Govt to seize 100 Departed Asians’ assets, cancel 600 titles

Government has set in motion a process to recover at least 100 Departed Asian properties repossessed by former owners despite government having paid compensation for them.
A sub-committee of the Committee on Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Cosase) of the 10th Parliament had directed government to recover the properties and prosecute those who aided their fraudulent transfer.
But the Finance ministry’s notices of reclaiming 100 assets and cancelling 600 titles of the Departed Asians properties have since sparked off a standoff between the Finance ministry, the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (DAPCB) on the one hand, and the Solicitor General and Attorney General on the other, with the latter saying DAPCB and the Finance ministry have no powers to cancel certificates of repossession they had previously issued.
But Finance minister Matia Kasaija insists: “The law is taking its course. That is what I can say for now. I cannot reveal more than that.”
Mr Kasaija’s declaration comes three months after a Cosase sub-committee of the 10th Parliament released a report on its two-year investigation into DAPCB operations.
DAPCB was formed to manage properties of Asian and British protected persons expelled from Uganda in August 1972 by president Idi Amin.
Amin gave the Asians 90 days to quit Uganda after he declared what he called an economic war. He accused the Asians of “milking a cow without feeding it” and famously declared that he was “giving Uganda back to ethnic Ugandans”.
The Cosase sub-committee was instituted to investigate, among other things, allegations that some of the properties for which government had compensated their former owners were repossessed by those who had been compensated.
The 83-page report, which was released late April, reveals that government had as of December 31, 2005, paid out compensation amounting to Shs1.7b to some 119 former owners. But the report also says some of the properties are now in the hands of some wealthy businesspeople in town.
“The committee noted that some properties formerly compensated by government had ended up in the hands of unscrupulous individuals, who had later transferred the same to bona fide purchasers for value without notice,” the report states in part.
The committee recommended that government moves to recover such properties and prosecute those who aided their fraudulent transfer.
“Those who are found to have fraudulently reclaimed properties for which they had already been compensated should lose the property, but should be prosecuted subject to direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions on the matter,” the report recommends.
The payouts
The report notes that in 1976, government paid out Shs13.4 million to the government of India as compensation for assets that had been left behind by Indian citizens.
The same report indicates that another batch of former property owners, mostly people of undetermined nationality, were reportedly paid out at least Shs40.4 million through the global refugee agency United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), following a meeting on July 21, 1977, between government and UNHCR officials.
The meeting agreed on valuation for buildings that were five years old or less at the time of the expulsion would be valued and compensation paid out at the 1972 market value.
The report indicates that despite the payouts, at least 100 properties had been reclaimed by their former owners or their agents. It recommended the cancellation of repossession certificates of such buildings, prosecution of those who had taken possession of them and the reversion of such properties into the hands of government.
“Persons found to have fraudulently reclaimed properties for which they had already been compensated should not only lose the property but also be prosecuted for misrepresentation, obtaining property by false pretence and fraudulent acquisition of property. The DAPCB should initiate processes for cancellation of repossession certificates acquired and any substitute titles issued…” the report recommends.
DAPCB, minister cagey
It is not clear whether it was in line with this recommendation that the process to recover the properties has been initiated as it was not possible to talk to the DAPCB executive secretary, Mr George William Bizibu. He neither picked up our calls nor responded to our text messages by press time.
Finance minister Matia Kasaija was also cagey. “I have read the Cosase report from page three, and I know the contents very well, but I cannot tell you more than what I have already said. The law is taking its course,” Mr Kasaija told Sunday Monitor.
Sunday Monitor has, however, learnt from sources close to the minister that the decision to swing into action followed a decision by the ministry to adopt the recommendations of the report after it was adopted by the 10th Parliament.
The processes, our sources in the Finance ministry say, has been ongoing and involves evaluating the circumstances under which each of the properties were repossessed. The sources also said some of those who repossessed the properties have been notified of the move to repossess them by DAPCB and the Finance ministry.
Solicitor General, Finance face off
But the notices have since sparked off a standoff between the Finance ministry and DAPCB on the one hand, and the Solicitor General on the other. The trigger was a February 21 notice that DAPCB sent to the LCI chaiperson of Martin Road in Kampala, directing the occupants of Plot 14C, Martin Road, to vacate the premises in order to enable the ministry to deal in the property.
In reaction, the Solicitor General, in a June 15 letter, wrote to the minister, saying DAPCB and the ministry have no power to cancel a certificate of repossession.
“The Attorney General has advised as follows: That he has previously advised on such matters vide his letter to the minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, ref. ADM31/197/01, dated August 15. That as per the said letter of August 2019, the minister responsible for Finance (or Departed Asians Property Custodian Board) “(“The Board”) has no powers to cancel a certificate of repossession previously issued by him or her… That powers is reserved for the High Court of Uganda under Section 15 of the Expropriated Properties…” the Solicitor General’s letter read in part.
The Solicitor General added: “That the purported claim of ownership or authority over the property by the board, as has been the case with respect to other long-possessed properties in the recent past, is downright illegal…”
However, city lawyer Dan Wandera Ogalo does not agree with the Solicitor General’s take.
“Now if the minister accepted the recommendations of the [Cosase] committee and it is agreed that all those people who did not come back within 120 days to reside here as required under the provisions of the Expropriated Properties Act (EPA), then the minister can directly revoke the certificates that he issued. That can be done by the minister. That does not have to go to court,” Mr Ogalo says.
Sunday Monitor has also established that the ongoing process at the ministry will also entail recovering of all properties that were repossessed in a manner that contravenes the law and also implementing other recommendations of the sub-committee.

Questionable repossessions
The loopholes
The Cosase report says whereas the Expropriated Properties Act (EPA), which transferred the properties and businesses that had been taken over by the Amin government to either return them to their former owners or sell them off, provided that a claimant was physically present before a property could be returned to its former owner. At least 637 properties were repossessed without fulfilling that requirement.
The report indicated that 285 of the 637 properties were repossessed by Ms Unia Ssebaggala, 119 by Mr Mohamed Allibhai and 53 by Ms Mumtaz Kassam. The report says the others were repossessed by Minex Karia, who took 46 properties, Praful Patel, who took 50 properties, Praful Chandra, who repossessed 18 properties, and N. K Radia, who repossessed 66 of such properties.
“All repossessions whose former owners didn’t physically return to manage the properties as required by law should be cancelled or revoked for being null and void… The minister should invoke his/her powers under Section 9(1) of the EPA to make an order to either retain such properties as government or the same be disposed of in a manner prescribed by Regulation 11 of the Expropriated Properties (Repossession and Disposal)..” the committee recommends.
The committee further recommends the revocation of all transfers of ownership that were effected on the basis of letters of repossession and the prosecution of landlords who acquired properties on the basis of repossession certificates that were fraudulently acquired, and such properties revert to government.
The committee also reported that 725 properties were repossessed by Mr Mohamed Alibhai without him presenting supporting documents such as powers of attorney, certificates of repossession or letters of repossession.
Fake powers of attorney
The report pointed out that whereas some of the properties were repossessed on the strength of powers of attorney issued by property owners outside the country, some of those who used powers of attorney to take charge of the properties had transferred the same properties into their names without following the due process.
“The committee found that a number of agents who repossessed on behalf of their principals transferred these properties without a required registrable instrument, which, by law, is the certificate of repossession that confers powers to transfer to former owners,” the report states.
In some instances, the report says, repossession letters were used and in others special certificates to transfer ownership of properties. The committee recommended the revocation of such transfers.