Finance Minister Henry Musasizi
HABARI DAILY I Kampala, Uganda I The finance Minister Henry Musasizi, faces possible censure after his failure to appear before Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) stalled an inquiry into a disputed Shs140.487 billion Bank of Uganda (BoU) liability involving businessman Hassan Basajjabalaba’s HABA Group.
The committee, chaired by Kyadondo East MP Muwada Nkunyingi, had summoned Musasizi alongside BoU Governor Michael Atingi-Ego and HABA Group officials to clarify the government’s role in a 2017 financing arrangement that left the central bank seeking to recover billions of shillings.
Musasizi’s absence prompted Busia Municipality MP Ismail Sowedi Mulemya to propose that COSASE initiate proceedings to censure the minister under Articles 112 and 118 of the Constitution.
The committee suspended the inquiry and is expected to review the minister’s conduct before deciding whether to forward the matter to the Speaker of Parliament.
Minister’s absence stalls inquiry
COSASE members were particularly concerned because Musasizi had reportedly requested to appear before the committee but did not turn up and had not provided the panel with an official explanation.
The committee initially suspended its sitting for about 30 minutes and sent CID officers attached to Parliament to the Ministry of Finance to establish the minister’s whereabouts.
Detective Fredrick Chemonges later told the committee that officers found Under-Secretary Edward Sengonzi Damulira, who said Musasizi had been at the ministry but was engaged in activities outside Kampala.
The circumstances surrounding the minister’s absence have since become a major issue in the committee’s inquiry, with some MPs describing the failure to appear as disobedience and contempt of Parliament.
However, some legislators have called for caution, arguing that Musasizi should be given an opportunity to explain his absence before the committee takes disciplinary action.
COSASE has suspended the related proceedings until Tuesday, October 6, when members are expected to consider the matter and determine whether to advance the proposed censure process.
Shs140bn liability under scrutiny
At the centre of the inquiry is a Shs140.487 billion liability that remains unsettled by HABA Group to BoU.
According to testimony previously given by BoU officials, the central bank issued a guarantee or letter of comfort in relation to the financing arrangement following instructions from the Ministry of Finance.
The commercial bank involved in the transaction subsequently recovered the money from BoU, leaving the central bank seeking to recover the funds from HABA Group.
COSASE wants Musasizi and other officials to explain the government’s involvement and provide documentation relating to the 2017 directives that resulted in the arrangement.
The inquiry has, however, been complicated by conflicting accounts over the actual amount involved.
Basajjabalaba disputes liability
When HABA Group chairman Hassan Basajjabalaba appeared before COSASE, he disputed the Shs140.487 billion figure.
Basajjabalaba maintained that HABA Group did not receive the full amount attributed to it and instead placed the group’s broader claim at Shs168.8 billion.
The conflicting accounts have left the committee seeking documentary evidence from HABA Group, BoU and the Ministry of Finance before determining the actual financial position.
Musasizi’s testimony is therefore considered important to the committee’s efforts to establish how the arrangement was authorised, the extent of government involvement and how the outstanding liability arose.
What Musasizi can do
The minister’s immediate option is to comply with any fresh summons and appear before COSASE to explain his absence and respond to the committee’s questions.
He can also submit the Ministry of Finance documents relating to the 2017 directives and the government’s role in the HABA arrangement.
Such an appearance would give Musasizi an opportunity to place his account on record and respond directly to allegations that his absence amounted to disobedience.
The minister could also seek a formal deferral if he has legitimate reasons preventing him from appearing on the scheduled date.
Meanwhile, the proposed censure motion places the matter beyond the financial dispute and into the broader question of ministerial accountability to Parliament.
About the Author
