By Nixon Wamamela (PhD)

This week has been awash with the news of the UK government sanctioning the Speaker of Parliament and two other former ministers implicated in iron sheet theft.

These sanctions have generated a heated debate with the speaker arguing that it is a result of her stand against homosexuality.

She has further clarified that she does not need to go to UK or those other countries. At the same time, a section of Ugandans including the opposition have welcomed the move.

Notwithstanding the soundness of the argument of either party, the question is: What do they mean to an ordinary Uganda?

The meaningful public service code of ethics and conduct obliges a public servant to carry the image of the state.

Therefore, a public servant ought to conduct him or herself in a manner that does not put state reputation or her/his institution in disrepute. In Norway for instance, State reputation is one of the critical ethical values public servants and citizens are urged to uphold dearly.

But one may ask: To what significance is state/institutional reputation to an ordinary person? Good State/institutional reputation is likely to instill confidence not only in citizens but also foreigners hence it can attract tourism, investment and other opportunities.

It can also make that state or institution a role mode for others. On the other hand, bad name can discourage tourist, reasonable investors and also can make a given country or institution a laughingstock.

All these have a negative impact on the development of the country.  Hence, UK sanctions could have been a testimony of a bad image of a state or institution that is directly impacting on an ordinary person.

As elaborated above, a public servant is a representative of the country. Since the strength of the state lies in internationalisation or international collaborations and exchanges of ideas and resources.

Therefore, a public servant has an obligation to represent his or her state wherever he or she is invited as his or job may require. On daily basis we see government officials attending international conferences or visits.

Actually, when a public servant is invited to a given country, he or she may use that opportunity to lobby for his or her country and also to share experience with the other countries/institutions.  Such experience for instance, may contribute to the development of a given country in a number of ways.

However, where a public servant is not supposed to move anywhere, the above-mentioned opportunities may be lost and therefore an ordinary person will be the loser.

In fact, a public servant who is not allowed to move to certain places on the basis of his or her individual conduct ought to resign from his or her position for the good of the ordinary person of that country.

Therefore, no matter the arguments advanced for and against these sanctions, it is an ordinary person who suffers the consequence. This should have been a wakeup call to public servants to mind about their conduct so as to avoid sanctions or any other negative consequence of their conduct since they directly impact on an ordinary citizen.

In fact, the ordinary person/citizen is double loser in that he or she loses resources that are meant to uplift his or condition but also loses international opportunities that comes of the good image and effective representation of the state.

The writer is a lecturer at the Dept. of Philosophy Makerere University