PARLIAMENT OF UGANDA REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS ON THE PETITION BY FORMER WORKERS OF THE COFFEE MARKETING BOARD (IN LIQUIDATION) OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS KAMPALA - UGANDA, DECEMBER 2013 \ Cye C1,0 INTRODUCTION ‘The Petition of the former workers of the defunct Coffee Marketing Board Limited (CMBL) was presented to this House on 25th July 2012 and referred to the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs in accordance with Rule 29(5) of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament of the Republic of Uganda. The Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs scrutinized the petition and now reports back in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. 2.0 METHODOLOGY The Committee in considering this petition interviewed persons named in the Petition and received documents from them. It cross- examined them on the documents received in which they were either mentioned or implicated. The Committee held meetings with the following groups and individuals; I. Former employees of CMBL, who included their representative, Mr. Basiima Kabonesa, Solome Adumo, James Musoke, Secretary General of the National Union of Clerical, Commercial and Technical Employees, Mr. M. Mukasa and Mr. A. Katongole of Ms. Katongole & Co. Advocates, Il. Officials from the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development who included the then Deputy Permanent Secretary /Sccretary to the Treasury- Mr. Keith Muhakanizi, the Director of the Privatisation Unit (PU) - Mr. David Sebabi and the Head of Legal Services in P.U- Mr. Moses Mwase, Ill, The former Attorney General, Hon. Professor Kidhu Makubuya, IV. The former Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development - Hon. Saida Bbumba, V. The former Official Receiver/Liquidator, now Director General of Uganda Regis! Bureau, Mr. ‘TwebszeBeinanya, * aa - a 2 iy Ss ; oe eoVI. Offficials from the Attorney General’s Chambers, including the Attorney General ~ Hon. Peter Nyombi, the Solicitor General — Mr. Francis Atoke and the Director of Civil Litigation - Mr. Cheborion Barishaki and others from the Attoney General’s Chambers, VI. Officials from the Auditor General’s office, including Mr. Francis Masuba and Mr. Casiano Okecho, VIII. Officials from Uganda Property Holdings led by the Managing Director, Mr. Martin Kihembo. The Committee further received details of Properties previously owned by Coffee Marketing Board and conducted onsite assessment visits to the properties i.e. properties in Mombasa, London and the former plant in Bugolobi Kampala. 3.0 BACKGROUND ‘The total number of petitioners is 1568. They are all former workers of Coffee Marketing Board and they allege that they did not receive payment of their terminal benefits when they were retrenched between 1991 and 1998. ‘They comprise of staff officers and non-unionised former employees who were not Members of the National Union of Clerical, Commercial and Technical Employees (NUCPTE); an umbrella body under which some staff had unionized. They were also not part of the 264 members of NUCPTE who took their grievance under a trade dispute to the Industrial Court. They instead petitioned H.E the President seeking payment of their terminal benefits. H.E the President in turn directed the Auditor General to verify the total amount payable to all the former workers of CMBL, including theirs (Letter attached as annex Aj. A report of the Auditor General on the subject was received by the Committee and partly informs this report attached as annex B) yr‘There were three distinct categories of former employees of CMBL; namely: a) The 264 members of the Trade Union who took their grievances to the Industrial Court, b) Unionisable employees who did not join the Trade Union and were therefore governed under the CMBL Terms and Conditions of Service. c) Non-Unionisable Staff Officers who were also governed by the CMBL Terms and Conditions of Service. ‘The first category comprising of a total 264 former workers took their grievance to the Industrial Court, and the second and third categories did not and were not party to the Industrial Court proceedings. When the Auditor General’s Report was presented to H.B the President, with clear distinction between the two categories of former employees and recommending payment of terminal benefits to the entitled former employees, H.E The President forwarded it to the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development for payment. However, to-date, no payment has ever been made (Presidential directives attached as annex C). 4.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE The terms of reference were premised on the prayers presented in the Petition. However, after perusing the Petition; and in order to be sie - specific in our investigations; the Committee gleaned the following from the prayers of the Petitioners and agreed on the following terms of reference; To determine whether the Privatization Unit (PU) had fully paid all the former employees of CMBL. If not, whether they had any credible reason why they were resisting to pay whatever balances were due to the former employees. V To find out whether the former Attorney General, the former otniter paleo Bf Finance, PI Economic Development and alldepartments under them acted properly in handling matters related to the former employees of Coffee Marketing Board. To determine the background to Miscellaneous Application No. 074 of 2006 arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 066 of 1996 and find out whether it had any connection with the Petition before the committee. To determine whether there was value for money for the assets and properties of Coffee Marketing Board sold and the application of the proceeds thereof. ‘To do any other thing or act connected with or relevant to the above terms of reference. 5.0 STATUS OF PAYMENT OF FORMER EMPLOYEES OF CMBL. 5.1 Findings ‘The Committee made the following findings; According to the Auditor General’s Report the total number of former employees of CMBL entitled to, and whose terminal benefits was partly paid by 1998 was 1,832. At no one time did CMBL ever employ over 5,000 workers as alleged by Mr. Moses Mwase, Head of Legal Services, PU and amplified severally and repeatedly by the MFP & ED officials up to the Prime Minister and ultimately to H.E the President. e Auditor General depended on the common figures supplied by ‘both the Privatisation Unit and the Petitioners to calculate and verify the claims of both unionized former employees and the Petitioners. ‘There were 264 registered members of the National Union of Clerical Commercial & Technical Employees, governed under a Collective Union Agreement, while the Petitioners are 1,568 in number. While the 264 unionised former employees went to the Industrial court and got an award which was quashed by the High Court but, is now pending appeal in the Court of al, the. Petitioners are not party ta the case in court. \. MosSPE EEL Ee By 1998, at the closure of CMBL, a total sum of SHS. 6,509, 655,131/= had been paid to all the retrenched former workers. No evidence was received by the Committee to prove that SHS.. 150 Billion was ever paid to the retrenched workers as alleged by the Privatisation Unit and the Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development. However there were balances which were not paid because the Terms and Conditions of Service (for non unionised former workers), on the one hand, and the Collective Union Agreement (for the 264 unionised former workers), on the other were not complied with. ‘The unionized former employees were members of the Trade Union whose employment terms were governed under the Collective Union Agreement and went to the Industrial Court under Industrial Trade Dispute No. 1 of 1992 to claim what they alleged was the balance of their terminal benefits. They were awarded SHS. 1,344,178,573 (One Billion, Three Hundred and Forty Four Million, One Hundred and Seventy Hight Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Three Shillings Only) verified by the Attorney General after referral by the Industrial Court. The Auditor General also verified and recommended a sum of SHS.. 10,336,013,506 (Ten Billion, Three Hundred and Thirty Six Million, Thirteen Thousand and Five Hundred and six Shillings Only) for the non-unionised former employees (officers and group employees) numbering 1,568, whose employment terms were governed under the Terms and Conditions of Service of CMBL and did not go to the Industrial Court. 5 Observations: ‘The former employees of CMBL were governed by either the collective Trade Union Agreement, signed between CMBL and the National Union of Clerical Commercial & Technical Employees, governed under a Collective Union, or the CMBL Terms and Conditions of Service. This was clearly made out in the Auditor General's Report and the Attorney General’s office, PU and the officials from the MFD & ED should have recognized it. Kk teii, It is significant that the Auditor General’s verification report was based on figures worked out by Earnest & Young and supplied to the Auditor General by the official Receiver/Liquidator. The Committee did not understand why MFP & ED turned around and disowned it when it came to payment. 5.3 Recommendations. The Petitioners should be paid their balances in accordance with the verified Report of the Auditor General since there is no impediment to their payment. 6.0 PETITIONERS ENTITLEMENT TERMINAL BENEFITS AND EFFECT OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 074 OF 2006, 6.1 Findings. ‘The Committee found as follows: Mr. Moses Mwase, Head of Legal Department PU, triggered an allegation, which was echoed repeatedly by senior officials of the MFP&ED; especially Mr, Muhakanizi; particularly to the Prime Minister who ultimately reported it to H.E the President, that paying the former workers of CMBL would cause double payment up to SHS. 300B, CMBL having paid the claims of more than 5,000 retrenched employees (Minutes where this allegation was made attached as annex D). n request the Petitioners received from PU and presented to the ‘auditor General a tabulated list showing payments already made and balances due to them. HLE the President later directed the Auditor General to verify the same claims and the Auditor General again requested PU which also submitted the same list to the Auditor General. It was this same list that formed the basis of the verification of SHS. 10,336,013,506 for ve the Petitioners and SHS. 1,344,178,573 for the 264 former unionized employees. v ‘The Report of the Auditor General in respect of the entitlements of fetal the Petitioners hi logically contested, save what (7 \Professor Apollo Nsibambi, The Prime Minister at the time, later termed “misinformation”; that if the payment in the Report of the Auditor General was to be complied with a double payment of SHS. 300 Billion (Shillings Three Hundred Billion) would be occasioned, given that PU had already paid 5,000 former employees. The Petitioners were bound to Miscellaneous Cause No. MC 74 of 2006 as if they were also party to that suit, whereas not. The officials of the MFP&ED defied H.E the President's directives to pay the Petitioners, even after the Report of the Auditor General verifying the payments of the Petitioners was made. (Auditor General’s Report attached as annex B 6.2 Observations. ‘The Committee observed as follows: i. The “misinformation” fed to the PM and H.E the President that, if the former workers were to be paid their claim Government would stand to lose SHS.. 300 Billion was false, motivated by ill-will malicious and alarmist. It was calculated to draw the PM and H.E the President to ensuring that the former workers did not get their hard earned terminal benefits. ii. The unverified claim was apparently meant to show that about SHS. 180Billion had alrcady been paid. It further meant that CMBL had ever employed over 5,000, yet the actual number, according to the Auditor General’s Report, is 1,832. ‘econdly, it was meant to show that P.U had already paid out a total sum of SHS. 150 Billion. Payment to the former employees would double this amount to SHS. 300 Billion. iv. This is a serious allegation that should not be taken lightly because they were repeated many times by and to senior people in Government, including the former Prime Minister of this country Professor Apollo Nsibambi, who relied on it and informed H.E the President accordingly. y. This unsubstantiated claim that the amount of SHS. 150 Billion had been paid out we that the country Va have been i oS ~“ a yodefrauded of that amount out of the Treasury by officials of PU and the MFP&ED and they are therefore finding a way to justify its disappearance. vi. The Petitioners neither filed nor joined the Industrial Court case. Instead they petitioned H.E the President who caused the Auditor General to verify and approve their claims, which were rejected by the MFP&ED. They could not therefore be condemned to await the outcome of that suit. vii, It was incomprehensible why, against all reason, the officials of MFP&ED; especially Mr. Keith Muhakanizi; tenaciously refused to see the clear distinction in the Report of the Auditor General between the claim of the 264 who had gone to court and that of the Petitioners who had not gone to court. It was unreasonable to advise that the Petitioners’ payment should await the conclusion of the case in court. viii.Since, the Auditor General submitted his report verifying the Petitioners’ payment to H.E the president on the 13% November 2009, the amount verified became due and owing to the Petitioners as from the date of their retrenchment. The amount has since lost value in real terms. 6.3 Recommendations: The Committee recommends as follows: i. Government should make arrangements to pay the terminal Rnefits of the Petitioners/verified by the Auditor General at SHS. 10,336,013,506. ii, The above amount should carry an annual interest at the court rate of 8% per annum, from the date of the Auditor General’s verification. |. The Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Directorate of Police should investigate the claim by the MFP&ED; particularly that they paid over 5,000 former retrenched — employees of CMBL a sum, being a half of SHS. 300Billion (150 (ye Billion).7.0 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 074 OF 2006 ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 066 OF 1996 AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE PETITION. 7.1 Findings. ‘The Committce’s findings were as follows:~ In 1992, 264 unionised former employess of CMBL went to the Industrial court to seek relief and got an award for balances of what was not paid to them when they were retrenched in 1991 ‘The CMBL, being dissatisfied with the award, applied to the High Court and Justice Ntabgoba quashed it on the ground that the Industrial court had not applied the correct provisions of the Collective Union Agreement governing their terms of employment to arrive at that award. Secondly the Judge remitted the award back to the Industrial court, directing it to apply the correct provisions of the Collective Union Agreement in order to arrive at the correct figures for the award. On its part, the Industrial court referred the matter to the Auditor General to apply the correct provisions of the Collective Union Agreement to calculate the correct entitlements for the 264 unionised former employees. The Auditor General calculated and verified a figure of SHS. 1,344,178,573 (One Billion, Three Hundred and Forty Four Million, One Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand and Five Hundred and Seventy Three Shillings) for them. Coincidentally, the Auditor General also received a directive from H.E te President to calculate and verify the claims of the Petitioners according to the CMBL Terms and Conditions of Service that governed their employment. The Auditor General calculated and verified a sum of SHS. 10,336,013,506 (Ten Billion, Three Hundred and Thirty Six Million, Thirteen Thousand and Five Hundred and Six Shillings) for the 1,568 Petitioners who were non-unionised former awe employees and were not part of the Industrial court case because they were not members of the Trade Union. we ‘The figures used by the Auditor General for calculating and verifying yy Nude the entitlements of both the 264 unionised former employees and © fiethe 1,568 Petitioners were provided by PU. The Auditor General included the claims of both the 264 unionised former employees and the 1,568 Petitioners in the same report; but clearly indicated that the respective figures were based on “the Collective Union Agreement and the Terms and Conditions of Service”. CMBL, through MMAKS Advocates, applied for the High Court again vide Miscellaneous Application No. 074 of 2006 to quash the decision of the Industrial court and the award verified by the Auditor General. ‘The High Court by its ruling of 26% April 2012 quashed the award of the Industrial Court. 7.2 Observations: i. There is no correlation between the claim of the Petitioners and Miscellaneous Application No. 074 of 2006. The Application stemmed from the Industrial Court case No. 1 of 1992, to which the Petitioners were not party; but the Petitioners’ claim stemmed directly from their Petition to the president. ii, ‘The Petitioners were therefore not party to the Industrial Trade Dispute No. 1 of 1992 and could neither benefit nor suffer any detriment from any proceedings arising from that case. As a matter of fact the Industrial Court clearly ruled on this when they said they find it improper to consider the Petitioners “..under this suit...”. They instead advised them to file a separate suit, which they did not. iii, The Petitioners are not in any way affected by Miscellaneous ‘application No. 074 of 2006 because the Application was about the interpretation of the Collective Union Agreement, which did not govern their terms of employment. 7.3 Recommendations. The Committee recommends that the Petitioners’ claim be letached from the outcome of Miscellaneous Application No.074 of 2006 and the Appeal there from and be paid immediately, even if the claim of the unionized former workers must abide the Foot8.0 CONDUCT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 8.1 Findings. ‘The Committee found as follows: On the 8 December 2011 the Attorney General, Hon. Peter Nyombi, rendered a Legal opinion to H.E the President in which he said; “It is my considered opinion that Justice Ntabgoba’s ruling settled the issues pertaining to the entitlements of the former employees” “Pursuant to the above, it is my considered view that the former employees of Coffee Marketing Board Limited be paid the total amount verified by the Auditor General as their outstanding claim” After giving the above legal opinion to H.E the president, the Attorney General later changed his position (The opinions are attached as annex E). 8.2 Observations: It is apparent he failed to appreciate the difference between the Petitioners’ claims and suits arising from Trade Dispute No. 1 of 1992 affecting only 264 former employees. 8.3 Recommendations. The Committee recommends that the Attorney General should ways make well researched and informed opinions to avoid igiving contradictory opinions on the same subject matter. 9.0 CONDUCT OF THE FORMER MINISTER OF FINANCE; PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. 9.1 Findings. When the matter of compensation for the Petitioners first came up, ee lon. Syda Bbumba_was the Minister responsible for Finance. She \ 2was the political head responsible for the supervision of the Privatisation Unit (PU). She received directives from H.E. The President either directly or by copies of letters to other Government officials. Unfortunately she did not act on them decisively. 9.2 Observations: i. The former Minister did not show leadership in supervising the handling of the Petitioners claim as most of the correspondences were handled by the then Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Muhakanizi without her intervention. ii. The conduct of the former minister showed defiance and resistance of the President's directives to the detriment of the former employees of CMBL. 9.3 Recommendation. Government should come up with a conclusive position in form of guidelines on how Presidential Directives should be acted upon. 10.0 ASSETS OF CMBL (IN LIQUIDATION). 10.1 Findings. The Committee found as follows: Befops the properties of Coffee Marketing Board were disposed off, a faluation report was made (valuation report attached as annex F). ‘The total receipt from the sale of non-core assets was SHS. 2,228,856,121 (Two Billion, Two Hundred and Twenty Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty One). Real Estate assets of CMBL which were not sold were transferred to be managed under and by Uganda Property Holdings Ltd, both in ye and outside Uganda. We were led to the properties in Kampala ~ Uganda, Mombasa - Kenya and London -United Kingdom. ~~ ( s : : “ JAside from the properties mentioned above, there was no plausible explanation given to the Committee regarding the disposal process of the Coffee Processing Plant in Bugolobi - Kampala, which was for all intents and purposes fully functional at the time of decommissioning. It is alleged that this Coffee Processing plant was sold as scrap. 10.2 Observations i. It is not an overstatement that CMBL was the economic hub of the nation for a very long time with the biggest asset base in the country. ii, The Committce observed that the privatization process of CMBL was not properly managed. 10.3 Recommendations. The Auditor General should carry out a comprehensive audit of CMB to determine whether there was value for money in the entire process of disposing off the assets and the application of the proceeds of sale. 11.0 THE ROLE OF MMAKS ADVOCATES 11.1 Findings. The Committee found as follows: IMAKS Advocates is the successor firm to MS Mugerwa and Matovu Advocates. The firm — MS Mugerwa and Matovu Advocates was retained by the then Coffee Marketing Board to represent it in Trade Dispute No. 1 of 992 and since then todate, the said firm which was succeeded under the trade name of MMAKS has been representing Coffee Marketing Board (In Liquidation) in all matters arising from the above “\ Trade Dispute, including Misc. Application No. 74 of 2006. Following that representation dating from 1992 todate, MMAKS Advocates, which had never been paid, filed a bill of costs after the conclusion of Misc, Application No. 74 of 2006, to sever the work §done from 1992 and the bill of costs was allowed at 1,753,934,488 (One Billion, Seven Hundred and Fifty Three Million, Nine Hundred and Thirty Four, Four Hundred and Eighty Eight Shillings Only) by the Solicitor General and paid to MMAKS Advocates. At the time the services of the predecessor of MMAKS Advocates were procured, the PPDA Act had not been passed by Parliament and therefore was not in force. 11.2 Observations ‘The Committee observes that there was no wrong doing on the part of Government Officials involved to continue with the services of MMAKS Advocates in Handling all matters arising from Trade Dispute No. 01 of 1992 and the fees paid were appropriate in the circumstances. 11.3 Recommendation In view of the amount already paid, Government should ensure that MMAKS Advocates handles the matter pending before court to its logical conclusion without any further payment. 12,0 CONCLUSION This petition is another show of confidence in the Legislative arm of Government as representatives of the people. ae Speaker, Hon. Members, I beg to report. ( ) ae -REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS ON THE PETITION BY FORMER WORKERS OF CMBL (IN LIQUIDATION) NO. | NAME CONSTITUENCY | PARTY | SIGNATURE 1. | Hon. Tashobya Stephen | Kajara NRE ELAN] Go, 2. |Hon. Baka Stephen Bukooli North NRM 3. | Hon. Achia Remigio Pian NRM 4. | Hon. Obua Denis H- Ajuri NRM S. [Hon Timbigamba Lindah _) Kyenjojo NRM 6. | Hon. Musinguzi Yona Neungamo NRM me 7. |Hon. Kamateka Jovah ‘Mitooma, NRM ow Gloetho 8. | Hon. Kabakumba Masiko Bujenje NRM | epfealoatonniee 9. | Hon. Nyirabashitsi Sarah M, | Kisoro NRM 10, Hon. Nyakecho Okwenye A. | Otake NRM oS Il. | Hon. Ochua David ‘Aguile NRM 12. | Hon. Nakayenze Connie Mbale NRM Si~ 13. | Hon. Byarugaba Alex B. Tsingiro South NRM 14. | Hon. Amoding Monica Youth Female NRM 15. | Hon. Mbabazi Betty Woman Rep. Rubiriai | NRM 16. | Hon. Wilired Niwagaba Ndorwa Bast ‘ 17. | Hon. Lt. Col. Sarah M. UPDF 18. [Hon. Abdu Katuntu Bugwerl FDC ¢ 19. | Hon. Medard Labega S. | Busiro Bast DP 20. | Hon. Joseph Balikuddembe | Busiro South DP 21. | Hon. Brenda Nabukenya | Luwero DP feb 22. | Hon. Paul Mwiru Jinja Mun East FDC 23. | Hon. Acire Christopher Galu Municipality _ [FDC i 24. | Hon. Chrispus Ayena Oyam North ure ff Ofe 25. | Hon. Jennifer Mujungu Woman Rep. Ntoroko | Indep ZO 26. | Hon. Sam Amooti Otada Kibanda Indep. i? i 27. | Hon. Fox Odoi Oywelowo West Budama North | Indep Vor ra 28. | Hon. Gerald Karuhanga Youth Western Indepee foes ma State House, EMAIL: shedetaenouse 20.08 PO. Box 25¢ IN ANY CORRESPONDENCE ON Ry Kampala, mas VaaNoA Ugands SUBIECT PLEASE QUOTE Nu. PO/TO Rance * October 12", 2009 The Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General, KAMPALA OUTSTANDING CLAIMS OF FORMER EMPLOYEES OF COFFEE MARKETING BOARD LTD i ‘The former employees of Coffee Marketing Board Limited (CMB), have complained that Government is reluctant to have their terminal benefits fully paid. This office has also been informed that the Auditor General's Office verified some of the claims of those laid between 1991 and 1992. However, other claims are still outstanding, ‘The purpose of this Ietter, therefore, is to request you to verify all the outstanding. claims of CMB’s former employees, in order to assist HLE. the President to mediate in this long-standing matter once and for all. Moles : PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT cc: The Rt. Hon, Prime Minister ce: Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development cc: Hon. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs/Attorney General ce: Hon. Minister of State (Justice)/Deputy Attorney General cc: Hon. Minister of State (Privatization) cc: The Solicitor General cc: Deputy Secretary to the Treasury cc: Director, Privatization Unit ce: The Liquidator / Official Receiver, CMB cc: The CMB Ex Workers’ RepresentativeDSC.46/47/016 13" November 2009 The Principal Private Secretary to His Excellency the President, State House, Kampala OUTSTANDING CLAIMS OF FORMER EMPLOYEES OF COFFEE MARKETING BOARD LTD Reference is made to your letter ref PO/10 dated 12" October 2009 requesting for a verification of all outstanding ciaims of CMBL former employees to enable His Excellency the President to make a decision. The verification of the claims has been completed, THIMM—RMEETEEMmouNt: is 9RB11,G88-192,075. The computation was based on the award by the Industrial Court in Trade Dispute No.192, ae uthenniaUNBEENENEehBerrice Of OME:stalf as Tewsed in 1992, A summary of the verified amount and detailed computations are herewith attached. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further clarifications. tas, Francis Masuba FOR/ AUDITOR GENERAL cc. The Rt. Hon, Prime Minister cc. Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development cc. Hon. Minister of Justice & Constitutional Affairs/Attorney General c.c. Hon. Minister of State (Justice)/Deputy Attorney General c.c. Hon. Minister of State (Privatization) cc, The Solicitor General cc... Deputy Secretary to the Treasury c.c. Director, Privatization Unit cc. The Uquidator/ Official Receiver, CMB cc, The CMB Ex Workers’ Representative We Audit Institutions (NFOSAN Member of the Africa Organisation of Supreme Guat Institutions (AFROSALY/ OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL, P.O.BOX 7083 KAMPALA ‘TELEPHONES: ‘GENERAL LINES: (256 414) 244340/844521 AUDITOR GENERAL - (256 414) 255487 FAK: (256 414) 345574 Email auctgen@infocom.co.ug Website: www.ceg 90.49 ‘THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA. Vision: To hean affective and eicten SAI promoting public accountability tx the use of resources i the enhancement of gad governance, Mission: Ts ud and report tothe public and thereby make am efetive contribution i improving public accoundabilio IaNy corresPonpence on DSC/47/49/049 ‘THIS SUBJECT PLEASE QUOTE NO evvonns enn 29" January 2008 The Solicitor General Solicitor Generals Office KAMPALA CLAIM BY FORMER EMPLOYEES OF COFFEE MARKETING BOARD LIMITED This refers to a letter ref. PO/10 dated 25" January 2008 by the Principal Private Secretary to His Excellency the President addressed to the Auditor General on the above subject. | forward herewith verified computations in respect of claims by 432 CMBL former employees who were laid off in 1992 totaling Shs2,212,646,087 (Shillings Two billion two hundred twelve milion six hundred forty six thousand eighty seven only) Computations for employees who were laid off in 1991 totalling Shs.1,334,178,573 were sent to ihe Official Receiver under cover of our letter of even reference dated 3" August 2005;——~—- copy attached herewith for ease of reference, aR am unable to avail you computations regarding claims for groups that were laid off during the years 1993 — 1998 because the relevant data has not been provided to us. If there is any further information on this matter please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. FOR AUDITOR GENERAL c.c Principal Private Secretary to His Excellency the President cc Deputy Secretary to the Treasury (Min. of Finance) c.¢ Director, Privatization Unit c.c The Registrar General 1 ‘Member of the International Organisation Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) Member of the African Organisation of Supreme Audit institutions (AFROSAI)i j a i j d a =)- Ci. C3. A SUMMARY OF VERIFIED TERMINAL BENEFITS OF FORMER EMPLOYEES OF COFFEE MARKETING BOARD (CME) RETRENCHED BETWEEN 1991 To 1998 (ear TcATEGORY sa AMOUNT [APPENDICES iz [2991 | GROUP EMPLOYEES 1,346,178,573= [1a | [2 [1992 ‘GROUP EMPLOYYES 2,212,646,087= | 1.2 EMEC GROUP EMMPLOvEES(DAR | 425,172,443 | 2.3 ro ES SALAAM) : 4 | i99n\s2 ‘GROUP 1,412,954,186= | La | EMPLOYEES(MOMBASA} "5 j 1991 | OFFICERS 489,039,951= 11.5 oe 2 [399182 | GROUP EMPLOYEES 182,041,904 | 1.6 SUPLEMENTARY UST” 7 | age2 | OFFICERS: | 493,088,333= | a.7 | I & | as9a\i995 OFFICERS 612,801,196 | Le 3 | Tesaias GROUP EMPLOYEES 687,610,083 | 19 10 | 1984\95 | GROUP EMPLOYEES 778,935,641.60 | 110 ui | 39a\95 GROUP EMPLOYEES 549,786,380.18 | Li 12 | 1994\3585 ‘GROUP EMPLOYEES 367,134,782= | 1.2 33 ( 1994\95 GROUP EMPLOVEES 362,636,858 | 1.13 14 | 1998\7996 ‘OFFICERS 256,383,350= | 1.14 j 45 [3985\i996 “GROUP ElMPLOVEES 766,537,851 | 115 | GROUP EMPLOYEES 16 | 155\1996 ‘GROUP EMPLOYEES 239,560,851 Li | [ 1.36 27 | 199m\1585 | Stour EwPuoveEs ~~) i73 03,356 147 1s] 1998 OFFICERS AND GROUP 353,799,669= | 118 EMPLOYEES, Ht TOTAL 11,680,192,078.7enor secon ssa7es lsc rset Cistor LOVEE oF GorFEE AgWETING HNO. no WHERE LAWTON 0 TOUT BED FMEA ERLE SS ss lecovaswe | an | ere 1 ‘ lava n ans : s OTom OR TA RR TR | REM Li) BR ey —se jana soe soo 1s tewewas | a | ne Ce Bae. orse assamanvs Joe samo | coo |» estas 126 Joorouay vose | sa seuea sow |e TT) «A, FP, TS EE, RRlane. lane. women | voue | cosrorvonm | ous ane le vos | sue | cree | sowrnee Less orm oues|_oaancs eanList oF ewPLovEES OF coFFH MARNETWG BOARD. WHO WARE LADOFF ON 24 ovata € ws soo | w sss lvassmuee | soar | a sone “ A sosare| ease ve hres | ssa | nse sesso | exo | oe | ow |: es a a o = e < o 2 1 aH AL AD : eae ft ett a cele Hs ee re wsoane aw | ye ecm 2 © worn woo | oy seo a | arose 15 hase sose_|_ wee seaooe eo | so | anses mn we | AAs . . . 6 2 : : a “ : lm fase wouer | vowe | costo tomy | wusrane [som eae exce sesLUsT CF EWPLOYEES OF COPE MARnETava SoARD. Wo WERE LAD OF OW, ry fowwene > | tose | wy seco a] woe | | ses eed RE) = BREE,on ee)es uscas, | swouse | woe vom | owe | w | mee |v ss =P ET. eR ae)JOAN AO WHERE LAO OFF ON 3049 ITHOUT EIS FULLY PAID THER TERM 8 SERVICE BENET 27s [ysonsvosen | amouse | es sono eon |e s | ses sosst me Inonpen an | oe noe |» n | nse sea 235 locus nav acne os | se] szeonye form awes | csice | um somo | ssu00 |v i | are seus ow i Ch CR WR WN WER Ia fom we | ae eco | wsooo | a | souse | te | acon] sree serene 9030 lover 8. afi |e sp [sew 0 svouse | any seco age |e | mem | sete] sareoe so7 [serous ax | vse 95.00 sow | 0 s | satel sssare| career] spensoe suse saceo Wh 0h 2 WD Hl OE TWA GR T)LUSTOF eHLOrEES oF CORFE MARKETING BoArO, WHO HERE LAD OFF On a8 < © © F a ys . z a a a ss jwwownce | once | wz 2 i Wh wi mh OA THA A CHG THE Be Ue0 raceme | exow ot cuss 2 funcutens | che como | nome | sve [eons cass | use souco | sao | x sesseasa serojo pace women | vows | cosrortonmy | pusesst leo fous | vom | case | aren | serene ese ror outs] _oauance eens ans cer | oe seamo | somo | we u sopssay st owners mw {won soc soe | 2 sors voor | ie sno | swoon fp se i waeLUST OF cu ovEEs oF corre uaieTa BOARD, KO WHERE LAB OF OW 3.498 WATNOLT BENE FULLY Pld TAIN TERMINAL 6 SERVICE GENET laa ows | cosrorrow | ousceut|scoe fost | Yeon | aoe, oat eusce see 8 hwsso exer | ane ssosco | seen | 0 ses jweezses | seme | acs 2 was | cece | vex so0see soe |No ROW HLA feeb | workos | _ sate 2y aires rie comin taee om a ;ABPENDIK 43 loss piniess.0.ug aus oR RR A PE AFRETRENCHMENT SENEFITS FOR Cis LTD MOMSASA BRANEM APPENDIA Seslnome TE (2 8]8]8)5/8 18/8 6/8/61 |8/6 18 [8s |e]8)8/8|e/8{8]8]8)3|e|8| award Shape inwanal FesickRETRENCHMENT BENEFITS FOR CMP LTD MOHBASA BRANCH [Ouls Kanango san aa Harison [eres Pip Riga Dai vate Aching Leah TOTAL (aia eae | ees ae Ll TeChib cTO OFFICERS RETRENGHED IY Set 4278,Se 200 2. lomnengo anew utara Baa Ge Cd[Wolwaane (CASIEYRS HOM Bus Fare Lory Fare COLA Lunch Factory Transport Housing Gross Pay Severence Pa iu of NotLe (SRIUGRRNE El ws wen | sa accor ea wna waa eee “oy Sate gaa ave Pay RepiatonTollDue_Lesepayi Lass paj2._ Dee RE CO “wwe \SSRAAEE) 2) ao om) sa) sm ce “Aad sam [alpazainve GT zon Teaco ze, oie aa = RRR] a asta ete fefolefa fala -loafelefe heh 5 is\glale tele aye] le saree (FOYAL Tia] ween | ws] eae] “Sere rama] aa aan) See) aaa] een] see mm‘RETRENCAMENT BENEFITS FOROFFICERS FOR THE YEAR 1952 APPEND? “Yee BiGalary Monthly Paome buttery, : State) awe) sas 258 “aoe. ces | a3.08,535 | — = pm mm ee eR ee eeeAETRENCHMENT BENEFITS FOR OFFICERS FOR THE YEARS 1994/1985, ‘SOREN HOSES EIA CANON Bana NGA SAVRETRENCHMENT BENEFITS FOR OFFICERS FOR THE YEARS 1oRal1808 5 FRU RSTIEEAE iow [GWANGO AGNES RIOR HUGH UCURAYOW GRAN NE aaa.RETRENCHVENT BENEFITS FOR THE YEAR reau/t0s APPENDIX 19 Basic rns HORE But Fas Lorry IENGWAU ALFRED IENGWAJEA NGWAU STANTSapiesrot 5 aesareoe WWUNYAGHAE, tien ToRMawanen saa Tifwsnzena 0 cone TalNaeasanco? Eel ZHAN eo] aMUSHABA G0] uRVARUREEDE| SifwasuiaF] alwateNaas Tener cra puss ast TAL om wee eo aS Sse eeeRETRECHMENT BENEFITS FOR THE YEAR 1294/1895, APPENDIX ingGrose PeGratuly Severence Li NO: NAME. BASIC P YRS HOM Bus Fare Lorry FareCOLA Lunch Factory TranepctHous icles sla ef2falslalelalalelale|FTES] Oe i mh wD em Te TR wih i eh Ae Ee A URAPPENDIX 1.41 ess Paya "Due No NAME BASIC PrvRs HOM us Far Icivava SpuaNERS a eeeerfwresee paleoonos es | TERETRENOHMENT BENEFITS FOR THE YEAR 10041905 Nor wame, BASIC IYRS HOME Bus Far Lo 4 iRETRENGHMENT BENEFITS FOR THE YEAR 16 SNTENSRE TE SSIRYOMETS eelOLEO MI ‘SrlowaNoD e|SERURVUSIIV SERUNKUMA A SOITAITICAP | Er WAMALA ea| WANNA F SSIVIANYANAE Be[WiASSWA mae BSIWASSWA Nota Ta aT a T oe Get Ged Gee CoO ca cr ara eo SeFEI MENCHWEN) MENPIIS TON Ine TEAR TUsRrNS APPENDIX 113 No Nau. BASIC EYRS HOME Bus Fare Lo ORERYERERWAB KSA | ood, panos sue PacaRUT. c TASRBAE esol TESKAYANATS seoxl BARLOW SB, son ENDS @ sont BO si [SWAN fest | | (B} lela holsfebslate la Fas WERETRENGHIRENT BENEFTS =OR THE YEAR 1968/1608 No: naMes YEARS GAC HOME gue fre ony Fare COLA TRANSPORT Housing _ Monty ska IKARU ANGE RARRIN feiryo ve. [PROSSY NANTANOA, IKITWBO UWA VANEA IKAMUKAWA ALEX. INVIRO NAIDHARENS ‘o[BEATA AWARE ‘So[RWANUKA JOYCE2406 250 ‘eee 200 5.530.000 sais)WNuzooRA & WALKER LER WASSWaS. iUGeNs fontRo Fu foniROR Fe INUNTUWERAT. ipo00 aaa eon Lo CEES RETRENCHMENT BENEFITS FOR THE YEAR s9¢stis06cesta ce HEAR THERA, APPENDIX pesmi ean Sen oy Pa oust Wot Acs enn Repinton Total DUS Less Bact (SIANULENI f aveat aTSERYWAA esses Maney fm Sk era 1 Less Pay? | WR TRRETRENCHVENT BENEFITS FOR THE YEAR 199519 1996 LAPPENDIA 7 NO nawes {EEE IWanALAER ks seaaii| _eessi] sal 70m 'BUSINGE FAITH sa eo] card sans] 5054 IKANGE EDINACE se Kamera Siraj ixsoq] [Mugema Erucana, feus: jOtim Patick ine [Walekrra i (Rugundu sar sar) sass (Ami lava fam ksh se Teal “i]Karuchire To8s ikea [Olin Atanasio, ue 6]0keny Aloo Jack wu “7[Byarugaba jonn KS ‘|Mukwenda eens kas “9|Sebuguzi W SK 2aljambo Michael imo il Luyiga suzen Vv sR zalkyobe Steven Le 23]Ekwanyy George 24|Okellobe steven: Tanur 25|Sonko zo|Wasuld James | _17[ 11200) eet ITO TOTAL. i RIES oA A ER[RETRENCHMENT BENEFITS FOR THE YEAR 1908 PPENDIC 1.18 aM T SEPA Bar ane Fac rae aah ical prion] Toate TRATES RANOOYAE: 20] c s mn EBORUD] saat aes Jalen eb 215) EI s| Isle /8)8 8\e\e 902.599 554000 75e8,756 Sows 0,542 4700276 Sesser BEER EISIRE elas gel eh eazsaza eater 02 y0esz30 aseaazo scant