Why Global Fund whip is cracking now
Oct 31, 2008
Finally the Global Fund whip has started cracking. By Wednesday this week, eight individuals implicated in mismanagement of the money had been charged. <br>Behind the scenes, there have been a lot of difficult discussions for six months.
BY CHARLES WENDO
Finally the Global Fund whip has started cracking. By Wednesday this week, eight individuals implicated in mismanagement of the money had been charged.
Behind the scenes, there have been a lot of difficult discussions for six months.
A Norwegian official who represents Norway and several other European countries on the Global Fund, in April expressed concern over Uganda’s delay to prosecute those implicated in the Global Fund mismanagement.
Monica Djupvik wrote a letter to the Geneva-based Inspector General of the Global Fund. She expressed concern that two years after the commission of inquiry led by Justice James Ogoola completed its report, no one had been prosecuted over Global Fund mismanagement and much of the money remained unaccounted for. “This case [is] an important test of the political will in fighting corruption in the country,†she wrote.As a result, a team from the Inspector General’s office visited Uganda in May and August to evaluate the progress.
The visit, said Inspector General John Parsons, was prompted by growing frustration among donors that there was no concrete action taken on individuals who mismanaged Global Fund monies. “The purpose of my visit is to send a strong signal that the Global Fund board is serious. It is treme-ndously important to us that what was due to be recovered, has been recovered.â€
Report pins Uganda
On 9th September Parsons issued a venomous report on Uganda.
According to the report, Parsons was not convinced that there were sufficient measures to guarantee that the Global Fund money in Uganda is in safe hands. “… The Inspector General cannot at present provide assurance that the current arrangements and controls in place are adequate to safeguard (Global Fund) investments in Uganda,†says the report.
The report points out that to-date, more than sh8.6b of Global Fund money distributed in Uganda remains un-accounted for. Most of this, sh5.7b, were funds disbursed after the Global Fund lifted its suspension of Uganda. This, according to the report, implies that the mismanagement that led to Uganda’s suspension might recur. “The controls in place were not enough to safeguard (Globa Fund) investments in Uganda,†says the report, referring to funds distributed after Uganda’s suspension was lifted.
Though some individuals and organisations refunded the money in 2006, there were hardly any recoveries in the subsequent years, the report notes. It adds that the accountability provided by several organisations exceeds the amounts given to them by the Global Fund. “Since they did not submit counter claims for over-expenditure, this suggests that the accountabilities given may not be genuine.â€
Drugs worth sh1b, procured using Global Fund money, expired and more drugs worth sh1.9b were likely to expire if their use was not speeded up, added the report.
The report also points out a discrepancy of sh100,000 between the amount on the Bank of Uganda register of funds returned, and the bank statement. “While the difference between the register and the bank statement may be small, it raises the risk that there may be refunds received by the Bank that have not been credited to the (Global Fund) recoveries bank account.â€
NGOs protest
Parsons’ report has generated disagreement from the Ugandan finance ministry and a coalition of NGOs. While the Government made a diplomatic reply, the NGOs raised an outright protest through a letter that they wrote to the Global Fund Board on 24th September.
The letter is signed by the Rev. Canon Sam Ruteikara, chairperson of the Civil Society Inter-Constituency Coordination Committee.
The NGOs called on the Board to reject the Inspector General’s report.
They argued, Board should support the Uganda Government in her efforts to avoid a repeat of the mismanagement that led to her suspension four years ago. “The report appears to be heavily tilted towards fault finding to the extent of trying to find fault even where there is none,†the NGOs wrote.
They accused the Inspector General of compiling reports based on half-baked information. “We are disturbed that the Office of the Inspector General is making recommendations to the Global Fund Board based on draft audit reports and management letters.â€
They argued that Uganda had built self-critical mechanisms that had revealed weaknesses in the system, with the view to correcting them and that Instead of commending Uganda for this, the Inspector General used the reports to cast Uganda in negative light.
While saying all recipients who misused the Global Fund should be held accountable, the letter protests against part of the Inspector General’s report which implies that NGOs could still be misappropriating Global Fund money. They ask why the Global Fund is questioning accountability mechanisms that Uganda has successfully used with other donors.
“Given the amount of resources that we know that Uganda is managing to the satisfaction of other donors, such sweeping statements only help in causing alarm and sowing unnecessary seeds of discord in addition to derailing Uganda’s development agenda.â€
They complained that the unrealistic queries raised by the Inspector General were creating unnecessary delays in the flow of Global Fund money to Uganda. “With such a report from the Office of the Inspector General, we fear that the Global Fund secretariat may be extremely hesitant to honour already submitted disbursement requests even where due diligence has been made, thereby continuing to deny services to people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS.
The perfect system which the office of the inspector general wants to see before services can resume may never come possibly not only in Uganda but elsewhere.â€
Government response
The finance ministry Permanent Secretary, Chris Kassami, diplomatically disagreed with the report, saying Parsons should have waited for Uganda’s Auditor General to complete an audit report rather than relying on drafts.
In a September 4 letter he wrote: “An opinion presented to the Board based on the draft management letters is likely to prejudice the Board assessment.â€
Whether these exchanges led to the current wave of prosecutions, or Government had prior plans to charge the culprits, is not the issue. It appears there is no turning back.
Last week ethics minister Nsaba Buturo warned that more high profile people would be prosecuted over Global Fund mismanagement.
Finally the Global Fund whip has started cracking. By Wednesday this week, eight individuals implicated in mismanagement of the money had been charged.
Behind the scenes, there have been a lot of difficult discussions for six months.
A Norwegian official who represents Norway and several other European countries on the Global Fund, in April expressed concern over Uganda’s delay to prosecute those implicated in the Global Fund mismanagement.
Monica Djupvik wrote a letter to the Geneva-based Inspector General of the Global Fund. She expressed concern that two years after the commission of inquiry led by Justice James Ogoola completed its report, no one had been prosecuted over Global Fund mismanagement and much of the money remained unaccounted for. “This case [is] an important test of the political will in fighting corruption in the country,†she wrote.As a result, a team from the Inspector General’s office visited Uganda in May and August to evaluate the progress.
The visit, said Inspector General John Parsons, was prompted by growing frustration among donors that there was no concrete action taken on individuals who mismanaged Global Fund monies. “The purpose of my visit is to send a strong signal that the Global Fund board is serious. It is treme-ndously important to us that what was due to be recovered, has been recovered.â€
Report pins Uganda
On 9th September Parsons issued a venomous report on Uganda.
According to the report, Parsons was not convinced that there were sufficient measures to guarantee that the Global Fund money in Uganda is in safe hands. “… The Inspector General cannot at present provide assurance that the current arrangements and controls in place are adequate to safeguard (Global Fund) investments in Uganda,†says the report.
The report points out that to-date, more than sh8.6b of Global Fund money distributed in Uganda remains un-accounted for. Most of this, sh5.7b, were funds disbursed after the Global Fund lifted its suspension of Uganda. This, according to the report, implies that the mismanagement that led to Uganda’s suspension might recur. “The controls in place were not enough to safeguard (Globa Fund) investments in Uganda,†says the report, referring to funds distributed after Uganda’s suspension was lifted.
Though some individuals and organisations refunded the money in 2006, there were hardly any recoveries in the subsequent years, the report notes. It adds that the accountability provided by several organisations exceeds the amounts given to them by the Global Fund. “Since they did not submit counter claims for over-expenditure, this suggests that the accountabilities given may not be genuine.â€
Drugs worth sh1b, procured using Global Fund money, expired and more drugs worth sh1.9b were likely to expire if their use was not speeded up, added the report.
The report also points out a discrepancy of sh100,000 between the amount on the Bank of Uganda register of funds returned, and the bank statement. “While the difference between the register and the bank statement may be small, it raises the risk that there may be refunds received by the Bank that have not been credited to the (Global Fund) recoveries bank account.â€
NGOs protest
Parsons’ report has generated disagreement from the Ugandan finance ministry and a coalition of NGOs. While the Government made a diplomatic reply, the NGOs raised an outright protest through a letter that they wrote to the Global Fund Board on 24th September.
The letter is signed by the Rev. Canon Sam Ruteikara, chairperson of the Civil Society Inter-Constituency Coordination Committee.
The NGOs called on the Board to reject the Inspector General’s report.
They argued, Board should support the Uganda Government in her efforts to avoid a repeat of the mismanagement that led to her suspension four years ago. “The report appears to be heavily tilted towards fault finding to the extent of trying to find fault even where there is none,†the NGOs wrote.
They accused the Inspector General of compiling reports based on half-baked information. “We are disturbed that the Office of the Inspector General is making recommendations to the Global Fund Board based on draft audit reports and management letters.â€
They argued that Uganda had built self-critical mechanisms that had revealed weaknesses in the system, with the view to correcting them and that Instead of commending Uganda for this, the Inspector General used the reports to cast Uganda in negative light.
While saying all recipients who misused the Global Fund should be held accountable, the letter protests against part of the Inspector General’s report which implies that NGOs could still be misappropriating Global Fund money. They ask why the Global Fund is questioning accountability mechanisms that Uganda has successfully used with other donors.
“Given the amount of resources that we know that Uganda is managing to the satisfaction of other donors, such sweeping statements only help in causing alarm and sowing unnecessary seeds of discord in addition to derailing Uganda’s development agenda.â€
They complained that the unrealistic queries raised by the Inspector General were creating unnecessary delays in the flow of Global Fund money to Uganda. “With such a report from the Office of the Inspector General, we fear that the Global Fund secretariat may be extremely hesitant to honour already submitted disbursement requests even where due diligence has been made, thereby continuing to deny services to people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS.
The perfect system which the office of the inspector general wants to see before services can resume may never come possibly not only in Uganda but elsewhere.â€
Government response
The finance ministry Permanent Secretary, Chris Kassami, diplomatically disagreed with the report, saying Parsons should have waited for Uganda’s Auditor General to complete an audit report rather than relying on drafts.
In a September 4 letter he wrote: “An opinion presented to the Board based on the draft management letters is likely to prejudice the Board assessment.â€
Whether these exchanges led to the current wave of prosecutions, or Government had prior plans to charge the culprits, is not the issue. It appears there is no turning back.
Last week ethics minister Nsaba Buturo warned that more high profile people would be prosecuted over Global Fund mismanagement.