Bujagali still necessary
Nov 05, 2003
NEW INFORMATION has emerged that a British firm of consultants tried to influence Members of Parliament on behalf of Norpak
NEW INFORMATION has emerged that a British firm of consultants tried to influence Members of Parliament on behalf of Norpak.
When Norpak hired Amisa Consultants in 1998, a bitter dispute was raging over whether Uganda’s next hydroelectric project should take place at Bujagali or Karuma Falls.
Amisa Consultants apparently offered inducements to MPs to support the Karuma Falls project in preference to Bujagali. Subsequently Veidekke, the parent company of Norpak, joined forces with AES on the Bujagali project and shelved its plans for Karuma.
Amisa then faxed Veidekke asking for a refund of its disbursements and for further funds to persuade MPs to switch their allegiance from Karuma to Bujagali. It is that fax which was uncovered by investigators looking into the Bujagali corruption allegations.
It was the payment of $10,000 into the account of Richard Kaijuka by Veidekke subsidiary Noricil that first caused the World Bank to withdraw funding support for the Bujagali dam.
It is unfortunate that Norpak is now involved in these further allegations of payments to MPs. However, this does not mean that AES itself was involved. AES only became involved because of the appointment of Veidekke as a sub-contractor on the Bujagali project.
More importantly, these allegations of wrongdoing do not alter the facts that the Bujagali site is perfect for a dam since hardly any land will be lost; that load-shedding will resume around 2006 if Bujagali is not built; and that without Bujagali it will be impossible to pursue rural electricification for the 96 per cent of Ugandans without access to electricity.
Uganda still needs the Bujagali dam. Government should continue to seek investors or contractors to complete the project.
When Norpak hired Amisa Consultants in 1998, a bitter dispute was raging over whether Uganda’s next hydroelectric project should take place at Bujagali or Karuma Falls.
Amisa Consultants apparently offered inducements to MPs to support the Karuma Falls project in preference to Bujagali. Subsequently Veidekke, the parent company of Norpak, joined forces with AES on the Bujagali project and shelved its plans for Karuma.
Amisa then faxed Veidekke asking for a refund of its disbursements and for further funds to persuade MPs to switch their allegiance from Karuma to Bujagali. It is that fax which was uncovered by investigators looking into the Bujagali corruption allegations.
It was the payment of $10,000 into the account of Richard Kaijuka by Veidekke subsidiary Noricil that first caused the World Bank to withdraw funding support for the Bujagali dam.
It is unfortunate that Norpak is now involved in these further allegations of payments to MPs. However, this does not mean that AES itself was involved. AES only became involved because of the appointment of Veidekke as a sub-contractor on the Bujagali project.
More importantly, these allegations of wrongdoing do not alter the facts that the Bujagali site is perfect for a dam since hardly any land will be lost; that load-shedding will resume around 2006 if Bujagali is not built; and that without Bujagali it will be impossible to pursue rural electricification for the 96 per cent of Ugandans without access to electricity.
Uganda still needs the Bujagali dam. Government should continue to seek investors or contractors to complete the project.