The Attorney General has agreed with Sinohydro Corporation’s position, joining the contractor’s dismissal as malicious and totally misconstrued, the allegations in a court case filed against it and others over the procurement process.
The case stems from a suit filed by one Henry Kyarimpa, who asked the High court to order for an independent engineering, financial and value-for-money audit to determine the quality of works and viability of the projects and also to cancel contracts of both the Karuma and the 183MW Isimba hydro power contractors.
However, the East African Court of Justice in Arusha had ruled thus in the same case; “With respect to the order to cancel the MoU between Government of Uganda and Sinohydro, we are persuaded that such an order would be academic and futile. As a court of law, we cannot act in vain and we, accordingly decline to order the respondent to cancel the MoU between the GoU and Sinohydro”
The East African court had further stated that it was impractical to reverse the construction of the Karuma dam by Sinohydro adding that the remedy sought by the appellant was inappropriate in the circumstances.
In their defence to the latest appeal, Sinohydro says the matters Kyarimpa raises in his new petition have already been dealt with by the East African Court of Justice hence they cannot be pursued further by the same parties.
The Attorney General’s defence states that Sinohydro together with the government of Uganda, entered into an engineering procurement and construction contract, which provides, among other things, a consultant whose duties include verifications and ensuring proper works site.
The Attorney General further affirms that if there are any construction issues at Karuma or Isimba, such EPC has in-built provisions for addressing and rectifying such issues, and it cannot be open to the second defendant to arrogate to himself the duty of a consultant to the project.
Government says it has put in place adequate supervision capacity. The AG maintains that the regulations are undertaken by Uganda Electricity Generation Company, which is advised by reputable project management consultants such as SMEC International Limited at Isimba and AF Consulting Switzerland Limited at Karuma.
Furthermore, the Attorney General said contrary to allegations of lack of proper supervision of the project, there is adequate supervision on ground at both Isimba and Karuma hydro power projects to check the quality of work which is currently at 31% and 30% construction progress respectively.
“There are no material and fundamental defects on the projects. The defects so far experienced on site are minor and are those which ordinarily occur in the construction and engineering industry and do not affect the functionality and durability of both projects” AG’s defence reads in part.
The AG also denies Kyarimpa’s allegations that there is infighting between the Ministry of energy and Uganda Electricity and Generation Company. “On the contrary, there is a memorandum of understanding that was entered into by the two institutions spelling out the responsibilities of each institution,” the government says, adding: “The first defendant [Attorney General] avers that government of Uganda has not received any credible reports or information of alleged corruption, misuse and wastage of public resources as alleged.”
