The African Centre for Media Excellence has developed a programme with the Revenue Watch Institute and the Thomson Reuters Foundation to teach journalists how to report effectively on oil and gas, an industry that could bring huge benefits to Uganda if managed properly.

Revenue Watch monitors public finances, advises governments on policy choices and campaigns against corruption in mining and the oil and gas industry. The training programme is its first that directly targets journalists, and their role in promoting public debate on the sector.

Six Ugandan journalists travelled to Ghana in January 2011 and attended a training workshop, or Course A, that launched the programme. That workshop offered Ghanaian and Ugandan journalists insights into the industry, and opportunities for first-hand reporting in a country that had just begun oil production.

ACME brought the six back together on May 7, 2011 at its training centre in Kampala for a second workshop – Course B – with the focus on Uganda. This workshop was an opportunity to investigate aspects of the industry that will have a direct impact on the lives of ordinary Ugandans.

The six participants, who include television, radio and print journalists, are producing stories as part of the programme. They are the first of a series of journalists that ACME will train over three years as part of the Revenue Watch programme.

This is a unique training programme in the sense that participants are not left to their own devices after a few days of training. Here we team the participants up with mentors for continuous engagement over several months. The mentors do comment – via telephone, face-to-face and online interaction – on the stories after they have run, with a view to making later reporting better. The participants can also apply for reporting grants.

The current programme is a pilot and runs until the end of 2012. If successful, it could be expanded to other countries.

Public Finance Bill (2012): Petroleum Revenue Management

Part VII of the Public Finance Bill, 2012, which was tabled before Parliament on May 9, spells out procedures for petroleum revenue management.

CSO's submission to Parliament on Petroleum Bills (April 2012)

Memorandum by civil society organisations to the committee of natural resources reviewing the petroleum bills

Presentation by Total E&P Uganda to Parliament on regularisation of the oil sector

Memorandum presented by total E&P Uganda to the parliamentary Ad-hoc committee on regularization of the oil sector on friday, 13th April 2012

Ugandas petroleum legislation - Safeguarding the sector

A report by Global Witness on two new petroleum bills introduced in Parliament.

Status of Licensing of Uganda's Oil Fields 2012

Status of licensing in the Albertine Graben of Uganda as of January 2012

New York City Bar letter to Total on Uganda Agreements

The New York City wrote to Total which recently acquired a stake in Uganda’s oil asking it to comply with freedom of information laws and release agreements signed between the company and government.

Critical Reflections on Oil Governance Discourse In Uganda

A presentation by Mr Godber Tumushabe, policy analyst and Executive Director for Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment.

Resolution of Parliament in Respect of Regularization of the Oil Sector

On October 11, 2011, the Uganda Parliament passed a number or resolutions in a bid to regularize the Oil Sector. This was after two days of heated debates in the house over various aspects concerning the oil industry especially oil contracts and transactions signed between Uganda and oil companies.

Tullow Letter Denying Bribery Allegations

British oil firm, Tullow, was accused of paying bribes worth $100m (Shs280b) to expert bureaucrats, including three Ugandan ministers between June 1 and July 16.Tullow Oil is the lead player in Uganda’s nascent oil sector.

Is Uganda Ready for Oil Revenues? A briefing paper by Francis Tumusiime

Overcoming the resource curse requires laws and institutions that foster transparency and accountability. Most of the required institutions provided for in the Oil and Gas Policy of 2008 are not yet in place, and whether the proposed institutions will function effectively and independently is not clear. Despite revenue transparency being touted as a key policy objective, to date no bill for the management of oil revenues is in place, and the law does not guarantee access to information for effective participation. Moreover, as oil extraction is new to Uganda, insufficient capacity exists among key stakeholders generally. It is hoped the recommendations made in this briefing will go some way in improving the current state of affairs.


Avoiding the Resource Curse: Spotlight on Oil in UgandaThe working paper analyse how the Will new rules from the US Securities and Exchange Commission requiring companies that file annual reports with the U.S Securities Exchange Commission to disclose the payments made to host government for the extraction of oil, natural gas and minerals, could help shore up transparency around investment in Uganda’s extractives industry and avoid failures in governance that have exposed other countries to the "resource curse".

Donor Engagement in Uganda’s Oil and Gas Sector: An Agenda for ActionA report by Global Witness, a UK-based non-governmental organisation which investigates the role of natural resources in funding conflict and corruption around the world.
The report discusses Uganda's oil sector within the context of the wider governance environment and highlights this as a key determinant to the outcome of the country's oil windfall. It also highlights the role of international donors to Uganda vis-a-vis the oil and gas finds.


Contracts Curse: Uganda’s oil agreements place profit before peopleAn analysis by PLATFORM and in partnership with the Civil Society Coalition on Oil (CSCO) in Uganda.
This report aims to provide an in-depth analysis of Uganda’s Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) covering oil development in the Albertine Graben. PLATFORM has investigated the contract terms relating to economics, sovereignty, human rights and the environment. We examine relevant paragraphs in the Ugandan context, in relation to current oil company practice in Uganda and in comparison to contract terms in other countries. It explores the balance of rights and responsibilities between the Ugandan government and the oil companies, and who carries which risks.

Remarks by U.S ambassador Jerry P. Lanier on oil transparency and accountability  in Uganda

In Uganda, it is estimated that once oil reaches peak production, government revenues will double.  Setting up an effective regime to shine light on payments and revenue flows is essential to restrain corruption. The United States strongly supports the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative and encourages Uganda to commit to its principles...

Uganda Chamber of Mines and Petroleum

To promote, through the collective action of members, the growth and development of Uganda's mining and petroleum industry, for the benefit of all Ugandans and investors.

Oil in Uganda

A new website that captures the conversation on the subject in Uganda

GHANA

Ghana Petroleum Act, 2011

Ghana Petroleum Revenue Management Act, 2011

The ninth Parliament debated Uganda's oil sector on October 10 and 11, 2011 and passed a number or resolutions in a bid to regularize the sector.

The heated debates covered various aspects concerning the oil industry especially oil contracts and transactions signed between Uganda and oil companies.

Below are the transcripts from the debate, compiled by Parliament in the Hansard.

Monday 10

Tuesday 11

Dr Peter Mwesige's take on the coverage of the oil debate

Covering Uganda’s big oil debate (Part I)

Covering Uganda’s big oil debate (Part II)

When RWI created its media training program for Ghanaian and Ugandan journalists in 2009, the idea of increasing the quantity and quality of oil and mining coverage in those countries was only the starting point.

We also hoped that, at the end of the three-year pilot phase, the trainings would have generated the momentum to expand. In collaboration with Thomson Reuters Foundation, African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME) and PenPlusBytes, RWI set an ambitious goal of developing "mechanisms for media capacity building on extractive governance that are scalable and sustainable" in Ghana and Uganda as trial countries but also "positioned for use in others."

When Norwegian People's Aid (NPA) went shopping for a media organization to support its South Sudan program, ACME, RWI'S Ugandan partner, was a natural choice. In December 2011 NPA commissioned ACME to train the journalists of Africa's newest nation in covering oil. The need for such knowledge was clear: According to the World Bank, 2011 oil revenues provided 98 percent of independent South Sudan's first-ever national budget of $2.3 billion.

By 2011, halfway into the RWI media training pilot, ACME reported significant improvements in the work of its journalist participants, and an interest adapting this training to a new context.

Read full story here

The Revenue Watch Institute is in the second year of an extensive media capacity building program for suitably qualified journalists in GHANA and UGANDA. The program is designed for journalists with a demonstrated interest in reporting about the extractive sectors of oil, gas, and minerals.

The Training Program

The training program consists of two residential courses. The first course will be conducted in Accra, Ghana, on October 17-26, 2011 and will bring together participants from both Uganda and Ghana. The second course will consist of two separate sessions: one for Ghanaians on January 16-25, 2012 in Accra and one for Ugandans on January 30-February 8, 2012 in Kampala. Successful candidates will be sponsored and must commit to completing all aspects of the program.

The full course will run over a period of about seven months comprising a series of learning activities and professional support to trainees individually and collectively. There are approximately 14 places available this year – seven for Ghanaians and seven for Ugandans.

The Revenue Watch Institute

The Revenue Watch Institute is a non-profit policy institute and grant-making organization that promotes accountable and effective management of oil, gas and mineral resources for the public good. Good governance of oil, gas, and mineral revenues requires an informed, responsive and dynamic media environment to provide the oversight of the process and help inform the public about the issues. This is therefore the impetus behind our training program.

The training will be delivered through a partnership of Penplusbytes in Ghana (www.reportingoilandgas.org), the African Centre for Media Excellence in Uganda (www.acme-ug.org), and Thomson Reuters Foundation (www.trust.org).

Training Approach

The training methodology will be a mixture of seminars, interviews, roundtable discussions, regular mentoring, field trips, workshops, and debates with technical experts and senior journalists from Ghana and Uganda. The training approaches will be interactive and practical with a focus on fundamental concepts, issues, and knowledge about the extractives. The training will also involve critiquing and supporting the work of the trainees as they produce stories and explore the issues related to reporting on extractives.

In addition there will be travel bursaries for motivated reporters to enable them to build on their professional development in this field and an annual prize for the best reporting on extractives.

Application Process

As this is a competitive process, places will be offered to reporters who make the strongest applications when addressing and providing the information listed below:

1. THREE samples of stories (could be MP3, website link, scan) on extractive industries that you have published or broadcast (clearly showing your byline where applicable and date of publication).

1. A short biography of no more than 200 words.

1. A brief statement of no more than 200 words explaining how deepening your journalistic understanding of extractives will contribute to your professional development and that of your media house.

1. A pitch for a story on extractives you would like to pursue: Who would you interview and why? What would be the angle and focus of the story? How does the story relate to your audience?

1. Contact information for your editor or editorial supervisor – telephone and email.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: AUGUST 15, 2011

HOW TO APPLY:

Submit your application material by email to: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Ghanaians should copy: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Ugandans should copy: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

After two dramatic days of debate on Uganda’s oil sector, Parliament passed several resolutions before going back on recess.

The media have by and large reported the resolutions accurately. However, in a couple of cases, some journalists have got it all wrong. I suspect this is because they didn’t pay attention to the amendments that were moved on some of the original resolutions.

For instance, Daily Monitor has twice reported, on Wednesday and today, that Parliament resolved that the government “withholds consent to a pending transaction between Tullow Oil, Total and CNOOC before capital gains tax assessed by the tax body Uganda Revenue authority payable by Tullow are paid in advance and a report to that effect be made to Parliament.”

However, Resolution 10 was in fact amended after some members argued that the last part –on capital gains tax was redundant. The argument was how do you talk about capital gains tax assessed when the transaction has been halted?

The amended resolution therefore read: "Government withholds consent to the [pending] transaction between Tullow Oil Uganda Limited and CNOOC and Total until all relevant laws are put in place."

Today, The New Vision reports, in the front page story “Tullow reacts to bribery allegations”, that MPs “called for a commission of enquiry headed by a judge of the Supreme Court to investigate claims and allegations of bribery and corruption.”

Again, this was the resolution in the original motion. It was amended by Wakiso Woman MP Rosemary Sseninde who moved that Parliament should set up an ad hoc committee instead. It was her amendment also that saw the inclusion of part b to this resolution—calling for the ministers and government officials named in the bribery and corruption allegations to step aside until investigations are completed.

I also noticed some inaccuracies in the way President Museveni’s press conference remarks about Production Sharing Agreements (PSA) were reported by some media outlets. The correct position is that under the PSA route, if a company that has been granted exploration rights fails to find oil, it suffers the loss alone. If, on the other hand, the company makes a viable oil find in a given Exploration Area [EA), and goes ahead with production, the revenue from that would be shared with the government according to an agreed formula. This revenue would exclude so-called recoverable costs or “cost recovery oil”. This is the money that the company would have invested in the exploration, development, and production of the oil. It also includes operating costs. It should be noted that according to the current PSAs in Uganda, recoverable costs will also be applied to exploration of wells that turned out to be dry (without oil). So if Tullow Oil drills 10 wells in Exploration Area Z and finds oil in only eight wells, it will still recover the costs for drilling in the two dry wells. While civil society organisations find this arrangement questionable, senior ministry of energy officials argue that Uganda agreed to such terms as an incentive to attract investors in the oil sector at a time when many big international players had stayed away from us.

Finally the media could do some more work on the providing depth, especially explanation.

For instance, it would also have been great if from the very beginning the media made it clear what parliamentary resolutions mean. Are they binding? What are the risks for the Executive if they ignore the resolutions? Can parliamentary resolutions annul agreements that have been signed already?

In the same breath, there has been a lot of excitement about Ministers Sam Kutesa, John Nasasira and Mwesigwa Rukutana “stepping aside”. But what does stepping aside mean? Is it the same thing as resignation (I don’t think so), as some media outlets have reported? Is it the same thing as quitting (again, I don’t think so)? Does it mean they continue holding their portfolios, but simply don’t report to office or attend cabinet meetings (my addition) as Rukutana suggested in an interview with Daily Monitor? Do they continue to be paid and to enjoy all the perks associated with their offices? Can the president appoint other ministers to replace them? Of course common sense would suggest that perhaps the President can’t replace the ministers before the court case is disposed of, but it doesn’t hurt to explain these issues to audiences. We could also draw from recent experiences in neighbouring Kenya where ministers who had stepped aside, in the wake of abuse of office allegations, went back to Cabinet after they were cleared by investigations.

Click here for part I

OIL DEBATE VERBATIM

Monday 10

Tuesday 11

***

About the Author: Dr. Peter Mwesige is Executive Director of the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME). He has chaired the department of journalism and communication at Makerere University and is a former Executive Editor of the Monitor in Kampala.

Renowned journalist and media entrepreneur Andrew Mwenda has been under fire from several Ugandan journalists for his role in the investigation of documents that were tabled in Parliament last week to support allegations that Ugandan ministers received bribes from an oil company.

Many journalists, ever suspicious of collaborating with government officials on sensitive stories, have accused Mwenda of selling his soul or going to bed with the enemy. Others have not gone so far, but they have said they found his actions suspect.

Before the latest issue of The Independent (“Oil bribery scandal: The story behind the news”), which details the paper’s attempts to get to the bottom of the allegations, hit the stands, the story on Facebook and other social media was that Mwenda had ran to the government (the President and his Foreign Affairs Minister, Sam Kutesa, who is named in the middle of the scandal) with the documents instead of conducting his own independent investigations.

In an interview with ACME on October 13th, days after embattled minister Kutesa mentioned in Parliament that he had first heard about the documents allegedly linking him to the bribery scandal from Mwenda, the journalist defended his actions.

“It would have been wrong to publish the documents without any attempts to establish their authenticity,” he said. “I know that sources have their own motivations for leaking documents to journalists or giving them tips and I always keep that in mind when I am working on any investigative story. I have to verify the claims made by my sources.”

Mwenda said he had received the documents, which suggest that Tullow Oil had made payments to ministers Kutesa and Hillary Onek, last year. The documents detailed foreign bank accounts and payments allegedly made to the two ministers.

“I tried on my own to authenticate the claims,” Mwenda said.

He hit a dead end. He said he had talked to the British Metropolitan Police and to the head of CID in Dubai through a highly placed source with access to him.

“I also went to Global Witness, a big civil society group with the resources to investigate corruption in the oil sector, and asked them for help,” he added.

Mwenda said he had also asked a major regional media group to partner with the Independent on doing the investigation “because they have more resources than us”.

He said he took all these steps because “I was also aware that there were too much rivalry and competition in the oil sector. Maybe somebody could be diverting attention from the actual crime.”

Mwenda said after hitting a dead end on all those fronts he decided to take the documents to President Museveni.

He said Museveni wrote on the documents, “Kayihura investigate working with Mwenda”. Kale Kayihura is the Inspector General of Police.

Is it okay for a journalist to go to the President with leaked documents that could implicate his own ministers or even himself in corruption?

“It’s okay,” Mwenda said. “I knew if he doesn’t do anything and I can prove some percentage of the information is true, I would say we gave him the documents. I told him ‘They are saying these people are making money for your campaigns. That you are involved. I went to him thinking that if he did not order an investigation I would write the story.”

Mwenda added that by going to the President, he was also “holding him to account”.

That Mwenda has access to State House has been in the public domain for a while now.

Mwenda said he had in the past similarly gone to security chiefs and shown them what The Independent was going to publish in case he felt the sensitivity of the story demanded such cross-checking. “I ask them to demonstrate the security risk,” he said. “If they can’t then we shall publish.”

Any investigative journalist will tell you it is a great asset to have friends in high places, as Mwenda clearly has.

The question is to what end you put these highly placed sources. Will it help you get the story or kill it?

Some journalists have suggested on Facebook that the documents were enough cover for a newspaper to publish the story.

Mwenda disagreed.

“We can’t make judgements on whims and emotions,” he said.

He said The Independent’s editorial policy was close to Collin Powell’s principle on going to war.

“If you have a vital decision to make, what guides you? Ours is the 50% - 70% principle,” he said. “If you have information that confirms 50% of the story is true, you can publish if there is overriding public need to know. If you have information that confirms 70% of the story is true, you use common sense, again depending on the overriding public need to know. You may never get 100% confirmation that the story is true.”

Under this logic, Mwenda said, different aspects of the claims by those who had leaked the documents could have been given a percentage weight.

For example, do the accounts exist? -- (15%). Are the names of the account holders those mentioned in the report? -- (15%). Was money transferred to those accounts? -- (15%). Was it transferred by the said company? -- (15%). And so on...

Mwenda said had The Independent confirmed the first three questions, for instance, they would have published the story.

“Our business [journalism] is based on four important and self-reinforcing principles,” he said. “These are truthfulness, accuracy, fairness, and balance.”

He added: “For any institution to work and perform its functions [with credibility], it must have some values. To do our work in promoting accountability we must be guided by those principles I have mentioned. We must to establish the authenticity of the information we get.”

Mwenda is spot on here. However, his detractors will question whether going to Museveni was the best way of establishing the authenticity of the bribery claims.

It assumes that the President is above board and that he will in fact pursue all corruption allegations against his ministers.

This is a judgement call. And it is a very big one.

The other problem of course is that The Independent did not publish the findings of Kayihura’s investigation until after the matter came before Parliament (As Minister Kutesa was telling Parliament that investigations had shown the documents were forged, Vice President Edward Ssekandi interrupted him and said the President had told him he had ordered an investigation which had concluded the documents were fake).

Mwenda said about a month ago Kayihura had given him letters from Malta and the Metropolitan Police in UK which suggested that documents were forged and the accounts did not exist.

So why did he not publish the story then?

“My judgement was there was no story,” he said. “The fact that there was no crime means there is no story. I can’t write a denial story where was no positive claim of a crime in the public domain.”

Mwenda said he could have done a story about the police investigation, as it was still going on. “But I had confirmed separately from Dubai and London that the documents were fake; the accounts did not exist,” he said. “It would have been malicious.”

But surely the forgery finding also raises another story. Who forged the documents? Who stood to benefit from the forgery? How do all these claims and counter claims fit into the jigsaw of Uganda’s nascent oil sector?

In other words, what seemed the end of one story was actually the beginning of another—possibly a bigger one.

***

Correction: We had previously written that Andrew Mwenda had given the oil documents to Platform London but he has since clarified that it was Global Witness.

***

About the Author: Dr. Peter Mwesige is Executive Director of the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME). He has chaired the department of journalism and communication at Makerere University and is a former Executive Editor of the Monitor in Kampala.

Although the vibrancy of the Uganda media continues to grow against all odds, major challenges remain in terms of capturing the significance or relevance of the events and issues in the news.

After all the passionate debate that the lack of adequate legislation on oil exploration and production generated, especially following the resolutions passed overwhelmingly by parliament last October, it is shocking and disappointing that the mainstream media have covered the tabling of the Petroleum (Exploration, Development And Production) Bill, 2012 without any serious attempt at providing context.

Of course as a former editor, I am not blind to the fact that the tabling of the Bill on Wednesday came at the same time as another popular story – the release of the Senior Four results. In Uganda, very few events beat the release of national examination results in terms of selling newspaper copies.

Yet, the exploration and production of oil in Uganda is probably going to be one of the biggest stories of the next 10 years. It is a story that deserves serious attention and analysis.

The purpose of the new Bill “is to give effect to article 244 of the Constitution; to regulate petroleum exploration, development and production; to establish the Petroleum Authority of Uganda; to provide for establishment of the National Oil Company; to regulate the licensing and participation of commercial entities in petroleum operations; to provide for an open, transparent and competitive process of licensing; to create a conducive environment for the promotion of exploration, development and production of Uganda's petroleum potential; to provide for efficient and safe petroleum activities; to provide for the cessation of petroleum activities and decommissioning of infrastructure; to provide for the payment arising from petroleum operations; to provide for the conditions for the restoration of derelict lands; to repeal the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act, Cap 150; and for related matters.”

In “Govt tables oil Bill,” Daily Monitor of Thursday generally focused on the purpose of the Bill and what Minister of State for Minerals Kamanda Bataringaya said in Parliament when tabling the proposed law.

In “Govt to set up national oil company” The New Vision of Friday similarly focused on the new institutions that the proposed law will create.

None of these news reports contained sufficient background and context about the proposed law. Moreover, none of these reports was based on multiple sourcing; for instance, what was the reaction of the many MPs and civil society activists who had been demanding for the tabling of the bills?

Here are some questions that should have been answered in order for the stories on the tabling of the bill to provide better context to Ugandans:

• Why is the current law, the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act, Cap 150 of 2000 not sufficient?

• What is provided for in Article 244 of the Constitution (which the proposed law is giving effect to)?

• What are the new provisions that have been introduced in the Bill (remember there were earlier versions of the Bill)?

• How different is the Bill from the current law?

• What role will the new institutions, the Petroleum Authority and the National Oil Company, play?

• Does the proposed law provide for transparency and accountability in the constitution and operation of these institutions?

• What kind of budget has been considered for running these institutions?

• How does Uganda’s Bill compare to laws of countries such as Ghana that have recently started oil production?

• Does the law cure that lack of transparency (and secrecy) that has surrounded the sector thus far? How?

• What powers if any does the proposed law give to the Minister of Energy and Minerals as well as the President?

• Does the law give parliament enough oversight over the operation of the sector?

Several civil society organizations such and experts have already come up with interesting comments on some of these questions. Journalists should proactively seek comments from these organizations and individuals. They should also take the authors of the Bill to task to justify what they have come up with.

It is not too late to ask these questions, and more important to answer them through solid reporting.

****

About the Author: Dr. Mwesige is Executive Editor of the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME). He is a former executive editor of The Monitor in Kampala and head of the department of journalism and Mass Communication at Makerere University.

Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Revenue Watch Institute is in the second year of an extensive media capacity building program for suitably qualified journalists in GHANA and UGANDA. The program is designed for journalists with a demonstrated interest in reporting about the extractive sectors of oil, gas, and minerals.

The Training Program

The training program consists of two residential courses. The first course will be conducted in Accra, Ghana, on October 17-26, 2011 and will bring together participants from both Uganda and Ghana. The second course will consist of two separate sessions: one for Ghanaians on January 16-25, 2012 in Accra and one for Ugandans on January 30-February 8, 2012 in Kampala. Successful candidates will be sponsored and must commit to completing all aspects of the program.

The full course will run over a period of about seven months comprising a series of learning activities and professional support to trainees individually and collectively. There are approximately 14 places available this year – seven for Ghanaians and seven for Ugandans.

The Revenue Watch Institute

The Revenue Watch Institute is a non-profit policy institute and grant-making organization that promotes accountable and effective management of oil, gas and mineral resources for the public good. Good governance of oil, gas, and mineral revenues requires an informed, responsive and dynamic media environment to provide the oversight of the process and help inform the public about the issues.  This is therefore the impetus behind our training program.

The training will be delivered through a partnership of Penplusbytes in Ghana, the African Centre for Media Excellence in Uganda, and Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Training Approach

The training methodology will be a mixture of seminars, interviews, roundtable discussions, regular mentoring, field trips, workshops, and debates with technical experts and senior journalists from Ghana and Uganda. The training approaches will be interactive and practical with a focus on fundamental concepts, issues, and knowledge about the extractives. The training will also involve critiquing and supporting the work of the trainees as they produce stories and explore the issues related to reporting on extractives. 

In addition there will be travel bursaries for motivated reporters to enable them to build on their professional development in this field and an annual prize for the best reporting on extractives.

Application Process

As this is a competitive process, places will be offered to reporters who make the strongest applications when addressing and providing the information listed below:

1.    THREE samples of stories (could be MP3, website link, scan) on extractive industries that you have published or broadcast (clearly showing your byline where applicable and date of publication).

2.    A short biography of no more than 200 words.

3.    A brief statement of no more than 200 words explaining how deepening your journalistic understanding of extractives will contribute to your professional development and that of your media house.

4.    A pitch for a story on extractives you would like to pursue: Who would you interview and why? What would be the angle and focus of the story? How does the story relate to your audience?

5.    Contact information for your editor or editorial supervisor – telephone and email.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: AUGUST 15, 2011

HOW TO APPLY:

Submit your application material by email to: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Ghanaians should copy: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Ugandans should copy: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Find more information about the project and previous participants here

The government asked Parliament to bar the media from covering proceedings on the Heritage Oil case citing a court order, the New Vision reported.

The Attorney General Peter Nyombi argued that there were confidential clauses in the Memoranda of Understanding between Heritage Oil and Uganda. The AG was appearing before the Parliamentary Committee on Legal and Parliamentary affairs.

Mr Nyombi said that court had issued an order to have proceedings in camera to avoid tampering with evidence.

“Some of the things that you might be interested in have a court order, and some of the documents have confidentiality clauses,” he said.

The committee asked Mr Nyombi to avail them with agreements between the government of Uganda and Heritage Oil, but he said the documents can only be delivered if the meeting is going to be held in camera.

However, the parliament committee opposed this saying the matter was in public interest and that it would be good for the government to be transparent.

The MPS also conceded that when clauses that are confidential are debated, they will always request journalists to step out, but attend during the debate on information that is in public interest.

“The pressure so far is too much and the more you act like you are withholding information, the more it will become worse. It is in the interest of government to have this matter as transparent as possible,” said Abdu Katuntu, also the Shadow Attorney General.

One MP wondered, “I do not see how journalists have affected these proceedings. What is it you want to hide from them when these matters are of public interest?”

About the case

In May 2011, Heritage initiated arbitration against the Government for the release of, among other things, the $405m held by the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) following the sale of its interests in oil Blocks 1 and 3A in Uganda in July, 2010. The stake was acquired by UK-based Tullow Oil at $1.45b last year.

In March, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with Tullow, separating the tax dispute from Tullow’s $2.93b deals with France’s Total and China’s CNOOC.

However, Tullow was forced to pay $313m as security for the unpaid tax bill.

In April, Heritage received a claim from the London High Court in which Tullow was seeking to recover the funds.

A month later, Heritage sued the Government in London, saying the sale of its assets in Uganda was not subject to a capital gains tax.

It based its argument on ‘comprehensive advice’ from tax experts in Uganda, the UK and the US.

Source: New Vision and Daily Monitor Stories