The republic of uganda in the supreme court of uganda at kampala

INCUMBENCY AND USE OF STATE PRIVILEGES BY 1ST RESPONDENT

Another bundle of complaints concerns INCUMBENCY and the use of state privileges by the first Respondent, which privileges are considered to be disadvantages to the Petitioner. In his main affidavit, the Petitioner referred to the incumbent’s privilege of use of PPU and the Army. In the subsequent affidavit of 5/4/2001, the petitioner amplified this and referred to the various privileges, which arise from being an incumbent President. Apart from naming the date of the meeting between the first Respondent and teachers on 5/3/2001, the petitioner did not give dates on which contracts for roads were signed, salaries revised. But dates are not material, as they are not disputed.

The use of incumbency includes abolition of health cost sharing in Government health units and units run by Local Governments. It is true that Hon. Kiyonga Minister of Health in his affidavit of 7/4/2001, states that government has been engaged in debating the question of the abolition of health cost sharing for the poor. However the petitioner’s complaint is specific. The abolition was announced, strategically, during the prime campaign time. Increase of salaries for medical workers, as well as the offer to increase pay to teachers was also made during the same prime period of the campaign period. Moreover, for the teachers, it was announced at a special gathering of the teachers’ conference in Kampala (on 5/3/2001). Hon. Mukiibi attached to her affidavit a copy of the budget speech of the Minister of Finance for 2000/2001 financial year. Paragraphs 78, 79, 80, and 81 of the speech discussed proposals about the increment of salaries and salary arrears and pensions and categories of teachers and middle rank professionals. These paragraphs are vague in terms of when the implementation of salary increases or revisions would take place. The complaint though is not against the increase of salaries or pensions. It is the mode of announcing, which is questioned. Now the reasoning for the complaint appears to me to be that if the Ministries of Public Service and of Finance have budgeted for these salary increments, the minister should have implemented the budgetary provisions instead of causing it to be announced during the peak of the Presidential election campaign. At such campaigns, the announcements take on a new face, to wit, that it is the 1st Respondent who has caused the payments to be made and therefore voters should be grateful.

The other complaint is that the first Respondent, as incumbent President, caused his campaign agent, the Hon. Engineer John Nasasira, Minister of Works, Transport & Communications, to hurriedly and publicly, in the presence of voters, sign contracts for the tarmacking or upgrading of several roads, namely Busunju-Kiboga, Kiboga-Hoima, Arua/Pakwach and Ntungamwo-Rukungiri Roads. The Hon. John Nasasira in his affidavit denied signing the contracts but admitted that he attended the signing by Permanent Secretary. He admits that contracts were signed publicly, as it is always done. The Roads in issue are included in the 10 years country programme which begun in 1996. It is the public signing of the contracts in the public and during the peak campaign period, which is questioned. There are no explanations given why the signing was done during the campaigning.

Dr. K. Kiyonga who is Minister for Health, Hon. Mukiibi Minister of State for Public Service and Major Gen. Jeje Odongo and the former/IGP and others have sworn affidavits defending the decisions and actions taken by the Government or by the first Respondent during the campaign period. I think that management of public affairs in a democracy needs to be done fairly and in a transparent manner. Excessive exploitation of incumbency certainly amounts to unfairness. In my view here was an example of unfairness.