|
Judge
Rejects Government Claims
In ordering disclosure of the document, Judge Egonda-Ntende
rejected government claims that the group was not
qualified to sue under the constitution and that the
PPA was not really a government document.
During
the litigation, the government argued that disclosure
of the PPA would impair the economic credibility and
sovereignty of Uganda. The PPA was executed by AES
Nile Power Limited, the project contractor based in
Arlington, Va., and the Uganda Electricity Board,
whose successor is the Uganda Electricity Transmission
Company Ltd.
When
the court asked the Ugandan government to produce
the document for the court, "However, that was
not to be," commented the judge in his ruling.
Instead, the Attorney General wrote back to say "that
the document did not exist," recounted the judge.
The environmental group, which had already obtained
the document informally from Parliament, then supplied
a copy to the judge.
The
government argued, in part that the document was not
a public document, but Judge Egonda-Ntende noted that
Ugandan Minister of Energy and Mineral Development
Syda Bbumba had signed the "Implementation Agreement"
for the dam project on behalf the government. The
Power Purchasing Agreement and the Implementation
Agreement. "are so intertwined that one can not
comprehend the full import of the Implementation Agreement
without reading and digesting the Power Purchasing
Agreement," the judge said in determining that
the PPA is by incorporation part of the Implementation
Agreement.
The
judge also rejected arguments that the government
was not a party to the PPA, countering that the government
had possession of the PPA. The Constitution refers
to "information in possession of the state,"
and the judge said, "What is important is possession
of the information by the state."
He
also turned down the government's contention that
the Uganda Electricity Transmission Company is not
a state agency. After again noting that the document
was in the government's possession, the judge determined
that the company is "an agent of the government
in ensuring that power is available to the people
of Uganda."
Because
the government did not allege that exceptions to disclosure
in the Constitution to protect state security and
sovereignty should be applied, the judge said he assumed
that those grounds of defense "were abandoned.'
Finally,
Egonde-Ntende decided that the environmental group
rejected the government's argument that Greenwatch
Limited was not a "citizen" qualified to
bring such a suit. He argued that that as a limited
liability company under Ugandan law the group could
own land and held "a corporate citizenship"
giving it standing to sue.
The
judge's ruling is available at freedominfo.org in
both Word
and PDF
formats. |
