“In this regard, we need to learn and apply lessons from emerging economies such as India, whose total healthcare industry revenue is expected to increase from US$ 110 billion in 2016 to US$ 372 billion in 2022 in response to deliberate investments in telemedicine, manufacturing of medicines and health technologies, medical tourism, health workforce training and risk pooling/health insurance, among others. In order to achieve this, we need to plan in a harmonized way. In Uganda, for instance, we, indeed, have a nascent pharmaceutical industry producing Aids/HIV, Malaria, Hepatitis-B, pharmaceuticals, etc. drugs. These are, however, still using imported pharmaceutical grade starch and imported pharmaceutical grade sugar. The pharmaceutical grade starch and sugar are crucial for making tablets and syrups for children’s medicines. Yet, the starch is from maize and cassava and the pharmaceutical grade sugar is from sugar. I am told the drugs would be 20% cheaper. Moreover, apart from helping in the pharmaceutical industry, more refined sugar is also needed in the soft drinks industry. Uganda is squandering US$34 million per year importing refined sugar for the soft drinks, about US$ 20 million for importing the pharmaceutical grade starches not including the other raw materials, US$ 77million for taking patients to India etc. Africa is incredibly rich but wasteful” (Yoweri Kaguta Museveni at THE OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE JOINT EAC HEADS OF STATE RETREAT ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND HEALTH FINANCING AND DEVELOPMENT, 22.02.2018).
Seems like the 1980s World Bank loans to restart Kakira Sugar Works hasn’t done enough, since the Ugandan state did right after the National Resistance Army takeover of the state. They went into an arrangement with the World Bank getting loans for the company, to restart. That deal was done 8th March 1988. As the documents said back in 198:
“Uganda currently imports US$15-20 million worth of sugar annually, which ranks second only to petroleum imports. Import substitution through restoration of domestic production capacity is therefore a high priority and eminently justified given the considerable comparative advantage Uganda enjoys as a result of its landlocked situation. Conditions for sugar production at Kakira are highly favorable. Cane growing benefits from excellent soils, good rainfall distribution (requiring only limited sunplementary irrigation) and relatively low levels of inputs of fertilizers and pesticides. The project brings back to the Kakira complex the original owners who have a demonstrated ability to manage sugar operations at Kakira and elsewhere” (SUGAR REHABILITATION PROJECT, 08.03.1988).
Therefore, what the President said today, the Sugar Rehabilitation Project, which was done to stop the heavy imports of sugar and for consumption, has clearly not worked as projected. Since his own state is squandering their resources and not even following the loans to make the project work. That is my take on it. The president of 32 years has clearly mismanaged this and not finished his job. Since he hasn’t been able to rehabilitate the industry.
When it comes to pharmaceutical industry there massive challenges, not just the sugar starch for medicine coverage of the pills. Nevertheless, the whole arrangement, since the technology to operate these machines are imported, as well is the parts. Not only the sugar starch, but also the ingredients are imported too, than you have few companies who has automated manufactures, which makes hard to make medicine on a larger scale. It is also high operation cost, because of use of back-up generators because of blackouts and shortfall of electricity. Because of this, it is expensive to have cold storage of the medicine and have a storage for the final products.
So the Idea from Museveni that it is simple, it is the whole system around it, that makes it more profitable to import ready made medicine, than actually produce it. Even if the added value of production would be there, but with the circumstances put by United Nations Industrial Development Organization, seemingly it is from 2009. However, the state of affairs hasn’t changed that much.
We can really estimate, that the adjustment and the needed organization to pull forward both industries during the years of NRM hasn’t been totally fruitful. If so, why would he complain about the imports of sugar and medicine, when he hasn’t been able to make it function with his 32 years of reign? Someone who has 3 decades, should have the ability and time to find the information, finalize plans and execute as seen fit. That is if he cared about the industries in question and their possible engines for growth and riches of Africa. Nevertheless, he hasn’t cared and haven’t used the time wisely. He has used the time bitching and not acting. That is just the way things is and it isn’t becoming better either.
He could have made sure that the pharmaceutical industry had energy, had the sufficient organization behind it to make the medicine, not only import and assemble certain medicine, he could have made sure the sugar industry was profitable and had the equipment to make the refined sugar used in the pharmaceutical industry. However, both is a lost cause, because it takes money and time. Both, is something he doesn’t have, since the narrative isn’t making him wealthy.
Alas, he we are at the status quo, with a President running for life and complaining about waste. When he has wasted 32 years and not made effort to change it. It is all talk and no fire. Peace.
This here is the outtakes of a report that we’re released now recently showing the wished aspects of the EEA Grants who are most donations from the Norwegian state. The Norwegian State has had through the EEA and EFTA had a company called COWI too look through the donor-funding and the interviewing of the ones getting the allocated funds.
With this in mind are surely other who have been commenting on the matter as the Report dropped in June 2016, I just got it today. So is it right? This is my take on it and here are the quotes that are significant to me and the process and overlook of the use of funds.
How much money at stake:
“The allocation of funds is channelled through 150 programmes within 32 programme areas in 16 beneficiary countries. For the period 2009-14, approximately 1.8 billion EUR were set aside under the grants. During the same period, the Norway Grants supported 61 programmes in the 13 EU Member States that joined in 2004, 2007 and 20133 respectively, and the EEA Grants supported 86 programmes in those countries as well as in Greece, Spain and Portugal. The allocation of funds to the countries is based on population size and GDP per capita” (EFTA, P:17, 2016).
“The aim of the mid-term evaluation is to assess to what extent and in which way the EEA/Norway Grants contribute to strengthening bilateral relations between donor and beneficiary states” (EFTA, P:18, 2016).
The Norwegian OAG report in 2013:
“The OAG found that bilateral efforts were not sufficiently planned and communicated at the starting phase of the 2009-14 funding period and that e.g. the key guidance documents were finalised too late” (…) “The audit expects that bilateral relations in the 2009-14 funding period will be better safeguarded than during the previous period given the fact that the current 23 Norwegian DPPs have entered into donor programme partnerships with programme operators in the beneficiary states” (EFTA, P:34-35, 2016).
Joint Research Projects:
“Possibly due to the fact that in the research field, international funding is available for joint research projects from for example the large EU programmes Horizon, etc. This kind of funding is not available to other sectors. The benefits in terms of developing international and EU networks and learning about international initiatives in research are very clear. The EEA and Norway Grants support these processes by being an important contributor and often facilitating a first international cooperation for both parties. However, the evaluation also shows that such networks and cooperation cannot always continue after the expiration of the external funding” (EFTA, P:49, 2016).
Implementation of Norway Grants:
“A number of countries have decided to use the same system for implementation of the EEA and Norway Grants as they use for the EU structural funds. Programme and project stakeholders find that the structural funds system is too bureaucratic and that the financial rules are too cumbersome. The national system for implementation of structural funds and related procedures may not be very relevant to a partner/bilateral relation focused programme, especially when this programme includes a donor project partner, who has a hard time complying with the checks and balances of EU Member State structural fund programmes. Programmes in the Research and Scholarship sector regret the decision not to use ERASMUS+ procedures” (EFTA, P:56, 2016).
Allocation to the projects:
“99.3% of the total funds have been allocated to the five focus countries, and 42.9% of total programme funds have been incurred to date. The share of incurred funds varies across the five countries from 35.6% in Romania to 56.4% in Estonia” (EFTA, P: 63, 2016).
One Slovakian project – Project title: Pro Monumenta:
” The project entitled Pro Monumenta is a cooperation between Pamiatkový úrad SR (The Monuments Board of the Slovak Republic), who is the project controller and Riksantikvaren (The Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage under the Ministry of Environment). The two institutions first established contact back in 2010 based on a Slovak initiative financed by the Ministry of Culture” (…) “The project was implemented from 1 January 2014 and was scheduled to terminate on 30 March 2016. The main goal of Pro Monumenta in Slovakia is to establish and equip three mobile teams with the capacity to identify and repair easy-to-mend defects at historic monuments, which have led or may lead to deterioration (including basic roof repairs, repairs to chimneys, rainwater drains, fixing of lightning conductors). Major damage identified in the project is documented in a monument technical report, which is stored electronically in a common database” (…) “In this case, the Norwegian partner mainly learns from Slovak experiences and approaches to the implementation of such activities. However, the Norwegian partner also supports the project through its human and technical expertise, such as through an expert from Nasjonele Fervardung, who is expected to arrive to Slovakia to conduct workshops for team members on monument conservation and repairs within a given area” (…) “The project is a clear example of the great contextual and bilateral potential of the programme, if properly implemented. According to the assessment by the project coordinators the project impacts are visible both in Slovakia and Norway (establishment of the formal programmes in the project area) and as Mr. Reznik summarized: “The project significantly improved bilateral co-operation between Norwegian and Slovak experts in the area – especially because it focused on an area of the common interest” (EFTA, P: 67, 2016).
How it is in Latvia and Estonia:
“One explanation for this may be found in Latvia, where some stakeholders indicated that since the bilateral objective is included in the MoU, cooperation is therefore embedded at programme level in most programmes. Since most programmes, particularly in Latvia and Estonia, also have a DPP, the programmes automatically focus on the bilateral relations. This may indicate a tendency for the bilateral aspect to become somewhat formalistic, along the lines of ‘we have a DPP therefore our programme adheres to the bilateral objective’, rather than it being a matter of content and mutual results” (…) “In Estonia, for instance, one indicator has been used in half of the programmes, namely the mandatory indicator “Number of project partnership agreements in the beneficiary public sector”. In more than 30% of the Estonian programmes, no indicator has been used, including the two other mandatory indicators “Number of project partnership agreements in beneficiary civil society” and “…in the beneficiary private sector”. These two indicators have both been used in only 10% of the programmes in 2016. Most programmes are required to make use of at least one of the three obligatory indicators, yet if adding together the top three lines of Table 5-6 for each country, it can be seen that some shares do not sum to 100%. This may be explained by the fact that there are programmes that do not require partnerships, and in some programmes it has not been possible to find relevant partners” (EFTA, P: 69-70, 2016).
“The overall conclusion on the efficiency of EEA and Norway Grants is that a number of dedicated tools to develop bilateral relations at programme and project level have been introduced. Most of these tools directly support the work of the programmes and projects towards developing bilateral partnership relations, shared results, knowledge and understanding and wider effects. DPPs, bilateral funds and donor project partners all support this goal. The main issue for DPPs and donor project partners is securing the availability of a sufficient number of partners to meet the demand. The main hindering factor identified across the programmes and projects is the administrative procedures (complicated, slow and time consuming) in the beneficiary countries and the fact that the systems used by the beneficiary states are very different systems. Another significant factor identified is the time frame of projects, which due to a late start-up of programmes, can have a very short implementation period” (EFTA, P: 117, 2016).
Clarify the reporting of the projects:
“It is recommended that more instruction be given on the expected contents of reporting on the bilateral objective to avoid the current wide variations in reporting practice and style and the non-informative focus on bilateral activities. It is also recommended that the programme reports include the bilateral indicators selected for the programme. It is suggested that the example of one of the focus countries (Estonia) is adopted. In Estonia, the bilateral indicators are annexed to the report, complete with a justification/explanation of why they were chosen” (EFTA, P: 121, 2016).
Recommendation for bilateral projects:
“It is recommended that focus be directed towards the predefined projects under the bilateral national funds. As mentioned above, the predefined projects provide an interesting opportunity for strategic level cooperation. It is unclear whether the calls” at national level for smaller cooperation projects provide added value. Therefore, it is recommended that such calls be differentiated, either in terms of topic or timing, from the bilateral funds at programme level in order to for them to serve a real function (demand/meet a need)” (EFTA P: 121-122, 2016).
Recommendation for bilateral projects II:
“It is also recommended to standardise implementation systems and rules so that every programme does not have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ (and spend a lot of time doing this). Especially DPPs working on the same programme type in several beneficiary countries could benefit from similar/aligned rules of implementation” (EFTA, P: 122, 2016).
Recommendation for bilateral projects III:
“Particularly, data relevant to monitoring and assessment of the bilateral objective (results) are difficult to extract from some of the reports. Hence, the evaluator recommends that reporting requirements be standardised and clearly communicated to all relevant stakeholders (i.e. what content is required under which headings)” (EFTA, P: 122, 2016).
This here proves that actually the monies that going to the Projects are well-used, but those estimates are issued and checked in the same ways, not specifically different between the Educational or other more industrial collaboration between the Donor-Nations and the representatives.
The COWI report are clear on the levels of ability to use the funds, but have questions of finding clear partners for the projects as the allocation of funds is not an issue. That is mostly put on the spot and paid to the partner program either by the direct from Norwegian grants or by the EEA grants that are fuelled by most of the Norwegian donations. Therefore the monies to the nations and projects are arriving.
The indication of the efficiencies and the learning of the projects are different from what type of Norwegian organization is behind the collaborate effort, as much as the donor nation and the projects are proof of the development and goals of the projects that are funded this way. So they are properly examined and not like with this report they are settled with the same systems and with no consideration of the extent or the actual field they we’re prospecting. So the numbers and the proof of results are questionable. Even if the funds are used and the certain results are visible in certain cultural and historical aspects; we can still question the validity of the results be one-fits all like socks when we talking learning-projects, refurbishing old artefacts and even bilateral corporation one set subject.
The indication of that each separate project under the funding have been using lot of time to find ways of implementing the collaborative effort and finding Norwegian partners for the projects funding through the grants; also how they are supposed to work to fulfil the degrees of plans that have to be there to be able to get funding through the EEA and Norwegian Grants. Also the question under how the outsider COWI struggled with understanding and getting the capacity to see the value of some of the results in some reports from the projects as they we’re all written in different ways and different lengths. Show’s the capacity of streamlining the production of reports and the evaluation of the funding through the bilateral projects as the methods of explaining is and can be hard get the data that is needed to tell the story of the projects. Therefore the methods of reporting need to change and maybe even be in one standard, so the EEA, the bilateral partners and the donors can show their success and value for money. Something that the citizens for both the organizations getting the funds and also the donors who needs to prove that the money is not wasted abroad… something that is key reason for the report to show the progress of the grants in the first place. Peace.
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Financial Mechanism Office (FMO) – ‘Mid-term evaluation of the support to strengthened bilateral relations under the EEA and Norway Grants FINAL REPORT’ (June 2016) link: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/17c16170595b473ab59c7edc5c0208a7/2016-evaluering-bilaterale-relasjoner.pdf
There been reported how the Global Fund has gone through and report how the donor funds to Government of Uganda (GoU) and the Ministry of Health. As the Value for Money way of auditing and describing the state of the programs that has been funded by this donor funding; this is especially against the diseases like Tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and Malaria. This is the situation of the funds and how it was used. This is interesting to see how the Government of Uganda has been coming to accountability and responsibility toward the procurement and accessing the monies, as they was not using the allocated funds or unaccounted for. There is questions for why certain projects are so slow in procurement and why there is too little of specialized kits in the National Medicine Stores (NMS) as they had budget for a dozen more than; when the audit was happening. That is a worrying sign. But look at the quotes from the Global Fund report from February 2016, and see what the important pieces from it are!
“The Global Fund support in Uganda:
Since its inception in Uganda in 2002, the Global Fund has signed a total of 20 grants amounting to USD 1 billion, USD 623 million of which had been disbursed to the country at the time of the audit” (…)”The grants are implemented by two Principal Recipients, The Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development and The AIDS Support Organization (TASO). The Ministry of Finance has delegated responsibilities with respect to implementation of the grants to the Ministry of Health” (…)”Approximately 90% of Global Fund grants to Uganda are spent on the procurement of medicines and health products. The Secretariat’s Pooled Procurement Mechanism procures all health commodities with the exception of tuberculosis drugs which are procured by the Global Drug Facility” (P: 4, 2016).
Ratings of the work:
The rating of the operations tells a story on how the services are delivered in the country. As the Programmatic and Performance where you can see the accuracy and support decision making to check the quality service, second part is the Financial and Fiduciary how to use the actual grants and check them in an effective manner, this two both the Programmatic and Performance, and the Financial and Fiduciary is handled in a Partial Plan to become Effective (P: 5, 2016).
The Health service and Products which is the ability of the supply chain, deliver services, account the quality assured medicines and health manners in timely manner; the second rated work is the Governance, Oversight and Management it is the quadrate and the effectiveness of the grants and implementations of the arrangements. These two parts is not run effective by the government (P: 5, 2016).
“The Global Fund has signed a total of 20 grants amounting to USD 1 billion, USD 623 million of which has been disbursed to the Republic of Uganda since 2002” (…) ”Approximately 90% of grant funds are spent on the procurement, storage and distribution of health commodities. The Global Fund’s Pooled Procurement Mechanism buys the majority of the medicines and health products on behalf of the country, which has significantly improved procurement timelines and reduced commodity prices” (…)”Uganda has made progress in the control and treatment of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria with a reduction in new infections and/or incidence. However, if unaddressed, pervasive stock-outs of key medicines at all levels will result in treatment disruption for patients. Seventy per cent of the 50 health facilities visited during the audit reported stock-outs of at least one critical medicine, with HIV drugs being the most affected of the three diseases” (…) ”Differences of USD 21.4 million were noted between book and actual stocks at the National Medical Stores for 15 commodity types procured by the government and the Global Fund. The audit could not apportion the variance between the government and the Global Fund since the stores’ inventory system does not segregate physical stocks by source” (…) ”16.5 million condoms that should have been distributed for free were sold through social marketing. The funds generated from the sales (USD 0.2 million) remain unaccounted for” (P: 6, 2016).
Executive Summary Part II:
“The country’s change of HIV treatment policy and scale up plans have increased the number of patients eligible for treatment without a corresponding increase in government funding. This will result in a treatment funding gap of at least USD 90 million in 2016 if not addressed.
Consequently, the Global Fund is ‘front-loading’ commodities planned for 2016/17 to 2015 to address medicine shortages” (…)”Twelve per cent out of the 50 facilities visited were performing HIV tests with expired test kits and, contrary to national guidelines, 14% of facilities visited did not perform confirmatory tests on clients diagnosed as HIV positive. This raises the risk of clients getting false HIV results” (…)”The Secretariat, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, has introduced data quality assessments. Vacant positions are to be filled to address the data related issues. However, funding for tools, training and supervision remains a challenge” (…)”There was also weak management of advances with some remaining outstanding for over 20 months. Value added taxes amounting to USD 0.3 million had also not been refunded to the programs. The audit identified expenses for which there was not adequate supporting documentation, amounting to USD 3.9 million” (…)”While the country lacks adequate funding to cover key activities, it has a low absorption of the limited grant funds that are sent to the country. The OIG noted that only 46% of funds disbursed to the Ministry of Finance between January 2013 and June 2015 had been spent at the time of the audit” (P: 7, 2016).
“70% of the health facilities reported stock-outs of anti-retroviral medicines and HIV test kits of between three weeks and four months” (…)”68% of facilities reported stock outs of anti-malaria medicines and test kits in the previous six-month period” (…)”64% of the facilities reported stock-outs of TB medicines of between one week and three months” (P: 9, 2016).
“Use of medicines to treat other diseases: The audit noted that 32% of the 50 facilities visited treated 1,254 Hepatitis B patients with anti-retroviral medicines. The quantification of anti-retroviral medicines does not take into consideration their use for the treatment for Hepatitis B patients. This has contributed to stock-outs of anti-retroviral medicines for HIV patients who are the primary target of these medicines” (P: 9, 2016).
Gaps in HIV counselling and testing practices:
“Twelve per cent out of the 50 facilities visited were performing HIV tests with expired test kits” (…)”Contrary to national guidelines, 14% of the facilities visited did not perform confirmatory tests on clients diagnosed as HIV positive” (P: 11, 2016).
Inadequate and ineffective condom procurement and distribution processes:
“Condoms that should have been received in country in 2011 were only received in late 2013 due to a protracted procurement processes” (…)”Contrary to the grant agreement, 16.5 million condoms that should have been distributed to users for free were provided to Marie Stopes Uganda, a contractor, by the Ministry of Health and sold through a social marketing mechanism” (P: 12, 2016).
Subsidized anti-malarial medicines not accessible and affordable:
“Consequently, medicines are sold above the recommended price that is UGX 5,000 and not UGX 3,500” (…)”there is no instituted mechanism to ensure that the subsidized medicines are distributed outside the big cities to malaria endemic areas” (P: 12, 2016). “Key positions budgeted for under the Global Fund grants also remained vacant: for example, 17 out of the 43 pharmacists and HIV, TB and malaria focal points for the regional performance monitoring teams were not at post during the audit” (P: 13, 2016).
Difference between what they have funded to get and what they had at NMS:
“Between Global Fund commodities issued by national Medical Stores and received by health facilities: The National Medical Stores inventory system indicated that 3.7 million test kits had been issued to a facility, but the facility recorded a receipt of only 3,000 kits. While the National Medical Stores indicated that the variance amounting to USD 2.41 million may be due to errors in the inventory management system, this could not be verified by the OIG auditors. The variance also affects the closing quantities based on the inventory management system and actual stock at the national medical stores” (P: 14, 2016).
“In-country quality assurance of medicines: The National Drug Authority charges 2% (amounting to USD 3.8 million from January 2013 to June 2015)39 of the “free on board” value of medicines and pharmaceutical products for in-country quality assurance. While bed nets and condoms had been tested, there was no evidence that medicines (including anti-malaria and anti-retroviral) supplied by the Global Fund were tested by the Authority” (P: 15, 2016).
“Questionable value for money: Charges of USD 3.8 million (from January 2013 to June 2015) by the National Drug Authority for testing of medicines, for which there is no evidence that testing actually happened” (…)”Cancellation of an order for the purchase of HIV test kits under the Pooled Procurement Mechanism which has resulted in a loss of USD 427,500. The manufacturer has indicated that the commodities have already been manufactured and cannot be supplied to any other country due to level of customization requested by the Ministry of Health” (…)”Payments amounting to USD 254,921 related to value added taxes that has not been refunded by government” (…)”The implementers incurred ineligible payments amounting to USD 93,400. These related to payments for activities not included in the approved grant budget, or excess payments to service providers” (P: 19, 2016).
This here shows worrying signs as the Health Care and Global Funds is either not utilized or misused, understocked even when the NMS is supposed to have dozen of kits for instance. The amount of monies not allocated even when budget for. That is a normal issue for the Government of Uganda under the NRM-Regime.
Just like the condoms that was supposed to enter Uganda in 2011, arrived in 2013. That proves the ability of the government to stall the procurement even when they have donor-funding to get the necessities. One key issue is that health facilities are lacking the necessary medicines for the treatment of Tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and Malaria. The planning for securing the allocations is also lacking, therefore the planning and allocations is missing even when the funding from Global Funds is there, showing that the transactions between the Government of Uganda, National Medical Stores(NMS) and the International Companies who make the kits and medicine. Another factor is the longstanding time the health facilities are without needed medications and that should be worrying for the Ministry of Health.
The worst thing about this is that people who need the treatment have to wait for it or not get it in time as the health care facilities do not have it. That is the thing that worries me while reading through it, seeing the person who needs the care and medicine not getting it. So the Government of Uganda, Ministry of Health and National Medical Store (NMS) has a decent job to do. Especially since the matter of making procurement procedure and facilitate together with the different parts of governments organizations to deliver to the patient at a facility or the pharmacy. Peace.
The Global Fund – ‘Audit Report Global Fund Grants to the Republic of Uganda’ (26.02.2016) – Geneva, Switzerland.
We can see through the budget that they was promised the cars, the Local Government Chairmen, was expected by the paper-trail, still the timing and measurement of deliverance of the pick-up trucks is questionable. Especially wen Dr. Ruhakana Ruganda the Prime Minister needs an official ceremony to give them away as the magnificent progress it is to give away cars to their local big-man in the districts as a token of steady progress. Take a look!
“The Prime Minister of Uganda, Dr Ruhakana Rugunda, has handed over cars to district chairpersons to help them ease their work. The handover ceremony was at the Mandela National Stadium at Namboole this morning” (New Vision, 2016).
On the V4.2: Key Changes Vote for Vote Resource Allocation:
The budget has allocated UGX 3.110bn for vehicles and other transport equipment (P: 127, MPS, 2015). In this paper voting in procurement for the Public Sector Management Sector: “111 Vehicles procured for the District chairpersons procured” (P: 582, NBFP, 2015). Later in the document it even says this: “To sufficiently fulfill its mandate, the ministry needs to have motor vehicles which are in sound mechanical conditions. However, the current fleet of motor vehicles in the ministry has grown old with a majority of them having been procured over the last 7 to 9 years ago. Presently, out of a total fleet of 43 vehicles 27 (63%) are either more than 5 years old or have covered distance of more than 250,000 KM” (P: 590, NBFP, 2015). Here is the funding requirements for the Ministry of Public Service: “Funding Requirement: UGX 310,700bn” (P: 590, NBFP, 2015).
“In line with the office objective of strengthening operational independence, the office plans to expand Soroti and Arua regional offices and to provide a conducive working environment for staff. This requires an addition funding of Shs 4.0bn” (…)”Majority of the vehicles that are currently deployed at the regional offices are all above 5 years old resulting into high expenditure on maintenance and repair. In this regard, there is need to replace the aging fleet at the regional offices to improve operational efficiency. This requires a total budget of Ushs 4.183bn to procure 27 vehicles and deploy three vehicles at each regional office” (P: 631, NBFP, 2015).
That this happens just days before the General Elections proves that government is giving it, to pay them for loyalty with new equipment just in time for the elections. As a sign of what they can get if they continue to be loyal to the NRM-Regime. This is the tax-money and donor funding goes to. Buy loyalty from their Local Government Chairman, the time of deliverance is suspect and not subtle. That the Prime Minister gives them away is like showing off their service deliverance, but couldn’t the government use some of these funds on schools or hospitals that are depleted? That is the modus operandi, wonder if Frank Tumwebaze feels little as gave away like 11 cars last time late 2015, now the Prime Minister gave away 111. Just a look you know. The Prime Minister shows loyalty to his Excellency by doing this, but it does not look like a sweet fairytale, more like paying civil servants with a fancy new pick-up truck and saying “Webale nnyo” remember who gave you the car. Peace.
Government of Uganda – Ministerial Policy Statement (MPS) for the Office of the Prime Minister Financial Year 2015/16 – Prof. Tarsis Bazana Kabwegyere.
National Budget Framework Paper: 2015/16
Here I will Travers through the report of Auditor General of Uganda’s Annual Report for the year ended 30th June 2015. This is on: “CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND STATUTORY CORPORATIONS”. I will take the quotes and stories that seem to show parts of how the Government of Uganda works and what the Auditor General have cared about addressing in this specific report. Take a look! This here is Part two!
Ministry of Works and Transport Sector:
Certain information from the ministry:
“management used the services of a local company to print Ministry materials at a cost of UGX.48,000,000 without following procurement guidelines” (…)”expenditure totalling to UGX.157,861,512 was inappropriately charged on budget lines to fund activities that were not planned for without authority” (…)”management explained that this was caused by UGX3,367,986,442 that was held on the Stanbic Bank Collection account as the funds were earmarked to replace worn out equipment and plant and MELTC, yet management does not spend these funds at source; and UGX.819,209,847 mainly consisted of funds earmarked or Lake Bisina Ferry landing sites and DRRU. MELTC will be required to return all the unspent operational funds when the Rural Transport Infrastructure (RTI)/U-growth project ends on 30th June 2016” (P:116 – 121). Comment: This here prove how the have chared funds without authority. The Ministry also has to release funds back to the RTI U as they have not done their work on the Ferry Landing Site.
Non-payment of UGX.490m to Mukono District Council:
“Management explained that the long standing dispute between the Ministry and Mukono District affected the progress of the ICD project and an understanding had been reached between the two parties. However in December 2014, the Ministry sought legal advice from the Solicitor General on the pending compensation of UGX.490m to Mukono District and the Solicitor General advised that there was no justification for the compensation since the District could not prove that it owned the structures” (P: 132). Comment: This here proves mismanagement for Local Government Council and the Ministry, that the monies does not leave either party or to the party that deserve the money. Not well played by either ones.
Construction of Nwoya Community Justice House – Abandoned construction works:
“Nwoya Community Justice Centre was constructed by a local company at UGX.1,516,916,000. The contract commenced on 11th July 2014. Audit inspection carried out at the site on 19th September, 2015 revealed that the contractor abandoned the work. There was no construction work in progress” (P: 158). Comment: Here is mismanagement locally and also with the ministry therefore it is a building without a contractor who left the premises. The OAG and the Ministry should probe the contractors and also the Local Government Council for the little check on the work in their district. Or doesn’t it matter that the work and used monies on a court building left unfinished?
Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control (DCIC):
Construction of Border Posts:
“Construct Sebagolo model border post with staff quarters), Kikagati mini border post and Ishasha mini border post” (…)”Was allocated UGX 200m and none used funds or absorbed” (…)”Sebagolo; procurement abandoned. No land title” (…)”Ishasha; procurement abandoned due to lack of structural drawings, border post building design and BoQs” (…)”Kikagati; procurement; abandoned due to lack proof of ownership of land” (P: 161).
Ministry of Affairs:
DGAL-Gulu – Delayed completion of the construction of a Regional Laboratory in Gulu:
“The construction of the Regional Laboratory started on 28th January 2008 at a contract sum UGX.436,445,468 and was to be completed by 28th July, 2008 (after 22 calendar weeks)” (…)”at the time of writing this report, the construction had not been completed (after 7 years) and the site appears to have been abandoned. A total of UGX.236,330,768 (54,15%) was paid to the contractor and the building had been roofed, plastered and fitted with exterior doors and window burglars” (P: 177). Commented: They proved too been a breach of contract between the Ministry, Local Government Council and the contractors who was building on the site. These institutions should probe the contractor for delays and not finishing the building, while the government should check the history of the allocations and see why they haven’t done the work and delivered as budgeted in the past.
Uganda Police Force:
“The Force had 291 and 970 uneconomical and grounded motor vehicles and motorcycles representing 27% and 28% respectively of the available fleet of 1091 motor vehicles and 3452 motor cycles” (P: 183). Comment: That such a giant part of their fleet is standing still and can’t be used for their entitled work. So it is a waste of funds and also equipment.
“The budget of UGX.120m was again provided for the financial year 2014/2015, however, this was not enough to carry out the activity. This financial year (2014/15), UGX.3.7bn had been estimated to cover the surveying, titling, boundary opening, land purchase, land planning and design, compensation and inspection, however only UGX.120m was provided in the budget” (P: 185). Comment: This here prove how little the state care for police when they can’t secure funding for land in and titles for the Police Stations. Another proof of weak governance when they doesn’t care for their own civil servants.
“Police has over 40 vessels including long distance patrol boats, firefighting boats, fiber glass boats and inflatable boats deployed in the detach units on all major water bodies of Lakes Victoria, Kyoga, Albert, Edward and George. However, the Force lacks a marina at Kigo marine headquarters for safe docking and parking of major boats. As a result, some big boats are docked/parked at Lake Victoria Serena Hotel for safety purposes, while others are dry docked (parked on land) at Kigo headquarters” (P: 186). Comment: We can see that the Police don’t have funding for the boats and to keep the upkeep of them. That proves that the Government doesn’t value the boats, since they don’t keep them in great areas.
Police Mariners staff, Post Mariners Post-Education and Fuel issues:
“Marines unit has a workforce of 197 staff with over 40 vessels. A review of the unit nominal roll revealed that only 10 staff have mechanical/technical related qualifications while 6 have qualifications in fisheries” (…)”The Accounting Officer further explained that some training is already underway both within and outside the country, and that in the current financial year, 45 staff are undergoing marine training by Korean instructors” (…)”The unit detaches are provided with 200 liters of fuel for operations per month (6.4 liters per day) and yet the fiber boats at each unit consume 20 liters per hour. According to the in-charge, each unit detach requires at least 60 liters a day which puts the fuel requirement per month to 1,800 liters for the units to effectively monitor the waters” (P: 188-191). Comment: That there are 40 vessels and only 6 have seamen education. 10 mechanical people who can fix the technical problems with the boats that the police have. Yet again, the training has to happen by donors or foreign because the government can’t be able to finance their own personnel training. That should be worrying. The last issues that the boats can be used as much they can because of the use of 20 liter per hour. They miss the 1600 liters they need to function, because they are only allocated 200 liters. Show’s a mismatch of the use of funds for this part of the UPF.
Uganda Prison Service:
“By June 2015, the population of prisoners stood at 45,092, exceeding the available capacity by 28,575 inmates (occupancy level is 273%). Some prisons are overcrowded, housing up to 3 times their designed holding capacities” (P: 197). Comment: The government might not be expected to deliver at hotel to the inmates in prison. But to congestion them like cattle or having housing for them that creates diseases and poor hygiene; shows that the punished people in prisons get not only time to serve as convicts, but also get conditions that makes their stay a health hazard.
Funds of Consolidated Funds:
“UGX.2,808,413,252 was reported in the statement of financial position as cash and cash equivalent at the end of the financial year. The unspent funds should have been transferred to the consolidated fund by close of the year however, UPS did not remit the funds to the condolidated fund” (P: 195). Comment: This here proves that this government outfit doesn’t have the properly functioning accounting practices since they don’t follow the laws for unused allocated funds.
Office of the Auditor General – The Annual Report for the Year Ended 30th June 2015 – Central Government and Statutory Corporations 30th June 2015.