Selective
prosecution cannot eliminate corruption
According to the National
Strategy to Fight Corruption and Rebuild Ethics and Integrity in Public Office
2004 -07, corruption in Uganda
has become endemic and systemic. The Annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI) by
Transparency International shows that Uganda
is among the top 10 most corrupt countries in the world and only third in Africa. Out of 178 countries, Uganda was ranked 127th
i.e. the 51st most corrupt in the world.
During the induction ceremony of new
MPs, the Inspector General of Government (IGG), Raphael Baku, was tasked to
explain why not all officials implicated in the CHOGM report were prosecuted
for their involvement in the misuse of public funds. MPs asked the IGG to
resign for handling the alleged CHOGM offenders in a selective manner and that
his decisions were not independent from the Executive.
This debate followed the prosecution
of former Vice President Prof. Gilbert Bukenya, who had been charged before the
Anti-Corruption Court
with abuse of office and flouting of the PPDA guidelines during the procurement
of executive cars for the CHOGM meeting. Intriguingly, the Inspectorate of
Government exonerated Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi who had also been implicated
in the CHOGM report, for his role in the procurement of security communications
system for the 2007 meeting. The IGG claimed there was no evidence to implicate
Mbabazi and recommended his file to be closed.
It should not be forgotten that
we have witnessed this kind of selective prosecution before. Former Works
Ministry chief engineer Samson Bagonza was
tried and convicted by the Anti Corruption Court for causing the government a
financial loss of over sh1.6 billion, while former NSSF chief David Chandi Jamwa
was also convicted by the same court (and judge) for causing a financial loss
of sh3 billion. In the case of Jamwa, we all know that he had not been
implicated singly in financial mismanagement. Why did the others escape
prosecution?
We had also seen selective
application of the law in the eviction of former Mayor Nasser Sebaggala from
the official residence of the town clerk. Kampala City Council
Authority had not used its power to evict Gen. David Tinyefunza from the official
residence of the mayor in Kololo until hell broke lose and the General was finally evicted. This discriminative application of the law
raises one lingering question: what criteria are followed to prosecute some
officials while exonerating others?
Chapter Four of the Constitution
of Uganda provides that “all persons are
equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social
and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection
of the law[1]…”
As such selective prosecution of officials implicated in corruption scandals
violates the supreme law of the land.
During this same induction for
MPs, Kenyan Anti-Corruption Commission chief, Prof. PLO Lumumba, defended the
IGG’s decisions, stating that selective prosecution could be a deterrent for
junior officers against misusing public funds.
However, Justice Bosco Katutsi, while
sentencing Jamwa, opined: “Selective prosecution must be condemned because you
cannot simply pick one person and leave others. Selective prosecution is evil."
As an individual working for an organisation
that champions the fight against corruption and good governance, I believe that
it is the duty of government law enforcement institutions such as the Police,
the Directorate of Public Prosecutions and the IGG to restore public confidence
in their office. These institutions ought to remain independent! The fight
against corruption should be a deliberate government effort to rout the evil
that corruption is, and not to appease donors or settle political scores.
Justice Katutsi’s remarks are not only widely shared by Ugandans, but it has
formed a wide (but may be mistaken) belief that the State has sacrificed a less
significant NRM ‘insider’ to hoodwink donors that it ‘finally’ has the
political will to fight corruption.
The sooner we eliminate this discriminative and
evil-minded prosecution, the better. Otherwise, relying on selective
prosecution to eliminate corruption is akin to writing on water.
Very well argued...It seems that Justice (Rtd) Katutsi should be hired to head the IGG Department...however, i agree with Prof. PLO Lumumba...we cannot arrest all, and so, if we target a few prominient people, and make them an example, corruption will be a high risk, loew reward game, and the rest will be deterred...
ReplyDeleteHowever, on the issue of there not being evidence to implicate people like Mbabazi, I would like to propose that we use the Prof. Dr. Justice. knayeihamba's approach...that we should not prosecute corruption on basis of evidence, btu rather, we should proceed with a policy of VERY PUBLIC INQUIRY into the wealth of public officers...they should simply be put to notice, on a balance of probabilites, to explain how given that their salary is X, their wealth is 2X. The other X must be from corruption...in this manner, it will be able to 'get' Mbabazi, and any other officials, who 'may' have misused their oficers and caused loss to the government...
Once again, selection, mixed with shifting of burden, will be the ebst approach...!!!! But we mauy have to start with the president....
Ojijo is a bunch of solutions from Homa-Bay County, Kenya. (AHA Volunteer Public Speaker & Trainer (Financial Literacy, Personal (talent & career) Development & Political Leadership) Lawyer & Lecturer (eCommerce & eGovernance Law) Social Entrepreneur Author (19 Books) Poet Believer (Open Religion) Socialist)