Lands Minister, Namuganza
The High Court in Kampala has trashed an application filed by the State Minister for Urban Planning, Persis Namuganza, which seeks to block her removal from office.
This followed a recommendation by the Parliamentary Ad-hoc Committee on the Naguru-Nakawa land misallocation to throw her out for abuse of office.
Namuganza’s luck ran out when the committee accused her of overstepping her powers by ordering for the give away of land in Naguru to different individuals and companies without following the Public Procurement and Disposal Act (PPDA).
In a report presented by the Ad-hoc committee in Parliament on 18th May 2022, Namuganza directed the Uganda Land Commission to give out the land illegally and acting on a non-existent presidential directive, hence, recommending her removal.
However, being dissatisfied with the report and its recommendations, the state minister dragged the Attorney General to the High Court seeking to have it quashed on grounds that she didn’t get a fair hearing before the committee.
Lands Minister, Namuganza
Through her lawyers Pande Norman, Norman Mwanja and Kayiwa Wilber, Namuganza asked Court to compel the Attorney General to pay UGX1 billion in damages.
Namuganza told Court that she was condemned unheard and declared to have abused her office in a report which was biased, inconsistent and lacked proper assessment.
Namuganza stated that when she appeared before the Committee, she presented a letter that she had written to the chairperson Uganda Land Commission requesting for consideration of some companies and not directing as thought. She claimed to her surprise the said letter was not attached to the report.
The Attorney General, through Commissioner George Kalemera, asked Court to dismiss Namuganza’s case saying she cannot challenge a recommendation of Parliament, pending debate and consideration by the Executive.
In his ruling, Justice Musa Ssekaana said Namuganza’s application fails because she did not set out any evidence to prove that she was not given a fair hearing by the Ad-hoc committee apart from merely alleging.
“The applicant did not set out any evidence to prove that she was not given a fair hearing apart from merely alleging every limb of what amounts to a fair hearing and contending in submissions that they were not observed…this ground has not been proved by the Applicant, the Applicant has failed to prove this ground,” said Ssekaana.
He accordingly dismissed her application and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
