Was IGG right to absolve Security Minister Mbabazi?

The Inspectorate of Government early this week released the findings of his investigations into the mismanagement of funds meant for the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Chogm), which though absolves Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi of any wrong doing, remains controversial.

Mr Mbabazi, who was Security Minister at the time, had been implicated by a May 2010 Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee report, which found him guilty of “influence-peddling” in the deal awarded to Balton (U) Ltd at $5 million (about Shs11b) by the Chogm Security sub-committee. The Office of the Inspector General of Government last month released details of its investigations that, among others, implicated former vice president Gilbert Bukenya, who is now facing court battles. Prof. Bukenya was the chairman of the Cabinet Sub-Committee which oversaw the planning and management of Chogm

Contentious report
The contentious report by Mr Baku explains that Mr Mbabazi was not directly involved in the transaction as he never attended any meeting that decided to reward contracts to bidders of services. Prior to the IGG’s report, the AG and subsequently Parliament Accounts Committee issued separate reports indicating the irregular procurement of Tetra Communication Walkie Talkies Systems by the security sub-committee of the Cabinet committee, which was chaired by Mr Mbabazi.
This procurement was carried out under the supervision of Mr Mbabazi whom the AG had questioned in his report to Parliament over the unexplained spending of $0.5m.

In its report, PAC found that the Ministry of ICT had spent an extra $5m outside the budget approved by Parliament for Chogm. This amount was reportedly spent on the Tetra Communications Systems (Walkie talkie system) procured by the Ministry of ICT, but for use by security. “The money”, the report said, “was diverted from an ICT loan for the National Data Transmission Backbone Infrastructure Project to the Security Ministry and yet, when the loan was being approved, the Walkie talkie system was not included in the loan request.” PAC also found that the procurement of the system under the Security Ministry was carried out without regard to the PPDA regulations. The original contract between government and Huawei provided that Huawei was supposed to do the supply of all the equipment, and was only supposed to seek consent from government. This was not done.

Instead, the government went ahead to select the supplier named Balton (U) Ltd. It was not clear how this particular contractor was sourced, and whether the price charged was competitive.
The Committee found out that the President, in the meeting of June 12 2006, had “questioned the expenditures on communication equipment”, and directed that “the army communication equipment should be used (by the Police, etc.), instead of purchasing new communication equipment,” the PAC report reads in part.

Reports of both the AG dated April 2008 and the PAC dated May 2010, indicated that the Tetra Communication System was procured before Parliament approved the ICT loan in question and that the expenditure of $5m for the Tetra Communication System was also not declared to the AG for audit contrary to the requirement of the National Audit Act. Both reports also question the procurement of Tetra Communication Walkie Talkies systems worth $5m from M/s Balton (U) Ltd arguing that it was influenced by Mr Mbabazi.

Click here to read the full article
Source: www.monitor.co.ug