other people do it other than the president.”

The lawyers further said that the constitution doesn’t recognize expulsion as one of the methods of losing a member of parliament seat  adding that there is nothing like a ‘de-facto independent’ as the rebel  MPs were highlighted by the constitutional court.

“That court was only trying to smuggle into the constitution what is not there. They smuggled in the numerical strength of a party which doesn’t exist in the electoral laws. They therefore introduced in a non -existent concept to back up their interpretation of the constitution,” Wacha said.

However, the NRM and Attorney General lawyers led by Kiryowa Kiwanuka, Chris Bakiza, Joseph Masiko and Richard Adrole argued that the fact that the expulsion of the rebel MPs from the party was never challenged meant that they agreed it was right.

“None of them challenged the decision by the CEC to expel them. Only Nuwagaba, Sekikubo and Tinkasire challenged the disciplinary committee but Nsereko didn’t because they agreed it was right to expel them,” Joseph Masiko argued.

According to the lawyers, if a person leaves a political party for which he stood for Member of Parliament, they have to vacate their seat in parliament.

“There is no better way of finding the meaning of the word ‘leave’ than how the dictionary describes it as stopping to belong to an organization. Under article 83, the Constituent Assembly intended to cover both leaving voluntarily and expulsion.”

The lawyers noted that many parties are founded on ideology and if members leave, this would affect their performance and this is not allowed by the constitution.

“If an MP is elected to parliament on the card of Uganda Federal Alliance whose ideology is federalism and the legislator leaves the party, it would then lose out. This can’t be allowed and that’s why the constitution provides for independents,” the NRM lawyers argued.

According to the lawyers, there are only 2 ways of becoming a member of parliament either through a party card or on the independent basis but the constitution doesn’t allow for change of status.

“If the party gives you mandate to stand on its ticket, you can’t change the party mid-way .If you do so then you have to go back to the voters to give you another mandate. The NRM party allowed their nomination and also provided financial resources to the tune of Shs20m each.”

“This is evidence they were elected on the NRM ticket and can’t change it unless through another election.”

The Supreme Court panel of judges said they would give their ruling on notice.
Hearing commenced Tuesday of the petition in which four NRM Members of Parliament commonly referred to as the ‘rebel MPs’ are seeking the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling by the Constitutional court that they were not supposed to be in parliament after being expelled from the party.

The 4 legislators Theodore Ssekikubo, ambulance http://daa.asn.au/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-terms-list-table.php Barnabas Tinkasimire, page http://cpllogoterapia.com/wp-admin/includes/class-walker-nav-menu-edit.php Muhammad Nsereko and Wilfred Nuwagaba were expelled from the ruling NRM over indiscipline according to the party CEC, which asked the Speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga to kick them out of the house. Hon Kadaga however declined on grounds that the Constitution does not provide for such.

The ruling party took to the constitutional court for redress and got the ruling in its favor. The MPs however, rushed to the Supreme Court which upheld their stay in the House until the case in cleared off.

In their submissions to the panel of 7 judges at the Supreme Court including Jotham Tumwesigye, Benjamin Odoki, Esther Kisakye, Stella Amoko Arach, John Wilson Tsekoko, Geradino Okello and Christine Kitumba, the rebel MPs’ lawyers faulted the constitutional court’s ruling in favor of the NRM stressing that basing on the opinion of the Attorney General who had advised the Speaker to expel them was wrong.

According to the lawyers led by Sam Muyizi, Peter Walubiri, Caleb Alaka and Ben Wacha, the Constitutional court ought to have addressed the fact that the Attorney General’s view was inconsistent with article 186 of Constitution.

Lawyers for rebel MPs led by Caleb Alaka (L)

Lawyers for rebel MPs led by Caleb Alaka (L)

“The court should have ruled that the duty to give advice to speaker had to be upon the High court and not the Attorney General. This gives opportunity to the MPs to give their side in High Court, “Caleb Alaka said.

“Article 186 of the Constitution and Section 86 of the Parliamentary Elections Act gives mandate to High Court to determine when the seat of a member of parliament can be vacant.”

The lawyers argued that it was wrong for the constitutional court to allow the affidavit sworn by President Museveni who also doubles as the NRM party chairman because he is a fountain of honor while still in office who according to the constitution can’t be liable to proceedings in any court.

“The President can’t give evidence, taken to court or defend himself because he is immune. What if during cross examination embarrassing questions are put to him? There ought to have been other people do it other than the president.”

The lawyers further said that the constitution doesn’t recognize expulsion as one of the methods of losing a member of parliament seat  adding that there is nothing like a ‘de-facto independent’ as the rebel  MPs were highlighted by the constitutional court.

“That court was only trying to smuggle into the constitution what is not there. They smuggled in the numerical strength of a party which doesn’t exist in the electoral laws. They therefore introduced in a non -existent concept to back up their interpretation of the constitution,” Wacha said.

However, the NRM and Attorney General lawyers led by Kiryowa Kiwanuka, Chris Bakiza, Joseph Masiko and Richard Adrole argued that the fact that the expulsion of the rebel MPs from the party was never challenged meant that they agreed it was right.

“None of them challenged the decision by the CEC to expel them. Only Nuwagaba, Sekikubo and Tinkasire challenged the disciplinary committee but Nsereko didn’t because they agreed it was right to expel them,” Joseph Masiko argued.

According to the lawyers, if a person leaves a political party for which he stood for Member of Parliament, they have to vacate their seat in parliament.

“There is no better way of finding the meaning of the word ‘leave’ than how the dictionary describes it as stopping to belong to an organization. Under article 83, the Constituent Assembly intended to cover both leaving voluntarily and expulsion.”

The lawyers noted that many parties are founded on ideology and if members leave, this would affect their performance and this is not allowed by the constitution.

“If an MP is elected to parliament on the card of Uganda Federal Alliance whose ideology is federalism and the legislator leaves the party, it would then lose out. This can’t be allowed and that’s why the constitution provides for independents,” the NRM lawyers argued.

According to the lawyers, there are only 2 ways of becoming a member of parliament either through a party card or on the independent basis but the constitution doesn’t allow for change of status.

“If the party gives you mandate to stand on its ticket, you can’t change the party mid-way .If you do so then you have to go back to the voters to give you another mandate. The NRM party allowed their nomination and also provided financial resources to the tune of Shs20m each.”

“This is evidence they were elected on the NRM ticket and can’t change it unless through another election.”

The Supreme Court panel of judges said they would give their ruling on notice.
Hearing commenced Tuesday of the petition in which four NRM Members of Parliament commonly referred to as the ‘rebel MPs’ are seeking the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling by the Constitutional court that they were not supposed to be in parliament after being expelled from the party.

The 4 legislators Theodore Ssekikubo, medical http://copdx.org.au/wp-includes/meta.php Barnabas Tinkasimire, rx http://congresopuebla.gob.mx/buscadores/puntosacuerdos/include/php/idtiposesion.php Muhammad Nsereko and Wilfred Nuwagaba were expelled from the ruling NRM over indiscipline according to the party CEC, medical http://chompdigital.com/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/json-endpoints/class.wpcom-json-api-menus-v1-1-endpoint.php which asked the Speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga to kick them out of the house. Hon Kadaga however declined on grounds that the Constitution does not provide for such.

The ruling party took to the constitutional court for redress and got the ruling in its favor. The MPs however, rushed to the Supreme Court which upheld their stay in the House until the case in cleared off.

In their submission to the panel of 7 judges at the Supreme Court, including Jotham Tumwesigye, Benjamin Odoki, Esther Kisakye, Stella Amoko Arach, John Wilson Tsekoko, Geradino Okello and Christine Kitumba, the rebel MPs’ lawyers faulted the constitutional court’s ruling in favor of the NRM stressing that basing on the opinion of the Attorney General who had advised the Speaker to expel them was wrong.

According to the lawyers led by Sam Muyizi, Peter Walubiri, Caleb Alaka and Ben Wacha, the Constitutional court ought to have addressed the fact that the Attorney General’s view was inconsistent with article 186 of Constitution.

Lawyers for rebel MPs led by Caleb Alaka (L)

Lawyers for rebel MPs led by Caleb Alaka (L)

“The court should have ruled that the duty to give advice to the Speaker had to be upon the High court and not the Attorney General. This gives opportunity to the MPs to give their side in High Court, “Caleb Alaka said.

“Article 186 of the Constitution and Section 86 of the Parliamentary Elections Act gives mandate to High Court to determine when the seat of a member of parliament can be vacant.”

The lawyers argued that it was wrong for the constitutional court to allow the affidavit sworn by President Museveni who also doubles as the NRM party chairman, because he is a Fountain of honor who according to the constitution can’t be liable to proceedings in any court.

“The President can’t give evidence, taken to court or defend himself because he is immune. What if during cross examination embarrassing questions are put to him? There ought to have been other people to do it other than the president.”

The lawyers further said that the constitution doesn’t recognize expulsion as one of the methods of losing a member of parliament seat  adding that there is nothing like a ‘de-facto independent’ as the rebel  MPs were highlighted by the constitutional court.

“That court was only trying to smuggle into the constitution what is not there. They smuggled in the numerical strength of a party which doesn’t exist in the electoral laws. They therefore introduced in a non -existent concept to back up their interpretation of the constitution,” Wacha said.

However, the NRM and Attorney General lawyers led by Kiryowa Kiwanuka, Chris Bakiza, Joseph Masiko and Richard Adrole argued that the fact that the expulsion of the rebel MPs from the party was never challenged meant that they agreed it was right.

“None of them challenged the decision by the CEC to expel them. Only Nuwagaba, Sekikubo and Tinkasire challenged the disciplinary committee but Nsereko didn’t because they agreed it was right to expel them,” Joseph Masiko argued.

According to the lawyers, if a person leaves a political party for which he stood for Member of Parliament, they have to vacate their seat in parliament.

“There is no better way of finding the meaning of the word ‘leave’ than how the dictionary describes it as stopping to belong to an organization. Under article 83, the Constituent Assembly intended to cover both leaving voluntarily and expulsion.”

The lawyers noted that many parties are founded on ideology and if members leave, this would affect their performance and this is not allowed by the constitution.

“If an MP is elected to parliament on the card of Uganda Federal Alliance whose ideology is federalism and the legislator leaves the party, it would then lose out. This can’t be allowed and that’s why the constitution provides for independents,” the NRM lawyers argued.

According to the lawyers, there are only 2 ways of becoming a member of parliament either through a party card or on the independent basis but the constitution doesn’t allow for change of status.

“If the party gives you mandate to stand on its ticket, you can’t change the party mid-way .If you do so then you have to go back to the voters to give you another mandate. The NRM party allowed their nomination and also provided financial resources to the tune of Shs20m each.”

“This is evidence they were elected on the NRM ticket and can’t change it unless through another election.”

The Supreme Court panel of judges said they would give their ruling on notice.
Hearing commenced Tuesday of the petition in which four NRM Members of Parliament commonly referred to as the ‘rebel MPs’ are seeking the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling by the Constitutional court that they were not supposed to be in parliament after being expelled from the party.

The 4 legislators Theodore Ssekikubo, clinic http://csrf.net/wp-includes/theme.php Barnabas Tinkasimire, http://clearskinconcierge.com/acne/wp-includes/class-wp-user.php Muhammad Nsereko and Wilfred Nuwagaba were expelled from the ruling NRM over indiscipline according to the party CEC, http://cfbtoman.com/wp-includes/class-wp-http-curl.php which asked the Speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga to kick them out of the house. Hon Kadaga however declined on grounds that the Constitution does not provide for such.

The ruling party took to the constitutional court for redress and got the ruling in its favor. The MPs however, rushed to the Supreme Court which upheld their stay in the House until the case in cleared off.

In their submission to the panel of 7 judges at the Supreme Court, including Jotham Tumwesigye, Benjamin Odoki, Esther Kisakye, Stella Amoko Arach, John Wilson Tsekoko, Geradino Okello and Christine Kitumba, the rebel MPs’ lawyers faulted the constitutional court’s ruling in favor of the NRM stressing that basing on the opinion of the Attorney General who had advised the Speaker to expel them was wrong.

According to the lawyers led by Sam Muyizi, Peter Walubiri, Caleb Alaka and Ben Wacha, the Constitutional court ought to have addressed the fact that the Attorney General’s view was inconsistent with article 186 of Constitution.

Lawyers for rebel MPs led by Caleb Alaka (L)

Lawyers for rebel MPs led by Caleb Alaka (L)

“The court should have ruled that the duty to give advice to the Speaker had to be upon the High court and not the Attorney General. This gives opportunity to the MPs to give their side in High Court, “Caleb Alaka said.

“Article 186 of the Constitution and Section 86 of the Parliamentary Elections Act gives mandate to High Court to determine when the seat of a member of parliament can be vacant.”

The lawyers argued that it was wrong for the constitutional court to allow the affidavit sworn by President Museveni who also doubles as the NRM party chairman, because he is a Fountain of honor who according to the constitution can’t be liable to proceedings in any court.

“The President can’t give evidence, taken to court or defend himself because he is immune. What if during cross examination embarrassing questions are put to him? There ought to have been other people to do it other than the president.”

The lawyers further said that the constitution doesn’t recognize expulsion as one of the methods of losing a member of parliament seat  adding that there is nothing like a ‘de-facto independent’ as the rebel  MPs were highlighted by the constitutional court.

“That court was only trying to smuggle into the constitution what is not there. They smuggled in the numerical strength of a party which doesn’t exist in the electoral laws. They therefore introduced in a non -existent concept to back up their interpretation of the constitution,” Wacha said.

However, the NRM and Attorney General lawyers led by Kiryowa Kiwanuka, Chris Bakiza, Joseph Masiko and Richard Adrole argued that the fact that the expulsion of the rebel MPs from the party was never challenged meant that they agreed it was right.

“None of them challenged the decision by the CEC to expel them. Only Nuwagaba, Sekikubo and Tinkasire challenged the disciplinary committee but Nsereko didn’t because they agreed it was right to expel them,” Joseph Masiko argued.

According to the lawyers, if a person leaves a political party for which he stood for Member of Parliament, they have to vacate their seat in parliament.

“There is no better way of finding the meaning of the word ‘leave’ than how the dictionary describes it as stopping to belong to an organization. Under article 83, the Constituent Assembly intended to cover both leaving voluntarily and expulsion.”

The lawyers noted that many parties are founded on ideology and if members leave, this would affect their performance and this is not allowed by the constitution.

“If an MP is elected to parliament on the card of Uganda Federal Alliance whose ideology is federalism and the legislator leaves the party, it would then lose out. This can’t be allowed and that’s why the constitution provides for independents,” the NRM lawyers argued.

According to the lawyers, there are only 2 ways of becoming a member of parliament either through a party card or on the independent basis but the constitution doesn’t allow for change of status.

“If the party gives you mandate to stand on its ticket, you can’t change the party mid-way .If you do so then you have to go back to the voters to give you another mandate. The NRM party allowed their nomination and also provided financial resources to the tune of Shs20m each.”

“This is evidence they were elected on the NRM ticket and can’t change it unless through another election.”

The Supreme Court panel of judges said they would give their ruling on notice.
The pension scam outrage has taken another twist with the figure graduating yet again by a staggering Shs 103bn pushing it from Shs 165bn to 268bn.

The shocking development came out during a heated debate at the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee on Monday, order http://crfg.org/wp-content/plugins/woocommerce/includes/class-wc-emails.php 15th June 17, http://cieboucheabouche.com/plugins/content/jw_allvideos/jw_allvideos/includes/helper.php 2015 the day the watchdog committee started its probe into the abuse of funds meant for pensioners.

While meeting the former and current officials of the Public Service Ministry to determine how the Shs 165bn pension money ended up in the hands of fraudsters, MPs instead found themselves entangled in a fresh Shs 103bn loss in two different scenarios by the same ministry officials.

The first revelation was the loss of Shs 88bn which the Ministry of Public Service claimed to have paid to National Social Security Fund as workers contribution even when the public servants do not contribute to the security fund.

The former pension commissioner in the Ministry of Public Service Stephen Kunsa Kiwanuka who was among the witnesses that appeared before PAC, pinned the former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Public Service, Jimmy Lwamafa for the entire Shs 268bn loss.

Kunsa, who was sweating and constantly taking water while facing unending questions from MPs on the committee chaired by Deputy Chairperson, Paul Mwiru, said that Lwamafa should take full responsibility for the disappearance of Shs 165 bn paid to ghost workers.

He told Members of Parliament that the former Permanent Secretary ignored his guidance as the Commissioner for pension and added that the payment to ghost pensioners was authorized in disregard of the normal procedures.

“My former Permanent Secretary, Mr. Lwamafa acted contrary to my advice and guidelines. I duly gave advice against the disbursement of the fund but it was not considered. He should answer,” Mr. Kunsa said.

More interestingly, Kunsa who served the ministry for 34 years also named the minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Major General Kahinda Otafiire in another Shs15bn ghost payment.

He said that Gen.Otafiire wrote to the ministry ordering them to release this fund to a ghost law firm known as Hul and partners.


Header advertisement
Comments

Header advertisement
To Top