TOP
Wednesday,December 02,2020 02:29 AM
  • Home
  • Health
  • Attorney General explains the IGG and Mutale mix-up

Attorney General explains the IGG and Mutale mix-up

By Vision Reporter

Added 17th December 2003 03:00 AM

TALKBACK:
I would like to clarify the issues that appeared in a story printed in The New Vision on December 4 titled “Ayume sides with Mutale.”

TALKBACK:
I would like to clarify the issues that appeared in a story printed in The New Vision on December 4 titled “Ayume sides with Mutale.”

TALKBACK:

By Francis Ayume

I would like to clarify the issues that appeared in a story printed in The New Vision on December 4 titled “Ayume sides with Mutale.”

I am making this statement, while being well aware of Rule 53 in the Rules of Procedure regarding the sub judice rule that does not allow me to talk about the details of the case brought against the Government by Maj. Kakooza Mutale because the matter is still in court.

This statement will only make a clarification on the position of the case, and what transpired in Court to clear the wrong impression created by the New Vision story.

The New Vision story personalised the involvement of the IGG and myself in this case as if we were acting in our personal capacities, when in fact we were acting in our official capacities of Government.

The second impression that has been given is that I opposed the testimony given in Court by the IGG who should be acting for and defending the IGG.

As you may be aware, Major Roland Kakooza Mutale appealed to the High Court and challenged his dismissal as a presidential advisor by the appointing authority on the ground, and that he did not file a declaration of assets, income and liabilities in breach of the Leadership Code.

The position of that case is that the trial had ended on the November 26 when both sides filed their written arguments in court.

The matter now awaits judgement. However, before the hearing of the case was concluded on that day, the records of the proceedings before the IGG and when Maj. Kakooza Mutale appealed to the High Court were provided by the IGG.

The records were properly filed in Court by the Attorney General, and contained the necessary facts and evidence in that matter for the Court’s consideration.

What transpired in Court on December 3 was that earlier the IGG had filed an application to be joined in the case between Kakooza Mutale and the Attorney General. But, there were two legal impediments to the IGG’s application to be joined as a defendant in the case. One is that the IGG has no corporate existence and cannot therefore sue or be sued in a court of law.

It is only a Government institution with corporate legal status that can sue or be sued.

Secondly, the law does not allow a person to be added to a case after the hearing has been concluded. These were technical legal issues that the Attorney General’s representatives in Court were under duty to bring to the attention of the Court.

It would appear that because he did so, The New Vision erroneously understood it to mean that the Attorney General was against the IGG and siding with Mutale.

I wish to assure everybody that the Attorney General’s Chambers and the Office of the IGG have a good working relationship and share useful information to the mutual benefit of both institutions.

This of course does not mean that there can be no disagreement to approaching legal issues.

The writer is the Attorney General.

Attorney General explains the IGG and Mutale mix-up

Related articles

More From The Author

More From The Author