Justine Bagyenda, the embattled former Director of Supervision at Bank of Uganda has apparently dragged 12 media houses to CID over publishing her bank details accusing “us” of defamation.
We say “us” because Matooke Republic is one of the media outlets she has dragged to CID.
According to Daily Monitor, CID said they will be prefer offensive communication and criminal libel charges.
The law states in Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act 2011 on offensive communication that; “Any person who willfully and repeatedly uses electronic communication to disturb or attempts to disturb the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person with no purpose of legitimate communication, whether or not a conversation ensues, commits a misdemeanor and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty four currency points (an equivalent of Shs480,000) or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both.”
We deliberately put in bold “no purpose of legitimate communication” because by publishing Bagyenda’s account details and properties, we had a legitimate purpose. The media plays a watchdog function of putting public figures to scrutiny. Bagyenda shouldn’t be jittery over her vast wealth “leaking” to the public because it is supposed to be public information anyway.
Even the issue of “privacy” doesn’t arise. The Leadership Code Act 2002 stipulates that a leader should declare their income, assets and liabilities to the Inspector General of Government every two years. As an Executive Director in Charge of Supervision at Bank of Uganda, Bagyenda’s office was listed in the “Second Schedule, Part B” that outlined specified government officers who are considered “leaders” under the act.
The listed Bank Of Uganda officers who must declare wealth include the; “Governor, Deputy Governor, Secretary, Director and Deputy Director, Head of Department by whatever name called, Head of Division or Section.”
Section 179 of the Penal Code Act states that “Any person who …. Unlawfully published any defamatory matter concerning another person, with intent to defame the other person, commits the misdemeanor termed libel.”
As earlier stated the intention of Matooke Republic publishing Bagyenda’s account details was not to defame but rather put her to scrutiny as a public official.
The office of the Inspector General of Government is in receipt of the documents enumerating Bagyenda’s vast wealth from a whistle blower.
The Leadership Code Act stipulates clearly that a whistle blower is supposed to be protected and if we are expected to reveal the sources of our information, it will not be possible. Tongue in cheek, we can also say we are whistle blowers.
Can you be defamed by the truth?
Another question Bagyenda should have asked herself before running to CID was, is what is being published the truth? Maybe that is why she is running to Police to use the state to intimidate journalists when she would have gone to the courts of law to seek redress.
But you cannot be defamed by the truth, so court couldn’t have been her first option as she doesn’t stand many chances there. If Bagyenda was a humble public servant and her accounts and mobile money transactions were cooked up, then we would have already issued an apology. But the banks, Diamond Trust Bank, Barclays Bank and MTN all apologised to Bagyenda over the leaking of their accounts. Their actions only served to confirm that our stories were true.
As a person who was in charge of supervising commercial banks, Bagyenda should have focused on making sure customers’ bank details are not leaked. We can say she was a victim of her own lapses.
Bagyenda should take issue with the banks under whose watch her account details leakked, showing she is a billionaire instead of trying to kill the messenger. Since she insisted in staying in office after Governor Emmanuel Mutebile replaced her, she can use her remaining month as she is officially due for retirement in June to ensure customers account details are never leaked again by the banks under her supervision.
In trying to intimidate journalists, Bagyenda’s aim is to gag and distract them from investigations into her wealth as IGG’s office, URA and even the Financial Intelligence Authority are interested in her affairs.
