The governments of South Sudan and Uganda have raised concerns over multiple identification and citizenship within the two countries which jeopardise efforts to consolidate cross-border security and perpetuate the tension.

The two sisterly countries have also continued to raise concerns about rampant incidences of insecurity along the Kaya border, the Uganda daily newspaper reported yesterday.

According to Mr. Bosco Wani, the Executive Director of Morobo County in Central Equatoria State, some suspects at the border of Kaya can cross to South Sudan with Ugandan identity cards and when they commit crimes; they run back claiming they are Ugandans.

“We have our brothers along these borders who cross to work in South Sudan with Ugandan identity cards and when they reach there, they claim to be South Sudanese. And when they are caught up in problems, they run back to Uganda that they are Ugandans,” he said.

He said citizens travelling from any of the two countries should be well-identified at the border by the local leaders and be given permits so that it becomes easy to track them. 

The Koboko Resident District Commissioner, Mr Emmy Mitala, observed that the situation is tricky to deal with because of the nature of the location of the district and the numerous porous border points.

“We understand that there are people who have two to three identities, one for Uganda, one for South Sudan and one for DR Congo. This makes it tricky for us to implement certain things. And they speak the same language in those three countries,” he said.

According to the Uganda’s Refugee Desk officer of Arua in the Office of the Prime Minister, Mr Solomon Osakan, the practice of dual citizenship is legal according to the laws of Uganda adding that some of the criminal gangs disguise themselves as refugees from South Sudan. 

“You know people who reside along the borders and have relatives across the other side can do funny things. They can register in Uganda and the other country, so they have dual citizenship. That is why we had requested the government to allow us to run the data of National Identity cards together with the refugee identity cards so that we see who has double registration,” he said.

Border breaches

The two countries have endured endless border tension with Ugandan forces being blamed as the consistent aggressors.

For instance, September this year, a lawmaker representing Kajo Keji County in Central Equatoria State complained over alleged deployment of the Ugandan People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) in the border areas.

James Duku claimed the UPDF had evicted South Sudanese from the areas and prevented movements on both sides of the border.

This prompted the National Assembly to quickly summon the national ministers charged with diplomatic issues and security to come to the Parliament and explain their efforts in addressing the matter. 

The Speaker of Parliament, Jemma Nunu Kumba, emphasized that the ministers of interior (Angelina Teny), Defense (Chol Balok), foreign affairs (Pitia Morgan) are to answer queries on the issue of the South Sudan-Uganda border tension.

“This motion requests that the Government of South Sudan urgently engage the Government of Uganda through Presidential or Diplomatic mechanisms to de-escalate the current security situation and carnage, as well as to determine the right of ancestral ownership lands claimed by the Ma’di and Aringa people of Uganda along the South Sudan-Uganda border for permanent settlement of the land issues prior to the completion of the final delimitation and demarcation of the border,” Duku who tabled the motion argued. 

Earlier this month, a South Sudanese media reported that the Uganda President Yoweri Museveni send two ministers to Yumbe and Moyo districts to address the border issues. This came in the wake of negotiations with a committee formed by the Central Equatoria State governor Emmanuel Adil, which reached a deal with Ugandan authorities to hand over 13 arrested Ugandans in exchange of the chief of Bori Boma of Kajo-Keji County. By Matia Samuel, The City Review

Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has come out to explain why Azimio allied Members of Parliament have been skipping parliamentary sessions where CSs are summoned to answer queries regarding their respective ministries.

In a statement via his X account on Friday October 12, Sifuna noted that the plenary sessions are not anchored in law and as such, the Azimio MPs keep off.

“The minority side does not attend sessions with CSs because we believe they are there unconstitutionally. We filed a reference to the High Court and are awaiting judgment this month. So it’s not absenteeism. It’s a principle,” Sifuna explained. 

The ODM Secretary General was responding to a X user who raised concern on why many Azimio MPs were missing when Interior CS Kithure Kindiki appeared before the Senate on Thursday to answer questions about his Ministry.

“Work on absenteeism. I was worried yesterday. Several Senators, especially from the minority side, were absent during a session with CS Kithure Kindiki,” Captain Kapkorir wondered. 

The move to have CSs appear at the National Assembly and Senate was part of President William Ruto’s campaign strategy leading up to the 2022 elections. 

According to the President, the action will make state Ministers answerable for their deeds and offer a path for the execution of state initiatives.

“I believe that our government will become more responsive, accountable and effective when it is subjected to rigorous oversight. There is tremendous benefit in experiencing checks and balances in the course of policy implementation.

“The executive has vested interest in engaging productively with Parliament because the Legislature is the custodian of critical instruments that are indispensable for the functioning of Government. There is profound value in prosecuting the Executive’s legislative agenda and elaborating government policy from the floor of the House as opposed to segmented committee engagements,” said Ruto in 2022.

Parliament in March adopted the Report of the Procedure and House Rules Committee that amended various sections of the Standing Orders to allow the Cabinet Secretaries to physically appear before the House and answer questions.

The CSs appear before the House on Wednesday afternoons between 2.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m.

National Social Security Fund (NSSF) managing director, Patrick Ayota has asked court to exercise its discretion in the interest of justice to favour the stability of the fund.

Ayota told the High court civil division that it should guard against what he described as “unmeritorious cries of a single disgruntled person whose recommendation was rejected based on sound, cogent reasons.”  

Ayota further stated that the Shs 18 trillion fund is at risk of misuse and stagnation and warned that it would be against the public interest for the fund to go without strategic leadership. He appeared before justice Musa Sekaana on Thursday in relation to a suit filed by his predecessor, Richard Byarugaba who has been fighting to reclaim his job at NSSF.   

Ayota swore a 38-paragraph affidavit drawn by Kampala Associated Advocates in which he defended the Gender, Labour, and Social Development minister, Betty Amongi for appointing him as NSSF managing director to replace Byarugaba whose contract had expired. In August 2023, Byarugaba filed a petition against the Attorney General and Amongi, seeking court orders for Amongi to fulfill her statutory duties and complete his reappointment as the NSSF MD, as recommended by the board and required by the law.    

Byarugaba’s argument is based on procedural irregularities and the decision leading the minister to the board’s recommendation for his reappointment. He said there was a violation of his legitimate expectations by not affording him a fair hearing. He further went on to say that Ayota was not fit to head NSSF.

In the affidavit, Ayota fired back at his former boss saying that he (Ayota) has all the requisite competencies and work experience to serve as managing director of NSSF. Ayota through his lawyers led by Elison Karuhanga, says the interests of justice for the entire countrywide membership of the fund override any purported interest that Byarugaba has in a leadership position that he was found unfit to occupy.

He says that in the interest of justice, Byarugaba’s appointment should not be granted. He argued that if granted, there would be a leadership lacuna that could put the whole fund in limbo without a substantive accounting officer to safeguard members' savings. Ayota says his appointment was done lawfully, is valid, and was not done to defeat the present application for judicial as alleged by Byarugaba.

"That I know that the instant application and its supporting affidavits do not raise any act or commission attributed to me personally for which I am being faulted and I am advised by my aforementioned lawyers that the application does not disclose any cause of action against me as alleged or at all".  

He says now in the interest of justice, fairness, and equity, Byarugaba's application should be dismissed with costs. Byarugaba served as NSSF MD since August 1, 2010, and his second appointment began on November 29, 2017 expired on November 30, 2022. Byarugaba contends that even before his second contract could run its course, Amongi attempted to prematurely end it by stating that he should have retired upon reaching 60 years of age.

He adds that only with the intervention of the Attorney General was he able to complete his second term of office. The NSSF board of directors had recommended renewing the contracts of both Byarugaba and his then-deputy Ayota. However, Amongi renewed only the contract of Ayota and deferred Byarugaba’s appointment, citing various allegations, including financial impropriety, collusion with contractors, defiance of presidential directives, and corruption.      

Despite meetings at State House on December 6, 2022, and receiving guidance from President Yoweri Museveni to conclude Byarugaba’s appointment process, Amongi did not follow the guidance. Byarugaba argues that this, along with ignoring the February 2023 report of the parliamentary select committee on the state of affairs at NSSF where he was cleared of financial impropriety allegations, makes the decision not to renew his contract illegal, irrational, and procedurally incorrect. 

According to Byarugaba, the decision also disregarded the Inspector General of Government’s report, which cleared him of allegations and supported the board’s recommendation based on his previous performance in office. However, as the matter was pending in court, Amongi elevated Ayota and appointed him as the managing director of the fund. 

Byarugaba then asked the court to allow him to amend his petition and include Ayota as the third respondent such that he could be given a fair hearing and defend himself over the allegations. His application succeeded and the matter returned to court for a follow-up on amendment to see if they were effected as ordered by the judge.

In his application, Byarugaba argues that Ayota was appointed on August 18, 2023, while holding the substantive statutory position of deputy MD on a fixed five-year term, making him ineligible for the MD appointment. Through his lawyers led by Anthony Bazira, Byarugaba requested the court to invalidate Ayota’s appointment and issue a permanent injunction to prevent Ayota from acting as the MD of the fund.

Justice Ssekaana after hearing the parties adjourned the case for one week and directed that the parties file any other documents to enable the court to give further guidance on the case. He directed that the lawyers representing Byarugaba, the Attorney General, Amongi and Ayota file their written submissions in the case and return on December 4 for mention.

Records indicate that NSSF, under Byarugaba’s and his deputy Ayota's leadership, currently has 2,000,000 members and assets worth Shs 18 trillion. Based on this performance, Byarugaba is seeking to have the decision not to renew his contract set aside.  By URN / The Observer

The Environment and Lands Court on Thursday issued new guidelines on logging of trees, and further banned issuing of new licenses to cut trees in either public or private forests.

Justice Oscar Angote said only logging of mature trees would be allowed in 5,000 hectares of land that had been identified by a multi-agency task force.

The Judge further directed that the exercise should be conducted with strict supervision from the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and the Multi-Agency Oversight Team, and should comply with the environment law.

“The harvesting to be in strict compliance including adhering to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), rules and regulations. Save for the 5,000 hectares, a conservatory orders be and are hereby issued barring issuance of licenses by the respondents or their assigns, employees or proxies until further orders of the court,” he ruled. 

In his verdict, the Judge observed that despite the KFS stating that it had a strategic plan for tree cutting and planting, it never produced the same in court nor did it furnish the information to the Law Society of Kenya (LSK).

Meanwhile, the Judge also ordered the government to implement the 2018 recommendations of a task force on the protection of forests and the environment within three months and report it to the court.

Nevertheless, he was of the view that there was no evidence that President William Ruto lifted the logging moratorium. 

According to him, the roadside announcement was not proof that paved the way for logging. The Judge said any presidential declaration has to be written and sealed for it to have the effect of the law.

He observed that instead, the deal brokered between KFS and timber companies in two cases filed in Embu and Nyeri High Courts was at the heart of lifting the ban. 

However, the Judge said that the deal was illegal, as the High Court has no power to hear cases on right to a clean environment.

The government banned logging in 2018 in order to restore the country’s forest cover. 

However, President Ruto on July 2 this year, announced that the Kenya Kwanza Government had come up with a policy to allow logging. 

In the case, LSK lawyer Kennedy Waweru argued that there was no scientific proof or research that Kenya has more than enough trees to allow sawmills and loggers to start felling them.

Further, Waweru stated that although the President indicated that logging will benefit families and persons who live near forests, on the flip side, the majority of Kenyans will in the end suffer due to climate change.

LSK in its case says it fears that the government is hell-bent on introducing the infamous shamba system that was banned in 2002 over abuse.

In her affidavit, the society’s Chief Executive Officer Florence Muturi told the court that Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has in public forums indicated that the government will allow farming in forests.

She asserted that the decision will erode Kenya’s efforts to attain 10 per cent forest cover.

LSK sued Attorney General Justin Muturi, Forestry Cabinet Secretary Sopian Tuya, and the National Environment Management Authority. By Kamau Muthoni , The Standard