Forum Replies Created
I see a lot of contradiction in the above: “granting President Museveni Amnesty and turning him into an advisor”.In his submission, Hon. Kyagulanyi wants the powers of the President reduced. Now in the same submission he says, “I will grant Museveni amnesty and turn him into an advisor”. This I think will be possible if he decides to ignore the wishes of Ugandans. Some Ugandans are waiting for the time when President Museveni is out of office so that they are able to sue him. How will Kyagulanyi reconcile this? I will get back to this argument with an illustration.
“TURNING MUSEVENI INTO A KYAGULANYI ADVISOR”.
The language in the first case does not show that the two will first have a gentleman’s agreement before President Museveni takes the appointment.
Secondly, as of now it is said that President Museveni is ready for dialogue with Hon. Kyagulanyi. If Kyagulanyi as of now is not ready to dialogue with the President, how will the advisory service work.
Third, President Museveni is accused by the opposition including Hon. Kyagulanyi of among other things mismanagement of the economy, failure to see Good Governance practiced by his Government and many other issues. Now if that is a litmus test for a good leader, what makes Kyagulanyi seek the services of President Museveni?
THE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY WHILE IN OFFICE
Singer, producer and music writer Richard Kawesa has challenged the presidential immunity enjoyed by President Museveni as the head of state for Uganda.
Article 98(4) of the Constitution of Uganda states that a president shall not be liable to any proceedings in any court while still in office.
Under this provision, a serving president is insulated from both civil and criminal proceedings, but he or she can be prosecuted for his or her actions after their presidency ends.
In a petition in the Constitutional Court in which Museveni is recorded as the respondent, Kawesa says the former being the president should be scrapped of his immunity to allow him be sued in private and personal capacity.
Genesis
Richard Kaweesa wrote to President Museveni seeking for five billion shillings in compensation for copyright for using ‘Another Rap’ song during the 2011 presidential campaigns.
In an October 30, 2018 demand notice, Kawesa said he wrote and produced the song which later became popular as Museveni canvassed for votes and eventually won the 2011 polls partly riding on the song.
“This song also became a popular ringtone which obtained on all mobile telecommunication platforms and enhanced the top of the mind awareness.
Given the above illustration, Hon. Kyagulanyi would be very wrong to imagine that he can give Museveni Amnesty when a number of people have issues they want to see settled in courts of law once he is out of the office of the President.
The man Kyagulanyi wants to be his advisor is the same he blamed below in the video?
What a contradiction?
uganda.uk.com
I love my own identity and what I believe in.Many times I start off my piece of work by telling people that I take time to make decisions and more often than not, I am not wrong.
In 1979 when President Yusuf Kironde Lule (RIP) was removed from office after 68 days, I was among students of St. Mary’s College Kisubi who joined the ‘no Lule no work’ demonstration along Entebbe Highway. By then Museveni was Minister of defense. As we demonstrated, Museveni and his men met us. They stopped, the army men surrounded us and he (Museveni) told us to go back to school.
Then came the time when Godfrey Binaisa (RIP) was put under house arrest. His crime, he had tampered with ‘the untouchable’ military men in a cabinet reshuffle with the hope of external assistance to consolidate his hold to power. He lost the Presidency and was later just helped or smuggled out of house arrest in Entebbe.
Then we got the General elections of 1980. It was very surprising to find Mr. Museveni bring a man who he had been party to put under house arrest (Godfrey Binaisa) to be second in his UPM Party. And that was my first observation as I tried to study President Museveni. He knew Binaisa had become popular.
When UPM did not make it, the scheme was to use UPC rigging out DP to take power after the 1980 elections. So, President Museveni led his group into a 5 year Bush War. This time, he decided to join hands to a man he had been party to see out of the office of President just after slightly more than two months – Yusuf Kironde Lule.
So, when I tell people that unlike those who go with the bandwagon, that is not how I operate, I mean it. I did not support the Bush War even for a day, nor the breaking of the Nairobi Peace talks, nor did I support the capture of power in 1986 and I have never regretted.
Today I do not regret. When the NRM Government can let people fundraise to be able to successfully make their campaigns to get to political offices, and they decide to play hide and seek with me so that I do not get a single coin from the fundraised resources, I do not get surprised because they entered office on a ticket of deceit. Many have woken up to see NRM change goal posts by easily changing the Constitution to suit them and they wake up from their slumber. Kituuka is not the type, I foresaw this about 38 years ago.
I will keep saying this:
If the joint opposition cannot get to a round table and agree that Uganda’s problem is the NRM system of Governance, I can assure you, all other effort is a waste of time. It may be better termed selfishness.
The voting bloc is the universal set. However, this in the first instance is inflated such that whenever we go for elections there is room to manipulate by adding ‘air’ voters to those who actually cast their votes.
When we talk of consensus we mean it. When the saying is that President Museveni should retire, it is ironical for a single person to come convincing the voters that after all he or she can get over 50% in a Presidential election under the existing circumstances! That is air supply. To me, that is more of day dreaming.
When the forces are united, there is pooling of resources, economy on manpower that can supervise at each polling station and ability to reward their work is easier. One has to take note of the many polling stations countrywide.
It is not uncommon to find ungazetted polling stations planted just on the polling day. I remember making effort to report one prior to 2016 General election.
There is no degree of anger that can lead right thinking people into selfishness simply because they have a candidate of their choice.
When we tell Ugandans that we need a person who is acceptable to both the opposition and those in Government, we are talking sense. We have Ugandans who are professional at destabilizing the country. We saw it during Binaisa’s time. You may be the type who does not want to hear the name of President Museveni now, but do not risk the time when you may be ready to kneel down and beg him to come and control the mess simply because you supported someone not knowing that having numbers is the necessary condition to win the Presidency, but not sufficient to ensure security of persons and their property as well as maintain tenure in State House.
You find a Ugandan so tribalistic. He or she tells you that ‘no way to have a Munyankole or someone from western Uganda’ as a Presidential candidate he or she can support in 2021. That is under myopic given our circumstances. My friend, it is better to take a longer route to your destination than risk the insecurity of a shortcut or even not reaching where you want to get.
We have seen people from Western Uganda who are not only humane but are humble and can be acceptable to many Ugandans irrespective of political divide and are not soiled yet have been players in the NRN Government infrastructure. It is better to zero on such individuals and thereafter when they have helped the country to get on the correct political line with Good Governance as the norm then the favorite candidates can take up the challenge from there.
I also wish to inform the professionals at criticizing others, spoiling their names and abusing them because of their opinions to first see how heavy they are. Some of us have works to show. We have fundraised billions into the country for the benefit of others. Such money is not given to empty tins. We analyze issues and are able to put it to public consumption. Move slowly if you do not have written intellectual work to show, because then you have no intellectual foundation to trash other people’s wink.
If you want to criticize someone’s work, get the scale and measure yourself against it, if you find that you fit the intellectual capacity of the author or are better than him intellectually then you are at liberty to trash his presentation.
As I have written before, I base on solid observations that is why I do not lament seeing what is going on under NRM. I expected it simply because I take time to analyze issues. I do not go with the masses only to find ourselves drowning.
That is what they call being principled.
uganda.uk.com
Uganda’s head of Military intelligence Abel Kandiho is cited in Gold scams around Kampala.
Kandiho has grown filthy rich ever since he was elevated to head military intelligence.
In just two years he bought a mansion in Bugolobi at USD 400.000.
He is now selling the house and purchasing another at USD 700.000. Does his salary equal his lifestyle? Ofcourse not.
The truth is Abel has become another Kayihura.
He is running mafia cartels and criminal gangs in town that share with him the loot. He is the patron of all Congolese, Senegalese and Nigerian and Ugandan gold scammers. You can’t do a gold scam in Kampala without giving a cut to Kandiho.
Kandiho now is building a gold scam monopoly, where all gold business must go through him or his people.
One wonders when Kandiho actually works. Most of the time he is in town chasing after gold scammers for his cut. After getting his cut, he runs around with property brokers looking for the next house to buy.
Does Kandiho know that Gold scammers are good for the economy. They bring in foreign exchange, and support various businesses. They buy houses, cars and support relatives in villages.
Kandiho has become the Police the prosecutor and patron at the same time.uganda.uk.com
Brick by brick, we will build unity among the democracy seeking forces in Uganda. We do this knowing that the political fault-line is not between the so called opposition and the Museveni regime, but rather between the haves and have-nots, the dispossessed and those who have disinherited them.We’re talking with all democracy seeking forces. Our proposals for a framework for a Special Purpose Vehicle (by whatever name called) to unite Ugandans who desire change, has been warmly welcomed by all including those who were unable to attend yesterday’s presentation. We have agreed to present the framework to them as soon as possible.
Next steps include the urgent declaration of our position on minimum reforms before the next elections. This doesn’t require the SPV as a precondition.
Below are the remarks I delivered at the presentation.
===============================
REMARKS BY DP PRESIDENT GENERAL NORBERT MAO ON THE OCCASION OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT FRAMEWORK OF A PROPOSED SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE (SPV) AIMED AT UNITING ALL DEMOCRACY SEEKING FORCES
VENUE: PROTEA HOTEL, BOARDROOM 3
TIME: 9:00 – 11:30 AM
DATE: 23 AUGUST, 2019
===============================
For several months the Democratic Party has been working tirelessly to develop a comprehensive framework for a united front to present a viable alternative to the failing State presided over by the NRM. That work is now complete and we wish to announce that we are ready to share this framework with other democracy seeking forces for discussion. It is our expectation that we will agree on a Special Purpose Vehicle(SPV) to lead the charge for democratic change in our country.
The majority of Ugandans now agree that President Museveni and his junta have no political will to democratise Uganda. Therefore the Democratic Party Bloc, aware that at a time of political crisis, reaching out across the political divide is not only a sign of political maturity but also a commitment to bring out the best in all of us, resolved to develop a framework for a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). The SPV will be open to all democracy seeking forces and its objective is meaningful democratic reforms to ensure free and fair elections, an inclusive national dialogue and a new basis for political transition NOW. Elections have degenerated into a meaningless ritual and there’s no reason to pretend that 2021 will be any different unless the rules of engagement are overhauled.
We need to rescue the Ugandan State from Musevenism. The Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) is about dismantling the repressive and predatory military, political and economic machine which props up the regime and also dismantle the mindset of fear and hopelessness in the populace. This intense struggle by the Ugandan masses cannot fail if based on unity of the democracy seeking forces and a concrete program for transition into a Uganda beyond Museveni. The aim of the plan is to restore a renewed sense of ownership of the country to all citizens.
Through the SPV, we believe that we can coalesce into a common front that transcends our narrow confines and unleash the power of the people. Under a common banner the contradictions within our ranks will be resolved in order to free us to resolve the primary contradiction between the Museveni regime and the Ugandan masses. Our unity will grow as we struggle for a common cause. Unity will be forged in the crucible of struggle. Our unity will also tap into the unprecedented surge in the political participation of young people.
I welcome you to this initial presentation on the proposed SPV by the the DP Bloc. The presentation will be made by a technical team led by Mr. Henry Kasacca. In addition we will present a detailed Discussion Paper on the things to take into account as we craft a formidable alternative to a dying regime. Intense closed door consultations and discussions will follow to build harmony. We believe that the promotion of the SPV has to be as inclusive as possible. We have committed to presenting this draft framework to as many groups and entities as possible with the aim of ensuring collective ownership of the SPV.
It is our expectation that the SPV shall be formally launched before the end of 2019 and at its helm will be political leaders with the credentials to offer strategic leadership to a country in crisis.
uganda.uk.com
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 General1.5 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.uk.com
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 General1.5 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.uk.com
During the 1990s, the army was involved in a number of procurement scandals. Undersized uniforms from China, not-up-to-standard food rations from South Africa and 90 second-hand tanks, several unserviceable, from Belarus, were procured. But probably the most famous of the scandals was what came to be known as the junk helicopter scandal, in which two out of four unserviceable Mi-24 helicopters were procured. Four of the MiGs were modified in Israel and delivered in the country but two of them could not fly. The deal to supply the helicopters, which was brokered by Emma Katto, then a race-car driver, was aided by Gen. Salim Saleh, who convinced President Museveni to okay the deal. Gen. Saleh was as a result to bag a commission of $200,000 off each of the four helicopters. He would later tell a commission of inquiry into the matter in 2001 that he had informed the President of the “commission” he had been promised and Mr Museveni had allowed him to use it in the war against Joseph Kony’s rebels in northern Ugandauganda.uk.com
The International Court of Justice sitting in The Hague in 2005, found Uganda guilty of violating the sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of Congo, plundering its natural resources and orchestrating human rights abuses when it sent its troops between 1997 and 2003. The court accordingly slapped a whopping $10b fine on Uganda. The government said it had sent soldiers over to Congo to pursue Allied Democratic Forces rebels who were terrorising parts of western Uganda, but some of the top commanders, including Gen. Salim Saleh and Maj. Gen. Kahinda Otafiire, were accused of plundering Congo’s resources.uganda.uk.com
Amama Mbabazi, then security minister, was in the eye of the storm when the National Social Security Fund bought land he jointly owned with businessman Amos Nzei in Temangalo. The duo, together with Dr Ezra Suruma who was minister of finance which supervised NSSF, owned the now defunct National Bank of Commerce in which the money from the land deal was supposedly invested. A parliamentary probe report recommended action against Mr Mbabazi and Mr Suruma over conflict of interest but a committee of the whole house later quashed the report. The land, said to total 411.44 acres, was bought at Shs 11.2 billion (Shs24 million per acre). Much of the query was on the criteria used by NSSF to procure the land and whether savers got value for money.uganda.uk.com
Billions meant to aid the anti-HIV/Aids effort went to organisations that did not exist, some into the personal bank accounts of top officials and some allegedly to finance the campaign to lift presidential term limits and other dubious activities, a commission of inquiry chaired by Justice James Ogoola found out. The scandal unfolded in a newly founded entity within the Ministry of Health known as the Project Management Unit (PMU) which was in charge of disbursing $47m to about 400 NGOs. At the end, some $37m remained unaccounted for. The money came from the Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. The organisation had suspended a $200m grant to Uganda citing misuse, prompting Dictator Yoweri Museveni to set up the commission of inquiry. Maj. Gen. Jim Muhwezi was as a result sacked as minister of health, together with his two state ministers, Dr Alex Kamugisha and Capt. Mike Mukula. The commission ordered for the refund of the money and some of it was recovered from the individuals implicated.uganda.uk.com
Uganda’s most untouchable soldier in General Elly Tumwine, together with the deputy chief of CMI a one CK Asiimwe, are implicated in robbing 150,000 USD from a Korean national.According to security leaks, the duo later targeted a businessman a one Sam Buchana whom they first arrested on fake charges of fake gold sales, and when this charge did not hold, they decided to charge him with illegal possession of a gun at the court-martial.
According to an impeccable source, the gun in question is fully registered and Sam is authorized to have it.
The troubles for Buchana stem from a land deal in which a close confidant of Elly Tumwine a one Kaaya defrauded Buchana of 2 billion shillings in a fake land deal.
kaaya was arrested and Tumwine stood surety for him in court. The court had given him up to the end of August to pay back all the money he took from Buchana.
However, in a bid to avoid payment, they resorted to arresting and faking charges of illegal gun possession using deputy CMI chief colonel CK Asiimwe.
Buchana’s family is accusing Elly Tumwine of telling buchana to withdraw money claim if he wants to be left alone,
“These two army officers Elly Tumwine and Asiimwe have resorted to open blackmail, telling our brother to withdraw money claims” a family member who never wanted to disclose his identity claimed.
uganda.uk.com
To develop Uganda and Africa, we need to sacrifice and fight for the right actions and direction to be taken. Everyone must be involved, encouraged and engaged. It will take a lot to make Uganda and Africa a better place for all of us who call it home.
Corruption, selfishness, bad governance are some of the stabling block to the development of Africa. Let alone high levels of illiteracy. It is time to wake up and face these problems using every resources and means possible. Nothing comes the easy way and on a silver platter. All these developed countries went through the worst and the same will be with Africa or African countries.
Time to focus on developing Africa and it might mean stopping people who are making it hard to happen.
Don’t bury your head in the sand and think everything will be alright. Wake up and face the music. Tell your African brothers and sisters to start acting now. Don’t support any of the Africans dictators because they are killing Africa slowly and and selling Africa to foreigners.
Hard work is coming ahead. Don’t die without making a difference to Africa. God bless you all and talk unity and a better Africa to your relatives, friends, in-laws, neighbours, fellow countrymen and Africans. I love you all.uganda.uk.com
I see a lot of contradiction in the above: “granting President Museveni Amnesty and turning him into an advisor”.
I love my own identity and what I believe in.
Uganda’s head of Military intelligence Abel Kandiho is cited in Gold scams around Kampala.
Brick by brick, we will build unity among the democracy seeking forces in Uganda. We do this knowing that the political fault-line is not between the so called opposition and the Museveni regime, but rather between the haves and have-nots, the dispossessed and those who have disinherited them.
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.
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.
During the 1990s, the army was involved in a number of procurement scandals. Undersized uniforms from China, not-up-to-standard food rations from South Africa and 90 second-hand tanks, several unserviceable, from Belarus, were procured. But probably the most famous of the scandals was what came to be known as the junk helicopter scandal, in which two out of four unserviceable Mi-24 helicopters were procured. Four of the MiGs were modified in Israel and delivered in the country but two of them could not fly. The deal to supply the helicopters, which was brokered by Emma Katto, then a race-car driver, was aided by Gen. Salim Saleh, who convinced President Museveni to okay the deal. Gen. Saleh was as a result to bag a commission of $200,000 off each of the four helicopters. He would later tell a commission of inquiry into the matter in 2001 that he had informed the President of the “commission” he had been promised and Mr Museveni had allowed him to use it in the war against Joseph Kony’s rebels in northern Uganda
The International Court of Justice sitting in The Hague in 2005, found Uganda guilty of violating the sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of Congo, plundering its natural resources and orchestrating human rights abuses when it sent its troops between 1997 and 2003. The court accordingly slapped a whopping $10b fine on Uganda. The government said it had sent soldiers over to Congo to pursue Allied Democratic Forces rebels who were terrorising parts of western Uganda, but some of the top commanders, including Gen. Salim Saleh and Maj. Gen. Kahinda Otafiire, were accused of plundering Congo’s resources.
Amama Mbabazi, then security minister, was in the eye of the storm when the National Social Security Fund bought land he jointly owned with businessman Amos Nzei in Temangalo. The duo, together with Dr Ezra Suruma who was minister of finance which supervised NSSF, owned the now defunct National Bank of Commerce in which the money from the land deal was supposedly invested. A parliamentary probe report recommended action against Mr Mbabazi and Mr Suruma over conflict of interest but a committee of the whole house later quashed the report. The land, said to total 411.44 acres, was bought at Shs 11.2 billion (Shs24 million per acre). Much of the query was on the criteria used by NSSF to procure the land and whether savers got value for money.
Billions meant to aid the anti-HIV/Aids effort went to organisations that did not exist, some into the personal bank accounts of top officials and some allegedly to finance the campaign to lift presidential term limits and other dubious activities, a commission of inquiry chaired by Justice James Ogoola found out. The scandal unfolded in a newly founded entity within the Ministry of Health known as the Project Management Unit (PMU) which was in charge of disbursing $47m to about 400 NGOs. At the end, some $37m remained unaccounted for. The money came from the Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. The organisation had suspended a $200m grant to Uganda citing misuse, prompting Dictator Yoweri Museveni to set up the commission of inquiry. Maj. Gen. Jim Muhwezi was as a result sacked as minister of health, together with his two state ministers, Dr Alex Kamugisha and Capt. Mike Mukula. The commission ordered for the refund of the money and some of it was recovered from the individuals implicated.
Uganda’s most untouchable soldier in General Elly Tumwine, together with the deputy chief of CMI a one CK Asiimwe, are implicated in robbing 150,000 USD from a Korean national.
To develop Uganda and Africa, we need to sacrifice and fight for the right actions and direction to be taken. Everyone must be involved, encouraged and engaged. It will take a lot to make Uganda and Africa a better place for all of us who call it home.
