Leaked Bank of Uganda meeting called purposely to discuss strategizes on how to reclaim Crane Bank from its owners exposes the Deputy Governor Dr. Michael Atingi-Ego as new wine in an old bottle given that he has started from where his predecessor Louis Kasekende left the bank after his similar scheme failed.
In a similar scheme, it looks like Dr.Atingi-Ego has started from his precursor ended. However, for Dr.Atingi-Ego he needs to calculate his steps because this isn’t his scheme.
In a documented leaked minutes of a meeting that was chaired by Dr.Ating-Ego, on October 28,2020 whose other members were Susan Kanyemibwa, Bank Secretary, Tumubweine Twinemanzi, Executive Director bank supervision, Margaret Kasule Legal Counsel and Benedict Makanga minute recorder.
The meeting discussed on how to proceed with reclaiming Crane Bank from the owners who include city tycoon and majority shareholder Sudhir Ruparelia.
Details from the meeting further that resolved that the Central Bank should await a Supreme Court’s decision on the transition of Crane Bank Limited from receivership to liquidation, before he turned around advised the Governor that the controversial liquidation should go on.
On November 9, BoU announced that it had commenced Crane Bank’s liquidation in a notice signed by Mutebile.
“Bank of Uganda (BoU) took over management of Crane Bank Ltd (CBL) on October 20, 2016 and subsequently progressed it into receivership on January 24, 2017. In exercise of its powers under section 99 (1) & (2) of the Financial Institutions Act, 2004, BoU has now placed CBL under liquidation and ordered the winding up of its affairs. The Central Bank shall be the liquidator of CBL,” the notice read.
In the meeting, it was resolved that despite an October 6, 2020 external legal opinion by M/S Shonubi &. Co Advocates that had advised the Central Bank to progress Crane Bank (in Receivership) into liquidation, the same should be delayed till the Supreme Court had pronounced itself on the transition.
“Members deliberated at length and the meeting agreed BOU waits for the Supreme Court’s decision on the transition from receivership to liquidation,” reads an extract from the minutes”. “The chair informed members that upon receipt of the external legal opinion by M/S Shonubi and Co Advocate regarding the viability of the Supreme Court Appeal in Crane Bank (In Receivership) Vs Sudhir Rupaleria and Meera Investments, the Governor tasked the legal counsel to take necessary action. The Legal Counsel had by memo dated October 16, 2020, responded to the Crane Bank Appeal. The chairman then indicated that the main objective of the meeting was to review the proposals by Legal Counsel, make a decision thereup that would then guide how Bank of Uganda would proceed with respect to the Crane Bank Appeal” reads part of the leaked memo Eagle Online has seen.
Bank of Uganda is having sleepless night over the Crane Bank issue because on October 7, 2020, the secretary of Uganda Registration Services Bureau had notified Bank of Uganda of a filing on behalf of Mr. Sudhir seeking to implement the orders of a civil appeal 252 of 2019 that reinstates Mr Sudhir and others as directors of Crane Bank.
However, the Legal Counsel informed the meeting that matters of Crane Bank Limited require progression to liquidation as it had been earlier advised in 2019. “However, it was noted that the issue of progression to liquidation has legal hitches” Ms Kasule said.
However, BoU’s plan has already run into trouble after an interim stay of execution application in Supreme Court – Civil Application No. 33 of 2020 Bank of Uganda/Crane Bank (in receivership) asked the court to stop Mr. Sudhir Ruparelia “preventing him from claiming, taking control, repossessing or in any way interfering with the management” of Crane Bank or of its Receiver (BoU) was dismissed.
Dismissing BoU’s application Paul Mugamba, Justice of the Supreme Court on November 9, 2020 ruled that although the order sought by BoU against URSB was to restrain it from registering any resolutions in respect to Crane Bank, there was no evidence of any resolution which was intended to be registered.
“Respectfully, I do not see any act or acts that have been done or are about to be done by the 2nd respondent (URSB) that are prejudicial to the interests of the applicant CBL/BoU,” the judge ruled.
In conclusion, the meeting resolved that “BoU waits for the Supreme Court‘s decision on the transition from receivership to liquidation”
