By Simon K. Turibamwe
The outgoing COSASE chairman Abdul Katuntu has secretly written to both Justine Bagyenda and Dr. Louis Kasekende owning up and apologizing to them for the contents of the very defamatory documents Aruu county MP Odonga Otto tabled during the bank of Uganda proceedings.
On 13th December 2018, Otto laid documents which he claimed related to land and other property he accused the two officials of owning.
Otto insinuated that the two fraudulently obtained these properties especially land by virtual of their positions at BOU and to him some of these are properties that belonged to borrowers from some of the commercial banks that BOU closed.
When Otto tabled his fake documents, the two officials cried out while pleading their innocence saying these properties were not theirs. Speaking in defense of Kasekende, Tamale Mirundi later claimed that Odonga Otto was being used by city mafias to destroy Kasekende’s reputation. Some members of the public claimed that a female MP on COSASE who is very influential in the country’s politics is the one who got these disputed documents and distributed to different MPs in order to demonize Kasekende.
There was public outrage with many wondering why Katuntu was allowing Otto, Elijah Okupa and others to abuse Parliamentary immunity by recklessly defaming people appearing before COSASE.
In the end, Katuntu was prompted by the speaker not to admit those documents to become record of Parliament/COSASE. After Kasekende and Bagyenda wrote to the speaker about this injustice, Katuntu created a three-member committee to further investigate the source and the authenticity of Otto’s documents.
KATUNTU APOLOGY
In his letters dated 21st February separately written to both Kasekende and Bagyenda, Katuntu acknowledges that his own COSASE investigations have established that Otto’s documents were nothing but sham. He explains that most of the documents the controversial MP tabled relating to the duo’s land ownership, banking and mobile money transactions cast them in bad light yet they aren’t the owners of the things Otto alleged. He says on contacting the Commissioner Land Registration, it was discovered that of the 14 land titles Otto attributed to Bagyenda only 5 actually belonged to her. Two of them were obtained through inheritance from her hubby Cliff Bagyenda and that none of them was obtained from any of the closed commercial banks as had originally been implied by Otto’s utterances. The bank statements Otto tabled too were dismissed as sham by the banks he purported to have issued them regarding Bagyenda’s balances and bank transactions. Katuntu says they contacted the banks and their response corroborated denials Bagyenda had made earlier. He says consequently, the committee expunged and didn’t rely on any of Otto’s documents in their final report which he invites Bagyenda and Kasekende to peruse for themselves. Repentant Katuntu’s conduct has prompted some legal minds to consider whether its not high time to petition the Constitutional Court for some reference proceedings to inquire into the suitability of the continued reliance on the doctrine of Parliamentary immunity as MPs continue defaming people leaving them with no remedy at all. To ensure the matter remains confidential, lest it embarrasses COSASE, Katuntu ensured his letters weren’t copied to anyone. Not even the Speaker to whom the duo complained.
THE KASEKENDE CASE
Writing to Kasekende on the same day, Katuntu discloses that the COSASE sub committee had interfaced with Commissioner Land Registration and the concerned financial institutions (Banks) and made the following findings absolving Kasekende. That out of the 73 land properties that Otto attributed to him, Kasekende only owned 13. The rest were mere exaggerations by Otto to the extent that 60 of the titles he put on Kasekende actually belong to other people.
The other conclusion Katuntu makes is that none of the 13 genuine Kasekende owns has ever been deposited as security in any of the closed banks where Otto’s actions implied that the deputy governor obtained them from as a result of the resolution process. On the 40 titles involving one Musitwa, Katuntu writes as follows: “The titles registered in the names of Musitwa were a product of a 1.4-acre property sold in its entirety by you to the said Musitwa, a real estate agent. The only reason there are 14 land titles is because after buying the 1.4 acre piece of land, Musitwa mutated it into small plots for sale and as is the practice in Uganda, upon mutation, the resultant plots first return in the names of the original registered proprietors as opposed to the names of the intended beneficiaries.” Katuntu says the banks Otto named saying they had originated the documents were contacted and proved that the documents were not authentic. He ends by informing Kasekende that the COSASE committee did not in any way consider Otto’s documents having found them sham. This is not the first time that a dilemma arises out of an MP abusively hiding behind the doctrine of Parliamentary immunity to disrepute public officials who are being investigated. At the beginning of the 9th Parliament, MP Gerald Karuhanga relied on the same doctrine and recklessly implicated top officials including Sam Kutesa accusing them of accepting bribes from oil companies. One only hopes that a public-spirited lawyer or Ugandan finally moves the constitutional court to make some pronouncements on how far MPs can go disparaging people’s names and hard-earned reputation while hiding behind the doctrine of Parliamentary immunity. For comments, call or text 0752510225.
