Former Soroti University Secretary sentenced to 20 years in prison for diverting public funds

The Anti-Corruption Court on Thursday convicted and sentenced Achimo Ruth Etibot, the former Soroti University Secretary for 20 years in prison.

Achimo was convicted on six accounts; two for abuse of office, another two for diversion of public resources, one count of fraudulent false accounting and one count of false accounting by a public officer.

Achimo was charged together with Obeele Edward who was the University Bursar. Obeele pleaded guilty to the charges through a plea bargain and was sentenced to a fine.

The case proceeded to full trial against Achimo being prosecuted by Khaukha James, a State Attorney who led evidence in court to prove that Achimo while serving as a University Secretary/Accounting Officer signed a legal services agreement (on behalf of the university) with Okurut and Co. Advocates for provision of legal services to the University without going through the formal procurement processes. The law firm was among the three law firms that were pre-qualified for legal services.

She eventually used her position as Accounting Officer and paid the said law firm Shs1,025,265,000 as legal fees in a space of three months. This money was diverted from capital development because the legal services were not budgeted for the Budget for F/Y 2017/2018. She also diverted more monies from capital development to cater for staff allowances and other non-current expenditures.

Eventually, due to Achimo’s actions, payments for capital development projects were affected and as a result, the University was penalized by the contractors for the failure to effect payments within the agreed timelines.

Despite Achimo spending the capital development funds on non-recurrent activities, she reported in the progress reports that all the capital development funds had been spent on capital development projects, which was false. The actual activities upon which the money was spent were concealed.

Justice Tibulya Margaret sentenced the convict to 3 years in Count I, 3 years in Count II, 5 years in Count III, 5 years in Count IV, 3 years in Count V and 1 year in Count VI.

In sentencing her, the trial judge stated that the convict’s actions were irregular and with blatant impunity which no amount of explanation could sanitize. Accordingly, only an imprisonment term was befitting. The convict was also disqualified from holding a public office for the next 10 years.