Investment Authority Chief Defends Staff Payments Amid Corruption Claims.
The Director General of the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA), Robert Mukiza, has responded to allegations of corruption within the agency. These allegations were raised by Evelyn Anite, the state minister for investment and privatization.
Minister Anite Demands Refund of UIA “Service Award” Payment Within 24 Hours
Museveni Slams Corrupt Officials, Calls Them Insult to Heroes
Winners and Wailers in Uganda’s 72 Trillion Shilling Budget
Minister Anite criticized a payment of 545 million shillings to Mukiza and other UIA staff. This payment was part of an 871 billion shilling loan for the Kampala Industrial and Business Park (KIBP) infrastructure development project in Namanve, Wakiso district. Anite viewed this honorarium as a form of corruption and demanded an end to such practices in the government.
From the 545 million shillings, Mukiza received 82 million shillings. Other UIA staff also received varying amounts, including Dr. Paul Kyalimba with 58 million, Patience Kyabaje with 43 million, John Bwambale with 43 million, Amina Nassaka with 17 million, Susanne Akware with 17 million, Joanita Kambedhe with 8 million, Mwanga Muzamil with 5 million, and Augustine Katale with 5 million. Additional payments were made to the project management team, including Alex Nuwagira who received 92 million shillings, Felix Tumukunde Beinemaryo with 55 million, Emmanuel Muhumuza with 49 million, William Sande with 36 million, and Dominic Mugesera with 30 million.
The Ugandan government had secured a loan of approximately 871 billion shillings from UK Export Finance on December 4, 2019, to fund the project. The project was expected to be completed by January 5, 2024, but only 50% of the work had been done by then.
In a statement dated June 14, 2024, addressed to the UIA’s chairman of the board of directors, Morrison Rwakakamba, Mukiza explained the context of these payments. He said that after the termination of the owner’s engineer (OE) on August 29, 2022, additional responsibilities were assigned to the Project Management Team (PMT) and some UIA staff to oversee the infrastructure development at KIBP.
Mukiza stated that the project manager, in consultation with him, proposed to the UIA board that staff should be compensated for their extra duties. The board approved this proposal, ensuring it was within the legal framework.
Following this approval, the management assigned specific roles and responsibilities to PMT staff, who took over the OE’s duties. UIA staff also assisted the PMT, taking on tasks beyond their regular employment duties. Mukiza emphasized that these assignments were extraordinary and therefore warranted the honorarium.
In response to Anite’s directive to refund the 545 million shillings, Mukiza explained that the UIA management followed section 3.28 of the Human Resource Manual. This section allows for an honorarium when an employee performs exceptionally important work outside their normal duties, which must be completed satisfactorily before the payment is made.
Mukiza also clarified that UIA staff were selected based on their roles and that the contract included project management costs as a provisional sum. These sums are used based on the employer’s instructions, covering management costs.
Furthermore, Mukiza pointed out that the honorarium, like any allowance, is subject to statutory deductions, including Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and National Social Security Fund (NSSF) contributions.
He also noted that the terminated OE was earning €313,298.58 (about 1.2 billion shillings), which translates to €104,432.86 (about 414 million shillings) per month. From September 2022 to February 2023, the OE would have earned €626,597.16 (about 2.4 billion shillings). In contrast, the honoraria paid for the same period totaled €124,822.63 (about 495 million shillings), saving the government €501,774.53 (about 1.9 billion shillings).
Mukiza concluded that the government saved €1,497,864 (about 5.9 billion shillings) by having UIA staff take on the additional responsibilities while the procurement process for a new OE was ongoing. The board’s decision to assign these tasks internally resulted in significant savings for the institution.
0 Comments