GAVI funds: The powers of the IGG
May 23, 2007
THE arrest and prosecution of two former health ministers – Capt. Mike Mukula and Dr. Alex Kamugisha – has generated a heated public debate about the functions and extent of the powers of the Inspector General of Government.
ANALYSIS
By John Kakande
THE arrest and prosecution of two former health ministers – Capt. Mike Mukula and Dr. Alex Kamugisha – has generated a heated public debate about the functions and extent of the powers of the Inspector General of Government.
Many people seem unaware that the IGG has powers to arrest and prosecute even high profile personalities, politically perceived to be “untouchablesâ€.
When the National Resistance Movement (NRM) assumed power in 1986, one of the major changes it introduced was the establishment of the Inspectorate of Government. Augustine Ruzindana, currently a prominent figure in the opposition Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), was appointed as the IGG with Wasswa Lule as his deputy. The IGG’s functions and extent of his powers have changed fundamentally over the past 20 years.
Initially, under the Statute of 1988, the IGG had no powers to arrest and prosecute suspected offenders. The Inspectorate of Government was mandated to investigate corruption by public officials and human rights violations and was required to submit all reports to the President.
Under Article 23 of the Statute of 1988, the reports were supposed to be strictly confidential and there was no legal obligation for the President to take any action. There was no specific provision within the Statute giving powers to the IGG to make his reports public.
There was controversy when the then deputy IGG, Wasswa Lule, decided to routinely release information to the media implicating senior political leaders. Lule argued that the Statute required the Inspectorate to sensitise the public about the problem of corruption.
By releasing information to the media about the investigations, he claimed he was merely implementing the law.
The controversy ended with the removal of Wasswa Lule. He was replaced by David Psomgen, who had previously served as Inspector General of Police.
During the constitution-making process, it was decided that the powers of the IGG be strengthened so that he ceases to be a mere barking dog.
There was a view that the IGG had been rendered a paper tiger because he could not arrest and prosecute corruption suspects. Consequently, the constituent Assembly gave the IGG powers to prosecute offenders.
Under Article 230 of the Constitution, the IGG was given express powers to “investigate, cause investigation, arrest, cause arrest, prosecute or cause prosecution in respect of cases involving corruption, abuse of authority or of public office.â€
Human rights abuses were transferred to the Human Rights Commission in order to allow the IGG to concentrate on corruption. The IGG was also given independence from other authorities of government.
Article 227 of the Constitution provides that the Inspectorate of Government “shall be independent in the performance of its functions and shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority and shall only be responsible to Parliament.â€
Following the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution, the IGG started prosecuting corruption suspects. The IGG at the time was Jotham Tumwesigye, who was recently appointed the chairperson of the Immigration Board. However, the IGG faced some obstacles. The laws had not been harmonised and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) still had exclusive powers to consent to criminal charges.
Subsequently, under the Inspectorate of Government Act of 2002, the IGG was granted full powers to carry out prosecution of offenders without the consent of any other authority.
Article 14 of the Act provides, among other things, that: “notwithstanding any law, the Inspectorate shall not require the consent or approval of any person or authority to prosecute, or discontinue proceedings instituted by the Inspectorate.â€
Over the years, the Inspectorate has prosecuted hundreds of criminal cases. The majority of the suspects were local government officials or bureaucrats.
The IGG’s net has also caught some police and judicial officers, including chief magistrates, for alleged corruption. For example, between July and December 2004, the IGG handled prosecution for 36 criminal cases.
One of these cases involved Betty Nambooze Bakireeke on an embezzlement charge. Nambooze, the democratic Party spokesperson, was at the time an employee of the Mukono town council. She was acquitted by the High Court on appeal.
However, since the Inspectorate was established, it had only prosecuted one real political heavyweight, former attorney general Joseph Ekemu.
This explains the public excitement about the prosecution of the former health ministers. These are prominent figures in the ruling NRM. In a way, this is as much a trial of the IGG as it is of the former ministers.
By John Kakande
THE arrest and prosecution of two former health ministers – Capt. Mike Mukula and Dr. Alex Kamugisha – has generated a heated public debate about the functions and extent of the powers of the Inspector General of Government.
Many people seem unaware that the IGG has powers to arrest and prosecute even high profile personalities, politically perceived to be “untouchablesâ€.
When the National Resistance Movement (NRM) assumed power in 1986, one of the major changes it introduced was the establishment of the Inspectorate of Government. Augustine Ruzindana, currently a prominent figure in the opposition Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), was appointed as the IGG with Wasswa Lule as his deputy. The IGG’s functions and extent of his powers have changed fundamentally over the past 20 years.
Initially, under the Statute of 1988, the IGG had no powers to arrest and prosecute suspected offenders. The Inspectorate of Government was mandated to investigate corruption by public officials and human rights violations and was required to submit all reports to the President.
Under Article 23 of the Statute of 1988, the reports were supposed to be strictly confidential and there was no legal obligation for the President to take any action. There was no specific provision within the Statute giving powers to the IGG to make his reports public.
There was controversy when the then deputy IGG, Wasswa Lule, decided to routinely release information to the media implicating senior political leaders. Lule argued that the Statute required the Inspectorate to sensitise the public about the problem of corruption.
By releasing information to the media about the investigations, he claimed he was merely implementing the law.
The controversy ended with the removal of Wasswa Lule. He was replaced by David Psomgen, who had previously served as Inspector General of Police.
During the constitution-making process, it was decided that the powers of the IGG be strengthened so that he ceases to be a mere barking dog.
There was a view that the IGG had been rendered a paper tiger because he could not arrest and prosecute corruption suspects. Consequently, the constituent Assembly gave the IGG powers to prosecute offenders.
Under Article 230 of the Constitution, the IGG was given express powers to “investigate, cause investigation, arrest, cause arrest, prosecute or cause prosecution in respect of cases involving corruption, abuse of authority or of public office.â€
Human rights abuses were transferred to the Human Rights Commission in order to allow the IGG to concentrate on corruption. The IGG was also given independence from other authorities of government.
Article 227 of the Constitution provides that the Inspectorate of Government “shall be independent in the performance of its functions and shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority and shall only be responsible to Parliament.â€
Following the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution, the IGG started prosecuting corruption suspects. The IGG at the time was Jotham Tumwesigye, who was recently appointed the chairperson of the Immigration Board. However, the IGG faced some obstacles. The laws had not been harmonised and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) still had exclusive powers to consent to criminal charges.
Subsequently, under the Inspectorate of Government Act of 2002, the IGG was granted full powers to carry out prosecution of offenders without the consent of any other authority.
Article 14 of the Act provides, among other things, that: “notwithstanding any law, the Inspectorate shall not require the consent or approval of any person or authority to prosecute, or discontinue proceedings instituted by the Inspectorate.â€
Over the years, the Inspectorate has prosecuted hundreds of criminal cases. The majority of the suspects were local government officials or bureaucrats.
The IGG’s net has also caught some police and judicial officers, including chief magistrates, for alleged corruption. For example, between July and December 2004, the IGG handled prosecution for 36 criminal cases.
One of these cases involved Betty Nambooze Bakireeke on an embezzlement charge. Nambooze, the democratic Party spokesperson, was at the time an employee of the Mukono town council. She was acquitted by the High Court on appeal.
However, since the Inspectorate was established, it had only prosecuted one real political heavyweight, former attorney general Joseph Ekemu.
This explains the public excitement about the prosecution of the former health ministers. These are prominent figures in the ruling NRM. In a way, this is as much a trial of the IGG as it is of the former ministers.