By Frederic Musisi

Kampala — President Museveni and Cabinet sanctioned the Shs6b payout as “a reward” to officials in various ministries and agencies who handled the case between Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) and the UK-based oil company Heritage, according to both official and unofficial accounts.

The money was shared among 42 officials who were subdivided into three categories – core, noncore and support staff, people familiar with the matter said.

Following URA’s court win against both Heritage and the Anglo-Irish Tullow Oil Uganda Ltd, a subsidiary of Tullow Oil Plc, President Museveni in late 2015, hosted the government team that “put up a spirited fight” to recognise them for their efforts and it is here that the idea of the officials bagging “a honorarium” was mooted.

For the deal to materialise, sources added, the team had to appear organised and designated “a would-be accounting officer”, in this case the URA Commissioner General, M

President Museveni and Cabinet sanctioned the Shs6b payout as “a reward” to officials in various ministries and agencies who handled the case between Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) and the UK-based oil company Heritage, according to both official and unofficial accounts.

The money was shared among 42 officials who were subdivided into three categories – core, noncore and support staff, people familiar with the matter said.

Following URA’s court win against both Heritage and the Anglo-Irish Tullow Oil Uganda Ltd, a subsidiary of Tullow Oil Plc, President Museveni in late 2015, hosted the government team that “put up a spirited fight” to recognise them for their efforts and it is here that the idea of the officials bagging “a honorarium” was mooted.

For the deal to materialise, sources added, the team had to appear organised and designated “a would-be accounting officer”, in this case the URA Commissioner General, Ms Doris Akol, to lead the process with advice from the then Attorney General and approval from Cabinet.

“President Museveni accepted the proposal but on condition that all applicable taxes are deducted,” a source noted.

Ms Akol, who prior to becoming the URA commissioner-general, headed the body’s legal department that led the court battles against both Tullow and Heritage, was not readily available for comment on the matter as she did not pick or return our calls by press time.

However, Finance ministry spokesperson Jim Mugunga, besides clarifying that it was Shs6b and not Shs7b as the online news website ChimpReports that broke the story indicated, defended the payout as a recognition of the efforts of the officials involved.

“The honorarium is less than 1 per cent of the total money that the team was able to secure from the two cases,” Mr Mugunga argued. “And besides, all the money paid out was taxed.”

Asked why and who tasked URA to distribute the money, Mr Mugunga said the Treasury did so to ensure that all applicable taxes were collected.

After Heritage sold its 50 per cent interest in Uganda’s oil fields in August 2010 at $1.5 billion (Shs5 trillion) to Tullow, yielding the first biggest windfall of the country’s nascent petroleum sector at the time, URA slapped a $404 million (Shs1.4 trillion) capital gains tax on the transaction.

The tax dispute became a protracted legal battle and different courts, including a Ugandan Tax Appeals Tribunal and a commercial court in London, took four years to resolve the matter. A recent expose by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists showed that Heritage knew about the imminent tax liability weeks before it was officially imposed and contracted tax accountants and lawyers to fight it off as unwarranted and illegal.

Heritage settled for two options: tackle the levy head-on and, on failing, move the business and assets to a tax haven with the professional help of lawyers and accountants. But because Tullow, as the buyer, had yet to pay Heritage, government threatened not to renew its exploration licences, which were due to expire, unless it deducted and remitted the equivalent capital gains tax.

After a hard bargain, in April 2011, Tullow capitulated and sent to government $121 million (Shs403b), an equivalent of a 30 per cent threshold down payment before filing of tax appeals under the country’s laws. The balance of $283 million (Shs943b) was deposited on an escrow account with Standard Chartered Bank in London, pending resolution of the tax dispute that ended in 2013.

Another $30 million (Shs100b) was separately assessed on a $100 million (Shs356.8b) that Heritage additionally paid Tullow Uganda Ltd as cash settlement arising from a breach of the companies’ Sharing and Production Agreement.

Heriatge later opposed these tax payments as “collusion” between Tullow and the Ugandan government, resulting in the London case that Justice Burton on June 14, 2013, decided in Tullow’s favour.

In another case, URA in June 2015 settled for $250m (Shs824b) from Tullow after three years of legal battles over Capital Gains Taxes when the latter sold 66.66 per cent of its stake to CNOOC and TOTAL for $2.9b, making it the largest transaction to date in Uganda’s history against the $142m that Tullow had been arguing was the right tax assessment.

Notable recipients

• Ms Akol received Shs242m
• Former AG Peter Nyombi Shs226m
• Shs393m wired to account of former Finance PS Chris Kassami, who passed on last year.
• Former deputy AG Fred Ruhindi got Shs93m
• KCCA executive director Jenifer Musisi, who previously served as head URA’s legal department, received Shs121m
• Lawrence Kiiza, a senior official in the ministry of Finance, got Shs102m
• Solicitor General Francis Atoke got Shs234m
• Director of Legal Affairs at the Solicitor General’s office, Mr Christopher Gashirabake, received Shs242m

s Doris Akol, to lead the process with advice from the then Attorney General and approval from Cabinet.

“President Museveni accepted the proposal but on condition that all applicable taxes are deducted,” a source noted.

Ms Akol, who prior to becoming the URA commissioner-general, headed the body’s legal department that led the court battles against both Tullow and Heritage, was not readily available for comment on the matter as she did not pick or return our calls by press time.

However, Finance ministry spokesperson Jim Mugunga, besides clarifying that it was Shs6b and not Shs7b as the online news website ChimpReports that broke the story indicated, defended the payout as a recognition of the efforts of the officials involved.

“The honorarium is less than 1 per cent of the total money that the team was able to secure from the two cases,” Mr Mugunga argued. “And besides, all the money paid out was taxed.”

Asked why and who tasked URA to distribute the money, Mr Mugunga said the Treasury did so to ensure that all applicable taxes were collected.

After Heritage sold its 50 per cent interest in Uganda’s oil fields in August 2010 at $1.5 billion (Shs5 trillion) to Tullow, yielding the first biggest windfall of the country’s nascent petroleum sector at the time, URA slapped a $404 million (Shs1.4 trillion) capital gains tax on the transaction.

The tax dispute became a protracted legal battle and different courts, including a Ugandan Tax Appeals Tribunal and a commercial court in London, took four years to resolve the matter. A recent expose by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists showed that Heritage knew about the imminent tax liability weeks before it was officially imposed and contracted tax accountants and lawyers to fight it off as unwarranted and illegal.

Heritage settled for two options: tackle the levy head-on and, on failing, move the business and assets to a tax haven with the professional help of lawyers and accountants. But because Tullow, as the buyer, had yet to pay Heritage, government threatened not to renew its exploration licences, which were due to expire, unless it deducted and remitted the equivalent capital gains tax.

After a hard bargain, in April 2011, Tullow capitulated and sent to government $121 million (Shs403b), an equivalent of a 30 per cent threshold down payment before filing of tax appeals under the country’s laws. The balance of $283 million (Shs943b) was deposited on an escrow account with Standard Chartered Bank in London, pending resolution of the tax dispute that ended in 2013.

Another $30 million (Shs100b) was separately assessed on a $100 million (Shs356.8b) that Heritage additionally paid Tullow Uganda Ltd as cash settlement arising from a breach of the companies’ Sharing and Production Agreement.

Heriatge later opposed these tax payments as “collusion” between Tullow and the Ugandan government, resulting in the London case that Justice Burton on June 14, 2013, decided in Tullow’s favour.

In another case, URA in June 2015 settled for $250m (Shs824b) from Tullow after three years of legal battles over Capital Gains Taxes when the latter sold 66.66 per cent of its stake to CNOOC and TOTAL for $2.9b, making it the largest transaction to date in Uganda’s history against the $142m that Tullow had been arguing was the right tax assessment.

Notable recipients

• Ms Akol received Shs242m
• Former AG Peter Nyombi Shs226m
• Shs393m wired to account of former Finance PS Chris Kassami, who passed on last year.
• Former deputy AG Fred Ruhindi got Shs93m
• KCCA executive director Jenifer Musisi, who previously served as head URA’s legal department, received Shs121m
• Lawrence Kiiza, a senior official in the ministry of Finance, got Shs102m
• Solicitor General Francis Atoke got Shs234m
• Director of Legal Affairs at the Solicitor General’s office, Mr Christopher Gashirabake, received Shs242m

By Steven Zande

THE Zambians for Empowerment and Development (ZED) has praised the Government for cutting fuel prices because any reduction in petroleum pump prices has a direct positive impact on Zambians.

ZED president Fred Mutesa said the reduction was a commendable move which demonstrated the Government’s resolve to cushion Zambians against exorbitant fuel prices which would cause extreme suffering among the people.

“Any reduction in fuel prices, no matter how marginal, is a welcome development, which constitutes savings to consumers.

“This shows that President Edgar Lungu’s Government has been working tirelessly to see to it that Zambians enjoy favourable fuel prices,” Dr Mutesa said.

He said in an interview yesterday that this also indicated that going forward, the Government under the leadership of Mr Lungu had potential to deliver more economic benefits to Zambians.

“We should know that this was done after scientific computation and not to appease people, hence I don’t understand people who demean the reduction,” Dr Mutesa said.

However, the United Party for National Development (UPND) spokesperson Charles Kakoma in a separate interview said ERB should have reduced fuel prices earlier to cushion farmers who used fuel in their implements in the 2016/2017 farming season.

Mr Kakoma said farmers could have produced cheaper food, hence the reduction was insignificant and would not help cut production costs and public transport bus fares.

“ERB should have reduced fuel prices before the farming season so that farmers could produce cheaper food,” he said.

Forum for Democracy and Development (FDD) spokesperson Antonio Mwanza said the ERB should have reversed last year’s increment as the current move was insignificant and would not help bring down the cost of goods and services in the nation.

Mr Mwanza urged the ERB to consider reviewing the fuel supply chain to ensure that in future local fuel prices remained consistent with overall prices on the international market.

National Restoration Party (NAREP) general secretary Ezra Ngulube appealed to bus operators to consider reducing bus fares despite incurring additional costs like hiked insurance costs and road toll fees.

Khartoum — Sudan government on Wednesday vowed to provide the appropriate climate for the Chinese investments in Sudan in field of minerals together with the necessary protection for the Chinese miners.

“We promise to provide the appropriate climate for the Chinese investments in Sudan in the mining field together with the protection for the Chinese companies and miners working in Sudan,” said Ahmed Mohamed Sadiq Al-Karuri, Sudan’s Minerals Minister, when addressing the forum Wednesday.

“Sudan enjoys an attractive environment for investments, which attracted the investors. We have around 361 foreign companies operating in field of exploration of minerals, particularly gold,” he noted.

He went on saying that “we are looking forward to receive more Chinese investments in the mining field. The cooperation between the two countries has to be enhanced to achieve the aspired benefit. Sudan enjoys natural resources and huge wealth, while China maintains the necessary experience.”

Chinese Ambassador in Khartoum Li Lianhe said that “The Chinese side attaches a great concern to the cooperation with Sudan in the mining field. China has sent many experts in this field to Sudan to enhance the cooperation between the two sides.”

“We have about 20 Chinese companies operating in about 30 mining fields in Sudan. These companies have achieved profits of over 100 million U.S. dollars. We hope to enhance this partnership in a manner that suits the level of bilateral ties between the two countries,” he added.

Sudan-China Mining Communication Forum was held in Khartoum on Wednesday in presence of Sudan’s Minerals Minister, Chinese Ambassador to Sudan, Chairman of Chinese Miners Association in Sudan and representatives of the Chinese companies operating in field of mining in Sudan.

Sudan is seeking to increase its minerals production, namely gold, to compensate the loss of around 75 percent of its oil revenues following the separation of South Sudan in 2011.

The Sudanese government had previously anticipated the country’s gold production to reach 100 tons by end of 2016, positioning Sudan as the second gold producing country in Africa and the ninth worldwide.

There are over two million Sudanese employees in traditional mining, producing 80 percent of the country’s gold, while the Sudanese central bank purchases the gold from them across the country.

Xinhua

By Yohanes Jemaneh

The Ministry of Industry announced that the construction of four agro- industrial parks projects would be launched soon in Tigray, Amhara, Oromia and SNNP States.

Speaking at stakeholders’ consultative meeting on the implementation and resource mobilization for agro-industrial parks expansion project here Friday, Integrated Agro- Industrial Parks Project Marketing and Economic Analyst Moges Mesfin said the project is part of the national vision to become light manufacturing hub in Africa.

The agro-industrial parks would be feasible owing to the commitment of the government, financial institutions readiness and the country’s successive economic growth.

State Minister Dr. Mebrahtu Meles said the country is constructing industrial parks to promote investment and tap its economic potential.

The construction would be financed by the federal and state governments. Accordingly, the Development Bank of Ethiopia has allocated seven billion Birr, Bank Vice President Tadesse Hatiya told The Ethiopian Herald. “The bank would increase its budget allocation as the construction progresses.”

The country has set ambitious plan to build some 17 industrial parks in all states which would enable to add value to its agri-produce.

By Nuzulack Dausen

Musoma — Along the shores of Lake Victoria, a young man, Mr Mwita Venance, is lying under a tree at Matvilla Beach after spending hours in the water fishing.

His colleague, Mtatiro Marwa, is busy preparing fish for a quick meal. The Nile perch he is cooking is about 20 centimetres long, and is one of the three fish they caught in the lake after a five-hour expedition.

“The situation is getting worse here,” Venance says. “In the past, it wouldn’t have taken so long to catch just three fish as there were so many in the lake. The illegal fishing is causing the scarcity.”

Venance says three years ago he used to haul between 200 and 300kg of fish each day. Nowadays, the most he catches is just 30kg. Ten times lower than what it used to be in the past.

Lake Victoria, Africa’s largest inland water body, is being over fished largely attributed to the illegal use of restricted nets, dynamite and poison used for catching fish.

Getting mature fish whether Nile perch or tilapia is proving to be more difficult as each day passes by. “We have to paddle at least 50 kms from the shore to deep waters to fish. Yet one returns with a miserable catch. If this situation continues I have no idea know how I will make ends meet,” he lamented.

Illegal fishing has adversely affected the whole supply chain. It is now difficult to get a kilo of fish in Musoma markets below Sh9,000, equivalent to what consumers pay for fish from the lake in Dar es Salaam.

Fish processing industries whether large or small are struggling to cope and a few have closed down in a bid to cut losses.

Prime Catch Exporters Ltd, once the largest fish processing factory in Mara Region halted operations two months ago due to the acute scarcity of fish.

“There was no point in continuing to run below capacity,” Irfan Jessa, Prime Catch Manager told The Citizen. The factory used to employ over 650 people.

According to Lake Victoria Fishing Organisation (LVFO), the regional body for managing fisheries on the lake, the Nile perch stock is declining faster than the other species.

LVFO data shows that between 1999 and 2001 the mean stock of Nile perch was 1.29 million tonnes annually but five years later it was down to 0.82 million tonnes.

While Prime Catch has closed down its main competitor in the region, Musoma Fish Processors Limited (MuFPL) is operating at half capacity.

A senior accountant with the MuFPL, Mr Willbald James, says the daily production capacity is 25 tonnes but due to the scarcity they are currently process only 10 tonnes. “There are times we have to wait for up to three days to get a sufficient supply for production,” he said.

According to a report from the Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute in Mwanza, the export of Nile perch started in May 1991 by Mwanza-based companies.

Principal buyers were Kenyan importers, whose equipment – such as insulated collection trucks, ice, weighing scales and selectors at landing beaches – all came from Kenya.

At this stage, at least ten small companies were involved, all of which exported whole Nile perch to Kenya for further processing and onward export to external markets, primarily Israel.

It was from these early Kenyan buyers and collectors that pioneer Tanzanian buyers learned the trade, and from whom they adopted the techniques used.

These involved the setting up informal credit schemes and incentive systems established with prominent fishers permanently resident on supply beaches.

Buyers would make regular visits to potential fishing spots where they identified fishermen with whom to establish supply arrangements. Beaches such as Mwaloni Kirumba, Kayenze, Igombe and Nyashimo became reliable Nile perch supply points.

It was through this system that dependency relationships were forged between fishers and buyers. Under these arrangements, slight delays by collection trucks represented large losses to fishers.

Since competition was, at this point, very limited, buyers were able to offer extremely low prices.

These early purchasing companies represent the fore-runners of the Nile perch filleting industry in Tanzania. Low levels of expertise and poor knowledge about the international market for fish were some of the factors, which were responsible for the slow development of the sector at that time.

Nevertheless, the establishment of factories occurred and by 1992, there were five filleting factories in Tanzania several of which had been established with Kenyan capital raised by sister companies located north of the border.

Managers within the industry at this time came from a wide diversity of occupations and backgrounds, including cargo and transportation, hotel and manufacturing, marine fish business, a journalist, a publisher, a large bakery, a poultry farmer and a shop owner. Additional expertise was obtained from Kenyan sister factories.

The early nineties, therefore, represented a transition period for the nascent Tanzanian factories during which they consolidated, trained and established their presence on the local Nile perch markets.

Difficulties were also, at this time, being encountered by the institution in charge of regulating this process, the Tanzania Fisheries Department.

Most of the problems that they encountered concerned the failure, by the processing factories, to declare correctly the value of fish exports (under-declaration of exports), failure to pay royalties and the unauthorised export of tilapia. The relations between the Fisheries Department and the fish processing factories were, in the early 1990s, relatively poor.

These difficulties were compounded by the Fisheries Department’s limited knowledge of the growing Nile perch business and the profit maximisation motives driving industrial owners resulting in the neglect of the required procedure and formalities.

Since the early 1990s the fish stock dynamics within Lake Victoria and the ecological changes that have taken place have not been well documented.

With the fish being snatched up faster than it can reproduce, the average length of caught fish tends to decrease, because fewer of them are able to survive into maturity. An audit carried out found that between 2008 and 2010, the number of fish meeting the minimum size criteria at major processing facilities around the lake dropped by more than half.

The main problem, according to the audit, is over fishing and fisheries agencies in the region have been blamed for failing to set and enforce quotas.

The Nile Perch that has dominated the lake for half a century, The predatory Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria by British colonial officers to restock the lake in the 1950s.

It’s driven many of the indigenous fish to extinction, earning it a reputation as an ecological disaster. For fishermen, though, it had become a cornerstone of the economy.

The current scarcity is not only affecting large industries but the small players as well. A businessman, Mr Fredrick Mtenga is seriously considering quitting the fish business as supplies have dwindled to 20 kgs per day against 500 kgs he used to sell a few years back.

“Even for the 20 kgs of fish I have to travel to Shirati about 100 kms from here,” says Mr Mtenga who has started a poultry farm in Morogoro.

Mara Regional Administrative Secretary (RAS) Adoh Mapunda says authorities have carried out patrols on the lake in collaboration with fisheries departments.

“District officials around the lake have seized and destroyed more than 3,000 restricted nets,” he said.

Despite the government’s efforts to curb illegal fishing, the alleged criminals are well-coordinated. While the authorities patrol during the day rogue fishermen operate at night. It is widely believed among residents that some security and government officials leak information to the offenders.

A former fisherman, Mr Mujungu Magesa, resident of Baruti in Musoma Municipality said, “There are informers who notify fishermen of impeding raids,”

It is at the end the supply chain of illegal fish, the government has decided to change tactics.

Musoma Municipal DirectorFidelica Myovela says they are discouraging consumers from buying fish less than 50 cm long. “We are currently carrying out patrols at markets to ensure fishmongers are not selling immature fish. We are also arresting buyers,” she says.

Some fishmongers have resorted to selling fish from their homes. To confirm this, the author of this article hired a cab at around 10 pm on November 25 and asked the taxi driver to take him to a place where he could buy fresh fish.

He was driven to four different locations where fishmongers were selling small fish under the fear of being caught.

On arrival he was advised to enquire for a “mzigo” loosely translated to English, a parcel.

To get the right type of mzigo one had to speak the local dialect, preferably Kikurya. The word sang stood for sangara for Nile perch) and sat for sato for tilapia.

The fishmonger would then signal a buyer follow in his or her house and that was how the author got his fish.

Most of the Nile perch he bought about 30 pieces, ranged between 10 to 15 cm, four times smaller than recommended size of 50 cm.

According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Nile perch (Lates niloticus) can be big as the size of a man at 200 cm and weigh 200 kgs.

As a result of the diminishing stock in the lake fish processors have joined hands with the government in discouraging fishermen from supplying immature fish.

Mr James of MuFPL says all fish processors have agreed not to buy fish below 50 cm.

“Authorities should continue monitoring illegal fishing so as to ensure fish processing industries survive because once we close the government will lose more revenues and many more will be jobless,” he said.

“Everyone should find a way of curbing illegal fishing,” Dr Mathias Igulu, a fisheries expert from an international conservation NGO, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) said.

“Wananchi should continue rejecting immature fish plus fish they suspect caught by using poisons or dynamite,” he stressed.

The minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Dr Charles Tizeba, says the government understands that most fish industries are feeling the pinch.

He says his ministry has discussed with investors on how to improve the situation. “There are public officials who are colluding with fishermen using illegal means to fish but their days are numbered. We have sacked many workers been found guilty of facilitating illegal fishing,” he said without specifying the number.

He said the government is going to amend the Fisheries Act of 2013 by adding penalties to some offences and categorise other offences as economic sabotage, which attracts tougher penalties. “We have lost a number of cases where people have used dynamite to fish because the present law doesn’t clearly define explosives. We can’t continue this way,” he said.

By Louis Kolumbia

Dar es Salaam — Rights activists yesterday said they would challenge in the Court of Appeal a High Court ruling on the petition that sought to declare the Cybercrimes Act unconstitutional.

In December last year, the High Court overturned only Section 50 of the law as requested by the petitioner, Mr Jebra Kambole, who represented the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC), Legal and Human Rights Center (LHRC) and other groups while declaring the other 19 of the 20 sections of the law constitutional.

Section 50 of the Act, which was enacted by Parliament in 2015, gives the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) powers to punish a suspect who has voluntarily confessed even before the start of court procedures with subsection 2 saying the DPP’s decision would be final.

The ruling agreed with the petitioner that Section 50 of the law contravened Article 13 of the country’s Constitution, therefore ordering the Attorney General (AG) to amend the section within twelve months.

Yesterday, THRDC coordinator Onesmo Olengurumwa told The Citizen that rights groups were not satisfied with the decision and that they had resolved to appeal anytime this month. He said they would take the matter before the African Court of Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) in case justice wouldn’t be realised in the Court of Appeal.

“Experience shows that cases involving government interests are being politicised by judicial systems in the country that is why we are preparing to take the matter to the regional and international courts,” he told The Citizen in a telephone interview, referring to the case on independent candidate among those he claimed to have been politicised.

He said, stakeholders had consulted on decision to appeal the High Court decision, saying that will mark the beginning of a long journey in search for justice domestically and internationally.

Mr Kambole said in spite of being unsatisfied with the ruling they considered themselves as winners.

“It’s because we have managed to show the law is unconstitutional in one part, though other demands have been overturned. Under normal circumstances, it takes years to do what we have done to a law assented just a year back,” he said in a telephone interview.

“We are waiting for a ruling on another case on Section 16 of the same law which has been used to try a number of people since its enactment,” he added.

By Athuman Mtulya

Dar es Salaam — Commentators have criticised the government’s response to the now-revoked electricity tariff increase, saying it does nothing to address the dire situation Tanzania Electric Supply Company (Tanesco) is in.

On Friday, the Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority (Ewura) approved an 8.5 per cent increase in electricity charges after rejecting Tanesco’s initial request for an 18.19 per cent rise.

However, the Minister of Energy and Minerals, Prof Sospeter Muhongo, revoked the adjustment on Saturday, saying the ministry was not consulted.

On Sunday, President John Magufuli sacked Tanesco Managing Director Felchesmi Mramba. State House announced the decision in statement, but did not say why Mr Mramba was removed.

However, earlier in the day, Dr Magufuli told a congregation during New Year’s mass in Bukoba that his government had resolved to build an industrial economy and take electricity to villages, adding that “unilaterally” raising power tariffs was unacceptable.

Prof Honest Ngowi of Mzumbe University told The Citizen yesterday that developments of the last three days raised more questions than answers. He said adjustment of power tariffs was nothing new and had been overseen by Ewura since its establishment, adding that the authority was supposed to be an independent entity.

“I believe the same process and procedure was followed this time as well. Tanesco submitted its proposals, public hearings and consultations were conducted, and finally Ewura passed its verdict,” he said, adding, “But then we see the government reacting as if this whole issue was shrouded in secrecy. The question here is, where was the minister all along? Why didn’t the government stop the process at the outset and propose an the alternative to a tariff increase?”

Prof Ngowi said the decision could instil fear in regulators and State-owned firms.

“This has set a bad precedent and regulators might be apprehensive about executing their mandates. This is despite the fact that these authorities are supposed operate independently without political interference.”

Prof Haji Semboja of the University of Dar es Salaam said he fully supported President Magufuli’s goal of providing Tanzanians with affordable electricity, but voiced his concern about what he described as communication shortcomings within the government.

“Adjusting electricity charges is not a process that takes just one day. I believe the Tanesco board approved the matter before it was forwarded to Ewura, and government officials must have been aware of the development. This is why it is shocking to hear the minister say that he wasn’t consulted.”

Prof Semboja added that it was wrong to crucify one person for what essentially was a systemic problem.

“I don’t believe that only one person was involved from the beginning of the process to the very end. The entire system should have communicated and interpreted the President’s vision from the word go…it was a collective failure.”

Prof Ngowi, on the other hand, said reasons that prompted Tanesco to ask for a tariff increase should be addressed.

The two main reasons are increasing operational costs and the need to raise funds for infrastructure investment to attain the government’s goal of providing at least 75 per cent of the population with electricity by 2025.

“The government is supposed to spend heavily on infrastructure projects, but again citizens would feel the pinch because it is thorough taxes that the government gets money,” Prof Ngowi said.

“If you talk to industrialists and businesspeople they will tell you that it is better to pay higher tariffs and have reliable power than be charged less for power that is unreliable.”

He said the Union and Zanzibar governments should pay the Sh125 billion they owe Tanesco in outstanding bills. While the Union government has yet to pay Sh40 billion, Zanzibar owes Tanesco Sh85 billion.

“Can Tanesco by itself recover this colossal sum? How? Does it have the independence that could enable it to do so? Things have to change,” Prof Ngowi added.

Tanesco is also being crippled by the $16.76 million (Sh36.6 billion) monthly bill it pays a handful of independent power producers in capacity charges.

Also under scrutiny was whether the Energy and Minerals minister has powers to overturn decisions made by Ewura.

Prof Muhongo said in his letter to Ewura on Saturday that his actions were in line with the Electricity Act, 2008.

However, Kigoma Urban MP Zitto Kabwe said on social media yesterday that the minister should quote a specific clause giving him such powers.

Both the Electricity Act and Ewura Act give the regulator powers over all issues concerning tariffs, while the minister is essentially an overseer of policy.

However, Section 4 (2) of the Electricity Act bestows powers on the minister to coordinate emergency responses in close coordination with Ewura and Tanesco without being specific as to what constitutes an emergency.

A fierce stampede for fish has ensued among Zimbabweans and Zambians in Lake Kariba, raising the spectre of a diplomatic storm between the two neighbours.

Water and Climate Minister Oppah Muchinguri-Kashiri revealed recently that Zambia had deployed nearly a thousand fishing boats which were encroaching into Zimbabwean territory in violation of the protocol regulating the use of the Kariba Dam by the neighbouring countries

The lake lies between the two former British colonies although Zimbabwe is entitled to a bigger share of the aquatic resource. Kariba is a source of a variety of nutritious fish species with fishing there being employing thousands.

“According to Article 6 of the protocol, fishing effort (number of boats fishing) is to be shared according to the area of the lake which each state holds,” Muchinguri-Kashiri told parliament recently.

“Zimbabwe, which holds 55% of the lake, is entitled to 55% of the total fishing effort (particularly of the kapenta fishery which is a shared stock).

“Currently, Zimbabwe has 460 kapenta fishing boats on the lake and Zambia has 962 boats officially declared. This means the current ratio is 32:68 in Zambia’s favour which is against the protocol agreement.”

Despite the apparent greed by the Zambians, it has emerged, however, that the two countries were, in fact, both violating the protocol on the number of fishing boats plying the dam waters.

According to Muchinguri-Kashiri, a total of 500 boats are required on the lake to have a sustainable fishery.

“With the agreed ration,” she said, “Zimbabwe is to have 275 rigs and Zambia should have 225. The current total is pegged at 1422, meaning there is overcapacity on the lake.”

She added: “… Both countries are supposed to ensure that fishing effort is regulated and pegged at a sustainable level by committing to and abiding by the dictates of the protocol to ensure that the fishery recovers and maximum returns are realised.

“This will result in improved food security status of both nations, particularly for Zimbabwe which gets 90% of its fish protein from Lake Kariba, over 50% of this being from Kapenta fishing.”

Kapeta fish, popularly known as Matemba, are a delicacy in Zimbabwe and keep many families going during hard times.

The agreement regulating the use of the resource is named the Protocol on Economic and Technical Corporation between the Government of the Republic of Zambia and the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe concerning management and development of fisheries on Lake Kariba and the Trans-boundary Waters of the Zambezi River.

This protocol was jointly established by the governments of the two countries in 1999 setting the agenda for what each country does in the management of fisheries within its jurisdiction.

The management objective of the protocol is to ensure that the yield from its fisheries is ecologically sustainable and economically viable within an equitable framework.

Parliament has approved a half a billion dollar loan for infrastructure construction.

The loans are for five construction projects The financing is coming from foreign sources. The projects mostly focus on upgrading electricity and transportation facilities in the Amhara Regional State and Addis Abeba.

The five projects include: the Addis Abeba High Voltage Network Rehabilitation and Upgrading Project, the Qality to Tulu Dimto and Qality to Qilinto road project, the Hamusit Este road project, the National Load Dispatch Centre construction project, the Addis Abeba Bus Rapid Transit Project and the road project that extends from the Pushkin ring road to Gotera Masalecha.

The first two projects will be funded by loans from the Chinese Export-Import Bank, while the funding for the Hamusite Este Road Project will be provided by the Arab Bank and the OPEC Fund.

The remaining two projects are funded by the French Development Agency. The payment for the loans will each have an average 1.5pc interest rate by each year, and will be paid back within 10 to 20 years. Ethiopia’s external debt grew at an average annual rate of 20.8pc during the first edition of Growth and Transformation Plan. In March 2016, the country’s public debt as a percentage of GDP stood at 55pc.

OPINIONBy Henry D. Egessa

The media has been awash with several reports about the 51.4 kilometer Kampala-Entebbe Expressway being the most expensive road in the world. The reports have been informed by findings of the Committee of Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) which is chaired by Abdu Katuntu, the Member of Parliament for Bugweri County, Iganga District.

I have followed the discussion and investigations on the cost of Kampala-Expressway, with keen interest because I have a stake in the road as a Ugandan and responsible taxpayer. Like all Ugandans, I look out for value in whatever project the government undertakes.

First, it’s important for all of us to accept that the expressway is no ordinary road by not only Ugandan but African standards.

The total cost of the road is a whopping $476million – that’s a huge sum of money. No single road infrastructure in Uganda has cost that amount of money. According to the findings of COSASE, the road is costing Uganda $9.2 million per kilometer over and above the average $2 million per kilometer road.

Going by the media reports quoting COSASE, the road is costing Ugandans more than four times what it should cost. But what the reports are not telling us is what the cost of the lane per kilometer is and this is where the devil lies.

Kampala-Entebbe Expressway is a four lane road while most Ugandan roads are only two lanes. The cost of each Kampala-Entebbe Expressway lane per kilometer is $2.3 million. This means that the four lanes will be $2.3 million multiplied by four hence the $9.2 million per kilometer of the expressway.

It’s worth noting that the Kampala-Entebbe Expressway has 19 fly-overs and bridges with a total length of 2,770 metres. It also hosts Nambigirwa Bridge, the longest four-lane bridge in Uganda and East Africa with over 1,400 metres.

Now, let’s compare the cost of the on-going 15 kilometre Kampala Northern Bypass extension with that of the Kampala-Entebbe Expressway. The total cost of the two-lane road is $87 million (approximately Shs309 billion) -obviously a fraction of the Expressway. However, the cost per kilometer of this road is a whopping $5.8 million! This means that each lane is being constructed at $2.9 million. This road is funded by the European Union through the European Investment Bank while the Expressway is funded by the government of Uganda and China Exim Bank.

From the above analysis, one can easily tell which of the two roads is more expensive to Uganda and perhaps the most expensive in the world.

Another project cost I would like to draw fellow Ugandans to, is the cost of the New Nile Bridge Project. The bridge is slightly over half a kilometer (525 meters) long and it is going to cost the Ugandan tax payer $125 million (approximately Shs444 billion!) My simple maths tells me that if this is a 4-lane bridge, half a kilometer is costing us $59.5 million (Shs211 billion)! While it’s billed to have attractive features that beautify Jinja town, for its length, I believe it’s the most expensive infrastructure project in Uganda.

It can be argued that mixing oranges and mangoes is not appropriate. So the cost of the Jinja Nile Bride shouldn’t be compared to that of the Expressway or Northern Bypass.

So, let’s also look at the planned Kampala Southern Bypass.

How much will it cost Ugandans per kilometer to construct this road? The estimated total cost is $250 million while the cost per lane, per kilometer is about $4 million per lane, per kilometer! This is almost double the cost of the Kampala-Entebbe Expressway. But no one is raising an eyebrow.

Going back to the COSASE report and its recommendations to revisit the cost of the Kampala-Entebbe Expressway, I would say, the committee started its investigations without sufficient information or clear picture about the cost of the road projects Uganda is undertaking. If there’s a project that needs urgent attention before a contract is awarded or work is started, it’s that of the Kampala Southern Bypass. COSASE should launch investigations into this project so that Ugandans don’t end up paying an arm and leg for a road they can get at half the price.

We have been made to believe that the Kampala-Entebbe Expressway is very costly without being given proper explanations. As citizens of this country, we deserve to be told the truth especially by our parliamentarians.

Going by my analysis, I believe the Kampala-Entebbe Expressway is a value for money project and its should be expedited and concluded to avoid the usual Ugandan syndrome of losing millions of dollars through white elephants and endless investigations. On the other hand, COSASE should conduct comprehensive investigations into other key road projects of national interest.