Prime
Museveni orders Custodian Board to reclaim properties
President Museveni. PHOTO/PPU
What you need to know:
- The same properties were illuminated in the Auditor General’s latest report, with “90 [properties] whose owners had earlier been compensated [were] illegitimately repossessed by new unknown claimants.”
President Museveni has directed the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (DAPCB) to fast-track the recovery of thousands of properties formerly under the management of the Board and believed to have been fraudulently taken over by wealthy business personalities.
The DAPCB executive secretary, Mr George William Bizibu, confirmed the development saying President Museveni “is emphasising the need for us to move faster” and the position “is not new.”
He added that the President’s directive is in line with recommendations of the subcommittee on Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Cosase) of the 10th Parliament.
The subcommittee was instituted to investigate, among others the operations of the DAPCB and allegations that some of the properties—for which the government had compensated their former owners—were repossessed by those who had been compensated.
A 83-page report released late in April 2021 following two years of investigations revealed that the government had as of December 31, 2005 paid Shs1.7b to 119 former owners in compensation. It revealed that some of those properties are now in the hands of wealthy business personalities.
The same properties were illuminated in the Auditor General’s latest report, with “90 [properties] whose owners had earlier been compensated [were] illegitimately repossessed by new unknown claimants.”
ALSO READ: Complete work on Custodian Board and report
The report further noted that “these included several properties from which rent was being collected by the Board at the time.”
It adds: “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 indicates that some of the properties had been stolen by “unscrupulous individuals who had later transferred the same to bona fide purchasers for value without notice.”
In June 1997, then Attorney General—Justice Bart Katureebe—advised that “the Government of Uganda discharged its obligations under international law when it paid the money to the Indian Government.”
He added: “The Indian Government had a duty to pass on the compensation to its nationals since it not only negotiated on their behalf, but received on their behalf.”
Justice Katureebe held that those “for whom compensation was passed to the Indian Government” had no further claim.
He added that being “given repossession certificates” would mean that they “would be getting a double benefit.” These, he continued “should not only lose the property, but should be prosecuted.”
Saturday Monitor has established that some of the recent court rulings could have been driven by the fact that some of the magistrates and judges could have played a part in the repossession of the said properties before they were elevated to the bench.
“Those who were young lawyers who assisted with what has turned out to be controversial repossessions have since become Chief Magistrates and judges,” Mr Ibrahim Kasozi, who chaired the parliamentary probe, said, adding: “The Act provides for a repossession certificate, but the courts are now saying even a letter of repossession can do! A pass slip cannot be the equivalent of a certificate.”
This meant that the Board could not take charge of properties that were repossessed on the basis of repossession certificates that had been fraudulently obtained and those that were repossessed without supporting documents.
The board also cannot take charge of properties that were repossessed without the listed owners fulfilling all the requirements under the Expropriated Properties Act (EPA).
Among the requirements under the EPA (section 9) was for a claimant to return and be physically present before a property could be returned to such a person.
The Kasozi-led committee noted—with concern— “that some properties were repossessed and certificates handed over to persons who never returned to Uganda.”
The committee listed 637 properties, which were repossessed in the absence of the registered proprietors.
Mr Bizibu told Saturday Monitor that the board is now waiting on the Attorney General to give it direction on how to proceed.
