By Henry Mugisha Bazira
I read with shock statements in the Daily Monitor Newspaper of Tuesday, website like this November 18, recipe http://daiviet.us/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-theme-install-list-table.php 2014 that oil money was going to be used to replenish the treasury for funds used to purchase fighter jets (US$740million) in 2011 under a title “Don’t blame me for jets, treat http://denafilmax.com/wp-content/plugins/woocommerce/templates/emails/customer-invoice.php Basajja cash – Mutebile”.
The story further highlights another case where tax payers’ money (US$142million) was used to compensate a private business Haba Group of Companies before parliament’s approval.
According to the story, the Governor Bank of Uganda was able to secure parliament’s approval for both expenditures retrospectively. These stories confirm fears that oil revenues are likely to be misused at the expense of Ugandan citizens.
The principle that is enshrined in the Public Finance Management Bill 2012 section 70(2a) is the prohibition of collateralization of oil for funds or assets in lieu of oil production. While this is a welcome approach, the machinations described above of using treasury money with the hope of replenishing it in the future from oil revenues undermines the principle of non-collateralization and in effect indirectly collateralizes the oil.
This practice should be prevented. However, it is difficult to see how this will be achieved in a political dispensation where practices of retrospective parliamentary approvals and impunity are rife. Such machinations are seen in States where the ruling party has a majority in parliament and autocracy is the order of the day.
The Newspaper story suggests that the Governor Bank of Uganda never gets to know how government spends the money he has released from the treasury.
If this is true, then it is a very sad story. It is possible that the governor could have been hoodwinked on the purpose for which the money was intended, since he is not the one that finally spends it, but he cannot claim not knowing the basis upon which he released the funds from the treasury. Even in our simple management experiences, it is a known fact that the purpose of expenditure is the basis and trigger of any financial releases.
In addition, the Auditor General should be in position to inform the Governor on what the money was spent on and both would determine whether the funds were spent in accordance with intended purpose. Therefore, the Governor should not claim not knowing how the money he released is (was) spent by government.
Other avenues (although not exhaustive) where oil or its associated revenues may be stolen or siphoned-off for unbudgeted expenditure and/or for personal gain without the realization of the citizens include:
Metering of Production: Accurate measurement and recording of oil produced every day by the Oil Company is critical for ensuring that oil is not stolen. This can be achieved through installation of accurate and reliable meters at the points of production; along the flow pipelines; central collecting facilities; refineries and pipelines delivering petroleum to the market. If faulty meters are installed, it will be difficult for government to know the actual amount of oil produced, making it very easy for Oil Companies to siphon oil off production.
It is important that government is involved in installation and calibration of the oil meters. Section 98 of the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013 empowers the Minister responsible for petroleum to require installation of oil measurement equipment.
However, the manner in which this power is exercised will determine the accuracy of oil production and related information reaching the citizens, because it is open to abuse in a government that is riddled with corruption. Therefore, the manner in which the minister exercises his/her power needs to be monitored.
Relying on human beings to monitor, record and report oil production is an avenue for collusion and theft of oil produced. It is recommended that solar powered and automated meters linked to Centralized recording centers at the Oil Company and Government Offices are installed to record production, storage and delivery of oil.
Solar powered units are recommended to eliminate the excuse of power and meter failure during production. In such a case, human beings may only be deployed to routinely check the functionality of the meters.
Petroleum Stocks and Sales
It is important that accurate records of petroleum stocks stored at and sold from the different holding centers are kept. Often-times, these records can be distorted during oil lifting from the stores/stocks for sale or movement to another location in a given year. Oil production in one year may be lifted and sold in another year giving the impression that production, sales and revenues were consistent for that given year when actually it was off-set by previous years’ production/stocks.
This is where distortion occurs, if there are no clear records on stocks each year. For example, assuming a country’s annual oil production and sales target/sealing is 100,000barrels of oil per year. If in 2013, the country produced 100,000barrels of oil, but sold 80,000barrels (i.e. an under-lift), it would be important that in the subsequent year (2014), the country sales 120,000barrels (i.e. an over-lift) to off-set the previous years’ balance in sales.
However, in the absence of clear records, it would be easy to claim that 100,000barrels of oil were sold in both 2013 and 2014, thus skimming-off the 20,000barrels of oil from the previous years’ production for selfish gain. This is a significant amount of oil unaccounted for and sometimes the values are smaller, but significant in monetary terms. It is expected that government will ensure that accurate records of oil stocks and lifts are kept. It is also the duty of citizens to ensure that this is done.
National Oil Company
The Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013 Sections 42 – 46 creates the National Oil Company (NOC) as a wholly State Owned Company to manage the country’s commercial interests in petroleum, including holding the country’s share of oil received in cash or in-kind and marketing the in-kind share. This means that the NOC shall receive the non-tax oil revenues and remit them to the treasury in Bank of Uganda, while Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) shall collect and remit oil tax revenue.
This, if not monitored and reconciled, is an avenue for loss of oil revenue. This is further complicated by the unclear means in which the operations of the NOC will be financed. Unlike URA whose operations are financed through the national budget, the operations of the NOC shall be financed from the oil revenue receipts as suggested in section 45(1) of the above mentioned Act.
This is a significant avenue for misappropriation of oil revenues, especially if the NOC operational costs are inflated. This risk can however be rectified by ensuring that all monies received by the NOC as part of government’s share of oil is remitted directly to the treasury and financing of the NOC operations is through the normal budgeting processes of parliament.
Oil Reserve Price versus Market Price
It is common practice for governments to set a reserve price for oil for a given period. It is important that despite setting oil reserve prices, government instills a culture of reporting the actual price at which the oil was delivered and sold to the market. Often-times, there are differences between the government’s oil reserve price and the price at which the oil is actually delivered and sold to the market. This is where large sums of monies are stolen.
For example, government’s reserve price for the period 2014 could be US$50 per barrel of crude oil, but by the time the oil is delivered and sold, the market price is US$60 per barrel of crude oil. For a production of 120,000bopd (43.8million barrels of oil per year), the extra revenue would be US$438million.
If government officials report that the oil was delivered and sold to the market at the reserve price, the extra revenue would be undeclared, making it easy to be stolen. This is likely to be so with oil kept and traded by the National Oil Company (NOC), if secrecy remains the order of the day. The management and the board of the NOC need to rise above such temptations.
In addition, it is very important that money from the oil sales by the NOC all go to the treasury directly, instead of the NOC remitting to the treasury money after deducting operational costs. This is important to avoid the temptations and allow the NOC to be financed through the normal budgetary processes.
It is hoped that the risk of accurate disclosure of oil sales by the NOC is corrected by the 2012 Public Finance Bill’s proposal in section 53 for Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) to collect and receive all revenues from the sale of government’s oil share.
Investments backed by Oil Revenue: Government is desirous of investing oil revenues in investments to create additional wealth for current and future generations as suggested in the Public Finance bill 2012 sections 59-68. While this is a welcome idea, the kind of investment in which oil money is invested and the managers of the investment can be source of revenue loss.
This is especially true, if the investments are very risky; have inflated costs/losses; and/or there is non- or under-declaration of the returns to investment – resulting in the difference being siphoned-off. An investment advisory committee is proposed in the Public Finance Bill 2012, but its operations and advice need to be scrutinized by parliament to ensure value-for-money investments.
Oil Supplies in cases of war, threat of war or other crises
The Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Act 2013 Sections 122 subject to Article 26 of the Constitution authorizes the Minister responsible for petroleum, with approval from Cabinet, to direct a licensee (i.e. Oil Company) to place petroleum at the disposal of the State at a price prescribed by the regulations taking into account international oil and gas prices (section 123), unless the particular situation warrants otherwise (section 122 sub-section 2).
This provision in the Act is well intended for a country to have access to petroleum resource locally produced to quickly respond to incidents of war or threats of war or crises like floods, earthquakes, landslides or epidemics affecting citizens.
However, if this provision is not checked, it is an avenue for petroleum theft or loss of revenue, especially when the cost of response is inflated; the threat is engineered or imaginary and/or the price at which the petroleum is given to government is inconsistent with the market (section 122 sub-section 2).
It is possible for individuals in government to obtain petroleum from oil companies under this arrangement in excess of what is actually needed for the cause and at a lower price and sale it on the market at higher prices, particularly, if the request for petroleum is considered a “classified expenditure” as provided in Section 20 of the Public Finance Bill 2012. There is need for a mechanism to monitor and regulate petroleum disposed in such situations to avoid the risk of petroleum theft using this pretext.
Inflation of Oil Production Costs by Oil Companies
It is common practice by Oil Companies to inflate operational costs. This is because operational costs are usually cost-recoverable from gross sales. This is done as a means of increasing their profit share. This can further be worsened by Oil Companies colluding with government officials to inflate the operational costs for selfish reasons. Government needs to put in place rigorous monitoring and auditing mechanisms to ensure that Oil Companies do not exceed the allowable costs.
Authored by Mr. Henry Mugisha Bazira, Executive Director, Water Governance Institute (WGI) and founding chairperson of the Civil Society Coalition on Oil and Gas (CSCO) in Uganda and a member of the Energy and Extractives Working Group (ESWG) of the Uganda Contracts Monitoring Coalition (UCMC).
It was a night of fashion and glamour at the residence of US Ambassador to Uganda, ambulance http://cloud.ca/wp-includes/script-loader.php Scott H DeLisi as fashion designers showcased their best outfits on Wednesday night.
The event hasted in conjunction with Kas Wear checked 10 up-and-coming Ugandan fashion designers and entrepreneurs lined up to showcase their designs representing U.S. Uganda partnership.
Scott put laughers into the face of event goers when he revealed that this was the first time in a career of over thirty years that he got to be a fashion show judge adding that fashion is a great way to celebrate creativity and innovation most especially for the young Ugandan.
This comes shortly after a series of training and work coordination between the embassy and
the entrepreneurship who hatched a deal to showcase their talent in fashion design thus the challenge given to them leading to the fashion night at the ambassador residence.
“They were required to come up with an outfit for an American diplomat that symbolically represents the U.S.-Ugandan partnership and this involved coming up with concepts, this http://chambersfurniture.com/wp-admin/includes/upgrade.php drawings and fittings that was done closely with their diplomatic models to bring their vision to fruition.
He is known to have knowledge about every issue in the country ranging from politics, viagra 60mg http://codapostproduction.com/wp/wp-includes/rest-api.php business, social life and this time round he has tackled football.
Speaking during one of his talk shows on Thursday, Presidential spokesman Tamale Mirundi applauded the Uganda football team for playing well during the Afcon 2015 qualifiers where the Cranes were eliminated by Guinea.
“The boys played well. Don’t blame them. The 2 goals we conceded were an error by our defender (Mwesigwa) but it wasn’t intended ,”Mirundi noted.
He added,” Did Kenya, Rwanda and Nigeria qualify? Why do you blame our team?? Brazil who had won 5 trophies were beaten at their own home, didn’t they continue playing football?”
Mirundi further rubbished claims that Uganda have always failed to qualify for the tournament due to lack of funds and noted that it’s not funds that play football.
“Saudi Arabia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. How many times have they been at World Cup? It’s not about money but talent. We lack talent.”
The Presidential spokesman called for an investment in football academies in the country in order to help spot talents which he said would help solve Uganda’s football woes.
Uganda’s hopes of breaking their 36 year old jinx were on Wednesday evening shattered when Guinea capitalized on Mwesigwa’s fouls that saw him receive marching orders from the pitch.
Ghana Black Stars qualified after trouncing Togo 3-1 to top Group E after collecting 11 points.