NRM risks losing Shs6.7b party base

“The law is taking its course. That is what I can say for now. I cannot reveal more than that,” Mr Kasaija said in that interview.

Mr Kasaija’s comments came in the wake of recommendation by the sub-committee of the Committee on Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Cosase) after inquiry into the operations of the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (DAPCB). The findings revealed acts of fraud into the repossession of hundreds of properties formerly owned by Asians.

The report recommended that government recovers all properties that were fraudulently repossessed and all those whose repossession was processed contrary to a provision in the Expropriated Properties Act (EPA) of 1982, which required claimants to be physically present before a property could be returned.

The EPA transferred the properties and businesses that had been taken over by the Amin government to the Ministry of Finance to either return them to their former owners or sell them off.

“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 MPs recommended. 

NRM in the net

The 83-page report, which was adopted by the 10th Parliament before it lapsed, listed hundreds of properties that were repossessed without fulfilling the requirements of the EPA.

Although it was not listed, Saturday Monitor has learnt that Plot No. 10 Kyadondo Road, which was acquired by the NRM at a cost of $1.9 million (about Shs6.7 billion) is among the hundreds of properties that were repossessed in an unlawful manner.

Mr Ibrahim Kasozi, who chaired the sub-committee, acknowledged on Thursday that whereas the property had not been listed, it was indeed one of those that were repossessed fraudulently. He said the property was not listed for purposes of avoiding commotion.

“We made the report in such a way that we capture so much, but not by naming each and everybody (who grabbed government property). Even some of the sensitive properties were not listed. If I had handled the issue without minding about the ramifications on the wider society, I would have caused a lot problems,” Mr Kasozi told Saturday Monitor.

Mr Museveni announced the acquisition of the property during the party’s delegates’ conference that was held at Namboole stadium in January 2020.

“We have been renting but we paid $1.9 million and we are no longer renting. In future, we shall demolish the small building and develop the place,” Mr Museveni said back then.

The party’s director for information, Mr Emmanuel Dombo, told Saturday Monitor that architectural drawings had been got and that the party is in advanced stages of commencing construction, but those plans might be put on ice if Mr Kasaija was serious about government taking charge of properties that were fraudulently repossessed.

Mr Museveni did not reveal who sold the premises to the ruling NRM party, but the property became the subject of special interest on the part of members of the sub-committee of Cosase after they received documents that suggested that besides not having fulfilled the requirements of the EPA, its ownership was also questionable.

Questionable ownership

Besides the fact that those who laid claim to the property not only did not fulfil the requirements of the EPA, there are suggestions that the process of repossession was fraudulent.

Records at the DAPCB show that the owners of the property as of August 1972, were Nile Travel Agencies, who obtained a repossession certificate dated November 3, 2006, but the entire repossession process is highly questionable.

Information from DAPCB indicate that Plot 10 Kyadondo Road was listed in the Uganda Gazette of November 8, 1991, as one of the properties that had been lined for verification of ownership, but the property’s original property file went missing.

Saturday Monitor has also established that the former owners did not apply to repossess the property and that there is no evidence to suggest that the original owners ever returned to Uganda.

Background

Suspicious transfer

A whistle blower’s letter that was sent to Mr Kasozi suggested fraud in the transfer of ownership.

“The property was transferred using a special title. It should be noted that most properties (that were) transferred using special certificates of title have been fraudulently dealt with,” the whistleblower wrote.

The title has also been the subject of several transfers of ownership yet at the time of the first transfer, it still had a caveat, which had been placed on the deed of the property by the East African Railways Corporation on July 6, 1972. The caveat had never been lifted.

Following the tip off, the committee established that the certificate authorising repossession No 3545 was issued on November 3, 1996, but the processing fee of Shs242,000 was paid by a one Rashid Turyatunga on September 29, 2011, and even when it was issued, no one received or signed for it from the DAPCB.

There was, however, no evidence that the said Mr Turyatunga is either a director or shareholder in Nile Travel Agencies.

He also has no power of attorney.

At the same time, the letter from Nile Travel Agencies authorising the collection of the repossession certificate is not dated. It only had a date of receipt, which points to fraud.

Questionable status

Besides, there are also serious questions about the legal status of Nile Travel Agencies.

Whereas it was claimed that the firm was registered on August 2, 1972, ironically one day before President Amin announced that Asians had three months to leave Uganda, records at the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) indicate that Nile Travel Agencies was registered as a company on July 28, 1999, under registration number 4686.

The question now is whether the NRM did any due diligence before acquiring the property. By press time, it was not possible to discuss the matter with the party secretary general, Mr Richard Todwong.

But Mr Dombo said whereas the property was procured before he joined the secretariat, he believes due diligence was carried out prior to the acquisition.

“Under the circumstances then, there will be an investigation to find out (whether the property was fraudulently repossessed). You are raising it for the first time so it is a point of interest, but due diligence must have been conducted,” Mr Dombo told Saturday Monitor.