MinBane

I write what I like.

Archive for the tag “the Inspector General of Police”

Uganda: Leadership Code Amendment of 2016; what are the important changes in the law?

simon-lodoko-1470679953

The original Leadership Code of Uganda where commencement 26th June 1992 in the early years of the National Resistance Movement; so the Government of Uganda need more to revised and amended as the Minister for Ethics Reverend Simon Lodoko has ideas to make the Leaders and Civil servants more ethical inspired. This done with amending a new law and making it stricter and giving the Ministry a strong Authority with a legal power as the law propose to change a very subtle committee who discuss proposed leadership breaches with Parliament and Minister; the Tribunal are having more ability to actually following the breaching and unethical behavior from leaders and their snitching ways. That is why the Tribunal gets revised from a measly Committee towards a powerful Tribunal!

Take a look at important issues that are wished revised and changed to make the 1992 law better and more control from the Central Government!

In the original – 

Section 10:

(1): “A leader shall not put himself or herself in a position in which his or her personal interest conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities”

In the new Amendment:

(1)“A gift or donation to a leader at any public or governmental occasion shall be treated as a gift or donation to the Government or the institution represented by the leader and shall be declared so to the Inspector General; but the Government or the institution shall keep an inventory of the gift”.

There is a giant different between putting himself in a conflict and getting a gift. The Conflict is by approaching an offer that might substantially discredit the decisions alters the judgement done by the leader of government or in any government institutions. That is different from becoming somebody who get gift and has to give it to the government and institution who the leader works for. The gifts system is normal in many states as the leader and civil servants represent the states and cannot take bribes of gifts and such therefore these laws exist to make sure gifts and donations doesn’t become an issue to secure the vote/regulation/license or use the government institution to gain more than the competitor that doesn’t give or donate to the government leader.

Therefore the rule change is healthy, but will it just be lawful text and followed up the current leadership and only done as PR stunt as the NRM Regime hasn’t really been showing talent for accountability and transparency other than stern warnings and when donor aid has been cut. Then the government has swallowed a few bloody court cases and showing grand-corruption to prove their ability to honest budgeting; while going back to office when the court are gone and the questions from donors are silent. Therefore I have doubt that this law has affect as the Auditor General and Inspector General of Government (IGG) doesn’t even dig deep into the current corruption; so this seem like beautiful words, but will they acted upon?

Create a Tribunal:

Other key ones are adding a Tribunal that the leaders and representatives for government institutions report to and follow the ethics of their actions. They will have a chairperson that is elected by the Parliament and the ones in Parliament cannot appoint a chairperson, unless they can appoint a High Judge of the High Court. Which is part of the new 19 Section in 19A and 19B; this Tribunal will be elected by the President and Public Service Commission; with approval of the Parliament (19C).

This Tribunal will follow the case if non-else party is available to fetch evidence and collect affidavits as long as they believe it is “subject cause”. They can even interrogate needed persons even “abroad”. New in 19R (5): “The Tribunal may make an order in to costs against any party, and the order shall be enforceable in the same manner as an order of the High Court”. So the Tribunal will get the same value as a Court Order to follow the cases and follow the alleged breaches of the Leadership Code.

The strictest clear rules on the Tribunal is in the 19Z:

“A Person who –

  • Insults a member in, or in relations to, the exercise of his or her powers or functions as a member of the tribunal;
  • Interrupts the proceedings of the Tribunal;
  • Creates a disturbances, or takes part in creating a disturbance in or near a place where the Tribunal is sitting; or
  • Does any other act or thing that would, if the Tribunal were a court of record, constitute contempt of court, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five currency points or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both”

Another change is the total replacement of this part of the law:

“20. Report of the committee.

Upon the completion of an inquiry conducted by the committee or upon receipt of a report of findings submitted by the Inspector General of Government or the Inspector General of Police or the Auditor General under section 19, the committee shall make a report to the authorised person; and in a case where the committee or the Inspector General of Government or the Inspector General of Police or the Auditor General has found that the leader whose conduct was inquired into is in breach of this Code, the committee shall make such recommendations as it considers appropriate as to action to be taken against the leader.

The committee’s report under subsection (1) shall be made public and shall state whether the leader is or is not in breach of this Code in respect of the specific matters inquired into by the committee and, in the case of a breach, shall set out—

 the nature of the breach which the leader has been found to have committed;

the circumstances of the breach;

a brief summary of the evidence received during the inquiry into the breach; and

its findings and recommendations.”

This with the amendment changes to this:

“(1) The Registrar of the Tribunal shall inform the authorised person in writing, of the decision of the Tribunal, within thirty days after the date of the decision.

(2) The authorised person shall upon receipt of the decision under subsection(1) take actions within thirty days.

(3) The authorised person shall report to the Tribunal in writing within fourteen days after the explaination of the thirty days referred to in subsection (2) of the action taken by him or her”.

Here the Tribunal doesn’t need to go public as they needed before, because this section is changed and amended with the new Leadership Code of 2016, this proves the writing happens between authorised person and the Tribunal and not to commit it public. It means within 30 days actions against a person will happen, but not publicly. So the Tribunal compared to the Committee of old can work in silence and act against somebody without common knowledge.

As the Section 23 original law says this:

“23. Procedure of the committee.

Subject to this Code, the committee may, after consultation with the Minister, make rules regulating its procedure under this Code”.

The newly amendment says this:

“Procuring information and attendance of witnesses.

Subject to this Act, the inspectorate may –

  • Summon any person who, in the opinion of the Inspectorate, is able to give information relating to any matter relevant, to the investigation being conducted by it, to appear before inspectorate and to furnish such information and produce any documents, papers or thing that may be in possession or under the control of that person; and
  • By order in writing, summon the person to attend before the inspectorate at a specified time and place and to be examined on oath”.

With this substantial change together with the others, the powers of the Tribunal is to inspect and get witness report or an affidavit as the summons of a person who might have information has to answer to the Inspectorate for the Tribunal under oath. The relevancy of this is the powers that the law might give the Tribunal as they can investigate and summon. Not only consult with minister after the code has been followed by the Committee. So the powers of following breaches of the set the law gets more ability to sanctions citizens. While the Tribunal get more power than a Committee that ask the Parliament for ability to act like the Leadership Code of 1992 does. Peace.

Advertisements

(Late) The letter from NRM Secretary to IGP Kale Kayihura on the NRM Delegates Conference (Ref: SG/01/29/10/15)

NRM 291015

As you see, the UF stamp is not there with the date recieved which is ordinary application on recieved letters between official organs/departments or is it whisked away? Look how they have tried to switch the date on the letter and what about the reference number from the Secretary General Justine Kasule Lumumba!

As told before NRM can do as they please and don’t need to ask Mr. IGP. Gen. Kale Kayihura because his loyality is to the NRM as proven time, again and again! I am sure the NRM doesn’t need to follow the Road Map and Guidelines as strict from the Electoral Commission as the opposition parties do. Because His Exellency and his party can act as they want and the police will generate structures, while they will make life hard or uneasy for anybody whp is not representing the Museveni branch of the NRM or the NRM Elite. The rest has to follow the suit and obidience from the Police and Electoral Commission is setting the standard towards Hon. Amama Mbabazi and the FDC, but not against themselves, right?

Peace! 

The UPF has trashed FDC cars and also blocked the planned FDC rally in Rukungiri

Uganda FDC 101015 P1

Police throws barricades at Hon. Ekanya’s car and these two cars ended up in a crush.

There is reports that the Local District Police Commissioner (DPC) Maximal Ogwang has done what he could in his district to stop a planned FDC rally in the area. He put thorns in the road. There been cars that was hit was the ones of Hon. Wafula Oguttu, Dr. Kizza Besigye, Hon. Ibrahim Nganda Ssemujju, Hon. Godfrey Ekanya, Hon. Patrick Amuriat and Fred Turya. Even a by-passer from a NTV and their car got also into issues because of this.

Uganda FDC 101015 P2

If that wasn’t enough there was even more reports that the police tried to stop the FDC men passing through Lyantonde. Hon Amuriat Semujju in Arested in police there. Hon. Kevina Taaka was also arrested on the road to the event. This was ordered from up high.

While this was happening in Rukungiri the organizers who was supposed to make ready for a rally was taken into custody by the police in the town. DPC Wotwali is surely a tool for the NRM-Regime and following orders from up high and that is IGP Kale Kayihura.

Uganda FDC 101015 P3 Rukungiri

The DPC Ronald Wotwali in Rukungiri said this yesterday:

“The law regulating public gatherings is very clear. Before anyone can hold a rally, he must seek clearance from the Inspector General of Police. They FDC leaders are telling us they have written a letter seeking clearance and as the Police, we will only allow the rally to take place until we receive a written clearance from the Police headquarters” (Etukuri, 2015).

The reports also says the IGP Kale Kayihura disallowed it because the FDC didn’t follow the Public Order Management Act (POMA), though the FDC organizers say they did comply the information to the authorities as they asks for before a public rally. Though the IGP doesn’t seem to be enough, laws are fitting well for the NRM, but even if the FDC tries to follow them. They get into issues with the law because the Police go against any kind of gathering of the opposition which has been the common action before this Presidential Election of 2016. Peace.

Reference:

Etukuri, Charles – ‘FDC Rukungiri rally hangs in balance’ (09.10.2015) link: http://www.elections.co.ug/new-vision/election/1343215/fdc-rukungiri-rally-hangs-balance

Uganda – Letter from the UPF Police HQ to the FDC – OPS/175/219/01: ‘Notification of Public Meetings’ (13.07.2015)

FDCLetter13072015P1FDCLetter13072015P2

Official Statements from Ministery of Information and National Guidance & Uganda Police Force on the death of Principal State Attorney Joan Kagezi

OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND NATIONAL GUIDANCE ON THE DEATH OF PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, JOAN KAGEZI: 

It is with deep sadness that we confirm that Senior Principal State
Attorney Joan Kagezi has been killed this evening by assailants unknown and
at large.

The assailants trailed her car using a boda-boda, following her usual route
home, and when she stopped to do some shopping in Kiwatule, east of
Kampala, they opened fire on her.
Her children were with her in the vehicle but were not harmed in the
shooting. 

The police has taken up investigations into the case and are following all
leads available. This crime will not go unpunished.

On behalf of the Government of Uganda, I call upon members of the general
public to avoid sensationalising the criminal nature of this killing, and
to respect the honour and dignity of Joan Kagezi, who worked diligently for
law and order, and peace and security for all Ugandans.

May her soul Rest in Eternal Peace.

Jim K. Muhwezi, MP
Minister of Information and National Guidance

POLICE INVESTIGATES DEADLY SHOOTING
Yesterday evening, Monday 30th March 2015, Ms. Joan Kagezi, Ag. Assistant Director of Public Prosecution,         was shot dead at 7:15 pm,near her residence in Kiwatule a city suburb as she drove home with her children.

She had stopped at a fruit stall by the road side where she normally stopped to purchase fruits, when the criminals riding on a motorcycle of boxer type, red in color, stopped next to the parked vehicle and shot her twice in the neck and shoulder, through the widow on the driver’s side. She was driving the vehicle herself.

The Director of CIID, Assistant Inspector General of Police Grace Akullo who by coincidence was driving some distance behind her, was the first police officer on the scene. She coordinated the evacuation of the deceased to Mulago hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival. Her three children who were with her escaped unhurt.

Ms. Joan Kagezi was in charge of the International Crime Division handling international crimes such as terrorism, war crimes, and trafficking in persons. At the time of her tragic death she was the lead prosecutor in the case of the 2010 terror suspects now before the High Court. She was, also working with the Police in the prosecution
of the suspects in the recent spate of murders, robberies and terrorism in Busoga region and Kampala. Her death is a big loss to the country.

Immediately after the shooting, the police secured the scene, and interviewed eye witnesses who have given very useful information that will assist in the hunt for the murderers. We call upon any member of the public who may have any information relating to the incident to give it to the police, any other security officer or LC official.

In spite of this tragic incident of criminality, we call upon the public to remain calm but vigilant.

The murder of Joan Kagezi should only serve to increase our resolve to hunt down and bring to justice all those elements bent on disturbing the security and development of our country.

GEN. KALE KAYIHURA
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
30TH MARCH 2015

Letter of 5th November 2014 – ‘Criminal Investigation against Hon. Amama Mbabazi SC MP. Secretary General of the National Resistance Movement’

Mbabazi 4jpg

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: