group appeals for revocation of agreement
Greed and envy lot back in Uganda tourism
Having failed to substantially influence the political decision makers with their greed and envy cries, the same group has now resorted to appeal to the Inspector General of Government (IGG)
to revoke an agreement between the Uganda Wildlife Authority and the Nkuringo Conservation Trust, under which auspices the Clouds Safari Lodge was built and is now operating successfully, playing an important part in promoting gorilla tourism and conservation efforts for Uganda. According to press reports, the IGG’s office has gotten involved in the saga, arguably the last-ditch effort to overturn a decision made several years ago and a thorn in the side of a few disgruntled people ever since, whose biggest issue is that it was not them who got the deal.
The same quarters, generally considered a small minority, have also repeatedly in the past thrown mud on the Madhvani group over their existing and legally-binding agreements with the Uganda Wildlife Authority, which grant them an exclusion zone around their lodges in Queen Elizabeth National Park and Murchisons Falls National Park for the duration of the initial agreement, with the agitators openly demanding that the contracts be broken by government. They have also been playing the Asian racial card on a number of occasions, a despicable behavior by any standards and exposing them for the disregard they so obviously have for the rule of law and respect for contractual agreements.
Sources close to USAID, one of the international agencies which funded the project from its onset, also confirmed that as far as they were concerned there were no irregularities over the funds granted to the project and the way those funds were spent, citing past audits, which cleared and sanctioned their modus operandum. Said this source: "We also fail to understand or even appreciate why the Ugandan IGG should concern himself with our funding; we are answerable to Washington, and they were and continue to be ok with it." In addition, according to sources who prefer to be anonymous, the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) "having a clear conscience," that "the process at the time was completely above board" and that it was both competitive and in "no way discriminatory as alleged by some disgruntled people who failed to submit proposals in time or failed to make proposals worth considering."
Notably, the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) has come out strongly in favor of the investors and the deal, telling the detractors to stop "messing with the investor" in a hard-hitting message published in the local media over the weekend. UIA’s executive director, Prof. Dr. Maggie Kigozi, was throwing their institutional weight behind The Uganda Safari Company/Wild Places Africa in an unequivocal way, saying TUSC had invested where others did not dare and promoted Uganda’s tourism industry abroad to the extent of having Prince Charles visit Uganda and staying at their Nakasero based Emin Pasha boutique hotel.
The matter may now be heading to court, as UWA, the Nkuringo Trust Fund, and the operator of the Clouds Safari Lodge are unlikely to comply with IGG directives without a full legal battle, more so as several of those controversial rulings and directives made by the office of the IGG in the past have recently been overturned by Ugandan courts in favor of the complainants, lending credibility over allegations of bias and favoritism. It seems greed and envy, and wanting to grab what is not theirs, are indeed mighty motivators and drivers.
Comments
The office of the IGG on receiving the local community and stake holders queries, went ahead and conducted investigations regarding this whole Nkuringo Gorilla Permit saga. From the investigations, the following was established.
a) Uganda Wildlife Authority is mandated to cordinate and implement government policies in wildlife conservation and management, and is expected to be the custodian of all National Parks in Uganda. However, it was Uganda Wildlife Authority that encouraged some individuals to form a private company, with which they operate private businesses in respect to gorilla permit tourism, eventually edging out others. The company Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation was formed on the advice of Uganda Wildlife Authority to benefit Nkuringo area. It was registered as a company limited by guarantee, with only 23 members but it purports to act on behalf of the whole community bordering Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP).
Uganda Wildlife Authority is using Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation as a channel through which it conducts private business with another private company, the Uganda Safari Company (TUSC), by selling most of the gorilla tracking permits in Nkuringo through TUSC.
b) The above arrangement is facilitated by unfair and unrealistic agreements namely the agreement between Uganda Wildlife Authority and Nkuringo Conservation & Development Foundation dated 30th August 2004 and its addendums dated 23rd November 2006 and 29th November 2006, and an agreement between Nkuringo Conservation & Development Foundation and Uganda Safari Company dated 22nd March 2007. The said agreements make the Uganda Safari Company a monopoly in the gorilla tracking business and further have many unfair terms against Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation, the purported representatives of the community.
c) Funds of US dollars $250,000 secured by International Gorilla Conservation project and African Wildlife Fund on behalf of Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation, from Prime West- USAID for construction of the eco-lodge were not properly accounted for as Nkuringo Conservation and Development for whom it was received did not know how it was used. There was no evidence of receipt of the said money by Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation and the bank statement of Nkuringo did not reflect receipt of the said money.
d) Investigations in Kisoro confirmed that the contract leading to the construction of Nkuringo Conservation Development Foundation's eco-lodge is that is the one between Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation and The Uganda Safari Company, was pegged to an offer of exclusive rights of gorilla tracking permits to tourists that would be booked into and would stay in that eco-lodge.
That contract was resented by many stake holders; the business community in Kisoro, tour operators in Uganda, some members of the Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation itself, and the general Kisoro district administration. Stake holders efforts to ensure that the agreement between Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation is not signed were not adhered to. The agreement was signed in disregard of the stake holders interests and the Attorney General's advice of 20th July 2009 which was to the effect that a committee be set up by the Ministry of Trade, Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities to under take the following:-
> Consultations with the local Governments, NCDF and the rest of the communities on how best to address the issues raised by the stake holders.
> Review the contracts and all documents concerning the transactions.
> Verify fulfillment of the objectives of the Nkuringo Conservation and Development program.
> Develop proposals for the wider policy frame work for a better strategy for all communities around Bwindi.
e) Uganda Wildlife Authority violated Section 13(1) of the Uganda Wildlife Act, Cap. 200 when it failed to obtain the Board approval for the formation of Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation and further violated Section 13(3) of the Uganda Wildlife Act when it failed to involve the communities neighbouring the park in it's development of the Nkuringo gorilla tourism plan.
f) Uganda Wildlife Authority contravened sections 12(1), 14(4) of the Uganda Wildlife Act, and sections 2 and 49 of the Local Government Act, 1997 by failing to involve Kisoro District Council in its management of the Nkuringo Gorilla Tourism project.
g) Uganda Wildlife Authority contravened sections 45 and 46 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act, 2003 by failing to ensure transparency, accountability and fairness in the Nkuringo Gorilla Tourism plan and the exercise was not carried out in a manner that aims at maximising competition and value for money.
h) Uganda Wildlife Authority did not properly carry out its legal mandate and it contradicted Government policies and its own policies, namely the Gorilla and Chimpanzee permit reservation / booking guidelines and procedures of January 2008 in all the transactions complained about herein.
In view of the above and pursuant to Article 230 (2) of the constitution and S. 14 (6) of Inspectorate of Government Act, 2002 this is therefore to direct as follows:-
i) The illegal and irregular contracts, namely the Agreement between Uganda Wildlife Authority and Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation of 30/8/2004 and its addendums of 23/11/2006 and 29/11/2006, and the agreement between Nkuringo Conservation and Development Foundation and Uganda Safari Company, should be revoked.
ii) Uganda Wildlife Authority should comply with all the laws and policies that govern it in executing its mandate with out taking advantage of the ignorance of the communities it works with. It should particularly comply with the Uganda Wildlife Act Cap. 200, Local Government Act, 1997 and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, 2003.
iii) Uganda Wildlife Authority should draw up a well thought out frame work for the development of tourism opportunities for the whole region where Bwindi Impenetrable National Park is located, but not for particular isolated areas.
iv) The subcounties of Nyabwishenya and Kirundo, where Rubuguri and Nteko parishes respectively fall, should in consultation with the district take over the Nkuringo Gorilla tourism project and improve development for the benefit of their communities after other modalities have been addressed. The sub-counties have the mandate and capacity to plan for their local communities, and can be held responsible for transparency, accountability and reporting because they have a planning and budgeting mandate for their parishes to channel any project opportunities for their communities.
v) The Ministry of Tourism should strengthen its supervisory role over Uganda Wildlife Authority, with out simply being informed of what Uganda Wildlife Authority has already done regardless of its irregularity.
vi) NCDF should be wound up because it does not serve the interests of the Nkuringo community for which it was alleged formed. Another organisation that will genuinely serve the interests of the people of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park be formed and registered with the relevant authority.
The IGG's office expects a feed back (from Uganda Wildlife Authority / Ministry of Tourism - Uganda) on action taken in implementing the directions herein within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of this letter that was dated 28th April 2010.
Note: We are glad the IGG's report has continued to prove people like Mr. Wolfgang wrong. I do believe Mr. Wolfgang needs to send an apology to the Ugandan Tourism fraternity regarding his un founded remarks in the article.
Baluku Geoffrey
Tel: +256 776 975 961 /+256 7752 975 961 / +256 702 975 961
Email: geof@balukusguide.com
Web: www.balukusguide.com
Skype: mukonzo
Twitter : www.twitter.com/balukusguide
Facebook: www.facebook.com/balukusguide
A COMPANY THAT DOES NOT ADVERTISE IS LIKE A PERSON WHO STOPS THE WATCH TO SAVE TIME ADVERTISE WITH BALUKU'S GUIDE: UGANDA'S ONE STOP TOUR & TRAVEL GUIDE
Dear Thome,
Long time and hope you are doing well. Thanks you for keeping the news from Uganda on the web. I consistently follow your reporting through meltwater news who agreed to collate global news about Uganda for us.
I have read the article above "greed and envy lot back in Uganda tourism" which i think is a strong opinion on the Nkuringo saga/ UWA, Clouds safaris and the IGGs report. Despite that some IGGs decision have been turned down eg. Lukyamuzi and leadership code, but the ombudsman has also uncovered some of the very unfair contracts to society eg. UMEME turiffs. There was wide spread consultations I guess on this issue and we would look forward to some amicable and logical settlement of the issue. I personally think the spirit of giving back to the communty through direct income generation by UWA was perfect but probably there were legal niches that may have flipped through contractual processes and which may have led the IGGs office to make the respective conclusion. I would therefore think "greed and envy" to be too strong for the group(disgrantled or not)that agitated for correction of those niches. As you may be aware, NatureUganda organised a public talk about the issue and I called UWA,AWF rep, community rep and tour operators etc and each group seemed to have had logical arguments. The IGG may be the middleman impartial and independent assessor in this case not 'biased and favouritism'. Like you said the matter may go to court and we probably go slow on passing the judgement.
Regards,
Achilles
Mr. Wolfgang, I used to hold you in high regard but with your current utterances...I have lost all my respect for you. How do u call /claim that the majority of Uganda Tour Operators who are trying to fight injustice and fair play in the tourism trade such as the Nkuringo Monopoly as being greedy and wanting to "grab" what is not theirs...on the contrary the project is meant for the genuine community and not masqueraders. We will take you on for your lies
Post new comment