Can The New UPE Sanctions Work?

May 25, 2003

EDUCATION stakeholders last week (April 28 -29, 2003) met in Kampala and proposed wide ranging sanctions on individuals who do not comply with Universal Primary Education (UPE) guidelines and Schools Facility Grants (SFG) regulations.

By John Eremu
EDUCATION stakeholders last week (April 28 -29, 2003) met in Kampala and proposed wide ranging sanctions on individuals who do not comply with Universal Primary Education (UPE) guidelines and Schools Facility Grants (SFG) regulations.
The sanctions if implemented will see technocrats who flout UPE guidelines and officials who misuse the SFG demoted, interdicted, dismissed and even arrested and prosecuted and any misappropriated funds recovered.
Florence Malinga, the Commissioner for Education Planning, said the move was after the realisation that the current system, where funds are withheld for non-compliance, punished the innocent pupils and the community rather than the errant officials.
Despite the existing laws and warnings from government, it was found out that local governments still delayed remitting UPE capitation grants to schools, divert the money for other uses or do not give accountability on time, thereby delaying the next release. Some headteachers inflate enrolment figures to get more money or even embezzle the funds outright.
Government has also lost billions of shillings under the SFG programme where technocrats and district officials connive with contractors to do shoddy jobs.
The proposed sanctions aim at reversing the situation without hurting the beneficiaries.
However, the Ministry of Education faces a big legal hurdle in enforcing the sanctions, particularly against district officials under the decentralised system.
The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Town Clerk (TC), the accounting officers in district and urban councils respectively, are well protected by both the 1995 Constitution and the 1997 Local Government Act. Disciplining them is almost impossible.
Vincent Ssekkono, the Permanent Secretary (PS) Ministry of Local Government, said a penalty to dismiss a CAO or Town Clerk because he/she has not complied with the UPE guidelines might not be attainable.
“The procedures for dismissing a CAO are clearly elaborated in section 69 of the 1997 Local Government Act and it might be difficult to prove whether an action of non-compliance falls among the provided grounds for dismissal,” Ssekkono said.
Section 69 of the Local Government Act says a CAO or TC could only be removed for abuse of office, incompetence, misconduct or misbehaviour or such physical or mental incapacity as would render him/her incapable of performing his/her duties.
The procedure for disciplining them is even so strenuous. It involves the district or an urban council passing a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all members, which is not easy to achieve.
Will sanctions work?
ceeds the matter is forwarded to the District Service Commission that institutes fresh investigations before coming up with appropriate disciplinary action. Where the CAO/TC is not satisfied with the Commission’s decision, he/she appeals to the Public Service Commission.
Ssekkono also said, as public officers, the CAOs and TCs were protected under Article 173 of the Constitution, which provides that a public officer shall not be dismissed or removed from office or reduced in rank or otherwise punished without just cause. That is why districts that have attempted to take disciplinary action against the CAOs and TCs have always ended up failing and paying heavily in costs.
Duncan Bigirwa of the Public Service Commission all the concerns raised by the Ministry were disciplinary cases that could be handled under the existing regulations like the Public and Civil Service regulations and the Public Finance and Accounting Act. He, however, regretted that heads of departments or supervisors were reluctant to invoke the regulations.
Another hitch in implementing the sanctions is the political will. What happens to an LC 5 chairman who refuses to take action against an errant CAO or TC?
The proposed sanctions in themselves were not bad. For instance, an officer who failed to account for UPE funds would be warned in the first instance, then interdicted, dismissed and arrested and prosecuted.
Those who cause delay in transmitting UPE capitation would be warned at first and if they continue with the practice, then interdiction comes in followed by dismissal. Inflating enrolment figures would result into outright arrest and prosecution for abuse of office.
Diversion of funds would attract a warning and a directive to refund the money failure of which would result into interdiction, dismissal and arrest and prosecution. Arrest and prosecution were recommended for those who embezzle or misappropriate funds.
On the technocrats who sanction full payment for incomplete or substandard works would be interdicted and disciplinary process instituted. They recommended dissolution of the district technical evaluation committees if they falsify tender bids to give undue advantage to certain companies. They also recommended that such contracts are cancelled and the companies blacklisted.
Another challenge in implementing the sanctions is ensuring that they are within the existing legal framework to avoid interrupting the operations of the local government and to avoid creating unnecessary legal consequences that might cause government to lose money in court awards. Ends

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});