Embattled Executive Director of the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA), Jolly Kaguhangire has defied the decision recently taken by the Board of Directors to interdict her from office, saying the decision was marred by illegalities and is therefore null and void.
Kaguhangire was forced out of office following a meeting by the UIA Board on Tuesday which accused her of corruption, abuse of office, insubordination, lying to the Board among other allegations. The Board resolved to interdict her for 3 months so that a probe into the allegations could take place.
Read More: UIA E.D, Jolly Kaguhangire Forced Out of Office Over Corruption and Abuse of Office
However, Kaguhangire has now refused to comply with the Board decision which she says was arrived at by flouting of procedure.
In a letter dated June 27, Kaguhangire told the Board Chairperson, Emely Kugonza that: “In accordance with the laws and regulations governing UIA, standard corporate practice and governance, and the principles of equity, this interdiction is not a Board decision and I am not complying with it”.
She says the Board meeting did not have quorum.
She makes reference to the Board Manual Section 3.5.2, the Investment Code Act Section 7 and the First Schedule which puts the quorum at 8 members. Section 4.1.2(a) of the UIA Board Manual further states that the Chairperson should satisfy himself that the meeting is duly convened and is
quorate at all material time.
On the contrary, Kaguhangire states that at the time of the decision to interdict her was reached, 3 members had left the meeting.
“Initially 9 members of the board signified their attendance of the meeting by recording and signing their attendance. A non-quorate illegal meeting of only 6 members made the impugned decision,” she added in her letter.
She also says that one of the board members who has personal conflict with her participated in the deliberations and voting of the Board, to her prejudice. This, she says contravenes with Section 4.4.1 of the Board Manual which prohibits the participation in the deliberation of matters in which a member has an interest.
The said meeting by the Board had also not adopted the issue touching the Executive Director on its Tuesday agenda, she further states.
“The issues in respect of the Executive Director were not on the part of the items on the Agenda as adopted. It should therefore never have arisen and was not available for discussion,” she wrote.
“The allegations that were made against me are unfounded and totally baseless and I remain available to answer all of them satisfactorily in an unbiased forum”.
