Barifa Forest Ecotourism Project: Solicitor General faults Arua City Council Physical Planning Committee (PPC) and National Physical Planning Board (NPPB)for not following the law.

Arua City Council Physical Planning Committee and National Physical Planning Board are in limelight for failure to follow the law. The Solicitor General, government's principle legal advisor asserted that Arua City PPC and the NPPB didn't follow the law under which development applications and appeals are handled. Solicitor General's opinion arose from a legal advise sought by NPPB following service of a notice of intention to sue by the developer's lawyers.

In a response letter dated 30th October 2023 to NPPB, Arua City PPC was advised to address itself to section 33 and 34 Physical Planning Act 2010 as amended that provide for considerations for issuance of development permits while faulting the NPPB for not exercising her statutory powers and functions in accordance with section 6, 6A and 48. 

In further guiding on a matter that has caused government's proposed forest park project to stall for years, the Solicitor General noted that permit procession and appeals should be handled within statutory duration and faulted the parties for mistaking Oguzu Lee's development permission application for Physical Development Planning thus arriving at erroneous approval considerations. 

The Solicitor General emhacised that at all times, the PPCs must be bound by approved physical development plans of the area which in the case of Barifa zones it as a forest and allows its usage for forest related activities. In 2017, Oguzu Lee successfully bidded to render new identity to part of Arua Central Forest Reserve in accordance with the forest's management plan and got necessary approvals from NEMA on how to implement the project with minimal environmental footprint. 

The Solicitor General in conclusion re-echoed the need for the parties to be mindful of provision of the law under which development application is processed. 

From the look of things, failure to process the application and resolve stalemate through lawful means could stifle investments opportunties and result into costly ligation as the expense of tax payer.