Kampala, Uganda
In recent months, the narrative surrounding the taxation and ownership of a bulletproof vehicle belonging to Ugandan opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi AKA Bobi Wine has been marred by misinformation and deliberate misinterpretations.
To set the record straight, Kyagulanyi, the National Unity Platform Leader, took it on his X page (former Twitter) to dispel and clarify the misguided allegations.
His X article provides a comprehensive clarification on the taxes paid for the bulletproof vehicle and addresses the specious claims of a supposed “370M” gratuity.
The Legal Importation and Clearance
Contrary to baseless accusations, the bulletproof vehicle owned by Bobi Wine underwent a meticulous and lawful importation process. In a strategic move to avoid unnecessary complications, the initial registration was carried out under another individual’s name.
The vehicle was subjected to thorough clearance procedures, including assessments by the Directorate of Interpol in Kololo, the forensics department of the police in Naguru, and the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA).
It is important to note that all required taxes, amounting to Ugx88,612,027, were duly paid following the assessments. For an extended period, the regime authorities raised no objections or concerns about the legality of the vehicle.
Attempts To Impound The Vehicle
The situation took a dramatic turn when the ownership of the bulletproof vehicle was transferred to Bobi Wine. Suddenly, claims surfaced that Ministry of Defense clearance was mandatory, despite a lack of legal grounds for such a requirement.
Subsequently, regime authorities alleged that the vehicle was undervalued, and an exorbitant additional tax of Ugx337,698,776.25 was demanded.
In response to these allegations, officials involved in the initial clearance faced intimidation, with some being summoned for interrogation and detention.
The individual under whose name the car was initially imported felt compelled to flee the country due to threats.
Legal Battle and Tax Review
Facing unjust and arbitrary tax demands, Bobi Wine, represented by the late counsel Wameli Anthony, filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner General of URA (Civil Suit No. 67 of 2021).
The legal battle highlighted the lack of a legal basis for the additional tax claims and the regime’s attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the bulletproof vehicle’s importation.
Upon receiving notice of legal action, the regime authorities, perhaps recognising the weak legal grounds for their demands, returned the impounded vehicle after over two months.
Notably, they attributed the decision to President Museveni’s instruction, attempting to maintain a semblance of authority.
“Ugx370M” Allegations
In a further attempt to discredit Bobi Wine, false claims surfaced regarding a supposed gratuity of Ugx370 million when he left Parliament.
But Wine categorically denies receiving any such gratuity, and these allegations appear to be nothing more than a deliberate attempt to tarnish his reputation.
“I have never received 370,000,000/= from Parliament, and I challenge anyone who says that to produce proof of the same,” says Kyagulanyi.
Kyagulanyi clarifies that the ONLY payment he received upon leaving Parliament originated from the mandatory savings scheme established by the Parliamentary Pensions Act of 2006.
Each month, Parliament deducts 15% from every MP’s salary as part of this savings scheme, and the law requires the government to make a corresponding contribution.
This scheme serves as the equivalent of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) in other sectors since MPs do not save under NSSF. Kyagulanyi clarified that this payment is not a favour but a mandatory disbursement guaranteed by law.
Furthermore, he notes that the amount received through this scheme is determined by the duration one spends in Parliament. Consequently, he received a comparatively lower amount than other MPs, considering his entry into Parliament through a by-election.
Notably, during that period, individuals below 45 years of age with less than 5 years of parliamentary service had no option to retain their savings in the scheme, as stipulated in Section 13 of the Act.
Kyagulanyi further hopes that this clarification addresses both matters. He condemns the deliberate attempt to divert the population from seeking answers through false narratives and propaganda, urging that such efforts be rejected and treated with contempt.
END
English 