A SUBMISION OF A CASE TO ANSWER

THE REPIUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT IN ARUA HOLDEN AT ARUA

CRIMINAL CASE NO……..of 2018

UGANDA …………………PROSECUTOR

VERSUS

ANGUZU MOSES……………… ACCUSED

MUSISI JOHN…………………… ACCUSED

PROSECUTION SUBMISSION OF A CASE TO ANSWER

BRIEF FACTS
John Musisi- the Refugee Desk Officer, Arua prepared and sent three requisitions amounting to
UGX 498,886,000 (Uganda Shillings four hundred ninety-eight million eight hundred eighty-six
thousand only) for emergency refugee activities to the Office of the Prime Minister in Kampala.

The funds were accordingly released by the aforesaid office to Account Number 9030008272481
in the names of Refugee Desk Officer whose two signatories were John Musisi and Moses Anguzu.

As procedurally required, accountabilities for the disbursed monies were furnished to the Principal
Accountant, Office of the Prime Minster. He however, noticed many discrepancies in the accounts.
For example, there were inflated costs of poles and laborers, and water expenses featured in the
accounts yet it was covered by a different project the United Nations High Commission for
refugees.

The Principal Accountant thus engaged the Inspector General of Government whose investigation
uncovered many irregularities regarding the monies released by the government hence this matter
before this honourable court.

ISSUES
(a) Whether the facts disclose any possible offences and if, the evaluation of the evidence in
the police file is in support of the offences?
The possible offences disclosed by the facts include;

1. Embezzlement contrary to section 19 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 20091

2. Furnishing false accounts contrary to section 22 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 2009
3. Abuse of office contrary to section 11 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 2009
4. Forgery contrary to section 342 of the Penal Code2.

Burden of proof

Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution3 provides that an accused person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty or pleads guilty.

Furthermore, article 28(12) of the Constitution4 further provides that except with contempt of
court, no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the
penalty for it is prescribed by law.

It is imperative to note that Section 101(2) of the Evidence Act 5 provides that where a person is
bound to prove the existence of a certain fact, it is said that that the burden of proof lies on that
person. It is trite law, that in criminal matters the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt
of the accused person. This principle was enunciated in the locus case of Woolmington V DPP6
cited with approval in Ssekitoleko v Uganda.7

The standard of proof required of the prosecution in discharging the legal burden is one that is
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the onus is on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused is guilty. 8 If any doubt is created in the mind of court, then the prosecution has
not made out their case thus the accused will be entitled to an acquittal as was vivid in Miller v
Minister of Pensions9.

1
Anti Corruption Act, 2009
2
Chapter 120, laws of Uganda
3
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda ,1995 as amended
4
Ibid 3
5
Chapter 6, Laws of Uganda
6
Woolmington V DPP [1935] AC 322
7
[1967]EA 531
8
Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL E.R 372
9
Ibid 4
Jurisdiction

Section 51 of the Anti Corruption Act10 stipulates that jurisdiction to try any offence under this
Act shall be exercised only by;

(a) the High court,

(b) a magistrate’s court presided over by a chief magistrate; or

(c) a magistrate’s court presided over by a magistrate Grade 1.

LAW APPLICABLE

1. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, as amended

2. The Anti-Corruption Act 2009
3. Magistrates Court Act Cap 16
4. Penal Code Act cap 120
5. Case Law

RESOLUTION

1. Embezzlement

One of the offences disclosed from the facts is the offence of embezzlement contrary to section 19
of Anti-Corruption Act11 which stipulates that a person who being-

(a) an employee, a servant or an officer of the Government

(b) steals a chattel, money or valuable security
(i) being the property of his or her employer,
(ii) received or taken into possession by him or her for or on account of his or her employer
(iii) to which he or she has access by virtue of his or her office; commits an offence and is liable
on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years or a fine not exceeding three
hundred and thirty-six currency points or both.

Evaluation of Evidence

10
Anti-corruption Act 2009
11
Anti Corruption Act 2009
 12
Notably, in Uganda v Remo Levy it was stated that for the charge of embezzlement to suffice,
the prosecution must prove the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt; that the accused
was employed by the government, that there was theft of the money, the property must belong to
the employer and the accused had access by virtue of his office. This was further expounded in
Uganda v Shanitah Namuyimba13.

In regard to the first ingredient which is proof of employment by the government it is vividly
portrayed in the facts that the accused was employed by the office of the prime minister as the
finance officer in the department of refugees Arua and this can be illustrated by the renewal of his
contract for the appointment as the finance officer in the department of refugees.

The second ingredient of the offence of embezzlement is theft of the money. Section 254(1) of the
Penal Code14 provides that any person who fraudulently and without claim of right takes anything
capable of being stolen or fraudulently converts to use of any person other than the general or
special owner thereof anything capable of being stolen is said to steal that thing.In addition to that,
254(2) highlights that a person who converts anything capable of being stolen is deemed to do so
fraudulently if he or she does so with the intent to permanently deprive the general or special owner
of that thing. In relation to the facts of this case it was discovered by the senior inspectorate officer
of government Nuwabwine Ambrose that Moses Anguzu stole funds meant for settlement of
Sudanese and Congolese Refugees. This can be deducted from his statement where he mentions
that on inspection of the Refugee Desk Account of Stanbic Account it was found that Uganda
Shillings 498,886,000 was withdrawn in cash by the accused from the account but never actually
used for the intended purpose. Furthermore, the accountability for Uganda Shillings 216,000,000
was false as suppliers denied to have ever supplied poles worth that amount. More to this, the items
for hot meal preparation and plot demarcation in Koboko worth Ugx 197,886,000, and UGX
85,000,000 respectively were never done by OPM Arua as was accounted for by the accused yet
the facts disclose the contrary that these activities were carried out by the United Nations High
Commission for Refugees. Mr. Moses Anguzu further admitted that for hot meal preparation,
inflated receipts were got from purported service providers J Lutux Enterprises Ltd to reflect the

12
Uganda v Remo Levy Samson [2013] UGHCACD 2
13
Uganda v Shanitah Namuyimba & Anor (CRSC-2011/102)
14
Penal Code Act Cap 120
accountability of the aforementioned amount of UGX 197,886,000 hence the above acts of the
accused withdrawing the money and not using it for the specific activities for which it was intended
depicts that the element of theft is hereby proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In relation to the element of the property belonging to the owner it is satisfactorily evident that the
money was for the government as in the facts it is shown that the funds were from the government
of Uganda to help in the settlement of the Refugees.

The final ingredient is access by virtue of his office, Mr. Anguzu Moses was a one of the
signatories to the account held in the names of the Refugee Desk Office in Arua under the OPM
to transfer Government of Uganda funds to the refugee Desk Office of UGX 498,886,000. It is
elaborately evident that the accused in this case had access to the funds by virtue of his office.

Owing to the fact that all the necessary ingredients for the offence of embezzlement are present
we pray that the honorable court finds the accused guilty of the offence of embezzlement.

2. False Accounting

The offence of false accounting by a public officer is contrary to section 22 of the Anti-Corruption
Act. It is to the effect that a person who, being an officer charged with the receipt, custody or
management of any part of the public revenue or property, knowingly furnishes any false statement
or return of money or property received by him or her or entrusted to his or her care, or of any
balance of money or property in his or her possession or under his or her control, commits an
offence. The punishment is imprisonment for three years or a fine not exceeding seventy-two
currency points or both.

This provision was further evidenced in Uganda v Moses Papa15 that laid down the ingredients
that need to be proved for the accused to be held liable and these include;

(a). That the accused are public officers;

(b). that they were charged with receipt, custody or management of public revenue or property;

(c). that they knowingly furnished any false statement or return of money or property received.

15
Uganda v Moses Papa & 3 Ors (Criminal Session Case-2017/4).
Evaluation of Evidence

In the matter at hand, the accused were employees of government. This is depicted by exhibit 2,
which is the renewal of the contract of Anguzu Moses as a financial officer, and Musisi John as a
refugee desk officer under the department of refuges in the office of the Prime Minister.

It is imperative to note that two were in custody of the funds UGX 498,886,000 that was deposited
to Arua Refugee Desk Account No. 9030008274281 in Stanbic bank Arua branch on 4th June
2018 of which Anguzu Moses and John Musis were signatories.

They went a head and knowingly furnished false statements of the money received. The
accountability of the money per the release voucher and files containing the original documents
form the principal accountant office of the prime minister Kampala was as follows 216,000,000=
for construction poles; 197,886,000= for hot meal preparation and 85,000,000= for plot
demarcation. Musis John one of the accused compiled accountability for all this money contained
in exhibits 1, 3, 4 and 5. This accountability is said to be false because not all the money was spent
for the intended purpose. Some witnesses denied ever receiving the money that was listed. A one
Jude Ojwang in his statement stated that he did not receive 50000 per day as the documents from
the office of the prime minister indicated and also Madira Salim denied having signed any
documents for UGX 250,000 for the five days he worked as he got UGX 50,000

Further, it is important to note that items such as water tracking, firewood, plot demarcation were
provided by UNHCR which meant that accountability for those items under the government of
Uganda funds could only be false.

It is imperative to note that other interviewees denied supplying some items or receiving money
attributed to them. This can be depicted from Akena Roland statement where he denied signing a
contract and receiving UGX 144,000,000. He only supplied poles for 1480,000. Joel Loketo, a
proprietor of J-Lutux enterprises allowed Agunzu Moses to use his business invoices to make
supplies to OPM and issued receipts but did not supply any goods. He admitted having signed a
contract of supply of water to the Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement under Anguzu’s directives but
did not supply the water. He also signed receipts and invoices regarding water supply and this was
done on the directive of Mr. Anguzu Moses. In addition, Kilama Oris a cleaner and guard admitted
signing blank water receiving sheets under the directive of Moses. It should however be noted that
Oris stated that the water supply activity was covered by Eagle Logistics Solution who had a
contract with UNHCR. This clearly indicates that accountability for these items was false.

Furthermore, in his statement Nuwambwine Ambrose the Senior Inspectorate Officer stated that
among his findings upon the inspection was that, accountability of 216,000,000 was false as the
suppliers denied having supplied anything worth that amount. Still in contention the hot meal
preparation and the demarcation in Koboko were not done by the OPM as they were covered by
UNHCR and yet these were still reflected in the accountability.

It is a fact that the accountability was false for the reason that it was a misrepresentation of what
happened. The accused knew that the returns and accountability of the money was false as some
projects were already covered.

Therefore, the prosecution asks this Honorable Court to find the accused liable for the offence of
false accounting by public officer.

3. ABUSE OF OFFICE

The accused should also be held liable for the offence of Abuse of office contrary to section 11 of
the Anti-Corruption Act. This is committed when the office holder acts or fails to act in a way that
constitutes a breach of the duties of that office as stated in Uganda v Kazinda16. Section 1117 is to
the effect that a person being employed in a public body or a company in which the government
has shares, does or directs to be done an arbitrary act prejudicial to the interests of his or her
employer or of any other person, is in abuse of his or her office, commits an offence and is liable
on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one hundred and sixty currency points or
both.

It should be noted that the ingredients of abuse office were laid down in the case of Uganda v
Byandala & 6 others18 which include;

a) That the accused was an employee of a public body

b) that the accused performed the arbitrary act

16
(HCT-00-SC- 2012/138) [2013] UGHCACD 10
17
Anti-Corruption Act, 2009.
18
session Case- 2015/2012.
 c) that this act was in abuse of his authority and the arbitrary act was prejudicial to the interests
of his employee.

Evaluation of Evidence

It is vividly portrayed that the accused was an employee of a public body. The evidence provided
points that Anguzu Moses and John Musisi are employees of government as we see that his
contract was renewed on the 1st January 2018 being appointed as the finance officer in the
department of Refugees and his duty station Arua. On the other hand, John Musisi as the refugee
desk officer, Department of Refugees Arua. It is also important to note that this accountability of
the funds was done at the beginning of September 2018 before the expiry of Anguzu’s contract
which was due to expire on 31st December 2018.

The second ingredient is that the accused performed the arbitrary act. An arbitrary act was defined
in the case of Uganda v Kazinda19, as an action, decision or rule not seemingly to be based on
reason, system or plan and at times unfair or break the law. In the matter at hand, we find that
Anguzu Moses, the Finance Officer Department of Refugees Arua whose roles include preparing
staff payroll, ensure funds are properly utilized and accounted for and also in charge of project
assets other than implementing went on to autocratically use his authority. He submitted that the
accountabilities for UGX. 498,886,000 had a lot of discrepancies in the items vis a vis the costs
involved, that is to say the cost of poles, laborers and water all appeared to be inflated yet the water
was catered for by the UNHCR and it appeared in the accountabilities. To add more we find that
Ojwang Jude who was one of the casual laborers for the plot demarcation was paid UGX 10,000
per day and therefore received 30,000 for the three days but the accountability showed that he
received 50,000 per day which was no the case. Furthermore, we also see that Akena Ronald a
businessman who was paid UGX 1,480,000 for a total of 440 poles by Anguzu Moses had his
name with receipts of UGX 144,000,000 yet he had not received such amount of money in regards
to the poles he delivered. Anguzu’s act of signing documents under the name of Akena Ronald
was breaking the law which on itself was an arbitrary act whereby he did it willfully and
intentionally which all sums to abuse of office.

19
ACD CR CS 138 of 2012.
The water supply project depicts an arbitrary act. This was catered for by the UNHCR and the
trucks used were for Eagle Logistics Solution Limited who had a contract with UNHCR but the
water receiving sheets attached to documents of J. LUTUX ENTERPRISES were signed by
Kilama Oris supplying water worth 97,736,000 to Rhino Camp under the force and directive of
Anguzu Moses. Kilama Oris in his testimony denies having supplied water worth 97,736,000 to
Rhino Camp.

In regards to the hot meals preparation and plot demarcation which were funded by UNHCR, the
accountability reflected UGX. 197,886,000 as having been spent yet the activities were funded by
UNHCR. Furthermore, we also see that Anguzu Moses revealed to have requested OPM staff
Kilama Oris based in Rhino Camp Refugees settlement to help in signing delivery sheets for water
trucking as a way of making accountability for the construction poles and hot meal preparation.

The evidence showed that Anguzu Moses and John Musisi without authority used their specific
positions in the employment and signed various accountability documents which therefore proves
that they both stole the funds which were meant for the settlement of the refugees. The act done
was based on personal will without regard to rules or standards of their employment. It was
therefore arbitrary for Anguzu and Musisi to sign the accountability documents. It is therefore my
finding that this ingredient has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Still in contention the acts of the accused were done in abuse of authority. The actions by Anguzu
and Musisi were done in misuse of the positions they held in OPM Arua regional office as the
finance officer department of Refugees whose roles were preparing staff payroll, ensure funds are
properly utilized and accounted for and also in charge of project assets and the latter being the
refugee desk officer department of refugees whose roles included monitoring refugee activities,
registering and protecting refugees, in charge project assets and lastly accounting officer for Arua
regional office. Anguzu Moses and Musisi John were the custodians of regulations and procedure
in the authority conferred to them but they used it as a stepping stone to break the law. Their blame
games when it came to the accountability in regards to the various requisitions of the funds which
at the end of it all could not be accompanied by a rightful accountability amounted to abuse of the
authority that they possessed.

It is paramount to note that the act was prejudicial to the employers. Prejudicial means something
that is harmful or detrimental. We find that the funds that Anguzu and John Musisi requested were
meant for refugee emergency and yet they did not use the funds as they had requested because
most of the projects were already catered for by the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees. Therefore, we find that there was a great financial loss to the government which was a
detriment in that funds were released for emergency activities for example the purchase of poles
for erection of shelter for the refugees which amounted to 200,000,000 was nowhere to be found.

I therefore conclude that the offence of abuse of office has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Forgery

The prosecution was able to identify the offence of forgery. Forgery contrary to Section 34220 is
defined as the making of a false document with intent to defraud or to deceive and its punishment
is imprisonment for three years as per section 347 of the Penal Code Act.

In the case of Uganda V Kazinda (supra) they laid down the ingredients of forgery this is to say;

(a). The document is forged or false

(b). it was made with intent to deceive or to defraud

(c ). it was done by the accused.

Evaluation of Evidence

In the matter before this Honourable Court, Madira Salim who was a peasant farmer said that the
Inspectorate of Government showed him signed documents from the OPM that he was paid 50,000
shillings per day but said he never signed anything and was actually given 10000 shillings per day.
Ogwang Jude when presented with the documents from the OPM noticed that his name was written
as having received 50,000 per yet he actually received 10000 per day. Kilama Oris in his statement
stated that the handwriting of the dates and numbers of the trips delivered on the water receiving
sheets in exhibit 6 was not his.

Furthermore, it is also depicted that Akena Roland in his statement recorded by the Inspectorate
of Government stated that he supplied Mr. Anguzu Moses with poles that amount to 1,480,000
shillings but never signed a contract with the office of the Prime Minister regarding the supply of
18,000 poles to Rhino Camp Refugee settlement worth 144,000,000 and never received that

20
Penal Code Act Cap 120
money, he went ahead to say that the receipts S/No.64 of 50,688,000/= and S/No.059 of
93,312,000/= with a name Akena Ronald were not his,

We further see that Exhibit 4 shows that Musisi John got 85,000,000 shillings for plot demarcation
for Congolese refugees in Koboko yet the UNHCR had already catered for it. All these were forged
and false documents.

The accountability on the documents was not an error as they intended to defraud the Government.
In his statement Anguzu reveals that activities such as hot meal preparation and plot demarcation
were covered by UNHCR this shows that they were aware of the projects covered by the UNHCR
but went ahead prepare the false accountability.

Therefore, it is paramount to note the that accused forged the names and signatures, and also
presented false receipts and invoices as there was no accountability for the activities that they
listed. They were the custodians of this money and they presented false documents thus
demonstrating their participation. We notice that exhibit 1, was signed by Musisi John and exhibit,
3,4,5 were prepared by the accused. This clearly portrays their participation.

In conclusion we see that all the ingredients for forgery have been proved beyond reasonable doubt
and hence the accused ought to be held liable for the offence forgery.

Examination in Chief

Examination in Chief according to section 136 (1) states that examination of a witness by the party
who calls him or her shall be called his or her examination in chief. As per section 117 of the
Evidence Act the court will allow all persons who are competent to testify unless proven otherwise.
A Competent witness refers to the capacity of a person to give evidence21, whereas compellability
is understood to mean when a particular witness can be subjected to the compulsory process of
court to induce him to testify.

Order of witness

Madira Salim Prosecution witness 1(PW1)

Particulars

21
Brian A Garner, Black’s law Dictionary, West Publishing Co. 4th Edn. pg. 355
A peasant farmer, from Mikolo Village Ajipala Parish Lobule Sub county Arua District.

Telephone no: 0701993412

Kilama Oris prosecution witness 2 (PW2)

Compound cleaner and guard, from Rhino Camp Refugees Settlement Arua District.

Telephone no: 0775504763

Questions

Madira questions

1. Kindly tell this honorable court your name?

2. How old are you?
3. What is your occupation?
4. Do you have a known address?
5. Kindly inform this honorable court of any known events that took place on 15th June 2018?
6. Who informed you of this information?
7. What did you do when you heard of this information?
8. Were you given an opportunity to do the work?
9. For how long did you do the work?
10. In those five days where you paid any wages?
11. Do you have any document to prove that you were paid?
12. What happened thereafter finishing the work?
13. What was your reply to their inquiries?
14. Where you familiar with the document?
15. Did you sign the document?

Kilama Oris Questions

1. What is your name?

2. How old are you?
3. Do you have a Known address?
4. What is your occupation?
5. Do you have any other role at the Camp?
 6. When were you confirmed in the office?
7. What were your duties as the acting registration assistant?
8. Do you recognize this document?
9. Could you inform this court what it is?
10. A you the one who appended this signature?
11. Do you confirm the authenticity and accuracy of this document?
12. When was the activity of the water supply carried out?
13. Who directed you to sign the empty blank sheets?
14. Who sponsored the that water trucking?

LIST OF EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

Agreement for supply of firewood to Rhino Camp Refugee settlement exhibit 1

Renewal of Anguzu Moses’ Contract exhibit 2

Accountability Submission Form hot meal preparation exhibit 3

Accountability Submission Form plot demarcation exhibit 4

Accountability Submission Form supply of poles exhibit 5

Water Receiving sheet exhibit 6