· “Shs 13 Billion Silo Project for Uganda Prisons mired in controversy”
· “Asiimwe’s Innocence As Forensic Experts Fails To Link Him To Forgery”
· “Taifa Partners Managing Latest Victim Of Predatory Money-lending”
The general public attention has been drawn to three online stories purporting to report Court proceedings at Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court under Criminal Case Number 0834/2023: Uganda v Asiimwe Emmanuel.
However, the online publications on www.monitor.co.ug, www.insightpostug.com , www.eyewitness24.net reflect lies, fabrications, inaccuracies and baseless allegations intended to tarnish the good names of Kamusiime Joseph, Okello Charles, Assa Tumwesigye and the corporate name of Davanti Union Ltd.
We wish to respond to each of these falsehoods as follows:
1. Shareholder dispute between Taifa Partners and Davanti Union Ltd.
a) There is no shareholder dispute as alleged. Davanti Union Ltd is a shareholder in Taifa Partners Ltd having purchased 10 shares from the latter on 20th July 2022.
b) On 7th July 2022, Asiimwe Emmanuel sold 5 shares to Davanti Union Ltd and Okello Charles sold 5 shares to Davanti Union Ltd and Asiimwe remained with 90 shares. This is not in contention. (copies of share transfers for each attached.)
c) On 7th July, 2023, Asiimwe Emmanuel filed Petition No.21033 of 2023 to take away the 10 shares from Davanti Union Ltd, but his petition was defeated in the URSB tribunal and dismissed on 28th July 2023.
(A copy of the Ruling and Order is attached).
d) At the moment, there is no dispute since all machinations by Asiimwe Emmanuel to cheat Davanti Union Ltd were defeated in the above petition. Asiimwe Emmanuel has never appealed or challenged the ruling.
2. That the Criminal case is due to a shareholder dispute between Taifa Partners and Davanti Union Ltd.
1a) There is no connection or link between the Criminal case and the shareholding of Taifa Partners and Davanti Union Ltd.
b) The case at Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court was lodged by Kamusiime
Joseph when it was discovered that most of the company documents in circulation had been forged by Asiimwe Emmanuel, including most resolutions that are registered with URSB.
c) The case concerns five documents which were forged and filed by Asiimwe Emmanuel because Okello Charles who was the company secretary at that time denied or denies having signed these documents, i.e.,
● A Power of Attorney not dated but registered on 20th of August 2022 to revoke
the POA that Taifa Partners had given to Assa Tumwesigye replacing him with
Asiimwe Emmanuel. Okello was in Soroti on the day of 15/7/22 and did not attend any meeting to approve those resolutions.
● A company resolution of the meeting allegedly held on July 15, 2022, to approve the said Powers of Attorney. Okello Charles was in Soroti on this day as shown above.
● Company Resolution dated 23rd May 2022 appointing Asiimwe Emmanuel as the sole signatory to all company accounts in Stanbic Bank. Okello was in Kasese on this day and could not have attended such a meeting in Kampala.
● A Company Resolution dated 5th May 2022 to add a new signatory to 1 & M Bank account. Okello was in Soroti on the 5/5/2022 and not in Kampala to attend any meeting.
● A Company Resolution dated 27th April 2022 to open a bank account in 1 & M Bank. Okello Charles was in Soroti and not in Kampala to attend the alleged meeting.
3. Falsely accusing Asiimwe Emmanuel by Davanti Union Ltd in order to have him imprisoned.
a) Davanti Union Ltd is a shareholder and Director in Taifa Partners and has a right to complain to police where a co-director is engaged in forgery or any other criminal activity.
b) Davanti Union Ltd would also be part of the said forgeries or a partner in crime if the crime went unreported.
c) No false accusation was made by Davanti Union Ltd because the real person who was alleged to have signed the documents vehemently denied them.
1d) Asiimwe Emmanuel is not above the law so that he can forge peoples’ signatures and get away with it.
e) Assa Tumwesigye filed a Petition Number 21783 of 2023 challenging the Power of Attorney and resolution of 15 th July 2022 which Asiimwe Emmanuel registered at URSB alleging that the company had sat in a meeting to make the new Power of Attorney appointing himself. URSB found that both the Power of Attorney and resolution of 15/7/22 presented by Asiimwe Emmanuel were forged and hence were expunged from the URSB Register and Assa Tumwesigye was reinstated. (A copy of the Ruling and Order is attached.)
f) The Directorate of Forensics at Naguru also issued a report confirming that all signatures of Okello Charles that appear on the exhibit documents were a forgery. This position was confirmed by the handwriting expert when she testified in court in the presence of journalists.
4. Conspiracy between Assa Tumwesigye and Okello Charles Davanti Union Ltd.
(a) There is no need to conspire since the forgeries have been confirmed by the
handwriting expert.
(b) There is a ruling of URSB that confirms that Okello Charles has never signed the Powers of Attorney and any resolution to pass the forged Power of Attorney which Asiimwe Emmanuel used to revoke the Power of Attorney previously granted by the company to Assa Tumwesigye.
5. Pre-datory money lending Practices by Davanti Union Ltd.
a) This statement is totally false and baseless.
b) The transaction/relationship between Taifa Partners and Davanti Union Ltd is purely based on a joint venture as per the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the two companies on 15th July 2022.
6. Conspiracy to have Asiimwe Emmanuel imprisoned while awaiting payment
(a) This is also a false statement because there is no relationship between payments and the forgery that was committed.
(b) Asiimwe Emmanuel is a 90% shareholder in the company and nothing can take away his entitlements in the company when it comes to sharing profits or dividends.
1(c) Assa Tumwesigye and Okello Charles are not shareholders in the company. How do they intend to benefit from company profits if Asiimwe Emmanuel is jailed?
7. Title of the Article: “13 billion Silo Project mired in controversy”.
a) The project is being implemented effectively and stands at 98% completion.
b) The Criminal Case at Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court is purely a matter of forgery committed by one of the directors of Taifa Partners Ltd. It has nothing to do with the running of the project.
8. Allegation that the handwriting expert exonerated Asiimwe of forgery
a) This news reporter should avoid giving his own judgment in a matter that is under trial.
b) The terms of reference for the expert did not require the authentication of Asiimwe’s signature. Rather, the expert was only supposed to examine the questioned signatures of Okello Charles that were denied compared to the genuine samples of Okello signature.
c) At no point was the expert required to prove whether Asiimwe forged the documents in question, since this is an issue that will be decided by the court after weighing all documentary and oral evidence adduced by the witnesses.
d) Furthermore, Asiimwe’s signature on the questioned documents has not been denied by himself so as to require an expert to prove whether they belong to him or not.
9. Allegation on conflicting reports on court file
a) On the court record, there is only one forensic report issued by the Uganda police forensic department dated August 24, 2024.
b) No other report in relation to this matter is known to be on the record or in conflict with that one of August 24, 2024.
10) Allegations that Okello was paid Shs50,000 for his shares
a) The amount paid to anyone selling shares in a company is determined by the nominal share value per share in that company and it is not something to be speculated about.
b) The matter of share price is not an issue in fact as far as the trial is concerned.
11. Dispute between Asiimwe and Kamusiime
1 a) At the time of reporting, there was no known dispute between the shareholders of Taifa Partners ltd, both at the Commercial Court, arbitration court and URSB tribunal. The writer will be tasked to prove this allegation.
12. Managing the accounts
The reporters shall be put to the strict proof of the allegation that Kamusiime appointed a new manager of accounts when Asiimwe was in jail.
13. Allegation that Okello Advised Assa to bow out
a) It is not true that Okello Charles ever requested Asiimwe to pay or buy out Assa
Tumwesigye.
b) In any case, the advice to settle matters out of court is not a bad idea because it’s cheaper and saves time.
c) Asiimwe’s refusal to follow the advice resulted into him losing petition number
21783 of 2023 before URSB which Assa filed challenging Asiimwe’s forged resolution and Power of Attorney, hence they were expunged.
14. Allegations that representatives of Davanti Union are not registered
Dananti Union is represented by lawyers from Lens Advocates and records clearly show that the firm is fully approved by the Law Council. The allegations that the firm is not registered are in the minds of the day dreamers. The other lawyers are Andrew Wamina from Stratten Advocates and Arthur Tomusange from Muwema and Company Advocates.
15. Asiimwe’s Complaints to The DPP, IGG And Kira Road Police Quashed
a) Asiimwe has appealed to many offices to prove that he is innocent but without
success.
b) He made two complaints to the DPP which were all dismissed,
c) He filed the complaint to the IGG and it was also dismissed.
d) He also filed a complaint of forgery and impersonation against Assa Tumwesigye at Kiira Police Station. The matter was investigated and the file was closed by the RSA for lack of evidence. (Copies of the DPP and the IGG opinions are attached.)
e) It is not only difficult but self-defeating for Asiimwe to deny forgery because he is the only person that benefited from the forged documents, especially the Power of Attorney in which he appointed himself to replace Assa Tumwesigye. (Copies of Letters he personally wrote dated 20th July, 2022 informing the Consultant and Uganda Prisons about the new Power of Attorney to himself are attached.
Conclusion
1. The journalists acted unprofessionally and were lured into publishing things that fall outside the criminal case proceedings.
2. The journalists were allowed to be used by Asiimwe Emmanuel to report biased articles without getting our side of the story.
3. We challenge the journalists to give evidence to all what was reported in this online article, apart from hearsay.
4. We therefore demand that all inaccuracies and falsehoods in these stories be retracted, or else the necessary legal action shall be taken against each of the publishers.
