MinBane

I write what I like.

Archive for the tag “Leadership Code 1992”

Another Institution to fight Corruption: Rev. Lokodo didn’t plan the cost for it though!

Just like so many other things with the National Resistance Movement (NRM), they have giant plans and even laws to abide. As the Leadership Code Act Amendment of 2016, which stated that a Tribunal would be created and elected by the President and Public Service Commission. That Tribunal was supposed to follow up on the possible breaches of the Leadership code, have inquiries and collect reports of these within the government.

However, that has not happened, because the NRM, haven’t had the same wish for that or even tried to allocate funds for this They have anticipated that someone else is paying their tab. The Minister for Ethics and Integrity Simon Lokodo wanted, as he was the sponsor of the amended code. However, he never considered the costs of making a Tribunal, meaning someone has to pay for the manpower and the elected people for this. That is bad leadership in itself. As the Ministry should have had the funds before the Parliament enacted the changes of the law. The Parliament should also know about these provisions and the possible outcome of amending the Leadership Code. However, they didn’t!

Government plans to spend a total of Shs117.7 billion to implement the new zero tolerance to corruption policy approved by Cabinet on Monday” (…) “Fr Lokodo said the European Union has so far given government Shs 3.1b to establish the Leadership Code tribunal. He said the tribunal should have been established shortly after the amendment of the Leadership Code Act last year, but did not take off because of lack of funds” (Draku & Wandera, 2018).

So, this isn’t only a story about the Government of Uganda has yet another body to fight corruption and doing it through the Ministry of Ethics and Integrity. As the Tribunal under Lokodo Ministry, will be a part of a collective of government institutions doing similar actions. This being Uganda Police Force, Public Procurement And Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA), Office of Attorney General (OAG) and Inspectorate of Government (IGG). All of these should be more than enough, as even the Judiciary and the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) are an investigatory body. Certainly, knowing the NRM, they could be involved in the manners of these. Especially, if the person was a big-man in their view.

Therefore, this is yet another expert facility and another institution to fight the same thing. As the mushrooming of the state continues. This is bound by law and until the law is repealed, the Tribunal is bound to appear. Because, it is in law and was enacted.

What I wonder, what will the Tribunal do, that the Police, PPDA, OAG, IGG, The Judiciary and UPDF isn’t doing already and what results will differ from what they are doing today?

I don’t think any of these possible institutions will really fight the corruption. As the finalization and the orders of confirmation comes from upon high. The President and State House is deciding what is happening in the end. The biggest deals are happening their without public insights in the State House. Therefore, if the NRM wanted it to be real.

They have to change the pattern of the President and his State House. The cronies and the elites around the President has to keep things transparent and open. However, they are not doing so. Therefore, any of these institutions will not make a significant difference. Peace.

Reference:

Fraklin Draku & Derrick Wandera – ‘Government to spend Shs117b on fighting corruption’ 01.11.2018 link: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Government-spend-Shs117b-fighting-corruption/688334-4831334-jswwdm/index.html

Advertisements

IG Kakooza uncovers corrupt behaviour at all corners of Uganda in the May 2016 Report!

Gen Tukumunde Entebbe Dec 2015 - Money Man for NRM

Because of General Election 2016, this one here got lost for me, but not for too long as the Report from Inspectorate of Government that came in 27th May 2016 has some clear issues within Government.

What it indicates is how many civil servants that use their position to gain extra funds and salaries, but also with the knowledge of troubles gaining enough income or salary on time therefore the acts of cheating, grafting and impersonation seem like a way out of poverty and actually just eat for a brief moment. That doesn’t justify thieving, but proves the systemic defaults on its own.

The Government and this IG has business to handle as there are cases in may districts and areas of the Republic only in the last 6 months. This here is just some fragments of the report from the IG. Still, shows the extent of Corruption in the current 30 years of the National Resistance Movement. How President Museveni can be proud of the system he has lead and built over the years. Take a look!

igg-kale-k-july-2015

Breaching of the Leadership Code:

“In one (1) investigation it was recommended that a refund of Shs.3,480,000/= by a leader be made for using a company vehicle while he received transport allowance. A policy guideline on transport and fleet management was also recommended for the institution investigated” (IG, P: 17, 2016).

Lacking funds for the IG:

“Although Government has shown commitment to avail more resources to the institution as evidenced by the IG budget growth from Shs.13 million in 1986, Shs.3.1 billion in 1998 to Shs.35.4 billion in 2013 including donor support, the funding provision under the IG ceiling is still insufficient compared to the operational cost of investigations, prosecutions, verification of declarations and public awareness programmes” (IG, P: 33, 2016).

Government Institutions who hasn’t acted on IG recommendations:

“Alleged abuse of office and fraudulent tendering during the FY 2008/09 by MMC: The Senior Finance Officer/MMC was directed to refund. UGX 3,600,000/= being half of the money misappropriated to IG Assets Recovery A/C in BoU and thereafter present evidence for deposit to the IG failure of which she would be prosecuted in Courts of Law” (IG, P: 38, 2016).

“Alleged abuse of office by the Ag. PPO, Sembabule District: Mr. Turyarugayo Monday was directed, within three months, to refund Shs.4,890,804/= to IG A/C in BoU, which he irregularly earned in salaries for no work done” (IG, P: 38, 2016).

“Alleged abuse of office and mismanagement of a contract to extend council block by Lyantonde district officials: Submit Mr. Christopher Okumu to the DSC for appropriate disciplinary action for advancing Shs.150,000,000/= to M/S Bakaruma Contractors Ltd” (IG, P: 39, 2016).

“Alleged embezzlement of Shs.3,092,691/= meant for villages and 5% for Parishes in the FY 2010/2011 by the former Sub-Accountant Rubaya S/C In Mbarara: The Accountant should pay Shs.3,092,691/= within sixty days to the IG Assets Recovery Account with Bank of Uganda failure to do so will lead to tougher action being taken against him” (IG, P: 40, 2016).

“Alleged abuse of office and mismanagement of funds worth Shs.14,000,000/= by Kazo Town Council: The CAO Kiruhura should submit the Physical Planner Kazo to the DSC for disciplinary action for false accounting of Shs.2,000,000/= and failure to account for Shs.4,096,000/=. The Physical Planner ordered to pay Shs.6,096,000/= to IG Assets Recovery Account within 60 days. The Senior Physical Planner, Ministry of Lands directed to refund Shs.2,250,000/= received for facilitation for the work he did not do” (IG, P: 40, 2016).

“Alleged judicial misconduct and bribery by the Chief Magistrate Ibanda Court: The Chief Registrar Courts of Judicature should submit the Chief Magistrate to the disciplinary committee of the Judiciary for disciplinary proceedings and he should refund Shs.13,154,000/= to the Judiciary” (IG, P: 42, 2016).

“Alleged abuse of office and misappropriation of CDD funds by Busiisi Division Officials: Town Clerk to recover Shs.1,800,000/= being funds for Agahikaine Kibingo group that was put to personal use” (IG, P: 42, 2016).

“Alleged mismanagement and abuse of office by the Headteacher of Rukondwa Primary School in Masindi: Letter issued to Head teacher directing him to refund Shs.470,000/= through Assets Recovery Account being money he misappropriated as Headteacher of Rukondwa Primary School between 2004 and 2006” (IG, P: 43, 2016).

“Alleged forgery and impersonation of a teacher at Nyanja P/S in Rakai District: The teacher was directed to refund a total of Shs.19,579,287/= within 90 days with effect from 13/05/2015 which he illegally earned in salaries masquerading as a teacher who had left the teaching service in 2005/2006” (IG, P:43, 2016).

“Alleged embezzlement of Shs.85,000,000/= from Malaba Town Council: The CAO, Tororo was directed to submit the name of the former acting Town Clerk, Malaba Town Council and currently Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, Tororo to the DSC for appropriate disciplinary action for spending revenue earned from property tax, contrary to section 37 (2) and (3) of the Local Government Rating Act, 2005” (IG, P: 44, 2016)

People arrested by the IG:

“Hon. Abraham James Byandala, Minister without Portfolio: Abuse of office, Influence peddling, Disobedience of lawful orders” (…)”Asiku Ben, Accounts Assistant, Yumbe District Local Council: Embezzlement, abuse of office, forgery” (…) “Kiddu Ssali Bonny, former Chairman LC III, Lukaya Town Council & Luyimbazi James, former Town Clerk, Lukaya Town Council: Abuse of Office” (IG, P: 58 & 59).

People Concluded Prosecution cases:

Wanyaka Samuel, Director Parliamentary Budget Office: Convicted on all the counts and sentenced to ten years in prison. He was further ordered to refund Ug. Shs.822,965,000/= which he stole” (IG, P: 61).

This here is just key aspects of the Report, not the whole one, but show’s how certain levels of corruption are and how it is taken. The smaller ones and the ones that are not important can be questioned and asked for refund. The others are being equitted or using long trial time to hopefully be forgotten.

There in the smaller district centrals and provincial towns where the cases are in North, West and East, but very little in the Central parts of Uganda; which is seem a little bit weird as the Central Government institutions are in Kampala and the teachers and supervisors that are taken to the Inspector General of Government are further in the districts. Not that I can believe the Ministries and Central Government is clean, as this report even at one point claim:

Kalungi Robert, Principal Inspectorate Officer, Inspectorate of Government: Soliciting and receiving gratification; Convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count” (IG, P: 62, 2016). When even the Government body working to uncover corruption and graft are soaked in it as one of their own are taken doing the deed. Then the Central Government has to have an issue, not only Principals at Primary Schools in Mbarara, but also at Ministry of Sports and Culture.

abim-letter

The pride of the nation is not at stake, this is the ordinary, the normal and expected. The word of warning come and goes from time to time. Still, the validity of these claims is strong and shows the level of corruption. This is surely the same in 2016, as it was the last 6 months in 2015. Even more during the campaign of the NRM and General Election usually flamboyant spending from the Government; this is towards the folks and extent the boundaries of corrupt behavior to get the citizens to drop ballots in good faith.

So we can look forward to the next report if it is censored by the Central Government, that wouldn’t be surprising. So we can see if the IG get the ability to drop more stories or if the creative NRM will hide the corrupt behavior.

The ones coming here is not a good look as the small and minor, even bigger institutions has corrupted and abused their office for their own gain. This is a giant problem and comes from the top that doesn’t serve the civil servants and also often doesn’t allocate the needed salaries on time. That makes the civil servants creative to get the needed funds. The Government of Uganda got work to do, but as long as the NRM and their Mzee leads the realm I am sure there will be more of the same, because that fits him just fine. Peace.

Reference:

Inspectorate of Government – ‘Report to Parliament July to December 2015’ (27.05.2016) ‘Kakooza, Irene Mulyagonja the Inspector General of Government (IGG)

Uganda: Leadership Code Amendment of 2016; what are the important changes in the law?

simon-lodoko-1470679953

The original Leadership Code of Uganda where commencement 26th June 1992 in the early years of the National Resistance Movement; so the Government of Uganda need more to revised and amended as the Minister for Ethics Reverend Simon Lodoko has ideas to make the Leaders and Civil servants more ethical inspired. This done with amending a new law and making it stricter and giving the Ministry a strong Authority with a legal power as the law propose to change a very subtle committee who discuss proposed leadership breaches with Parliament and Minister; the Tribunal are having more ability to actually following the breaching and unethical behavior from leaders and their snitching ways. That is why the Tribunal gets revised from a measly Committee towards a powerful Tribunal!

Take a look at important issues that are wished revised and changed to make the 1992 law better and more control from the Central Government!

In the original – 

Section 10:

(1): “A leader shall not put himself or herself in a position in which his or her personal interest conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities”

In the new Amendment:

(1)“A gift or donation to a leader at any public or governmental occasion shall be treated as a gift or donation to the Government or the institution represented by the leader and shall be declared so to the Inspector General; but the Government or the institution shall keep an inventory of the gift”.

There is a giant different between putting himself in a conflict and getting a gift. The Conflict is by approaching an offer that might substantially discredit the decisions alters the judgement done by the leader of government or in any government institutions. That is different from becoming somebody who get gift and has to give it to the government and institution who the leader works for. The gifts system is normal in many states as the leader and civil servants represent the states and cannot take bribes of gifts and such therefore these laws exist to make sure gifts and donations doesn’t become an issue to secure the vote/regulation/license or use the government institution to gain more than the competitor that doesn’t give or donate to the government leader.

Therefore the rule change is healthy, but will it just be lawful text and followed up the current leadership and only done as PR stunt as the NRM Regime hasn’t really been showing talent for accountability and transparency other than stern warnings and when donor aid has been cut. Then the government has swallowed a few bloody court cases and showing grand-corruption to prove their ability to honest budgeting; while going back to office when the court are gone and the questions from donors are silent. Therefore I have doubt that this law has affect as the Auditor General and Inspector General of Government (IGG) doesn’t even dig deep into the current corruption; so this seem like beautiful words, but will they acted upon?

Create a Tribunal:

Other key ones are adding a Tribunal that the leaders and representatives for government institutions report to and follow the ethics of their actions. They will have a chairperson that is elected by the Parliament and the ones in Parliament cannot appoint a chairperson, unless they can appoint a High Judge of the High Court. Which is part of the new 19 Section in 19A and 19B; this Tribunal will be elected by the President and Public Service Commission; with approval of the Parliament (19C).

This Tribunal will follow the case if non-else party is available to fetch evidence and collect affidavits as long as they believe it is “subject cause”. They can even interrogate needed persons even “abroad”. New in 19R (5): “The Tribunal may make an order in to costs against any party, and the order shall be enforceable in the same manner as an order of the High Court”. So the Tribunal will get the same value as a Court Order to follow the cases and follow the alleged breaches of the Leadership Code.

The strictest clear rules on the Tribunal is in the 19Z:

“A Person who –

  • Insults a member in, or in relations to, the exercise of his or her powers or functions as a member of the tribunal;
  • Interrupts the proceedings of the Tribunal;
  • Creates a disturbances, or takes part in creating a disturbance in or near a place where the Tribunal is sitting; or
  • Does any other act or thing that would, if the Tribunal were a court of record, constitute contempt of court, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five currency points or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both”

Another change is the total replacement of this part of the law:

“20. Report of the committee.

Upon the completion of an inquiry conducted by the committee or upon receipt of a report of findings submitted by the Inspector General of Government or the Inspector General of Police or the Auditor General under section 19, the committee shall make a report to the authorised person; and in a case where the committee or the Inspector General of Government or the Inspector General of Police or the Auditor General has found that the leader whose conduct was inquired into is in breach of this Code, the committee shall make such recommendations as it considers appropriate as to action to be taken against the leader.

The committee’s report under subsection (1) shall be made public and shall state whether the leader is or is not in breach of this Code in respect of the specific matters inquired into by the committee and, in the case of a breach, shall set out—

 the nature of the breach which the leader has been found to have committed;

the circumstances of the breach;

a brief summary of the evidence received during the inquiry into the breach; and

its findings and recommendations.”

This with the amendment changes to this:

“(1) The Registrar of the Tribunal shall inform the authorised person in writing, of the decision of the Tribunal, within thirty days after the date of the decision.

(2) The authorised person shall upon receipt of the decision under subsection(1) take actions within thirty days.

(3) The authorised person shall report to the Tribunal in writing within fourteen days after the explaination of the thirty days referred to in subsection (2) of the action taken by him or her”.

Here the Tribunal doesn’t need to go public as they needed before, because this section is changed and amended with the new Leadership Code of 2016, this proves the writing happens between authorised person and the Tribunal and not to commit it public. It means within 30 days actions against a person will happen, but not publicly. So the Tribunal compared to the Committee of old can work in silence and act against somebody without common knowledge.

As the Section 23 original law says this:

“23. Procedure of the committee.

Subject to this Code, the committee may, after consultation with the Minister, make rules regulating its procedure under this Code”.

The newly amendment says this:

“Procuring information and attendance of witnesses.

Subject to this Act, the inspectorate may –

  • Summon any person who, in the opinion of the Inspectorate, is able to give information relating to any matter relevant, to the investigation being conducted by it, to appear before inspectorate and to furnish such information and produce any documents, papers or thing that may be in possession or under the control of that person; and
  • By order in writing, summon the person to attend before the inspectorate at a specified time and place and to be examined on oath”.

With this substantial change together with the others, the powers of the Tribunal is to inspect and get witness report or an affidavit as the summons of a person who might have information has to answer to the Inspectorate for the Tribunal under oath. The relevancy of this is the powers that the law might give the Tribunal as they can investigate and summon. Not only consult with minister after the code has been followed by the Committee. So the powers of following breaches of the set the law gets more ability to sanctions citizens. While the Tribunal get more power than a Committee that ask the Parliament for ability to act like the Leadership Code of 1992 does. Peace.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: