Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bank of Uganda and Crane Bank has sparked debate between legislatures, lawyers and other stakeholders who are calling for further intervention from the Parliament to investigate under what circumstances did BOU lost the case during the ruling.
Paul Omara, Otuke county Member of Parliament said that the BOU under articles 82 to 88 have been given a mandate to handle matters of any financial institution if it violates any of those articles.
He added that Crane Bank has had been fighting hence attracting intervention of the BOU by providing corrective actions which led to receivership or a statutory management of that particular institution.
He added that BOU followed all the necessary processes before anything else was done, and they ended up into receivership. He added that the Attorney General must be brought to Parliament to explain the implications of this ruling because the people that would suffer are the tax payers.
Paul Omara on BOU
Martine Ojara Mapenduzi, Gulu city Member of Parliament has blamed BOU as a regulatory body that took a decision in September, 2016 to take over the management of Crane Bank due to audit report that revealed that Crane Bank had insufficient capital level, shrinking liquidity ratio, loan defaulting, among others.
According to Ojara, the decision taken on the alleged fraud of over 300billion really needs to be pursuit, and Parliament intervention to debate on the matter to save the tax payers money.
He added that the ruling was made basing on technical issues and, the tax payers will suffer to pay any amount of money in terms of cost met by the proprietor of Crane Bank.
Ojara Martine on provoking parliament to intevene
Sarah Bireete, The Executive Director at Center for Constitutional Governance (CCG) Uganda said that the Supreme Court decision raises a lot of concerns to the public in regards to the CASASE’s report and other relevant reports after summoned. She added that the Bank of Uganda too, needs to be investigated since they are the one responsible for the lost.
Bireete further added that there is a lot of controversy, cases of fraud and lack of transparency involved in activities of banks including BOU since they opted to use the lawyers that were previously used by the banks despite having all the knowledge in regards to the case.
Sarah Bireete on fraud claims involved in banking institutions
Fred Muwemu, a commercial lawyer stated that the general feelings about substantive justice to be administered without due regards to technicalities to sue cannot be observed because the court cannot throw away the rules, the law and just to allow everybody sue because it will lead to mayhem in the court as the court must follow rules.
According to him, the article 126 of the constitution, judicial power must be exercised in conformity with the law made by Parliament that should not segregate, and it’s unconstitutional because the right for anybody to sue in the court of law to take their disputes for a decision by court is a fundamental human right which cannot be bridged.
Fred Muwemu on the constitutional rights of people
In their decision on Friday, the Supreme Court justices held that it was BoU that was behind the Shs397b commercial litigation against the businessman and not Crane Bank in receivership, hence they should foot all the legal costs.
Comentarios