The hearing of a case in which former National Animal Genetic Resources Centre and Data Bank (NAGRC & DB) bosses including Dr. Charles Lagu are accused of fraudulently procuring animal semen worth sh1.3b, resumes on Monday (January 22, 2024).

Others include procurement officer Eziekel Phillip Mukani, farm manager Clement Nuwamanya, veterinary officer Dr Patrick Mawadri, deputy technical manager production Dr Wilfred Anthony Ntaate, Tadeo Mbazira, Charles Ezati, Benda Katali, Mathias Wakulira and Yasinta Nabukenya.

Justice Margaret Tibulya is handling the case before the Anti-Corruption Court in Kampala.

In the last court session, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) senior officer, Andrew Emejeit testified that the Solicitor General did not clear the sh1.3b contract between Government and Kibbubu Agro Suppliers Limited for the supply and delivery of animal semen, as required by the law.

“The entity based on a contract that was not cleared by the Solicitor General,” he testified.

Emejeit was testifying under the guidance of State Attorney Steven Ariong in a case in which the accused are battling charges of abuse of office, corruption, fraudulent false accounting, and forgery, among others.

The witness told court that they were unable to establish whether the entity actually made advance payment in respect to the contract because procurement was generically provided as supply for semen without providing any reference on the request for the release of funds approved by the accounting officer.

Emejeit said he investigated the matter following a request from the Criminal Investigations Directorate, to review the procurement for supply and delivery of semen to the NAGRC&DB by Kibbubu in a letter dated May 6, 2020.

He told court that some of the documents he based on to investigate the matter include a form file initiating the procurement, memo requesting for approval of the procurement, evaluation report, evidence of advance payment, among others.

In his finding, the witness noted that the NAGRC&DB user department did not attach specifics for the delivery of semen, contrary to regulation 3 (1) of the PPDA Rules.

The section provides that an initiation of a procurement requirement shall include clearly defined terms of reference, the estimated value of the consultancy services and confirmation of availability of funding.

According to the witness, the entity was placed at a risk of commitment without understanding what was being procured which can result into purchasing supplies that may not meet the requirement.

Although the sh1.3b contract was signed by Lagu, Emejeit stated that there was no evidence to indicate that price assessment in the market was done, which placed the entity at a risk of procuring supplies at high cost.

The witness told the court that procurement of animal semen from Kibbubu did not meet the threshold for the use of direct procurement method because other suppliers were in the market.

“Kibbubu was not the manufacturer of the supplies,” Emejeit said.