Appeared in The New Vision on 10 Apr 2011

What do you say to people who think you are not as barking and biting as former IGG Faith Mwondha?
Well, there are different strategies of performing functions. The Europeans say there are different ways of killing a rat. My strategy is not to fight the corrupt by barking but by biting. The results of my biting are evidenced in the increased number of people taken to court for conviction. Jamwa, Akakanswa, and Tingey MP Hebert Sabira were all taken to court during my tenure. The list of casualties extends to district engineers, CAOs (District Administrative Officers), and even magistrates who have been convicted. There is now even a new trend where people taken to court quickly plead guilty because they know have overwhelming evidence against them. Those who have been trading forgeries including using forged academic documents have been convicted in courts and even told to refund the money they earned in the employment they obtained on false documents. Previously, we were sending them to police but police was always setting them free and that is why we resorted to the Anti-corruption courts to convict them.
It is two years since you took over as the IGG, what breakthroughs can you count?
We have increased our vigilance in handling corruption cases through increased investigation and prosecution. The number of cases going to court has increased lately and the rate of conviction in court has greatly increased. Secondly, we have been able to improve the terms and conditions of our staff members although they are not yet better paid as they deserve. We have further strengthened our working relationships with other Anti-corruption institutions within and outside the country. Fighting corruption requires collective effort; so the IG cannot effectively fight the war alone. We have also made a breakthrough in purchasing a plot of land to construct our headquarters. I am sure in the next financial year we shall begin to construct. But for all these achievements, I cannot say I have done it alone. It is a result of team work although under my leadership.
Where is the plot located?
It is along Clement Hill next to the Prime Minister’s office
Apart from pursuing those who have already stolen the funds, are there any preventive measures you are employing to stop corruption?
Of course prevention of corruption depends on the strategy of a particular institution but legislation is also prevention. For instance, we have procurement laws in place to prevent methods that would lead to loss of public funds. I think what matters most is effective enforcement of the laws. Once there is effective enforcement of the laws, people will be scared away from corruption. But we are also promoting public awareness about the dangers of corruption and educate the young generation about the values of integrity and transparency. For me, the bedrock is effective enforcement of the laws.
Has the IG developed a mechanism to blacklist the corruption culprits so that they cannot be employed in other organizations?
We have no black book. So, we do not blacklist, but we make information about people convicted through our parliamentary report and website. Those interested in these reports can check on our website and our parliamentary reports.
What have you done about the public outcry on corruption in the judiciary?
We have mainly done three things. One, we have arrested and prosecuted those accused of engaging in corruption like three magistrates I mentioned. We have outlined their corrupt tendencies in our parliamentary reports. We have also engaged the judiciary through workshops and conferences. In these conferences, I have been telling the judges about corruption within their quarters. I usually remind them about the findings of the National Integrity Survey which established that the judiciary is one of the most corrupt sectors. As such, the judiciary has stepped up their internal mechanisms to check corruption within their quarters. Compliance with the judicial code of conduct has been strengthened through their Judicial Integrity Committee.
It is now one year since President Museveni consented to the Whistle Blowers Bill into law, how helpful has it been to you so far in executing your mandate of investigating and prosecuting the corrupt?
Well, it is difficult to say. I have received so many complaints which means people are well versed with it. As a result, the number of cases reported to us have increased.
Can you mention any special cases you are handling which arose from a whistle blower?
I do not have a specific case in mind, but they are many.
To what extent has the Leadership Code Act helped in prosecuting public officials with ill-gotten wealth?
The Act requires leaders to declare their income, assets, and liabilities. It also provides a minimum standard of behaviour for public servants. If a leader is found with wealth that is not commensurate with his income, the excess property can be confiscated by the state.
Is there any leader whose wealth you have confiscated as a result of that?
It’s a challenge that the Leadership Code Act has not been strictly enforced in that area of confiscating wealth. For instance, we investigated and found out that the wealth of the principal accountant of the health ministry Nestor Gasasira was extremely in excess of what his income is. However, when we made a report that his excess property be confiscated, he went to court and challenged us in court that we did not give him a fair hearing and unfortunately court exonerated him saying we had not given him a fair hearing. So, courts have been also frustrating our work. There is another case where the High Court gave an absolved another culprit on basis of the same claim of fair hearing yet in all these cases we always have thorough overwhelming evidence.
What causes the courts to deviate from your verdict?
What the courts consider fair hearing is for the culprit to bring his own defence and we also bring witnesses. This complicates our work because it is rare to get people to volunteer as witnesses even when they had given you information. But the courts get it wrong, our job is to investigate and get information out of which we give a correct verdict after giving a culprit fair hearing. Another example where the judiciary frustrated us was the case of John Ken Lukyamuzi. He appealed and the Supreme Court ruled that the Inspectorate of Government cannot enforce the Leadership Code Act to prosecute somebody when the leadership Tribunal is not there. I think the court was right because a provisional law for the establishment of a Leadership Code Tribunal has not yet been passed by parliament. No. The Supreme Court got it wrong. In article 234, the constitution gives three provisions. And even article 225 (1)d) clearly states that the Leadership Code Act shall be enforced by the Inspectorate of Government. Actually, concerning Lukyamuzi’s case, while the Supreme Court got it wrong, the Constitutional Court got it right. The Constitutional Court ruled that in the absence of the Leadership Code Tribunal, the IG can enforce the LCA and make a final verdict.
What now do you think is the solution to the contradictions between those courts for the smooth execution of your mandate?
I think the solution now lies in the need for parliament to pass the Leadership Code Tribunal law so that the Tribunal takes the full responsibility of adjudicating on leaders who breach the Leadership Code Act. In the meantime, there has been a new development of through the enactment of the Anti-Corruption Act. This for example is helping us in handling cases like illicit (unlawful) enrichment, conflict of interest, Nepotism, and Sectarianism. So, for such offenses, we shall take the path to the Anti-Corruption Court to prosecute leaders who commit these offenses. So, the alternative I have improvised in the time being is that if I get a leader will ill-gotten wealth, I will take him for conviction in the Anti-Corruption Court and after conviction; I will again ask the court to confiscate his ill-gotten wealth. But there was conflict of interest by the Defence Minister John Patrick Amama Mbabazi in the NSSF’s purchase of the Temangalo land yet you seem to have exonerated him. Doesn’t that confirm what Justice Katsusi said that you only go for the small fish? You are the one who thinks there was conflict of interest. When you look at the definition of conflict of interest under the Anti-Corruption Act, you find it difficult to prosecute Mbabazi.
Does that mean you abandoned that case?
It was handled before I took over as the IGG. But I remember it was handled by the executive. The conclusion was that the fault was with the management of NSSF not Mbabazi.
But I remember the NSSF report had been passed over by parliament to your (IG) office for action. What did you do about it?
Personally I did not handle that case. But the President handled the matter. That is why there was a reshuffle in the management of NSSF as new managers took over. By the time I took over, it was a closed chapter. Mbabazi had been exonerated.
How many cases involving a leader whose wealth is in excess of his income?
They are few. We have so far handled two cases involving illicit enrichment.
Which are those two?
The one of the Ministry of Health Principal Accountant, Nestor Gasasira and Damian Akankwasa, the former director of National Forestry Authority (NFA). For these two, we had to use the Anti-Corruption Court.
Apart from Cheye and Jamwa, how many corrupt public officials you have successfully prosecuted?
They are many. There is honourable Sabira, the people who mismanaged East Acholi Cooperative Union. Government had compensated the Union with 1b but the managers of the Union failed to account for sh400m and they were sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and refund the money. There are three magistrates who were convicted although one of them died before serving the sentence. The conviction of Jamwa was a good precedent because in the verdict, the judge also ruled that Jamwa should not be employed in any public office for 10 years. Making employability part of the judgment is a good move. We are happy with it.
What are some of the cases that are still ongoing?
We have many of them like the one of one of former NSSF Board chairman Geoffrey Onegi Obel. The cases of Mike Mukura and Jimmy Muhwezi are still pending. We are still pursuing them. We have overwhelming evidence which will be used to convict them. They have been playing delaying tactics through various appeals to courts but they will eventually be dealt with.
There are reports that some of your staff members are tainted and others sabotage the process to fight the corrupt. How immune is the Inspectorate of Government from corruption?
No body has brought any accusation of anyone who is tainted or who is sabotaging our activities to my attention. IG is an independent institution with our appointment board based here. If such cases arise, our appointment board can handle them through our disciplinary process.
Why is the IG also getting infested with a disease notorious with the Uganda Police of taking so long on investigations about cases?
It is not our fault. It is the workload that is too much for us. IG has got a very wide mandate of investigating and prosecuting cases of corruption across the country. Article 225 of the constitution tells us to investigate any act of corruption by a public officer any officer. Anybody who gets a problem in office runs to us and we get overwhelmed by the cases. If we had the capacity we would be appearing in court on daily basis. We get a lot of complaints of various nature. The size of the institution in terms of human resource is not commensurate to the mandate given to the institution. That is what causes the backlog of cases and that is what delays investigation. Even the financial allocations are not enough. There are moments when we have to investigate a certain case but when there is know to facilitate it and we have to keep waiting for a release.
Have you carried out a thorough study to establish why Ugandans are corrupt?
No. We have not because it is not our core activity. Our core activity is to fight corruption through carrying out investigations and prosecutions. For now, we give/make recommendations where find weak systems of administration which create loopholes for the corrupt to steal public funds.
Drawing from your investigations, which are the major ways you have discovered through which public funds are siphoned?
For instance, in the case of the East Acholi Cooperative Union, they gave false accountabilities for the funds and that is a very common in many public offices. That is why we have resorted to prosecution for both abuse of office, and causing financial loss. Embezzlement is not easy to prove but causing a financial loss is easy to prove.
Any other ways through which money is swindled?
Others include shoddy work which is not worth the money allocated. This is so common in public works. Others are deliberate delays in offering services until a person has been given a bribe. Perpetual adjournments in courts of law and delayed judgment aimed at creating an escape route for the culprit. There is a constitutional provision that after a case has been heard a judgment should be made within 60 days but many judges do not follow that.
Who are some of the top ministers you are currently investigating?
No one. Even if they were there, we would not tell because we do not to pre-empt investigations going on.