The Deputy Attorney General says the Commission of Inquiry into Land Matters has no executive power to order arrest of any person, reverse a court decision, order stay of execution of court order, and interfere with court proceedings or processes as it has been doing. Would you say the commission does have or enjoy executive power

The commission has not reversed any court orders. If the learned Deputy AG knows of any orders of court the commission has reversed, he should bring them up. On the contrary, the Deputy AG authored and issued an opinion ordering for payment of Shs5b to Dr (Mohammed Buwule) Kasasa while ignoring a court order which had stopped such payment.

That the commission has repeatedly acted outside the provisions of the Commission of Inquiries Act, under which it was appointed, and its terms of reference. As such, any aggrieved party could challenge its findings in court, presenting the possibility that courts could quash the report altogether. The Deputy AG says for this reason, the commission is giving “Ugandans a raw deal.” Does this worry you?

The only underlying conflict between the Deputy AG and the Honourable chairperson is that they have different philosophies to the issue of accountability.
The chairperson believes that we are all accountable to the public for our actions. On the other hand, the Deputy AG belongs to a group that believes that they are above the law and should be answerable to no man and not even to God.

The Deputy AG says that in a high forum meeting late last year, which I know to be at State House, he advised the commission chairperson that they were acting outside the law and need to get a proper bearing on the commission’s mandate. Is this true and how did the commission respond to the counsel of the chief government legal adviser?

The other philosophical difference is that the commission has given citizens avenues to assert their rights while the rest of the inquiry goes on. The Deputy AG, on the other hand, believes in no such thing.
He badly needs to direct the commission on whom they should and should not summon, how they should proceed and what their result should be.

That since that counsel, the commission chairperson felt offended and sent two emissaries at different times to inform him that she would show him who she was when the Deputy Attorney General would appear before the commission. That this gave him early clue that he was being set up to be publicly humiliated. Is this a correct account?
The [commission] chairperson has never sent any emissaries to the Deputy AG. All our communications are formal. Invitations/summonses or other communications are signed by the secretary of the commission. I have worked with the chairperson for some time, just as I have worked with other senior judges.
The chairperson is a very reflective person and thinks through tough situations with humility, respect and firmness. Unless, of course, people have problems when tough questions are from people of a certain gender; deliberately playing a gender card.
Communication to the Deputy AG followed formal channels. We would be happy to know the so-called emissaries were so we can investigate the matter.

The Deputy Attorney General also states that on two occasions, he presented himself before the commission at 8:30am as summoned, but was made to wait on each occassion in a holding room for three hours, something he considered disrespectful. Why did this happen?
We did not keep the Honourable Deputy AG for three hours. I am the liaison officer of the commission. As such, I manage protocol considerations. All senior citizens are personally received by myself and ushered in my office, which the Deputy AG found and called in derogatory terms, as a holding room. We have borrowed furniture made in Uganda. We are sorry it was [not] luxurious enough for the Deputy AG. I offered him coffee and in fact, as is the norm in public service, he sat in my chair. He was properly accorded all the respect.

Why do you think the commission is under attack, including by senior government officials, if it’s doing the right thing and following right procedure?

Commissions of inquiry all around the world are never liked, whether in South Africa, the United States or Peru. When people, who previously would not be accountable are asked hard questions, it’s only natural that they feel uncomfortable.
State Lands minister Persis Namuganza and line Cabinet minister Betty Amongi have previously complained of the abrasive questioning by the commission. Does the commission get a sense that hostility is emboldening witnesses to be less cooperative and forthcoming with information to aid its work?
We have a practice of soliciting the cooperation of responsible agencies whenever we encounter an open breach of rules or rights. We invite the responsible agencies to act. Most agencies normally act. We have drawn matters to the attention of the courts, the police and Ministry of Lands.

The commission is asking everyone to account. The last time I checked, last year, it had not accounted for Shs11b it had used, but was asking for an additional Shs7b. It wants respect, but treats some witnesses with disrespect, with the chairperson on one occasion referring to the Lands minister, who was appearing before the commission, as “young lady.” Why is the commission drinking water while asking others to take wine?
We, as a commission, are the only commission in the history of commissions which has been subjected to ongoing rigorous audits. We have been found to be using the funds as budgeted.
The only thing I can say about funding is that we have been financially strangled and debilitated, with funds that trickle on like a drop in the bucket.

The Deputy Attorney General says the President is aware about the land deal; that both the President and the Prime Minister instructed him in writing to handle the claim. Will the commission summon the President and PM to shed light on the impugned Shs24b payout?
It is bad manners to speculate what happens at State House.

Do you foresee the possibility that the commission’s recommendations may not be implemented?
We remain hopeful that the political leadership would positively consider our findings. Even before full implementation of its recommendations, we are so far happy that we have halted massive evictions, saved our rivers, lakes and forest from extinction and for now stopped questionable and dubious claims against the government.
In a sense, the implementation is on track and that is why we are so passionate that more could be done. In addition, the commission has also attempted to use its clinic to resolve long-standing land disputes. Besides, the Uganda Revenue Authority report was quashed by the High Court, [but it] has been extensively implemented.

The commission chairperson has referred the altercation with Deputy Attorney General to the appointing authority. What happens if the President does nothing?
It is bad manners to speculate what happens at State House or what would happen if the [President] did not act on any of the recommendations.
We are okay; so far happy that we have halted massive evictions, save our rivers, lakes and forest from extinction and for now stop questionable and dubious claims against the government.