Fred Ruhindi, the Deputy Attorney General has written to the legal affairs committee of parliament okaying Raphael Baku to defend the budget of the Inspectorate of Government.
Fred Ruhindi, the Deputy Attorney General has written to the legal affairs committee of parliament okaying Raphael Baku to defend the budget of the Inspectorate of Government. Last week, the committee threw out Baku, the acting Inspector General of Government arguing that the constitution does provide for an acting IGG.
MPs on the committee argued that the constitution only mandates the substantive IGG or Deputy IGG to present the Inspectorate of Government policy statement and Budget. As a result, Stephen Tashobya, chairperson Legal Affairs Committee referred the matter to the Attorney General for legal advice. In his response to the committee, Fred Ruhindi, the Deputy Arttoney General explains that the definition of Inspector General in the constitution also includes the Deputy Inspector General and therefore grants him the mandate, capacity and competence to present the policy statement and budget in parliament.
He also referred the committee to the constitutional court ruling on Wednesday in the petition, in which Gilbert Bukenya, the former Vice president challenged the power of the acting IGG to prosecute him for graft. In their ruling, the three judges of the constitutional court threw out Bukenya’s petition saying that the current IGG is substantively a deputy who now happens to carry out the duties of the IGG since the position of the substantive IGG has not been filled.
Ruhindi also argues that there is no express provision in the IGG Act that negates the function of the institution if the Inspector General and the two deputies are not in office. As a result, Tashobya today allowed Baku to the inspectorate policy statement and defend its budget. In 2009, President Museveni appointed Baku acting IGG, after parliament refused to approve the appointment of Justice Faith Mwondha when she refused to appear for vetting.
Mwondha refused to appear before the committee arguing that it was not necessary her tenure had just been renewed. However, the constitutional court later ruled that it was compulsory for Parliament to vet her before she assumes her second term in office.