What does the Amendments to the Public Finance Management Bill of 2015 intially mean “Government of Uganda not needing approval for short-term loans”

Matia Kasaija

Today there are planned voting for the Public Finance Management (Amendment) Bill of 2015. This is confirmed through the Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Hon. Matia Kasaija. I will first quote the bill itself then comment on the matter at hand.

“An Act to amend the Public Finance Management Act, 2015; to provide for the preparation of Budget Framework Papers by Sector; to repeal the provision on the requirement to represent a certificate certifying that the policy statements of the votes are gender and equity responsive; to provide for virement by a vote of not more then ten percent of the budget of the vote; to provide for further financing of supplementary estimates; and to provide for guarantees and advances by the Bank of Uganda” (P3, 2015, PFMA).

Amendment of Section 13:

“The Minister or another person responsible for the vote, as any case may be, shall base on the priorities identified in the Budget Framework Paper of the sector of the vote, cause to be prepared for the vote, a policy statement for the vote, for the proceeding financial year and shall submit the policy statement to the Parliament by the 15th of March” (P4, 2015, PFMA).

Amendment of Section 17:

“A vote that does not expend money that was appropriated to the vote for the financial year shall by the 31st July of the following financial year, repay the money to the Consolidated Fund, except where the Secretary to the Treasury authorized the vote to retain money” (P4, 2015, PFMA).

“The authority given by the Secretary to the Treasury under subsection (2) shall be valid up to 31st of October of the financial year” (P4, 2015, PFMA).

Amendment of Section 20:

“The functions of a vote may be transferred to another vote or a vote may be assigned additional functions” (P4, 2015, PFMA).

“Where the functions of a vote are transferred to another vote or where a vote is assigned additional functions, the functions of the vote shall be financed accordance with sections 25” (P4, 2015, PFMA).

Amendment of Section 25:

“(4a) Where the funds in the Contingencies Fund are not sufficient to finance the supplementary budget, the supplementary budget shall be financed by a reallocation of the funds of the annual budget” (P5, 2015, PFMA).

Amendment of Section 36:

“(5a) In addition to subsection (5), a loan raised by the Government as a temporary advance by the Bank of Uganda, which does not extend beyond a financial year shall not require to be approved by the Parliament” (P5, 2015, PFMA).

Amendment of Section 82:

“(1) The bank may with the approval of Parliament, make temporary advances to the Government and local governments in respect of temporary deficiencies of recurrent revenue” (P:6, 2015, PFMA).

“(1a) Notwithstanding subsection (1) the bank may take a temporary advance to the Government, without approval of the Parliament, where the advance does not extend beyond a financial year” (P:6, 2015, PFMA).

“(5) The bank shall not guarantee a payment to any person on behalf of Government or make any advance to any person on behalf on of Government without the prior approval of Parliament” (P:6, 2015, PFMA).

Afterthought:

It is reasonable that you have dates for the Budget Framework for the next financial year as they are switching dates in the new amendment. From the 15th of March until the set date of the 31st of July, also by the end of the year pay the money that was voted for into the Consolidated Fund with an exception that the Treasury Secretary has a vote to retain that money. The first changes to the law aren’t really scary or worrying it’s the parts that I come to now seems scary!

In Section 36 the government will have the ability to take up loans without having vote by the Parliament. The Government can henceforth take up advances without being questioned as long as it is set into a certain timeframe. When this continues into the Section 82 where the Government doesn’t need a stamp of approval from the Parliament to take Advances from the Bank of Uganda to secure funding where there is “deficiencies of recurrent revenue”, which means that if a sector of Government is lacking money. They can go directly to the bank and extract funding without having approval from the Parliament. This is to secure balance of funds and to stop the deficiencies in the Government. Still it’s a worrying that the Government can get this ability. (1a) under the same sections is giving the same kind of advance within a financial year without an approval of the Parliament. While the last Section (5) is telling the bank can’t guarantee a payment to any person without approval of the Parliament to a person which represent or are a part of the Government. So With this means that a person or affiliated to the Government can get an advance or loan from the Bank of Uganda without approval of the Parliament, but still not allowed to get a direct payment form the Bank of Uganda. You do get that right? Some of it is if there is a deficiency in the Government. Are there so often missing funds now that the Government has to act in this way, because the lack of funds is so big now that they don’t want approval of the Parliament to fix their own deficiencies? And does the Government fear that giving the information and stamp of validation from the Parliament will show the current loans and advances that the Government does for the moment or need?

The Government must be needing loans towards the election of 2016. That must be reason why the Amendment is happening now and the deficiency is happing now. Also why should it be so hard to get the approval and show the country what the advances and loans are going to during the Financial Year! This is just proving what state of affairs has turned in the country and why people should address it. That this kind of laws get into effect shows how little oversight the Government wants to show and secondly shows how the Government want to loan money without proving paperwork for where the money is going. Since its still short time loans that is to withstand a Financial Year still that this is not looking good, should be visible. The Public Financial Management Amendment of 2015 is surely made to make life easier for the Government and not have to question their actions through the Parliament when it comes to short-term loans and advances. Something is surely up. And we’ll see over time how fruitful this will be and I wouldn’t be surprised if the inflation starts to rise after this amendment to the law get into effect. Peace.

Uganda’s Medium Term Debt Management Strategy for FY 2015/2015 – FY 2019/2020: What is it all about?

UGX Pic

Here you will see what strategies and plans the Government of Uganda has made for their loans and debts. This is about how the Government will deal with it and how it can be done. The numbers tell what they can expect if they pick the certain ways of dealing with it. It shows what can happen and the shock scenarios are important.

This should be seen as important to follow especially with the growing debt and the rates that come with that. Therefore it will be something that should be monitored. From the sustainability of the ratio according the GDP should be something that also brings fear. Especially since this will have general effect on how the general economy will be hit with the down payments and strain the basic budgets of the government. There its a viable thing that should be well known by people, because this will have big importance until FY 2019/2020

“The Uganda Vision 2040 aspires to transform Uganda into a modern and prosperous society within 30 years through provision of adequate infrastructure, development of agriculture, human resources and services sectors, enlargement of markets, strengthening of the private sector and through industrialization” (…) “Implementation of the Uganda 2040 Vision will require substantial resources that will partly be garnered through the domestic and international borrowing. To ensure that our debt remain sustainable, such borrowing has to be carried out through a properly formulated Medium Term Debt Management Strategy (MTDS)” (MTDS, P: 4, 2015).

“The key aim for the MTDS2015 is to ascertain the cost and risk trade-off of financing the medium term fiscal deficit through borrowing while remaining mindful of our debt sustainability” (…) “To meet Government’s financing requirements at the minimum cost, subject to a prudent degree of risk; (ii) to ensure that the level of public debt remains sustainable, both in the medium and long term horizon while being mindful of future generations; and (iii) to promote the development of the domestic financial market (MTDS, P: 6, 2015).

Strategies:

  1. Traditional post debt relief approach of prioritizing concessional financing.
  2. A debut Euro-Bond: The Sovereign Bond Issuance which risks the cost and the trade-off of the International-Market and financing alternative.
  3. Non-Concessional borrowing and meeting with bilateral with commercial creditors negotiations.
  4. Reliance on Domestic-Financing establishing the cost and risk trade-offs, which risk less since it’s from the Domestic-Financial-Market.

(MTDS, P: 6-7, 2015).

Cost & Risk Debt Uganda

External Debt Stock:

From FY2006/2007 it was Domestic Debt and Outstanding(DoD) was US$1.47 billion. And in FY 2013/2014 had risen to US$4.3 billion (MTDS, P: 13, 2015).

External Debt Stock Uganda

Domestic Debt Stock:

Domestic Debt Stock

Refinancing:

External debt maturity for the ATM (Average Time for Maturity) was 18.9 Years. The plan is setting that the in 2.3 years will the ATM be 11.8 years.

Public Debt Maturity Profile under REFINANCING

Currencies:

Currency Distribution P17

Aggregrate Medium Term Debt Strategy:

The outlook for the 5.3% in FY 2014/2015 and is looking to reach 5.8% in FY 2015/2016. The plan forward is to attain an average 6.3% for the fiscal framework (MTDS, P: 17, 2015).

Selected Medium Term P18

Government expenditure is on an average to be 20.9% of the GDP for the FY 2014/2015. In the 2015/2016 it is 21.7% of the GDP. The main expenditure for the budget is the infrastructure projects like the upgrading of Entebbe International Airport, Hydro Power projects and Albertine Regional Airport. The total cost for the projects is US$7.0 Billion. There is set to be 5% target for the inflation rate and the exchange rate is set for 12.1% in FY 2015/2016 and average for 2.4% the rest of the years for the medium term (MTDS P: 17-18).

Stylized Financing Instruments:

Two instruments:

i: International Development Association (IDA) has the interest 0.75% for the maturity of 38 years.

ii: African Development Fund (ADF) has the interest 0.75% with a maturity of 40 years.

iv: The concessional is with fixed rate loans with 23 years maturity and 6 year grace period. These terms comes from IDA-Blend, Kuwait Fund, Abu Dhabi Fund, UK-Export Credit Guarantee.

v: The fixed rate instrument on the Euro Bond which is priced on a ten-years US-Treasury interest rate.

vii: With Pure commercial loans is a instruments with a 7 years of maturity and with a 3 years grace period.

viii: One T-Bills is a domestic market debt instrument that has a maturity of 91 days, 181 days,  and 364 days.

ix: Four T-Bonds is a domestic market debt instrument that has a maturity of 2, 5, 10 and 15 years.

(MTDS, P: 18-21, 2015).

Stylized Financing Strategy P22

Four scenarios for the Market:

First Scenario: The first thing is possible currency depreciation – is that in the FY 2015/2016 can end up with 30% depreciation and will have to work to sustain that through to 2019/2020.

Second Scenario: A sharp off increase in domestic rates for 2015/2016 and at the Interest Rate will follow the baseline of the Foreign Currency.

Third Scenario: Domestic Interest Rate still set to be baseline assumption that we’re set. And that the denomination on the Foreign Currency following the instruments set for it.

Fourth Scenario: That the Decapitation of the UGX towards the US Dollar in the amount of 15%, that can lead to a shock in the domestic yield a curve for the 2015/2016.

(MTDS, P: 23, 2015).

Analysis of the strategies:

That the total debt-to-GDP from the current level of 28.6% by the end of June 2014, if the end of the time it might end up with 50% level by 2020. This is because of substantial projected increases the fiscal deficit. With the worst strategy the interest rate can go from 1.4% in June 2014 to become 4% in 2020 (MTDS, P: 24, 2015).

MTDS P25

 

MTDS P29

 

MTDS P30

Hope you have found it interesting and learn something of the Government of Uganda planning of dealing with their debt. And how they see the future for their economy. Then what kind of strategies and scenario’s that could appear and how they will appear together. The Financial Years that are ahead and how the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development thinks of their economy. Hope it give you something and also a little feeling about how the economy might progress.

Peace.

Reference:

Republic of Uganda/Directorate of Debt & Cash Management – Ministry of Financing, Planning & Economic Development: ‘Medium Term Debt  Management Strategy’ (MTDS): 2015/2016 -2019/2020 (April 2015).

Project 1034: Mukono-Katosi Road Scandal

Mukono-Katosi Road pic

There been written a lot by this scandal. I have looked through a dozen dose of documents and found this linking the upgrading of the road from Mukono to Katosi. Which was contracted out from UNRA to two other companies, wasn’t properly checked before contracts and authorization. There also been reported on missing monies. Therefore when you read through the quotes and numbers you will have the ability to see through what you have read other places. It’s should be an enlightenment journey through a new path.

The road construction and rebuilding of the road from Mukono-Katosi was to upgrade the road from gravel to bitumen standard. The project started 31.1.2014 and is anticipated to be done by 31.1.2017 (MPS, P: 197. 2014).

The Government of Uganda put into the project 960,000 UGX. The releases of funding in July were 80, 000, 00 UGX, in August was 160,000 UGX and in November it was 240,000 UGX. The total release from July to August for the project was 480,000 UGX. Release of the total budget in that time was 50% of that year. (MoFPED,P: 18, 2009).

On the 1st December 2010 the Government of Uganda made a memorandum of understanding between the government and the company of High Tides Limited and also with the Eutaw Construction Company of United States of America. High Tides Ltd will pay Eutaw Construction Company the monies $1.750.000. That agreement is for the license for UNRA/Works/2009-10/00001/18/08 for tarmacking of Mukono – Kyetumo – Katosi/ Kisonga – Nyenga Road (72km) (MOU – 2010).

The Strategic Plan from UNRA had the development plan set for finishing tarmacking the road from Mukono – Kyetume – Katosi done by 2017. And the works would be started by 2014 (UNRA, P: 57, 2012).

The budget performance Financial Year of 2011/2012, the Government budget that was revised was 6,841,489,157 UGX. Released for FY 2011/2012 6,697,682,837 UGX, and the expenditure of the FY 2011/2012 it was 6,697,682,837 UGX. The release performance for the FY was 98% and absorption rate was 100%. (MoFPED, P: 41, 2012).

PPDA findings:

“The procurement for the contractor for upgrading the Mukono-Kyetume-Katosi/Kisoga-Nyenga road commenced in July 2010 and by 19th January 2011, the procurement had reached award stage. However due to lack of funding as stated by the PDU the contract could not be awarded hence the request by PDU on 22nd March 2012 to have it cancelled. The First request by PDU to have the contract cancelled was rejected by the CC. However on re-submission by the PDU on 9th May 2012, the CC approved the cancellation” (…) “The HPDU also recommended that negotiations be held with M/s Eutaw Construction Company Inc. to confirm cost adjustments. The negotiations were held by the appointed members (see annex) and this culminated into signing of the contract with M/s Eutaw Construction Company Inc. on 15th November 2013 at UGX. 165,272,156,814 after SG approval” (…) “The Authority noted that the UNRA Directorate of Planning prepared BoQs from which the estimated value of the procurement was derived amounting to UGX. 184,357,246,540. It was noted that the Contracts Committee approved the solicitation document to be used on 2nd November 2010” (…)“The negotiation team recommended that a price of UGX 165,272,156,814 was sufficient to carry out the works”(PPDA P:2-3). “On 2nd October 2013, supplementary negotiations were held between the appointed UNRA negotiations team and M/s EUTAW Construction. The negotiations concluded that a price of UGX. 165,272,156,814 was sufficient to carry out the works” (…) “On 10th October 2013, the HPDU submitted the conclusions of the negotiations to the Contracts Committee for approval. The HPDU recommended for the award of contract for the Civil Works for the upgrading of Mukono-Kyetume-Katosi/Kisoga-Nyenga road from gravel to paved standard to M/s EUTAW Construction Company Inc. at a contract price of UGX. 165,272,156,814 inclusive of taxes” (…) “On 7th November 2013, the AO wrote to M/s EUTAW Construction Company Inc. informing the bidder that the bid with the corrected amount of UGX. 165,721,156,814 had been accepted. The AO also asked M/s EUTAW Construction to furnish the entity with the performance security within 28 days in accordance with conditions of the solicitation document” (…) “On 15th November 2013, the contract between M/s EUTAW Construction Company Inc. and Uganda National Roads Authority for Civil Works for Upgrading of Mukono-Kyetume-Katosi/Kisoga-Nyenga was signed at a price of UGX. 165,272,156,814 inclusive of taxes” (…) “On 13th February 2014, the Authority received a letter from the Inspectorate of Government. In the letter, the Inspectorate of Government alleged that the award of contract to M/s EUTAW Construction Company for Civil Works for Upgrading of Mukono-Kyetume-Katosi/Kisoga-Nyenga was done in a dubious manner and that the costs were unrealistic. 2.40 On 27th March 2014, the Authority wrote to the Uganda National Roads Authority informing the entity that it had instituted an investigation into the award of contract for the for Civil Works for Upgrading of Mukono-Kyetume-Katosi/Kisoga-Nyenga road from bituminous to paved standard” (PPDA, P:10-12).

Unrealistic pricing on the road:

“The directorate of planning prepared BoQs from which the estimated value of the procurement was derived amounting to UGX.184,357,246,540. It was noted that the Contracts Committee approved the solicitation document to be used on 2nd November 2010” (…) “on 7th November 2013, the AO wrote to M/s Eutaw Construction Company Inc. informing the bidder that the bid with the corrected amount of UGX. 165,272,156,814 had been accepted. M/s Eutaw Construction wrote to the HPDU acknowledging receipt of the bid acceptance from the entity on 8th November 2013, and also confirmed acceptance of the offer to commence work as soon as the contract was signed. The Authority noted that the reduction in price from UGX 182,983,576,600 to UGX. 165,272,156,814 after negotiations was irregular and contrary to the requirements of PPDA Regulation 219 (3)” (…)“The Authority noted that on 14th November 2013, the Hon. Minister for Works and Transport, Hon. Abraham James Byandala wrote to the Accounting Officer UNRA directing him to implement the contract for the Civil works for upgrading of Mukono-Kyetume-Katosi/Kisoga-Nyenga road from gravel to paved standard immediately while due diligence was still being carried out by the UNRA Technical team. The Authority also noted that on 14th November 2013, the Legal Counsel UNRA, Mr. Marvin Baryaruha wrote to the Accounting Officer advising him that the contract with M/s EUTAW Construction could be signed while due diligence tests were still continuing. The Authority also noted that the PDE proceeded to sign the contract before the completion of due diligence tests. The Authority notes that it was highly irregular for the Accounting Officer to sign the contract before the completion of due diligence tests contrary to the requirements under Regulation 34 of the PPDA Regulations, 2003”  (PPDA P:12-15).

Grand Corruption: 

Inspector of Government Irene Mulyagonja Kakooza where it was said in the introduction: “While Uganda has developed excellent laws to prevent and combat corruption, the challenge remains the implementation and enforcement of the laws. Uganda has ratified a number of regional and international instruments aimed at fighting corruption. It is now crucial to ensure these instruments are implemented and enforced in order to achieve their intended purpose. If corruption is not addressed, it will continue to have a drastic negative impact on public service delivery. In turn, this will prevent all Ugandans from fulfilling the aspirations articulated in the Vision 2040” (Inspectorate of Government P: 6, 2014). Further on: “A significant amount of evidence supports the view that the incidence of grand corruption in Uganda has increased over recent years. Recent cases involving the embezzlement of public funds suggest the effectiveness of state institutions in monitoring government programs is limited. Recent examples of cases of grand corruption include the fraudulent procurement of a contractor for the Mukono-Katosi road and subsequent advancement of UGX 24 billion to nonexistent contractor to kick-start the road construction in 2014; of UGX 205 billion through the national identity card system scam in 2011; and of UGX 58 billion lost in the OPM in 2012, among others” (Inspectorate of Government P: 33, 2014).

MoFPED quick analysis;

Mukono-Kywetume-Katosi/Kisoga-Nyenga: 74km, how much work completed by May 2014:  0% (BMAU, P: 14, 2014). “Limited capacity within UNRA and the Uganda Road Fund: For example UNRA is faced with in the Mukono- Katosi road procurement scandal and sluggish performance of other roads such as Ishaka-Kagamba, and Mbale-Soroti” (BMAU, P: 19, 2014).

MPS on the Project:

“Mukono – Katosi/ Kisoga – Nyenga (72km) – Contractor is on site mobilizing to commence works in July 2014. Payment of land and property compensation was ongoing” (MPS, P: 6, 2014). By the June 2014 progress of the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the gravel roads of 20% of the road and 80% cumulative (MPS, P: 14.15 2014). Workplan output for the road was 160 Acres in 2013/2014 and 2014/2015. By 2013/2014 there was expected to be 5% of the work. By 2014/2015 will be 20% of the road. In the 2013/2014 we’re the budget for road 40.000.000 UGX. And in 2015/2016 it was expected to cost 50.000.000 UGX for the progress of the road. Of the 20% – 10% was for Supervision and 15.9% funds for works (MPS, P: 197, 2014).

EU speech on Infrastructure in Uganda:

“First, Institutional Reforms and Strengthening of good practices as Uganda prepares for an important expansion of the infrastructure works, present and future investors need to be reassured that there are well-functioning Regulatory Institutions; clear, transparent and efficient procurement procedures and respect for the rule of law” (…) “This leads to the loss of significant amounts of public resources, as in the case of the Mukono-Katosi contract that you have mentioned this morning. Development Partners are encouraging you and will support you, Hon. Minister, in all your efforts to take efficient and rapid corrective measures in order to avoid these episodes from happening again in the future” (EU, 2014).

Ruling from the High Court of Uganda in 2014:

“The order of Her Worship Lillian Mwandha issued on 06th November 2014 in Miscellaneous Application No. 704 of 2014, restraining the Attorney General and  (UNRA) or their agents from implementing the order/directive of the 1st Applicant to  exclude the 2nd Applicant from participating in the emergency procurement for the construction of Mukono-Katosi-Kyetume/Kisoga-Nyenga Road be set aside” (…) “A Court of law cannot sanction what is illegal, and an illegality once brought to the attention of the Court overrides all questions of pleading, including admissions made thereon.  In the premises, and in view of what I have outlined above, I do hereby allow preliminary objection by Counsel for the 3rdRespondent” (…) “Accordingly I do hereby set aside and/or vacate the Interim Order issued by the Deputy Registrar of this Court on 6th November, 2014.  Since the main Application for Temporary Injunction and Judicial Review are still pending, I order that costs be in the cause” (IGG, 2015).

Timeline: 

“On 15th November 2013, UNRA entered into an agreement with Eutaw Construction Company Inc. of 622 Beach land Bivd Suite 201 Vero Beach Florida USA for upgrading of Mukono- Kyetume -Katosi/Kisoga –Nyenge Road (74 Km) from gravel to paved (Bitumen) for a contract price of UGX.165,272,156,814 including all local taxes. Examination of expenditure vouchers showed that only UGX.24,790,823,522 (15% of the contract price) was paid to the construction company as advance payment” (OAG, P: 6, 2015). “On 18th November 2013; UNRA received the contractor`s performance guarantee from a local bank dated 13th November 2013. On the 19th November 2013, UNRA management wrote to the contractor rejecting the performance guarantee on condition that it was not consistent with the provisions of the contract data. A second performance guarantee from the same bank dated 21st November 2013 was tendered in by the contractor. On receipt of the performance guarantee, the Acting Director Procurement wrote a memorandum dated 26th November 2013 to the Director Finance and Administration (DFA) requesting him to verify the authenticity of the performance guarantee and requested the DFA to inform them of the results of the verification” (…) “The due diligence report was dated 8th November 2013 and the agreement was signed on 15th November 2013. It was evident that management ignored the findings and recommendations of the due-diligence team by going ahead to conclude the contract” (…) “the agreement details revealed that management later entered into an agreement at a contract price of UGX.165,272,156,814 far less than the bid price of UGX.183,285,341,234 translating into a reduction in price of UGX.18,013,184,420 (183,285,341,234 – 165,272,156,814) which was 9.9% of the bid price. I could not establish the cause of the reduction” (OAG, P: 7-9, 2015). “Examination of expenditure vouchers showed that UGX.24,790,823,522 (15% of the contract price) was paid to Eutaw Construction Company Inc. of 622 Beach land Bivd. Suite 201 Vero Beach Florida USA on the 24th of January, 2014. However, I noted that management had not made any effort to recover the money advanced after the failed contract. In response, management explained that the issue is under investigation by the IGG and Police. UNRA Board and indeed the Police and IGG are in charge of these investigations and they shall take action based on the findings” (…) “I noted that on 12th January 2015, the same construction work of Upgrading of Mukono- Kyetume -Katosi/Kisoga –Nyenge Road (74 Km) was contracted to another company for a contract price of UGX.253,940,121,150. This was far higher than the original contract price of UGX.165,272,156,814 in a failed contract earlier awarded to Eutaw Construction Company Inc. of Suite 201 Vero Beach Florida 32963 United States of America. This reflected additional spending” (…)”The schedule of other receivables includes a figure reflected as Prepayments in ABC Capital Bank of UGX.173,701,010. This amount has been held in ABC Capital Bank for over a year under unclear circumstances. During the review, I noted that there were been no significant steps taken to recover the money held since the previous audit. In response, management explained that this amount was fraudulently transferred to ABC Capital Bank with the assistance of some UNRA Staff members and officers working with ABC Capital Bank. Police instituted investigations where suspects were arrested” (OAG, P: 10 -12, 2015). For the road building even by 2014 there was no acquisition of land by the government because of the requirement of the TIN (Tax Identification Number), there have been issued with the payment for the land. And have been relaxed by the MoFPED. When it comes to the construction of the road there wasn’t any signs when the review was written (OAG, P: 23, 2015).

UNRA clarified their story:

“The contract for construction of Mukono-Kyetume-Katosi/Kisoga-Nyenga road project was awarded to EUTAW, an American road construction firm, after an international bidding process. This project is being supervised by another international company, M/s Arab Consulting Engineers, from Egypt. UNRA is working with both the consultant and contractor for this project to make sure all contractual obligations are met, project specifications are followed and the project is completed on time” (…) “The purpose of Advance Payment is to allow the contractor mobilise equipment, personnel, materials, set up camps and commence works. The contractor on Mukono – Kyetume – Katosi / Kisoga – Nyenga road project has fully mobilized, there is active equipment on site, the site camp is ready and works have commenced” (…) “While it is true that UNRA may have potentially been exposed to a fraud with a risk that the UGX 24 Bn advanced to EUTAW would not have a security backing it up, this situation has been largely avoided for now. UNRA is currently reviewing its due diligence protocol to make sure Government funds are not exposed to this kind of risk again. UNRA is cooperating with the Inspectorate of Government, the Uganda Police and other enforcement institutions to make sure that a thorough investigation is carried out as per their mandates” (Kitakule) .

Afterthought:

When the courts are over and all the numbers will be on the ground they will be different then the official documents I have in my possession. The IGG and the courts should after the trials deliver that documents to the public. So that the people involved could be scrutinized. Though that might hurt people in power, like infrastructure ministry and UNRA which also deserves that after not even doing a proper “due diligence” on the agreement between UNRA and the companies involved in the project and upgrading of the road. This should still be able for folks to look through the paper trail left behind and get information. Because this scandal didn’t happen overnight… happened with money and where it went should be interesting. Especially when it all will be put into place, because I don’t have the shadow budget of this or the rates of the monies that got pocketed by somebody else, that is for sure! But compare that to the basic budgets and appropriate funds from the government of Uganda to the tarmacking for years. And will until 2017 when its estimated to be done. Peace.

Reference:

Alnange, Dan Kitakule – ‘CLARIFICATION ON ALLEGATIONS THAT 24BN HAS BEEN LOST ON MUKONO-KYETUME-KATOSI/KISOGA-NYENGA ROAD PROJECT’ Link: https://www.unra.go.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=423:clarification-on-allegations-that-24bn-has-been-lost-on-mukono-kyetume-katosikisoga-nyenga-road-project&catid=1:latest-news-first=.-title=Clarification

Delegation of the European Union to Uganda- H.E AMBASSADOR KRISTIAN SCHMIDT – ‘EU Head of Delegation Speech at the 10th Joint Transport Sector Review October 24, 2014’ (24/10/2014) Link: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/uganda/press_corner/speeches/2014/20141024_en.htm

IGG: THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA – IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT NAKAWA- MISC. APPLICATION NO. 744 OF 2014: [Arising from Misc. Application No. 703/2014 and 704/2014 and Misc. Cause No. 63 of 2014] (12.01.2015) Link: http://www.ulii.org/ug/judgment/high-court-civil-division/2015/1

Inspectorate of Government (IG) & Economic Policy Research Center (EPRC): Tracking Corruption Trends in Uganda – Using data tracking mechanism – Annual Fourth Report 2014.

Republic of Uganda – MoFPED: Budget Monitoring Report October – December 2008 (January 2009)

Republic of Uganda – The CONTRACT ACT CAP 73 – Memorandum of Understanding – The Agreement is made this 1st Day of December 2010 Between High Tides Ltd and Eustaw Construction Company.

Republic of Uganda – MINISTRY OF FINANCE, PLANNING AND

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (MoFPED) – Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit (BMAU): Improving Service Delivery in Uganda – BMAU Discussion Paper 1/14 November 2014

Republic of Uganda – Office of the Auditor General (OAG) – ANNUAL REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30TH JUNE 2014 – VOLUME 2(B) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND STATUTORY CORPORATIONS (June, 2015).

Republic of Uganda – Ministry of Works and Transport: MPS 2015/2016 – Presented to Parliament for the debate on the budget estimates of the Revenue and Expenditure for Financial Year 2014/2015 (June 2014) Link: http://www.csbag.org/docs/Ministry%20of%20Works%20and%20Transport%20Ministerial%20Policy%20Statement%20FY2014-15.pdf

Republic of Uganda- MoFPED – ‘Annual Budget Monitoring Report FY 2011/12’ (December 2012)

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS AUTHORITY  (PPDA) – “INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES IN THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR THE UPGARDING OF MUKONO-KYETUME-KATOSI/KISOGANYENGA ROAD FROM GRAVEL TO PAVED STANDARD TO M/S EUTAW CONSTRUCTION COMPANY” (June 2014)

UNRA – ‘5 Year Corporate Strategic Plan’ (2012/2013 -2016/2017) – (June 2012) link: http://ric-uganda.com/rc/files/1.7_UNRA_5Year_Corporate_Strategic_Plan.pdf

Uganda – Honourable Minister of State for Finance David Bahati – Quote of the day (25.05.2015)

DavidBahti25.05