Museveni denies role in Bukenya case

By Steven Candia    

President Yoweri Museveni has  said he had no hand in the recent dropping of criminal charges by the IGG against former vice president Prof. Gilbert Bukenya.

Speaking at a joint press briefing with his visiting Togolese counterpart Faure Gnassingbe at the State House Entebbe, Museveni noted that comments earlier attributed to him before the charges were dropped that Bukenya had no case to answer were merely a personal observation.

He also dismissed claims of interference of the judiciary by the executive in the fight against corruption saying the two operated independent of each other.

Referring to the comments attributed to as remarks made during a private family meeting during a political party caucus meeting and in cabinet, Museveni blamed spies who he said are in the habit prying into private meetings.

“If you are in the habit of spying into families and go and blow it up, you cannot stop me from talking to my family,” he said, adding that his observations later turned out to true.

Last week, the IGG withdrawn a court case in which former VP Prof. Gilbert Bukenya wasy charged with abuse of office in regard to the 2007 CHOGM summit.

Mid this year the state dragged Bukenya to court on charges of fraud, alleging that he benefited from a $3.9m (£2.4m) deal to supply cars to the 2007 Commonwealth summit in Kampala.

According to the IGG, Bukenya who chaired the CHOGM Cabinet subcommittee between July 2006 and November 2007 in Kampala, unlawfully influenced and directed the award of the contract for the supply of 80 units of BMW cars and police outrider motorcycles for CHOGM to Motorcare in total disregard of the regulations governing public procurement.

Bukenya is still jointly charged in another CHOGM related case with Motorcare Uganda, a limited liability company that was awarded the Shs9.4 billion CHOGM contract to supply 204 executive vehicles for the commonwealth summit in Kampala in 2007.

However, the company senior officials have never appeared before court as earlier ordered by the Magistrates court, arguing that they will answer the charges before High Court when trial starts.