Blogs
Rethink management of local govts
Local governments were intended to function as the primary vehicles for delivering public services and responding to local priorities.
Sarah Logose Annet. )Courtesy)
By: Admin ., Journalist @New Vision
________________
OPINION
By Sarah Logose Annet
A pit-latrine without a pit? That was perhaps the most startling discovery made by local government minister Balaam Barugahara during his maiden #EndCorruption in Local Government campaign.
The so-called ‘half-latrine’ in Bulambuli district, constructed without the actual pit, was intended to cost taxpayers a staggering sh73m.
That discovery is only one example of a much deeper problem. Across the country, similar stories have emerged during the ongoing anti-corruption crackdown. In Mbale, for instance, a sh2.2b gravity flow water project has reportedly never produced water despite the resources invested in it. These are not isolated incidents. Rather, they reflect a pattern that has, for years, become the modus operandi in many local governments and, in some cases, even within the ministries that oversee them.
For decades, Ugandans have watched corruption steadily take root within local government structures. The sectors that directly affect citizens’ daily lives, such as clean water provision, agricultural support, healthcare, education and road maintenance, have suffered the most. Services that should improve livelihoods have instead become avenues through which public resources are siphoned away.
At the centre of this problem is systemic corruption by individuals entrusted with managing public funds and delivering services to citizens. When those responsible for safeguarding taxpayers’ money become the very people who abuse it, service delivery inevitably deteriorates. The result is what we are witnessing today: unfinished projects, non-functional facilities, and communities deprived of essential services despite substantial public expenditure.
What has been uncovered in Bulambuli is unlikely to be unique. Similar findings would probably emerge in many, if not most, districts across the country. To understand how we arrived at this point, however, we must examine the evolution of local governance in Uganda and the structural changes that have shaped it over the years.
Shortly after the National Resistance Movement Government came to power in 1986, it introduced the Resistance Council (RC) system, which later evolved into the Local Council (LC) system. Many of us were still young then, but we understood how the system worked. In Tororo district, our mother district before the creation of several new districts including my beloved Butaleja, leadership was organised through a hierarchy of RCs. At the top was the RC5 leadership, supported by lower structures down to RCI, much like the LC system we have today.
What made the RC system particularly influential was that local leaders exercised real political authority and had a direct stake in national governance. Many represented their constituencies in the National Resistance Council, then chaired by President Yoweri Museveni. This connection fostered a sense of responsibility and accountability between local leadership and national decision-making. On the technical side, districts were managed by district executive secretaries, positions that later evolved into today’s chief administrative officers, supported at the time by special district administrators (who are now called resident district commissioners).
The promulgation of the 1995 Constitution introduced the Local Council system in its current form. Although decentralisation had been piloted earlier in the 1990s, it was formally entrenched through the Local Governments Act of 1997. The principle behind decentralisation was simple but powerful: Bring government closer to the people by empowering local authorities to manage their own affairs while promoting transparency, accountability and citizen participation.
In theory, decentralisation enabled local leaders to plan and implement programmes based on the unique needs of their communities. Citizens could more easily monitor government activities, demand accountability and influence decision-making.
Local governments were intended to function as the primary vehicles for delivering public services and responding to local priorities.
Over time, however, this vision gradually weakened. Political will diminished, and governance began to recentralise. Increasingly, resources became concentrated at the centre, with ministries controlling the flow of funds and determining how local governments would spend them. As a result, a new class of powerful actors emerged within district administrations.
What has been uncovered in Bulambuli is unlikely to be unique. Similar findings would probably emerge in many, if not most, districts across the country. To understand how we arrived at this point, however, we must examine the evolution of local governance in Uganda and the structural changes that have shaped it over the years.
Shortly after the National Resistance Movement Government came to power in 1986, it introduced the Resistance Council (RC) system, which later evolved into the Local Council (LC) system. Many of us were still young then, but we understood how the system worked. In Tororo district, our mother district before the creation of several new districts including my beloved Butaleja, leadership was organised through a hierarchy of RCs. At the top was the RC5 leadership, supported by lower structures down to RCI, much like the LC system we have today.
What made the RC system particularly influential was that local leaders exercised real political authority and had a direct stake in national governance. Many represented their constituencies in the National Resistance Council, then chaired by President Yoweri Museveni. This connection fostered a sense of responsibility and accountability between local leadership and national decision-making. On the technical side, districts were managed by district executive secretaries, positions that later evolved into today’s chief administrative officers, supported at the time by special district administrators (who are now called resident district commissioners).
The promulgation of the 1995 Constitution introduced the Local Council system in its current form. Although decentralisation had been piloted earlier in the 1990s, it was formally entrenched through the Local Governments Act of 1997. The principle behind decentralisation was simple but powerful: Bring government closer to the people by empowering local authorities to manage their own affairs while promoting transparency, accountability and citizen participation.
In theory, decentralisation enabled local leaders to plan and implement programmes based on the unique needs of their communities. Citizens could more easily monitor government activities, demand accountability and influence decision-making.
Local governments were intended to function as the primary vehicles for delivering public services and responding to local priorities.
Over time, however, this vision gradually weakened. Political will diminished, and governance began to recentralise. Increasingly, resources became concentrated at the centre, with ministries controlling the flow of funds and determining how local governments would spend them. As a result, a new class of powerful actors emerged within district administrations.
These are the heads of technical departments, the district engineers, district health officers, district education officers, environmental officers, and others who control critical budget lines. Because they oversee significant resources and often answer more to their parent ministries than to local leadership, many have accumulated enormous influence within district structures. In some cases, they operate with little regard for elected local councils or even CAOs, making accountability difficult to enforce.
Yet the problem does not end with the technical wing. The political leadership in many local governments has often become equally complicit. Instead of providing oversight, some political leaders have formed alliances with technical officers, creating networks of collusion that prioritise personal gain over public service. The predictable outcome is the misuse of public funds, inflated contracts, ghost projects, and ultimately the delivery of “half-pit latrines” and other symbols of failed governance.
The anti-corruption drive currently being championed by Barugahara, alongside the broader commitment of President Yoweri Museveni’s “Kisanja No Sleep” agenda, presents a rare opportunity to confront these structural challenges.
While exposing and prosecuting corrupt officials is necessary, it will not be sufficient on its own. The deeper governance weaknesses that enable corruption must also be addressed.
To defeat systemic corruption, Uganda must rethink how local governments are managed. Citizens must be empowered with the information and tools they need to demand transparency and accountability from their leaders. Local councils must be strengthened to effectively oversee public resources. Equally important, the Government must examine the institutional health, capacity constraints, and operational challenges facing local governments across the country.
Quality service delivery is not a privilege; it is a constitutional right that every Ugandan should enjoy. However, achieving that goal will require more than arrests and investigations. Once Barugahara and his team complete the important task of “cleaning up the system”, the country must return to the drawing board and develop lasting reforms. Without such reforms, the gains being made today may prove temporary, and the cycle of corruption may simply re-emerge in a different form.
The National Resistance Movement, working together with the Patriotic League of Uganda, has an opportunity to help usher the country into a new era of accountability, one in which stealing public resources becomes not only punishable but unthinkable, as risky and painful as touching a hot iron. Only then can local governments truly serve the people for whom they were created.
The writer is the Butaleja District Woman Member of Parliament
Yet the problem does not end with the technical wing. The political leadership in many local governments has often become equally complicit. Instead of providing oversight, some political leaders have formed alliances with technical officers, creating networks of collusion that prioritise personal gain over public service. The predictable outcome is the misuse of public funds, inflated contracts, ghost projects, and ultimately the delivery of “half-pit latrines” and other symbols of failed governance.
The anti-corruption drive currently being championed by Barugahara, alongside the broader commitment of President Yoweri Museveni’s “Kisanja No Sleep” agenda, presents a rare opportunity to confront these structural challenges.
While exposing and prosecuting corrupt officials is necessary, it will not be sufficient on its own. The deeper governance weaknesses that enable corruption must also be addressed.
To defeat systemic corruption, Uganda must rethink how local governments are managed. Citizens must be empowered with the information and tools they need to demand transparency and accountability from their leaders. Local councils must be strengthened to effectively oversee public resources. Equally important, the Government must examine the institutional health, capacity constraints, and operational challenges facing local governments across the country.
Quality service delivery is not a privilege; it is a constitutional right that every Ugandan should enjoy. However, achieving that goal will require more than arrests and investigations. Once Barugahara and his team complete the important task of “cleaning up the system”, the country must return to the drawing board and develop lasting reforms. Without such reforms, the gains being made today may prove temporary, and the cycle of corruption may simply re-emerge in a different form.
The National Resistance Movement, working together with the Patriotic League of Uganda, has an opportunity to help usher the country into a new era of accountability, one in which stealing public resources becomes not only punishable but unthinkable, as risky and painful as touching a hot iron. Only then can local governments truly serve the people for whom they were created.
The writer is the Butaleja District Woman Member of Parliament