The IGG issued the report herself
Sep 15, 2005
SIR — I wish to comment on the article published in the<i> New Vision</i> of September 12 entitled, “Jinja rejects IGG report†and that in the <i>Daily Monitor</i> of September 13, entitled “Jinja council rejects IGG reportâ€.
SIR — I wish to comment on the article published in the New Vision of September 12 entitled, “Jinja rejects IGG report†and that in the Daily Monitor of September 13, entitled “Jinja council rejects IGG reportâ€.
It was reported in the articles that Jinja Municipal council rejected the recommendations contained in a report issued by the Inspector General of government (IGG) in respect of corruption and malpractices in the construction of the Jinja Central division office block.
The Inspectorate responds as follows:
The report was authentic. The original copies of that report bore the official seal of the Inspectorate of government.
The Inspector General of government (IGG) signed the letter accompanying the report and the report itself was issued by the IGG personally.
These facts should not leave any doubts about the authenticity of the report. Reports are usually issued with accompanying letters to implementing officials and their authenticity has never been questioned.
The letter recommending action against the implicated officers was addressed to the chairperson of the district Service commission and copied to some district officials, among others. This is because it is the district Service commission with the mandate under the Local government Act to appoint and discipline the officials implicated in the Inspectorate Report.
The council therefore had no legal or moral authority to discuss the report since it was not addressed to them and they had not been called upon to act on the recommendations in that report since it was not theirs.
The council lawyer, in guiding council, should have addressed his mind to those issues and also to sections 21, 23 and 32 of the Inspectorate of government Act 2002. The decision of the Municipal council to reject the IGG Report cannot be sustained and may be punishable under section 37 of the Inspectorate of government act, 2002.
It should be noted from the articles that Jinja Municipal council/Jinja Central Division did not question the findings of the IGG which would in any case be illegal under section 21 of the IG Act.
They therefore should not condone corruption and bad administration by misdirecting the District Service commission from taking necessary disciplinary action against errant officers. “Corruption and abuse of office should be fought wherever it is found without fear or favour†was the message of the IGG when she began the process of issuing the report in this case.
Political will to fight corruption should not only be reflected at national level but must also be reflected even at the lowest levels of government because that is where it hurts the common person the most.
Christine Kasule Mugerwa
Head, communications and Public Relations Unit
It was reported in the articles that Jinja Municipal council rejected the recommendations contained in a report issued by the Inspector General of government (IGG) in respect of corruption and malpractices in the construction of the Jinja Central division office block.
The Inspectorate responds as follows:
The report was authentic. The original copies of that report bore the official seal of the Inspectorate of government.
The Inspector General of government (IGG) signed the letter accompanying the report and the report itself was issued by the IGG personally.
These facts should not leave any doubts about the authenticity of the report. Reports are usually issued with accompanying letters to implementing officials and their authenticity has never been questioned.
The letter recommending action against the implicated officers was addressed to the chairperson of the district Service commission and copied to some district officials, among others. This is because it is the district Service commission with the mandate under the Local government Act to appoint and discipline the officials implicated in the Inspectorate Report.
The council therefore had no legal or moral authority to discuss the report since it was not addressed to them and they had not been called upon to act on the recommendations in that report since it was not theirs.
The council lawyer, in guiding council, should have addressed his mind to those issues and also to sections 21, 23 and 32 of the Inspectorate of government Act 2002. The decision of the Municipal council to reject the IGG Report cannot be sustained and may be punishable under section 37 of the Inspectorate of government act, 2002.
It should be noted from the articles that Jinja Municipal council/Jinja Central Division did not question the findings of the IGG which would in any case be illegal under section 21 of the IG Act.
They therefore should not condone corruption and bad administration by misdirecting the District Service commission from taking necessary disciplinary action against errant officers. “Corruption and abuse of office should be fought wherever it is found without fear or favour†was the message of the IGG when she began the process of issuing the report in this case.
Political will to fight corruption should not only be reflected at national level but must also be reflected even at the lowest levels of government because that is where it hurts the common person the most.
Christine Kasule Mugerwa
Head, communications and Public Relations Unit