The East African Court of Justice First Instance Division on 17th February 2015 heard a case filed by a Ugandan citizen Mr. Godfrey Magezi (Applicant) against the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Respondent).
The subject of this case is the alleged acts of corruption, abuse of office, misappropriation, illicit enrichment, plunder and wastage of government resources by the Government of Uganda or its officials, servants and agents that were inconsistent with and contrary to the principles of good governance, transparency, accountability, social justice and equal opportunities.
Counsel for the Applicant alleged that in accordance with the Uganda Constitution, Inspector General of Government Act, 2002 and Whistle Blower’s Act, 2010 he reported the illicit activities to the Inspector General of the Government as the appropriate authority which investigated the matter and established that there was a loss of USD 17, 826, 038.94 in four transactions carried out between 2009-2010 due to inflated prices who in turn made recommendations and preferred charges against the alleged perpetrators. That the Attorney General has in various correspondences shown contempt of the IGG’s findings and report as unfounded and of no legal effect. He further alleged that the IGG on 8th July, 2013 reneged form her earlier recommendation to recover the money and deemed the matter as closed. The Applicant contends that all the acts above both inclusive breach and infringe the principles of law, good governance, accountability and democracy and are inconsistent with Articles 6 (c) and (d), 7(2) and 8(1) of the Treaty.
Counsel for the Respondent responded that according to Articles 23, 27(1) and 30 of the EAC Treaty, this matter is not one for determination by the East African Court of Justice. He explained that the Attorney General had acted within the powers vested in him by the constitution and that the applicant had not adduced any evidence to Court to prove the commission of any unlawful acts or decisions by the respondent which infringes the provisions of the Treaty. He further pointed out that the applicant failed to adduce evidence to prove the loss of the USD 17, 826, 038.94 and that he therefore believed that there was no course of action.
The Applicant was represented by Mohammed Mbabazi Advocate while the Respondents were represented by Wanyama Kodoli Princple State Attorney and George Kalemera Senior State Attorney.
The Court will deliver its Judgment on notice.