Porous borders, graft expose Uganda to terrorist attacks-US

Anti-terrorism police at Lugogo in July 2010, shortly after suspected Al-Shabaab Anti-terrorism police at Lugogo in July 2010, shortly after suspected Al-Shabaab terrorists killed at least 70 people in Kampala. PHOTO BY JOSEPH KIGGUNDU By Tabu Butagira In Summary The Anti-Money Laundering Bill designed to bolster regulatory checks of cash flow in and out of the country and check on criminal activities is stuck in Parliament. The United States has warned that a plethora of corruption, porous borders and limited resources make Uganda vulnerable to terrorist attacks in spite of the country’s plausible lead role in ensuring regional security. The grim assessment is contained in the Country Reports on Terrorism 2012 report, which the US Department of State’s Bureau of Counter-terrorism prepares annually to appraise Congress on global trends of extremism. It was released last week. “Although Uganda significantly improved its ability to investigate terrorist acts, additional training and resources are needed,” the report notes, citing disturbing domestic loopholes in tracking shady financial transactions. The report adds: “Uganda’s financial sector remained vulnerable to money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial transactions; Uganda has not criminalised money laundering. “Legal and law enforcement measures to combat terrorist financing, based on the Anti-Terrorist Act of 2002 and the Financial Institutions Act of 2004, are inadequate and do not meet international standards.” Uganda’s Anti-money Laundering Bill, designed to bolster regulatory checks of cash flow in and out of the country, criminalising the offence of money laundering and imposing harsher penalties on perpetrators besides providing for sharing of related information with international community, is stuck in Parliament since its tabling last year. Majority lawmakers in September last year derided the draft legislation as “politically-motivated” and claimed it would threaten direct foreign investment. Bank of Uganda’s legal counsel Titus Mulindwa warned then that inaction would aid criminals to “take-over” local commercial banks by concealing or disguising the nature, source, interest or movement of their massive proceeds from criminal activities. If enacted, the Anti-money Laundering law would establish a Money Laundering Intelligence Unit within the central bank alongside an inter-agency taskforce bringing together insurers, bankers, police, businesspeople and bureaucrats to monitor financial crime. It is the lack of such legislation which has Washington frightened that money for terrorism financing could be passing through Uganda undetected, especially that the country has neither the capacity required to effectively monitor and regulate alternative remittance services nor wire transfer data. “The Bank of Uganda asks local (commercial) banks to report suspicious transactions, but there is no clear implementation mechanism for enforcing this or investigating potentially suspicious activity, the report notes. Senior police commissioner George Amur Chombe, who is the acting Counter-Terrorism director, was unavailable for comment yesterday, and neither were spokespersons for the Force that leads other security agencies on the anti-terrorism fight. In July 2010, suspected al-Shabaab terrorists killed at least 70 people in Kampala with twin bomb attacks at Lugogo Rugby Club and the Ethiopian Restaurant in Kabalagala, a city outskirt. The government, which has issued several terror alerts since then, has undertaken institutional reforms, provided more financing, trained additional experts and acquired modern equipment to detect and or thwart unending threats by terrorists. The American evaluation is based on legislation, law enforcement and border security, countering terrorist finance; regional and international cooperation and countering radicalisation. HOW NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES countries FARE South Sudan: The government’s ability to enact preventive measures and conduct counterterrorism operations was extremely limited. The Lord’s Resistance Army remained a threat. South Sudan has very limited monetary and human resource capacity to provide effective law enforcement. Tanzania: The National Counterterrorism Center …sees itself as a means of preventing terrorist attacks rather than responding to them. Tanzania lacks sufficient resources to adequately patrol borders. Officers manning border posts are often underequipped and under-trained. Some border posts do not have access to electricity, so computerised systems are not always an option. Rwanda: In April, cooperation between Rwanda and the DRC ended over the M23 rebel group. The Rwandan government, including Rwandan Defense Forces (RDF), provided assistance to M23 during the year…The poor security situation in the eastern DRC put pressure on Rwanda’s western borders. DR Congo: There was no credible evidence to indicate a significant presence of terrorists. The government lacked complete control over some areas of its territory, especially in the east where numerous armed groups operated with impunity and had very limited capacity to monitor. Kenya: Despite Somali refugee issues, preparation for 2013 national elections, the threat of al-Shabaab and ethnic, political, and economic tensions, the government demonstrated persistent political will to secure its borders, apprehend terrorists.