JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.
Mr. Narayan, counsel for the fourth accused, is seeking to tender in evidence the White Paper on the Report of the Ollennu Commission and the chief state attorney Mr. Boison has objected to its being tendered.
The chief state attorney argued that the report of the Ollennu Commission (exhibit A) should be regarded as having been incorporated into the Corrupt Practices (Prevention) Act, 1964 (Act 230), and therefore the rules relating to the construction of enactments should be the guiding principles in determining the admissibility or non-admissibility of the White Paper. He contended that it is the duty of the court to interpret the statute and that reference should not be made to any interpretation given to it by the executive authority of the State. Counsel referred me to the cases of Katikiro of Buganda v. Attorney-General [1961] 1 W.L.R. 119, P.C. where a White Paper was rejected on the ground that it could not be used as an aid to the construction of the Constitution of the Buganda Administration. He also referred me to the case of Assam Railways & Trading Co., Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1935] A.C. 445, H.L.
Mr. Narayan on the other hand conceded the arguments of the learned chief state attorney but canvassed the point that he sought to tender the White Paper to show whether or not the National Liberation Council, the executive authority of the State, agreed with the commission's findings of facts therein stated. He also put forward the contention that the White Paper being a public document was admissible as to the facts stated therein.
With respect to both learned counsel I reject their submissions: The Ollennu Report cannot be incorporated into Act 230 and I do not see by what rule of law that this can be done except Act 230 itself expressly states so. There is no such express provision in the [p.176] said Act and this court cannot say that there is an implied power to incorporate it. The Act is only the source of power which enables the executive to appoint a commission of inquiry in certain circumstances and the various matters to be done when a report of the commission is submitted to the appointing authority and to the Attorney-General.
I cannot also accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the fourth accused because what the White Paper has done was to state certain statements of facts which in the opinion of the executive the report (exhibit A) has made. In effect the executive, i.e. the Na
