TOP
Wednesday,June 19,2019 20:03 PM
  • Home
  • Archive
  • Minority report on NSSF land purchase in Temangalo out

Minority report on NSSF land purchase in Temangalo out

By Vision Reporter

Added 1st January 1900 02:27 AM

The minority report of the standing committee on commissions, statutory authorities and state enterprises on the NSSF purchase of land in Temangalo was handed over to the Speaker of Parliament yesterday. The authors were Stephen Tashobya (Kajara), Godfrey Pereza Ahabwe (Rubanda East), Tress Buchanay

The minority report of the standing committee on commissions, statutory authorities and state enterprises on the NSSF purchase of land in Temangalo was handed over to the Speaker of Parliament yesterday. The authors were Stephen Tashobya (Kajara), Godfrey Pereza Ahabwe (Rubanda East), Tress Buchanayandi (Bufumbira South), Erisa Kaahwa Amooti (Buruuli), Rose Munyira Wabwire (Busia Woman) and James Kakooza (Kabula). The full report is below:


Mr Speaker sir, Hon Members of Parliament, it should be noted right from the outset that the Committee was not instructed by the House to consider the Temangalo land transaction matter. The investigation by the committee was prompted by media reports, consequent upon which NSSF Board and Management, as purchasers on one hand and Hon Amama Mbabazi and Mr Amos Nzeyi, as sellers on the other, as well as various parties, were invited to testify before the committee.
We acknowledge that under Rule 133(c), committees of parliament can assess and evaluate activities of Government and other bodies. We also know that under Rule 154(4), the committee is mandated to monitor the operations of any commission or authority.

Preliminary Objections
- Terms of Reference:

Ordinarily, Mr Speaker sir, where the House instructs a committee to handle a particular subject, and it does not set terms of reference, the committee sets out its own terms of reference at the commencement of its proceedings. In this case the committee did not determine its terms of reference right from the beginning. However, the terms of reference were mentioned casually by Hon Abdu Katuntu (whom the committee had co-opted as its lead counsel) in the course of Hon Amama Mbabazi’s testimony on his second appearance as quoted below:
“Mr. Amama Mbabazi: I made the point that my understanding is that I am not, this committee is not investigating me, this committee is not accusing me, I have said I have heard accusations in the media and by witnesses who have appeared here.”
“The Lead Counsel: Let me assist you.”
“Mr. Amama Mbabazi: Do you hink I need your assistance?”
“The Lead Counsel: Just a minute, you need it badly. At the beginning of Hon Amama Mbabazi’s testimony, I remember I told him four issues we are investigating, that we are investigating the land transaction of Temangalo:
I.Whether there was any conflict of interest in the sale of that land.
II.Whether there was any political peddling or influence in the purchase of that land.
III.Whether the procedures were followed.
IV. Whether there was value for money and outline that those are the issues we are investigating.”

On another occasion, Hon Katuntu while cross examining a witness, stated thus “We are not investigating whichever; we are investigating this particular… whether it flouted the law. That’s all. We do not want to go into other details and so on.”
Mr. Speaker sir, Hon colleagues, some of us were mesmerised to see, especially term of reference III reading differently at the time we received the report at Entebbe reading as follows: “Whether the procurement process as provided for by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Act No.1 of 2003 was followed” instead of “Whether the procedures were followed”
An objection to this alteration was raised by a member right at the outset but was overruled by the chair. The justification for this objection was that the committee was likely to suffer a judgmental error by predetermining that the acquisition of land by NSSF was procurement yet throughout the proceedings some witnesses were objecting to calling it PROCUREMENT under the PPDA Act but an INVESTMENT under section 30 of the NSSF Act.
The committee chose to rely on the procurement argument and ignored the investment argument. We objected to this bias. This anomaly is a serious flaw which goes to the root of the authenticity and credibility of those who reframed this particular term of reference and by extension, therefore, the observations and recommendations of the committee thereafter.

- Voting by a non-member of the committee:
Mr Speaker sir, Hon Colleagues, you are all aware that our committee had been chaired by Hon. Odit until he was removed by the Opposition Chief Whip, Hon. Kassiano Wadri.
The Rt. Hon. Speaker had the occasion to guide the House on this matter on Thursday 16th October, 2008. The Speaker ruled that the removal of Hon. Odit was irregular in as much as it contravened the provisions of Rule 134 (5) of the Rules of Procedure. Mr Speaker, Hon Members, Hon Abdu Katuntu initially participated in the proceedings of the committee under rule 179 of our Rules of Procedure but did not become a member of the committee. Following the ruling of the Rt. Hon. Speaker, Hon Katuntu should have vacated the committee both as member and also vice-chairperson.
Our contention Mr. Speaker, Hon members, is that Hon Katuntu continued participating in the proceedings of the committee at decision-making stage including voting which was a breach of our Rules of Procedure. An objection was raised to this effect by one of us but the Hon chairman at that time, the Hon Johnson Malinga, once again overruled us.
Let us point out Mr. Speaker, Hon members, that at one time the chairman almost misguided the committee that he has both a deliberate and casting vote but was reminded by one of us to refer to rule 174(2) that he was not eligible to vote.

- Missing evidence:
Mr Speaker, Hon Members, we wish to recall vividly that when the Managing Director of NSSF, Mr. Jamwa, appeared before the committee for the first time, he did not mention anything express or implied to do with pressure being exerted on him by any person in relation to this transaction. Mr Jamwa’s statement that he was put under political pressure in his second appearance shows that he was an unreliable witness, lied to the committee on oath, and his testimony could, therefore, not be credible.
At the time of concluding deliberations on the report, the transcribed record of this important piece of evidence was missing. A week before our retreat, 10 days in the retreat, still this evidence could not be availed. It is only on 23rd October, 2008 that the clerk to the committee gave us what we discovered as tampered with proceedings. Mr Speaker sir, Hon Members just look at this:
“Mr. Katuntu: We would like to study the documents they have availed to us and have an opportunity again with them requiring detailed answers and other specific questions which are going to arise as a result of this forest of documents they have submitted.”
“Mr. Odit: That last position is what I had ruled actually. This will not mark the end of this work, they will be coming, but let us get Hon Colonel, Sarah, then we have Simon, then we wind up phase one of the issue.”
“Mr. Jamwa: As we said before on the case of No. 5, what was the objective? The objective was to protect the fund from any undue influence that may have been precipitated by the owners of Arma and that is really that.”
“Mr. Odit: Now that he decided to to behave as if he was Nzeyi, that one cured the...”
“Mr Jamwa: All through the transaction, the fund only dealt with Amos Nzeyi.”
Mr. Odit: ...place of Hon Amama Mbabazi or what?
Mrs. Sarah Nyombi: The information from their document, they well knew that- actually they stated it; we do not think that if a seller is a woman or man or politician. So they knew and why did they have the fear?
Ms. Sauda Mugerwa: Point of procedure. Mr. Chairman, we have talked a lot about one issue, but we have not heard a statement that we take even to court as far as the conflict of interest is concerned. We need a statement from NSSF, telling us what the conflict of interest is, so that we can abide by that, because actually, we are all putting words to the NSSF, we should get the statement from them. What is the conflict of interest? What is it?”
Mr.Odit: That is now the summary of all these concerns. If the MD can guide us through that — what is this conflict of interest?”
Mr. Jamwa: The conflict in as far as the Board understood it, was that the owner or the owners of Arma are government leaders; on this side NSSF is a government- controlled entity and, therefore, to manage the conflict of interest, the owners of Arma should not be involved in any of the commercial negotiations of the land in case there is any undue influence.
Mr. Amooti Otada: I wanted to qualify my question because Mr. chairman, what happens, Members of Parliament are ex-officio members of district councils and when actually you want to procure a tender from a district where you are a district council member, it is required that you write a letter of declaration of interest. So, I was trying to corroborate that same point; whether he could clarify.”
Mr. Speaker, Hon Members, it is important to note that:
- The original transcription that we got in Entebbe dated 22-08-2008 had ended with Hon Katuntu’s incomplete statement with the following words at the end: “END OF TAPE 2” on page 38 of the transcription.
- The latest transcription which contains, among others, the above statements and additional pages 39 to 56 ends with the chairman’s concluding remarks with the following words “END OF TAPE 2”.

OBSERVATIONS:
- It is glaring that the statements above are disconnected yet they sequentially follow each other in the transcription.
- There is absolutely no record anywhere in the transcription where Hon Otada asked the question he was attempting to qualify in the above statement.
- It is evident that the errors of omission were made when the true record was being tampered with in a hurry to erase substantial evidence where Mr. Jamwa said he had no pressure exerted on him by anybody, a position he later changed when he appeared in a SOLICITED camera hearing (we shall clarify later)

CONCLUSION
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, all these manoeuvres within the committee clearly demonstrate that some people were determined to bend the rules at all costs for whatever reason. We found it prudent to bring all these irregularities before the House to help you Hon. Members in understanding the underlying reasons for this minority report when taking the final position on the majority one.
How will this august House arrive at a fair and just verdict when vital evidence is missing from the record?
The logical thing to do in the circumstances is either to order for a fresh investigation or dismiss the conclusions and, therefore, the recommendations of the majority report of the committee in regard to conflict of interest and influence peddling, for lack of proper records. We leave this decision for this august House to pronounce itself.
The substance of our minority report will, therefore, be based on the above preliminary objections. We are also inviting this august House to disregard Term of Reference (III) in the majority report of the committee in favour of ours, which is broad enough to cover all relevant laws, regulations and procedures..
Mr. Speaker Sir, Hon Members of Parliament, we now turn to specific terms of reference, one at a time, with specific reference to evidence not cited or not considered in the majority report .

WHETHER THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON PART OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED
Mr. Speaker, Hon Members, one of the terms of reference that we investigated is whether there was conflict of interest on part of the parties who were involved. The following are some of the findings:
- In his testimony before the committee, MR. AMOS NZEYI revealed that he learnt of NSSF’s desire to purchase land from one KIZITO. He stated:
“A certain MR. KIZITO informed me that he was a senior official in NSSF’s investment department .... expressing NSSF interest in purchasing land, for as he told me, they learnt the deal between me and AKRIGHT over the same land had fallen through.”
MR. NZEYI added -
“Following the contacts by MR. KIZITO and my intimation to him that I could sell my land to them on the same terms as AKRIGHT PROJECTS LTD, several NSSF officials including some of its Board members, visited the land at Temangalo and in company of my farm managers, inspected it. After that, MR. KIZITO requested me to forward a written sale offer to the Fund for their consideration.”
- In his first testimony, MR. DAVID CHANDI JAMWA confirmed that NSSF intended to purchase land on which the Fund planned to construct five thousand (5,000) low-cost housing units and had, therefore, initiated efforts of looking for suitable land.
“The fund has conceptualised a ground-breaking affordable residential housing estate that will create 5,000 affordable houses for purchase by Ugandans. As a first step to crystallise this important project, the fund sought suitable land on which this project will be commenced, the clarification I want to provide for this land transaction is; it went through all necessary approval processes at every level.”

- MR. EDWARD GAMUWA, the chairman of the Board of Directors also confirmed the Fund’s interest in the Temangalo land. He asserted thus:
“Temangalo was actually not looked at as just buying land but we looked at it as a project or housing project which we thought and we have plans that we will develop five thousand (5,000) housing units.”

MR. EDWARD GAMUWA added - “We think that this project will contribute greatly to economic growth of the country. When we implement this project we hope that we are going to create directly 10,000 jobs and that the multiplier effect of this, is that this project will have backward and forward linkages and it will also create a number of indirect jobs. Because in there, there will be claims, there will be markets, there will be supermarkets, saloons.”
lHON. AMAMA MBABAZI testified that he was persuaded to sell Arma Ltd land at Temangalo by MR. AMOS NZEYI, the reason for the sale being that it would enable them to raise funds to purchase shares in the National Bank of Commerce Ltd that has been floated for sale.

HON. AMAMA MBABAZI stated-
“MR. Chairman, MR. NZEYI AMOS, a very close friend of mine who is a prominent businessman in Uganda and I, decided to purchase the shares of the majority shareholders in the National Bank of Commerce Ltd who had decided to sell them.”
“MR. NZEYI persuaded me that we could raise the funds by sale of our real property or our land. Since the only land I had any connection with belonged to ARMA LTD, a company in which I hold shares, I in turn persuaded the shareholders to sell the company land.”

HON. AMAMA MBABAZI revealed that the six shareholders of Arma Ltd were MRS MBABAZI, RACHAEL MBABAZI, NINA, MAO, MARX and himself.
lThe purchase of the Temangalo land was discussed by the Board of Directors of NSSF in its 68th meeting held on the 31st January 2008. According to Min. 161.3 (1) of the meeting of the Board of Directors of NSSF held on the 31st January 2008, the Board considered the “Committee” recommendations to purchase two pieces of land code named “Wakiso” and “Gayaza” for the purposes of real estate development.
l According to Minute 161.4 (5) (ii) of the 68th meeting of the Board of Directors of NSSF, the issue of the possibility of conflict was discussed. The minute reads as follows: - “that to manage conflict of interest, Arma Ltd be advised to transfer their land to Mr. Nzeyi Amos for purposes of transacting with the Fund”.
The Board went a step further in Min.161.4 (5) (iii). It is recorded as follows: - “that Mr. Nzeyi Amos be asked to present a resolution and Powers of Attorney issued by ARMA LTD authorising him, on their behalf, to transact with the Fund in respect of their piece of land”.
In Min. 161,4 (6) the Board added: “Subject to satisfactory due diligence, AGREED that the “Wakiso” land measuring 414.14 acres, be purchased from MR. NZEYI AMOS at a price below UGX. 25 million per acre”.
lThe Board of Directors of the NSSF having resolved to purchase the Temangalo land, MR. EDWARD GAMUWA, the chairman of the board, in his letter Ref FA/CONF/19 Vol. II dated the 14th February 2008, entitled - “Planned Long term Investments for the Financial year 2007/2008 requested for a “No Objection” from the Minister of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development to the NSSF Board to invest in four different areas. The relevant part of his letter to the Temangalo land reads as follows: -
“The Board is in the process of developing two housing projects. One project is to develop medium to high-income houses. The other project is to develop two-priced houses of good quality, using pre-fabricated technology, which are affordable to new entrants into the job market. The detailed concepts and financial evaluation of these two projects are being undertaken and will be submitted to the minister on their own individual merits. For the time being and in order to prepare the groundwork for these projects, we bring to the minister the acquisition of land where these projects will be located.
“The Board has APPROVED the acquisition of the land code-named “Wakiso” at a price not exceeding Shs.25million per acre. This Mailo land measuring 414.44 acres is located in Busiro, Temangalo, Wakiso district. The land is owned by MR. NZEYI AMOS and is ear-marked for middle to high-income houses.”
- It is evident that important relevant evidence was deliberately left out in the majority report despite an earlier position by the committee that testimonies of parties of interest to the committee be reproduced verbatim to be fair to all of them. Instead, testimonies were selectively picked as the majority report shows.
- Despite the committee’s plea to locate Mr. Kizito, a key witness mentioned by Mr. Amos Nzeyi as the initiator of this transaction, the committee leadership conveniently ignored this, claiming that he no longer works with NSSF as the reason. The absence of this evidence in the majority report is enough for you, Hon Members, to read through the minds of its authors.
- Section 8 of the Leadership Code Act provides:
- A leader shall not put himself or herself in a position in which his or her personal interest conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities.
- Where a leader deals with a matter in the course of his or her duties in which he or she has a personal interest, the leader shall inform the person or public body concerned of the nature and extent of his or her interest before dealing with the matter.
- “Personal interest” in this section in relation to a leader includes the personal interest of a relation or friend or business associate of which the leader has knowledge or would have had knowledge if he or she had exercised due diligence having regard to all the circumstances”.
- It is apparent from the above quoted provisions that a conflict of interest occurs when personal interest conflicts with the leader’s duties and responsibilities. The question, therefore, to ask is whether the personal interest of Hon. Amama Mbabazi and Hon. Dr. Ezra Suruma conflicted with their duties and responsibilities.
- According to the evidence above, whereas Hon. Amama Mbabazi had personal interest in the Temangalo transaction, he did not participate in the negotiations for the sale of land belonging to Arma Ltd. Dr. Suruma on the other hand, while he was requested for a ‘no-objection’, he neither participated in the negotiations nor was he a beneficiary of the proceeds of the sale since the decision to invest is vested in the Board under Sections 4 and 30 of NSSF Act.

OBSERVATIONS
- The Temangalo transaction started with one Kizito, an employee of NSSF working with the investment department, contacting MR. AMOS NZEYI about the possibility of selling the land in question to NSSF.
- Apparently, NSSF had plans to invest in land. This was confirmed by both the Chairman of the Board and the Managing Director.
- It was AMOS NZEYI who persuaded HON. AMAMA MBABAZI to sell their land at Temangalo.
- That the purchase of the land at Temangalo was duly considered approved by the Board of Directors of NSSF.
- Upon the Board approving the purchase of the land at Temangalo, the Chairman of the Board wrote to the Minister of Finance informing him about the Board’s decision to purchase the land and requesting him for a No-objection to the purchase.
- It is not true that the Minister of Finance did not give the issue of the purchase of the land due attention, for in his statement and that of the Chairman of the Board, the minister had met the Chairman of the Board together with the Managing Director and given them guidance on the principles of investment to be followed as contained in the Strategic Investment Plan of NSSF.
- The Minister of Finance testified that he never discussed the Temangalo transaction with either HON. AMAMA MBABAZI or MR. AMOS NZEYI and there is no evidence to the contrary.
- MR. EDWARD GAMUWA and MS ACIGWA were only two of the seven members of the Board of NSSF and there is no evidence on record to show that they used their relationship as co-directors of UGAFODE (a not-for-profit organisation where Dr, Ezra Suruma is also a director) to favour anybody in the Temangalo transaction.
Besides it is government practice that Board members of government-controlled entities are approved by Cabinet after a rigorous vetting process. The observation by the majority report that Dr. Suruma appointed his business associates is erroneous and we pointed out this to the committee but we were ignored.
As already observed, Board members of government entities are suggested by the line minister in consultation with his or her colleagues and submitted to Cabinet for approval. Those approved by Cabinet become servants of the state. So, the minister cannot be blamed for omissions and /or commissions of Board members.
Board members believed to be his business associates are actually acquaintances he met in an NGO started by one Bishop Muhima to help the poor. There is no profit motive in this arrangement.
- Hon. Amama Mbabazi testified that Arma Ltd had authorised Mr. Amos Nzeyi to handle the sale of the land partly because he was too busy and partly because they lacked experience in business.
- We invite the House not to rely on Mr. David Jamwa’s evidence on to this particular Term of Reference because of the following reasons:
- He made two contradictory statements on oath;
- His second testimony in camera was solicited by the chairman in the following words: “You are appearing to this committee another time and we would like you (to give us nothing else) but the truth. We have asked all your technical officers to keep away so that you can give us information without fear or favour and should it be necessary for you to give any information to this committee in confidence, we shall ask our partners to leave us so that you give us any information in camera should you need it.”
- There is no evidence to put HON. AMAMA MBABAZI and HON. DR. EZRA SURUMA in a position in which their personal interest conflicted with their duties and responsibilities. This is even acknowledged in the observation of the committee in the majority report by using the words “Could easily conflict”.
- The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, articles 225(d), 230(4) and 234 vests supervision and enforcement of the Leadership Code of Conduct in the Inspectorate of Government.
- Sections 3 and 18 of the Leadership Code Act, 2002 are also very clear on how the Leadership Code is enforced. Section 3 (1) states: “The Inspectorate shall enforce this code” and Section 18 (1) states: “Any person who alleges that a leader has committed a breach of this code may lodge a complaint to that effect with the Inspectorate and the Inspectorate shall register the complaint”.
Section 18 (2) states: “Upon receipt of a complaint under subsection (1) of this section, the Inspectorate shall inquire into, or cause the complaint to be inquired into...”
- The recommendation in the majority report that Dr. Ezra Suruma and Amama Mbabazi contravened Sections 8 and 12 of the Leadership Code Act, 2002 and that sanctions provided for under Section 12 (2) be applied to them is not only a breach of the Leadership Code Act, 2002 but also unconstitutional. The recommendations of the committee in the majority report are, therefore, ultravires the powers of the committee.
- It must be noted that we pointed out this anomaly that Parliament is not the right institution to enforce the Leadership Code Act, 2002 but it fell on the already biased minds of the majority of the members.

RECOMMENDATION
Mr Speaker and Hon Members, having found no conflict of interest, we recommend that the recommendations as proposed in the majority report in case of conflict of interest should be abandoned since they are not applicable.

WHETHER THERE WAS INFLUENCE PEDDLING IN THE TRANSACTION
Mr. Speaker Sir, Hon Members, it was noted that: Evidence was led to the committee to show that Hon Amama Mbabazi as an individual person and his family legitimately owned land at Temangalo under a company called Arma Ltd.
Hon Amama Mbabazi as a leader declared the land to the IGG and also at the time of salem he gave powers of attorney to Amos Nzeyi to sell the land on behalf of Arma Ltd.
At no time did the Managing Director, Mr. Jamwa, or the Board of NSSF mention any political influence. In Jamwa’s own words, he says: “The fund has conceptualised a ground-breaking affordable residential housing estate that will create 5,000 affordable houses for purchase by Ugandans. As a first step to crystallise this important project, the fund sought suitable land on which this project will be commenced… . the clarification I want to provide for this land transaction is; it went through all necessary approval processes at every level.” This was confirmed by Mr. Andrew Owiny to the committee when he was tasked by the lead counsel in the following piece of evidence:
Hon Katuntu: Do you want to confirm that this transaction originated from your committee?
Mr. Owiny: Yes, Mr. chairman. It did originate from the committee.
Hon. Katuntu: When did you conceive this idea?
Mr. Owiny: Mr. chairman, the idea was put to the committee through management.
Mr Martin Olweny, who also appeared twice before the committee, was consistent in his assertion that he was quoted out of context and that he has no evidence whatsoever that any pressure was being exerted on the Board in the following testimony:
“So in that contest, I was giving a note of caution to my colleagues. So the minute was really out of context and it is very unfortunate that it came or it appeared eventually in the manner it came…. I had no, as I said at the beginning, evidence locally of political pressure. I did not have it and I do not have it…..I was saying that kind of explanation of my position was not correct. It was out of context. It was in the context of the example I gave as a result of our study tour in a neighbouring country.”
Hon Amama Mbabazi himself states thus: “So political influence, I have never ever even up to this day spoken to the Board of NSSF on the question of purchase of the land in question.”
This evidence was not rebutted throughout the hearing.
On his last appearance in camera in a bizarre twist of events, Mr. Jamwa claimed exertion of pressure from Hon Dr. Suruma and Mr. Amos Nzeyi, whom he claimed to have met privately on separate occasions, which claim both of them denied.

OBSERVATIONS
The obvious conclusion is that Hon Amama Mbabazi sold his land and never used political influence to get the land transaction moving.
At no time did Mr Jamwa, the Managing Director of NSSF, disclose to the Board that he was under pressure from anybody. In any case, the decision to invest was to be made by the Board. We invite the House to disregard Mr. Jamwa’s testimony in this respect. The observation in the majority report that testimonies of Mr. Jamwa, Mr. Nzeyi, Mr. Olweny and Mr, Bandeebire confirm that there was political pressure put on the fund to purchase the land even when it was not the desire of the fund to do so, is not supported by evidence.

RECOMMENDATION
Mr Speaker and Hon Members, having found no influence peddling, we recommend that the recommendations as proposed in the majority report in case of influence peddling should be abandoned since they are not applicable.

WHETHER THERE WAS VALUE FOR MONEY ATTAINED BY NSSF IN THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND
Mr Speaker, while analysing this term of reference, the committee did not have much disagreement. The only useful testimony that was left out in the majority report was the following:
- The committee ignored Hon Jim Muhwezi’s testimony to the effect that he sold his land at shs28,000,000 per acre in the neighbourhood of Temangalo.
- The committee also ignored the Managing Director’s testimony which says:
“The first and most reliable method of establishing a market price is actually a quotation from an active market that would usually be provided by a broker or selling agent or the direct seller. The second and more reliable method would be that of looking at recent comparable transactions…. our conclusion after reviewing that information is that the market price in this area as per the quoted market prices we reviewed was in the region of sh30,000,000 to sh40,000,000.”
He went on to say: “We were able to obtain information on three transactions that had happened in that area and that same kind of land over the past three years. Number one was an offer from Akright, who actually were the owners of the land we eventually bought of shs28,000,000 an acre, I think in 2007...the evidence we were able to come across in looking at the valuation is another transaction that was actually in 2006... this was a transaction which was executed in 2006 at a price of shs28,000,000 per acre... documents that have been signed by the Chief Government Valuer for purposes of establishing stamp duty on transactions in and around Temangalo...between 2005 and 2007, the Government Valuer valued an acre of land in the area of within and around Temangalo at shs27,000,000 per acre and second shs40.8 million per acre”.
This, therefore, renders the observation in the majority report that the only price used was that of Akright, erroneous. The authors of the minority report laboured to argue on this point with this evidence to no avail.
- The value the Chief Government Valuer used to charge stamp duty of shs26.9 million was not considered by the committee in the majority report when doing the analysis in spite of the committee being in possession of documents to that effect.
- The NSSF board meeting held on 31st January 2008 confirmed in Minute 161.4(4) that market information available indicated that the market value of the land in the area was sh30 million per acre. This was not considered by the committee in the observations.
- Hon Amama Mbabazi’s response to the NEMA report was ignored in the committee’s observations, which we thought was unfair on the side of the committee.

OBSERVATION
By and large, the recommendations proposed on this issue in the majority report were agreed upon by concensus though the timeframe of one month given to the sellers to make good their side of the agreement is impractically too short considering the nature of the encumbrances and the requirements of the Land Act, 1998. We thought ‘expeditious’ was a better term to use.

CONCLUSION
According to the testimony of the Board, the NSSF Temangalo Estates is so far to be the largest planned residential housing estate in Uganda, with 5,000 housing units, recreational centres, houses of worship, schools, hospitals, watershed ecosystem, eco-balanced green areas as well as sports facilities. The project is expected to create 15,000 jobs over its lifetime and NSSF members will be given preference and assisted in terms of purchasing the houses.
The

Minority report on NSSF land purchase in Temangalo out

Related Articles

More From The Author

Related articles