Honourable Members of Parliament

GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA

THE PARLIAMENT OF UGANDA

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UGANDA PAC AND ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENCIES AND THE POLICE FORCE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS: A CASE STUDY OF UGANDA

A Presentation by

NATHAN NANDALA-MAFABI, MP

Email

CHAIRMAN PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

TO

THE AFRICAN REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON PROMOTING ACCOUNTABILITY AND INTEGRITY IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA APRIL 6-9,2010

Honourable Members of Parliament, Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen.

1.0 Introduction

In most democratic systems, governments are increasingly being defined and judged by the way they manage public expenditure. Integrity and accountability of public resources are a prerequisite to underpin public trust as a cornerstone to good governance. However, lack of accountability and integrity of politicians and civil servants has played a major role in preventing sustainable development from taking root in most of the world’s poorest countries. The central role of Parliament to hold government accountable for its actions and/or omissions cannot be over-emphasized. Parliament’s key accountability functions are embedded in their legislative, representative and oversight responsibilities. The use of public funds must therefore be explained and those who hold power should be held accountable for the use of those funds.

The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda provides that “all public resources shall be held in trust for the people. All persons in position of leadership and responsibility shall, in their work, be answerable to the people and all lawful measures shall be taken to expose, combat and eradicate corruption and abuse or misuse of power by those holding political and other public offices”.

Legal Mandate of PAC

Public Accounts Committee is one of the various Committees of Parliament of Uganda established and empowered to function under Article 90 of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

The Parliamentary Rules of Procedure, and the Constitution, give Committees of Parliament powers of the High Court to:

·  Enforce the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise;

·  Compel the production of documents;

·  Issue a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad;

·  Confine for any specific period recalcitrant/uncooperative witnesses; and

·  Cite any person by name for contempt of Parliament.

2.0 PAC and the Auditor General

The Auditor General is responsible for the audit of Government accounts. His Constitutional mandate, reporting relations, effectiveness, vary from country to country but the primary purpose is to act as overseer of Government’s management of public funds as well as the quality and credibility of reported Government financial responsibility.

In many countries, the Auditor General is viewed as the independent watchdog of the public interest, and their audits are often potent deterrent to waste and abuse of public funds. They help reinforce the legal, financial and institutional framework of public finance that would otherwise allow corruption to flourish. To succeed at this, the Auditor General needs the support of Parliament.

The National Audit Act 2009 made the Auditor General an Officer of Parliament. This has ensured the independence from the Executive and strengthened his relationship with Parliament as a whole and especially the Public Accounts Committee.

In Uganda 85% of the work of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) depends primarily on the reports of the Auditor. The Auditor General has been described as “a friend, philosopher and guide” to the Public Accounts Committee. He attends every meeting of the Public Accounts Committee and gives guidance where necessary.

3.0 The Media

The media, often referred to, as the “fourth arm of the state”, has been very active in the fight against corruption. The Public Accounts Committee recognizes and upholds the media as a great partner in all its functions. It has helped us publicize all our proceedings and information now reaches the remotest person in the country. However, in many instances, their independence has been threatened by Government.

4.0 PAC and the Police (CID)

Because of the nature of the cases handled by the PAC, and the need to undertake the above mentioned mandate in a professional manner, it was found necessary to have a CID-PAC Squad. The CID officers attend all proceedings of the PAC meetings as part of the Committee technical assistance team, which also includes Officers from the Auditor General’s Office, Accountant General’s Office; Research and Legal Departments, the Media, CSO and the Clerk of Parliament.

4.1 Background to (CID-PAC)

Police is established by Article 211 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Article 212 provides for the functions of the Uganda Police which include:

·  Protection of life and property, preservation of Law and Order;

·  To prevent and detect crime, and

·  To cooperate with civilian authority and other Security Organs established under the Constitution and with the population.

The CID-PAC Squad is a unit under the Anti-corruption Department of Criminal Investigation Directorate Headquarters and hence the latter performs a supervisory role.

Public Accounts Committee co-opted CID as per Article 90(3)(b)and(c) of the Constitution of Uganda. In 1989 CID-PAC Squad started sitting on the Committee when Government started considering the Reports of the Auditor General. During the turbulent period of 1970s and early 1980s, PAC was in abeyance but has since gained prominence.

4.2 Issues handled by CID-PAC Squad

The Squad handles all offences under the new Anti Corruption Act (2009) which include; abuse of office, influence peddling, conflict of interest, causing financial loss, embezzlement, false claims by officials, fraudulent false accounting among others.

It also handles offences specified in other Acts of Parliament like the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDAA) 2003 and the Public Finance Act and Regulations.

4.3 The Role of the CID-PAC

·  When directed by the Public Accounts Committee, the CID investigates Audit queries that raise glaring cases of corruption, embezzlement, and outright theft.

·  CID makes investigative reports, recommendations and observations on matters in issue before the Committee.

·  The Police (CID) attends all proceedings of PAC and ensures observance of Law and Order.

·  CID gives technical advice to the Committee on all matters relating to Police investigations, arrest, and detention, as well due process of court.

In exceptional cases, the Police serve Committee summons to recalcitrant/disobedient witnesses to appear before the Committee. Where immediately necessary, CID holds suspects for interrogation on matters of Criminal nature raised against any Accounting Officer during the Committee proceedings.

In other cases vital Accountability documents have been produced before PAC and Local Government Accounts Committee (LGAC) after witnesses have either been threatened with arrest or on accompanying CID officers to their respective offices.

CID officers also carryout onspot visits/impromptu checks on government facilities to ascertain whether Accounting Officers are reporting the truth for instance the collapsed Hospital Incinerators, ambulances, use of visa stickers as opposed to embossed stamps at entry points. Some of these activities would have necessitated the Committee field visits.

Some Accounting Officers report to PAC having reported various cases of theft, robbery, embezzlement to police stations throughout the country. It is the CID-PAC which monitors the progress of the cases and provides reports.

CID-PAC helps in retrieval of exhibits by carrying out searches, and also provides safe custody of exhibits so seized or impounded.

The CID-PAC initiates the prosecution process and liaises with the Directorate of Public Prosecutions to achieve this goal for the Committee.

4.4 Experiences (CID-PAC)

The CID have investigated, prosecuted and reported on various cases as allocated for their action by the PAC as in examples given below:-

·  A company (Eladam Enterprises) which supplied army uniforms to Ministry of Defence and caused loss of Ug.Shs.1,178,495,945/= (Approx US$600,000) to the Uganda Government is being prosecuted, the case is with Inspector General of Government (IGG).

·  Another case involving a staff of the Auditor General who stole and diverted cheques for unspent funds from Local Governments has been forwarded to IGG for prosecution after Auditor General reported conflict of interest.

·  The Deputy Vice Chancellor of Makerere University together with the Estates Manager were implicated for flouting procurement regulations under the PPDA when part of the newly constructed perimeter wall project of the University collapsed causing financial loss Ug.Shs.2billion (US$1,000,000) to the Government of Uganda. Case file is with DPP.

·  Currently the Public Accounts Committee is considering the Special Report of the Auditor General on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) that took place in Uganda in 2007. Evidence of embezzlement of funds by the Officers who were involved in these preparations is before the committee and the CID is helping to unearth the details. (Attached is a matrix of the cases CID) is handling. Some of them are in advanced stages of investigations and others with the DPP.

·  The Committee ordered for a special Audit of the disposal of a piece of land in the city arising from a query in the Auditor General’s Report. Investigations were carried out, and due process of Court initiated. Two case files one implicating the former Mayor of Kampala, Mr. Sebaana Kizito is already with the DPP pending formal charging of the officials of Kampala City Council.

·  One Enos Tumusiime a former Managing Director of Uganda Railways Corporation was in 1998 charged for causing financial loss.

·  In 1995 the Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture Prof. Gustav Senyonga was convicted for seven years for causing financial loss of approximately US$1Million arising from investigations by the CID-PAC Squad.

·  The CID-PAC took over investigations/Prosecution of a case, CRB 126/2004 in which UG Shs.231,264,831(Approx US$120,000) for soldiers’ salaries was allegedly mis-appropriated. The case is still in court.

5.0 PAC and the Inspector General of Government (IGG)

The Inspectorate of Government plays a complementary role in fighting corruption, abuse of office and enforcement of the Leadership Code of Conduct. PAC shares information with IGG, for example declarations of assets and liabilities of leaders under investigation.

Some cases have been referred to the IGG for investigations by the Committee, for example, the famous “Temangalo Case” where UG. Shs. 11billion (Approx US$6Million) of workers’ savings in the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) was paid fraudulently for the purchase of a piece of land belonging to a Cabinet Minister in charge of Security.

Where PAC is dissatisfied by the decision of the DPP, it makes its complaints to the IGG to take over the investigation.

Joint training sessions, workshops, study tours for both staff of IGG and PAC to enhance capacity have been conducted.

6.0 PAC & Civil Society

The Civil Society attends Committee sittings and to some extent have been whistleblowers on corrupt acts of government officials. They also sensitize the public on the activities of PAC to the extent that it is the most highly publicized and respected Committee of Parliament. They also hold regular workshops where PAC Members are invited as resource persons.

Where Government delays to take appropriate action on the recommendations made by the Committee, the CSO hold public demonstrations and debates thus putting more pressure on the Executive.

7.0 Challenges

There is no way one can enforce accountability and integrity in Government spending without raising fundamental political questions on the way individuals use or abuse power and on the standards to which they should be held accountable. A holistic strategy is the most effective way of improving accountability and integrity in government spending as well as increasing the probability of being caught and punished.

A number of challenges have been experienced by the Public Accounts Committee and other anti-corruption agencies in Uganda because Government is yet to demonstrate its will to fight corruption. The challenges include:

(i) The willingness of Government to allow Parliament in general and PAC in particular, sufficient political space to carry out their constitutional mandates. This has been exacerbated by:

·  The inherent weaknesses of Parliament and of Members of Parliament in performance of their duties. In our case where Ministers are appointed from among MPs. Most MPs of the ruling Party see themselves as potential Members of Cabinet thereby limiting their independence.

·  The lack of commitment on part of some governments in correcting these weaknesses, and

·  The perception that given the history of an adversarial relationship between the auditors and the audited, the ‘findings’ of the Auditor General are too negative and not always sufficiently balanced or presented to invoke better operational performance.

(ii) Oversight requires knowledge, skills and experience which many Parliamentarians lack. Some report difficulty learning on the job, while others are put off by procedural tactics and details. This lack of knowledge and depth may create self-professed government agents and this hurts our oversight role since no dissenting voice can be heard in such a situation.

(iii) Members of Parliament have a busy schedule and often lack researched information on audit queries. More often than not, the members are bombarded with voluminous audit reports which they seem to have no time to read. This coupled with insufficient information from Accounting Officers and lack of follow up measures on its recommendations has led to some inefficiency and created a backlog of reports to handle.

(iv) If Parliaments are to play a proactive role in promoting accountability and integrity in government, then they too, must adopt transparent operations and must be accountable to the electorate on an ongoing basis. However, in the case of Uganda, we have situations where some of its members have been mobilized to defend members of the ruling party who appear as witnesses, thereby making it difficult to pin the witness.

(v) At times, committee members are manipulated by the ruling party to attack and eliminate members of the opposition or to punish members of their own party who are perceived to have stepped out of party line.

(vi) Persons handpicked by the politicians in power have run the anti-corruption agencies inefficiently. Sometimes, political loyalty as well as occasioned pressure has prevented the Inspector General of Government from exercising fully its powers to investigate and prosecute high political elites e.g. One Senior Cabinet Minister in charge of security who was implicated in a fraudulent procurement.

(vii) Verification of Audit Queries requires a lot of logistics, manpower movement and intelligence gathering which necessities adequate operational funds; however PAC is not well facilitated to fulfill its mandate.