By Our Reporters
In two letters to Speaker Rebecca Kadaga, BoU Deputy Governor Dr. Louis Kasekende opens up on what his Baganda co-ethnics have been whispering about implying he now feels the ongoing COSASE inquiry has been hijacked to target and professionally destroy him personally. Kasekende, whose predicament remains of great concern to officials at Mengo, has for long been one of the most promising and most illustrious bureaucrats and public servants the central region ever produced since independence. Now there are concerns that the ongoing witch-hunt is aimed at soiling and discrediting him in order to diminish his suitability to become BoU governor after Prof Emmanuel Mutebile. Indeed he has lately been discredited during and prior the inquiry proceedings of Abdul Katuntu-led COSASE. In his two carefully worded letters (of 18th and 19th December), Kasekende refers to allegations Aruu County MP Odonga Otto was on 13th December permitted to make against him including falsely portraying him as a greedy dubious public official owning more than 75 land titles. In his letters, Kasekende calls on the Speaker to investigate the motive behind Otto’s falsehoods with a possibility of holding him to account. He implores the Speaker to act because Otto’s utterances (basically reproducing stuff that has been used before) border on defamation against which he is entitled to a remedy and protection. Kasekende says on 13th December, Otto was allowed to table documents containing very serious allegations including accusing him of influencing the 2007 heavily (93%) discounted sale of the closed banks’ residual loans to a Mauritius company called Nile River Acquisition Company Ltd yet at that time he was abroad working for AfDB and was therefore never part of people in authority positions at BoU. It was also alleged that Edith Kasekende (his spouse) received Shs1.9bn from MMAKS law firm (ostensibly on his behalf) as appreciation for being retained as transaction advisors in the resolution of JPAM’s NBC and Crane Bank. That China Railway, which built BoU’s Masaka Currency Center, paid a Shs1.6bn sweetener through the same Edith. That Tororo district LG deposited $71,000 on Kasekende’s personal account and that he inappropriately transferred land titles to the names of his driver a one Moses Musiitwa. Otto supported his utterances by tabling copies of bank statements, land transfer forms, land titles and lands ministry search statements. Kasekende says some of these were forgeries and Standard Chartered Bank, which is supposed to have originated them, has since issued public notices denying their authenticity. He says whereas COSASE has shared with him all the documents on which Otto based his utterances, they are yet to do the same regarding existence of 75 land titles Otto said are registered in his names. He says even the information Otto tabled purporting to corroborate the balances on his bank accounts and those jointly operated with his wife was based on falsehoods and forgeries. “It’s very unfortunate that such documents were submitted to support such serious allegations against me,” Kasekende asserts adding that the account names and bank branches disclosed by Otto are all untrue. He adds the entries on Otto’s bank statements aren’t reflective of operations or any of the transactions that has ever occurred on his or joint bank accounts. He says his wife’s and his own bank accounts have never had any credit entries from MMAKS, China Railway or even Tororo district as was alleged by Otto.
Kasekende implores Kadaga to verify all this with SCB which actually issued public statements in New Vision denying existence of the same. He makes two demands namely expunging Otto’s documents from the COSASE record and for also the Speaker to investigate why such forged documents were successfully tendered at the COSASE proceedings. He copies his letters to IGG, Mutebile, Abdul Katuntu and Director CIID Grace Akullo
THE 2ND LETTER;
On the next day 19th December, Kasekende sent another missive to Rebecca Kadaga following up on the previous one. In this one he addresses the issue of the 75 land titles Otto said are registered in his names whereas not. He says Otto’s “documents contain a litany of overt falsehoods” and says the land referred to is “neither owned nor known” to him. He says many of these are owned and registered in names of his relatives and protests the misrepresentation by Otto. He says some of Otto’s 75 titles resulted from multiple entries pertaining the same piece of land. He gives a list of 12 properties which he says he neither owns nor knows anything about. He also refers to another 11 properties which don’t belong to him. He reveals to Kadaga details why these aren’t his. He adds that 9 of the land titles belong to his brother Herman Kasekende, a gainfully employed adult with capacity and right to own property. Three titles related to land owned by his other brother Martin Kasekende and another 2 by his late father Benedict Kasekende. This now constitutes the family ancestral burial grounds jointly owned by all family members. Two of the land titles are owned by his sister Harriet Kasekende and land owned by his gainfully employed (advocate) son George Kasekende was also included and attributed to him and even listed twice. That Otto’s list also has two titles referring to Edith’s previously owned land that was sold 13 years ago. He says another 12 titles (misrepresented as 25) belong to Moses Musiitwa who has never been his driver as alleged by Otto. He says all he knows about Musiitwa is that he once sold to him 1.4 acres of land upcountry which Musiitwa has since divided into 12 plots. He says he is constrained to disclose much about those he admits to own because of the ongoing verification of the same by the IGG who is verifying assets declarations of other BoU officials. He says besides forged documents, Otto has made “a host of several defamatory statements.” He concludes thus: “I therefore pray that you consider the said defamatory statements and provide any redress you may find appropriate under the rules of Parliament that regulate the conduct of members of Parliament.”
