Leave the President out of corruption talk

Dec 22, 2009

BY DR JAMES NSABA BUTURO<br><br>Two weeks ago, two subjects were widely discussed in the media. One concerned the on-going work of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament.

BY DR JAMES NSABA BUTURO

Two weeks ago, two subjects were widely discussed in the media. One concerned the on-going work of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament.

The other one was the book Fame and Shame which was authored by the Anti-Corruption Coalition of Uganda (ACCU). Both subjects focused on corruption. They also had one other thing in common — attempts to unfairly drag the President into the murky world of corruption.

This article addresses a practice that is now in vogue. When challenged by inquisitors, officials are in the habit of invoking the name of the President. Or when wrestling with the principality of corruption, some individuals blame the President for the prevalence of the principality.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) which took place in Uganda was a great and historic success. It catapulted Uganda to a higher plane of international respectability. Suddenly, the eyes of the world were focused on Uganda.

Mind you, the decision for Uganda to host CHOGM had previously been fiercely opposed by some members of our opposition. Yet the benefits Uganda would accrue were innumerable.

The months preceding the summit witnessed frenetic efforts by government officials to raise Uganda’s state of preparedness for the meeting. These efforts included procurement of goods and services. It is around this activity that the PAC has smelt some bad blood. During their interrogation, government officials told the PAC that the President had sanctioned or approved critical expenditures such as leasing of cars and paying service providers like J&M Airport Road Hotel.

By seeking to involve the President in their work, the officials in question gave the public an impression that whenever it came to procuring CHOGM-related goods and services, the President flouted rules by giving a go ahead which was contrary to procurement regulations. Yet the President would never, ever do that.

This impression is important in one main respect. It forms and shapes public perceptions. Perceptions are what voters often depend on to make important electoral decisions. Also, public perceptions are what international bodies such as Transparency International depend on to “evaluate” a country’s performance.

In the case of CHOGM, there was a cabinet sub-committee that was entirely responsible for planning and handling of all CHOGM-related activities. This sub-committee was assisted by a team of technical officers. The President was regularly briefed by these officials.

If there was a matter that required guidance from the President, they sought it, but with their recommendations attached. It was never the responsibility of the President to make choices or even decisions outside the ones the officials brought to him. This is why any inference that the President was behind the flouting of procurement rules should be regarded as dishonesty.

The world over, public servants’ cardinal responsibility is to provide correct and honest advice to their political leaders. This duty derives its force from the Constitution. In tendering advice, these officials are protected by the law. Needless to say, the law makes it clear that they are obligated to ensure that public funds are spent in accordance with laid-down procedures.

If they are pressured to flout regulations and they are men or women with integrity, they should tender their resignation or otherwise expect to be held accountable for any wrong decisions taken.

It is the highest folly of follies for officials to imply that when it came to taking decisions, the President was giving the final word against theirs. The President should be left out of the problems that are being unearthed by PAC.

The other matter where the president was dragged into corruption-related charges is the book which was authored by ACCU and launched by the assistant Bishop of Kampala. When the time to launch the book came, what did I find on opening the pages? The President had been listed among those who should take the flak for the corruption in the country. He was also listed among individuals who should be commended for fighting the vice. This was intriguing. How could the same person be for and against corruption at the same time? I wondered if there was some sinister motive designed to discredit Uganda’s leading proponent of good governance.

Here was another case of passing the buck again to the head of state. In the quest to improve our country’s governance, Ugandan officials must learn to take responsibility instead of passing the buck. And when the buck is to the country’s fountain of honour and it is not deserved, the practice should be denounced.

Finally, the jigsaw of corruption in Uganda is progressively being sorted out.

As the Government continues to tighten its noose around necks of the corrupt, its next objective will be to raise public awareness and deploy more resources to strengthen anti-corruption institutions.

I can confidently predict that following the President’s recent declaration of war against the corrupt, the year 2010 is going to be bad news to our nemesis — the corrupt individuals. And guess who will be commanding the war — the President.

As 2010 beckons, therefore, let all Ugandans make it their responsibility to participate in the elimination of corruption from our society.

The writer is the Minister of Ethics and Integrity

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});