On day three of appearance before Committee of Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) to defend closure of seven commercial banks between 1993 and 2017, Bank of Uganda officials yet again exhibited several of inconsistencies in their submission.
This fuelled anger among several legislators who sit on the investigative committee and suggested that some officials should be detained while others be put under oath.
Led by Governor Emmanuel Mutebile and Tumubweine Twinemanzi the officials presented an inventory list of assets and liabilities of Teefe Bank which was the first private financial institution to be closed by the Central Bank in 1993.
What is shocking however, is Bank of Uganda produced an inventory on the third appearance before the committee having confessed for lacking the same document in the previous sittings.
The committee denied the report until its editors have fully studied it and recommended way forward.
It should be noted that while conducting a comprehensive audit on closure of Teefe Bank, the Auditor General was not provided with the Bank’s inventory prompting him to indicate it in his 80 page report he submitted to Parliament.
It is at this point that observers query whether it was BoU’s intention to hide some files or it succumbed to Parliament’s pressure to produce the document.
Need for Sworn Testimony by BoU officials
Observers have against that backdrop asked Parliament to compel Mutebile Administration to testify before the committee on oath.
Taking oath is evidence given by a witness who has made a commitment to tell the truth. If the witness is later found to have lied whilst bound by the commitment, they can often be charged with the crime of perjury.
“It is evident that BoU’s response to Auditor General is full of irregularities meant to shield the truth in closure of the seven banks,” an observer said.
On Thursday, the Central Bank executive director in charge of commercial banks read his submission which triggered rage from the MPs questioning why the institution was shielding facts.
Below we highlight the irregularities in Mr. Tumubweine Twinemanzi’s submission on Thursday that drew ire among MPs who at some point asked for the interim detention of BoU’s legal officer.
Whereas BoU says Teefe Bank was closed in November 1993, MPs discovered that the Bank was closed on 4th November 1993.
Whereas Bank of Uganda presented a letter authored by then Minister of Finance ordering for closure of Teefe Bank, the MPs found that the Minister had no powers to shutdown a bank, it is the mandate of Bank of Uganda. They then asked how the central bank could rely on a directive of the minister to close Teefe.
Bank of Uganda failed to clarify on what legal regime was Teefe Bank closed, whether it relied on 1969 BoU act or the amended one to which the Central Bank still follows to date.
On failing to respond to these queries, the committee was up in arms wondering whether it will spend so much time on seeking ‘small’ answers from the officials who seem to be deliberately feigning ignorance.
Against that backdrop, Rubaga North lawmaker Moses Kasibante consulted with the committee head Abdu Katuntu whether officials from BoU can be put under oath.
Katuntu known for calmness and liberalism said he will consult so as to protect the committee from being perceived as biased.
But observers insist that the only possible channel to extract the truth from Mutebile Administration is through Sworn Testimony.
