Do we need a new anti-graft body?

The Government has formed another body to fight graft. Interesting eh!
The Body aims to encourage the public to demand accountability from leaders and government institutions.

The Accountability Sector Secretariat is supposed to co-ordinate with other government institutions which receive and monitor the use of public funds.

The secretariat will be under the directorate of ethics and integrity in the Office of the President, and one of its duties will be to equip the public with skills to monitor government programmes in their communities.

The people to do the monitoring will be selected from the local community and will work with the resident district commissioners.

Any difference?
Personally, I don’t think so.

Uganda already has over six anti-corruption institutions and a number of legal frameworks specifically aimed at combating graft. Actually, the country has been credited by several international anti-graft bodies as having one of the best legal frameworks to fight corruption in Africa.

In spite of its administrative woes, the IGG continues to be the flagship in the battle against corruption, followed by the Auditor General, Directorate of Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets and Procurement (PPDA), the Police fraud squad department, Directorate of Public Prosecutions, Criminal Investigation Department and the anti-corruption division of the High Court.

Leadership code
There are regulations such as the Whistleblower Act, Witness Protection Act, Anti-money laundering law and the Leadership Code Act. All these institutions and legal frameworks are tasked to fight corruption, abuse of and office and to promote good governance in public office.

However, in spite of all these measures, corruption continues to gobble up the country’s resources, especially in the public sector.

Many anti-corruption campaigners feel there is need to harmonise all laws, policies and institutions established to fight the vice, to avoid duplication of work. They propose that the institution of the IGG and other anti-corruption institutions need to be better facilitated, so that they can execute their duties more effectively.

There is also need to enforce compliance with the Leadership Code. They further call for a speedy launch of the anti-corruption court and the Leadership Code Tribunal.

Anti-corruption campaigners propose the improvement of accountability systems, by punishing the culprits and their collaborators, and strengthening the system of sanctions and rewards for fighting corruption.

How bad is it?
Buturo blames Ugandans for failing to hold their leaders accountable: “We have a population that is largely submissive because of the traditional fear of people in authority. This provides fertile ground for thieves.”

Documentary evidence indicates that corruption is most rife in procurement, privatisation, administration of public expenditure and revenue, and the delivery of public services.

The PPDA report (2009) estimates that over sh330b is lost every year to corruption in procurement, much more than the country receives annually in aid. While the World Bank report (2005), estimates that Uganda loses about $300m (sh600b) per year through corruption and procurement malpractices.

The Uganda Self-Assessment Report and Programme of Action report by the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) of 2008, reckons that the Government would save sh30b annually by eliminating losses from corruption in public procurement alone.

Several studies and investigations still show that corruption is on the rise and, coupled with ineffective public institutions, is still undermining good governance in the country.

The 2005 Auditor General’s report estimates that 20% of the value of public procurement was lost through graft, through weak public procurement laws, adding that procurement accounts for 70% of public expenditure.

Reports point out that corruption in procurement has adversely impacted on the quality of services meant to improve the quality of life, especially health and education. It has also influenced death and poverty levels in Uganda. For private firms, the costs of production have been continually high and unpredictable.

Two-thirds of Ugandans believe graft has increased, a 2007 survey by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics shows. In another survey cited in the report, almost half of the respondents said that bribes were more frequently demanded today than five years ago.

The APRM report says that to win a tender in Uganda, most companies expend a lot of resources, including bribes to the district contracts committees.

“This leads to shoddy work, classroom blocks which develop cracks within months and roads which become impassable soon after construction, since any bribes and kickbacks offered to influence the award of the tender have to be recovered by the contractor.”

Anti-corruption bodies point out that the vice is caused by weak controls, bureaucracy and greed. The root causes of graft are the breakdown of the rule of law, especially in the insurgency-affected north, poor procurement systems and inadequate legal machinery, leading to many cases being lost on technicalities like lack of evidence. Other reasons cited are lack of linkages between the Police, the Judiciary and the IGG, lack of technical capacity in public offices, job insecurity and poor pay.

The report also points at greed “driven by the insatiable desire for personal gain” and social pressure “where the wealthy are respected, regardless of the method of acquisition of their wealth”.

Over 350 people are facing corruption charges countrywide, with only two cases having reached the High Court, records from the Judiciary indicate.

The newly established Anti-Corruption Court has already convicted two suspects who were implicated in the embezzlement of the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

The two are Teddy Seezi Cheeye, the Director of Economic Monitoring in the Internal Security Organisation, who was jailed for 28 years but will serve only 10 years. The other is Fred Kavuma, a former programme producer with the defunct Uganda Television.

What commentators say about the new law
Supreme Court judge George Kanyeihamba points out that actions like retaining ministers who have been implicated in corruption encourages the vice.

He says the laws on corruption are strong, but their implementation is weak. “Why do you (MPs) approve every candidate he (the President) throws at you?” he asked MPs on Wednesday.

Kanyeihamba said the highest prevalence of corruption was in the Government.

Ethics and integrity shadow minister Christopher Kibazanga asserts that creating more anti-corruption bodies would not eliminate the vice which has eaten into every government department.

“The Government definitely seems to be gambling. The existing laws are enough to fight corruption," he said, adding: “The problem is; we only fight where donors have interest. Whatever is being done is just a semblance of a fight.”

He points out that there is lack of political will to fight the vice, adding that the Government had on a number of occasions failed to act on IGG reports and those of several commissions of inquires, into alleged corruption.

Kibazanga says that the problem is with the Government applying the law selectively, where politicians are spared and lower government officials are prosecuted. “Until we stop pleasing donors and set clear guidelines to fight graft, we shall get nowhere with the several laws being created.”

Anti-corruption Coalition co-ordinator Jasper Tumuhimbise says the secretariat could provide a good platform for the grassroot population to raise their issues and demand accountability. He was, however, quick to express doubt that it would fight corruption at national level, especially within government departments.

“It’s a welcome move, but as to whether it will curtail corruption at national level, I doubt. The existing laws are enough; what needs to be done is applying them equally, irrespective of who is being accused.”