The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is pushing back against a recent judicial decision to reinstate a suspended graft suspect.
The controversy stems from a ruling by Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya, which overturned the suspension of KETRACO General Manager Eng. Anthony Wamukota.
Wamukota had been suspended amidst ongoing investigations into allegations of corruption and economic crime.
Therefore, dissatisfaction with this decision has prompted the EACC to take action.
“Dissatisfied with the whole Judgement of Hon. Justice Byram Ongaya, on Monday, revoking the suspension of KETRACO General Manager Eng. Anthony Wamukota amid ongoing investigations into serious allegations of corruption and economic crime, EACC has moved to challenge the decision in the Court of Appeal,” noted EACC.
Wamukota’s case is just one among many; a total of 74 officials, including six Chief Executive Officers, were suspended from their positions in November 2023 based on EACC recommendations.
According to EACC, these suspensions were intended to facilitate investigations into alleged involvement in the misappropriation and loss of public funds.
EACC Outlines Grounds for Appeal
The anti-graft body noted that legal grounds for such suspensions are outlined in Section 42(7) of the Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012, supplemented by Regulation 25 of the Leadership and Integrity Regulations, 2015.
According to EACC, these provisions allow for the suspension of public officials pending the investigation and resolution of allegations against them, particularly where there is a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, or compromise of the investigation process.
In addition, the commission noted that there is significant public interest in ensuring that individuals implicated in corruption are kept away from positions of authority during investigations, in order to prevent any interference or obstruction.
“The Commission’s decision to move to the Court of Appeal is informed by the overwhelming public interest in keeping the graft suspects away from office if their suspension is found necessary to safeguard the integrity of the investigation process,” stated EACC.
Also Read: Win for Ketraco Boss After Court Order
Key Directives listed by the High Court
In a ruling delivered by Principal Judge Byram Ongaya on Monday, April 8th, 2024, a legal victory was secured by the petitioner against the respondents.
Outlined in the judgment were several key directives aimed at remedying the unlawful suspension:
- Revocation and Reinstatement: The court directed the first respondent to immediately revoke the petitioner’s suspension and ensure their unconditional reinstatement or resumption of duty.
- Financial Compensation: The first respondent was further directed to settle any pending salaries, allowances, and benefits owed to the petitioner during the period of suspension.
- Formal Orders: The court issued formal orders to revoke the suspension letter dated November 15th, 2023, as well as associated decisions directing the petitioner’s suspension.
- Restraining Order: A restraining order was issued against the respondents, prohibiting them or their agents from terminating the petitioner’s employment based on the illegal suspension.
- Costs: The respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the petitioner’s legal proceedings, with the petitioner being awarded their costs.
In this case, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has announced its intention to appeal a judicial decision revoking the suspension of a public officer amidst ongoing investigations into allegations of corruption.
Also Read: EACC Goes After Govt Officials with More Than One Position
One of the key concerns raised by the Commission is the procedural aspect of the impugned judgment.
“Among other issues, the Commission notes that the procedural threshold set in the impugned judgment applies to dismissal but not suspension of public officers, as is in the Wamukota case,” read EACC statement in part.
The petitioner had challenged the legality and constitutionality of their suspension from employment, contending that it was irregular and unprocedural.
Judge Ongaya’s ruling validated these claims, declaring the suspension null and void ab initio.
