I acted for the President, says Bukenya | JamiiForums | The Home of Great Thinkers

Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

I acted for the President, says Bukenya

Discussion in 'Jukwaa la Sheria (The Law Forum)' started by ByaseL, Jun 23, 2011.

  1. B

    ByaseL JF-Expert Member

    Jun 23, 2011
    Joined: Nov 22, 2007
    Messages: 2,223
    Likes Received: 22
    Trophy Points: 135
    Former Vice President Gilbert Bukenya has moved to block the Inspector General of Government from prosecuting him before the Anti-Corruption Court, saying that his actions during the purchase of the 2007 Chogm vehicles were done on behalf of the President.

    In an application filed before the Constitutional Court, Prof. Bukenya (right) says his trial contravenes the Constitution, because the Office of the Vice President derives its mandate from that of the President and, therefore, since he had been assigned the function of overseeing preparations for the summit by the President, it follows that he is protected from prosecution for actions done in an official capacity under Article 98(5) of the Constitution.

    “Chairing of the cabinet subcommittee meetings, I was performing my duties as the Vice President, acting on behalf of the Presidency and I was not doing so in a personal capacity as provided in Article 108(3)a and (b) of the Constitution,” Prof. Bukenya states in an affidavit accompanying the application.

    Article 98(5) of the Constitution gives immunity to the President while still in office. Prof. Bukenya is facing two charges of abuse of office and fraudulent practice, preferred on June 16 by the IGG, in relation to the procurement of executive cars for the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kampala.

    The former Vice President, who chaired the cabinet sub-committee on Chogm, is jointly charged with Motorcare (U) Ltd, the company which supplied the 204 executive vehicles. Prof. Bukenya has denied the first charge of abuse of office but has challenged the charge of fraudulent practice, saying Motorcare had not appeared before the court on June 16, only sending their lawyer. The case comes up again on July 18.