As the Bujagali power project works towards completion by the year 2011, government is setting up projects to ease transmission.

Under the Bujagali interconnection project worth 114 billion shillings, 220KV transmission lines are to be set up between Bujagali and Kawanda to evacuate power from the power plant to the national power grid.

Currently there is still public cry over the inconsistent power supply that has increased the cost of production for both local and international companies.

Kampala alone consumes approximately 60 % of the total power produced and any mishap affects the city greatly.

With the construction of transmission lines between Kawanda and Bujahgali it is hoped that this loss will be short lived. The Kawanda- Bujagali transmission project estimated at 114 billion shillings is being constructed to aid in transporting the generated power from Bujagali plant in Jinja to Kawanda.

At Kawanda the power that will be at 220KV is too high for consumption and will be stepped down for the distribution companies to absorb and sell out as per their clients’ requirements. The transmission lines which pass through Mabira forest, will cover 71 km from Bujagali to Kawanda.

It says that out of the 2600 households that occupy the areas where the transmission lines will pass only 260 have refused the offer they have been given by claiming that it is way below the market value of their property.

The target is to have the transmission lines ready by the year 2010 when the Bujagali power plant is expected to be complete.

Northern Uganda continues to experience inhuman conditions with high level of human rights violation a report has noted. Foundation of Human Rights Initiative has just released a report indicating intense violation of human rights in the war tone area and in Kampala.

Torture, lack of basic facilities, land wrangles and delays in the peace talks are some of the salient issues in the report. The report for the period July to December 2006 highlights continued violation of human rights in the region including Teso and Karamoja sub regions.

The report is titled Northern Uganda, Peace at last.’ It questions why the peace talks are dragging .and whether there will ever be bona fide peace in the region. It further points out inadequate law enforcement institutions, a factor that has greatly contributed towards the violation of human rights in the region.

Foundation for Human Rights director Livingstone Ssewanyana regrets the situation and calls for an immediate intervention into the justice, law and order sector. The report says the humanitarian condition particularly in IDP camps remains dire while the decongestion exercise was conducted in appropriately.

It says the new decongested camps are only a creation of second homes. On the land issue the report highlights a possible break out of conflict as people are not well informed about land ownership.

Also prominent in the report is the delay in the peace talks. The report claims that the talks may not yield positive results as was the case in the past talks. It recommends involvement of other stakeholders like the church, political parties and the local populace.

Other issues highlighted in the report include violation of media freedom and prisoner’s freedom as well as failure to adequately address the plight of children in conflict affected areas. Torture also remains prominent allegedly perpetrated by both the LRA and the UPDF.

After saving two of his senior ministers from an imminent censure by Parliament, President Yoweri Museveni is expected this month to register another victory over his opponents by getting the controversial Land Amendment Bill 2007 passed into law.

Finance Minister, Dr. Ezra Suruma and Security Minister Amama Mbabazi seemed to be headed for the political graveyard over their role in the NSSF-Temangalo land saga with public opinion and most MPs baying for the ministers’ censure. But President Museveni pulled out some of his political master cards to rally and silence the critical MPs who ended up voting that the two ministers had no case to answer.

Like the NSSF- Temangalo land saga, the controversial Land Amendment bill has been criticized by most sections of the public across the country. Many MPs have also previously said they will not support the Land Amendments if the concerns raised by several sections of the public are not addressed.

It emerged on Tuesday November 18th that the Land Amendment bill will be passed into law sooner than later, following the recommendation by the two parliamentary Committees handling the bill.

The Parliamentary committee on Physical Infrastructure and that of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, which have been scrutinizing the Bill since February 2008 presented their report to parliament recommending that the bill be passed into law.

The plenary sitting on Tuesday November 18th debated the committee recommendations on the Land Amendment Bill on its second reading in the August House.

It was clear that the Museveni who has been the chief campaigner for the land amendments had done his homework well, as the parliamentary debates were almost exclusively those supporting the proposed land amendments.

The joint committee like the President argued, concluded that the Land Amendments are necessary to stop the rampant evictions and to handle the legal gaps in the land law, especially the duality of ownership on mailo land. This is despite widespread concerns that more consultations needed to be made before the bill is considered by Parliament.

There are reports that most MPs on the two committees have been acting under pressure and persuasion from the President and State House officials to ensure the land amendment bill is passed as the government wants it.

The MPs on the two committees recommended that as a matter of urgency, the Bill should be passed and consultations, if necessary, could be done later.

The MPs report supported the Cabinet proposal that a tenant can only be evicted from land registered land (mailo, freehold or lease title) for non-payment of the annual nominal ground rent commonly referred to as Busuulu. Many landlords led by Buganda kingdom (the largest Mailo land holder in Uganda) and the Catholic Church (the second leading mailo land owner) have been incensed by this provision arguing that there are other reasons for which a landlord can evict a tenant.

The Archbishop of Kampala Archdiocese, Dr. Cyprian Kizito Lwanga argues that it would be wrong to say that a landlord should not evict a tenant who is undertaking activities that are unacceptable to the landlord. For example, Archbishop Lwanga says the church should be able to evict people who sell alcohol or undertake immoral activities like prostitution, witchcraft etc on the Church’s land.

The Kingdom of Buganda has insisted that the requirement that a tenant be evicted only for failure to pay ground rent automatically takes away the landlord’s rights of ownership since he landlord can not decide to undertake any economic activities on the land which has tenant, sell or lease such land.

Buganda’s Spokesperson, Peter Mayiga says this amendment is against the constitutional guarantees of the right to own private property. This is the same view presented by the Uganda Law Society and the Uganda Human Rights Commission.

Mayiga says Buganda Kingdom is ready to go to Courts of law to challenge the amendments if they are adopted by Parliament. He says the current land law is adequate to stop the rampant land evictions, adding that the new amendments will only polarize the tenants and landlords further.

The Uganda Bankers Association had disagreed with the bill’s provision on eviction of tenants saying it made it difficult for Land Title’s to stand as security for bank loans and mortgages. Banks complained that the amendments would complicate matters for financial institutions on what they should do to clients who gave land titles of land with tenants, and whether banks should require borrowers with land titles to seek permission from tenants before borrowing money using the land title in question.

It is this situation that the landlords view as taking away what used to be their absolute powers in land since they are the title holders (owners). But the government says many of the so called tenants were the original land owners, deprived of ownership by the 1900 Buganda agreement which gave mailo land titles of land occupied by many people to a few Buganda royals and colonial servants.

Although the government insists the Bill will help to better protect such bona fide occupants and lawful tenants from illegal evictions, critics led by Buganda Kingdom, have accused the government of trying to use the proposed legislation to allow illegal occupants and land grabbers to legalize their occupation on Buganda’s so-called 9,000 square miles (former crown land).

This is the “refuse land” that was not distributed as titled land to any body. It was retained by the British Crown, which reverted it to the Buganda kingdom in 1960 when the colonial government was preparing to hand over. While the government argues that there were people on most of this land who now own the land under customary tenure, Buganda kingdom insists this land has been grabbed by newcomers who have taken advantage of the fact that the government refused to give the 9,000 sq miles back to Buganda. The Minister for Lands, Kasirvu Atwooki says part of this land that is not occupied by local people under customary tenure is in the hands of district land boards in the respective areas, who have the right and duty to administer its utilization.

Apart from provision on landlord –tenant relationships, the Committee retained other controversial government amendments like Section 32(b) presented by the Minister of Land, Housing and Urban Development, Daniel Omara Atubo which proposes to empower courts to arbitrate over matters of customary land. MPs especially from northern and eastern Uganda had said that courts should have no powers over customary land since such land is held according to cultural norms and beliefs of a particular area.

But Atubo says the provision in this amendment applies only when the customary avenue has been exhausted and the parties are not satisfied. He says all cultures and traditional practices must finally be subjected to the Courts of Uganda to ensure they are fair and do not abuse constitutional rights and freedoms of some Ugandans.

Some experts like the Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative Executive Director Livingstone Ssewanyana had argued that the law amendments will have little if any effect on correcting the ills in the land law if the country does not have a National Land Policy. But the MPs on the two Committees seem to think otherwise.

“The Land (Amendments) Bill, 2007 comes in as a stop gap measure due to public outcry on land grabbing, forceful evictions and grave associated crimes as we wait for the national land policy which the Ministry (of Land) has started on,” the MPs report says.

Only three MPs led by Makindye East MP Michael Mabikke are reported to have disagreed with the majority and are preparing a minority report against the passing of the Land Amendment Bill. Others are Patrick Oboi (FDC, Kumi) and Peter Omolo (FDC, Soroti Municipality).

But this is a little number compared to the number of MPs who were threatening to censure the two ministers, just weeks ago over the NSSF-Temangalo Land saga. President Museveni is once again expected to be the victor when Parliament passed this Land Amendment bill as it is expected, given that the NRM has more than two thirds majority in Parliament. Museveni will surely have won something for the tenants (who greatly outnumber landlords) as their enhanced protection on land is expected to result in more votes for Museveni and the NRM. But whether the win in passing the bill will last up to the implementation stage is one issue that we shall keep our eyes open to witness.

Heading the National Social Security Fund, commonly referred to as NSSF, is known to be challenging. Having scalded the resumes of many managing directors along with their boards of directors, NSSF has the highest CEO turnover in Uganda since 1998 in the days of Abel Katembwe, whose contract was terminated suddenly. His woes begun when NSSF bought him a four-bedroom house in Mbuya at 400 million Uganda shillings. The cost of its refurbishment was initially put at 215 million Uganda shillings. Later, this cost rose to a staggering 400 million – double the cost at which the house was bought. That not only made the public and stakeholders raise an eyebrow but got workers nationwide baying for blood. Katembwe’s days were numbered with the alleged discovery of 1.4 million US dollars missing from the NSSF coffers. Apparently, a local bank gave this money to Alcon International, which through a court case it later won has been waiting for damages which NSSF is yet to pay. The question then was; what kind of investment, using workers money should warrant spending over 700 million Uganda shillings on the MD’s House?

After the Katembwe debacle, Dr Yoramu Barongo was appointed as the MD. He too was suspended afterwards. During his tenure, the Chief Government Valuer, Eddie Nsamba Gayiira, was interdicted for grossly overvaluing UDYAM House (now known as NSSF House) to the tune of 3.3 billion Uganda shillings. It was sold at a controversial price of 9.7 billion Uganda shillings – much higher than the market price at the time.

Next came Leonard Mpuuma, who was jointly charged with board chairman Onegi Obel. The now infamous Nsimbe Estate scandal followed an inflated valuation of the project. It’s believed that in this 2004 version of investment choices, the price of land purchased by NSSF was inflated by over 4 billion Uganda shillings. At the time, this saga took the biscuit. The project, undertaken in partnership with Nairobi-based Mugoya Isabirye of Mugoya Construction Company, not only fleeced workers but also epitomised the inept handling by public officials of workers savings in Uganda. The Minister for Gender, Labour and Social Welfare (under which NSSF fell at the time), Bakoko Bakoru, was charged. So was Mugoya. However, the two are still at large. The minister fled to the US and claimed asylum. After the trial, Mpuuma was fined 100 million Uganda shillings while Obel is still facing trial. NSSF was consequently transferred from the Gender and Labour Ministry to that of Finance & Economic Planning for what was believed to be proper supervision. But alas! This fund seems to attract controversy.

Now NSSF is in the news again for shady business dealings and flouting of public procurement rules. It appears that government officials, the very ones supposed to be looking out for Joe Public are involved in the latest scandal. The Parliamentary Committee on Statutory Enterprises has just been investigating how NSSF purchased land in Temangalo, Wakiso District from Arma Ltd. Arma Ltd belongs to Amama Mbabazi (Security Minister and NRM secretary General) and Amos Nzeyi, a city businessman. Chandi Jamwa, the current NSSF MD intimated to the committee that the land NSSF bought was unencumbered with tenants. It has however been discovered that the land has tenants, is less in size than what the MD claims was bought, is partly a seasonal wet land (or if we are to believe Mbabazi, is filled with fishing farms/ponds). National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) asserts that 46% of the land that NSSF bought in Temangalo is swampy.

However, the current controversy has government officials who believe they are untouchables starring in roles that include flouting Public Procurement and Disposal Act rules. The question now is how did John Patrick Amama Mbabazi & Amos Nzeyi learn that NSSF was looking for land to buy and vice-versa? Who approached the other? We have recently learnt that the land database that the MD and his board chairman claim to have consulted is unknown by even the top NSSF staff! It has now emerged that the line Minister for NSSF, Ezra Suruma, is not only a friend and business partner of the seller(s) but also gave a go ahead to the NSSF board to purchase the land without verifying that workers’ money would not be lost. The land was shamelessly overvalued, the NSSF board ignored several market price quotations set by different independent valuers, did not use the government valuer and were in such a hurry to purchase this land that they ignored Public Procurement and Disposal Act (PPDA) rules – the crucial one being advertising in the press for bids.

My opinion is that David Chandi Jamwa, together with his deputy, Mondo Kagonyera and chairman Gamuwa found themselves between a rock and a hard place. How could they disobey the mighty influential ministers? Both parties never thought the transaction would see the light of day but now what started as a clear case of fund mismanagement, flouting of PPDA rules, influence peddling, etc has become a political cat fight. NRM has always had politicians of questionable character but the hitherto clean, loyal but somewhat arrogant Minister of Security is now in the same boat as the former.

The scandal has also become a political fight with the Bakiga claiming that they are being witch hunted by the Banyarujumbura! The President of Uganda has decided to take sides for now, waiting for the recommendations from the Parliament Committee that is investigating the matter. He must be having a serious sleep deficit, watching senior party cadres tear each other apart. This time, his most trusted buddy is the one in hot water. It is an interesting scenario that the NSSF deputy MD is a Mukiga, just like the seller(s) and the line Minister. This is as interesting as it gets but the bottom line is that there has to be a fall guy for this debacle and Jamwa and his Board look like the favourite candidates. But like Mario Puzo wrote in The Godfather, it is nothing personal. Just business.