Uganda still needs adequate legislation to fight corruption

By Nsanja Patrick Mabirizi

THE launching of a private member’s Bill seeking to amend the existing anti- corruption Act 2009 has invited numerous criticisms from various stakeholders, mostly questioning the movers of this Bill whether Uganda really needs more anti- corruption legislation or we simply need political will to fight corruption.  

To begin with, I think the only realistic yardstick to gauge laws is not whether they are few or many, but, on whether they are good or bad; or effective in administering justice.  The existing laws should be effective enough to bring an impact to the majority of those seeking justice from them.

For example, the inadequacies in the existing Anti- Corruption Act 2009 and other related laws, have often failed the state to recover in real terms the proceeds lost to corruption prompting the introduction of The Anti- Corruption Amendment Bill 2012.

This will enhance the effectiveness of the existing anti corruption laws by; introducing Confiscation of gains derived from stealing public resources as a sentence fixed by law and establishing a clear procedure for confiscating wealth derived from corruption  from the culprit and other beneficiaries like relatives and bonafide partners.

At the end of the day, the Bill will not only make corruption a very risky business among those entrusted with public resources, but will also restore hope and faith in law among Ugandans.

The Whistle Blower’s Act 2010 once faced the same kind of criticism, however, today, its existence has seen the Inspectorate of Government boast of an overwhelming number of reported complaints.

For instance, it is said that as at May 2010, the Inspectorate had initiated 1,254 complaints out of which 836 were corruption cases; the highest reported in history.64 public officers are reported to have been arrested to that effect.

We should thus judge laws on effectiveness and not on quantity. In addition, just like the Whistle blower’s Act 2010, the Anti- Corruption Amendment Bill 2012 will also enhance public or community participation in reporting corruption cases something that is anticipated to yield even more results and popularise the fight against graft.

The Bill will also supplement the Leadership Code Act 2002 because it provides for the disclosure of information pertaining to declared wealth of those suspected to have gained from corruption. That way, it is expected to enhance effectiveness of the Act to yield more results in curbing the vice.

It should be noted that Members of Parliament are mandated by the public with a key role of making laws. Cognizant of the fact that corruption is still high and getting more sophisticated by the day, I think it would be unfair to the tax payers for a house consisting as many as 375 legislators to fail to have on record any initiative or even amendment of the existing laws to address the problem that is cited as the major reason as to why the tax payer can not benefit efficiently from public service delivery.

There are so many ways to kill a rat, and I cannot dispute the fact that there are other measures taken to fight corruption by the August house, I think all these measures actually indicate that there is political will among the members of the Ninth House towards fighting corruption.

Therefore, we should not undermine any effort geared towards this cause mindful of the fact that we are different players with different capacities. A perfect and adequate legal framework, clearly defining the procedure of fighting the vice, setting befitting sentences and generally making corruption a very risky business to not only the culprit but also close relatives and bonafide partners (who may have benefitted from it) is a good initiative.

As for political will, the onus is now on the public; to vote for those leaders who have the will to fight corruption, demand for proper accountability and demand for good governance.

The writer is the MP, Ntenjeru South