REVEALED! How CAA boss dodged a bullet

CAA boss Fred Bamwesigye

CAA boss Fred Bamwesigye

By our reporter

The high court has dismissed the application challenging the appointment of Fred Kanyangoga Bamwesigye as the Director General Uganda Civil Aviation Authority-UCAA. In his ruling, Justice Musa Ssekaana, said the appointment was “lawful and the process complied with law”.

According to Justice Ssekaana, Bamwesigye “equally met the criteria set by Uganda Civil Aviation Authority and was eligible and suitably qualified to be shortlisted and appointed as Director General” of the authority. Bamwesigye took charge of UCAA in October 2021 following his appointment by the Minister for Works and Transport, Gen. Edward  Katumba Wamala as the substantive Director-General of UCAA on September 28.

He replaced Dr. David Mpango Kakuba who retired in June 2020 and will serve for three years. Bamwesigye was among the 21 people who responded to an advertisement by the UCAA board of directors, chaired by retired Chief Justice Steven Kavuma to fill the position of Director General. The board shortlisted 7 people and interviewed them on May 14th, 2021. After the interviews, the board recommended three people to the works minister including Bamwesigye, Olive Birungi Lumonya, and Tom David Wasswa for an appointment. The minister selected Bamwesigye.

However, Jabbe Pascal Osinde Osudo protested the appointment and applied to the High Court for judicial review under Articles 42 and 50 of the 1995 Uganda Constitution and Rules 3,4, 6 and 7 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 among others.

Osudo wanted the court to make eleven declarations including that Bamwesigye was ineligible for an appointment and that the said shortlisting and subsequent appointment was illegal, irregular, null and void. In his affidavit, Osudo  faulted the minister and the board for ignoring the “glaring inconsistencies and contradictions” in Bamwesigye’s academic documents.

He explained that “that  without prejudice, whereas Fred Bamwesigye purports to have been born on 27th November 1967, the said result slip indicates that Kanyangoga Fred sat for P.L.E in 1976…by implication, Kanyagoga Fred had started primary one in January 1969 when he was still one year of age.”

He says Bamwesigye lowered his age because applicants had to be between 35- 55 years of age. “In absence of a person with the requisite expertise and aviation experience managing the said authority, which is inter alia charged with the provision of air navigation services, the travelers’ lives are at risk,” Osudo noted.

However, Brian Musota and Thomas Ocaya who represented the ministry of works and UCAA respectively, argued that there is no illegality because the High Court Civil Suit No.110 of 2021 Magambo Mpumwire vs Fred Kanyangoga Bamwesigye conclusively determined the issue about Bamwesigye’s age. The lawyers asked the court to dismiss the application, saying Osudo was abusing the court process because he did not among others state his role in the recruitment process.

Justice Ssekaana noted the need to protect courts from nosy former employees and “mere busybodies” who “challenge every minor or alleged minor infraction by the state or public officials”. “This is clogging and ‘choking’ the court system with all manner of applications with competition for fame or recognition.”

Ssekaana avers that it is the duty of the courts to protect the scarce state resources and the overburdened  court  system  by  ensuring  that  litigants  who  appear  in  court  in matters of  judicial  review  have  a  direct  or  sufficient  interest  to  come  to court. Or else more so, precious resources would be wasted on the adjudication and defence of claims if mere busybodies could challenge every minor or alleged minor infraction   by   the   state   or   public   officials.

He adds that without  sufficient   interest threshold for standing the floodgates will open, inundating the courts with vexatious litigation and unnecessary court disputes.

“Currently, every person and or former employees have developed a sense of entitlement to continue intermeddling in affairs of the former employers. It is not ground enough to continue poking their noses in affairs of a public office after your employment is terminated, as this will be abused and used to   settle   scores   with   the   institution   especially if   such   employee   left  acrimoniously like the present applicant,” said Ssekaana while taking into account the manner in which Osudo left Civil Aviation Authority and the several cases lodged in the same court.

Ssekaana says Osudo brought the application as a regular traveler who has traveled with Uganda Airlines and intends to board the same in the future. “The applicant’s claim is not made or premised on the above assertion as a regular traveler with Uganda Airlines but rather it is because he was a former employee of Civil Aviation Authority and has developed a sense of entitlement to continue poking his nose in the internal affairs of the organization. This court cannot use this as a standard of allowing every frequent flyer to have sufficient interest to file applications for judicial review on matters which do not concern them within the Civil Aviation Authority…This application would fail on this preliminary objection/point for lack of sufficient interest,” ruled Ssekaana.

He concurred with Musota and Ocaya that Bamwesigye’s correct age was already determined by High Court Judge Boniface Wamala on April 9th, 2021. Bamwesigye said his parents told him that he was born on November 27th, 1967. His Baptism Card of March 31st, 1972 also bears the same details.

“Bamwesigye however stated that at the time during registration for examinations, he mistakenly stated his date of birth as November 27th, 1963. For the purpose of consistency, he maintained that date in all his academic and official documents before 2007.  But on September 12th, 2007, he deponed to a statutory declaration correcting the mistake and reverting to his real birth date of November 27th, 1967,” part of the ruling reads.

Ssekaana says this correction was done before Bamwesigye joined UCAA in 2009. He said that Osudo’s assertions “cannot be accurate for the simple reason that at the time the defendant made the alteration, he was neither an employee of UCAA or any public office that has been pointed out to the court nor can it be reasonably concluded that he had anticipated that he would at one time need to “cling on” to an office in UCAA contrary to the provision on the retirement age of 60 years”.

“In the circumstances, I find no merit in this application. It is dismissed with costs to the respondents. I so order,” Ssekaana concludes.




About Post Author