Kampala, (UG): The Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) has given embattled city lawyer Patrick Kiconco Katabaazi an ultimatum of six months to repay Shs39 billion obtained from National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) meant for tea nursery bed operators.
The query steamed up following the 2021/2022 Auditor General’s report which revealed that NAADS advanced Shs39 billion to Pathways Advocates to compensate tea nursery operators who had sued the government for failure to procure their seedlings, but there was no evidence furnished to auditors indicating that the intended beneficiaries received the said funds.
This money was meant for nursery bed operators in the Districts of Kisoro, Kabale, Rukiga, Rubanda, Ntungamo, Rukungiri, Mitooma, Kanungu, and Mbarara who had supplied seedlings to NAADS.
Katabaazi was approached by 711 tea nursery bed operators led by Frank Byaruhanga, Francis Runumi, George Owakukiroru, Caleb Tumwesimira, Sam Arinaitwe, Julius Tumushabe, Fidelis Kanyamunyu and Rev Bernard Byamugisha to represent them against a claim they had against National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADs) for their unpaid claims worth Shs143,621,201,500.
The plaintiffs instructed the lawyer to file a suit, Bganthanga Frank & 7 Ors. V Agricultural Advisory Services & 11 Ors. Civil Suit No.889 of 2019, in which they claimed Shs143,621,201,500. The matter culminated in a consent judgment filed on January 7, 2021. At the time of the consent judgment, Shs27.3 billion was outstanding.
The two parties agreed that the payments be made through the lawyer or the law firm. The lawyer, Mr Katabaazi informed the Committee that he had received a total of Shs39 billion on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Some of the operators the Committee interfaced with and informed the Committee that they had not received all the money due to them and accused Mr Katabaazi of not remitting to them all the money due to them.
Mr Katabaazi submitted that the Plaintiffs had instructed him to pay the 711 based on criteria agreed upon by the Plaintiffs and the persons they had authorised to represent them and that the persons had received some of the money.
The Committee interacted with some of the beneficiaries who stated that they were not paid money that was due to them. The Committee sought to verify the claims against Mr Katabaazi and requested him to provide evidence that he had paid the beneficiaries.
Katabaazi informed the Committee that with the exception of the Representative Order, other documents the Committee had requested fell in the ambit of the Advocate-Client relationship and was privileged information which he could only provide with consent from the parties involved, and yet he had not sought that consent.
Katabaazi filed a suit seeking a declaration that the committee’s investigations and inquiries into payments made under Orders of Court and or in the execution of Orders of Court in High Court (Commercial Division) Civil Suit No. 889 of 2O19; Buanuhanga Frank & 7 others. National Agricultural Advisory Series (NAADS) and 11 others and the actions of the respondents as agents of the 1st respondent are ultra vires, illegal and an affront to the Advocate-client privileged information and the independence of the Judiciary.
However, his submission that farmers are appreciative of the services rendered by the law firm were contested by Richard Mubumuza (Bwamba County) who claimed to be in possession of some bank statements from some tea farmers who raised alarm on the discrepancies in the amount of funds submitted by Katabaazi in his accountability report to NAADs and the amounts that the farmers received in their bank accounts.
In the first payment, according to the accountability submitted by Katabaazi, one farmer Sirajje Mastiko received Shs150, 928,485 that is according to the accountability you submitted. I have a copy of the bank statement for Mastiko from Centenary Bank, what the firm paid instead was Shs105 million, which is a difference of Shs45 million.
The MP further tabled more evidence claiming that Kiconco made a second payment on 1st December 2022 to Mastiko, when the law firm transferred Shs90,704,807 to Mastiko’s account, but on the same day Shs58,911,706 was transferred back to the law firm’s account, with the MP alleging that Pathway Advocates could have imposed a standing order which required a portion of the payment to the beneficiaries be deducted and return to the law firm’s bank account.
The Committee also was informed by Muhumuza that another farmer Henry Tukahirwa on 5th December 2022 received Shs24, 298,160 on his account in Centenary Bank, but on the same day, Shs22, 417,559 was debited back to the law firm’s account. “The law firm was taking more than the beneficiaries, and these are just a few of these claimants. Can you talk to the Committee about these transactions?” asked Muhumuza.
The Committee was also informed by Muhumuza that another farmer Henry Tukahirwa on December 5, 2022 received Shs24, 298,160 on his account in Centenary Bank, but on the same day, Shs22, 417,559 was debited back to the law firm’s account. “The law firm was taking more than the beneficiaries, and these are just a few of these claimants.
The troubled Katabaazi denied these allegations claiming that there are no complaints from his clients.
The committee concluded that Patrick Katabaazi be prosecuted for failure to fully remit money meant for tea nursery bed operators.
However, the committee directed the government to always make all pending payments directly to the beneficiaries.
Do you have a story or an opinion to share? Email us on: dailyexpressug@gmail.com Or follow the Daily Express on X Platform or WhatsApp for the latest updates.
