Blogs
Can Barugahara fight corruption alone?
Barugahara’s campaign has demonstrated the value of direct political oversight. But it has also exposed institutional weaknesses that go beyond individual corrupt officials. The bigger challenge is the lack of systems to proactively monitor projects and ensure that standard work is delivered and projects are not abandoned, writes David Mukholi
David Mukholi. (File)
By: David Mukholi, Journalist @New Vision
__________________
OPINION
In July, when the Minister of Local Government, Balaam Barugahara, embarked on an anti-corruption campaign code-named Expose the Corrupt, many dismissed it as a joke. It has now become a serious undertaking.
Having started in eastern Uganda, the campaign drew sceptics who challenged him to take it to western Uganda, suggesting he would not dare. In Bugisu, some people even questioned why their districts were among the first targets, raising accusations of victimisation.
However, Barugahara has since visited several districts, including Mbarara, Isingiro, Sheema, Mitooma, Buhweju, Hoima and Masindi.
His approach is direct and confrontational. He inspects government projects, addresses public rallies and orders the arrest and interdiction of civil servants and district officials suspected of corruption.
Of course, there are established procedures for holding public officials accountable. Barugahara’s approach does not always follow them, probably because fighting corruption requires a forceful approach that makes involvement in the vice risky.
At public rallies, he exposes suspected corrupt officials and hands them over to the Police as crowds cheer. The spectacle can be humiliating. Critics of the campaign, therefore, have a point, particularly regarding due process and the treatment of suspects. Accountability must not come at the expense of fairness.
On the other hand, the campaign is shaking up the way some districts are managed. Residents increasingly invoke Barugahara’s name when demanding services, while officials are becoming more conscious that their actions could attract scrutiny. People are beginning to demand answers, and public officials are being reminded that government resources are not their personal property.
But Barugahara cannot be everywhere. He is human, and the demands of the campaign are stretching him. It is commendable that he engages directly with communities and identifies obstacles preventing services from reaching them. His campaign raises an interesting question: if one minister can spend so much time in the field inspecting projects and listening to citizens, what prevents other ministers from doing the same?
Barugahara is becoming one of the more visible figures in Uganda’s politics. His campaign sends a message to district administrators, suppliers and contractors that public projects must deliver value for money.
However, the crusade raises fundamental questions. Can Barugahara do it alone? Humanly, he cannot be in several places at the same time. There are accountability issues in virtually every district. So, where does he go first? For instance, the early part of his campaign concentrated on Bugisu. Are the districts there now clean, or does he need to return? What happens to the areas he has already visited when he moves elsewhere?
These questions point to a bigger issue: the need for a permanent system of monitoring government expenditure and the quality of public projects.
Barugahara’s campaign has revealed that the Government sends money to districts for development and service delivery, but it is not always properly used. His inspections have exposed projects where work is shoddy or has not been done at all. This raises fundamental questions: who in Government is responsible for ensuring that public projects are properly executed and that taxpayers get value for their money?
Does Uganda need an efficiency and quality assurance authority to ensure that projects meet required standards and that public resources are used efficiently?
Barugahara comes from a private-sector background, which may explain his ability to identify shortcomings that some long-serving bureaucrats have failed to notice or become accustomed to. He can inspect a bridge, question its construction and identify what he considers weak materials and poor workmanship.
But if engineers and technical officers are responsible for supervising such projects, who supervises them? Who independently verifies that the work has been properly done?
But Barugahara cannot be everywhere. He is human, and the demands of the campaign are stretching him. It is commendable that he engages directly with communities and identifies obstacles preventing services from reaching them. His campaign raises an interesting question: if one minister can spend so much time in the field inspecting projects and listening to citizens, what prevents other ministers from doing the same?
Barugahara is becoming one of the more visible figures in Uganda’s politics. His campaign sends a message to district administrators, suppliers and contractors that public projects must deliver value for money.
However, the crusade raises fundamental questions. Can Barugahara do it alone? Humanly, he cannot be in several places at the same time. There are accountability issues in virtually every district. So, where does he go first? For instance, the early part of his campaign concentrated on Bugisu. Are the districts there now clean, or does he need to return? What happens to the areas he has already visited when he moves elsewhere?
These questions point to a bigger issue: the need for a permanent system of monitoring government expenditure and the quality of public projects.
Barugahara’s campaign has revealed that the Government sends money to districts for development and service delivery, but it is not always properly used. His inspections have exposed projects where work is shoddy or has not been done at all. This raises fundamental questions: who in Government is responsible for ensuring that public projects are properly executed and that taxpayers get value for their money?
Does Uganda need an efficiency and quality assurance authority to ensure that projects meet required standards and that public resources are used efficiently?
Barugahara comes from a private-sector background, which may explain his ability to identify shortcomings that some long-serving bureaucrats have failed to notice or become accustomed to. He can inspect a bridge, question its construction and identify what he considers weak materials and poor workmanship.
But if engineers and technical officers are responsible for supervising such projects, who supervises them? Who independently verifies that the work has been properly done?
Are those expected to supervise projects themselves part of the failure? Compromised officials can allow substandard work to pass and subsequently report that a project has been completed. A commissioning ceremony creates an impression of success, only for the structure to deteriorate or become unusable shortly afterwards.
Consider the Ruhandagazi Fish Fry Centre in Bushenyi. The sh4b facility, established in 2014 as a demonstration farm and hatchery to supply quality fish fingerlings to farmers, has reportedly been neglected. It has no fish, and its ponds are empty, but the district reportedly spends sh3m monthly on electricity and sh17m on maintenance. The facility reportedly has no electricity, but bills continue to be paid.
That a minister must travel to a district to expose such a situation points to an institutional gap. Why should the discovery of abandoned projects and unnecessary expenditure depend on a minister’s visits? Should there not be an independent institution routinely checking whether government investments deliver the intended results?
Other examples during Barugahara’s tour illustrate the problem, all cases of poor workmanship. They raise questions about planning, procurement, supervision and accountability.
The Auditor General audits government expenditure and follows up on public projects. However, reports often come long after projects have been completed and money spent. By the time findings are presented to Parliament, sometimes a year or more later, the damage has already been done. Some issues Barugahara encounters may also escape the Auditor General’s reports. Consider smaller rural projects, such as school kitchens and latrines that cost millions but are poorly constructed. Such projects may escape wider scrutiny, yet they represent loss of public resources.
There are also questions about the accuracy of public records. Who checks whether reported pupil numbers reflect actual enrolment? Who verifies the existence of teachers and medical workers on government payrolls for districts? What happens when district education and health officials collude with headteachers or medical officers to conceal inflated numbers or ghost workers? If those responsible for reporting are compromised, who identifies the problem before the Auditor General intervenes?
This is where an efficiency and quality assurance authority becomes relevant. Staffed with technical experts, including professionals with private-sector experience, it could independently monitor projects, verify workmanship, assess expenditure and follow up on service delivery. It would complement, not replace, the Auditor General and anti-corruption agencies by identifying weaknesses before public money is lost.
Barugahara’s campaign has demonstrated the value of direct political oversight. But it has also exposed institutional weaknesses that go beyond individual corrupt officials. The bigger challenge is the lack of systems to proactively monitor projects and ensure that standard work is delivered and projects are not abandoned. A minister can expose corruption, but he cannot personally supervise every district, contractor, school, health centre and so on?
X @dmukholi1 dmukholi@gmail.com
Consider the Ruhandagazi Fish Fry Centre in Bushenyi. The sh4b facility, established in 2014 as a demonstration farm and hatchery to supply quality fish fingerlings to farmers, has reportedly been neglected. It has no fish, and its ponds are empty, but the district reportedly spends sh3m monthly on electricity and sh17m on maintenance. The facility reportedly has no electricity, but bills continue to be paid.
That a minister must travel to a district to expose such a situation points to an institutional gap. Why should the discovery of abandoned projects and unnecessary expenditure depend on a minister’s visits? Should there not be an independent institution routinely checking whether government investments deliver the intended results?
Other examples during Barugahara’s tour illustrate the problem, all cases of poor workmanship. They raise questions about planning, procurement, supervision and accountability.
The Auditor General audits government expenditure and follows up on public projects. However, reports often come long after projects have been completed and money spent. By the time findings are presented to Parliament, sometimes a year or more later, the damage has already been done. Some issues Barugahara encounters may also escape the Auditor General’s reports. Consider smaller rural projects, such as school kitchens and latrines that cost millions but are poorly constructed. Such projects may escape wider scrutiny, yet they represent loss of public resources.
There are also questions about the accuracy of public records. Who checks whether reported pupil numbers reflect actual enrolment? Who verifies the existence of teachers and medical workers on government payrolls for districts? What happens when district education and health officials collude with headteachers or medical officers to conceal inflated numbers or ghost workers? If those responsible for reporting are compromised, who identifies the problem before the Auditor General intervenes?
This is where an efficiency and quality assurance authority becomes relevant. Staffed with technical experts, including professionals with private-sector experience, it could independently monitor projects, verify workmanship, assess expenditure and follow up on service delivery. It would complement, not replace, the Auditor General and anti-corruption agencies by identifying weaknesses before public money is lost.
Barugahara’s campaign has demonstrated the value of direct political oversight. But it has also exposed institutional weaknesses that go beyond individual corrupt officials. The bigger challenge is the lack of systems to proactively monitor projects and ensure that standard work is delivered and projects are not abandoned. A minister can expose corruption, but he cannot personally supervise every district, contractor, school, health centre and so on?
X @dmukholi1 dmukholi@gmail.com