Uganda Parliament Final Report On Shs 6bn Reward

Table of Contents 1
List of Acronyms 3
1.0: Introduction 4
2.0: Methodology- 5
3.0: Summary of Evidence 7
4.0: Analysis of Terms of Reference 15
4. 1: Term of Reference One 15
4.2: Term of Reference Two 21
4.2.1: Basis for Determination of the Beneficiaries 21
4.2.2: The Role Played by Each Beneficiary and the Categorization 26
4.3: Term of Reference Three 28
4.3.1: Initiation of the Payment 28
4.3.2: Legality of the Payment 29
4.3.3: Designation of the CG, URA as Accounting Officer 33
4.3.4: Conflict of Interest 34
4.4: Term of Reference Four 36
4.5: Term of Reference Five 38
4.6: Term of Reference Six 40
4.7: Term of Reference Seven 41
4.8: Term of Reference Eight 44
5.0: Conclusions and Recommendations 45
6.0: Appendices
Appendix A: Full Account of the Roles of Each Beneficiary
Appendix B: Correspondence
Appendix B 1: H.E. The President's Lett n. Minister of
Appendix B2: Attorney General's Lett
Appendix B3: CG's Letter to .E.
Appendix B Letter to PSIS
1
Appendix B5: PS/ST's Letter to CG
Appendix B6: CG's Letter to PS / ST requesting for Designation as AO
Appendix B7: PS/ST's Letter to CG designating her as AO
Appendix B8: CG's Letter to Minister of Finance requesting for Reallocation
Appendix B9: PS/ST's Letter to CG granting Authority to Spend
Appendix B 10: Letter from Minister of Finance to Auditor General
Appendix B 11: Letter Solicitor General to PS MEMD
Appendix B12: Letter from PS/ST and Accountant General to Director,
Banking, Bank of Uganda
Table 1: Original List of Proposed Beneficiaries

Table 2: Final List of Beneficiaries and the Payments
Table 3: Summary of Legal Fees & WHT Deductions by MoJCA
Table 4: Budgetary Allocations for Arbitration Case Activities
Table 5: Analysis of Petroleum Revenues Collected since 2001
2
CNOOC China National Oil Company
CSO Civil Society Organization
COSASE Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities & State
Enterprises
EA Exploration Area
ICT Information & Communications Technology
IGG Inspector General of Government
HOGL Heritage Oil & Gas Limited
ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
MEMD Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development
MoJCA Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs
NGO Non -Government Organization
URA Uganda Revenue Authority
PSA Production Sharing Agreement
TAT Tax Appeals Tribunal
PS/ST Permanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury
PFMA Public Finance Management Act
PFAA Public Finance Accountability Act
TUL Tullow Uganda Limited
TUOPL Tullow Uganda Operations Pty Limited
3
1
On 19 th January 2017, Han, Micheal Tusiime, Mbarara Municipality moved; Han.

Anita Among, Bukedea District, Han, Elijah Okupa, Kasilo County and Han,
Wilfred Nuwagaba, Ndorwa East seconded a motion for a resolution of Parliament
to investigate circumstances under which a sum of UGX, 6 billion shillings was
paid out to 42 Public Officers who participated in the arbitration case between
Government of Uganda and Heritage Oil and Gas,
The House unanimously adopted the motion and referred it to the Committee on
Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) by the
Speaker. On 19 th January, 2017 the Speaker referred the matter to COSASE with
the following Terms of Reference:-
1, Investigate the claims that the Public Officers solicited for a payment,
honorarium, bonus or golden handshake totalling Shs. 6 billion from H,E
The President contrary to standard practices of rewarding Public Officers,
2, Investigate the basis of determination of the beneficiaries to the bonus
payments including the full account of the role of each beneficiary in the
court cases,
3, Examine whether all the proper and legal procedures under the laws of
Uganda were followed in making the alleged payments,
4, Scrutinise all supplementary requests and other budget allocations provided
to the public officers in facilitating the court processes in Uganda and
abroad,
5, Establish all revenues so far received by Government for the Petroleum
Fund,
Examine any other matters related to the above and
recommendations for the sound management of public finances,
Do anything incidental to and p
Report a the House
The Committee was given a period of two months to report to the House. However,
due to the big number of witnesses the Committee had to interact with the period
was extended by four weeks to accommodate all of them.
The Committee used the following methods;

1. Public hearings
11. Reviewed relevant documents
111. Field visit (London)
IV. Meeting with H.E. The President.
For avoidance of conflict of interest, the Committee resolved that the mover and
two of the seconders of the motion, who are members of the Committee, be and
were excluded from the Committee proceedings. However, they were allowed to
attend as movers of the motion.
The Committee carried out public hearings with the following:
1. Uganda Revenue Authority

11. The Attorney General
111. The Auditor General
IV. The Solicitor General
The Governor, Bank of Uganda
The Inspector General of Government
The Tax Appeals Tribunal
The Head of Public Service /Secretary to the Cabinet
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.
Ministry for Energy and Mineral Development
x. Hon Syda Bbumba, former Minister of Energy
xi. 40 beneficiaries of the UGX 6 billion
xu. Mr Andrew Mwenda
XU1. Uganda Law Society
XlV. NGO Forum
xv. CSO Group
XV1. Elders' Forum
In all, the Committee interfaced with 106 individual witnesses.
The Committee reviewed documents submitted by the petitioners, URA, Auditor

General, Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development, Ministry of
Energy and Mineral Development, Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Affairs,
Bank of Uganda, IGG, Uganda Law Society and NGOs.
These are tabled as attachments to the report.
The following Members of the Committee travelled to London and interacted with
the external lawyers, Curtis Mallet-Provost, Colt & Mosle LLP:
1. Hon. Abdu Katuntu (Chairperson/Leader of Delegation)

ii. Hon. Tumuheirwe Turyamuhweza (Member)
Hon. Medard Lubega Sseggona (Member)
Hon. Sheila Mwine (Member)
v. Hon. Micheal Tusiime (Mover of the Motio
.~
The Committee had two interfaces with H.E. T e

When Heritage Oil and Gas Limited (HOGL) sought to transfer its interests in
respect of exploration area 1 and exploration area 3A to Tullow Uganda limited
(Tullow) and Tullow Operations Pty Limited in January 2010 at a consideration of
USD 1,450,000,000, Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) issued assessments
totalling to USD 434,000,000 in Capital Gains Tax. The assessment was objected
to by HOGL and paid only USD 121 million being 30% of the tax. However, URA
successfully collected USD 283 Million from Tullow (U) Limited being the 70%
balance through its Agency Notices.
This sale required approval from Government of Uganda in accordance with the
Production Sharing Agreement. Before the approval, Tullow and Heritage
purported to complete a Sale and Purchase transaction without the Government's
approval and Tullow paid USD1,045,000,000 to Heritage for the transfer. HOGL
then paid USD 121,477,500 to URA and further deposited USD 283,447,500 in an
escrow account held between Tullow and Heritage with Standard Chartered Bank.
objected to that and indicated to Tullow that the said transfer by

HOGL was invalid due to the fact that the conditions in the PSA had not been met
prompting Tullow to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Government
where Tullow agreed to pay USD 313,447,500 being the balance of the assessed
taxes payable by Heritage in the assessments issued.
filed two Applications in the Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) vide

Applications TAT 26 and 28 of 2010 for review of URA's decision to tax the
transaction. Both Applications were successfully defended by URA who were
awarded costs in both Applications. HOGL appealed to the High Court against the
TAT ruling confirming URA's decision L's transfer and sale to Tull
but the appeal was dismisse with ost
addition to the above proceedings, HOGL on 16th May 2011 also initiated
arbitration proceedings in London against Government in accordance with Article 3
of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law Arbitration Rules,
1976 (the "UNICITRAL Arbitration Rules") on the basis of the arbitration clauses
contained in the two PSAs.
HOGL also filed Application No. 06 of 2011seeking to stay proceedings at the TAT
soon after instituting the arbitral claim in London however, TAT dismissed the
application and so was the appeal arising from it at the High Court of Uganda with
costs vide Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2011.
The Committee was informed by the management team of URA led by the
Commissioner General that before the final arbitration ruling, the Uganda
Government team briefed Cabinet on the 19 th of November 2014 on the progress of
the HOGL arbitration and H.E the President promised to reward the team if they
won the case.
The final Award on the merits of the arbitration was delivered on the 24 th
February, 2015 wherein the full panel of three Arbiters agreed in favour of Uganda
Government and dismissed the entire claim of HOGL and awarded USD 4,083,840
in costs. The then Attorney General Hon. Fred Ruhindi on 13 th April 2015
B wrote to H.E. the President reminding him of his promise to reward the team
and requested him to consider a reward for the noble team. He also attached a list
osed beneficiaries,
the Attorney General further led the

Government team to meet H.E the President at his country home in Rwakitura on
the 17 th May 2015 where the victory in the Heritage arbitration case was among
other things discussed. That H.E. The President thanked the team and directed the
Commissioner General of URA to propose an appropriate reward for the team.
The President also guided that the
contributed to the success of the case but had not been included on the first list
generated by the Attorney General be included too.
The Commissioner General in a letter dated 26th June, 2015 wrote to His
Excellency The President proposing a UGX. 6 Billion reward for 42 Public Officers
that were involved in the case justifying that the reward would enable beneficiaries
do something tangible. The letter stated inter alia, "Your Excellency, the amount
recommended as a reward is an amount that will enable the beneficiaries to use the
funds for something tangible i.e. to leave a legacy to remind them and their offspring
of their contribution to the nation. For instance, the recommended amount could
enable one to either acquire a decent plot of land, pay a deposit on a mortgage or
perhaps facilitate finishes on home construction."
Following the proposal made by the Commissioner General URA, H.E The
President in a letter dated 16 th November 2015 , directed the Minister for
Finance, Planning and Economic Development that the 42 Public Officials of the
Government team be paid a token of appreciation amounting to UGX 6 Billion and
that the applicable taxes be deducted. H.E. The President's letter states thus:
"As you may be aware, the Government of Uganda won a case against Heritage Oil
Ltd in London arbitration and was awarded USD. 434 million. I met with a team of
officials that handled that case and they requested to be considered for a reward in
appreciation for the work done
Given the amount of money that was recovered for the Government, I agreed that
Gove some money as a token of appreciation.
e ore, direct that a team of 42 Government Officials be paid shs.

Shillings Only). The applic ax s should be deducted.
is from the above letter of H.E. the President that the process of payment of
UGX. 6 Billion to the 42 beneficiaries was triggered. The payment process was
managed by the Commissioner General of Uganda Revenue Authority and this
inquiry thus came as a result of the above stated facts.
The Committee was further informed that the beneficiaries to the reward were
categorized into three i.e. core, non-core and support staff based on the roles they
played and the duration the individual beneficiaries spent with the team.
The core category comprised of Public Officers who participated in the case
throughout and had technical input in the case both at the TAT and at the London
Arbitration Tribunal. The non-core team was comprised of beneficiaries who
provided leadership to the Government team, supervised, managed and oversaw
the budget process as well as updating stakeholders on the case, while the support
staff category comprised of Officers who provided logistical support to the team as
they deliberated, prepared and handled the case.
As a follow up to H.E. The President's letter of 16 th November, 2015, the

Commissioner General of URA wrote to the Permanent Secretary/Secretary to
Treasury (PS / ST) in a letter dated 11 th December, 2015 requesting him
to formally designate her as accounting Officer through whom the reward would be
paid and to formally requisition for the UGX 6,000,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Six
Billion Only).
The PS / ST in a letter dated 2 n d of May 2016 designated her as

Accounting Officer as requested but advised her to seek authority to re-allocate
funds from Tax Refund Account to the relevant item to enable her make the
nt from the Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.
ed and in a letter dated 5 th May, 2016

Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic
10
Development to reallocate UGX. 6 Billion (Uganda Shillings Six Billion Only) from
URA Tax Refund Account to URA Expenditure Account so that the 42 Public
Officers could be paid and suggested that a supplementary to URA for that amount
be considered and handled by Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic
Development. The Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
did not grant this authority. However, by letter dated 19 th October, 2016
B he requested the Auditor General to issue an audit warrant for UGX 6 Billion.
The Committee further learnt that the PS/ST in a letter dated, 8 th July 2016
wrote to the Commissioner General URA authorizing her to meet this
expenditure from the resources available to URA in the FY 2016/201 7, and that
supplementary funding of an equivalent amount would be provided in the course
of the financial year. Arising from that communication, the Commissioner General
URA went ahead and effected payment.
The Committee was informed by the beneficiaries of the reward that it is common
practice both in public and private sector governance worldwide to reward
individuals for excellence and that rewarding outstanding performance in itself is
good because not only does it make people aware that good work will be rewarded,
it also motivates others to strive for excellence.
All the beneficiaries denied soliciting for the reward. Apart from Mr. Ali Ssekatawa,
they were alive to the fact that it is wrong for public officers to solicit rewards. The
Elders' Forum and the Inspector General of Government further emphasized this
fact by stating that, .. this act of monetizing rewards is morally wrong and also
s s a bad res~ent for others in Public Service."
I
beneficiaries gave the basis for the reward as Articles 98 and 99 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. They suggested that the President being
the fountain of honor exercised his executive powers and di d that the team be
given the rewar . that was his
decision to reward the team and referred to the reward as a
Runyankole word akin to a token of appreciation and that it was culturally
appropriate to reward those who have done a good job.
However, in regard to Articles 98 and 99 of the Constitution being cited by the

beneficiaries as the legal basis for the handshake, the Committee received contrary
opinions from the IGG and the Uganda Law Society. In the opinion of the IGG
forwarded to the Chairperson of COSASE dated 22 n d February 201 7, it states, "In.
view ofArticle 99(3)) there is no support for the preposition that the President has the
authority to act outside the comers of the law and the Constitution) including in the
bestowing of awards and honours to the recipients."
The Uganda Law Society opined thus: "It is thus our considered opinion that the
President does not have any prerogative powers) except the Prerogative of Mercy
(which is explicitly mentioned under Article 121 of the Constitution) but which does
not apply to the instant matter). At best) if the President is desirous of initiating any
rewards to outstanding Civil Servants - which would have an effect on the
Consolidated Fund - this can only be done through an appropriation or
Supplementary Appropriation Act.
Parliament appropriated funds to a tune of UGX 56,666,564,547 Billion (fifty six

billion, six hundred and sixty six million, five hundred and sixty four thousand,
five hundred forty seven shillings) to Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs
under vote 007 and Uganda Revenue Authority under vote 141 to facilitate the
Government team to pursue the HOGL and Tullow cases both locally and
the above amount, UGX 51.22 Billion was through supplementary requests
while UGX 5.439 Billion was through normal budget appropriation process. The
facilitation was for payment of per-diem, warm clothing, Visa fee
inistrative costs, expenses, ICT equi rnent, s well as legal
fees to external legal counsel hired by Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs
and Uganda Revenue Authority.
The Committee established that a British law firm Curtis Mallet-Provost, Colt &
Mosle LLP was hired by Government through the Attorney General to handle the
arbitration in London, and URA for provision of legal services in relation to High
Court and Tax Appeals Tribunal proceedings between Heritage Oil and Gas
Limited, Tullow (U) Ltd and Tullow Operations PTY and URA at a cost of USD
8,621,236.
The Committee further established that whereas the costs awarded to URA by the
Tax Appeals Tribunal and the High Court of Uganda has not been taxed and
recovered, up to approximately USD 15 million has never been recovered. The Bill
of Costs is yet to be filed. The International Arbitration Tribunal in London did
award the Uganda Government costs amounting to USD 4,083,840, which also
remains unrecovered.
The Committee has established that a sum of USD 704,370,255, which had been
ring-fenced for infrastructure and energy development, accrued to the sector since
petroleum activities started. On enactment of the Public Finance and Management
Act, 2015, the Petroleum Fund was established.
The Petroleum Fund as at 14 th March 2017 had a total amount of USD 72,564,842
and UGX 10,003,383,387 as the balance on account.
It was also established that after Tullow Operations Pty Ltd and Tullow (U) Ltd
selling off 66% of their interests in EAl, EA2 and EA3A to Total E&P LTD and
CNOOC at USD 2,933,330,400, URA assessed the sale for Capital Gains Tax of,
USD 475,924,120 which was disputed by low. Tullow applied to the TAT, which
the tax liability to USD ,095,36
Tullow further appealed to the High Court against the TAT ruling and also filed an
arbitration case with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment
disputes (ICSID) in Washington D.C claiming Government breached Article 23.5 on
taxation of the Production Sharing Agreement for EA2.
Following Cabinet approval, the parties agreed to an out of court settlement of USD
250 Million as full and final settlement of all disputes relating to capital gains tax
by Tullow and that Tullow waives any of its future right to the application of Article
23.5 of the EA2 Production Sharing Agreement in respect of any assignment or
transfer of its interest. The sum arrived at after the consent settlement was less by
USD 157,095,366 from the TAT Award.
It was also agreed that the PSA for EA2 be amended to remove the contentious
Article 23.5.
Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition at pg. 1427 defines solicitation as,
"
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 7 th edition at page 1403 defines "solicit"
as, as suooort: moneu or
or persuaae S(JTn~~DIOau nornerns.na "
Whereas the movers of the motion alleged that the various public officers solicited
for the reward, all the beneficiaries denied ever soliciting for it. The Committee
observed that some of the beneficiaries had been informed that the reward was
offered to them by the President.
When the Committee met E. The President, he stated;

ucuea or I am one
The Committee obtained and reviewed two correspondences
y letter dated 13 th April 2015, Ref: MJ / AG/39, subject: "Commendation of the

Uganda Government Arbitration Team", the Attorn Fred Ruhindi
wrote in part, "As Your Excellency fully u
Government In a foreign territory required unprecedented sacrifices and
concentration on the side of the team including preparation of documentation into the
late hours of the night) collection of evidence and continuous working without breaks
in many instances.
When this Government team appeared before you in Cabinet on the 19 th November
2014) Your Excellency promised that you would reward their tireless efforts when
the final Award from the Tribunal came out. Considering that the Tribunal has now
issued the final award) this is to humbly request that you consider a reward for this
noble team that has exhibited exemplary service to the country.
A full list of members is attached."
In addition, the Committee reviewed H.E The President's letter dated 16th
November 2015 to the Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development;
Ref: PO / 10 subject: Appreciation of the Team that delivered a WIn for the
Government of Uganda against Heritage Oil and Gas Limited in the London
Arbitration.
He states, ((As you may be aware) the Government of Uganda won a case against
Heritage Oil Limited in London Arbitration and was awarded USD 434 million. I met
with a team of officials that handled that case and they requested to be considered
for a reward in appreciation of the work done. Given the amount of money that was
recovered for the Government) I agreed that Government pays them some money as
a token of appreciation. L therefore) direct that a team of 42 Government officials. be
paid Shs 6 billion (Six billion shillings only). The applicable taxes should be
deducted.
It is from the President's letter and testimony corroborated by the

Commissioner General's letter team which met the President at his
country home in Rwakitura on
President agreed to reward them. It is also clear from the letter of the
Commissioner General that the President instructed her to propose an "adequate
reward" following a request by the team to .E The President.
By letter dated 26th June 2015, the Commissioner General proposed the monetary
reward of UGX 6 Billion. Additionally, she also proposed a letter of commendation
to each beneficiary and to the external lawyers.
From the above therefore, it is evident that the team that visited the President in
Rwakitura on the 17 th May 2015 did solicit for the reward and they include the
following:
1. Hon. Fred Ruhindi
11. Ms Doris Akol
111. Mrs Allen Kagina
IV. Mr Ali Ssekatawa
v. Mr Peter Muliisa
VI. Mr Martin Mwambutsya
Vll. Mr Francis Atoke
Vlll. Mr George Kalemera
IX. Mr Honey Malinga
x. Mr Ernest Rubondo
The Committee observed that it was not possible for all the beneficiaries to have
solicited for the reward. Many low rank officers never participated in the said
meeting where the solicitation took place.
Other senior officers for example Ms Jennifer Musisi, Mr Moses Kibumba, Mr Keith
Muhakanizi, Hon. Peter Nyombi, to mention but a fe a 0 did not attend the said
meeting.
The Committee reviewed the Constitution, in particular Articles 98 and 99 as relied
on by the beneficiaries. It further reviewed the National Honors and Awards Act,
2001, the Public Service Standing Orders and the URA Human Resource ManuaL
The Committee reviewed evidence presented by the URA Board and Management
team on the reward system within the organization.
Article 98 of the Constitution provides,

(((1) There shall be a President of Uganda who shall be the Head of State)
Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Ugandan Peoples)
Defense Forces and the Fountain of Honor.
Article 99 of the Constitution states,

(((1) The Executive authority of Uganda is vested in the President and shall be
exercised in accordance with this Constitution and the laws of Uganda.
(2) The President shall execute and maintain this Constitution and all laws
made under or continued in force by this Constitution."
In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution above, the Committee received

opinions from the IGG and Uganda Law Society. Ordinarily, in regard to this
investigation, the Committee would have sought legal opinion from the Offices of
the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
However, considering that both offices were In this probe, the

Committee was unable to seek an opinion from them.
After a thorough review of both Articles of the Constitution, the Inspectorate of

Government thus concludes: "Iri view of Article 99(3)) there is no support for the
proposition that the President has the authority to act outsid he comers of the law
and the constitution) including in the bestowing of Awards
Similarly, Uganda Law Society were of a considered opinion that:
"It is thus the considered opinion that the President does not have any
prerogative powers; except the Prerogative of Mercy (which is explicitly mentioned
under Article 121 of the Constitution; but which does not apply to the instant
matter). At best; if the President is desirous of initiating any rewards to
outstanding civil servants - which would have an effect on the Consolidated Fund
- this can only be done through Appropriation or Supplementary Appropriation
Act.
The Committee agrees with the opmion expressed above that whereas the
President can make rewards and awards, such must be in accordance with the
Constitution. All expenditures touching the Consolidated Fund must have
Parliamentary approval and appropriation.
Under the National Honors and Awards Act, 2001, it is provided under Sections 3,
4 and 5 that the President has powers to confer a title of honor on any person on
the advice of a Presidential Awards Committee in respect of persons upon whom
the title may be conferred.
The Committee observes that by letter dated 26 th June 2015, to H.E The President,
the Commissioner General of URA acknowledges instruction from the President to
propose an adequate reward. In her proposal, she suggested a cash reward of UGX
6 Billion as well as letters of commendation. The latter, she proposed, should be at
a public function.
Considering that the "handshake" of UGX 6 Billion was a reward and not an
-award, it could not have been provided for under the National Honors and Awards
Act. However, the proposed letters ommendation would constitute awards
the meaning and provisions of the Act. This award could have only been
possible following the procedures provided for under the Act.
The reward of public servants is provided for under the Public Service Standing
Orders, 2010.
The committee noted that the principles on which rewards are made under the
Standing Orders are prescribed under section A (a-m), Paragraphs 19-24.
Whereas under Paragraph 19, individuals, teams and institutions may be
rewarded, under Paragraph 20, the scheme is restricted to non-monetary
awards. The procedure for awards is provided for under Paragraph 22 and
entails the constitution of an Awards Committee by the responsible officer to
receive, evaluate the nominations and approve the awards.
Therefore, for this "handshake" to qualify as an award under the Public Service
Standing Orders, the herein above procedure should have been followed. This
was not the case.
The policy of rewards In Uganda Revenue Authority is provided for distinctly

from Public Service Standing Orders. From the evidence obtained by the
Committee from URA, this "handshake" was not provided for under the Human
Resource Manual,
In conclusion, the Committee observes that the payment of UGX 6 Billion was
contrary to standard practices of rewarding public officers as provided for in the
above laws and regulations.
The first list of beneficiaries was determined by the Attorney General, Hon. Fred
Ruhindi in his letter dated to H.E. the President. He requested
him to consider a reward for his noble team that exhibited exemplary service to the
country and attached the list of the original 24 beneficiaries.
1. Hon. Fredrick Ruhindi Attorney General

2. Hon. Peter Nyombi Former Attorney General
3. Mr. Francis Atoke Solicitor General
4. Ms. Harriet Lwabi Director, 1 st Parliamentary Counsel
5. Mr. Christopher Director, Legal Advisory Services
Gashirabake
6. Ms. Elizabeth Nakkungu Commissioner, Legal Advisory Services
(Line Ministries)
7. Mrs. Robina Rwakoojo Commissioner Civil Litigation
8. Ms. Mary Nakabirwa Principal State Attorney
9. Mr. George Kallemera Senior State Attorney
10. Ms. Harriet Tukamushaba Senior State Attorney
11. Mr. Martin Mwambutsya State Attorney
12. Mr. Ernest Rubondo Commissioner, MEMD
13. Mr. Honey Malinga Asst. Commissioner, MEMD
14. Mr. Alex Nyombi
15. Moses Kaggwa Commissioner, Tax Policy, MoFPED
16. Ms. Doris Akol Commissioner General, URA
17. Mr. Moses Misach Kajubi Former Commissioner, Domestic Taxes,
URA
18. Mr. Ali Ssekatawa Assistant Commissioner Litigation, URA
19. Mr. Peter Muliisa Manager Litigation, URA
20. Mr. Mathew Mugabi Manager, URA
21. Ms. Robinah Nakakawa Manager, URA
22. Mr. Samuel Kahima Ag. Manager, URA
23. Mr. Rodney Golooba Legal Officer, URA
24. Ms. Syson Ainembabazi Legal Officer, URA
Hon. Ruhindi then followed up the matter with a telephone call to H.E. the
President and secured appointment for the team of 24 members to meet with the
President at his country home in Rwakitura on
During the meeting, H.E. the President accepted to reward the team and tasked
the Commissioner General, Ms. Doris Akol to recommend an adequate reward to
the team. The President also instructed the team to ensure that everyone including
support staff who had contributed significantly to the matter in one way or another
be included on the list.
Various meetings took place in Attorney General's Chambers to discuss the reward
and how to apportion it. During the interface of the Committee with the officers
concerned, the Committee was informed that there were no minutes of those
meetings. The Committee therefore observes that the absence of minutes for
meetings involving Inter-Governmental Departments was a serious and regrettable
flow of management of affairs relating to this matter. The only evidence available
for the Committee to consider was the oral testimony of the officers/beneficiaries.
Evidence from officers of Uganda Revenue y General's
Chambers indicated the beneficiaries were categorized into core, non-core and
support staff.
Every participating institution was requested to send names of staff but the core
members had already been identified in the Attorney General's Chambers.
The Commissioner General on 26 th June 2016 wrote a letter to H.E. the President,
proposing a reward of the UGX 6 Billion (Six Billion Shillings) to the team. The list
sent to .E. the President had been improved to 42 members from the original list
of 24 members as a result of H.E The President's directive that all officers who
played a role should be rewarded. The beneficiaries are as reflected in the following
table:
The funds were distributed as follows:
1. Hon. Peter Nyombi Former AG 200,000,000 132,000,000

2. Mr. Francis Atoke Solicitor General 200,000,000 129,743,833
3. Ms. Allen Kagina Former CG, URA 200,000,000 100,000,000
4. Ms. Doris Akol CG, URA 200,000,000 100,000,000
5. Mr. Ernest Rubondo Commisisoner, 200,000,000 120,052,570
MEMD
6. Ms. Harriet Lwabi Director FPC 200,000,000 127,122,317
7. Mr. Christopher Director, MoJCA 200,000,000 127,122,317
Gashirabake
200,000,000
MFPED
g. Ms. Elizabeth Commisioner, 128,581,728
Nakkungu MoJCA
10. Mr. Ali Ssekatawa Asst. 200,000,000 100,000,000
Commissioner,
URA
11. Mr Moses Misach Former 200,000,000 132,000,000
Kajubi Commissioner,
URA
12. Mr. Honey Malinga Commissioner, 200,000,000 121,247,314
MEMD
13. Mr. Alex Nyombi Geo-physicist, 200,000,000 126,026,285
MoMED
14. Ms. Mary Nankabirwa Principal State 200,000,000 129,474,048
Attorney
15. Mr. George Kallemera Principal State 200,000,000 130,105,536
Attorney
16. Mr. Martin Commisioner, 200,000,000 130,105,536
Mwambutsya MoJCA
17. Mr. Robinah Head Natural 200,000,000 100,000,000
Nakakawa Resource Mgt.,
URA
18. Mr. Peter Muliisa Manager 200,000,000 102,516,914
Litigation, URA
19. Mr. Mathew Mugabi Manager 200,000,000 100,000,000
Litigation, URA
2O. Mr. Samuel Kahima Supervisor, URA 200,000,000 105,469,432
21. Mr. Rodney Golooba Supervisor, URA 200,000,000 106,121,344
22. Ms. Syson Legal Officer, 200,000,000 107,809
Hon. Fredrick Deputy Attorney 100,000,000 72,000,000
Ruhindi General
Mr. Fred Kabagambe Permanent 100,000,000 60,000,000
Kaliisa Secretary
Ms. Rwakoojo Commissioner, 100,000,000 72,000,000
Robinah MoJCA
Ms. Harriet State Attorney, 100,000,000 70,105,536
Tukamushaba URA
Mr. Moses Kibumba Manager, URA 100,000,000 72,000,000
Mr. Martin Muhangi Manager, URA 100,000,000 72,000,000
Ms. Annet Bazalilaki Supervisor, URA 100,000,000 56,121,344
Mr. Lawrence Kiiza Director, 100,000,000 69,156,840
MoFPED
Mr. Keith Muhakanizi Deputy PS/ST 100,000,000 67,477,398
Mr. Chris Kassami PS/ST 100,000,000 72,000,000
Mr. Francis Principal 100,000,000 70,449,744
Twinamatsiko Economist
Ms. Jennifer Commissioner, 100,000,000 50,000,000
Semakula Musisi URA
1
Mr. Ojambo Paul Court Clerk, URA 50,000,000 29,545,455

Ms. Adakun Rose Admin. Officer, 50,000,000 29,545,455
URA
Records 50,000,000 35,000,000
Mr. Chris Personal 50,000,000 35,000,000
Secretary
Mr. Angura Joseph Court Clerk, URA 50,000,000 29,545,455
Ms. Juliet Nambwayo Secretary, 50,000,000 35,000,000
MoJCA
Ms. Veronica Office Attendan t, 50,000,000 35,000,000
Namuwenge MoJCA
Ms. Sylvia Office Attendant, 50,000,000 35,000,000
Nakibirango MoJCA
It appears to the Committee that the basis of determination of the beneficiaries

was not all inclusive. For example, Mr Bernard Sanya, the initiator of the two Tax
Assessments was neither on the first nor on the second list of the beneficiaries.
Considering that some officers who took part in the meetings claimed that they
could not remember who participated or who chaired the meetings and that there
were no minutes, the committee concludes that there was a lot of informality and
arbitrariness in determining the beneficiaries of the reward.
The details of the roles of each beneficiary as submitted by each individual IS
iched, to this report and marked
The Committee was informed that the basis of determination of the beneficiary was
on the roles and duration of the individuals f he different MDA's which were
involved in the Arbitration.
The officers were categorized as follows:
These are the officers who handled technical matters relating to the case and did
the day to day work related to the case. The work included, but not limited to,
perusal of pleadings, provision and preparation of evidence, preparation of Go U
defenses, preparation of witnesses' inter alia. They participated in the Tax Appeals
Tribunal, the High Court and eventually in the International Tribunal
The Committee was informed that this category was comprised of leaders who
provided guidance and support to the team over the period of these cases. They
provided guidance, supervised the core team, oversaw and managed budget issues
as well as report and update the stakeholders on the case.
This category was composed of government official who supported the two teams in
delivering the objectives and tasks at hand. It was the sum total of the efforts of
the three categories that these excellent results were achieved.
The following were the benefiting Institutions from the reward:

I,~-
Attorney General's Staff

Ministry of Finance Staff
Ministry of Energy Staff
Uganda Revenue Authority Staff
The Committee interacted with 40 of the 42 beneficiaries of this reward. The former
PS/ST Ministry of Finance, Mr Chris Kassami (RIP) had since passed on and Mr.
Moses Mishach Kajubi, is no longer in the service of URA and could not be traced.
Most of the officers submitted that they were happy with the reward except the
former Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Energy, Mr Kabagambe Kaliisa who
testified that he would have preferred a non-monetary reward. Many of the
beneficiaries claimed that they did something extraordinary by putting in extra
hours in executing their duties. However, other beneficiaries notably Hon. Fred
Ruhindi testified that there was nothing extraordinary outside his normal
schedule.
It is the finding of the committee that much as all the beneficiaries performed their
duties diligently, there was nothing extraordinary outside their official schedule.
This term of reference required us as a Committee to examine whether the UGX

6Billion payment passed the legality and procedural propriety test. In this report,
the committee had earlier on examined the different legislations that would govern
a payment of this nature. The Committee addressed itself to the provisions of the
Constitution, the National Honours and Awards Act,
1991. All the beneficiaries of this reward testified that there was nothing legally
wrong. They averred that His Excellency The President is empowered under
Articles 98 and 99 of the Constitution to authorize this type of payment.
Mr Andrew Mwenda, the singular witness who appeared in his personal capacity,
supported the reward as lawful.
However, as earlier on stated in this report, other witnesses who included the
Inspector General of Government, the president and other officers of the Uganda
Law Society, Justice James Ogoola, Chairman Elders Forum (former Principal
Judge and former Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission) were of a contrary
opinion. Civil Society organizations that included the NGO Forum, concurred with
the views expressed by the IGG, Uganda Law Society and the Elders Forum.
Section 16 of the Uganda Revenue Authority Act, 1991 provides that no

expenditure shall be made out of the funds of the Authority unless that
expenditure is part of the expenditure approved by the Board under the estimates
for the financial year in which the expenditure is to be incurred or in the
supplementary estimates for that year.
The Committee reviewed the budget for Financial Year 2016/201 7, which was
approved by the Board and subsequently appropriated by Parliament for URA
activities and the UGX 6 Billion "handshake" was not budgeted for. The committee
further received evidence from the Board of URA to the effect that such money had
not been provided for and they were hearing of that expenditure for the
The management of URA did confirm that they did not consult the Board because
it was not necessary. The Commissioner General of URA initially testified that this
was not a URA activity. She later changed her testimony to admit that
o consult the URA
Board. their final submission on 23 rd March 201 7, URA management states
thus:
"The Board of Directors submitted rightly that they did not approve the
payment. Whereas we regret keeping the Board in the dark about the
payment, in our considered and legally backed opinion, the URA Board DID
NOT have a role to play in approving the payment since they had already
approved the Budget estimates in May 2016 under the chairmanship of Hon.
Gerald Sendaula.
The Board under Hon. Sendaula expired on June 30th , 2016 and the tenure of
the Board under the chairmanship of Dr Simon Kagugube begun effective 12 th
July 2016 and held their first Board meeting on 24th August 2016, way after
the case had been concluded, payment approved and effected.
In fact, the Board under hon. Send.aula, commended the team for their
professionalism, expertise and exceptional performance exhibited in this case.
Sample letters of commendation have been tendered. We had hoped that the
Committee would invite hon. Sendaula, the Board Chairman that presided
over the time when the case was going on, to shed light on the deliberations on
this matter made at the Board.
Notable is the fact that this payment was made under instruction of the PSI ST
subject to a supplementary provision under the Public Finance Management
Act, 2015 as amended, a process that is managed by the Commissioner
General as accounting officer, the Perman t Secretary, Secretary to Treasury
the honorable Minister of Finane
The provisions relating to supplementa

amended do not provide any role for the URA Board of Directors. When the
PFMA was passed in 2015, and since the PFMA 2015 takes precedence over
ot laws to management ces, these
protnsions relating to supplementary budgets superseded and rendered
inactive the provisions of section 16 of the URA Act. This is confirmed by
guidance circular issued by the PSI ST dated 20th January 2017 which states
in clause 1 that) eeWhere there is conflict between the PFMA and any other law
on matters of public finance) the PFMA takes precedence and the other law is
null and void to the extent of its inconsistencu."
The argument that the Sendaula Board is the one that approved the 2016/2017
Budget and therefore they are the ones that could have been invited to testify does
not hold water. The UGX 6 Billion payment was not provided for or approved by
the Sendaula Board Budget.
Secondly, the payment was contrary to the Public Finance Management Act.
Section 22 provides:
"viremenis. (1) The Minister) may upon request by an accounting officer) vary
within a vote the amount of the money collected to the vote. (2) A virement
made under sub section (1) shall not
(a) be more than 10 per cent of the money allocated for an item or an activity of
a vote where the virement is from one item or activity to another.
(b) Be contentious)' or
(c) result into a future liability for the vote or the Government."
Regulation 16 of the regulations, provides for the procedure of virements.
1. According to the Auditor General's report, the funds were obtained from
monies earmarked for rent and renewal of licenses for IT systems, clearly
showing that the "handshake" was never budgeted for by URA. An
additional UGX 289 million was obtained from the Legal and
Administration Support Services which exhausted-thr ticular Budget
2. Whereas the Commissioner General had attempted to obtain approval on
advice of the PS j ST, the Minister of Finance never gave the authority as
provided for under the PFMA. The purported authority given on the 8 th
July 2016 by the PSjST is not founded under the PFMA and therefore
void.
It is therefore the observation of the Committee that this virement was ultra vires
the PFMA.
The contention by the Commissioner General that the PFMA takes precedence over
the URA is not founded in law. The Committee has perused both legislations and
found no provision that subjects the URA Act to the PFMA. The Committee takes
note of the circular dated 20 th January 2017 from the PSjST which states among
others: "Where there is a conflict between the PFMA and any other law on matters of
public finance} the PFMA takes precedence and the other law is null and void to the
extent of its inconsistencq."
A careful review of both laws reveals that there is no conflict between both
legislations in regard to the subject matter of the "handshake". The Committee
further notes with concern that senior lawyers will cite the PSjST, a non-lawyer, as
their authority to interpret the law. In any case, the Principal Legal Advisor to
Government is either the Attorney General or Solicitor
The purported authority cited by the Commissioner General of the PS j ST is not

rovided for under the PFMA.
The committee observes that many of the beneficiaries 'were not employees of
Uganda Revenue Authority and as such, should not have benefitted from URA
funds. A precedent had been set when the Inspectorate of Government advised
against the payment of a token appreciation to a senior state attorney, Ms Patricia
Mutesi. The National Social Security Fund, after a long
construction company, Alcon International, secured victory in the Supreme Court
saving the institution millions of dollars. Vide civil appeal No. 15 of 2009.
The Board of Directors of NSSF sought to reward Ms Mutesi who was then a state
attorney in the Ministry of Justice but a member of the legal team that defended
NSSF. However, the IGG in her directive to the Board of NSSF copied to the
Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General's chambers advised that it would be
irregular for Ms Mutesi to benefit from funds of an institution where she is not
employed.
The Committee agrees with the directive above and finds that payments to any
beneficiaries not in employment with URA was irregular. All Government
institutions have their votes from which budgeted items are paid for in accordance
with the Public Finance Management Act.
as A~~coun
The designation of the CG URA as the accounting officer for purposes of payment
of the handshake was irregular and idle in as far as section 11 of the PFMA is
concerned. Section 11 (2)(g) empowers the PS / ST to appoint accounting officers in
accordance with the PFMA.
The above provisions imply that an accounting to be

responsible for an entity (vote) for which an appropriation IS made by an
appropriation Act.
The instant case where the URA CG who was the Accounting Officer of Vote 141 to
be designated again for purposes of funds was not only idle but irregular, the UGX
6 Billion funds was to be paid from Vote 141. Indeed the supplementary
expenditure request of these fun is under Vote 141.
According to the Public Service Standing Orders, a conflict of interest arises when
a public officer puts himself or herself a position where his or her personal
interests conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities as a public officer. The
Standing Orders provide that the public officer is supposed to inform his or her
supervisor of the nature or extent of his or her interest.
After a review of all the evidence on record, the Committee observes that the
Commissioner General of URA put herself in a position of conflict of interest to pay
out monies to herself and her team from the URA funds without the knowledge of
the Board and in contravention of the PFMA and the URA Act. The payment, as
earlier stated, was without regard to the budgetary process of URA,
The Committee in its deliberations established existence of conflict of interest in

the payment process of the 6 billion by the Commissioner General URA and the
involvement of the Attorney General and Solicitor General who could have advised
the President.
Article 119 of the Constitution provides for the Office of the Attorney General as
the principal legal advisor to Government. The Committee reviewed all the evidence
on record and established that the role of the Attorney General's chambers was
central and prominent in all matters regarding this reward,
In her letter to His Excellency The President, copied to the Attorney General dated
June 26 th 2015, she states ": believe it would be motivation sufficient for them to
gallantly face future challenges and bring glory and victory to our nation, The
amount proposed constitutes less than 1 percent of the amount in the award and is
After such
ground-breaking achievement, I believe this to be a reasonable amount to thank and
congratulate the team and do he
The above position by the Commissioner General of URA was incorrect and
misleading.
The Committee established, on interviewing the external lawyers, that the sum of
USD 4,083,840 awarded as costs has never been collected. The position remains
the same at the time of writing this report. The committee is of the considered view
that had the Attorney General not been a beneficiary, he would have advised The
President thus:
a) The costs being used as justification for the payment had not been
recovered.
b) The payment of the "handshake" was in contravention of the Constitution,
the PFMA, the URA Act, the Public Service Standing Orders.
c) The payment of non URA staff from the URA funds was illegal.
Indeed during the interface with H.E. The President, he informed the Committee
that had he been advised on these matters, he would have handled the matter
differently. In fact, the President was surprised to learn from the committee that
the costs mentioned in the Commissioner General's letter referred to in (a) above
had not been collected.
The Committee reviewed all supplementary requests under URA and Ministry of
Justice and Constitutional Affairs for purposes of financing activities related to
Tullow and HOGL arbitration Case both in London and locally. In addition, the
Committee requested the Auditor General to carry out a Special Audit of all
supplementary and other budgets allocations in facilitating the Court process in
Uganda and abroad.
The Committee established that Parliament appropriated a sum of UGX 56.67

Billion. Out of this, UGX 54.166 Billion (95.6%) was under Vote 007 - Ministry of
Justice & Constitutional Affairs (MoJCA). While UGX 2.5 Billion (4.4%) was
approved under vote 141 - Uganda Revenue Authority (URA). The total
supplementary budget appropriated amounted to UGX 51.226 Billion (90.4%)
while UGX 5.439 Billion (9.6%) was through the normal budget appropriation
process.
The Committee established that whereas the amount of funds released is UGX
54.01 Billion (99.7%), only UGX 38.511 Billion (68.2%) was spent. The unspent
balance of UGX 18.493 Billion was returned to the Consolidated Fund. The monies
were used to pay for legal fees both local and abroad, administrative costs and to
facilitate Public Officers in form of Sitting allowance er diem and Air Tickets to
and from London among others.
The Committee established that out of the total ex 26.735 Billion

(69.4 %) was spent on legal fees to Curtis - both local
amount of money spent in respect to local cover is UGX
,\,
Committee has established that whereas Ministry of Justice and
Constitutional Affairs was obliged to deduct fifteen percent (15%) Withholding Tax
(WHT) on all payments in respect to legal fees totalling to UGX 3,635,245,094, only
UGX 2,157,641,102 was deducted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX
1,477,603,992,
2011 12 5,248 0,506 5,754 8,8% 0,357

2012 13 2,234 0,381 2.615 14,6% 11.411
2013 14 6,817 6,817 0,0% 1.023
2014/15 4,805 0,848 5.653 15,0% 0
2015 16 2,973 0,423 3.396 12,5% 0,864
1
Vote Released
Overs ent
Vote 007 2010 11,942,283,906 11,942,283,906 189,677,090 11,752,606,816
Ministry of 2011 6,952,277,001 6,324,656,001 6,858,697,852 -534,041,851
Justice & 2012 5,272,504,108 5,744,432,551 4,689,036,247 1,055,396,304
Constitutional 2013 13,591,937,368 13,591,937,368 13,316,117,336 275,820,032
Affairs 2014 6,000,000,000 6,000,000,000 6,000,000,000
2015 10,406,562,164 10,406,562,164 4,997,767,680
Sub-total MoJCA
Vote 141 URA 2013
TOTAL
7t h
The Committee observed therefore that all funds released to both Ministry of
Justice and Uganda Revenue Authority for the period under review in both cases of
Tullow and Heritage were accounted for. The Committee, however, notes that a
sum of UGX 1,477,603,992 which was due as Withholding Tax was not deducted
Accounting Officer,
The Committee reviewed submissions from URA, Ministry of Finance, Planning and
Economic Development, Bank of Uganda and Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Development. In addition, the Committee requested for a Special Audit of the
Petroleum Fund in order to establish all revenues received by Government in
respect to the Petroleum Fund.
A review of the submissions above and the Special Audit Report of the Auditor
General dated 7 th March 201 7, reveals that Government has so far received from
Petroleum related activities a sum of USD 709,039,687, Out of this, USD
633,764,848 was transferred to the CF while a sum of USD 72,383,862 is being
held in the Dollar account and UGX 10,003,386,387 in the Petroleum Fund
Shilling Account,
The Committee established that prior to the enactment of the Public Finance
Management Act, 2015, Government had adopted a policy to ring fence all
Petroleum Revenues to infrastructural development under the legal regime of the
Public Finance and Accountability Act (PFAA), 2003, Consequently, all Petroleum
revenues collected prior to the PFMA were used to finance various infrastructural
projects related to power generation and transmission,
The Committee has established that when the PFMA came into force on 23 rd
February 2015, a total of UGX 1,367,725,564,296 was still held on the Petroleum
holding Account of URA, However, on instruction by the PSjST and Accountant
General in the letter dated 24th June 2015, that this balance was
transferred to the Consolidated Fund instead of transferring it to the Petroleum
Date Details Amount Amount
(USD) (UGX)
21-Jul-11 Arising out of Heritage to Tullow Sale 449,424,960
26-Apr-12 Arising out of Tullow sale to CNOOC & Total 171,157,750
Tullow Sale Interest Income 462,090
2001-2015 Non-tax Revenue from Petroleum Activities 10,690,110
5 th Aug 2016 Non-tax Revenue from Petroleum Activities 10,003,386,387
22 n d June2015 Tullow tax settlement 1st Installment 36,058,501
30th June 2015 Tullow tax settlement 2 n d Installment 36,058,501
7 th Oct 2016 Non-tax Revenue from Petroleum Activities 157,500
10 th Oct 2016 Non-tax Revenue from Petroleum Activities 113,400
18 th Jan 2017 Non-tax Revenue from Petroleum Activities 172,000
25 th Jan 2017 Non-tax Revenue from Petroleum Activities 5,000
22 n d Feb 2017 Non-tax Revenue from Petroleum Activities 641
23 r d Feb 2017 Non-tax Revenue from Petroleum Activities 100,000
Other redemption of refinery cash bond 2,000,000
Total 'n~ .- ..... ,4C::~
--, 4nn .~~
In nn~
. . . ,- ~!Q.~ ~~7
7'-~
Jr,U:'J:!IJrJU & BoU

Public Servants should be rewarded for exemplary work because it motivates them
to excel and deliver good results for the country. However the reward policy of
Government should be codified for certainty and transparency.
During the interface with The President, it was agreed that a law should be
put in place to guide the donation Budget.
The Committee therefore, recommends that In addition to the already existing

Public Service Standing Orders on rewards, specific standards must be clearly
spelt out on who qualifies to be rewarded. The reward system should also be
aligned to regional best practices and international standards regarding the reward
systems.
Monetary rewards should generally be discouraged, though prOVISIon for such

monetary rewards can only be considered while rewarding public officers for
extraordinary work performed under extraordinary circumstances and In
accordance with a
There is need for strengthened supervision of the Ministry of Energy in as far as oil
revenue is concerned. The Committee recommends closer supervision and
monitoring of the activities of the Petroleum Authority and the National Oil
Company. The relevant Committees of Parliament should receive quarterly reports
from both the Authority
"
Reallocation of resources already budgeted for and appropriated by Parliament
should be strictly adhered to in accordance with the PFMA. Parliament should,
while examining supplementary requests from the Ministry of Finance, undertake
a detailed scrutiny to avoid abuse of appropriated funds.
The Committee, as highlighted herein, pointed out the fact that Government
business was run informally. While interacting with witnesses, it was noted that
witnesses frequently referred or based their arguments on meetings held between
the team but there were no minutes to that effect. Public Service Standing Orders
and Human Resource Manuals of Statutory Institutions should provide for the
manner of conducting Government business on record.
On 17 th February, 2017 the a petition from Oil Governance

and Transparency Alliance (OGOTA), a Consortium of the following 15 NGOs:
1. Great Lakes Institute for Strategic Studies (GLISS)

11. Transparency International Uganda
111. Uganda National NGO Forum
IV. Uganda Debt Network UDN
v. Civil Society Budget Advocacy (CSBAG)
ActionAid Uganda
Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE)
The Uganda Association of Women Lawyers (FIDA)
IX. Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO)
x. Oxfam International Ugand
Global Rights Alert
XlI. Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG)
XlII. Anti-Corruption Coalition of Uganda (ACCU)
XIV. Platform for Labour Action
xv. Southern and East Africa Trade Information and Negotiation Institute
In the said petition, the different NGOs required the Committee to investigate what
they termed as "illegal tax waiver" of USD 157,095,366. According to the petition,
these funds accrued to Government with regard to the sale by Tullow of part of its
interest in exploration areas EA1, EA2 and EA3 to CNOOC and Total. A sum of
USD 475924,120.05 had been assessed as Capital Gains Tax by the Uganda
Revenue Authority. Tullow objected to the aforementioned assessment and on 24 th
February 2011, Uganda issued what we call an "objection decision" revising the tax
assessed to USD 467,271,971. A Memorandum of Understanding was concluded
between the following parties:
1. Government of Uganda represented by Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Development;
2. Uganda Revenue Authority;
3. Tullow Uganda Limited;
4. Tullow Uganda Operations Pty Limited.
The parties agreed that 30% of the assessed tax would be paid and the balance
would be paid after the objections and appeals have been concluded accordance
with the Income Tax Act. TUL and TUOPL filed an application for review before the
TAT contesting the assessments and objections by URA. Upon hearing the dispute,
the TAT ruled that TUL and TUOPL pay a Capital Gains Tax amounting to USD
407,095,366 being tax payable after deducting the pre-investment relief. d
ed the decision of the TAT to the High Court.
l
r, before the High Court could determine the matter,

of Uganda entered into a consent with the consent, a sum of
50 million was agreed upon as full
I
sum of USD 157,095,366 had been waived as a result of that consent. The
petitioner therefore required the Committee to examine the legality of the waiver.
The Committee interfaced with officers from the Ministry of Justice, the then
Minister of Energy and Mineral Development during the period under review, Hon.
Syda N. Bbumba and E. The President. The Committee reviewed the PSA and the
testimonies of the above mentioned Government officials.
Hon. Syda Bbumba testified that she signed the PSA on the advice of the Office of
the Solicitor General. She further stated that she did not read the said agreement.
She informed the Committee that she signed based on the strength of the letter
from the Office of the Solicitor General signed by a one Ms Elizabeth Nakkungu for
the Solicitor General dated 3 rd October 2001, 1 . The Committee heard
from Hon. Syda Bbumba that the PSA which she signed was not negotiated by
herself but by a team of experts from the ministry and that it was similar to all the
other PSAs signed by her predecessor, Hon. Hilary O. Onek and her successor,
Hon. Daudi Migereko.
In addition, she informed the Committee that whereas Cabinet had discussed the
principles of the PSA, the agreement itself was never considered in detail.
In the interface with H.E The President, he informed the Committee that the then
minister, Hon. Syda Bbumba acted on that matter without consultation.
The Solicitor General informed the that he advised a settlement

because it was in the best interests of the as, in his view, Gov rnment had
a bad case.
The Committee observes therefore:
1. That it is true that USD 157 million, which would have accrued as part of
the Capital Gains Tax, was waived.
2. The contention arose out of a clause in the PSA which provided for waiver of
tax signed by the then minister Hon. Syda Bbumba.
3. That the dispute would not have arisen if the PSA did not have a waiver of
tax.
4. The then Minister of Energy, Hon. Syda Bbumba, did not have authority to
waive tax in that transaction and her action of not having read the
agreement before signing was irregular.
5. All the then Ministers of Energy who signed PSAs with a similar clause acted
ultra vires the law.
The Committee was instructed to report in 60 days from 19 th January, 2017 - 19 th

March, 2017. However, given the volume of work of the Committee and the many
witnesses, including travelling to London, it was not possible to accomplish the
assignment in two months. The Committee requested for an extension from the
Speaker which was granted. However, Parliament suspended all activities of
standing committees, including COSASE until the completion of the Budget
process. It was also not possible to finalise this report within the extended period.
Through a progressive report, the Speaker was informed of the tentative dates
when the report would be 29 th May, 201 7.
The Committee has already made policy recommendations under TOR 6. However,
below are other specific recommendations arising out of this probe:
1. The funds paid out were for activities budgeted for under the URA Budget.
This "handshake" expenditure was not a budgeted URA activity and
therefore, a diversion of the UGX 6 Billion without lawful authority was
contrary to the PFMA.
2. The payment of the UGX 6 Billion "handshake" from URA budgeted for
activities without Board knowledge and/ or approval was in contravention of
section 16 of the Uganda Revenue Authority Act, 1991.
3. H.E. The President's approval of this "handshake" was bonafide. However, it
was an error of judgement.
4. The Committee concludes that the argument of the beneficiaries that the
payment was rooted in Articles 98 and 99 of the Constitution was unfounded
and misleading.
The Committee therefore recommends as follows:

(a) That all funds paid out of URA account to the beneficiaries of the
"handshake" should be refunded.
(b) All officers who flouted the law should be held accountable and in this
vein, the IGG should institute investigations with a view to establish the
culpability and possible offences.
(c) The Executive should come up with a Bill within 90 days to regulate and
streamline the Presidential Donations Budget.
(d) The supplementary request of the UGX 6 Billion currently before
Parliament should be rejected because the virement created a liability
infringing section 22 of the PFMA.
(e) Parliament should revisit Section 8 of the Petroleum (Exploration,
Development and Production) Act, 2013 with a view to amending it and
provide for people to be sign
(f) All recoverable costs incurred by oil companies should be submitted to
Parliament quarterly.
(g) The Attorney General should take immediate steps and measures to
recover the costs amounting to USD 4,083,840 awarded by the
International Arbitration Tribunal and report to Parliament within 90
days.
(h) URA should take immediate steps and measures to recover the costs
awarded by the TAT and High Court in application numbers 26 of 2010,
28 of 2010,6 of 2011, 8 of 2011 and High Court Civil Appeal Civil Appeal
No. 14 of 2011 as well costs in the High Court Appeal.
(i) The Auditor General should, as soon as possible, carry out a special
audit into deductions of Withholding Tax on fees paid to the external
lawyers; Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP by URA and report to
Parliament within 90 days.
Attached hereto are all documentary evidence and verbatim audio recordings of the
proceedings.
Rt. Hon. Speaker and Hon. Members, I beg the House to adopt this report and the
recommendations therein.
I beg to move.
Among Anita Annet
3. Han. Abigaba Cuthbert Mirembe
Han. Aleper Achilla Margaret
5. Han. Ameede Agnes
6. Han. Angundru Moses
7. Han. Ayebazibwe Justine
8. Han. Byandala Abraham James
9. Han. Diri Baba Margaret
10. Han. Kabaije Sheila Mwine
11. Han. Kasibante Moses
12. Han. Mugema Peter
13. Han. Nagwomu Moses Musamba
14. Han. Namayanja Florence
15. Han. Okello Bonny Desales
16. Han. Twesigye Nathan Itungo
17. Han. MbabaziJanepherI(yomuhendo
18. Han. Beatrice Atim Anywar
19. Han. Mugisa Muhanga Margaret
20. Han. Tusiime Michael
21. Han. Turyahikayo Paula
22. Jack Lutanywa
25, Hon. Kabagenyi Rose
26. Hon. Nakawunde Sarah
27. Hon. Kunihira Agnes
28. Nabakooba Judith Nalule
29. Takirwa Francis (Brig.)
30. Hon. Hood Katuramu
31. Hon. Babirye Veronica Kadogo
32. Hon, Baryayanga Andrew
33. Hon. Nandala Nathan Mafabi
34. Hon. Tumuheirwe Turyamuhweza
35. Hon. Lubega Medard Sseggona
36. Hon. Okupa Elijah
1.
Works as Director, Legislative Drafting/First Parliamentary Counsel in Ministry of
Justice & Constitutional Affairs. During the period under review, she worked as
Acting Solicitor General (September, 2010 - December, 2012) until the position
was substantively filled.
Assisted the Attorney General in all preliminary matters relating to the

commencement of the arbitration proceedings
Assisted the Attorney General in the constitution of the Government team
Was a subject matter expert in the arbitration proceedings
Provided legal advice and research on the law and cases
Oversaw the preparation of budgets for the facilitation of the case
Attended meetings with the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs to
defend supplementary budgets
Perusal of Heritage's statement of claim

Preparation, review and perusal of government statement of defence
Preparation of grounds for objection of the tribunal's jurisdiction to hear a
tax dispute
Preparation of grounds to support the application by the Government for
bifurcation
Preparation, review and perusal of Government's memorial on jurisdiction
47
Review and perusal of Heritage's counter memorial on jurisdiction
Preparation, review and perusal of Government's reply memorial on
jurisdiction
Perusal of Heritage's rejoinder memorial on jurisdiction.
Perusal of Heritage's amended notices of arbitration

Perusal of Heritage's memorial on merits
Preparation, review and perusal of Government's counter memorial on merits
Perusal of Heritage's reply memorial on merits
Preparation, review and perusal of Government's rejoinder on merits
Involvement in document production e.g. negotiation history, model PSAs,
pre-arbitration meetings minutes, IMF reports and ITA amendments etc.
Preparation of objections to document production
Participating in pre-hearing conference calls
Participating in video conference meetings with Curtis (External Lawyers) in
Kampala
Preparation, review and perusal of both expert and factual witness
statements
Drafting the contract of legal services between Curtis and Government of
Uganda and its addenda
Participation in the negotiations with Curtis in respect of the contracts for
legal services
Review of invoices submitted by Curtis in respect of the contract for legal
services and recommendation of payment
Supervising the secretariat with was mandated to keep all arbitration
documents In safe custody, filing, drafting and keeping minutes,
transmission of correspondences to Curtis etc.
Attending all the three hearings: procedural, jurisdiction and merits hearing
Attending/ chairing meetings held in Kampala to discuss the Heritage case.
48
Works as Director, Legal Advisory Services - Head Legal Advisory in Ministry of
Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
Provided legal advisory as part of the legal technical team during the
arbitration proceedings
Carried out legal research on the law and cases
tax dispute
bifurcation
jurisdiction
49
Participating in video conference meetings with Curtis (External Lawyers] in
Kampala
statements
Attending meetings held in Kampala to discuss the Heritage case.
Overseeing the preparation of budgets for the facilitation of the case
Attending meetings with the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs
to defend supplementary budgets.
During the period under review, he was the Attorney General and overall head of
the Uganda Government Legal and Technical Team.
Provided legal research on the law and cases

tax dispute
bifurcation
jurisdiction
50
Kampala
statements
Approval of the contract of legal services between Curtis and Government of
Uganda and its addenda
Attending all the three hearings: procedural, jurisdictional and merits
hearings
Review of invoices submitted by Curtis in respect of the contract for legal
He was appointed Solicitor General during the period under review.
Provided legal advice in the arbitration proceedings

Carried out research on the law and cases
51
tax dispute
bifurcation
jurisdiction
Kampala
statements
Approval of invoices submitted by Curtis in respect of the contract of legal
services for payment
Attending the merits hearings
Overseeing the preparation of budgets for facilitation of the case
52
During the period under review, she was Commissioner, Legal Advisory Services.
Provided legal advice and was subject matter expert for arbitration
proceedings.
Carried out research on the law and cases
tax dispute
bifurcation
jurisdiction
Participating pre-hearing conference calls
Participating in video conference meetings with Curtis (External Lawyers) In
Kampala
53
statements
Drafting the contract of legal services between Curtis and GoD and its
addenda
Participating in the negotiations with Curtis in respect of the contracts for
legal services
Review of the invoices submitted by Curtis in respect of the contract of legal
Manning the Secretariat including keeping all arbitration documents in safe
custody, filing, drafting and keeping minutes and transmission of
correspondence to Curtis
hearings
Attending meetings held Kampala to discuss the Heritage case.
Preparation of budgets for facilitation of the case
During the period under review, she was working as a Principal State Attorney.
proceedings.
Was involved in the initial pre-assessment discussions for settlement offers
by Heritage
54
tax dispute
bifurcation
jurisdiction
Kampala
statements
addenda
Participating in the negotiations with Curtis In respect of the contracts for
legal services
55
hearings
Attending meetings held Kampala to discuss the Heritage case.
During the period under review, she was working as a Principal State Attorney.
proceedings in procedural and other technical areas
tax dispute
bifurcation
jurisdiction
56
Preparation, and perusal of Government's counter memorial on merits
Kampala
statements
addenda
Participating in the negotiations with Curtis In respect of the contracts for
legal services
hearings
During the period under review, she was working as a Commissioner, Civil
Litigation.
57
proceedings in procedural and other technical areas
tax dispute
bifurcation
jurisdiction
Kampala
statements
58
" Drafting the contract of legal services between Curtis and GoU and its
addenda
" Participating in the negotiations with Curtis in respect of the contracts for
legal services
" Review of the invoices submitted by Curtis in respect of the contract of legal
hearings
" Attending meetings with the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs
During the period under review she was working as Ag. Director, Civil
Litigation.
" Provided legal advice.

Subject matter expert for arbitration proceedings
Legal research on the law and cases
" Perusal of Heritage's statement of claim
tax dispute
" Preparation of grounds to support the application by the Government for
bifurcation
59
Review and perusal of Heritage's counter on jurisdiction
jurisdiction
to defend supplementary budgets
During the period under review, she was working as Senior State Attorney
Provided legal advice.

Subject matter expert for arbitration proceedings
tax dispute
bifurcation
jurisdiction
1
During the period under review, he was the Deputy Attorney General.
60
Attorney General during post arbitration proceedings and thus was
overall head of the Uganda Government legal and technical team for the
subsequent transactions
Deputy Attorney General during the arbitration proceedings
Perused all memorials by the claimant
Review and perusal of Government statement of defence and memorials on
jurisdiction and merits phase
Leading the team for meetings with the Committee on Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs to defend supplementary budgets
During the period under review, she was working as a Secretary In Attorney
General's Chambers.
She was involved in documentary evidence gathering

Performed various clerical work throughout the entire court and arbitration
process
Assisted typing correspondence
Photocopying documents
Organizing documents
Delivering documents to various institutions
Managing files and other records
Storage and retrieval of documents
Undertaking other routine tasks and staying with the team till late In the
night.
61
During the period under review, she was working as Office Attendant Attorney
General's Chambers
Provided logistical support to meetings throughout the entire court process

Serving tea, refreshments and food
Undertaking other routine tasks and staying with the team till late in the
night.
During the period under review, she was working as Office Attendant in Attorney
General's Chambers.
Provided logistical support to meetings throughout the entire court process

Undertaking other routine tasks and staying with the team till late in the
night.
62
During the period under review, he was a Commissioner for the Petroleum
Exploration and Production Department. He was the Chief Technical Advisor to
Government during the period of arbitration.
He provided technical expertise and helped in reconstruction of the

Company's journey from initial contract negotiation to the point of sale of the
Company's interests in Uganda.
He was a factual witness in both Ugandan proceedings in the Tax Appeals
Tribunal and the arbitration proceedings in London.
Oil and gas subject matter expert and provided technical advice and expertise.
He was also key in preparation of witness statements and helped In

reconstruction of the Heritage operational journey in Uganda.
He was also key in identification of documentary evidence that supported
Uganda's case.
During the period under review, he was working as a Geo-physist, in the Ministry
of Energy & Mineral Development.
Petroleum operations matter expert and provided technical advice and

expertise.
He supported the process of preparation of memorials and statements
submitted by the Government team
63
Identification of documentary evidence which was crucial In supporting
Uganda's case
Participated in preparation of factual witness statements.
During the period under review, he was the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of
Energy & Mineral Development.
He provided petroleum policy expertise and technical advice.

He coordinated the technical efforts in his Ministry to ensure effective
support to Uganda's position but was also instrumental in compiling
Uganda's defense as he had led the Production Sharing Agreement
negotiations with Heritage.
He was also instrumental In coordinating in-country efforts across the
different government agencies.
During the period under review, she was working as a Records Assistant in the
Ministry of Energy & Mineral Development.
Helped in gathering the documents that had been identified as critical and
necessary in supporting Uganda's case.
She supported the Ministry team in their various tasks regarding the
subject.
64
the period under review, she was working as a Personal Secretary the
Ministry of Energy & Mineral Development.
He provided support In gathering documents both hard and electronic

copies.
He constantly supported the Ministry team in preparing the information for
witness statements.
1
She was the Commissioner General, URA during the inception of the case. She was
the overall team leader from the inception of the case. she retired from URA on 31 st
October, 2014.
She was a key witness in the proceedings both in Ugandan proceedings and
in the first stages of arbitration.
She participated in pre-assessment stage, assessment and objections
management.
She was instrumental in the Government of Uganda decision not to sign to
proposed arbitration agreement submitted by Heritage that principally
demanded government waive its claim to sovereignty at arbitration.
During the period under review, she was Assistant Commissioner, Board Affairs
and Rulings, became Commissioner Legal in February, 2011, rose through the
ranks to Commissioner General, URA.
65
She participated In the pre-assessment stage, assessment and objections
management.
She was head of URA legal team and Lead Counsel in Ugandan Proceedings
in the Tax Appeals Tribunal, High Court Commercial Division and during the
arbitration proceedings at the International Court of Arbitration for both
jurisdiction and merits phase of the case.
During the period under review, he was the Head of Litigation, a Division within
the Legal Services and Board Affairs in URA.
He was a co-counsel in Ugandan proceedings in the Tax Appeals Tribunal,

High Court Commercial Division and during the arbitration proceedings at
the International Court of Arbitration for both jurisdiction and merits phase
of the case.
During the period under review, she was Commissioner Domestic Taxes URA from
inception of the case in 2010 and left during the conduct of the case in 2013. He is
a qualified Accountant and Tax Auditor by practice.
He reviewed the tax laws, provided technical expertise on the taxability of the
transaction. He was a key witness both in TAT and arbitration proceedings
even after he had left.
66
During the period under review, she was the Head of the Natural Resource
Management Unit URA which is charged with compliance management of oil
companies.
Reviewed the tax laws for taxability of the transaction

Initiated and raised assessments
Reviewed the objections,
Provided tax and accounting expertise as technical team member throughout
the duration of the case with only a break when she went for further studies.
During the period under review, he was Manager Litigation in URA.

He was a co-counsel in Ugandan proceedings in the Tax Appeals Tribunal, High
Court Commercial Division and during the arbitration proceedings at the
International Court of Arbitration for both jurisdiction and merits phase of the
case.
He participated in pre-assessment of the case to ensure that the assessment

was properly raised and every item was supported by law.
He prepared and filed statements of defence in the Tax Appeals Tribunal in
response to the Ms. Heritage Oil & Gas applications.
He identified documents to support the case
He identified and prepared witnesses to support the case.
He perused and analyzed all pleadings and documents submitted by the
applicant (MS. Heritage) both at TAT and Arbitration Court.
Perused the TAT ruling in preparation for the Appeal
Participated perusing the Appeal documents and preparing responses for
the pre-hearing applications field by the High Court
67
Made oral arguments two applications in the High Court arising from the
Appeal
Represented URA in the process of selecting the external Iawyers to support
the team.
Was involved in perusal of the claim and attendant documents.
Participated in formulation of the defence of the Government of Uganda
Reviewed documents to support the case and drafting the relevant
memorials
Perusal of the claimant's memorials, factual witness evidence, documentary
and expert evidence
Preparation for case hearing
Preparation of submissions and talking points for the hearing proceedings
Attended innumerable meetings related to case preparation as well as
feedback and update meetings with different leaders and stakeholders
Perused the award on bifurcation as well as the final award.
He took over as Manager of the Natural Resource Management Unit when Ms.
Robinah Nakakawa went for further studies.
He provided tax and accounting expertise as a technical member of the team.
She was Commissioner Legal Services and Board Affairs from the time the case
started in December, 2009. She retired from URA in January, 2011.
68
She participated pre-assessment meetings and headed the Legal Advisory
on the taxability of the transaction.
She advised on the taxability of the transaction and participated in meetings
between Government and Heritage and Tullow leading to payment of 30% tax
by Heritage as well as payment of the balance of the tax by Tullow on the
agency notice.
She was instrumental the Government of Uganda decision not to sign to
proposed arbitration agreement submitted by Heritage that principally
demanded that Government waive its claim to sovereignty at arbitration.
She provided leadership to (supervised) the legal team and supported the
Commissioner General on the institutional position regarding the taxability
of the transaction, which eventually became the Government's position.
She constituted the legal team comprising Ms. Doris Akol, Mr. Ali Ssekatawa
and Mr. Peter Muliisa to handle the case.
Together with Mrs. Allen Kagina and Ms. Doris Akol frequently briefed .E.
the President on the progress of the case and clarify issues raised by third
parties on the justification for the tax claim.
Attended numerous intentional and local meetings as part of the URA team
on the same issue, most of them impromptu and on a need to meet basis.
During the period under review, he was working as Manager, Litigation in URA.
He was part of the team that defended the matter In the Tax Appeals
Tribunal and High Court in Uganda.
He traveled to London on various occasions to give a background of how the
case was argued in the Tax Appeals Tribunal and in High Court.
69
During period review, he was working as Ag. Manager In Charge of
Rulings and Interpretations.
Participated in determining the taxability of the transaction; he reviewed the

tax laws for taxability of the transaction.
He was part of the team that raised the assessments and reviewed the
objections
He provided tax and accounting expertise throughout the duration of the
case.
Travelled to London to attend the arbitration proceedings and assisted the
team in all matters regarding Ugandan Tax Law.
3 .
During the period under review, he was working as a Chief Assessor (Head
Assessment). He is now retired.
He participated in determining the taxability of the transaction

He participated in carrying out assessment and enforcement.
He was a reference point (focal person) in the Tax Appeals Tribunal and in
the High Court.
He was always engaged in meetings whenever the URA team came back from
London
She works as a Supervisor In the Natural Resources Unit, under the Domestic
Taxes Department.
70
She was appointed department after the 1st assessment had been
raised when Ms. Heritage was objecting.
At this point, she had to do a lot of research using the Google search engine
as to whether other countries were charging Capital Gains Tax and how to
defend the assessment.
She participated in many comprehensive informal discussions and meetings.
She participated in preparation and issuance of agency notices and serving
part of them.
She participated in review of objections.
He works as a Supervisor, Litigation Division, URA. He was a Legal Officer during

the period under review.
He was a Case Officer in the Department

He participated in pre-assessment stage, assessment and objections
management.
He represented URA In the Tax Appeals Tribunal and High Court (co-
counsel).
He traveled to London to provide support to the Arbitration Team. He
participated In the bifurcation stage (determining the applicability of the
case).
She is a Legal Officer for the Natural Resources Unit in Domestic Taxes
Department.
71
She was the Case Officer and Reference Person for the Unit. She did not take part
in assessment. She joined after the assessment had been done. She joined in
2012.
She participated in brainstorming meetings and teleconferences.

She did Legal Research and review.
He traveled to London to provide support to the arbitration team.
He works as a Clerical Officer. During the period under review, he was working as
a Court Clerk, Litigation Division.
Filing proceedings in court

Serving pleadings
Keeping custody of documents.
He works as a Court Clerk since 2005 to-date. During the period under review, he
was working as a Court Clerk.
Filing pleadings in court

Serving pleadings from the Tribunal to opposing lawyers
Photocopying and binding voluminous documents
Keeping safe custody of court documents.
72
During the time under review, she was an Administrative Officer in the Litigation
Department.
Typing correspondence, mail management and record keeping.
During the period under review, he was Commissioner Tax Policy, Ministry of
Finance.
He provided technical expertise on the tax policy aspects revolving around

the history of taxation and oil and gas industry in Uganda and the licensees
In Issue.
He participated in high level meetings throughout the duration of the case
and advised on matters relating to changes in law and stabilization clauses.
During the period under review, he was Deputy Secretary to Treasury during the
case proceedings and later appointed Permanent Secretary, Secretary to Treasury.
He was part of the MoFPED Team that was part of the Government Team set up to
handle the Ms. Heritage case.
He was part of the Ministerial Team that guided on Tax Policy and
interpretation of the tax legislation with respect to the application to the
73
Heritage Case, because the Ministry IS responsible for designing the tax
rules.
In Issue.
He participated in high level meetings and negotiations leading to the grant
of the conditional consent.
He participated in technical meetings to discuss the case with respect to
Income Tax Act, Production Sharing Agreements (stabilization clause), Tax
Treaty, Non-Resident Person and Source and Resident Tax rules. It was
through the technical meetings that the team affirmed Uganda's right to tax
the transaction and to invoke any clause in the Income Tax Act to designate
Tullow Uganda Ltd to collect revenue on Uganda's behalf since Heritage Oil
& Gas Ltd was a non-resident entity.
Reviewed tax laws and treaties
Consulted widely on the taxability of the transaction
Held brainstorming sessions on change in law, stabilization clause to guide
the Ministry's representative on the Team that went for arbitration in
London.
During the period under review, he was Permanent Secretary I Secretary to

Treasury.

In Issue.
74
participated high level meetings and negotiations leading to the grant
During the period under review, he was Director, Economic Affairs.

In Issue.
He participated in high level meetings and negotiations leading to the grant
During the period under review, he was Principal Economist and head of the Oil
and Gas Desk in the Ministry of Finance.

In Issue.
He provided technical support in economic modeling issues.
75
G2J"4ERAL LINES: +256-230802125482'9<---_ _
---DIRECT LJNE: + 256-414 -341-018
.~JJNJSTER OF STATE +256-414-343401
FAX riO. +256-414-230802/254829
EMAlL: info@j.los,gO,l:lg
VVEBSrrE: 'N'I\f\N.iJ.os.go.ua
In any correspcndence on this
subject
Please quo te l'vlJ/A.G/39
Ells Excellency ,
The Pre'Sident oftbe Republic of Uganda '--------------_.. _-
StaieHouse
~.ALAJ
HE: COl\1fy1E.NDATI0N: OF THE UGlLNDA GOVERt'J1VIENT

ARBITRATION TE.A.M
Your Excellency willrecail that the Government of Uganda has been involved
in tw() arb.traticn matters filed by Heritage Oil and Gas Limited (Heritage), a
COIIlf.J.OOy that was licensed to carry out petroleum exploration, development and
prodnction in Uganda. In 201 OJ Heritage sold off all of its participating
iruerests in petroleum activities ill Uganda (which were .in Exploration Areas 1
'and 3A) to Tullow Oil PJc. Following this, the Uganda Revenue Authority
l@~~'"a -.Capital Gains Tax' on this transaction amounting to US Dollars 434
. mjJl~i0J~l'(r~.ad four hundred. and thirty four million United States Dol~~rs).
Altholfrgb. the different Government agencies comprising of the Ministries of

Energy .and Mineral Development, Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Finance,
Plarrni'ffg -and Economic Development together with the Uganda Revenue
Authority in joint effort compelled Heritage to pay the tax before it exited, the
C01:IiltryJ the company went on to file two arbitration cases in London against the
Government of Uganda in 2011. Under these cases; HiOtage wanted the
Arbitral 'Tribunal to compel the Government of Uganda t6 fully refund all the
. monies collected as Capital Gains Tax with interest and also pay 6a:fnages for.
other -claims that the company raised. l '"
Shortly thereafter, Government, led by the Attorney General constiruted a j oint

Government team with representatives from the institutions mentioned above to
"supportilie process of defending the country against these claims by Heritage,
_.
The Government 'successfully defended itself and the Tribunal has now
dismissed the Companys clai]Jl~s in their entirety, meaninc that Uganda now
. .1. U ......,
retains the amount .of over $434 million that it collected in Capital Gair.s Tax
which was the subject of the dispute. 11 addition) the Tribunal awarded Uga.ida
a sum of US Dollars 4 million to cover the costs the country may have incurred
.in defending itself.
As Your Excellency fully understands) the process of defending Goven .ment ill
a foreign territory required unprecedented sacrifices and concentration on the
side of the team including .preperaticn of documentation. into the late hOUIS of
the night, collection of evidence, and continuous working without breaks in
many i1J:S~afl:ces.
Vlhen W$ Government team appeared before you in Cabinet on 19th November

2014) Your Excellency promised that you would reward their tireless efforts
when the final award from the Tribunal came out. Considering that the Tribunal
has now issued the final award, this is to humbly request that you consider a
reward for this noble team that has exhibited exemplary service to the country.
A full list of the team members is attached herewi hANDAREVENUE AUTHORITY UGANDA REVENUE AUTHORITV ll(;/INOAREVENU EAUTHORITY~
REVENUE AUTHORITY ~
CER1~1FIE'D 'T'RUE copy ~
lJJ 27 JAN
~' .
~t
Fredrick Ruhindi, IY[P
GENERAL
~~MMissiONER~~E~"S~R\ii"EES
AND BOARD _-:
i A~FA.\\,)
"
Hen. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs

Hen. Minister of Energy and Mineral Development
Hon. Deputy Attorney General/State Minister
Principal Private Secretary }
Permanent Secretary) l\1inistry of Energy and Mineral Development
Solicitor General .
Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority
2
-----
-
----- ------
HerItage Oil and Gas Limited Vs Government of the Republic of LTgan cia
Government of Uganda Team
l. Hon. Fredrick Ruhindi, Attorney General

2, Hon. Peter Nyorn:, Fonner Attorney General
..,
.J. 1vfr, Francis Atoke, Solicitor General
4. l'vls. Harriet Lwabi, Director First Parliamentary Counsel
,5. Mr. Christopher Gashirabake, Director Legal Advisory S .ffle~~UEAUTHORITYUGANDAREVENUEAUTHORITYUGAND
r: r'\ AREVENUE AUTHORITY ~
. . , . . , U~.:"\NDA~ REVENUE AUTH

~
6. ~,. Elizabeth N akkungu, Commissioner Legal Advisory SeCF~1~t(LE1~, ORITY ; ,.,
1Y1inistries) _~ ~n-< ,I tD fRUE Copy l
7. Mrs. Robina Rwakooj 0, Commissioner Civil Litigation " f1I I
8. Ms. Mary Nankabirwa, Principal State Attorney
~ 2 7 JAN
SICN
if;;;
' J
..., ...
~,,-tJ',<Ill:::-
~ c
9. Mr. George Kallernera, Senior State Attorney COMMiss'i;-' 'E'RqLE'G:~'ER'V'jCES I

10. Ms. Harriet Tukamushaba, Senior State Attorney AND BOARD AFFAIRS ~
11. lYtr. Martin Mwambutsya, State Attorney

12. 'lvir. Ernest Rubondo, Commissioner Ministry of Energy and Mineral
Development
13. Mr. Honey Malinga, Assistant CommiseicnercMinistry of Energy and lVfieral
Development
Mr. Alex Nyornbi, Geophysicist, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development -,) ,
'"
:NIr. Moses Kaggwa, Commissioner Tax Policy, Ministry of Finance; Planning
and Economic Development
Ms. Doris Akol, Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority
Mr. Moses Misach Kajubi, \Vorld Bank (Former Commissioner, Domestic
Taxes, Uganda Revenue Authority
~.
Mr. Ali Ssekatawa, Assistant Commissioner Uganda Revenue Authority

11r. Peter Muliisa, lVianager Uganda Revenue Authority
11r. Matthew Mugabi, Manager Uganda Revenue p~thority
Ms. Robinah Nakakawa, Manager Uganda Revenue Authority
11r. Samuel Kahiirna, i\.g. IVianager Uganda Revenue Authority
.Officer -Uganda Revenue -Authority -------------------.-'
Ms. Syson Ainernbabazi, Legal Officer Uganda Revenue Authority
3
'.j
Uganda Revenue j.:\uthol,-,rty
1 2 0 15,
H.E. The President ot Uganda

S~t&tte ];:]iof>ll:se
p 2.,t);497
:./
reference is made to the meeting 1.. Mav ...;
."";;I'i"'-"""'!~ &tt your Country home in I.<wakitura.
0,..j 11
m@:l:1lug" you lTls;tru\cte.ti me recomrneno
r-ifffvv-arct for the team that G1e:livered victory for the
Utgarl\\cti.a th; Larldm;8rrk ,8tfi.cl groLlndbreakixlg case
,~~JitBlime Oil an~d Gas Ljrnli.:te:d to ttl(~:; tuoe of I]SD) 434
LTO . 0"'.] ,..J.
fi~erlt.@;~e ,':...1'1 8tnl,t:<t IUF8lS
.r\, ,f... a, A..
FIT"ldl,trat.lOrl
,.-~
Case. 1I ,d',:,0
tnat a slum I~
~~;llfJMtJn 'lJ]J:,!t~[l bea~Jl{)ea;ft1g!cl a reward to the team,
Ycur j)~cel(iL~cy, amount recommended as a an

that enable the 'beneficiaries 'use
so,metlq;in;g tangible i.c. to leave a legacy
non-core,
, UGANDA REVENU
E AUTHORITY UGANDA RFVENU
-
-
EAUTHDRITY UGAID'
I.., REVENIJF AUTHORITY- !.
/4 f
or
ED 1<' U E C () 1) y' ~
]
c
2 7 JAN r0f~ ~
-j ~ ~ ~
SJc; N: ~!1:.:L~( _~/ !
CO M i\!l /55 I cfi\! ER L"E'~"""""':'~'"'''''''''''' ~
- \ -GAL S/:J< VI CE( t
AND BOAJ<D AFFA1f<S l J
I believe it will motivation sufficien~g,allan face

utuq;re challenges and bring glory and, our 'The
proposed constitutes less than 1 % of the Hfl110LUlt in the
and is 500/0 of thee costs awarded to the Goverrrmerrt
After SL1Ch. a ground-breaking achievement, 1 believe this
to be a reasenable amount to tharrk congratu!a
it.
5,@'%@{ the cosss J3twaJrilSle,d fund JI.
~2{eel'~ell;:CY7 I have categorized the team core, non-core

$;U'P:piort stair. 1
~1" th h . , ..c.c
1 a so propose ,'at.f e cnttererrt categories
- L I ..
1:;g(e)tJ~te equal amounts regarclless of rank in tile of team

ttl great effvrt each put in this case,
I lthat a l\etter
UitSl.~~~r
",:n!Jm11.1,1'" j'f)'aflfl be e;;gY~%r}ti~@:d-toeac;hm'e'1121bero f the team arrd
th:at V\}@Tked on matter. letters
.aVi(}f[' to the
at a }9iTtJtb fic fU::Qctio-Jfl,' be greatly
":""'''''''.!l,,",,,,,,,~ YOitlT Excelte'ncy.
, "L,.",.,J ~ 1-.. 1 "1/ ~

at1t.8JClleu a. schecrute
flf'eto 01 the team the
~iiiM,~~~1~~\~~Kl Qm:ounts f~aJaJ~)leto each member as' ,as a
;.'.'
tni~~;~~]Ql2~:;g 1I.<m,.'."'""''''''''- respecti.ve Bank A.CCOUD.t Numbers.

Uganda Revenue Authority
[JEIli::LCiPlf..J(.j UGAN\:J":1. TOG::THEF;
FCiiIDiHi@!~;jNciTlg
your recommendation that the Commissioner' General IJga:nda
Ri~iVenue Authority be designated as the Accoamring Officer through
whosn the Handshake will be paid and for the purpose of ensuring that
the beneficiaries' to this directive receive their payments in line the
Jl
. ...:1 d' . -,
',~'l 1 h
P re:~lttil!ient1i~.lrectIve, the purpose 01 this ,etter \~S to request -LJ,e
'1' If"
l\Qfo;rlZJGla]ly des~giJ;ate th~ COIDlnissioner, General Ugancla

\,.
'~liDn~~e Allfl:J.oritv as '..~he responsib~e .icco:nnting Officer as'
aboVie; and, '
Gr~t me the authority to naake the payments
bene'HCifJ:ries as directed by His Excellency; and
70 formEuUy requisition for the
directive,
J;!~l i
"-
rn
2
C
'"
C'
j 2016
pu this
1, Supplementary fu
the 30/0
I=LE
Mission
"To [ormulate sound economic policies, maximize revenue mobilization, ensure efficient allocation and accountabilityfor public resources so as to
COMMIS N
AND BOARD Af~AIRS
l-~-------------'
December 11, 2015
,:1 .
Pi;3:jf1g;Waffu(e:Tlt 8CretRry/ Secretary to the Treasury )

~l-annin,g and Economic Developmenr
G-,AS
~1fe~m(oliBnt U'ganda to the Horr.

D;~;~ei~i(J)'pment
d' ated 16 th : (.
b
copy o~f 18 \ '

,1 d ' (
comm,ents
;
ma re f-lt the " ,
nJustice & Constitutional
General, Uganda
~'7J\%);~ ;iI]~ie~:m;ti!l8f6b~~eJJl as ~:,~e:e1Q1;~~~t1Rl~fY;il'1i~.D,(fE::rtJhJlJ:cough whom th e
atJ."'1:d for the' ,})iltlt]30Se @if th,at the beneficiaries
:tElc:itv'e their paymerrts.
ephone: 256 41 4707000
I :256 41 4232 09-5
/21.X :2B6 41 4230 163
: 256 41 4343 023
: 256 41 4341 286
Email: fj.llRl1ee@fill:lJ1ce.go.ug
Website : IJjIWW.Hna,nce..go.tJg
In any correspondence on
thJs subject please quote ~o. PAD62/256/01
2 n d May 2016
The Commjssioner General,

U:;(BlaJl:daR,evenu-e Authority
FOR
o GA,S
be a~\ffij.6hre, supplsmeatary not possible due to the

You therefore need to seek authority franc
of Fmance, P"lanniJlg and Eccnoroic Development to
F'e:~vlilocate from the Tax refunds money to the relevant Item.
letter is to:
as the responsible .Accounting ,Officer
paym'ents to beneficiaries b't: -rna:ae;.
and
I~
$\eeiu,\ .c, .',
fOlfl H"
~Dn ,
Econerrsc u;e!ve!or:)iff];~9;rH r:2~;wiI!OGal;e 'funds from the

f'a!i~a.H,"lir*C' Account to 'to e;~HftbJe you effect the
REt/:
I) f (.;
Mission
rorrnurars sound economicpolicies, maximize revenue mobilization, ensure efficient allocation
achieve the most economic growth and development"
;:Janda Revenue Authorri::;y
DEv-r::-LOPI"G tjG,,~IDA TO-G-ETHE"I
URA/CGj 10.0
~t~i(2;fF:~pe is made to the followin,g letters Re.f:lJl~/CG/9!.3 dated

~{rD,2{)15, RE(.f: 1'0 / 10 dated 16t h Novern ber 20 15, Ref:,
10.0 dated December 11, 2;()15, Ref: lYRA.leG/lO.O dated
2;~., 2:016 arid Ref: PAD 62/256/01 dated 02 n d May 2016
the above aubject. Copies of the Ietters are attached for
1 reference .
In .acccrdance with section 22 of the Public Finance Management Act

2; 15 ~~ ~en.dd, I request that you to approve budget reallocation
from
-D(~;;~nct Budget to' U'JRA xpen.diture ,b~ldget so that payment
can :be 'made to the tl2 beneficiaries.
il "'" \ (\
S111,eeIP,ayment to the beneficiaries will be treated a~:, an experise

III \. r.I Ill' ..
tJ"?;iJ:i, ~~jcl;lti.pnal funds for the expenditure frOITI the reallocation. I

li!.;a11~nt1O:fi.ed in the parag-raph above is a supplemental]!
.b~~~~:etto URA for which your Ministry should haridle accordance
'All~tb :~;@;cti",I;n 2.5, 26 and 28 of the Public Finance Managerneri t
:JO 15 as amerided.
: 25641 4707 000
: 2.56 41 4232095
: 2-5641 4230 163
: 2'56 41 4343 0-23 i"-~(J8C.l
: 2"56 41 4341 2-8,6
Emai1 : fiJla-nr::e'@Dnan ce. go, u g
\.Nebslte : 'vV'Nw ..fi:aa.n.c:e.go. u q
DELI\/ERED'
M'~~ ERIT' GE IL f)
to )lour letter Ref: URJ:.\/CG/I0,O dated 2.2nd /-\prii

requested for resources aJYlounting to ~J
S:hJllJltl:gs to tater for 0 a v rn en t
\ ", . - ': \ , \
2HJ.,m,reclatlon
d .r(. of ttl: "
;work
' . . done . . .in the, 1.>.......... I
I7H';,1":I':);f:),~.'@oftl'llsl!:tteristo a-uthorize you .to meet this expenditure,

",lg:lC"~"rln the resources avaidabl:e to vo,u in the FY 2{)-lb/17'. - . . ,_ ,.,."
. ; UGANDA REVENlIEAllTHORITY UGAfJD1,REVWUt Alilh"'~11 Y"""'" /' l'e.( 11,.,
nose thatSuppJem:entary Funding of an e,

.p:.p(:rvJ:d'!f2.:Q to y:ou In the course of the Financial
.
n:~; 1~~1~ K: 2i~\ \:~t.tft~r-Q-~--- ._.~ __ .~W' __ ._"_~~_ . ~.-
11
to ,: of Finance, ngJ fean c Developrnen'i:

General, ,.l(lstice arid
Secretary to H, E The
'\.', I
J.I ( 't
' . 1;:"
Mlssio
sound economic: policies. maximize revenue mobilization, ensure efficte nt allocation and accountabttitvfor ,[}I-;biiC "'eSU!IU (.'.) t:
achieve the most rapid and sustainable economic growth Oriel devetopment ..
Telephone : 25641 4707000 Ministry of Finance, Planning
. : 2'5641 4232 095 Economic Development
F a x : 2'56 41 4230 '163
: 2564'1 4343 023
Plot 2-'12, Apoi.lo Kaggw8 Road
: 25641 4341 28'6 P.O. Box 81 47
Er.nsrH ; fi:n~Hu:e(i'iJftnll:ltce ..g~ 'ZC""EI'I\l~~ AVT/jICmr1Y' iJ(M~!D~~ijm:~I!hMY ~
Website ; www.finance...go.ug ?
i
;r
~l'l:a::q:y c:QrreslJonde.Rce, on
this st;j;bject p~ease O),uote No. PAD 8BI2:5610'{ UE COpy ~
19t h October, 2016 2 7 JAN
The Auditor General,

SIGN:
COMM
~.IUj
, , " ........
!
ISSI NEf\ ~E:GA.L sl~i~vicES
rr
f
Office of the A_ uditor General _ A~D 130ARD,AFI~AIRS
"':'1"' _ _: '
~
JfCA.l\1PAliA
Reference is made to the attached letter ref: URAjQ-:9/10.0 dated 15 fh Augu-st

2016 from the Comrniosioraer Genera~ Uganda Re'yer:l:1+e Authority, requie:g;/til'B!g
ffor a supp:lementary budget arn,o:unti-ng to Shs. 117;850,000,000/==. F'b1.:.l'theT'
reference is made to another letter under the s:am.re ref dated 17 th October, 2:Q 16
foJlo'~ng up on the earlier request.
C:0:1~1s.~sstent Article 154 (1) (2) (3)., 1S6 (2) of the Copstitutioll of the Repuhllc of
,U'13:a;~a, .and Sieotioll 25 of the 'PubJ!lc Fina.liGe l\i&l1ThagJem'nt Act (hme:ndmeili1t) 2@)-'1 5, I
l"~1M!e:st .you: to aut:horize s'UjpFJ1\ef.rliem;tary expeiliild;imre of Sibs. (~1f1iJti;Jml;;gs,:
SliiixRi~~J1~jflO:l0l:jy) to rei'fl:sta;te U;~a:ndia Revenue A utttoriity' s BJJdget in Ueu of the tvr~Gi\3
VVie1@epa'id:. to tbe w,imning team in t:h1ecase between qo:ver~ei11J.t J U;gan;~a .cJt[id
He;fi~it~geOi.l ,&.Gas Company. The sUp}DiEem@iNtta,ryoudget S!h!()}tl~}Q.:be charged against Vote
141-Ugam&aa Rev:enue Authority, ProgFam 01, Output 14540..s:~{fol1O'w:s:.
rteD1;223003 Shs. 5,8:00, O:OiO, 0010/=

Item: 282102 Shs. 20:0,0:00,O{);O/=
You are, therefore, requested to allow an over-expenditure oft:he above sum which will
be presented to ~I~lnt with four months as required by and shall be included
,,\ the Slipnla-ni~ltary
.in .\:T '..A:ppropriation Bill fOJ FY 2016/17,
(
. \ \".,,"'-
\
, .j
r", '-~.-.,.
/," j/,~ ..:
t,)/ /'
\. L..' ./ .-;::7
~)VM.t4a ." a'$:.a'ija (WfP:Y;-?'

/ / .
1:\1[Jf:>HSTER O;F~F][}\rAANCE, PJuA~J.I"~II\iG AND ECONONJ[IC. DlEVE.1LOrfmENT

C_.~-. //
Copy: Permanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury

Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority
Accountant General
Mission
.. To formulote sound economic policies, maximize revenue mobilization, ensure effie/em allocation and accountabiitty forpublic resources so as 10
achieve the most rapid and sustainable economic growth and development"
iii 1111 III I
"
our
: 256 41 4230 487
: 256 414341305
: 256 41 4233 524
: fin:1nc6L:;finance.go.ug
: www.finance.qo:ug
In any correspondence on this s ubje ct

please quote No. AGO/83/139/01
24 th June, 2015
The Director Banking

Bank of Uganda'
! '
,c-~~~
'.l."
P. O. Box 7120 Sign'

.~~
KAMPALA
CLOSURE OF :GOVERNMENT OF UGANpA REVENUE ACCOUNT AND

DPENING.OF'
THE PETROLEUM FUND
! . .
ACCOUNTS
) The Pub'H2' Finance Management Act' (PFMA), 2015 Section 56 established the
Petroleurn"'Fun::cf where all Petroleum revenues which accrue to Government
shall be p~id~~~t0. ~
Prior to -t.he enactment of the PFMA the oil funds on account were earmarked to
support' the FY 2014/15 budget for Kardma and were released from
Consolidated Fund thus the need to refund to UCF.
Also in order operationalize the Petroleum Fund there is

accoun ts for the Fund where all oil reverrues received by G
'March 2015 shall be deposited.
,,' ~. J
ACCOUNT,No., .. ACCOUNT NAME CUR.

00330032&,000004 GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA OIL UGX
REVENUE ACCOUNT
" 003300328400001' " GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA OIL USD
REVENUE ACCOUNT
2. Authorize you to open a "UGX" and "USD" accounts titled "Uganda

Petroleum Fund" with the following-signatories.
Principal Signatory: ..
Keith Muh akanizi Permanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury
Or Ocailap Patrick Depu tv Secrr:t8 ry lo th t~ Trl::'~lsur,Y
Or La wre n ce SerTIDlnJ 18 Accuunlant General
kJiS.I'iOIl
"Toformnlor .\,()und CCO}UJllIic-p(J!icics, nurxirni: J'(!,ICl7l1e JJ/o!Ji/i-Ofion ont'"I'O orr-rio,." ,..11.---.-.: ..
) /
With any of the following:-

Isaac Mpoza
Ag. Director/Debt & Cash Management
Godfrey B. Ssemugooma
Commissioner/Financial Management
Services
Aiden D.Rujumba
Asst. Commissioner/Financial
Management Services
We shall be grateful to receive a letter confirming the closure and the account
numbers assigned to new accounts for OUr records.
J'~'~'V;/b
1~U=tP~~
I"
-
" ./t/ /\.,VlLE:lv ,-\ r: >
l! - :
Keith -uhakanizi '. '
THE/ ERMANENT S~RETARY/ L. demakula .-
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY
. ~ ....... .~\"--
. ~ .. .,
: .: ~ .'
~.~'\- .. - -~~
Cc:
The Hon... Mirrister of ViJl~nce, P1a:nJ}:-ing'&:Economic Development
'.'
The Governor jBank of Uganda

The Deputy Governor/Bank of Uganda
The Depu ty Secretary to the Treasury
The Auditor General/Office of the Auditor General
)'
r, ....... _.L.
--._._------------_._--- -..... _-- -----------------.. - .... _--.

IlIi.l'siOIl
"0 (C)/'IIIIJ/OIC .1'0 lind econolllic {Jo!icit'.I'. 1I1O.\'llIli:.t' /,CI'CI7I.le rnobiliz ation cn.l'lire e/liclel'll atl ocat irn; onc! {lCC-Olilliob/I,/!, (O/' IJllb/ic reso urces J'O 0.\
-<.Z
26-Jun-201515:10:17PM
UGANDA
P. O. BOX No. 7120
KAMPALA
f~fl:H"r"\onf
To date
.. GQ~E;8NMsN:n~QEtQ.<5ANPA{:?IP;RE\lENUE.ACGOUNT, 26-jun~2015
User Reference :. .Detilt Balance
0.00 1,367,725,564,7.96.00
0.00 1,367,725,564,296.00 I
User clajul Signature _
Note: Please quote your account number, all particulars and reference numbers on any queries regarding this statement. Any change of
address, exception or error must be advised to the Bank within 14 days of the date of the statement otherwise the account will be
presumed to be in order.
: Minus sign in balance indicates Debit Balance.
End of Statement ***"*
Pagel of I )~,

Uganda Parliament Final Report On Shs 6bn Reward

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Uganda Parliament Final Report On Shs 6bn Reward

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Table of Contents 1

Table 1: Original List of Proposed Beneficiaries

On 19 th January 2017, Han, Micheal Tusiime, Mbarara Municipality moved; Han.

The Committee used the following methods;

The Committee carried out public hearings with the following:

1. Uganda Revenue Authority

In all, the Committee interfaced with 106 individual witnesses.

The Committee reviewed documents submitted by the petitioners, URA, Auditor

These are tabled as attachments to the report.

1. Hon. Abdu Katuntu (Chairperson/Leader of Delegation)

The Committee had two interfaces with H.E. T e

objected to that and indicated to Tullow that the said transfer by

filed two Applications in the Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) vide

the Attorney General further led the

e ore, direct that a team of 42 Government Officials be paid shs.

As a follow up to H.E. The President's letter of 16 th November, 2015, the

The PS / ST in a letter dated 2 n d of May 2016 designated her as

ed and in a letter dated 5 th May, 2016

However, in regard to Articles 98 and 99 of the Constitution being cited by the

Parliament appropriated funds to a tune of UGX 56,666,564,547 Billion (fifty six

When the Committee met E. The President, he stated;

The Committee obtained and reviewed two correspondences

y letter dated 13 th April 2015, Ref: MJ / AG/39, subject: "Commendation of the

A full list of members is attached."

It is from the President's letter and testimony corroborated by the

Article 98 of the Constitution provides,

Article 99 of the Constitution states,

In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution above, the Committee received

However, considering that both offices were In this probe, the

After a thorough review of both Articles of the Constitution, the Inspectorate of

The policy of rewards In Uganda Revenue Authority is provided for distinctly

1. Hon. Fredrick Ruhindi Attorney General

The funds were distributed as follows:

1. Hon. Peter Nyombi Former AG 200,000,000 132,000,000

Mr. Ojambo Paul Court Clerk, URA 50,000,000 29,545,455

It appears to the Committee that the basis of determination of the beneficiaries

The details of the roles of each beneficiary as submitted by each individual IS

iched, to this report and marked

The following were the benefiting Institutions from the reward:

Attorney General's Staff

This term of reference required us as a Committee to examine whether the UGX

Section 16 of the Uganda Revenue Authority Act, 1991 provides that no

The provisions relating to supplementa

Regulation 16 of the regulations, provides for the procedure of virements.

The purported authority cited by the Commissioner General of the PS j ST is not

The above provisions imply that an accounting to be

The Committee in its deliberations established existence of conflict of interest in

The Committee established that Parliament appropriated a sum of UGX 56.67

The Committee established that out of the total ex 26.735 Billion

2011 12 5,248 0,506 5,754 8,8% 0,357

Jr,U:'J:!IJrJU & BoU

The Committee therefore, recommends that In addition to the already existing

Monetary rewards should generally be discouraged, though prOVISIon for such

On 17 th February, 2017 the a petition from Oil Governance

1. Great Lakes Institute for Strategic Studies (GLISS)

r, before the High Court could determine the matter,

The Solicitor General informed the that he advised a settlement

The Committee was instructed to report in 60 days from 19 th January, 2017 - 19 th

The Committee therefore recommends as follows:

Assisted the Attorney General in all preliminary matters relating to the

Perusal of Heritage's statement of claim

Perusal of Heritage's amended notices of arbitration

Provided legal research on the law and cases

tni;]Ql2~:;g 1I.<m,.'."'""''''''''- respecti.ve Bank A.CCOUD.t Numbers.