“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
In our day and time there is a level of impunity and levels of carelessness that to an extent that revolutions and demonstrations are the only way out the deadlock that our leaders lead into it. The power-hungry and overstaying leaders who have no sense of fellow brethren and their woes as their cash-flow, castles, cars and estates grows piles upon piles up-to moon.
With that in mind you have these so-called elections that is more selected through in-party and electoral commission made-up for the ruling party and their President than for the people and the citizens to pick their leadership in the confidence of the polls. Even if the Election Day is there and the ballot-paper exists, there is still; the counting of the ballot and the rigging the result that matters. Especially when the higher courts and hollow chambers that are hand-picked men and woman that the President already trusts to deliver his verdict.
If a brother stole a can of fuel or took something at the supermarket and got caught. The World would proclaim and through fines and detaining be officially a crook or thief. Thieving on the higher level embezzling from banks and taking accounts of ordinary savers is called more economic mismanagement. The bank will get a fine and the CEO will be suspended, but the bankers will most likely get away since they are walking in the same clicks as the mayors, governors and Members of Parliament.
The Same mind is if you are a President or MPs and take the elections. If you are lucky then the international observers because of their affiliation with donor-countries or friendly powers of the regime; then the Observer Mission can be claiming fraudulent elections for free and fair with some malpractices and let it go. So politicians are not in the same league as the rest of us. If they are the right ones and ruling in the right area and have the right support from the international community. Then they can take a country, have an election and say they we’re elected free and fair.
Even if they create a sudden stability it will still be tension in the countries and certainly not a healthy peace. As the countries election is a sham and a fraud. The People know that and the citizens are not behind the Parliament and the President. Therefore the President knows this and hides behind the army and the Police. Those two are the keys to his long-staying in Power. Since they don’t need as big support as the public and their reforms for development; since the reforms and public transparency is not needed the President will not deliver that. So the central-leadership is more about delivering new equipment and salaries to the Police and the Army instead of citizens.
The Citizens are the ones that are stolen from and their voices are not being herd. The Police State and Militarized politics that are eating society and taking away the freedom and liberty that are expected to have legitimate power. Certainly the price of the stealing a Nation through the sham election should have created more fuzz and more sanctions. There should be an international reactions and not resume as everything is normal after a stolen election.
That Multi-National Organization and Bi-lateral unions between countries should make it harder for world leaders and Presidents to get away with the massive theft of taking a country. The certainty of if the leader can take an election, then the same leader can also take National Treasury and other funds as their own; make the national funds and budgets as private funds and embezzle national budgets to build own fortune instead of delivering citizens needed services of health care, infrastructure and schools.
The thieving of a nation should be questioned and should have certain reactions. Not walk like and react like you’re won the election and is a proud winner. Receiving congratulation letters and making plans for the swearing-in ceremony; also using a government funds on party celebrations while the decay of the institutions that the government is providing is falling apart. That is just wrong. That a man or woman who is illegitimate and uses the power would be more respect and not need the security organization to temper with the civil society or the opposition parties.
If the winner of the election was legitimate then the opposition would still create and question the ruling-party. Still the questions does not end with army taking over certain parts of the county, detaining leaders of the opposition or having most parts of the election decided in courts as the Members of Parliament squabble after a rigged election. The MPs shouldn’t need to settle the matter in courts as much as the Executive shouldn’t need to be questioned. The People should have given it and accepted it in accord with the ballots and the tally from the National Talley Centre. But when the Executive needs the Court and the MPs need it too; then you know something is up.
So why is it without reason, not really questioned or not really any sanctions against the men and woman who steals elections and rig them for their own benefit? While a man stealing a beer at the local supermarket get fined? There is a double standard as it is with bankers who through rigid laws and rigid malpractices of economic framework can get away with mismanage fortunes; while the man who empty the cash-register at the store on the corner get detained for up-to a year depending on the local laws. I am just questioning the reasoning for the well-meaning and fun-loving society we live in where the impunity and the world leaders are in cahoots to take power; while we the ordinary people see the arrangement and should question the demeanor and the reason behind why the national leaders and President with all their power. Can take the Power and get away with it, while we the other ones cannot do the same. That is not justice or rule of law. That is injustice and impunity. Then you shouldn’t ignore the call for defiance or resistance or demonstrations as the people should react to the open-door theft of their state, their government and their public will. Peace.
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.
“DA leader Mmusi Maimane discusses the 2016 budget speech, and the implications for our economy with a possible ratings downgrade looming” (Democratic Alliance, 2016).
Andrew Mwenda keeps with his flawed logic. Like he has lost the plot and forgotten his traits and his theories of old. But hey, he is hungry and wants to eat. Here is has ploy of arrogance on facebook:
“It is simplistic to argue that Uganda’s problem is Museveni. A better argument is Museveni has failed to solve the problems of Uganda” (…)”Museveni (with Besigye) once told us that getting rid of Obote would be a major step in improving anything. What happened?” (…)”Besigye’s weakness is to personalize Uganda’s problems to Museveni and argue that his removal is all we need. The problems of poverty, weak state, poor Government services and democracy deficit were there before Museveni” (…)“If we fail to diagnose Uganda’s problems, the solutions will always elude us” (Andrew Mwenda, 17.01.2016)
Well, in sum there has gone 29 years of the one-man rule since 1986. There have been many benefactors and Members of Parliament since them, but the main factor in the calculations have been President Museveni. Since he took rule he has marginalized or used tactics to get people loyal to Museveni and not directly to any state institution. Therefore he is a major problem, because if it didn’t really happen, then he didn’t sponsor the benedictional project or program. Museveni could only support a program if he could benefit from it.
That Mwenda has a problem with Besigye is that he is in stark contrast to Museveni. Besigye asks for accountability and transparency something that doesn’t fit the world of development and growth for the editor and creator of the Independent Magazine. Something that is weird considering his past at KFM Radio and trouble for blasting governmental cronyism.
It is true that Museveni isn’t the only problem, but he is the one that creates the problem and feeds the issues, instead of fixing them. He doesn’t mend or complement them. Instead he adds on the weight until he overpowers it; because he has to do what he can rule and control it. Therefore he is the problem, as he is the executive power and the man who has had the majority rule or even rigged himself the majority. So Mwenda must have forgotten that part of the issue, if not he is blind by his own ego.
It is true that all the issues that Mwenda mentioned in the government of Uganda as the bad governance, weak state-institutions and democratic deficit. This was inherited in 1986 from the Obote II and the short-term presidents in between like Yusuf Lule and Tito Okello. So there aren’t all Museveni faults, but he has had the time to fix many of the issues and defects in the governmental structures and democratic facilitation if he really cared about them. It is not like he was sitting for a hot minute and didn’t have the time to fix the corruption of UNRA, NSSF and other state-organizations.
When you see excellent record of higher and higher loan-rate on the government budget for any year, when the value of the currency falls and escalating inflations you can wonder if the government and economical institutions under the regime is for the people or the rich elite who is fed by the government. The Neo-Liberalization of Uganda has lead the government to expand the businesses into every part of society instead of governmental control as the Chicago School of Business wanted in 1970s, with the IMF and World Bank controlled Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) that demolished state-financed agricultural and subsidized industries that was supposed to be controlled by market-powers instead of supported by tax-money to sustain growth and higher employment rate. The result of inflicting this on the Ugandan economy as the NRM-Regime has done with such a passion is that the business that has no cut for the government has been left astray and the ones that is not strong enough has gone bankrupt. Now Uganda has to imports of finished products and stop of productions from industry and factories in former towns like Jinja. Also with the historical institution of the Uganda Development Corporations, who from the 1950s gave growth through state-funds, and not through direct market power!
That must have been forgotten by the Andrew Mwenda, that President Museveni sold everything to foreigners or liberated the economy to point that the URA can’t tax, or control to tax without losing the control over the sold merchandise. That is why Uganda has one of the lowest rates of taxation on products since the URA doesn’t have the manpower or the regulations to without taxes. They can’t keep up with citizens and movement of money, if they had then they might catch up with more of the embezzlement and corrupted agreements between liberated companies or new structures in the market own by the ruling elite. But that is not good is it? Send cases to the DPP and OAG to fix the matters together with Uganda Anti-Corruption Commission which is so meager that they can’t keep the state of affairs and make government institution accountable, something that President Museveni doesn’t really want them to do, unless he want to get rid of somebody who has the dream of succeeding him. Then they will find something on the man or woman show some of the dirty laundry.
You don’t need to be giant man with much knowledge to diagnose some of the issues that the government of Uganda has to tackle, some the state of affairs and some tangible structures that need to be fixed. The government needs taxation with representation, also need to re-focus the money and also be more accountable for their actions. Not have a one-big-man rule as they have had since 1986 that keeps to eating of the plate, instead of serving the people. That is a problem: a problem that knows that he is the problem, if he stills remember what he studied in the end of 1960s and beginning of 1970 at the University of Dar-Es-Salam in Tanzania. President Museveni should know the issues and know how he made them, or prepared them through his loyal cronies. As Andrew Mwenda seems more like one of his mouth-pieces more as the time goes, instead of pseudo-intellectual as he wishes to portray himself.
This is a direct address to the issue, as he can try to clean his slate, but he has lost the plot. The problem and the real man behind it is President Museveni is only leader and nearly the only one who has been there from the get-go and have ruled so long that he know what has been done differently than under his wings. The reign will not be remembered as the ones who follow the dream story of liberation, but also of eating the riches and wealth while forgetting to feed the public, or let the get opportunity to eat and earn a living.
So Mwenda has a flawed view on the matter, that he at the same time says Besigye is wrong. Besigye has also said that the institutions need accountability and transparency which is starch contrast to Museveni. Something that is vital to rebuild them and prove that the government institutions are for the people and not the Executive to eat of. So if that have to change then the public funds and public expenditure together with strengthen them, not in ownership of the executive but by giving the civil servants power to execute the necessary flows of technical assistance or regulations to let the teachers, policemen, judges and bureaucrats to do their initial service to the public; now they are handpicked men to serve the executive. That is problem because the paycheck from the executive is more important than doing their job to the public who need the men to secure their daily life and be there to safely govern the territories of the state.
As we can see Mwenda has judged the matter very easy without thinking it through, if he has then his logic is very flawed as President Museveni is a problem in state clogged with issues and the problems. There isn’t a way solution to it all, how to fix the economy is there many theories, though the stability of the currency and inflation should be the first, also secure low loans-rate so that the growth can be similar to the inflation rate. There is also the level of building trust between government institutions and people as they are supposed to be connected and for each other. Not letting the state and its institutions being on an island, and when they need the public hire a ferry to let the visit. That is not the idea of the state, the state is supposed to be mirrored in the people with transparency and accountability where the public can question the behavior of the rulers, governors and mayors, as they are set to represent the public, not just execute the laws and regulations without mercy, then the government is an totalitarian state, where justice will not prevail unless you are on good term with the head or executive power on the top. That is how the system is now with government of Uganda. We can easily see that he is one of the major factors, why President Museveni is the elephant in the room when you discuss progress and development issues in the country, since he can decide where to go or who to hire to fix it.
That is it. Peace.
Well, the day finally came and the Presidential Candidates of these elections have step-up to the plate and showed their platform while certain journalists would keep them in check.
Even UMEME had to tell the public today:
“#UGDEBATE16. We have standby teams to ensure you enjoy the presidential debate. All teams clothed, cars fueled, and tools in hand to ensure any outage is resolved as quickly as possible”.
Well, the UMEME has been reported that in Fort Portal, Entebbe, Jinja and so many other places the electricity went down so that the citizens couldn’t get the feed and watch the debate, even in parts of Kampala the power went off in Ntinda, Kiwatule, Naalya, Njeera around 21:00PM. This is just a little trait’s of the reported suspicious malfunctions and glitches in the system that let a lot’s off people lose the live feed, because Mzee was busy having his campaign rally in Bushenyi and wouldn’t let the people listen to the rest of the Presidential candidates. He was moving his mouth and brain there while the rest of candidates where explaining their manifestoes and programs in a civilian and peaceful manner to the citizens and the world.
There will be many set of commentaries on this, I am sure mine will be biased as, well as it should be, because this will be that. First my favorite quotes, then what I think about their performance. Seems fair right?
One memorable quote from each candidate:
Joseph Mabirizi said: “I am the only candidate who has Plan A, Plan B and Plan C. I won’t allow vote rigging so please vote me in”.
Amama Mbabazi said: “My clear answer is that I am not aware of election rigging. I have heard some stories, but I have no personal knowledge”.
Professor Baryamureeba said: “oil companies must publish what they pay to Gov’t and Gov’t should publish what it earns from oil so far”.
Maureen Faith Kyala said: “There is more tear gas at every police post as compared to medicine in the hospitals”.
Abed Bwanika said: “I have never mentioned that Baganda should support me, I asked for support from the people in Buganda”.
Gen. Biraaro said: “The only soldier who has been in power lives in state house, this regime has not served me well, that’s why I am here”.
Dr. Kizza Besigye said: “The real change is that power moves from those with guns to the citizens that is the project I am working on. The urgent change that our country needs is empowerment of our citizens. I have promised that in every Ugandan will walk with swagger”.
The moderators that the organizers put in place we’re BBC’s Newsday programme presenter, Allan Kasujja and KTN’s Nancy Kacungira. The one who was persistent with the candidates was really Kasujja, but it seemed that he was not a fan of Besigye, since he always cut him of in the middle of reasoning and addressing a question he had.
Kacungira was more the soft spoken mediator who levelled the hardheaded Kasujja, at one point I was waiting to see the red-eye-machine in light from wall to turn into the shades of mediator; so he would look a macho terminator. But that was just me.
Professor Bayra got the questions first, but didn’t earn that well, his quotes got easily forgotten and his stamina during the debate died down. I am sure in writing as professor he could have argued with strength, but he proved more to mayoral of a town in the eastern town in Tororo district then being a president. He has the words and etiquette of leadership, but doesn’t have the program or manifesto to really seem deemed for a lower-level position, as he has already been in-charge of the university of Makerere.
Maureen Faith Kayala seemed more focused on her gender as the questions tended to become focused on that. She was also on her own will more directly telling the issues of Busoga instead of the national issues, seems like she should become an MP for the district or a sub-county fitted for her in the area, since it’s also where she has moved the most and campaigned. When she hasn’t been lost in London; she could be more interesting with time and like wine become better in her game, but right now she is unfinished and seems to scattered to focus national.
Joseph Mabirizi must have had bad advice or lost his tongue at some point. Seem like he was stressed by the cameras and public watching his every move. He was walking through the wilderness stuttering and thinking… pounding the matters into the first thing that pop-up into his mind and wasn’t really address the question properly while saying it in such a fashion he was cracking Ugandans up, instead of making sense of the political issues. If he will gain crowds in the same stage as Professor Joel, no wait, Professor Joel should have come in President Museveni place, well, we come to the shadow of Bushenyi later!
Gen. Benon Biraaro the NRA historical who stood firm and was very apologetic in his tone. Much more than I expected he seemed clearer than and not as aggressive as the reports from the campaign trail. This man made more sense and was intelligent. Something I was not expected to say. But if this will make a giant difference in his whole campaign, I doubt it. The thing is that he will be more respected for his attitude and progression then some of his peers by the mere fact on how he precieve the matters.
Abed Bwanika was a gentle surprise and show lots of character at the debate. He had a much bigger presence then I expected, he ate of the hands and was shining actually. This was unexpected since he seems very uninteresting while following the campaign trail. The candidate showed that he had class and also thought through manifesto and plans for development.
Now I will take the two big-men who was at the shin-ding and debate the two of the three since the ghost of the event where in districts campaigning thinking that UMEME let the public miss the debate as they was ordered too. Who is the fool now? If his men will tell him something is that the Twitter #UgandaDecides and #UgandaDebate16 was going hectic in the hours. Before the start even discussion and had the spotlight of CNN telling about the historic event happening in the country that Mzee had to miss, because Ofwono Opondo and Mike Mukula said it was waste of time, seems like Bushenyi was really wasting time. For the NRM-members this must have been time is a wasting!
Let me continue on the two last candidates while done with Mzee and NRM for the moment, just have to throw a snag at them. They deserve them. Well, Hon. Amama Mbabazi, Mr. 30 years under the NRM and parts of the NRA. He was very defensive. Extremely defensive except for the matters of the detaining and Christopher Aine; also cleaning his hands on the land deal with NSSF which have followed him and still be a torn in his flesh. It did seem like he never was ready for the debate or that all the questions from the other candidates. It was like hot-water into a glass and not a cup that he wasn’t ready to hold it while drinking it. He addressed things more as an former NRM Prime Minister than actually address the Go-Forward manifesto or wishes. The most extreme was that he hadn’t heard or could talk well about the borrowing money that the government has done; and that it was a good thing! That bugs me and shows that he was just washing his hands instead of taking leadership, showing character like Gen. Biraaro og Besigye. So as knowing he was a lawyer before becoming a politician in the NRM, he has lost touch with good arguments that Bwanika and Biraao had compared to him. And they do not have the new machine for elections that Mbabazi has!
The last candidate Dr. Kizza Besigye he had for me a slow start it was a bit out of character for a man who has a gift for speeches and give’s the people show for the money; while at the same time address the matter at hand. This took time to get there and to show his plans to the public about the manifesto of the FDC. Besigye was slow, but had lots of energy when it came after the first commercial break. There where points where there was heavy with questions to him, like the other candidates singled him out, it often came to him or Mbabazi, not like Professor Bayra would ask Mabirizi some governance questions that would just be out of touch with formula of the debate. Besigye came after the accusations of the closeness to the first-family because of his wife, and his answer was clear that they we’re far away anything near them. Also with the answers on economic policies and how it was structured into the agricultural sector, we’re inspiring though sounding alike to Biraaro and Bwanika, though they had the luxury of always to answer before him. So Besigye ideas seemed less enthusiastic since there were modifications compared to them considered to them. I wished for my part that he we’re more on point in the beginning. I am a supporter of Besigye and his cause. Seemed like also one of the moderators tried to stop Besigye from finishing his arguments and answers, more than the other candidates, also cut him generally shorter than for instance Maureen or even Joseph they we’re not stopped in the same way, only Maureen jumped once into the whole madness when it was not her turn; Besigye proved leadership and calmness while growing into the debate and taking more and more space. I got more and more enthusiastic on his part, while feeling sorrow over the ways the Mbabazi was portraying himself like a sorry victim instead of being one of the big-men in the race for presidency.
Now that I have gone through the thing, let’s have one thing clear there was like a way of letting Besigye be last or late like every time while the other candidates got early shots, and also being more direct visible. I don’t know if that was fixed before Mzee we’re part of the event, since the empty seat would have eaten the issues and would have made the debate differently, though he would not have stopped talking while the mediator asked kindly to succeed spotlight to the next candidate. The ghost was there the whole evening since they we’re discussing governance, systematic failure and government inconsistency in general. The men who shined was not one or both presidential candidates who is in the top three. Bwanika and Biraaro had the smart ways of portraying and answering. All the NRA/NRM historical persons answered well, especially Besigye, but this was after his mojo was on fire. He ended the evening on the spark, the other last remarks was more humble and obliged then trying to convince them of voting on them.
What saddens me was the way Kasujja kept his composer and acted kind of differently between the candidates, he acted humble and nice against those who shined in the debate, while Amama Mbabazi and Dr. Kizza Besigye was either asked long-long questions or stopped in the middle of their arguments trying to answer the matter. The other mediator asked shorter and easier question, there wasn’t much fuzz about her and was more trying to keep cool while Mabarizi was answering questions. Mabarizi was like Professor Joel and a funny-character instead of acting as presidential candidate, he didn’t make the funniest face that was Mbabazi who looked lost at one point… The picture from that moment tells more than his answers in the debate, though the debate was not a good luck for Amama Mbabazi. That is clear, I myself have many unanswered questions about his past and what he really wants to achieve in the future.
The biggest and strangest about this is that the incumbent President Museveni, the almighty Mzee, the executive ruler and the one who reign in the land. Mzee have had the first chance to show together with other candidates his true self, instead he loved himself up-country where the people would listen to his voice without being asked any critical questions. If he had been in the studio he would have been shut-down while talking to long and had to answer the questions in a manner he is not used to. Mzee would be out of character and without his spin-doctors to make his message soft and beautiful. They could have prepared him, but he would have entered into the only mode he knows, his voice and his achievements, without seeing the issues that are there. Then he would go defensive like Amama Mbabazi and blame somebody else, since the executive wouldn’t order everything and opposition MPs has issues. Mzee would not be able to address the matter in humble way. But humility and humbleness is not in his ways as we all know. Therefore the empty chair show more his blissful arrogance then the attitude towards the debate. The brief and shallow seat where the camera sometimes went to; especially when the questions on the NRM-Regime were heavy! The NRM was not present or had their presidential candidate at the debate. So there was a lose end, and the losing end was not the other candidates, they had an ability show accountability and transparency towards the public. Something that is unusual and not the norm! The NRM can’t be looking weak and Mzee can’t handle not being seen as the almighty his Excellency instead of being just one of the candidates for the elections. He rather blast them in all of his papers and radios until the 18th February then being a man who could move his mouth and brain in the TV-studio, but being critical of him is a sin, therefore opposition mobilizers and members get jailed, while NRM members who insist on violence get’s supported either by the police force or by NRM organizers, then the police and electoral commission wonders why the FDC candidate have the campaign of defiance, since they taste the endless violence from the NRM-Regime. It would be an interesting event to see if Mzee could have given a proper answer on the matter.
Mediator: “What are your take on the recent election violence and campaign harassment of opposition parties?”
Wonder if Mzee would have had it in him to answer that or if he had gone the IGP Kale Kayihura road, and said it is the laws and people have to follow the rules, secondly there is also bad police and violent opposition so there can’t all be wrong in the NRM or the Police. Well, we didn’t get that kind of fashion because Mzee doesn’t have it in him to be together with the candidates unless he is in the spotlight like when the Papal visit we’re in November 2015. This here was a small-time event for him and Bushenyi was more important.
The other candidates were graceful and tactful, even when asked very critical questions. Hope the next time there will be a mediator who doesn’t act like Kasujja and stop Mbabazi and Besigye constantly while giving space to the other ones. There were some unjustified actions from his part, instead of being a peace maker and making the transition between the candidates going smooth. For me he was the Terminator with those shades and light. But that is just me. Hope this was enough of one evenings debate, and I sure there been pointed out at many venues and media-houses, but this here is how I saw it.
Look forward to the second Live TV Debate in the history of Uganda at the 10th Feburary 2016. When the second live presidential TV debate will be hold, and what a grand event that will be and in the closing stages of the campaign trail. Just a week before the polls and actual voting! Peace.