Connect with us

The Lawyer

Why would Mulyagonja leave an UGX37m IGG job to take an UGX20m judiciary position?

Published

on

Lt Col Edith Nakalema the head of the Statehouse Anti-Corruption Unit and the IGG, Mrs Irene Mulyagonja, attending the 9th Commonwealth Regional Conference for Heads of Anti-Corruption Agencies in Africa at Lake Victoria Serena, Kigo. At the event, hosted by the IGG, the president, told Mulyagonja’s guests that due to persistent failures by the IGG’s office, he had been forced to appoint, Nakalema to oversee the IGG- an embarrassment by all means.

When the hunter is hunted, then the hunting game is over-so they say; but it also appears, for the Inspectorate of Government, when an inspector is appointed to inspect the inspectorate, then it is a signal that the watchdog game for the Inspector of General of Government (IGG), Mrs. Irene Mulyagonja, is over or could soon be over.

It is therefore not surprising that she has dusted her CV and is job hunting- just in case.

When her 2nd term expires in 2020, Mrs Irene Mulyagonja Kakooza is ineligible for reappointment.

News broke, last week that the IGG, along with twenty four (24) other individuals, has been shortlisted to fill vacant positions at the Constitutional Court/Court of Appeal.

The leaked list, has since been confirmed as authentic by two sources, speaking to this reporter in confidence.

The Judicial Service Commission in March Advertised 3 openings for Constitutional Court/Court of Appeal justices and 5 openings for High Court judges. According to our sources, applicants for the Justice of Appeal/Constitutional Court will sit interviews between 20th and 24th of May 2019.

Some of the prominent names with whom Justice Mulyagonja will be competing include: High Court Judges Lawrence Gidudu, Henry Peter Adonyo, Henrietta Wolayo, and Damalie Lwanga Nantudde and Rugadya Atwooki.

She will also be competing with Christopher Gashirabake, the Deputy Solicitor General, Justice Billy Kainamura the deputy head of the Commercial Division of the High Court, and Raphael Baku, the former deputy IGG.

Twice public rebuked by the president

The IGG whose term of office has been mired in controversy- characterized by case backlogs, increased corruption perceptions and some allegations of her covering up for her friends, has been twice subjected to public scolding by the president on a number of high profile public events- in her presence.

Mr. Christopher Gashirabake, the Deputy Solicitor General is one of the contenders for the Constitutional Court positions.

The first time the president publicly chided the IGG was during the June 6th 2018, State of the Nation Address.

“What happened to the IGG? Why don’t the victims of corruption report those incidences of corruption to the IGG,” asked an angry Museveni.

“If it is not working, why should we keep it then? The IGG should reflect on this. Are her staff credible? Why does the public not trust that institution? We need answers,” he said.

Weeks later, the president would appoint, his former aide, Lt. Col Edith Nakalema to head a Statehouse Anti-Corruption Unit.

Just last week, the president yet again publicly scolded her for failing to fight corruption, and this time said that her office has been infiltrated by wrong elements.

Ironically, Mr. Museveni was speaking at  the 9th Commonwealth Regional Conference for Heads of Anti-Corruption Agencies in Africa at Lake Victoria Serena, Kigo- an event, hosted by the IGG. The president, told Mulyagonja’s guests that due to persistent failures by the IGG’s office, he had been forced to appoint, Lt Col Edith Nakalema to oversee the IGG.

“I think she (IGG) was infiltrated, slowly by some groups,” he said adding that this is the reason he had to appoint a “watchman (Nakalema) to watch the watchman (IGG).”

This was an embarrassment to her.  

Last year, when Lt. Col. Nakalema was appointed, the IGG said she was happy to work along with her; but the insistence by the president that Nakalema had been appointed not to assist the IGG, but rather to inspect the inspectorate, seems to be the last straw that broke the IGG’s back.

To make matters worse, it was recently reported in the newspapers that Nakalema’s  Statehouse Anti-Corruption Unit, was probing some members of management and the board of the Inspectorate of Government (IG) for alleged corruption as well as illegal and irregular recruitments.

Is Mulyagonja being smart?

Mulyagonja (56) who held the position of deputy head of the Commercial Division of the High Court, before her appointment as IGG in 2012, on April 12th 2019, started her 3rd year of her second term and is ineligible for reappointment when her current term expires in 2020.

At 56 years of age, she is also 4 years shy of the official retirement age of 60 for public servants. However, judges and justices have higher retirement caps- 65 and 70 years respectively.

It is therefore not surprising that she is considering leaving her UGX37m a month job, to take on a Constitutional Court Justice job where she will earn UGX19.9 million.

According to official sources in the Judiciary, a Constitutional Court/Court of Appeal Justice earns an UGX10.5m salary. They also get an additional 40% of their basic pay as professional allowances (UGX4, 200,000) as well as a UGX5, 000,000 housing allowance. They are also entitled to UGX200, 000 as medical allowance.

But if the Uganda Judicial Officers Association (UJOA) get their salary increase wish (and president Museveni has promised it to be soon), salaries for Constitutional Court/Court of Appeal Justices could soon be increased to UGX33,000,000.

A possible higher pay, increased levels of autonomy and increased retirement age; looks like Mrs Mulyagonja could be making a smart move, but that is if she gets the job,

If she however fails to get the job, she now risks higher levels of distrust from the appointing authority (president) as well as her staff- further adding to her misery.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Commercial Justice

Sebalu & Lule Advocates barred from representing BoU and dfcu bank against Sudhir over, unprofessionalism and conflict of interest

Published

on

Justice Paul Gadenya of the Commercial Court, has dismissed city law firm, Sebalu & Lule Advocates from representing dfcu bank in a case in which billionaire businessman Dr.Sudhir Ruparelia is suing the bank over breach of contract.

The commercial court judge found that the law firm broke several rules in the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations and therefore found them in conflict.

CMS’s lawyers, Joseph Kyazze and Nasser Sserunjogi of Magna Advocates being congratulated by the Ruparelias

In miscellaneous application No.1047 of 2018 (Crane Management Services vs. Sebalu & Lule Advocates and Dfcu Bank Limited), the businessman, accused the law firm of conflict of interest and breach of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations, since the law firm that was previously CMS’ lawyers and as such in possession of confidential information would use this privileged information against CMS.

In an affidavit sworn by Rajiv Ruparelia, one the directors of CMS, the real estate firm contended that Sebalu & Lule Advocates had overtime received instructions from CMS “including instructions to cause a thorough review of the applicants then existing tenancies which form the foundation” of the main suit.

The Ruparelias address the media outside the Commercial Court

In the main suit (HCCS No.109 of 2018), CMS sued dfcu for severally breaching various tenancy agreements in respect to 13 properties in Kampala and Mbale. CMS is demanding for USD385,728 and UGX2,998,558,624 as rental arrears. This is before interest, general damages, interest on general damages and costs of the suit.    

 “In view of the advocate-client relationship between the applicant (Crane Management Services Ltd) and the 1st respondent (Sebalu & Lule advocates), the latter’s continued participation as defence counsel for the 2nd respondent (Dfcu bank) herein, which is the defendant in High Court Civil Suit (HCCS) No. 109/2018 against the applicant/plaintiff, is prejudicial to the applicant’s head suit,” CMS’s petition reads in part. 

previous arrow
next arrow
previous arrownext arrow
Slider

CMS prayed that court issues a permanent injunction restraining the law firm from “appearing in and or acting as counsel for dfcu Limited in HCCS No 109 and all applications arising therefrom.”

Unprofessional and conflicted

Delivering his ruling, Justice Paul Gadenya said that Crane Management Services (CMS) had successfully proved that the law firm are “in possession of confidential information which is relevant, current and related to the head suit in HCCS No 109 of 2018 what would make them conflicted to act as counsel for the 2nd respondent against the applicant.”

“For the record, the engagement of the 1st respondent (Sebalu & Lule) as counsel for the 2nd respondent (dfcu) violated Regulation 4, 9 and 10 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations,” he further ruled, in a ruling read for him by the Commercial Court registrar Festo Nsenga.

“The application is allowed with the following orders: an injunction shall issue against the 1st respondent from representing the 2nd respondent in all matters in HCCS 109 of 2018. The respondents will pay the costs of this application,” he ordered.

Rule No.4 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations stipulates that advocates shouldn’t prejudice former clients.

Rule 9 forbids an advocate from “appearing before any court or tribunal in any matter in which he or she has reason to believe that he or she will be required as a witness to give evidence, whether verbally or by affidavit; and if, while appearing in any matter, it becomes apparent that he or she will be required as a witness to give evidence whether verbally or by affidavit, he or she shall not continue to appear.”

Rule 10 stops advocates from using their privileged relationship with their clients to their own personal advantage. It requires advocates to disclose to their clients any personal interest that they may have in transactions being conducted on behalf of those clients.

In yet another big blow to Sebalu Lule & Advocates, the judge also agreed with CMS’s lawyers that the law firm can also not represent Bank of Uganda and or Crane Bank in Civil Suit No. HCCS 493 of 2017 (Sudhir Ruparelia vs. MMAKS Advocates, AF Mpanga Advocates (Bowmans Uganda), Crane Bank Limited (In Receivership) and Bank Of Uganda)  since CMS, the Ruparelia Group and Crane Bank are “one and the same.”

Sebalu & Lule were hired by Bank of Uganda to replace MMAKS Advocates, AF Mpanga Advocates (Bowmans Uganda), who were kicked off the case by Commercial Court Justice Hon Justice David K Wangutusi in December 2017, also over conflict of interest and breach of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.

In yet another big blow to Sebalu Lule & Advocates, the judge also agreed with CMS’s lawyers that the law firm can also not represent Bank of Uganda and or Crane Bank in Civil Suit No. HCCS 493 of 2017 (Sudhir Ruparelia vs. MMAKS Advocates, AF Mpanga Advocates (Bowmans Uganda), Crane Bank Limited (In Receivership) and Bank Of Uganda)  since CMS, the Ruparelia Group and Crane Bank are “one and the same.”

Sebalu & Lule were hired by Bank of Uganda to replace MMAKS Advocates, AF Mpanga Advocates (Bowmans Uganda), who were kicked off the case by Commercial Court Justice Hon Justice David K Wangutusi in December 2017, also over conflict of interest and breach of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.

The dismissal of the three top law firms which are expected to be personifications of professionalism, is not only a commercial loss as the cases are believed to be worth several billions in professional fees, but is also a major reputational blow to the two law firms, each of which is affiliated to international law firms.

MMAKS Advocates is a member of Africa Legal Networks (ALN), an independent alliance of leading law firms in Africa while Bowmans Uganda is part of Bowmans Law one of Africa’s biggest law firms.

Sebalu & Lule is part of DLA Piper Africa Group.

Continue Reading

Ad3

Ad1

Ad2

Now Trending

error: Content is protected !!