UIA boss: Minister Anite lied about British envoy meeting 

Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) director general Robert Mukiza has revealed the underlying tensions between the agency and State Minister for Investment Evelyn Anite, stemming from disagreements over honorarium and price variation payments for the Kampala Industrial and Business Park (KIBP) infrastructure development project at Namanve.

For the first time, Mukiza publicly responded to Anite’s ultimatum for top officials at the agency to refund honorarium payments totaling Shs 545 million. The director general accused the minister of manipulating the issue to provoke public outrage against the agency for ulterior motives.

Mukiza alleged that the minister fabricated claims that the British high commissioner and the United Kingdom Export Finance (UKEF) had requested her to demand a refund of the honorarium payments and halt the price variation payments to the Namanve project contractor.

In a letter dated July 23, responding to Anite’s July 3 letter, in which she insisted that UIA staff who received honorarium payments must refund the money, Mukiza stated that the matter had already been resolved with the guidance of the president.

He dismissed the minister’s latest letter as filled with falsehoods, accusing her of consistently lying both in official meetings and on social media platforms. Mukiza specifically refuted her claim of meeting the outgoing British High Commissioner, Kate Airey, to discuss the project, stating, “I find that your story of meeting the British high commissioner to discuss the day-to-day issues of the Namanve project management not adding up, inaccurate, false, and misleading.”

MISLEADING

“Secondly, the project under implementation was signed between Uganda Investments Authority, United Kingdom Export Finance (UKEF), and Standard Chartered Bank, not with the British High Commission Uganda office. Therefore, if there was going to be any unprecedented oversight of any nature, it would be from the former rather than the latter,” he said, adding, “I also find your insistence that it was the UKEF which put you under pressure to act the way you did misleading because UKEF is a very professional agency that only transacts through official channels. If there was any communication to that effect, I would have been privy to it as the accounting officer for the Authority.”

“This analysis leads me to conclude that you lied about the meeting with H.E. the British High Commissioner, as well as your engagement with UKEF regarding honoraria and VOP payments to the contractor,” he said.

Mukiza expressed strong disapproval of the minister’s decision to criticize the agency on social media, stating that he expected the minister to uphold the agency she supervises through official government channels.

“I am very respectful, patient, and non-confrontational by nature. This can be attested by how I have desisted from responding to your lies against me on social media channels,” Mukiza stated in his letter, which was copied to the president, the minister of Finance, and the attorney general.

The dispute between Anite and UIA management has persisted for the last two months after the minister issued an ultimatum for certain UIA staff to refund up to Shs 545 million received as honorarium payments. Mukiza himself received Shs 82 million, Dr Paul Kyalimpa Shs 58 million, Patience Kyabaje Shs 43 million, John Bwambale Shs 43 million, Amina Nassaka Shs 17 million, Susanne Akware Shs 17 million, Joanita Kambedhe Shs 8 million, Muzamil Mwanga Shs 5 million, and Augustine Katale Shs 5 million.

Other members of the project management team (PMT), such as Alex Nuwagira, received Shs 92 million, Felix Tumukunde Beinemaryo Shs 55 million, Emmanuel Muhumuza Shs 49 million, William Sande Shs 36 million, and Dominic Mugesera Shs 30 million.

This money was paid out of the €219,482,727.15 (approximately Shs 871 billion) that the Ugandan government secured from the UK Export Finance (UKEF) on December 4, 2019, for the Kampala Industrial and Business Park (KIBP) infrastructure development project. The honorarium was interpreted by Anite as corruption, and she gave the recipients 24 hours from June 12 to refund the money. However, Mukiza and his team declined to refund the money, arguing that it was legally paid to them for extra work done on the project, as approved by the board.

The UIA team noted that the honorarium was approved by their board of directors and is provided for in their human resource manual. In an earlier statement to the UIA’s chairman of the board of directors, Morrison Rwakakamba, dated June 14, 2024, Mukiza explained that upon termination of the owner’s engineer (OE) on August 29, 2022, additional responsibilities were assigned to the PMT, assisted by some UIA staff, to bridge the gap in the supervision of the infrastructure development at KIBP.

President Museveni later summoned a meeting at State House, and after a stormy discourse, advised that he would decide the matter after getting independent technical advice from experts at the ministry of Finance. However, after the meeting, Anite took to X, formerly Twitter, to vent her anger and was later hosted on X spaces, insisting that she was under pressure from the development partners to have the honorarium refunded.

“Who will save Uganda and Ugandans from the corrupt? I can’t believe the corrupt like Mukiza resort to lying about me to President Museveni in a bid to save their neck. Good news is the truth always wins. I promise to stay truthful to God, myself, and my country,” she said.

Anite is also said to have tried to bring up the matter before a recent Cabinet retreat but was shut down before she left Kyankwanzi under a cloud. She has since reported that she is on leave.

In his letter of July 23, the only time Mukiza has directly responded to the minister, the UIA executive director also accused her of orchestrating cyberbullying against Sheikh Mohammed Juma Al Maktoum, a member of the Dubai ruling family. The sheikh’s group has an agreement with the Ugandan government to build the Uganda oil refinery and is also investing substantially in Ugandan Air Cargo and several other projects.

Mukiza claimed that the minister made defamatory statements about Sheikh Mohammed Juma Al Maktoum, allegedly asserting that the UAE sheikh was a “fake prince and that his government was investigating him.”

“I humbly request that you apologize to the Sheikh and his family for the defamatory statements you made against them,” the UIA director general wrote.

Mukiza recounted an incident when he was delegated to welcome Sheikh Mohammed Juma Al Maktoum on June 8, ahead of the Heroes day celebrations where the Dubai prince was awarded a medal. He revealed that Anite sent him a text message referring to the investor as “a fake Prince.”

“I got shocked because I expected you to be preoccupied with how to tackle and dismiss the misinformation about one of Uganda’s most promising investors but was horrified to discover that you too shared the same views with those who were cyber harassing him, a scenario that made me wonder how a Minister can form an opinion based on social media fake news,” Mukiza wrote.

Mukiza also noted that when the minister officially wrote to the Ugandan embassy in the UAE and obtained the correct information, she “sat on it.” “What was the purpose of seeking that clarification if it wasn’t going to be used to confront the liars and set the record straight?” he asked.

INTEGRITY

He emphasized that integrity is the cornerstone of trust in leadership. “A decent leader must not fabricate, falsify, impersonate, manipulate, and lie to the people who appointed them and those they lead. If you misrepresented facts to achieve your personal objectives, it is not only scandalous and fraudulent but also criminal.”

The UIA boss asked Anite to keep her promise to resign for allegedly telling lies on several occasions. “You have always been quoted swearing that if you ever fell out of God’s glory and the evidence is there, you would resign and even take yourself to Luz- ira [prison],” Mukiza reminded Anite.

“On the other hand, if you produce empirical evidence that challenges my above analysis, then I stand to be penalized,” he added.

A legal expert who spoke to this newspaper analyzed that if the minister indeed lied, there would be serious consequences.

“The minister needs to be given an opportunity to defend herself and clear the air. Are the allegations against her true or false? If they are false, the accuser must be penalized. However, if it’s true that the minister knowingly and willfully made a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of her official work, then she can be asked to resign or even be censured,” the expert stated.