How delegates clashed over role of IGG

_________________

The Constituent Assembly (CA) debate on the role of the Inspector General of Government(IGG) was a protracted battle.

It took the intervention of senior politicians for delegates to settle the sticky points regarding the IGG’s enforcement and supervision powers.

The issue arose during consideration of the report from the technical committee on articles 259(1)(d), 264(7), and 268, which dealt with accountability and leadership standards.

Despite the heated exchanges, a number of delegates argued that supervision and enforcement were two different functions, which should not be concentrated in a single office.

They proposed that Parliament, through a specialised committee similar to that of the National Resistance Council, should be charged with enforcement, while the IGG remains with supervisory powers.

Luuka County delegate John Ndege insisted that one organ could not perform more than two functions.

“The IGG cannot be a prosecutor, a judge and the jury,” he argued.

Ndege was supported by Lubega Mutagamba (Rakai district delegate) and Pantaleo Kasangaki (Buruli County delegate), who said the functions should be separated to enhance administrative efficiency and to avoid granting the IGG excessive power.

The proposal to strip the IGG of enforcement powers, however, met stiff resistance. Juventine Elyau (Kalaki County delegate) argued that the office should be given “teeth to bite” by granting it wider powers.

Elyau maintained that the IGG should have the authority to investigate, supervise and enforce their own decisions, noting that such independence was necessary if the office was to effectively fight corruption and abuse of office.

Francis Bantariza (Buhweju County delegate) also strongly opposed the idea of separation, questioning the logic behind creating an enforcement committee made up of the very people who could themselves be subjects of investigation.

“How can you have an enforcement committee from those who are supposed to be investigated?” he asked.

Bantariza preferred that the IGG perform both functions, arguing that the offi ce was “non-political and neutral”.

National Resistance Army delegate Gen. Jeje Odongo also opposed the separation of roles, lightening the mood with his remarks: “Too many cooks spoil the soup.”

He maintained that the IGG should act as the central coordinating body in supervising and enforcing the Leadership Code.

Augustine Ruzindana (Ruhaama County delegate) agreed with those in favour of combining the roles, saying the functions were too closely entwined to be separated. He recommended that Parliament could instead regulate them from time to time, rather than stripping the IGG of essential powers.

Others who opposed the separation of functions were Steven Ongaria (Tororo Municipality delegate), Charles Rwomushana (Rujumbura County delegate), and Dr Sophie Musana (Buikwe district delegate).

They all argued that enforcement and supervision should remain within the mandate of the IGG to ensure accountability and reduce political interference.