FEATURED

By Hon Ahabwe Godfrey Pereza (PhD)

Background

The Original Political Basis:

Point number seven of the 10-point programme of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) says, “The prevalence of corruption and misuse of office compound the many problems outlined so far….In order to tackle the problems of backwardness, corruption must be eliminated once and for all”. While addressing the National Resistance Council (NRC), on April 30, 1990, President Y.K.Museveni had this to say on corruption, “Originally when we came into Government, there was rampant corruption in the Civil Service. I am now however, beginning to get persistent reports that there is corruption among our political leaders”. On January 26, 1991, he said, “We require, at all levels, a leadership that has a moral authority to lead. The leadership cannot have that moral authority if they are themselves tainted with corruption. Corruption can only disappear if the leaders are themselves clean.” Also while addressing the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in Addis Ababa, July 9, 1990, he said, “One of the biggest factors retarding development in Africa is corruption, and there is no way you can control corruption without democracy. If there is no accountability, you cannot stop corruption, and if you cannot stop corruption, you cannot have development.”

The President, however, does instil hope among Ugandans, “I do not feel despondent about this problem because it is just a matter of time before we shall have perfected our means of defining and detecting corruption. He cited the Leadership Code as the defining and categorisation of corruption agency and the Inspector General of Government (IGG), Security Organisations, the Auditor General, and the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament as the detecting agencies and urged, “Members of the public should ensure this by giving information to the IGG in confidence. It is every responsible citizen’s obligation to do this as it will guard against the violation of his or her rights”. So, has the President ever stopped castigating corruption right from the word go? The answer is no! What then is this problem that has bedevilled Uganda for close to 40 years of NRM in leadership?

Defining Corruption

Myriads of definitions and descriptions of corruption have been suggested and advanced. The Biblical understanding of corruption for instance has to do with wickedness, vitiated, impure, and purification as in 1 Corinthians 15 which says that evil communications corrupt good manners; to waste, spoil or consume as in Matthew 6, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt”; to defile or pollute as in Exodus 32; or to pervert, break, disobey, or make void as in Malachi 2.  The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia traces corruption from the Hebrew words mishchath, mashchath, mashchith , and their Greek equivalents, phthora,, and diaphthora, which imply physical degeneration and decay. At an early time, the above words denote moral depravity and corruption (Genesis 6:11; Exodus 32:7; Hosea 9:9; Galatians: 6:8) which ends in utter moral ruin and hopelessness.   

Corruption fighting agencies such as Transparency International looks at corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain while the World Bank considers it as the abuse of public office for personal gain. The Oxford Dictionary of English defines corruption as, “Dishonesty or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery; or the action or effort of making something morally depraved”.

A number of scholars have addressed corruption in many ways. Some like U. Myint, (2000); Boris Bergovic, (2005); Jose G. Vargas-Hernandez, (2006); Stephen D. Morris (2011); Moses Montesh , (2013); and others have tackled corruption from a definitional view as well as forms, types and consequences of the vice.  Ahmad M. Mashal, (2011) looks at corruption in relation to resource allocation distortion; while Mark Jorgensen, (2005) tried to reconcile the various definitional and conceptual debates that have shaped the corruption literature. The Inspectorate of Government of Uganda in conjunction with Makerere’s Economic Policy Research Centre have also come up with a report on the state of corruption and the effectiveness of reform effort in Uganda.

It is clear, from the vast evidence contained in the studies mentioned, that corruption is neither a new concept nor a new phenomenon worldwide. . According to Dr Ahmed Mashal, “it is a phenomenon that has existed from an early age. In fact, it is a phase through which all countries go through before they reach maturity”. Also, according to the World Bank, (2004), “Corruption affects all regions of the world and all levels of society”.

Manifestations (forms) of Corruption

It has been widely documented that corruption manifests itself in various forms. The Inspectorate of Government, for example, asserts that corruption manifests itself as bribery, financial leakages, conflict of interest, embezzlement, false accounting, fraud, influence peddling and nepotism, theft of public funds or theft of public assets.

In July 1994, the Chilean Commission on Public Ethics authored a report titled, “Public Ethics: Probity, Transparency, and Accountability at the Service of the citizens”. It exposes how corruption is manifest and also explores areas prone to corruption. The report cites degenerated public ethics and principles of honesty and transparency in public offices as breeding grounds for corruption. It outlines lack of administrative accountability, trafficking in influence and misuse of privileged information, conflict of interest between public duties and private activities, favouritism, procedural delays, secret government accounts, insider trading, bribery, extortion, unregulated fundraising by political parties as forms of corruption.  Hernandez, (2006) includes collusion, abuse of discretion, clientelism, patronage, and nepotism.  Some other literature, for instance, Myint includes cronyism while others have cited absenteeism, public property abuse, moonlighting, late coming, complacency, kickbacks, protection of illegal activities and misappropriation and so on and so forth..

Categorization (types) of Corruption

Corruption has also been categorised by various analysts. Ahmad M. Mashal categorises corruption as Grand; Bureaucratic, and Legislative. He quotes Krugger, 1993 defining Grand Corruption as the acts of the political elite by which they exploit their power to make economic policies.  He asserts that this type of corruption is difficult to identify and measure especially because some segments of the population gain from it. Bergovic (2005), expounds on this type as influenced by the political process in a principal-agent-like relationship. He asserts, “Corruption is nothing but a consequence of the political process”. Scott, (1972) calls this a new type of corruption referred to as institutionalised political influence. Montesh, (2013) associates this type with Heads of State, Ministers, or other senior government officials and serves the interests of a narrow group of business people and politicians as criminal elements. Morris, (2011) describes it as upper level corruption involving, “Presidents, Ministers, and Members of the Legislature, Governors, and other high ranking officials”. Myint, (2000) has categorised this as High level since people involved are generally well-off and have a lot of privileges associated with their high offices. Their corrupt behaviour is motivated by greed and not out of necessity to meet living expenses of their families. Myint, however, contends that the line between need-driven and greed-driven corruption is hard to draw and it is difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins.

Bureaucratic corruption is another category largely associated with acts of appointed bureaucrats in their dealings with either their superiors (the political elite) or the public. This is the lower level corruption as categorised by Morris, (2011).  Other terminologies of this type are: Administrative corruption, (Bergovic, 2011). This revolves around violation of established legal rules by use of bribery and favouritism to allow certain individual businesses to lower their taxes, escape regulations, or win low-level procurement contracts. The general perception is that civil servants with insufficient salaries to meet the living expenses of their families are driven by necessity to engage in corrupt practices.

Legislative corruption refers to the manner in which legislators can be influenced to enact laws in favour of some interest groups. This type would include vote buying.

Corporate corruption has also been identified as occurring in relationships between private business corporations and the suppliers or clients. It also occurs within corporations, when corporate officials use the corporation resources for private gain, at the expense of shareholders.

Systemic corruption is that type of corruption that is prevalent throughout all levels of society. Myint says, “When systemic corruption takes hold of a country, the institutions, rules and peoples’ behaviour and attitudes become adapted to the corrupt way of doing things, and corruption becomes a way of life”.  Morris calls it institutional, systemic, and centralised corruption and that it usually involves elaborate webs and chains of illegal payoffs inside government, often to the benefit of superiors or the political party. This type of corruption is very difficult to deal with and can have a devastating effect on the economy because it is basically a symptomatic evidence of state capture. The World Bank defines state capture as, “The actions of individuals, groups, or firms, both in the public and private sectors, to influence the formation of laws, regulations, decrees, and other government policies to their own advantage as a result of the illicit and non-transparent provision of private benefits to public officials, (Helman, 2000).

In general, the most eligible candidate sectors/activities for corruption are government contracts, administration of justice, political positions, taxation system, religious institutions, and donations to political groups as well as vote buying.

Uganda’s Experience

The background to this presentation has espoused the original position of government on corruption. For a fighting organisation to make corruption its agenda number seven and subsequent institutionalisation of efforts to fight the vice when in government, is no mean effort. The realisation of various institutions, some new and others reformed, by the government over the time cannot be dismissed as mere acts of pretence. The internal audit mechanisms that exist at all levels of government and its agencies as well as the external audit practices are there for everyone to see. The office of the IGG is constitutional together with the Leadership Code and Tribunal. The office of the Director of Public Prosecution, the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Directorate in the Police force, the Public Accounts, Local Government Accounts and Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises Committees of Parliament, the Internal and the External Security Organisations, the Judiciary, the Resident District Commissioners, the Political Parties and Organisations  and other anti-corruption and anti-criminal acts Laws, Public Accountability, Procurement, Disposal of Public Assets Laws, Electoral Commission Law, the Whistle Blowers’ Law to mention but a few are all visible even in darkness!

In spite of the aforementioned, coupled with complacent statements such as lack of political will; corruption is everywhere; corruption has always existed; corruption is not harmful; and the like, corruption in Uganda has reached unprecedented proportions. Looking at just two recent revelations and only in just two financial years, the office of the Prime Minister and that of Public Service are responsible for loss of colossal sums of taxpayers’ money!   The World Bank- Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (2012) scored Uganda 2.0 on Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector on a scale of 1(lowest) to 5 (highest) compared to Rwanda and Tanzania who scored 3.5 and 3.0 respectively. Besides, in a recent study, the Inspectorate of Government found that Corruption remains an impediment to development and a barrier to poverty reduction in Uganda and in many other African countries. With the discovery of oil and the prospect of substantial windfall oil revenues coming on stream in the relatively near future, Uganda is bound to face major challenges with regard to the problem of corruption.

What is the problem given that the legal, political, civic, and institutional frameworks are in place to detect report and apprehend the corrupt? The Inspectorate gave the following as areas of concern:

A large Implementation Gap, for instance, in a recent study of 114 countries, Uganda was found to have had the largest implementation gap, in which it was scored very highly (99%) on having a very good legal framework but was awarded 45% for having weak implementation record, giving an implementation gap of 54% (Global Integrity Report, 2009);

Weak Performance related to Enforcement of Political Financing Disclosure; Substantial Improvement needed to ensure a Safe and Open Climate for Reporting on Corruption;

 Bribery Continues to be a Factor of Citizen Interactions with Government Officials;

Need for Improvement in Quality of Budget Information Provided to Public, and More Citizen Consultation;

Improvement of Parliamentary Scrutiny of External Audit Reports;

Lack of Available Data to Assess Anti-Corruption Efforts in Procurement;

Budget Monitoring Data can be improved to assess Corruption in Roads and other Public Works Projects;

Need for More Data Assessing Corruption in Key Sectors such as Agriculture, Health, Education, and Transport;

Reporting and Enforcement of Administrative Corruption is weak and fragmented;

Information related to Outcomes and Duration of Anti-Corruption Cases is Poor; Weak Coordination amongst Anti-Corruption Entities.

However, the underlying reason that is hardly talked about publicly is that corruption in Uganda is now systemic. It is extremely difficult to substantiate with evidence that anti corruption watchdogs have themselves been compromised and all this is embedded in the behaviour which owes its origin in our history.

The Post-Colonial History

The Ugandan elite, like any other country in Africa, notably sub-Saharan Africa, inherited a colonial infrastructure with little or no experience in running it. The colonialist deliberately undertrained the natives in the management of the colonial structures. Independence came faster than expected after the end of the Second World War. Cerebrated writer, Martin Meredith, (2005) noted that the civil servants filling the posts vacated by departing colonial officials insisted on high salaries, pensions, housing allowances, and cheap loans. Until independence, the principal beneficiaries of the colonial rule were the white elite enjoying a lifestyle which the black elite aspired to emulate. Independence opened the floodgates. Politicians used their public offices to extract commissions at every available opportunity. In no time, the practice of bribery and embezzlement spread from top to bottom, from politicians to tax collectors, customs officers, policemen, postal clerks and hospital assistants. It affected everything from job applications to licences, scholarships, foreign exchange, and the location of factories. State owned companies became the centre of a web of corruption. Ministers preyed on parastatal corporations under their control for contribution to political funds and foreign trips. They also became recruiting grounds for jobs for their families, friends, and kinsmen. In Uganda, the Uganda Commercial Bank was a gravy train for every regime. New Ministers, Army Officers, and Parliamentarians would descend on it and take huge loans, often with inadequate or non-existent collateral. They saw the money as rewards for bringing the government into power. This trend seemed to be nearing its end at the advent of the IMF/WB induced reforms that saw privatisation of these public enterprises. However, Meredith observes, “Initially hostile to the idea of privatising parastatal organisations which provided them with a major source of patronage, they came to realise that the business of privatisation itself could be used as a means of patronage…In Kenya, Uganda, Zaire, Guinea and Senegal, public enterprises were sold to relatives and clients of the political elites”.

The Congolese gold and ivory scandal that involved Idi Amin and then Prime Minister, Milton Obote in the 1960s is a household story in Uganda. The redistribution of the departed Asian properties by the Amin regime and the underground economy in the 1970s are well known historical events, the collapse of the Uganda Shilling and the introduction of Window I and Window II as well as the allocation committees for essential commodities during Obote II government in the 1980s, coupled with fixing and announcing of export commodity and producer prices, provide a very good insight on our basic inadequacies in tackling corruption.

Why Systemic Corruption now?

The submission here is that the Ugandan society is much more informed about the workings of various arms of government and other actors in our society as well as their role in the entire running of government than ever before. The liberalisation and privatization programmes that started vigorously in the early 1990s provided a basis for this exposure. Notably of importance are the following:

Freedom of expression: The Constitution of 1995 provided a basic platform for a vibrant and often recklessly insightful but informative media. Almost every household has a radio or a cell phone with a radio provision and captures what is going on in the entire country and beyond. This has been augmented by the social media phenomenon! The people gradually come to terms with their own plight and begin to ask for space in the quest for self advancement.

No Party Democracy: The element of individual merit in accessing political positions encouraged vote purchase either by cash money transfers or material supplies in addition to promises of job and business opportunities. What started as voluntary inducements have ended up as legitimate demands by the voters and obligations by the candidates. This has not changed even when the political system changed.

Freedom of worship: Before the country was fully opened, there existed traditional religious denominations. At the risk of being crucified by the new entrants little or no scandals of sexuality, prayer and healing for money, human sacrifices etc were ever heard of in public until this openness materialised. Morally the standing of Ugandans is at low ebb. Leadership is no longer respected everywhere in our denominations without exception.

Material or Monetary Donations: Places of worship are supported largely by worshippers. They occupy high places in these places. They are recognised and given time for speeches. Often they conclude by donating to the congregation and sometimes to the Religious Ministers. Nobody ever questions the source of such donations. We even pray for continued good life and secure tenure on the job courtesy of corruption even when such a person has been exposed. We insist on, “DO NOT JUDGE OR YOU WILL BE JUDGED” (Matthew 7:1).

Unnecessary Statements by Top Political Leaders: When on one hand top political leaders make statements construed as biasing a process where an institution is mandated to investigate and sanction corrupt individuals and on the other proclaim that corruption must not be tolerated, then there is room for questioning the genuineness in the war against corruption. Cases in point from H.E. Below are a few cases where the President himself contradicted his 1980s and 1990s stand.

• On the Justice Julia Sebutinde’s Judicial Commission of inquiry famously known as the ‘junk helicopter inquiry’: Saleh confessed to having been offered US $ 800,000 commission from CSC to expedite the contract. He proposed to return it as well as resign from the Ministry of Defence. However, President Museveni pardoned him, directing that he instead uses the commission earnings for military operations against the LRA’.
• On the IGG Betty Kamya’s lifestyle audit: ‘The lifestyle audit is good but be careful because we are still lucky that our corrupt people are corrupt here. But if they realise that their lifestyle is being audited, they will instead take what they stole abroad and it will be hard to track them’.
• During State of the Nation 2024 Address: ‘Make a distinction between mistake makers and dishonest people. Dishonesty is the worst. The dishonest and traitors are the ones we are targeting. The mistake makers, we can counsel them and make them know how to do things because if we are to punish all mistake makers we would have nobody to work with’.

These and others from various national leaders do not only cast doubt on the will to conquer corruption but also besides being deliberately selective and vindictive, undermine the very institutions the country relies on to fight corruption.

Applauding the Corrupt and Admonishing the Clean: It is common practice in Uganda for the corrupt to be applauded and worshipped like Gods while castigating the non corrupt with little for themselves as lazy. Remember the hero’s welcome for then Kampala Mayor, Alhajji Nasser Ntege Sebagala (RIP), after serving a year in jail in United States for fraud? Remember the hero’s welcome for then Big Brother participant who had a sexual affair with a counterpart.

No free Lunch Mentality: It is also common knowledge that a local council 1 official demands payment for a recommendation (stamp duty) from the office; a School Head teacher expects oiling for admitting a child in school; a court clerk demands lunch for processing a file; a school nurse will ask for payment to recommend a student to take exceptional meals because of sickness; a registrar in a University will demand transport to expedite processing of an academic  document such as a  transcript for a graduate; a personal assistant to a high profile government official will need to be looked into before the boss is made accessible; a traffic police officer will threaten to take an offender to the station or give the express penalty if the offender does not redeem himself; an investigation officer will want a share of part of the looted cash in order to alter the facts; a Magistrate or Judge will be met secretly in order to give a lighter sentence; a media reporter will ask for compensation in order to censor a story pinning BIG FISH in corruption scandals, a political party official will be compromised in order to frustrate internal mechanisms for elections to access political offices; a presiding officer in an election  will alter votes in favour of a particular candidate who paid for that favour; a potential investor will pay heavily in order to see the Head of State because some investments must be cleared from State House; the list can go on and on unlimitedly.

It is certain that there is no segment of our society that can claim innocence from one form or the other of corrupt practices whether advertently or otherwise. The end result is that income inequality increases with increase in corrupt ion, poverty reduction programmes are frustrated hence increase in poverty levels. Investment rate is slowed down hence reduction in growth of the economy, democratization loses meaning which weakens representation and people resort to extra legal ways of doing things. There lies the lamentation for the present generation most whom are entrapped in the mire of corruption while others are part of the practice.

While more than a score of researchers, activists, and the media have made proposals for a way forward, I venture into three significant areas. One is morality. Until our moral values are restored such that practices like ritual sacrifices, looting (the Lubigi siphoning of petrol incident is a very good lesson), over demanding donations, living beyond our means (exotic lifestyles), and the like are discouraged, we shall be sawing seeds on a rocky ground. Religious institutions, civil society organisations, the media, and families have a principal role to play in this regard. There lies the hope for the future generation. Second is burden of proof. Change of burden of proof so that public servants, politicians and other leaders with a lot of wealth must demonstrate their innocence. There lies the lesson for the future generation. Third and by far the most important is that under Article 99 (1) of the Ugandan Constitution, Executive Power of the country is vested in the President of Uganda while Article 98 (1) bestows on the President the title of ‘Fountain of Honour’. The President must, of necessity, demonstrate both in words and action that corruption must be defeated at all costs even if it means affecting those closest to him including his most trusted political convert: The Speaker of Parliament and her cronies

By Emma Bwayo

Youths from Uganda have planned to march to Parliament on Tuesday, July 23, 2024, protesting the weak measures put in place to fight corruption in Uganda. They also aim to voice their discontent with Parliament, which has recently been accused of being the epicenter of corruption in the country.

This year alone, social media users launched an online exhibition against Parliament, unearthing numerous instances of corruption. Many young people concluded that Parliament had become a center of shady deals and unethical behavior.

With over 75% of Uganda’s population being youths and children, according to preliminary results by UBOS from the census, this concern affects everyone, particularly the younger generation whose future is at stake.

There are many fundamental questions to ask as young people warm up to march to Parliament, even as security forces have deployed heavily to block the planned demonstrations, including tough warnings from the head of state, President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. 

These questions include:

What happens after July 23?

What is the plan for those who will be arrested?

Who benefits from this?

Where is the formal petition to be hand-delivered and how was it generated?

Is there a better way to achieve the desired outcome?

The biggest losers in this scenario are the hustlers on the streets of Kampala. They will have to close their shops as security engages in running battles with protesters, lose part of their day to thugs hiding in protests, and face significant disruption to their daily lives.

Uganda is our country, and we can do better. 

The good news is that President Museveni has started targeting high-profile individuals involved in corruption and has shown signs of targeting more. We can show support by naming the corrupt individuals and holding them accountable. He is also open to dialogue, so we should list our demands and share our thoughts on the fight against corruption. 

We can demand a youth-led fight against corruption, but unfortunately, most of the leading anti-corruption agencies are led by older individuals. The fundamental concern is whether they have been effective in the fight against corruption.

Corruption affects us all, but with a concerted effort and innovative approaches, we can empower the next generation to lead the fight against it, securing a brighter and more honest future for Uganda.

The writer is a broadcaster, and youth leader. NB: These are his views and not necessarily those of the Publisher-Editor