A group of journalists has asked the State House Anti Corruption Unit to take interest in a matter of misrepresentation by the Uganda Journalists Association(UJA) that they say has seen huge sums of money injected into a non-existent journalists body.
In a judgement last month, Justice Musa Ssekaana of the High Court ruled that UJA is not a public body but rather a private company.
Earlier, five journalists including Abubaker Lubowa, Zambaali Bulasio Mukasa, Emmanuel Nkata, Hasifu Ssekiwunga and Martin Kimbowa dragged UJA together with its president Mathias Rukundo and Secretary General, Emmanuel Kirunda to court to challenge what they termed as irregularities in the body’s elections.
The group through their lawyer George Musisi of PACE Advocates accused the UJA leadership of unfairly throwing them out of the race which was organized without compiling a voters’ register as enshrined in the UJA constitution.
On Friday, the group’s lawyer told a news briefing that the case was dismissed on technical grounds with costs since UJA was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee in 1983 and therefore the petitioners had nothing to do with a private company which is not a public entity.
“The judge said UJA is not a public entity accountable to the public and thus it is not susceptible to judicial review. The judge noted that because UJA is strictly governed by the Companies Act, it makes it strictly a private entity and therefore court should not waste a lot of time with a judicial review. Although we disagree with it, we respect it,” Musisi said.
“If you look at the grievances we took to court of the association collecting money, what makes members of UJA as it is now is not being a subscriber in the Companies Act but by the constitution that UJA has always presented to journalists. However, that constitution is outside the Companies Act under which we went to court. Under the Companies Act, the memorandum and articles files in 1983 for UJA doesn’t envisage an association collecting money from members or even holding elections under the constitution.”
Lawyer Musisi said UJA leadership relied on the Companies Act which doesn’t even envisage membership or people having membership cards which he said makes it an association.
“UJA has a dual or double personality. When it suits them, they say it is an association of over 300 members and collecting money with people subscribing but when we challenged that, they said they are private and governed by the Companies Act with only five subscribers who are listed and whoever is outside these subscribers has no business inquiring how UJA is run.”
Speaking during the same press briefing, Abubaker Lubowa, one of the petitioners applauded Justice Musa Ssekaana for the judgement that he said “opened our eyes” to what has been happening in UJA.
“Though we disagree with the outcome of the judgement by Justice Musa Ssekaana, we would like to commend him for an eye opener to the media fraternity that UJA is not a public body mandated to bring journalists together as an association but rather a private company. It is appalling and sad to note that journalists have been contributing their hard-earned money to a private company. This is criminal and must be dealt with,” Lubowa said.
According to Lubowa, it is sickening to know that UJA as a private company has been colleting money from journalists, as well as government and donors in the name of improving the welfare of journalists whereas not.
“Government has been injecting public funds into this private company under the guise of improving the welfare of journalists. We didn’t know when we filed this case that we were taking a private company to court and if we had known, we wouldn’t have wasted our time. This should be a matter of investigation by the State House Anti-Corruption Unit. The UJA directors have been getting money from State House and the president claiming it is an association yet it is a private company.”
“We are calling the IGG and the Director of Criminal Investigations Directorate to take interest in the matter because these people have been getting taxpayers’ money from government claiming it was funding a public body yet it is a private company. They have been obtaining money by false pretence under the name of helping journalists whereas not.”
What next?
Asked about the next course of action, Lubowa said everything now lies in the hands of journalists.
“It will be upon you to decide whether to belong to an association or a private company. It will be upon you to decide whether to appeal against the decision of the High Court or not. We will give our next course of action after consulting our fellow journalists. What we want to tell journalists, donors and government that the people you have been giving your money are not an association but rather a private company,” Lubowa said.
