Christopher Gashirabake Relationship with Samantha Mwesigye

[Uganda]

The Deputy Attorney General, Christopher Gashirabake, has for the first time explained extensively her relationship with State Attorney Samantha Mwesigye, denying claims of sexual harassment and challenging the accuser to provide solid evidence to back up her claims.

The country nearly came to a standstill after Mwesigye accused Gashirabake of sexually harassing her ever since she joined the Ministry of Justice as a clerk.

A committee was set up in February 2019 to investigate the allegations which Gashirabake now says they are baseless.

“I therefore pray that this Committee carefully considers our respective presentations and finds for me because I truly have no intimate interest whatsoever in Ms. Mwesigye,” said Gashirabake in a detailed response to the Committee dated May 20.

“I confirm that I have never at any one time sexually harassed her either covertly or overtly as is alleged, I have never maligned her and denied her any rights to serve this country be it on contracts committees or in taking trips abroad or in Uganda, and I maintain my total innocence in the face of all her allegations against me.”

 

Below is Gashirabake’s full statement to the investigation committee:

The Sexual Harassment Committee,

Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Affairs,

P. O. Box 7183

KAMPALA.

Dear Sirs/Madams,

RE:​IN THE MATTER OF SEXUAL HARRASMENT ALLEGED BY MS.SAMANTHA MWESIGYE SSA, AGAINST MYSELF

I refer to the letter that I received from the Secretary of the Sexual Harassment Committee which was set up to investigate an allegation of sexual harassment brought against me, dated 13th May 2019 (which letter I received on 14th May 2019). In the said letter I was asked to respond to the allegations that Ms. Samantha Mwesigye made against me.

First of all, I welcome the opportunity that I have been given to explain my side of the story in this very traumatic matter.  

I realised early in time that as an official of Government, it wasn’t in my place to take my rebuttal to social media and other mediums of communications outside official communication channels, hence my painful self-restraint. All this has caused me so much pain and suffering that I would never wish for anybody, but it is what it is.

As you can imagine it has not been easy at all for me or indeed for any of my family members to keep calm and collected  as my tormentor took to all manner of media outlets to try as much as possible to paint me as the worst person who ever graced the earth.  

I hope and pray to God that He keeps me steadfast in walking the straight and narrow path of remaining sane and composed in the face of all these un-erstwhile attacks on my person and I believe that one day, only one day, the reasons and motive for all this attack on me will be revealed.

Background:

I joined the service of Government in 1984 where I served at the Department of Immigration at the Ministry of Internal Affairs until 1996.

I then got the opportunity of serving my current employer the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs as a State Attorney in 1996 where I have diligently served, rising through the rank from State Attorney to Senior State Attorney in 1998,Principal State Attorney in 2002, Commissioner DLAS in 2009, Director DLAS in 2013 and finally, to the newly created position of Deputy Solicitor General in December 2018, a position I currently hold.

In all this length of service I have served selflessly and with total dedication. I have also worked with, supervised, managed and mentored very many officers, both ladies and gentlemen.  

It therefore pains me very much that in all that time, I never had anyone malign me in this way and particularly accuse me of sexual harassment.  I therefore feel very offended by the allegations, but I guess my feelings and emotions are not relevant because in this situation I stand in the “dock” as the accused and accused for sexual harassment.  

I believe the allegations of sexual harassment by Ms. Mwesigye is that I made overt or covert requests to her to have a sexual relationship with her, a fact that I totally deny.  I also believe from the myriad of social media exchanges and posts that she variously sent out, that my harassment against her took the form of me removing her from contracts committees and denying her opportunities for International travels which according to her are avenues for making money. I wish to categorically state that I have never disadvantaged Ms. Mwesigye in any way and particularly knowingly, because I believe every officer in the Department needs to have an opportunity to take International travel and also sit on the number of Committees that would leave them with still enough time to carry on their normal duties for the Directorate.

I believe the starting point of my rebuttal should be the long email that Ms. Mwesigye sent to me on Monday, 11th June 2018 at 10:31am. I note that the said email is part of the evidence that Ms. Mwesigye has submitted as proof of her allegation that I sexually harassed her. I have attached a clear copy of my email exchange with Ms. Mwesigye for the record and it is marked annexure “A” to this letter.

As you will note, it was from the said email, that I first received a formal complaint from Ms. Mwesigye that I had overtly or covertly made sexual advances towards her which as she says, she did not want.  In the said email my accuser made her points known and made allegations which totally took me aback. I initially took the view to just ignore the same because I had no interest whatsoever in having any sexual relationship with Ms. Mwesigye.

But after a couple of days, the email kept bothering me because of the gravity of this false allegations, and so I decided to send her an email response which largely carries exactly what I know to be the true position of what took place and indeed this culminated into the current unpleasant situation where I have found myself. The said email chain carries our full discourse on this matter and I invite the Committee to read the emails in their entirety then make a finding whether anything in the said email evidences my sexual harassment of my accuser.

As you will note from my email, I considered Ms. Mwesigye a colleague and a friend as indeed is the way that I used to consider and treat all my colleagues, be they ladies or gentlemen, in theDirectorate which I used to head.  I had never had anybody come up to me to tell me that I had acted in any inappropriate manner towards a colleague or a subordinate.  This is very unfortunate therefore.

What I recall to be my point of departure with my accuser, was the manner of her dressing which I found unacceptably revealing and seductive to say the least (and feel free to call me old fashioned).

On two occasions when she came to my office in an attire I deemed inappropriate, I called in my Secretary to be present and I in the presence of my Secretary told Ms. Mwesigye that her dressing was inappropriate for the office she held and I chased her out of my office.  That may be consideredconservative on my part and if that is what is being construed as sexual harassment, I leave it to the Committee to make its determination.

I also recall another instance when Ms. Mwesigye came to my office and she had dyed her hair red.  I also told her on that occasion that such hair colourwas not acceptable and was certainly unprofessional for a lawyer of her standing.  I on that occasion also asked her to leave my office and not come back until she’d gotten back her normal hair colour. My worry about this which I shared with Ms. Mwesigye was, assuming His Excellency the President called the Attorney General for a meeting and the AG in turn asked that I send him one of my Officers, if I sent Ms. Mwesigye with that hair colour, in what light would that cast our department?

In some circles again I may be construed to be conservative or old fashioned, but I am willing to live with that too if that is the yardstick for sexual harassment.

Finally, as the Head of the Directorate then, it was my obligation to ensure that we serve our clients as best as we could by giving them resource persons who best serve their needs.  Sitting as the Head of DLAS, that to me was the guiding principle.

 Given this principle, I deployed various State Attorneys to sit on various Contracts Committees as well as attend various meetings of Government in Uganda and abroad and I did so in the full awareness of their respective competences, workload, attitude to work, their ability to deliver and above all, their propensity to work well and serve the needs of the client Government Departments.  This criterion is important in explaining why Ms. Mwesigye was assigned on and off certain contracts Committees or meetings as well as on foreign travels.

With specific regard to whether I had motive to remove Ms. Mwesigye from contracts Committees because she refused my sexual advances (which I deny I made), I maintain that I did not.  It is true however that I had situations in the past where Ms. Mwesigye failed to get along with clients to whom I assigned her, and I was forced to remove her, but I then deployed her elsewhere.  

The three that I can vividly recall where:

a) UNEB where the then Secretary Mr. Mathew Bukenya specifically called me and asked me never to send Ms. Mwesigye back again because she was very rude to him and disrespectful.  I obliged and withdrew Samantha from UNEB after discussing the client’s protestation. Find a copy of a letter that I wrote to UNEB apologizing for Ms. Mwesigye’s misbehavior and assigning a new officer to replace her, attached hereto and marked “B”.

b) Ministry of Foreign Affairs where the PS then also called me and raised the complaint of Ms. Mwesigye’s rudeness and disrespect as well as her inability to deliver on the said Ministry’s assignments on a timely basis; and

c) The Privatization Unit where they asked mespecifically to give them a different resourceand they followed it with a letter asking me to nominate a resource other than re-nominate Ms. Mwesigye who was serving then.  Theletter from PU is attached and marked “C”.

It is sad that I didn’t insist on requesting or keeping letters relating to the above complaints for a “rainy day”, but I also assumed then that placing them on Ms. Mwesigye’s file would unduly prejudice her.

The above are purely the circumstances under which I removed Ms. Mwesigye from some of the contracts Committees. There was never any ill will on my part and neither was I doing so in the hope that I would get any sexual advantage over her in the said situation.

But I would very much appreciate for Ms. Mwesigye to be truthful as well and tell this committee and the world how many Committees exactly she sits on.

For the purpose of transparency in the allocation of or assignment of DLAS staff on MDA contracts Committees, I can confirm that there is only one staff who sits on five (5) Committees.  The rest are either on 4, 3 or 2 because these people all have fulltime jobs working for DLAS, so sitting on those Committees cannot be a job in itself.

I have attached a spreadsheet that shows all the Committees that DLAS staff have been nominated to serve on.  You will be happy to note that Ms. Mwesigye sits on four contracts Committees of various Government ministries, Departments and Authorities. Find a copy of the list of DLAS staff and all the contracts committees that they each sit on, attached and marked “D”.

I can state without fear of contradiction that NO OFFICER IN DLAS HAS EVER SAT ON 16 CONTRACTS COMMITTEES AS MS. MWESIGYE IS ALLEGING!

Now with specific response to the four salient issues that you raised, I wish to respond as follows: 

a) Denying her travel opportunities abroad-

My response is that this is not true.  I am pleased to attach some of the documents that I could retrieve in this short time, showing DLAS nominating Ms. Mwesigye to travel abroad on several occasions. I have collectively attached and marked them “E”.

I also need to add that no single officer including myself has the preserve of travel abroad, and when I was in-charge of DLAS, I tried my best to make sure that as many officers as possible got these opportunities and not on the basis of rank or right, but purely on the basis of merit, competence and equity. Where Ms. Mwesigye’s competencies merited her to represent Government on foreign travel, I made this fully available to her even after she had made these grave allegations against me.

I reiterate again therefore that Ms. Mwesigye’s right to travel or lack thereof was never based on me seeking sexual favors from her or barring her from traveling at all by reason of ill will.

b) Removing her from Contracts Committees:

I reiterate again that Ms. Mwesigye sits on four Contracts Committees which is the second highest number of Contracts Committees that any officer sits on.  I also reiterate and confirm that she did not get to the said Committees by extending any sexual favors to me or to anybody else in the Ministry that I am aware of.  

I genuinely believed she earned her pips and I assigned her to them on that basis.  The ones she lost were either due to routine changes, or due to the circumstances that I have highlighted earlier on. I have also attached some of the nominations that I made for her to sit on some of the contracts committees of government ministries, departments and agencies and collectively marked them as “F”.

c) Sending her love notes while assigning her work, such as “with love from Gash”:

I categorically deny this allegation for the following reason.  All the work that I assign is picked up from my desk by my Secretaries and it would be most absurd of me to stick a love note on work I have assigned to Ms. Mwesigye, to be conveyed by my Secretaries.  

As far as I am aware, I have not addressed any love note to Ms. Samantha Mwesigye at all. Only God and her know where she picked it from, if she is not the author herself. The note that she has been waving around is not addressed to her as far as I saw and in the least, is a desperate attempt at creating evidence that I had any interest in my accuser, a fact I vehemently deny.

d) Ridiculing and embarrassing her in a department meeting where she said I accused her for falsely accusing me for sexual harassment:

With regard to this allegation, I wish to confirm that yes, this matter came up in our Directorate meeting around September 2018 or there about and yes, I raised the matter in the meeting.  This I did for two reasons which I will shortly explain below.  Did I raise the matter to intimidate Ms. Mwesigye? Absolutely not.  

Anyone in their right mind would know that I would have been walking a tight robe with the full risk of losing face as the Head of Department by bring out facts of my supposed “crime”. But it was a risk that I gladly embraced because I believed that it was the only reasonable way of addressing the character assassination that my accuser had carried on for long, since our email exchanges in June 2018.

I am very glad that in her own documents which she submitted to your committee, she explains what happened. In her own document, she admits that she shared the email she sent to me in confidence with two or so of her colleagues in the hope that they wouldn’t tell me, but unfortunately I got to know. Find an unclear copy of the document that I got from the complaint that you sent to me, which I have attached hereto and marked “G”.

I can confirm that various other officers came to me and told me that this email as well as the rumour of my supposed sexual harassment of Ms. Mwesigye had become routine and the question I therefore ask is this; was it okay for me to keep quiet as Ms. Mwesigye painted me in bad light and belittled me, or should I have rather addressed the elephant in the room? I chose to address the elephant in the room.

My two reasons for raising this matter in the meeting were therefore:

 1. Ms. Mwesigye wrote to me the long email alluded to above, alleging that I had made sexual advances towards her in both covert and overt manners. My short answer was that I had noted her email and I genuinely wondered whether it was necessary to write whatever she wrote in that email. It was never an admission of what she alleged against me.

Unfortunately, Ms. Mwesigye commenced on a smear campaign, showing the said email to whoever cared to read it in the department and construing my brief response as an admission of the allegations therein.  

So even without me raising this matter in the Department meeting, I had become a subject of whispers in the corridors of DLAS and probably beyond. In her own emails which form part of the documents you shared with me; I am glad she admits and recognises that a few of her confidants brought it to my attention.  

So basically, Ms. Mwesigye made all these revelations to people with the intent of totally tarnishing my reputation and inciting hatred towards me, but in the hope that I would never know.

Yet she now feels very offended that I brought it up at the meeting where my motive was to ask her colleagues to also hear me out then make their own informed opinion whether I indeed committed the crimes that I am being accused of. What else did she want me to do? 

2. Secondly, I had gotten complaints from Junior Lawyers who out of no fault of their own had replaced Ms. Mwesigye on contracts Committees. One of them a young lady State Attorney whose name for respect I won’t mention, was mercilessly attacked by Ms. Mwesigye and accused that she had taken her place on a Contracts Committee because she was now “my girlfriend”.  

This puzzled me a lot when I learnt that the State Attorney had contemplated absconding from her job because of bullying and on allegations of sexual harassment. I stopped and asked myself, had Ms. Mwesigye herself been appointed on the said Committee because she had been my girlfriend?

At the meeting I was concerned that people shouldn’t be maligned, harassed or abused because of my deeds if indeed I had committed the offence that I was being accused of.  

I told Ms. Mwesigye that let her harass me and not any other officer since she had personally declared that she would stop at nothing to destroy me. So all that I am contending with now point to the motive she confessed about, that is to destroy me.

For this allegation therefore I have no apology to make because I did not intimidate Ms. Mwesigye in the said meeting.  I had a Directorate whose coercion I deemed very important and that is what I communicated.  If Ms. Mwesigye construed it as a tool of blackmail or coercion, that is very sad and very wrong. But I respect her opinion because she too is entitled to her opinion.

Lastly and before I take leave of this matter, I have seen two pieces of “evidence” that Ms. Mwesigye is inviting your Committee to convict me on for alleged sexual harassment.  These are;

a) A stick-on note which she alleges she has very many such copies of, which I allegedly used to send her while assigning work to her, and

b) A long list of supposed telephone short messages or exchanges which I don’t know whether they are WhatsApp messages or SMS messages but which she says bears my sexual harassment of her.

 It is very unfortunate because I don’t know of any love notes that I addressed to my accuser. I deny this allegation because I haven’t written love notes to her.

On the SMS or WhatsApp message exchange, I have no way of verifying whether indeed those are chats we have had in the past with Ms. Mwesigye or not.  In this era of technology, people are able to manipulate anything to get what they want.  I am therefore going to also validate this with my telephone service provider for efficacy.

Be that as it may however, I invite you to look at the chain of messages exchanged.  Even if you were to assume that the chat is indeed between me and Ms. Mwesigye, you will note that 99% of the subject of the chat relates to office matters and how best as a Directorate we were trying to discharge our obligations, on some occasions under very difficult and treacherous circumstances.  

Then out of the blue it is alleged in the middle of that serious discourse, that I sent a message “love you”.  That message if at all is totally unrelated to the matters that we were stated to have been discussing and secondly, it is totally ignored by Samantha.  There is nothing in that whole chat to show that I cajoled her, intimidated her or harassed her or even begged her to have a sexual relationship with me.  

I totally do not recall ever sending any such message to Ms. Mwesigye. I can bet that if Ms. Mwesigye had anything by way of text messages, love notes, emails or anything whatsoever (even a stone tablet like for Moses in the bible), she would have summarily executed me personally I believe, and it would have been in your hands long ago, given her self-confessed hatred for me.

I have counselled myself to live with the fact that in this world, not everybody will like you and some will even outrightly hate you, and that is just a fact of life.  Ms. Mwesigye is under no obligation whatsoever to like me anyway.

My accuser has been all over social media maligning me and saying how I sexually harassed her from the time she joined DLAS for clerkship in 2005. I have sat back and asked myself again, if this were true, why would she have chosen to come back and seek employment in the same Ministry and in the same Department where she knew I worked?

On the contrary Samantha’s uncle, a man I respect very much, asked if I could give his niece a place to do clerkship. I told him to tell her to apply and if she meets our selection criteria, she would be given an opportunity to do her clerkship in any department of our ministry.

True to fate, she was shortlisted on the clerkship list and again by fate, she was sent to DLAS where I too was serving. Note that at the time, I was just but a Principal State Attorney like any other and I wasn’t her overall supervisor.

Having completed clerkship and qualified as a lawyer, Samantha worked in a law firm (owned and run by a lady like her by the way) for about a year of two and all the while, Ms. Mwesigye came a couple of times to our offices requesting that if there was ever an opening, she would very much want to come back and join the Ministry of Justice as she wasn’t being treated well at the law firm where she was working. I told her that if we advertise, she is free to apply. Indeed around 2006 or 2007 I believe, when I was still a Principal State Attorney with no influence whatsoever, the Ministry did advertise, and Ms. Mwesigye applied to join as a State Attorney.

Lucky for her she was shortlisted, interviewed and indeed she got appointed as a State Attorney. At the said point, she was at liberty to go and serve in any directorate in the Ministry, but for reasons only Ms. Mwesigye can explain, she offered to come and work in DLAS where I was a Principal State Attorney.

I now invite this Committee to inquire why someone who claims to have been sexually harassed my me through clerkship, as a State Attorney and also as a Senior State Attorney, would wait and only turn up in 2018 to make these grave claims that she now levels against me, when she had every opportunity in life to keep away from the alleged aggressor or tormentor.

I pray that you carefully look into the motive of my accuser and see her for who she truly is, a person who has decided that her preoccupation will be to destroy me at all costs. For what reason, I still fail to understand.

It is also very curious how conveniently she brings up all these claims at particular key occasions.

The first time Ms. Mwesigye brought up all these allegations, is when she first learnt that I had applied to become Deputy Solicitor General and clearly from her own audios that she sent on social media, some of my superiors were far from amused about me humbly applying for an opportunity that had presented itself in the Ministry and for which I felt I was fully qualified. I find that no coincidence whatsoever.

The next important milestone is slightly over a week ago, after I had been shortlisted to sit interviews for the position of a Justice of the Court of Appeal.

I genuinely hoped and believed that my departure from the Ministry of Justice would give a sigh of relieve to whoever may not have wanted me to stay around. Even in this instance as I try to work out my exit by applying to join the bench so I can further my legal career and hopefully give Ms. Mwesigye and whoever else doesn’t want me in the Ministry space to do whatever they want, I am yet awakened to a myriad of false allegations that I sexually harassed Ms. Mwesigye. I was utterly amazed by all these theatrics and I know that one day all these theatrics will be seen for what they truly are. For respect and given my oath to secrecy I can only say as much.

 Wealth 

Ms. Mwesigye has been on the media talking of the properties I own and asking that my wealth or lack thereof should be investigated. I welcome this too because I know I have complied with the leadership code to the letter.

But I also don’t know what a person who has worked for 35 years is supposed to have or not to have. But since she knows my income more than I do, she is at liberty to controvert all my declarations of wealth filed over the years. She also states (in the stead of my deceased parents), that I should have retired sometime back. Because she believes I am beyond the age of employment in civil service I guess.  

Of what relevancy is this to the allegations of sexual harassment, if I may ask? This is a clear demonstration that her motive is different from what she is portraying to the media to malign me and tarnish my image which I have worked hard to build and preserve over the last 35 years.

I finally wish to state that I wish Ms. Mwesigye well in her endeavours because I have lived long enough on earth to know that even the greatest storm wanes at some point and the sun always, always, comes out.

In this too, I know that the truth will prevail and I rest my faith in knowing that I have done nothing at all to deserve this treatment from the said lady. On the contrary I feel that I have been treated most shabbily and I am actually the victim of harassment by whatever description, in this whole debacle. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people are so gullible and they pass judgment without giving the other party a hearing.

I also rest in the knowledge that I am no longer Ms. Mwesigye’s supervisor, so she doesn’t have to worry about ever working under my supervision.  I also pray to God that she genuinely believes in whatever dirt she has rolled me through and that there is no ill motive at all behind all this.

I therefore pray that this Committee carefully considers our respective presentations and finds for me because I truly have no intimate interest whatsoever in Ms. Mwesigye, I confirm that I have never at any one time sexually harassed her either covertly or overtly as is alleged, I have never maligned her and denied her any rights to serve this country be it on contracts committees or in taking trips abroad or in Uganda, and I maintain my total innocence in the face of all her allegations against me.

I so pray.

Thank you. 

Yours faithfully

C. GASHIRABAKE

[Uganda]

The 21st century Love has become a Pocket full of Notes

Welcome to the 21st century.
Here sex is free and love has become a pocket full of notes.

Where losing your cell phone is worse than losing your values. Where fashion is smoking and drinking, and if you do not, you are obsolete.

Where the bathroom turned into a studio for photos and the church, the perfect place to check in.
21st century, where men and women fear pregnancy more than HIV.

Where the pizza delivery service arrives faster than the ambulance.

Where people fear terrorists and criminals, more than they fear GOD.

Where clothes decide the value of a person and to have money is more important than having friends or family.

21st century, where children are able to renounce their parents for playing PlayStation.

Where men and women often want only relationships without obligations and their only “commitment” is posing for photos and posting on social networks swearing eternal love.

Where love was made public or a play in the theatre.

Where the most popular or the most followed with the most likes in photos is the one that seems to splurge happiness; who takes pictures in elegant and fashionable places surrounded by “empty friendships” with “uncertain loves” and “fake families”.

Where people forgot to take care of the Spirit of the empty soul and decided to take care and cultivate their bodies.

Where is another liposuction to have the desired body of the “artistic world” than a university diploma.

21st century, where it does not matter who you are in any way you will be replaced, here you only survive if you play with “reason”, and you are destroyed if you act with your heart ..

[Uganda]

There are different habits that may hinder a lady from getting married

There are different habits that may hinder a lady from getting married. But here, I’m not going to talk about “Habits”of a lady but rather about “Kinds” of Ladies that face late marriage and most times, No Marriage. Below are the four kinds of ladies that faces late marriage and the answers that works :

Note: ( Don’t argue with me unless you know how I hate arguing with the wrong people. People who aren’t open to even listening, who don’t know how to listen, only care about expressing their point of view, can’t respect an opposing viewpoint and/or can’t agree to disagree. So if u want to argue call IGG or Mr Ofwono O) .🤣ok lets go.

1. The Perfect Lady : Here, the Perfect Lady do not imply that the Lady herself is perfect. But rather, their expectation of their dream man is too high that they kept being selective on the type of man that they want. Most times, the person they love may not like them, and the person that likes them, may not be their love. Those Perfect Ladies always want»»», A Tall, Rich, Caring& Handsome man and if the lady is spiritual, she will be waiting for “God’s Will”. Anyman that misses any of the four qualities ends up being rejected.

Their Problem : The problem such ladies face is that they end up loving the “Container” instead of the “Content”.

The Solution : Accommodate a man who posses atleast 50% of the qualities you desire, the rest will develop with love.

2. The Beautiful Lady : A beautiful lady is attractive to the eye. They are victims of multiple relationships. Most guys that date beautiful ladies date them for fun. The attractiveness of a lady makes it difficult for her to keep herself for a man. This is because of temptation from men, knocking left, right and centre.

Their Problem : The problem beautiful ladies face is that no one really loves them for who they are but likes their beauty and men doubt their ability to make a good home. This poses a threat for them to marry because most men consider a beautiful lady as a flirt.

The Solution : Have a picture of the kind of man you really want to marry. You are lucky that you are beautiful, because you will get proposals from various kinds of men; so be ready to identify that man whom you like to marry. Be loyal to him. He will be proud to marry you.

3. The Rich-man’s daughter : The rich man’s daughter bask on the euphoria of her father’s wealth. As far as she’s concerned, her father is her hero and no man can replace her father’s love and care. She believes that every man that is running after her is after her father’s wealth. So this makes them unattractive to men. Men are naturally proud and will not like to muddle their hard earned reputation on such an insult.

Their Problem : Most rich men’s daughters marry late or marry the wrong man.

The Solution : The Humility of a rich man’s daughter is her greatest weapon to attract men. Men will naturally be drawn to you, if you are humble. Your beauty is secondary.

4. The Career Woman : These ladies are hardworking, ambitious and successful in life. They may be feminist. They are the champions of this saying, “What a man can do, a woman can even do it better”. Marriage is not their headache but career.

Their Problem : The problem of career women is time management. They run everything in life like business even relationship. Secondly, they always want to be the Boss in all things and this poses a threat to men. The more masculine a lady behaves, the less attractive she is to a man. No man wants to marry another man.

The Solution : Every Career woman, cries in her closet. She prays for a man who will love and treat her like a woman. Your cry is over, woman! Simply be submissive atleast to a man. Avoid arguments with him. And be More feminine in your outlook. These are what you need to make a man marry you.

---

By Faridah Nakazibwe

[Uganda]

Marry a man who loves God

Marry a man who loves God because that man will respect you and will worship with you.

Marry a man with whom you can confide your deepest secrets, and cry in front of without feeling embarrassed. A man who knows when to worry and when to lead you with strong hands through a dark storm in your life.

Marry a man who maintains boundaries within your relationship. A man who knows the importance of self-privacy, emotional space and how to balance togetherness and individuality. A man who gives you the freedom to be who you are and encourages you to become the best version of yourself every single day.

A man who’s ready to spend his entire lifetime fulfilling the responsibilities and promises to his wives . A man who will always be honoured to call you his everything, his wife.

Marry a man who accepts your faults and doesn’t try to fix them. A man who knows those imperfections make you perfectly fit for him. A man who always reminds you that you are the most beautiful person in his eyes and you’re the best gift he has ever received. A man who tells you these things, every morning you wake up.

Marry a man who can pray for you and pray with you. A man who isn’t afraid to fall to his knees and worship God without caring what the world will think of him. A man who brings you closer to your creator and makes Him the foundation of your relationship and your future family. A man who reads and lives out His words.

Marry a man who loves God and loves his wives, regardless of the obstacles this world brings.

But As a woman you should not marry a man whose heart is not after the things of God. There is a beauty that is deceptive.If beauty is all there is to you, you will remain beautiful yet alone. Men don’t look on the outside, if he still seeks only your beauty he is lusting.

---

By Faridah Nakazibwe

[Uganda]

John Blaq has no future in the music industry

Controversial singer Jennifer Nakanguubi alias Jennifer Full figure has opened a verbal war with the fast raising singer John Kasadha alias John Blaq.

According the Mukyakale singer, nice looks and stage performance guarantees one’s success in the music industry, but apparently John Blaq doesn’t have them.

“John Blaq has no future in the music industry, even Fresh Kid is far better than him. First he has no stage performance; he is not handsome and not good to look at. He has no hit song, only unless slay queens find his music good,” Full figure said.

In a video recording, Full figure claimed that she doesn’t understand any of John Blaq’s songs, that he sings like he wants to ‘throw up’, or like he is crying. And according to her, it will be very easy to forget about the ‘Bubadi’ singer once people get used to his singing style.

Now that her music career failed to work, the motor-mouthed People Power activist has of late turned into a music critic, commenting on everything trending and several artistes have fall a victim of her insults.

Recently, singer Catherine Kusaasira threatened to drag Full figure to police over defamation and use of abusive language, but later pardoned her after apologizing. Other victims include, Ykee Benda, Chris Evans, Sophie Gombya, Fiina Masanyalaze, Bebe Cool among others.

[Uganda]

Police release Kabuleta after four days in detention

Four days after his arrest and detention by the police, Joseph Kabuleta, a former New Vision Sports journalist and Pastor of Watchman Ministries is a free man.

Kabuleta who was arrested last Friday over accusations of making social media postings that annoy President Yoweri Museveni was released on police bond late on Tuesday evening.

This, according to Police spokesman Fred Enanga was intended to beat the 48-hour rule that prohibits the detention of suspects beyond 48 hours without trial.

“It is something that we agreed upon that when his file is not sanctioned within 48 hours. He becomes a beneficiary of police bond”, Enanga said.

Since Friday evening when he was picked from Cafe Drew and Jacs at Lugogo Forest Mall, Kabuleta has been in detention at the Kireka based Special Investigations Unit (SIU) on charges of offensive communication.

This followed a post on his social media platforms in which he referred to President Yoweri Museveni as a gambler, thief and liar.

The police’s efforts to prosecute Kabuleta collapsed after the Director of Public Prosecution, Justice Mike Chibita failed to sanction his file in time, which left police without any option but to release him on bond.

His lawyer, Daniel Walyemera said, the Police want to charge Kabuleta under Section 25 of the Computer misuse Act.

Walyemera also claimed that the police to release his client to beat the Habeas Corpus application, which is scheduled for hearing before Justice Musa Ssekana on Wednesday morning.

According to Walyemera, the most important issue to note is that Kabuleta’s Constitutional rights have been violated since he was denied access to his lawyers, next of kin and doctor.

Walyemera and his colleague  Aggrey Mpola had filed an application the Civil Division of High Court on Tuesday evening seeking orders compelling the Commandant of the Special Investigations Unit Kireka, Elly Womanya, Inspector General of Police, Martins Okoth Ochola and the Attorney General, William Byaruhanga to produce their client in court.

Kabuleta has been asked to report to SIU on Friday.

[Uganda]

Chameleon placed under preventive arrest

Moments after addressing his maiden press conference as DP national mobiliser, musician Joseph Mayanja (Jose Chameleon) was arrested by the police in Kampala and briefly detained at the Central Police Station (CPS).

Mayanja was arrested a few metres away from the DP headquarters at City House as he marched with supporters singing some of Kyadondo East MP Robert Kyagulanyi (Bobi Wine’s) political songs.

He was led to a police truck and driven to CPS Kampala where he was briefly detained and later driven home.

“The only thing we did was to prevent him from causing commotion on the streets of Kampala. After addressing the press conference, he mobilised his supporters to march on the streets of the city yet it was not cleared. We prevented him from committing a crime because it is within our mandate,” Patrick Onyango, the Kampala Metropolitan Police spokesman told journalists.

Earlier at the press conference at DP headquarters, Mayanja dispelled rumours that he had joined the political scene to fight the Kyadondo East legislator.

“I know Bobi Wine more than most of you know him, at a family level, I know him as a young man, I know him as a fighter, I know him as a brave man, there is much more I know that you people don’t. That is why when all the propaganda came up, to neutralize and defuse your lies, I took it upon myself to visit him. Take note, I visited him between 8-9pm in the night. If I was against him, he wouldn’t have opened for me at that time of the night, I was against him, his wife wouldn’t have welcomed me,” Mayanja said.

The pop star formally joined DP two weeks back and was instantly appointed the party’s chief mobiliser. His joining of the political scene was met by suspicion given his role in the marketing of President Yoweri Museveni’s 2016 re-election campaigns.

Mayanja however says that is now part of his past and his focus now is the struggle to end Museveni’s more than three decades hold onto power.

“If it is about the revolution, don’t tell me that the revolution has closed me out, I am also a Ugandan, I have so much energy that I can [add] to the struggle to liberate this country,” Mayanja said.

“If I was a mole, I wouldn’t be going to [places like] Bukomansimbi [to stage concerts], I would be rich enough but I am not after money… I once took money but it is nowhere to be seen, but I want now to take part in the struggle of liberating, of freeing our country from dictatorship,” he added.

[Uganda]

Do the right thing Kizza Besigye, be different from Yoweri Museveni and stop being like him

KIZZA BESIGYE IS JUST ANOTHER DICTATOR.

Most people now agree that he must pass on the baton, but it seems the man himself is not even thinking about it.

I expected better from him. I expected him to comply to common sense but he has chosen the Yoweri Museveni way of doing things.

What people do out of power gives us a clear picture of what they’ll do in power. If he was President of the republic, would he give up power? No he wouldn’t

I know the senior people in his party want him to do the Honorable thing. All those you hear saying he is our candidate are not being honest with their thoughts and feelings, they just say that for public consumption. Deep down they want him to step down but coming out would have consequences because democracy in the FDC is just a show.

Do the right thing Kizza Besigye, be different from Yoweri Museveni and stop being like him. Don’t give your party and the country cancer because that is what you are doing. You are doing great harm to your legacy. Is this what you want to be remembered for because people look more at the bad you have done than the good.

Do the right thing.
Pass on the baton.

[Uganda]

Samantha Mwesigye Nude Photos Leaked

A joint investigation committee has exonerated Christopher Gashirabake, former Director Legal Advisory Services and now Deputy Solicitor General, of sexually harassing Samantha Mwesigye, a Senior State Attorney.

“The allegation of sexual harassment has not been proved against the Respondent (Gashirabake,” the 4-member committee led by

Administrator General, Charles Kasibayo determined.

Other members on the committee include Secretary Law Council, Margaret Apiny, Principal Assistant Secretary Paul Muzaale and Assistant Commissioner Human Resource Management, Joan Natwenda.

The probe was conducted amid a firestorm of sexual harassment allegations by Mwesigye against Gashirabake, a candidate for the position of Justice of Court of Appeal.

She had alleged that Gashirabake denied her travel opportunities; removed her from Contracts Committees and sent her love notes while assigning her work, such as “with Love from Gash”.

Mwesigye further accused Gashirabake of “ridiculing and embarrassing” her in the departmental meeting.

“Upon careful perusal of the above, the committee noted that the statement in that whole paragraph was more of a demand for additional travels other than a complaint of sexual harassment,” the committee said in its final report.

“It was the conclusion of the Committee that even though Ms. Mwesigye took exception to Mr. Gashirabake including nomination letters signed by other officers, the Committee concluded that any nomination made was by the Directorate/Ministry because whoever signs does so in an official capacity. In effect, any nomination made was an aggregated official work for the Directorate,” the committee added.

“After due consideration of all the above in totality, the Committee finds that the Complainant was not denied travel opportunities abroad as a form of victimisation to seek sexual favours. There is no evidence of implied or express promise of preferential treatment or a threat of detrimental treatment. There was no evidence that the bulk of nominations signed by the Respondent were done in order to procure or after receiving sexual favours. These nominations were signed during the period when the sexual harassment allegedly occurred and further nominations were made after the email of 11th June, 2018.”

Below is the full report:

 1.1     BACKGROUND:

 In accordance with Regulation 10 of The Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations 2012, the Solicitor General constituted the Sexual Harassment Committee on 6th February, 2019 in consultation with the Director First Parliamentary Counsel, who is now the sexual harassment complaints officer.

1.2     COMPOSITION

 The Committee which was constituted in February, 2019 comprised the following members:

Charles Kasibayo –        Administrator General/Chairperson.
Margaret Apiny –        Secretary Law Council/Member.
Juliet Kayondo –        Principal Assistant Secretary/ Ag. Under Secretary
Arya Abel Okok –         Assistant Commissioner Human  Resource/Member.
Following the appointment of the above members, Ms. Juliet Kayondo was thereafter transferred to the Office of the Prime Minister by the Office of the President.

The committee sought her replacement and upon deployment of Mr. Paul Muzaale to replace her, the Solicitor General appointed him to the Committee.

The Committee held its inception meeting on 25th March, 2019. Mr. Arya Abel Okok – Assistant Commissioner Human Resource was also later transferred by the Ministry of Public Service.

Thereafter, Ms. Joan Natwenda was deployed to Ministry to replace Mr. Arya Abel Okok. She was appointed to the Committee on 24th April, 2019.

The reconstituted committee has the following members:

Charles Kasibayo –        Administrator General/Chairperson.
Margaret Apiny –        Secretary Law Council/Member.
Paul Muzaale –        Principal Assistant Secretary, Ag. Under Secretary/Member.
Joan Natwenda –        Assistant Commissioner  Human Resource/Member.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
 Being a standing Committee, it was guided by the terms of reference under Regulation 11 of Employment (Sexual Harassment Regulations), 2012 as follows:

Receive and register the complaint of sexual harassment in a form prescribed in the First Schedule;

Initiate internal investigations into complaints;
Keep a record of the nature of sexual harassment offences, proceedings, documents, information and action taken;
1.4     Prepare and provide a report to the Solicitor General

1.5     Carry out any other duties as may arise for the prevention of sexual harassment.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
 During the inception meeting of 25th March, 2019, it was agreed that a request be made to the Solicitor General to formally submit the complaint to the Committee.

On 1st April, 2019, the Solicitor General forwarded to the Committee a complaint by Ms. Samantha Mwesigye, a Senior State Attorney in the Directorate of Legal Advisory Services, alleging sexual harassment by Mr. Christopher Gashirabake, former Director Legal Advisory Services and now Deputy Solicitor General, Annexture ‘A’ refers.

Upon receipt of the complaint, a meeting of the Committee was convened on 25th April, 2019 to consider the same.

During deliberations of the Committee and upon perusing different documents and correspondences submitted by Ms. Mwesigye on the matter, it was noted that the emails and WhatsApp messages mentioned in the memo to the Solicitor General dated 8th November, 2018 were not attached.

Accordingly, the committee resolved that the Complainant be required to provide the said emails and WhatsApp messages for consideration. A letter to that effect dated 29th April, 2019 was served on her on the 3rd day of May, 2019, Annexture ‘B’ refers.

In her email dated 5th May, 2019 Ms. Mwesigye Samantha forwarded the said Emails and WhatsApp messages to the Secretary to the Committee, Annexture ‘C’ refers.

However, to the Committee’s surprise, the Complainant appeared on NBS television four days later, on the 9th May, 2019, asserting that she has not heard from the Committee.

On 10th May, 2019 the Committee convened its 3rd meeting and reviewed the emails, WhatsApp messages and resolved that the Respondent defends himself against the allegations within 7 days, with specific reference to the salient issues raised in the emails and WhatsApp messages, Annexture ‘D’ refers;

Denying the Complainant travel opportunities abroad.
Removing the Complainant from Contracts Committees.
Sending the Complainant love notes while assigning her work, such as “with love from Gash”.
Ridiculing and embarrassing the Complainant in the Departmental meeting held on 20th September, 2018.
On the 21st of May, 2019, the Committee received the Respondent’s defense giving a detailed background of his employment record of 35 years and specifically responding to each of the four major allegations made by the Complainant as herein above already noted, Annexture ‘E’ refers.

The Committee convened its 4th meeting on 24th May, 2019. While deliberating, the committee noted that the allegations of overt and covert sexual overtures as raised by the Complainant in her email to Respondent, dated 11th June, 2018, were vehemently denied by the Respondent.

Members also agreed that the allegations of overt and covert sexual overtures and advances needed to be supported with evidence from the Complainant.

The Committee observed that Mr. Gashirabake’s response to Ms. Mwesigye’s  email dated 12th June, 2018 at 8:36 am was so brief with words “Noted” WAS THIS LONG MISSIVE REQUIRED???? BLESSED DAY” to which Ms. Mwesigye replied at 10:24 am as “In hindsight, it was not. I apologize, I was overtaken by emotions”.

It was further observed that Mr. Gashirabake again responded to the above email on 21st June, 2018 at 22:44pm denying the allegations of overt and covert advances and he stated as follows:

I cautioned you about your inappropriate dressing manner and reminded you of the Public Service Standing Orders. I don’t think this was overstepping my official boundaries or it amounted to sexual advance and you may be referring to as covert and overt sexual overtures. I am not apologetic on this. The other time is when you had painted your hair red! I told you not to return to office until you had removed the red dye in line with the same standing orders. You did it as a Senior Officer to me and I insist you should be an example to the others, since then you had not come to office with offensive attire.

The Committee agreed that owing to the nature and tone of the earlier emails there was need to establish the intentions of those messages where the Complainant was apologetic for having been overtaken by emotions and also the Respondent replying “Noted” with several question marks

The committee resolved that during the hearing of both parties, attention would be drawn to establishing the context in which words like “with love from Gash” on a sticker note were written and allegedly sent to the Complainant, and whether the Respondent authored it?

As observed from the complaint and the Respondent’s defense, the Complainant was removed from UNEB Contracts Committee in 2011. The committee would be interested to know during the hearing whether it originated from a complaint by UNEB.

The Committee also resolved to demand for a list from the Ag. Director Legal Advisory services indicating deployment of State Attorneys to different Ministries, Departments and Agencies between January to December, 2018.

The Ag. Director Legal Advisory Services was further required to provide minutes of the Directorate’s meeting held on 20th September, 2018 in which the Complainant was allegedly ridiculed and humiliated, Annexture “F” refers.

The Committee also agreed that during the hearing, the Complainant would be required to prove whether the WhatsApp messages were printed from her cell phone or otherwise, and the Respondent would also be required to provide his cell phone for purposes of comparison with the messages submitted by the Complainant.

The Committee convened its 5th meeting on 12th June, 2019, reviewed the minutes of the previous meeting held on 24th May, 2019 and noted the following:

That the Director, Legal Advisory Services had submitted a list detailing the deployment of State Attorneys to Contracts Committees of various Ministries, Departments and Agencies from January to December, 2018. Annexture ‘G’ refers.
 
On the request for the Minutes of the Directorate’s meeting held on 20th September, 2018, the Ag. Director Legal Advisory Services reported to the Committee that the minute Secretary, Mr. Henry Obbo was out of the Country and that he was therefore unable to access the record of the said minutes.
Having served Mr. Gashirabake with the complaint of Ms. Mwesigye, the Committee resolved that the Complainant equally be served with Respondent’s defence and a hearing notice be served on both parties for a hearing scheduled for 18th June, 2018 at 10:00 am in the Boardroom of Law Council on 7th Floor, Georgian House.

On 18th June, 2019, the Committee convened in the Law Council Boardroom on 7th Floor, Georgian House, however, the Complainant

did not appear. Nevertheless, the Committee deliberated on the two letters addressed to the Committee by the Complainant’s Counsel at MS. Chapter Four Uganda. The first letter dated 17th June, 2019 was to the effect that the Complainant had written to the Solicitor General raising concerns over the process of setting up the Committee, its constitution, and asserting that unless an action was taken on the said letter, their client would not participate in the process, Annexture ‘H’ refers.

The committee considered the contents of the letter and resolved to advise the Complainant that the committee was established in accordance with Regulation 10 of the Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations 2012, whose functions are provided under Regulation 11 of the said Regulations. That the committee is, therefore, independent of Solicitor General in the exercise of its mandate. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the Committee agreed to reschedule the hearing to 27th June, 2019, Annexture ‘I’ refers.

The Committee also considered the second letter from the Complainant’s Counsel dated 17th June, 2019 protesting late submission of Mr. Christopher Gashirabake’s response which should have been attached to the invitation letter dated 13th June, 2019 but, was inadvertently omitted. This concern was highly regrettable because prior to the invitation, the Committee had agreed that the Complainant be availed a copy of the Respondent’s defense.

Whereas the committee had noted the contents of the first letter above wherein the Complainant declined to appear before it, the committee nonetheless resolved to extend the time within which the Complainant would appear for the hearing. The hearing was therefore adjourned for nine days, Annexture ‘J‘ refers. The inadvertent omission by the Secretary to the Committee was highly regrettable.

On 18th June, 2019, the Respondent appeared but the Committee decided that the best procedure was for him to appear after it had heard from the Complainant. The matter was therefore adjourned to 27th June, 2019.

On the 27th of June, 2019, the Committee convened in the Administrator General’s Boardroom on 3rd Floor – Georgian House, but both the Complainant and the Respondent did not appear.   However, the Respondent sent his apology that he was in China on official duties.

The Committee concluded that the Complainant had on her own accord, opted not to appear before the Committee as per her lawyer’s letter which is on record. The Committee decided that the emails and WhatsApp messages submitted by the Complainant on the 5th of May, 2019, refer to Annexture ‘C’ together with complaint filed earlier would guide its internal investigations.

The Committee also considered the minutes of departmental meeting held on 20th September 2018 in which the Complainant alleged that she was ridiculed. The Committee also received the list detailing deployment of State Attorneys in the Directorate of Legal Advisory Services to contracts committees of various Ministries Departments and Agencies between January and December 2018.

It was also noted that by a letter dated 19th June, 2019, Counsel for the Complainant submitted a counter response from Ms. Mwesigye Samantha in reply to the Respondent’s defense, Annexture ‘K’ refers. In the same letter the complainant reiterated her earlier decision not to appear before the Committee. Accordingly, the committee decided to interface with the Respondent on the 3rd day of July, 2019 since the Complainant had opted out.

On the 3rd day of July, 2019, the Committee interfaced with the Respondent. He reiterated the contents of his defense filed in which he denied in totality ever having sexually harassed Ms. Mwesigye Samantha.   He stated that he never victimized the Complainant by denying her travel opportunities abroad and prayed to the committee to allow him submit further evidence to prove that the complainant has never been victimized through denial of travel opportunities abroad.  His prayer was allowed, a Loose Minute dated 5/11/2018 signed by Ms. Mwesigye, addressed to the Attorney General, wherein the complainant was explaining her inability to complete assignments in time was admitted,  Annexture ‘L’ refers.  She stated therein that:

         I have also had meetings out of the country as follows:

9th July 2018-15th July 2018 the 28th Meeting of the Sectoral Council of Ministers responsible for EAC Affairs and Planning in Bujumbura, Burundi on the above mentioned dates.

3rd September 2018-5th September 2018 attending a Swiss Embassy visa Appointment for a trip to Geneva.
6th October 2018-13th October 2018 the WTO Trade and Public Health Workshop held in Geneva, Switzerland.
The Respondent also tendered in a Loose Minute by Ms. Mwesigye addressed to the Solicitor General through the Director Legal Advisory Services, dated 7/11/2018 concerning her absence from duty between 10th November to 18th November 2018, Annexture ‘M’ refers.   She had gone to attend the Global Raphael Lemkin Seminar for Genocide Prevention in Poland at the recommendation of Directorate of Legal Advisory Services.

He further stated that the Complainant sits on four contracts committees, this being the second highest number of contracts committees that any officer sits on; and that he never ridiculed, intimidated, or sent her love notes as alleged.

During his interface with the Committee, the Respondent stated that he enjoyed a cordial working relationship with the Complainant. That he never sent her ‘Love you’ message as alleged and that this word appears once in her entire submission and wondered how it appeared in the middle of an official communication. When pressed further, he said it’s possible that a message can wrongly be sent to an unintended recipient and that he does not remember ever sending such words to Ms. Mwesigye.

On being the Chairman of the Rewards and Sanctions Committee for over a decade, he denied this and stated that he was appointed on 6th November, 2017.

4.0     FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE

 The committee took the decision to continue with its investigations even though the Complainant opted out of physical appearance.

The Committee was guided during its investigation by the salient issues raised by the Complainant in both her complaint and the accompanying documents.

4.1     The main issues for consideration were as follows:

Whether or not the Respondent sexually harassed the Complainant covertly or overtly in the following form:

Denying the Complainant travel opportunities.
Removing the Complainant from Contracts Committees.
Sending the Complainant love notes while assigning her work, such as “with Love from Gash”.
Ridiculing and embarrassing the Complainant in the departmental meeting.
The Committee made reference to the relevant statutory definition of sexual harassment in The Employment Act Section 7(1) and The Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations 2012, thus an employee shall be sexually harassed in that employee’s employment if that employee’s employer, or a representative of that employer:

directly or implicitly makes a request of that employee for sexual intercourse, sexual contact or any other form of sexual activity that contains:
an implied or express promise of preferential treatment in employment;
An implied or express threat of detrimental treatment in employment;
An implied or express threat about the present or future employment status of the employee;
uses of language whether written or spoken of a sexual nature such as unwelcome verbal advances, sexual oriented comments, request for sexual favours, jokes of a sexual nature, offensive flirtation or obscene expressions of sexual interest that are addressed directly to the person;
uses of visual material of a sexual nature such as display sexually suggestive pictures, objects or written materials or sexually suggestive gestures.
shows physical behavior of a sexual nature such as unwanted and unwelcome touching, patting, pinching or any other unsolicited conduct:
The Committee also looked at the Uganda Public Service Standing Orders 2010 (disciplinary procedures F-s (f-5).

The Code of Conduct and Ethics for the Uganda Public Service wherein sexual harassment is defined as a means of conduct of a sexual nature that affect the dignity of women and men, which is unwelcome, irritating, unreasonable and offensive to the recipient. Such a conduct may be explicit, verbal or non-verbal or implicit and creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating working environment for the recipient.

Item 4.4 of the code of conduct and ethics for the Uganda Public Service provides guiding principles on Sexual Harassment:

A Public Officer shall avoid unethical and unbecoming behavior such as use of rude, abusive and obscene language, indecent dressing and sexual suggestive gestures which constitute sexual harassment and hence a violation of human rights.
A Public Officer shall not subject others or be subjected to conduct of a sexual nature affecting his or her dignity, which is unwelcome, unreasonable and offensive to the recipient.
A sexually suggestive and offensive behavior may manifest itself in such forms:
An employee being forced to choose between acceding to sexual demands or losing job benefits (sexual blackmail).
Verbal and non-verbal sexually offensive behaviour exhibited by colleagues (or even customers).
A Public Officer who is subjected to sexual harassment overtures shall report such a case with adduced evidence, where applicable, to the department of Government that is responsible for investigating civil and criminal offences with a view to obtaining redress.
A Public officer who has lodged any complain regarding sexual harassment using the established complaints procedure shall not be unduly victimized.
Remedies for sexual harassment shall be those prescribed under the civil or criminal laws.
Finding on 4.1(A): Denying the Complainant travel opportunities:

 By email dated 5th May, 2019, the Complainant forwarded emails and WhatsApp messages to the Secretary to the Committee (refer to Annexture ‘C’) in support of her complaint in the memo to the Solicitor General dated 8th November, 2018.

These email exchanges are four in number. Two are by the Complainant and two are replies from the Respondent. The Committee considered them concurrently. The first one was originated/authored by the Complainant on 11th June, 2018 at 10:31 a.m.

In resolving this issue, the Committee considered paragraph two of the said first email authored by the Complainant that reads:

I enjoy the work I do, it is intellectually rewarding but there will come a time when even that will not mean much. Economically I have survived with a lot of strain, my salary alone cannot cover my rent. I have been forced to supplement it with business. It doesn’t help that the leadership in the Ministry are not willing to fight for our salary enhancement. As I informed you the Hon DAG told me he is aware we are not capable of industrial action because we get money through bribes and trips. Last year you nominated for one trip (the EAC council of ministers meeting and summit which was 10 days in Feb). I also travelled to Washington in November for a two week course which I got grudgingly after I confronted the training committee.

This year I travelled 2 weeks ago to Gabon for 4 days having last travelled 7 months before that. Last year I had a trip to London and Paris and after I got a visa you replaced me with Betty Adwono a State Attorney who I am senior to. It upset me and I contacted you since you were out of the Country and you didn’t dignify me with a response. It happened again this year when you replaced me with Ms. Nabakooza Margaret (PSA), atleast she was a senior officer and by then I had purposed never to hold emotions over trips. You apologized and I do believe it was not intentional. However I have began feeling victimized. Some people have already recorded 42 days this year alone from trips, I have 6 including travel days. I currently have only one contracts committee. All these are avenues of earning income which I do not benefit from.

Upon careful perusal of the above, the committee noted that the statement in that whole paragraph was more of a demand for additional travels other than a complaint of sexual harassment. The committee also in assessing this issue in its entirety looked at the first email in response from Respondent sent on 12th June, 2018 at 8:36 am which reads as follows; ‘”Noted” was this long missive required??? Blessed Day.’’

On the same date of 12th June, 2018 at 10:24 a.m., the Complainant emailed the Respondent an apology stating ‘in hindsight it was not. I apologize, I was over taken by emotions’. This apology from the Complainant was noted with concern because it in effect weakened the alleged inference made on the sexual harassment allegations.

Mr. Christopher Gashirabake again by email dated 21st June, 2018 at 22:44hrs denied the allegation of overt and covert advances stating that ‘I wish to put it to you that I have no intentions ever to make any sexual advancement to you or any of my junior staff. I hope this settles your mind’.

 Respondent in his defence filed with the committee on 21st May, 2019 at Page 5, attached nomination letters in support of his defence, refer to attachments to the his defence in Annexture ‘E’. The Committee noted that the bulk of nominations are under his name and signature.

The Complainant in Paragraph one of her counter response to Respondent’s defence asserted: “it is defective for him therefore, to add nominations that were made by other people”.

It was the conclusion of the Committee that even though Ms. Mwesigye took exception to Mr. Gashirabake including nomination letters signed by other officers, the Committee concluded that any nomination made was by the Directorate/Ministry because whoever signs does so in an official capacity. In effect, any nomination made was an aggregated official work for the Directorate.

After due consideration of all the above in totality, the Committee finds that the Complainant was not denied travel opportunities abroad as a form of victimization to seek sexual favours. There is no evidence of implied or express promise of preferential treatment or a threat of detrimental treatment. There was no evidence that the bulk of nominations signed by the Respondent were done in order to procure or after receiving sexual favours. These nominations were signed during the period when the sexual harassment allegedly occurred and further nominations were made after the email of 11th June, 2018.

Finding on 1(B):    Removing the Complainant from Contracts Committees;

 In Paragraph two of the Complainant’s conclusion in her first email dated 11th June, 2018 she stated “I currently have only one contracts committee. All these are avenues for earning income which I do not benefit from”.

The Respondent in his defence stated that the Complainant sits on four contracts committees, ranking her as number two in the entire Directorate amongst the list of officers who sit on the most number of committees. The Respondent attached nomination forms that he made for the Complainant to sit on some of the contract’s committees of government Ministries, Departments and Agencies, Annexture ’G’ refers.

The Complainant in her 19th June, 2019 response to the Respondent’s defence at Page one stated ‘I have had one contract’s committee until recent when I got the 2nd. One other committee I had had my term renewed on has not met for 2 yrs and my term should have expired. I did ask to be removed since it had no work and I was told to just let it lapse. The other had its work transferred to another PDE and my term has since lapsed’.

The Committee found that this was not in conformity with her earlier assertion in the first email, dated 11th June, 2018 which supported her complaint wherein she stated that ‘I currently have only one contracts committee. All these are avenues for earning income which I do not benefit from’. The Committee also noted with concern that when a contracts committee has no work, one ceases to be a member.

The Committee carried out internal investigation on this issue and obtained from the Ag. Director Legal Advisory Services a list detailing the deployment of State Attorneys to Contracts Committees of various MDA’s from January to December, 2018.

The list obtained independently by the Committee shows that by December, 2018, the Complainant was a member of the following contracts committees:

Privatization Unit
Cotton Development Organization
Uganda National Cultural Centre
Office of the Prime Minister
The Committee accordingly finds that no victimization was occasioned to the Complainant and found it strange for the Complainant to use this allegation to insinuate sexual harassment. To find otherwise, would insinuate that other even more senior officers for instance at Principal State Attorney level who according to this list sit on only one contracts committee, can also, when not in good terms with the Director, allege sexual harassment.

The Committee found no evidence of implied or express promise of preferential treatment or a threat of detrimental treatment. The fact that some contracts committees allegedly do no work or are not busy cannot be visited on the Respondent.

The Committee also deliberated on the matter concerning the removal of the Complainant from the UNEB contracts Committee in 2011. The Committee noted that by admission of both parties, a complaint was originated by UNEB. The Director had the discretion to hear and decide the Complaint and if Ms. Mwesigye was aggrieved by the outcome, she should have appealed to the Solicitor General.

 Finding on 4.1(C): Sending the Complainant love notes while assigning her work, such as “with love from Gash”:

 In his response to the allegation, the Respondent denied this allegation and stated that:

All the work that I assign is picked up from my desk by my secretaries and it would be most absurd of me to stick a love note on work I have assigned to Ms. Mwesigye, to be conveyed by my secretaries. As far as I am aware, I have not addressed any love note to Complainant at all. Only God and her know where she picked it from, if she is not the author herself. The note that she has been waving around is not addressed to her as far as I saw and in the least, is a desperate attempt at creating evidence that I had any interest in my accuser, a fact I vehemently deny.

In her counter reply to the Respondent’s defence dated 18th June, 2019 at page 14, the Complainant stated ‘he did occasionally put sticker notes in my work “with love Gash”. That it wasn’t addressed to anyone I can only presume he hoped to deny intentionally leaving them in work he assigned me if he were caught. As the recipient I scanned one after several similar ones had been sent. It is however in his handwriting and will be proved by a forensic expert when it comes to it’

It is unfortunate that the Committee was not availed with the original copy of the sticker-note with words “with love from Gash”. There is also no evidence of several of them as alleged by the Complainant. The photocopy that was submitted to the Committee by the Complainant bears the words “with love from Gash” and not as stated in the Complainant’s counter reply to the Respondent’s defence at Page 14 which reads as follows; “with love Gash”. In the same counter-response at Page 14, the Complainant admits that the words on the sticker-note were not addressed to her and that the Respondent hoped to deny it if he was caught.

In his defence, the Respondent denied ever sending the sticker-note with words “with love from Gash”.

The law of evidence requires primary evidence to be adduced. In the instant case whereas, the Complainant filed her counter response to the Respondent’s defence, she on her own accord declined to appear before the Committee nor did she file the original sticker-note. The Committee was therefore, unable to put the issue of the sticker-note into the proper context for purposes of this investigation, that is to say; whether it was an unwelcome verbal sexual advance; a sexual oriented comment; a request for sexual favour; a joke of a sexual nature; an offensive flirtation or obscene expression of sexual interest and whether it was directly addressed to the Complainant as required by Regulation 2(b) of The Employment (Sexual Harassment Regulations) 2012.

The Committee finds no evidence to prove that the Complainant was the intended recipient of the sticker note since it was not directly addressed to her. The Committee was however unable to determine whether the sticker-note was written by the Respondent.

On the same note, the Complainant also submitted a record of what are said to be WhatsApp messages between her and the Respondent for the period between 26th April, 2018 to 2nd June, 2018. This was through an email to the Committee’s secretary on the 5th day of May, 2019 containing a message reading “Love you” and several chats.

The Respondent stated at Page 8 and 9 of his defence that:

“on the SMS or WhatsApp message exchange, I have no way of verifying whether indeed those are chats we have had in the past with Ms. Mwesigye or not. In this era of technology, people are able to manipulate anything to get what they want. I am therefore going to also validate this with my telephone service provider for efficacy. Be that as it may however, I invite you to look at the chain of messages exchanged. Even if you were to assume that the chat is indeed between me and Ms. Mwesigye, you will note that 99% of the subject of the chat relates to office obligations, on some occasions under very difficult and treacherous circumstances. Then out of the blue it is alleged in the middle of that serious discourse, that I sent a message “love you”. That message if at all is totally unrelated to the matters that we were stated to have been discussing and secondly, it is totally ignored by Samantha. There is nothing in that whole chat to show that I cajoled her intimidated her or harassed her or even begged her to have a sexual relationship with me”.

The Complainant, in her 18th June, 2019 counter response to the defence, stated:

“WhatsApp messages aren’t verified by mobile networks. The WhatsApp messages I shared were messages he sent me. Attached is the original encrypted message as sent by WhatsApp to my email (annex13). Why he would send me a love you message amidst official communication is for him to explain not I. he also has several good morning my friend messages he sent me early morning. I grew to detest the sound of my phone in the message alerting, me to the dreaded messages. I wonder if he ever sent them to another employee. I for one loathed them and they were inappropriate considering I would still be coming to office and he could have greeted me then if it was indeed that important that he must greet me. I have since adopted the practice of muting my phone just because of what he would put me through”.

It is common knowledge that since WhatsApp messages are encrypted it cannot be verified by mobile networks. The Committee had resolved that during the hearing of the parties, the Complainant would be requested to prove whether the WhatsApp messages were printed from her cell phone or otherwise. The Respondent would also be required to provide his cell phone for purposes of comparison with the messages submitted by the Complainant. However, the Complainant declined to appear before the Committee and when the Respondent appeared, he denied ever sending “love you” message to the Complainant.

The Committee was therefore, uncomfortable in relying on a photocopy containing the messages as this offends the Law of evidence. Secondly, the photocopy is incomplete as it does not show the entire record of communication between the parties. There are numerous messages from the Complainant that were missing, that is to say:

on 21st May, 2018 at 20:25hrs the Complainant sent an image described as IMG-20180521-WA0017.jpg.
on 23rd May, 2018 at 12:26hrs the Complainant sent an image described as IMG-20180523-WA0017.jpg. and IMG-20180523-WA0018.jpg on the same date.
on 23rd may, 2018 at 17:29hrs, the Complainant sent an image described as IMG-20180523-WA0025.jpg.
on 26th April, 2018 at 09:49, the Complainant sent a voice message described as AUD-20180426-WA0008.opus.
on 27th April, 2018, the Complainant sent image IMG-20180427-WA007.jpg and IMG-20180427-WA008.jpg at 15:55hrs and 15:56hrs respectively.
on 26th May, 2018, the Complainant sent image IMG-20180526-WA002.jpg.
The Committee found that one of the messages allegedly sent by the Respondent on 23rd may, 2018 at 7:25 hrs, indicates ‘Media omitted’.

This caused doubt to the Committee to rely on such an incomplete document since the messages received by the Committee do not constitute the entire record of communication between the parties.

The Complainant invited the Committee to implore the Respondent (refer to Page 14 of her counter response to the Respondent’s defence) to explain why he sent a “love you” message amidst official communication.

When the Respondent appeared before the Committee on 3rd July, 2019, he denied ever having deliberately sent a WhatsApp message saying “Love you”. When pressed as to what if the proof was availed from the Complainant’s phone; he said it was quite possible to send a WhatsApp message to the wrong recipient; and clearly that would maybe account for why there is only one instance of it in all the messages she submitted.

In matters relating to sexual harassment, looking at the issues from the perception of the person making the allegation is very critical. Whereas the Committee was uncomfortable relying on photocopies, both WhatsApp messages and the sticker-note carrying words of endearment “love you” and “with love from Gash”; the refusal by the Complainant to appear before the Committee placed an unusually onerous burden on the Committee to put itself in the Complainant’s shoes when she should have been available to assist the Committee further appreciate her position. The Committee implored the Respondent to explain what he meant, but in the absence of the physical phone record and actual sticker-note, the Committee was left in an awkward position when faced with the flat denials of the Respondent.

Finding on 4.1(D):          Ridiculing and embarrassing the Complainant in the departmental meeting.

In her complaint, Ms. Mwesigye stated “on 20th September, 2018, the Respondent called a departmental meeting in which he ridiculed and intimidated me for what he purported were false accusations leveled against him by me of Sexual Harassment”.

The Respondent in his defence confirmed that the matter of sexual harassment against him by the Complainant came up in the Directorate meeting around September, 2018, but denied that he raised the matter to intimidate the Complainant, (refer to his defence Annexture ‘E’ at page 7). He gave reasons why he raised the matter in a departmental meeting.

The Committee obtained minutes of the meeting termed second DLAS meeting of 2018 held on 20th September, 2018 at Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Boardroom attended by eighteen members of staff, Annexture ‘N’ refers.

 The Committee however finds that this was not a forum envisaged under The Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations 2012. It was therefore

wrong to have this matter of Sexual Harassment discussed in a Departmental meeting other than a committee of Sexual Harassment established under regulation 10.

The issue of intimidation and ridicule required the Complainant to appear personally and adduce evidence since looking at the minutes of the said meeting alone is not sufficient. The minutes show both parties trying to prove their innocence.

Suffice to say, the Committee was of the view that Ms. Mwesigye should have appeared and supported her claim of intimidation and ridicule.

OBSERVATIONS
 Whereas, the Complainant alleged in her television interview of 9th May, 2019 that she was sexually harassed for a period of over 10 years, her email dated 11th June, 2018 does not show when the vice allegedly began.

It is the observation of the Committee that the Complainant had all avenues to report sexual harassment, but chose not to do so. For example, from the year 2007, the office of the Solicitor General has been held by five different Solicitor Generals, two of whom were female. They were senior to and supervised the Respondent. This was in addition to other ladies/females who held positions as Directors and were senior or at the same level of seniority with the Respondent.

The Committee was not convinced that the Complainant had no avenues to report the alleged sexual harassment during the totality of the more than 10 years that the harassment allegedly happened.

The Committee also found out that in 2007, the Respondent was a Principal State Attorney therefore not wielding that much power which the Complainant alluded to. The Committee further established that the Respondent was appointed as the Chairperson of the Rewards and Sanctions Committee on 6th November, 2017, Annexture ‘O’ refers.  The Committee found that he has not been holding the position for all the years as alleged.

6.0     RECOMMENDATIONS:

 6.1   The allegation of sexual harassment has not been proved against the Respondent. Accordingly, this finding should be communicated to the parties.

The Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs now has a designated person in charge of Sexual Harassment Ms. Harriet Lwabi, Director First Parliamentary Counsel. This should be communicated to all members of Staff in the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
 
The Ministry has a standing Sexual Harassment Committee established in accordance with Regulation 10 of Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations, 2012. Therefore any matter related to sexual harassment should be the preserve of this Committee.
 
The Ministry should, spread opportunities for travel abroad and membership to contracts committees of various MDA’s to all legal staffs in various Directorates, Departments, and Regional Offices of the Ministry. This will de-concentrate the activity from the Directorate of Legal Advisory Services which seem to breed
 
monopoly and infighting. It will also equally benefit all State Attorney’s in the Ministry and guarantee efficiency.
Provision of several avenues for reporting sexual harassment to the complaints officer or the Committee which include whistle blowing. This will give employees several options to report their complaints.
 
Conduct sensitizations to enhance employees’ understanding of the law relating to sexual harassment and procedures to mitigate occurrences and general response mechanism.
The Ministry should develop anti-harassment policies and procedures and communicate them to members of staff; as well as develop effective mechanisms for reporting, investigating sexual harassment; and resolving related complaints.
 
The law should be amended to provide adequate and reasonable time within which to carry out meaningful investigations.
 
A standard rotational program should be developed for deployment of legal staff periodically to different Directorates and Departments including transfers to the six Regional offices. This would break the monotony and routine nature of work and it will enable crossbreed and multi-skilling of staff as a key input for career progress.
 SIGNATORIES:

Charles Kasibayo (Administrator General/Chairperson)               

Margaret Apiny (Secretary Law Council/Member)
3. Muzaale Paul (Principal Assistant Secretary/Member)

Joan Natwenda (Assistant Commissioner HRM/Member)

[Uganda]

Samantha Mwesigye Nude Photos Leaked

A joint investigation committee has exonerated Christopher Gashirabake, former Director Legal Advisory Services and now Deputy Solicitor General, of sexually harassing Samantha Mwesigye, a Senior State Attorney.

“The allegation of sexual harassment has not been proved against the Respondent (Gashirabake,” the 4-member committee led by

Administrator General, Charles Kasibayo determined.

Other members on the committee include Secretary Law Council, Margaret Apiny, Principal Assistant Secretary Paul Muzaale and Assistant Commissioner Human Resource Management, Joan Natwenda.

The probe was conducted amid a firestorm of sexual harassment allegations by Mwesigye against Gashirabake, a candidate for the position of Justice of Court of Appeal.

She had alleged that Gashirabake denied her travel opportunities; removed her from Contracts Committees and sent her love notes while assigning her work, such as “with Love from Gash”.

Mwesigye further accused Gashirabake of “ridiculing and embarrassing” her in the departmental meeting.

“Upon careful perusal of the above, the committee noted that the statement in that whole paragraph was more of a demand for additional travels other than a complaint of sexual harassment,” the committee said in its final report.

“It was the conclusion of the Committee that even though Ms. Mwesigye took exception to Mr. Gashirabake including nomination letters signed by other officers, the Committee concluded that any nomination made was by the Directorate/Ministry because whoever signs does so in an official capacity. In effect, any nomination made was an aggregated official work for the Directorate,” the committee added.

“After due consideration of all the above in totality, the Committee finds that the Complainant was not denied travel opportunities abroad as a form of victimisation to seek sexual favours. There is no evidence of implied or express promise of preferential treatment or a threat of detrimental treatment. There was no evidence that the bulk of nominations signed by the Respondent were done in order to procure or after receiving sexual favours. These nominations were signed during the period when the sexual harassment allegedly occurred and further nominations were made after the email of 11th June, 2018.”

Below is the full report:

 1.1     BACKGROUND:

 In accordance with Regulation 10 of The Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations 2012, the Solicitor General constituted the Sexual Harassment Committee on 6th February, 2019 in consultation with the Director First Parliamentary Counsel, who is now the sexual harassment complaints officer.

1.2     COMPOSITION

 The Committee which was constituted in February, 2019 comprised the following members:

Charles Kasibayo –        Administrator General/Chairperson.
Margaret Apiny –        Secretary Law Council/Member.
Juliet Kayondo –        Principal Assistant Secretary/ Ag. Under Secretary
Arya Abel Okok –         Assistant Commissioner Human  Resource/Member.
Following the appointment of the above members, Ms. Juliet Kayondo was thereafter transferred to the Office of the Prime Minister by the Office of the President.

The committee sought her replacement and upon deployment of Mr. Paul Muzaale to replace her, the Solicitor General appointed him to the Committee.

The Committee held its inception meeting on 25th March, 2019. Mr. Arya Abel Okok – Assistant Commissioner Human Resource was also later transferred by the Ministry of Public Service.

Thereafter, Ms. Joan Natwenda was deployed to Ministry to replace Mr. Arya Abel Okok. She was appointed to the Committee on 24th April, 2019.

The reconstituted committee has the following members:

Charles Kasibayo –        Administrator General/Chairperson.
Margaret Apiny –        Secretary Law Council/Member.
Paul Muzaale –        Principal Assistant Secretary, Ag. Under Secretary/Member.
Joan Natwenda –        Assistant Commissioner  Human Resource/Member.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
 Being a standing Committee, it was guided by the terms of reference under Regulation 11 of Employment (Sexual Harassment Regulations), 2012 as follows:

Receive and register the complaint of sexual harassment in a form prescribed in the First Schedule;

Initiate internal investigations into complaints;
Keep a record of the nature of sexual harassment offences, proceedings, documents, information and action taken;
1.4     Prepare and provide a report to the Solicitor General

1.5     Carry out any other duties as may arise for the prevention of sexual harassment.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
 During the inception meeting of 25th March, 2019, it was agreed that a request be made to the Solicitor General to formally submit the complaint to the Committee.

On 1st April, 2019, the Solicitor General forwarded to the Committee a complaint by Ms. Samantha Mwesigye, a Senior State Attorney in the Directorate of Legal Advisory Services, alleging sexual harassment by Mr. Christopher Gashirabake, former Director Legal Advisory Services and now Deputy Solicitor General, Annexture ‘A’ refers.

Upon receipt of the complaint, a meeting of the Committee was convened on 25th April, 2019 to consider the same.

During deliberations of the Committee and upon perusing different documents and correspondences submitted by Ms. Mwesigye on the matter, it was noted that the emails and WhatsApp messages mentioned in the memo to the Solicitor General dated 8th November, 2018 were not attached.

Accordingly, the committee resolved that the Complainant be required to provide the said emails and WhatsApp messages for consideration. A letter to that effect dated 29th April, 2019 was served on her on the 3rd day of May, 2019, Annexture ‘B’ refers.

In her email dated 5th May, 2019 Ms. Mwesigye Samantha forwarded the said Emails and WhatsApp messages to the Secretary to the Committee, Annexture ‘C’ refers.

However, to the Committee’s surprise, the Complainant appeared on NBS television four days later, on the 9th May, 2019, asserting that she has not heard from the Committee.

On 10th May, 2019 the Committee convened its 3rd meeting and reviewed the emails, WhatsApp messages and resolved that the Respondent defends himself against the allegations within 7 days, with specific reference to the salient issues raised in the emails and WhatsApp messages, Annexture ‘D’ refers;

Denying the Complainant travel opportunities abroad.
Removing the Complainant from Contracts Committees.
Sending the Complainant love notes while assigning her work, such as “with love from Gash”.
Ridiculing and embarrassing the Complainant in the Departmental meeting held on 20th September, 2018.
On the 21st of May, 2019, the Committee received the Respondent’s defense giving a detailed background of his employment record of 35 years and specifically responding to each of the four major allegations made by the Complainant as herein above already noted, Annexture ‘E’ refers.

The Committee convened its 4th meeting on 24th May, 2019. While deliberating, the committee noted that the allegations of overt and covert sexual overtures as raised by the Complainant in her email to Respondent, dated 11th June, 2018, were vehemently denied by the Respondent.

Members also agreed that the allegations of overt and covert sexual overtures and advances needed to be supported with evidence from the Complainant.

The Committee observed that Mr. Gashirabake’s response to Ms. Mwesigye’s  email dated 12th June, 2018 at 8:36 am was so brief with words “Noted” WAS THIS LONG MISSIVE REQUIRED???? BLESSED DAY” to which Ms. Mwesigye replied at 10:24 am as “In hindsight, it was not. I apologize, I was overtaken by emotions”.

It was further observed that Mr. Gashirabake again responded to the above email on 21st June, 2018 at 22:44pm denying the allegations of overt and covert advances and he stated as follows:

I cautioned you about your inappropriate dressing manner and reminded you of the Public Service Standing Orders. I don’t think this was overstepping my official boundaries or it amounted to sexual advance and you may be referring to as covert and overt sexual overtures. I am not apologetic on this. The other time is when you had painted your hair red! I told you not to return to office until you had removed the red dye in line with the same standing orders. You did it as a Senior Officer to me and I insist you should be an example to the others, since then you had not come to office with offensive attire.

The Committee agreed that owing to the nature and tone of the earlier emails there was need to establish the intentions of those messages where the Complainant was apologetic for having been overtaken by emotions and also the Respondent replying “Noted” with several question marks

The committee resolved that during the hearing of both parties, attention would be drawn to establishing the context in which words like “with love from Gash” on a sticker note were written and allegedly sent to the Complainant, and whether the Respondent authored it?

As observed from the complaint and the Respondent’s defense, the Complainant was removed from UNEB Contracts Committee in 2011. The committee would be interested to know during the hearing whether it originated from a complaint by UNEB.

The Committee also resolved to demand for a list from the Ag. Director Legal Advisory services indicating deployment of State Attorneys to different Ministries, Departments and Agencies between January to December, 2018.

The Ag. Director Legal Advisory Services was further required to provide minutes of the Directorate’s meeting held on 20th September, 2018 in which the Complainant was allegedly ridiculed and humiliated, Annexture “F” refers.

The Committee also agreed that during the hearing, the Complainant would be required to prove whether the WhatsApp messages were printed from her cell phone or otherwise, and the Respondent would also be required to provide his cell phone for purposes of comparison with the messages submitted by the Complainant.

The Committee convened its 5th meeting on 12th June, 2019, reviewed the minutes of the previous meeting held on 24th May, 2019 and noted the following:

That the Director, Legal Advisory Services had submitted a list detailing the deployment of State Attorneys to Contracts Committees of various Ministries, Departments and Agencies from January to December, 2018. Annexture ‘G’ refers.
 
On the request for the Minutes of the Directorate’s meeting held on 20th September, 2018, the Ag. Director Legal Advisory Services reported to the Committee that the minute Secretary, Mr. Henry Obbo was out of the Country and that he was therefore unable to access the record of the said minutes.
Having served Mr. Gashirabake with the complaint of Ms. Mwesigye, the Committee resolved that the Complainant equally be served with Respondent’s defence and a hearing notice be served on both parties for a hearing scheduled for 18th June, 2018 at 10:00 am in the Boardroom of Law Council on 7th Floor, Georgian House.

On 18th June, 2019, the Committee convened in the Law Council Boardroom on 7th Floor, Georgian House, however, the Complainant

did not appear. Nevertheless, the Committee deliberated on the two letters addressed to the Committee by the Complainant’s Counsel at MS. Chapter Four Uganda. The first letter dated 17th June, 2019 was to the effect that the Complainant had written to the Solicitor General raising concerns over the process of setting up the Committee, its constitution, and asserting that unless an action was taken on the said letter, their client would not participate in the process, Annexture ‘H’ refers.

The committee considered the contents of the letter and resolved to advise the Complainant that the committee was established in accordance with Regulation 10 of the Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations 2012, whose functions are provided under Regulation 11 of the said Regulations. That the committee is, therefore, independent of Solicitor General in the exercise of its mandate. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the Committee agreed to reschedule the hearing to 27th June, 2019, Annexture ‘I’ refers.

The Committee also considered the second letter from the Complainant’s Counsel dated 17th June, 2019 protesting late submission of Mr. Christopher Gashirabake’s response which should have been attached to the invitation letter dated 13th June, 2019 but, was inadvertently omitted. This concern was highly regrettable because prior to the invitation, the Committee had agreed that the Complainant be availed a copy of the Respondent’s defense.

Whereas the committee had noted the contents of the first letter above wherein the Complainant declined to appear before it, the committee nonetheless resolved to extend the time within which the Complainant would appear for the hearing. The hearing was therefore adjourned for nine days, Annexture ‘J‘ refers. The inadvertent omission by the Secretary to the Committee was highly regrettable.

On 18th June, 2019, the Respondent appeared but the Committee decided that the best procedure was for him to appear after it had heard from the Complainant. The matter was therefore adjourned to 27th June, 2019.

On the 27th of June, 2019, the Committee convened in the Administrator General’s Boardroom on 3rd Floor – Georgian House, but both the Complainant and the Respondent did not appear.   However, the Respondent sent his apology that he was in China on official duties.

The Committee concluded that the Complainant had on her own accord, opted not to appear before the Committee as per her lawyer’s letter which is on record. The Committee decided that the emails and WhatsApp messages submitted by the Complainant on the 5th of May, 2019, refer to Annexture ‘C’ together with complaint filed earlier would guide its internal investigations.

The Committee also considered the minutes of departmental meeting held on 20th September 2018 in which the Complainant alleged that she was ridiculed. The Committee also received the list detailing deployment of State Attorneys in the Directorate of Legal Advisory Services to contracts committees of various Ministries Departments and Agencies between January and December 2018.

It was also noted that by a letter dated 19th June, 2019, Counsel for the Complainant submitted a counter response from Ms. Mwesigye Samantha in reply to the Respondent’s defense, Annexture ‘K’ refers. In the same letter the complainant reiterated her earlier decision not to appear before the Committee. Accordingly, the committee decided to interface with the Respondent on the 3rd day of July, 2019 since the Complainant had opted out.

On the 3rd day of July, 2019, the Committee interfaced with the Respondent. He reiterated the contents of his defense filed in which he denied in totality ever having sexually harassed Ms. Mwesigye Samantha.   He stated that he never victimized the Complainant by denying her travel opportunities abroad and prayed to the committee to allow him submit further evidence to prove that the complainant has never been victimized through denial of travel opportunities abroad.  His prayer was allowed, a Loose Minute dated 5/11/2018 signed by Ms. Mwesigye, addressed to the Attorney General, wherein the complainant was explaining her inability to complete assignments in time was admitted,  Annexture ‘L’ refers.  She stated therein that:

         I have also had meetings out of the country as follows:

9th July 2018-15th July 2018 the 28th Meeting of the Sectoral Council of Ministers responsible for EAC Affairs and Planning in Bujumbura, Burundi on the above mentioned dates.

3rd September 2018-5th September 2018 attending a Swiss Embassy visa Appointment for a trip to Geneva.
6th October 2018-13th October 2018 the WTO Trade and Public Health Workshop held in Geneva, Switzerland.
The Respondent also tendered in a Loose Minute by Ms. Mwesigye addressed to the Solicitor General through the Director Legal Advisory Services, dated 7/11/2018 concerning her absence from duty between 10th November to 18th November 2018, Annexture ‘M’ refers.   She had gone to attend the Global Raphael Lemkin Seminar for Genocide Prevention in Poland at the recommendation of Directorate of Legal Advisory Services.

He further stated that the Complainant sits on four contracts committees, this being the second highest number of contracts committees that any officer sits on; and that he never ridiculed, intimidated, or sent her love notes as alleged.

During his interface with the Committee, the Respondent stated that he enjoyed a cordial working relationship with the Complainant. That he never sent her ‘Love you’ message as alleged and that this word appears once in her entire submission and wondered how it appeared in the middle of an official communication. When pressed further, he said it’s possible that a message can wrongly be sent to an unintended recipient and that he does not remember ever sending such words to Ms. Mwesigye.

On being the Chairman of the Rewards and Sanctions Committee for over a decade, he denied this and stated that he was appointed on 6th November, 2017.

4.0     FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE

 The committee took the decision to continue with its investigations even though the Complainant opted out of physical appearance.

The Committee was guided during its investigation by the salient issues raised by the Complainant in both her complaint and the accompanying documents.

4.1     The main issues for consideration were as follows:

Whether or not the Respondent sexually harassed the Complainant covertly or overtly in the following form:

Denying the Complainant travel opportunities.
Removing the Complainant from Contracts Committees.
Sending the Complainant love notes while assigning her work, such as “with Love from Gash”.
Ridiculing and embarrassing the Complainant in the departmental meeting.
The Committee made reference to the relevant statutory definition of sexual harassment in The Employment Act Section 7(1) and The Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations 2012, thus an employee shall be sexually harassed in that employee’s employment if that employee’s employer, or a representative of that employer:

directly or implicitly makes a request of that employee for sexual intercourse, sexual contact or any other form of sexual activity that contains:
an implied or express promise of preferential treatment in employment;
An implied or express threat of detrimental treatment in employment;
An implied or express threat about the present or future employment status of the employee;
uses of language whether written or spoken of a sexual nature such as unwelcome verbal advances, sexual oriented comments, request for sexual favours, jokes of a sexual nature, offensive flirtation or obscene expressions of sexual interest that are addressed directly to the person;
uses of visual material of a sexual nature such as display sexually suggestive pictures, objects or written materials or sexually suggestive gestures.
shows physical behavior of a sexual nature such as unwanted and unwelcome touching, patting, pinching or any other unsolicited conduct:
The Committee also looked at the Uganda Public Service Standing Orders 2010 (disciplinary procedures F-s (f-5).

The Code of Conduct and Ethics for the Uganda Public Service wherein sexual harassment is defined as a means of conduct of a sexual nature that affect the dignity of women and men, which is unwelcome, irritating, unreasonable and offensive to the recipient. Such a conduct may be explicit, verbal or non-verbal or implicit and creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating working environment for the recipient.

Item 4.4 of the code of conduct and ethics for the Uganda Public Service provides guiding principles on Sexual Harassment:

A Public Officer shall avoid unethical and unbecoming behavior such as use of rude, abusive and obscene language, indecent dressing and sexual suggestive gestures which constitute sexual harassment and hence a violation of human rights.
A Public Officer shall not subject others or be subjected to conduct of a sexual nature affecting his or her dignity, which is unwelcome, unreasonable and offensive to the recipient.
A sexually suggestive and offensive behavior may manifest itself in such forms:
An employee being forced to choose between acceding to sexual demands or losing job benefits (sexual blackmail).
Verbal and non-verbal sexually offensive behaviour exhibited by colleagues (or even customers).
A Public Officer who is subjected to sexual harassment overtures shall report such a case with adduced evidence, where applicable, to the department of Government that is responsible for investigating civil and criminal offences with a view to obtaining redress.
A Public officer who has lodged any complain regarding sexual harassment using the established complaints procedure shall not be unduly victimized.
Remedies for sexual harassment shall be those prescribed under the civil or criminal laws.
Finding on 4.1(A): Denying the Complainant travel opportunities:

 By email dated 5th May, 2019, the Complainant forwarded emails and WhatsApp messages to the Secretary to the Committee (refer to Annexture ‘C’) in support of her complaint in the memo to the Solicitor General dated 8th November, 2018.

These email exchanges are four in number. Two are by the Complainant and two are replies from the Respondent. The Committee considered them concurrently. The first one was originated/authored by the Complainant on 11th June, 2018 at 10:31 a.m.

In resolving this issue, the Committee considered paragraph two of the said first email authored by the Complainant that reads:

I enjoy the work I do, it is intellectually rewarding but there will come a time when even that will not mean much. Economically I have survived with a lot of strain, my salary alone cannot cover my rent. I have been forced to supplement it with business. It doesn’t help that the leadership in the Ministry are not willing to fight for our salary enhancement. As I informed you the Hon DAG told me he is aware we are not capable of industrial action because we get money through bribes and trips. Last year you nominated for one trip (the EAC council of ministers meeting and summit which was 10 days in Feb). I also travelled to Washington in November for a two week course which I got grudgingly after I confronted the training committee.

This year I travelled 2 weeks ago to Gabon for 4 days having last travelled 7 months before that. Last year I had a trip to London and Paris and after I got a visa you replaced me with Betty Adwono a State Attorney who I am senior to. It upset me and I contacted you since you were out of the Country and you didn’t dignify me with a response. It happened again this year when you replaced me with Ms. Nabakooza Margaret (PSA), at least she was a senior officer and by then I had purposed never to hold emotions over trips. You apologised and I do believe it was not intentional. However I have began feeling victimised. Some people have already recorded 42 days this year alone from trips, I have 6 including travel days. I currently have only one contracts committee. All these are avenues of earning income which I do not benefit from.

Upon careful perusal of the above, the committee noted that the statement in that whole paragraph was more of a demand for additional travels other than a complaint of sexual harassment. The committee also in assessing this issue in its entirety looked at the first email in response from Respondent sent on 12th June, 2018 at 8:36 am which reads as follows; ‘”Noted” was this long missive required??? Blessed Day.’’

On the same date of 12th June, 2018 at 10:24 a.m., the Complainant emailed the Respondent an apology stating ‘in hindsight it was not. I apologize, I was over taken by emotions’. This apology from the Complainant was noted with concern because it in effect weakened the alleged inference made on the sexual harassment allegations.

Mr. Christopher Gashirabake again by email dated 21st June, 2018 at 22:44hrs denied the allegation of overt and covert advances stating that ‘I wish to put it to you that I have no intentions ever to make any sexual advancement to you or any of my junior staff. I hope this settles your mind’.

 Respondent in his defence filed with the committee on 21st May, 2019 at Page 5, attached nomination letters in support of his defence, refer to attachments to the his defence in Annexture ‘E’. The Committee noted that the bulk of nominations are under his name and signature.

The Complainant in Paragraph one of her counter response to Respondent’s defence asserted: “it is defective for him therefore, to add nominations that were made by other people”.

It was the conclusion of the Committee that even though Ms. Mwesigye took exception to Mr. Gashirabake including nomination letters signed by other officers, the Committee concluded that any nomination made was by the Directorate/Ministry because whoever signs does so in an official capacity. In effect, any nomination made was an aggregated official work for the Directorate.

After due consideration of all the above in totality, the Committee finds that the Complainant was not denied travel opportunities abroad as a form of victimisation to seek sexual favours. There is no evidence of implied or express promise of preferential treatment or a threat of detrimental treatment. There was no evidence that the bulk of nominations signed by the Respondent were done in order to procure or after receiving sexual favours. These nominations were signed during the period when the sexual harassment allegedly occurred and further nominations were made after the email of 11th June, 2018.

Finding on 1(B):    Removing the Complainant from Contracts Committees;

 In Paragraph two of the Complainant’s conclusion in her first email dated 11th June, 2018 she stated “I currently have only one contracts committee. All these are avenues for earning income which I do not benefit from”.

The Respondent in his defence stated that the Complainant sits on four contracts committees, ranking her as number two in the entire Directorate amongst the list of officers who sit on the most number of committees. The Respondent attached nomination forms that he made for the Complainant to sit on some of the contract’s committees of government Ministries, Departments and Agencies, Annexture ’G’ refers.

The Complainant in her 19th June, 2019 response to the Respondent’s defence at Page one stated ‘I have had one contract’s committee until recent when I got the 2nd. One other committee I had had my term renewed on has not met for 2 yrs and my term should have expired. I did ask to be removed since it had no work and I was told to just let it lapse. The other had its work transferred to another PDE and my term has since lapsed’.

The Committee found that this was not in conformity with her earlier assertion in the first email, dated 11th June, 2018 which supported her complaint wherein she stated that ‘I currently have only one contracts committee. All these are avenues for earning income which I do not benefit from’. The Committee also noted with concern that when a contracts committee has no work, one ceases to be a member.

The Committee carried out internal investigation on this issue and obtained from the Ag. Director Legal Advisory Services a list detailing the deployment of State Attorneys to Contracts Committees of various MDA’s from January to December, 2018.

The list obtained independently by the Committee shows that by December, 2018, the Complainant was a member of the following contracts committees:

Privatisation Unit
Cotton Development Organisation
Uganda National Cultural Centre
Office of the Prime Minister
The Committee accordingly finds that no victimisation was occasioned to the Complainant and found it strange for the Complainant to use this allegation to insinuate sexual harassment. To find otherwise, would insinuate that other even more senior officers for instance at Principal State Attorney level who according to this list sit on only one contracts committee, can also, when not in good terms with the Director, allege sexual harassment.

The Committee found no evidence of implied or express promise of preferential treatment or a threat of detrimental treatment. The fact that some contracts committees allegedly do no work or are not busy cannot be visited on the Respondent.

The Committee also deliberated on the matter concerning the removal of the Complainant from the UNEB contracts Committee in 2011. The Committee noted that by admission of both parties, a complaint was originated by UNEB. The Director had the discretion to hear and decide the Complaint and if Ms. Mwesigye was aggrieved by the outcome, she should have appealed to the Solicitor General.

 Finding on 4.1(C): Sending the Complainant love notes while assigning her work, such as “with love from Gash”:

 In his response to the allegation, the Respondent denied this allegation and stated that:

All the work that I assign is picked up from my desk by my secretaries and it would be most absurd of me to stick a love note on work I have assigned to Ms. Mwesigye, to be conveyed by my secretaries. As far as I am aware, I have not addressed any love note to Complainant at all. Only God and her know where she picked it from, if she is not the author herself. The note that she has been waving around is not addressed to her as far as I saw and in the least, is a desperate attempt at creating evidence that I had any interest in my accuser, a fact I vehemently deny.

In her counter reply to the Respondent’s defence dated 18th June, 2019 at page 14, the Complainant stated ‘he did occasionally put sticker notes in my work “with love Gash”. That it wasn’t addressed to anyone I can only presume he hoped to deny intentionally leaving them in work he assigned me if he were caught. As the recipient I scanned one after several similar ones had been sent. It is however in his handwriting and will be proved by a forensic expert when it comes to it’

It is unfortunate that the Committee was not availed with the original copy of the sticker-note with words “with love from Gash”. There is also no evidence of several of them as alleged by the Complainant. The photocopy that was submitted to the Committee by the Complainant bears the words “with love from Gash” and not as stated in the Complainant’s counter reply to the Respondent’s defence at Page 14 which reads as follows; “with love Gash”. In the same counter-response at Page 14, the Complainant admits that the words on the sticker-note were not addressed to her and that the Respondent hoped to deny it if he was caught.

In his defence, the Respondent denied ever sending the sticker-note with words “with love from Gash”.

The law of evidence requires primary evidence to be adduced. In the instant case whereas, the Complainant filed her counter response to the Respondent’s defence, she on her own accord declined to appear before the Committee nor did she file the original sticker-note. The Committee was therefore, unable to put the issue of the sticker-note into the proper context for purposes of this investigation, that is to say; whether it was an unwelcome verbal sexual advance; a sexual oriented comment; a request for sexual favour; a joke of a sexual nature; an offensive flirtation or obscene expression of sexual interest and whether it was directly addressed to the Complainant as required by Regulation 2(b) of The Employment (Sexual Harassment Regulations) 2012.

The Committee finds no evidence to prove that the Complainant was the intended recipient of the sticker note since it was not directly addressed to her. The Committee was however unable to determine whether the sticker-note was written by the Respondent.

On the same note, the Complainant also submitted a record of what are said to be WhatsApp messages between her and the Respondent for the period between 26th April, 2018 to 2nd June, 2018. This was through an email to the Committee’s secretary on the 5th day of May, 2019 containing a message reading “Love you” and several chats.

The Respondent stated at Page 8 and 9 of his defence that:

“on the SMS or WhatsApp message exchange, I have no way of verifying whether indeed those are chats we have had in the past with Ms. Mwesigye or not. In this era of technology, people are able to manipulate anything to get what they want. I am therefore going to also validate this with my telephone service provider for efficacy. Be that as it may however, I invite you to look at the chain of messages exchanged. Even if you were to assume that the chat is indeed between me and Ms. Mwesigye, you will note that 99% of the subject of the chat relates to office obligations, on some occasions under very difficult and treacherous circumstances. Then out of the blue it is alleged in the middle of that serious discourse, that I sent a message “love you”. That message if at all is totally unrelated to the matters that we were stated to have been discussing and secondly, it is totally ignored by Samantha. There is nothing in that whole chat to show that I cajoled her intimidated her or harassed her or even begged her to have a sexual relationship with me”.

The Complainant, in her 18th June, 2019 counter response to the defence, stated:

“WhatsApp messages aren’t verified by mobile networks. The WhatsApp messages I shared were messages he sent me. Attached is the original encrypted message as sent by WhatsApp to my email (annex13). Why he would send me a love you message amidst official communication is for him to explain not I. he also has several good morning my friend messages he sent me early morning. I grew to detest the sound of my phone in the message alerting, me to the dreaded messages. I wonder if he ever sent them to another employee. I for one loathed them and they were inappropriate considering I would still be coming to office and he could have greeted me then if it was indeed that important that he must greet me. I have since adopted the practice of muting my phone just because of what he would put me through”.

It is common knowledge that since WhatsApp messages are encrypted it cannot be verified by mobile networks. The Committee had resolved that during the hearing of the parties, the Complainant would be requested to prove whether the WhatsApp messages were printed from her cell phone or otherwise. The Respondent would also be required to provide his cell phone for purposes of comparison with the messages submitted by the Complainant. However, the Complainant declined to appear before the Committee and when the Respondent appeared, he denied ever sending “love you” message to the Complainant.

The Committee was therefore, uncomfortable in relying on a photocopy containing the messages as this offends the Law of evidence. Secondly, the photocopy is incomplete as it does not show the entire record of communication between the parties. There are numerous messages from the Complainant that were missing, that is to say:

on 21st May, 2018 at 20:25hrs the Complainant sent an image described as IMG-20180521-WA0017.jpg.
on 23rd May, 2018 at 12:26hrs the Complainant sent an image described as IMG-20180523-WA0017.jpg. and IMG-20180523-WA0018.jpg on the same date.
on 23rd may, 2018 at 17:29hrs, the Complainant sent an image described as IMG-20180523-WA0025.jpg.
on 26th April, 2018 at 09:49, the Complainant sent a voice message described as AUD-20180426-WA0008.opus.
on 27th April, 2018, the Complainant sent image IMG-20180427-WA007.jpg and IMG-20180427-WA008.jpg at 15:55hrs and 15:56hrs respectively.
on 26th May, 2018, the Complainant sent image IMG-20180526-WA002.jpg.
The Committee found that one of the messages allegedly sent by the Respondent on 23rd may, 2018 at 7:25 hrs, indicates ‘Media omitted’.

This caused doubt to the Committee to rely on such an incomplete document since the messages received by the Committee do not constitute the entire record of communication between the parties.

The Complainant invited the Committee to implore the Respondent (refer to Page 14 of her counter response to the Respondent’s defence) to explain why he sent a “love you” message amidst official communication.

When the Respondent appeared before the Committee on 3rd July, 2019, he denied ever having deliberately sent a WhatsApp message saying “Love you”. When pressed as to what if the proof was availed from the Complainant’s phone; he said it was quite possible to send a WhatsApp message to the wrong recipient; and clearly that would maybe account for why there is only one instance of it in all the messages she submitted.

In matters relating to sexual harassment, looking at the issues from the perception of the person making the allegation is very critical. Whereas the Committee was uncomfortable relying on photocopies, both WhatsApp messages and the sticker-note carrying words of endearment “love you” and “with love from Gash”; the refusal by the Complainant to appear before the Committee placed an unusually onerous burden on the Committee to put itself in the Complainant’s shoes when she should have been available to assist the Committee further appreciate her position. The Committee implored the Respondent to explain what he meant, but in the absence of the physical phone record and actual sticker-note, the Committee was left in an awkward position when faced with the flat denials of the Respondent.

Finding on 4.1(D):          Ridiculing and embarrassing the Complainant in the departmental meeting.

In her complaint, Ms. Mwesigye stated “on 20th September, 2018, the Respondent called a departmental meeting in which he ridiculed and intimidated me for what he purported were false accusations leveled against him by me of Sexual Harassment”.

The Respondent in his defence confirmed that the matter of sexual harassment against him by the Complainant came up in the Directorate meeting around September, 2018, but denied that he raised the matter to intimidate the Complainant, (refer to his defence Annexture ‘E’ at page 7). He gave reasons why he raised the matter in a departmental meeting.

The Committee obtained minutes of the meeting termed second DLAS meeting of 2018 held on 20th September, 2018 at Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Boardroom attended by eighteen members of staff, Annexture ‘N’ refers.

 The Committee however finds that this was not a forum envisaged under The Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations 2012. It was therefore

wrong to have this matter of Sexual Harassment discussed in a Departmental meeting other than a committee of Sexual Harassment established under regulation 10.

The issue of intimidation and ridicule required the Complainant to appear personally and adduce evidence since looking at the minutes of the said meeting alone is not sufficient. The minutes show both parties trying to prove their innocence.

Suffice to say, the Committee was of the view that Ms. Mwesigye should have appeared and supported her claim of intimidation and ridicule.

OBSERVATIONS
 Whereas, the Complainant alleged in her television interview of 9th May, 2019 that she was sexually harassed for a period of over 10 years, her email dated 11th June, 2018 does not show when the vice allegedly began.

It is the observation of the Committee that the Complainant had all avenues to report sexual harassment, but chose not to do so. For example, from the year 2007, the office of the Solicitor General has been held by five different Solicitor Generals, two of whom were female. They were senior to and supervised the Respondent. This was in addition to other ladies/females who held positions as Directors and were senior or at the same level of seniority with the Respondent.

The Committee was not convinced that the Complainant had no avenues to report the alleged sexual harassment during the totality of the more than 10 years that the harassment allegedly happened.

The Committee also found out that in 2007, the Respondent was a Principal State Attorney therefore not wielding that much power which the Complainant alluded to. The Committee further established that the Respondent was appointed as the Chairperson of the Rewards and Sanctions Committee on 6th November, 2017, Annexture ‘O’ refers.  The Committee found that he has not been holding the position for all the years as alleged.

6.0     RECOMMENDATIONS:

 6.1   The allegation of sexual harassment has not been proved against the Respondent. Accordingly, this finding should be communicated to the parties.

The Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs now has a designated person in charge of Sexual Harassment Ms. Harriet Lwabi, Director First Parliamentary Counsel. This should be communicated to all members of Staff in the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
 
The Ministry has a standing Sexual Harassment Committee established in accordance with Regulation 10 of Employment (Sexual Harassment) Regulations, 2012. Therefore any matter related to sexual harassment should be the preserve of this Committee.
 
The Ministry should, spread opportunities for travel abroad and membership to contracts committees of various MDA’s to all legal staffs in various Directorates, Departments, and Regional Offices of the Ministry. This will de-concentrate the activity from the Directorate of Legal Advisory Services which seem to breed
 
monopoly and infighting. It will also equally benefit all State Attorney’s in the Ministry and guarantee efficiency.
Provision of several avenues for reporting sexual harassment to the complaints officer or the Committee which include whistle blowing. This will give employees several options to report their complaints.
 
Conduct sensitisation to enhance employees’ understanding of the law relating to sexual harassment and procedures to mitigate occurrences and general response mechanism.
The Ministry should develop anti-harassment policies and procedures and communicate them to members of staff; as well as develop effective mechanisms for reporting, investigating sexual harassment; and resolving related complaints.
 
The law should be amended to provide adequate and reasonable time within which to carry out meaningful investigations.
 
A standard rotational program should be developed for deployment of legal staff periodically to different Directorates and Departments including transfers to the six Regional offices. This would break the monotony and routine nature of work and it will enable crossbreed and multi-skilling of staff as a key input for career progress.
 SIGNATORIES:

Charles Kasibayo (Administrator General/Chairperson)               

Margaret Apiny (Secretary Law Council/Member)
3. Muzaale Paul (Principal Assistant Secretary/Member)

Joan Natwenda (Assistant Commissioner HRM/Member)

[Uganda]

Bakiga are not rude or vulgar, NEVER!!!

They are just putting their language to use and that is why you will never find parables in Kigezi.
They don’t have time to confuse the folk.
They say Bakiga are loud but what do you expect from people born and raised in mountains area where you have to amplify your voice to communicate with someone up or across the hills or call them mountains?
If airtime was charged according to how loud the caller is, Bakiga would be dead broke.
Bakiga are the most romantic people. They don’t waste time wooing and raising false expectations. They will tell you straight in the face, from the word go, that they love you. If you don’t love them then leave. If you expect a Mukiga to plead with you for a second chance, like Salvador, just know that is a dream.
Most Bakiga are disease resistant. You will hardly hear that there was a disease outbreak in Kigezi. The kids get one injection their entire lifetime – immunization. This is entirely because of a balanced diet. A kid wakes up to a plate of sweet potatoes with a mug of bushera . Three sips and the cup is done. There is no such word like “lack of appetite” in Kigezi.
We are the hardest working people. That is why every strong man is referred to as Kyakabale even if he is a Musoga.
Our ladies are very hard working too which other tribes misinterpret as being aggressive.
They reason logically. Why buy a bouquet of flowers when that money can equally buy a sack of Irish potatoes?
We are independent minded. You can’t expect a mukiga to be at your beck and call. That is why most of the “rebel MPs” are Bakiga.
We live a free life. No wonder there is nothing like Kigezi kingdom. The king would suffer because every Mukiga man is a king in his own home.
I am proud to be a MUKIGA are you? Then send it to every Mukiga you know and friends of Bakiga, right? Go ahead do not break the chain.

[Author]

Posts