Ex-NAGRC boss sh1.3b animal semen case resumes

_________________

The hearing of a case in which former National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank (NAGRC&DB) bosses, including Dr Charles Lagu, are accused of fraudulently procuring animal semen worth sh1.3b resumes today, April 22, at the Anti-Corruption Court in Kampala.

Other accused persons include procurement officer Eziekel Phillip Mukani, farm manager Clement Nuwamanya, veterinary officer Dr Patrick Mawadri, deputy technical manager (production) Dr Wilfred Anthony Ntaate, Tadeo Mbazira, Charles Ezati, Benda Katali, Mathias Wakulira, and Yasinta Nabukenya.

The case was recently allocated to Justice Lawrence Gidudu, following the elevation of Justice Margaret Tibulya, who had been handling the case, to the Court of Appeal.

In the previous session, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) senior officer in charge of procurement audit and investigations, Andrew Emejeit, told the court that the Solicitor General did not clear the sh1.3b contract between the Government and Kibbubu Agro Suppliers Limited for the supply and delivery of animal semen, as required by law.

“The entity based on a contract that was not cleared by the Solicitor General,” he testified.

The witness told the court that they were unable to establish whether the entity made an advance payment in respect of the contract, because procurement was generically provided as a supply for semen without providing any reference to the request for the release of funds approved by the accounting officer.

Emejeit said he investigated the matter following a request from the Criminal Investigations Directorate to review the procurement for the supply and delivery of semen to the NAGRC&DB by Kibbubu, in a letter dated May 6, 2020.

He investigated the matter with the assistance of Daniel Lukyamuzi and Olga Kanyange.

Emejeit said some of the documents they relied on during the investigation included a form file initiating the procurement, a memo requesting approval for the procurement, the evaluation report, and evidence of advance payment, among others.

In his findings, the witness noted that the NAGRC&DB user department did not attach specifics for the delivery of semen, contrary to regulation 3(1) of the PPDA Rules.

The section stipulates that the initiation of a procurement requirement shall include clearly defined terms of reference, the estimated value of the consultancy services, and confirmation of availability of funding.

According to the witness, the entity was placed at risk of committing funds without understanding what was being procured, which can result in purchasing supplies that may not meet the requirement.

Although the sh1.3b contract was signed by Lagu, Emejeit stated that there was no evidence to indicate that a price assessment in the market had been done, which placed the entity at risk of procuring supplies at an inflated cost.

The witness told the court that the procurement of animal semen from Kibbubu did not meet the threshold for the use of the direct procurement method because other suppliers were available on the market.

“Kibbubu was not the manufacturer of the supplies,” Emejeit said.

The accused are battling charges of abuse of office, corruption, fraudulent false accounting, and forgery.