Kutesa quits active politics; says it’s time for the old to give space for the young generation

- Advertisement -




Sam Kahamba Kutesa 70, Uganda’s Foreign Affairs minister and Member of Parliament for Mawogola County in Sembabule District announced that he is retiring from active politics over the weekend. He has been MP for 40 years
Mr Kutesa, said it’s time for old guys to give space for the young generation. He then introduced his daughter, Shatsi Musherure Kutesa.



Kutesa has been Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2005, implored the electorate to stick to the NRM party, and support the youths who have better ideas for developing Ssembabule. Believed to be one of the wealthiest Ugandans, Kutesa made the remarks during a community service initiative to clean up different villages and trading centres in the district. He also discouraged the people power pressure group from operating in his constituency.




- Advertisement -

The exercise was meant to plant trees and clean up the area dubbed “Keep Sembabule clean and green”. The exercise was organised by religious leaders and the cleaning exercise started at Sembabule hospital.
Ms Musherure, in her remarks said her father was tired of speaking all the time and that it was time to give chance to the youth. She urged the residents to trust her.




Kutesa’s name has featured in several scandals and corruption allegations.

As minister of Finance, In 1999, he was censured by Parliament over allegations of influence peddling and corruption related to his firm ENHAS, which is contracted to do ground handling at Entebbe airport.



More recently, the Foreign Affairs Minister was accused by the US government of having received bribes to the tune of $500,000 (about Ugx. 1.8 billion) bribe from Chinese national, Patrick Ho of China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC) in exchange for obtaining “business advantages” in Uganda. Political analysts believe that Kutesa could be quitting elective politics to deflect pressure from these allegations.

In 2017, Sam Kutesa was named in Paradise Papers- a global investigation that reveals the offshore activities of some of the world’s most powerful people, Multinational companies, wealthy individuals, heads of state, politicians and sports stars from around the world.



Mr Kutesa was a member of the Constituent Assembly, in 1995. From 2001 through 2005, he served as Minister of State for Finance, Planning and Economic Development, in charge of investment, and from 1996 to 2000. He was the Attorney General from 1985 to 1986.



In the private sector, Mr. Kutesa worked as Legal Secretary for the worldwide conglomerate Lonrho East Africa, and served in a consultative capacity on the Uganda Advisory Board of Trade, and on the National Textiles Board. He also practiced law in his country, specializing in corporate law and litigation.




Born in Uganda on 1 February 1949, Mr. Kutesa holds an Honours Degree in Law from Makerere University and is an advocate of the High Court of Uganda, having completed post-graduate studies in legal practice at the Uganda Law Development Centre. He is married with six children.

read: Kutesa named among World’s richest men sheltering huge amounts of cash in offshore tax havens

- Advertisement -

2 COMMENTS

  1. Regarding US sanctions against ex Police Chief Kayihura for corruption:

    Dear US Ambassador,

    Kampala

    Uganda

    The question the Nation must be asking is: Why ONLY Him and WHY NOW, after all these years, when, as everyone knows, the country is mired in corruption! Seems like a political witch-hunt!

    With due respect to the US, this gesture will be meaningless unless it uses it’s influence and might to force into Law in Uganda, an UNEXPLAINED WEALTH ACT, that requires everyone with known riches beyond their means, to explain the source or risk losing them all.

    The Law is already operating in Great Britain and many foreign rich and powerful people and next of kin of foreign Rulers have been caught out and had their bank accounts and property in the UK sequestrated. A case in point is the former Ruler of Siera Leone Valentine Strasser whose assets were seized and ended up working as a Security Guard in London on minimum wage then £5.00 per hour OR the wife of some West African ruler whose spending in millions of pounds shopping at Harrods raised eyebrows and probably contributed to the enactment of this Law

    Regards

    Ojok

    ========================================

    United Kingdom

    UNEXPLAINED WEALTH ORDERS (UWO): A BRIEF GUIDE

    A UWO requires a person who is reasonably suspected of involvement in, or of being connected to a person involved in, serious crime to explain the nature and extent of their interest in particular property, and to explain how the property was obtained, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property. The test for involvement with serious crime is by reference to Part 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.

    A UWO can also be applied to politicians or officials from outside the European Economic Area (EEA), or those associated with them i.e. Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs). A UWO made in relation to a non-EEA PEP would not require suspicion of serious criminality.

    A UWO is a civil power and an investigation tool. It requires the respondent to provide information on certain matters (their lawful ownership of a property, and the means by which it was obtained)

    A failure to provide a response to a UWO may give rise to a presumption that the property is recoverable under any subsequent civil recovery action.

    The Criminal Finances Act, which received Royal Assent in April, introduces new measures to tackle asset recovery and money laundering in the UK. A key element of the Act is Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs) – an investigative tool to help law enforcement act on corrupt assets. This is something that Transparency International has been pushing for since 2014.

    Why are Unexplained Wealth Orders needed?

    Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that the UK has become a safe haven for corrupt individuals and their assets. UK law enforcement has limited power to seize corrupt property.

    At present, little can be done to act on highly suspicious wealth unless there is a legal conviction in the country of origin. In cases where the origin country is in crisis or the individual holds power within a corrupt government, this can take decades to obtain or is unlikely to be achieved at all, producing a mere trickle of results against a torrent of corrupt illicit funds.

    How would Unexplained Wealth Orders work in practice?

    The Minister for Health in a country outside the European Economic Area (EEA), like Uganda, for example, has misappropriated millions of pounds from the health budget into his own pocket. To hide the proceeds of this crime, he decides to buy a multi-million pound property in London.

    The house is far beyond the means of the Health Minister’s annual salary, raising serious questions. These allegations are brought to the attention of law enforcement agencies.

    After an application from an enforcement authority

    [1], a high court judge can give notice of a UWO only if she is satisfied that the respondent is likely to be the owner of suspicious wealth beyond his means, and if all of the following tests are met:

    1) The respondent is a Politically Exposed Person

    [2] (PEP) outside of the EEA; or there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent is or has been involved in serious crime

    2) The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset

    3) The value of the asset is greater than £50,000

    The UWO requires the respondent to explain how he lawfully acquired his assets. If he fails to respond or gives an inadequate response then this extra information can be used in a separate civil recovery process (an existing measure under the Proceeds of Crime Act) if law enforcement has gathered sufficient evidence.

    What was Transparency International’s role?

    In 2014, Transparency International convened a taskforce of experts – lawyers, law enforcement and anti-corruption campaigners – to identify the problems with the UK’s asset recovery regime, and come up with solutions. The taskforce deliberations, and subsequent report, resulted in the recommendation of the adoption of UWOs. We advocated for this consistently – to government departments and, later, to parliamentarians and civil society organisations to prepare them for the introduction of the law into parliament.

    What’s next?

    The UWO tool is expected to commence by the end of this year and Transparency International will be monitoring its use and effectiveness. Any law is only as good as its implementation. The next government needs to ensure these powers are used effectively to target all suspicious wealth being brought into the UK.

    The UK’s asset recovery and anti-money laundering regime is still far from perfect – for example, fragmented supervision and anonymous ownership of property are just two of the areas where we’re still advocating for change. There is more to do to, but this is a good step forward. ( RACHEL DAVIES

    Rachel Davies Teka is Head of Advocacy at TI-UK, and co-chair of the Bond Anti-Corruption Group. You can tweet her @rachelcerysd.) 2014

  2. Regarding US sanctions against ex Police Chief Kayihura for corruption:

    Dear US Ambassador,

    Kampala

    Uganda

    The question the Nation must be asking is: Why ONLY Him and WHY NOW, after all these years, when, as everyone knows, the country is mired in corruption! Seems like a political witch-hunt!

    With due respect to the US, this gesture will be meaningless unless it uses it’s influence and might to force into Law in Uganda, an UNEXPLAINED WEALTH ACT, that requires everyone with known riches beyond their means, to explain the source or risk losing them all.

    The Law is already operating in Great Britain and many foreign rich and powerful people and next of kin of foreign Rulers have been caught out and had their bank accounts and property in the UK sequestrated. A case in point is the former Ruler of Siera Leone Valentine Strasser whose assets were seized and ended up working as a Security Guard in London on minimum wage then £5.00 per hour OR the wife of some West African ruler whose spending in millions of pounds shopping at Harrods raised eyebrows and probably contributed to the enactment of this Law

    United Kingdom

    UNEXPLAINED WEALTH ORDERS (UWO): A BRIEF GUIDE

    A UWO requires a person who is reasonably suspected of involvement in, or of being connected to a person involved in, serious crime to explain the nature and extent of their interest in particular property, and to explain how the property was obtained, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property. The test for involvement with serious crime is by reference to Part 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.

    A UWO can also be applied to politicians or officials from outside the European Economic Area (EEA), or those associated with them i.e. Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs). A UWO made in relation to a non-EEA PEP would not require suspicion of serious criminality.

    A UWO is a civil power and an investigation tool. It requires the respondent to provide information on certain matters (their lawful ownership of a property, and the means by which it was obtained)

    A failure to provide a response to a UWO may give rise to a presumption that the property is recoverable under any subsequent civil recovery action.

    The Criminal Finances Act, which received Royal Assent in April, introduces new measures to tackle asset recovery and money laundering in the UK. A key element of the Act is Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs) – an investigative tool to help law enforcement act on corrupt assets. This is something that Transparency International has been pushing for since 2014.

    Why are Unexplained Wealth Orders needed?

    Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that the UK has become a safe haven for corrupt individuals and their assets. UK law enforcement has limited power to seize corrupt property.

    At present, little can be done to act on highly suspicious wealth unless there is a legal conviction in the country of origin. In cases where the origin country is in crisis or the individual holds power within a corrupt government, this can take decades to obtain or is unlikely to be achieved at all, producing a mere trickle of results against a torrent of corrupt illicit funds.

    How would Unexplained Wealth Orders work in practice?

    The Minister for Health in a country outside the European Economic Area (EEA), like Uganda, for example, has misappropriated millions of pounds from the health budget into his own pocket. To hide the proceeds of this crime, he decides to buy a multi-million pound property in London.

    The house is far beyond the means of the Health Minister’s annual salary, raising serious questions. These allegations are brought to the attention of law enforcement agencies.

    After an application from an enforcement authority

    [1], a high court judge can give notice of a UWO only if she is satisfied that the respondent is likely to be the owner of suspicious wealth beyond his means, and if all of the following tests are met:

    1) The respondent is a Politically Exposed Person

    [2] (PEP) outside of the EEA; or there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent is or has been involved in serious crime

    2) The respondent’s known income is insufficient to obtain the asset

    3) The value of the asset is greater than £50,000

    The UWO requires the respondent to explain how he lawfully acquired his assets. If he fails to respond or gives an inadequate response then this extra information can be used in a separate civil recovery process (an existing measure under the Proceeds of Crime Act) if law enforcement has gathered sufficient evidence.

    What was Transparency International’s role?

    In 2014, Transparency International convened a taskforce of experts – lawyers, law enforcement and anti-corruption campaigners – to identify the problems with the UK’s asset recovery regime, and come up with solutions. The taskforce deliberations, and subsequent report, resulted in the recommendation of the adoption of UWOs. We advocated for this consistently – to government departments and, later, to parliamentarians and civil society organisations to prepare them for the introduction of the law into parliament.

    What’s next?

    The UWO tool is expected to commence by the end of this year and Transparency International will be monitoring its use and effectiveness. Any law is only as good as its implementation. The next government needs to ensure these powers are used effectively to target all suspicious wealth being brought into the UK.

    The UK’s asset recovery and anti-money laundering regime is still far from perfect – for example, fragmented supervision and anonymous ownership of property are just two of the areas where we’re still advocating for change. There is more to do to, but this is a good step forward. ( RACHEL DAVIES

    Rachel Davies Teka is Head of Advocacy at TI-UK, and co-chair of the Bond Anti-Corruption Group. You can tweet her @rachelcerysd.) 2014

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.