However, common law recognised limited legal liability against government and this could be instituted by way of a royal fiat / petition of right. Under this procedure, the prospective litigant against the crown could seek permission of the crown itself before he could commence proceedings.
Before 1947, in England, an action could be ‘brought against a Crown servant as a nominal defendant, on the understanding that the Crown would satisfy any judgement against him.’ A Royal commission submitted a draft bill of reform but the bill did not become law. When, in 1946, the House of Lords refused to uphold the fiction of the nominated defendant reform could no longer be delayed.
In torts, there was a prerogative immunity which was based on vicarious liability against
government. Public officers had
to be sued in their personal capacity. After great agitation,
the
Crown Proceedings
Act, 1947, was passed and it subjected the Crown to private law,
with serious reservations.
In relation to the change in British colonies especially
East Africa, it was submitted that it was desirable in a modern democratic
state, that subject to certain safeguards, the Government should be able to sue and be sued as if it were a
private
person
of full capacity. ‘If state action results in individual damage to particular citizens, the state should make redress, whether or not there is fault
committed by the public officers concerned. The state is, in some ways, an insurer of what is often
called social risk.’ As a result, the iniquitous rule whereby government is not liable, in tort or breach of
contract committed by its
servants has long been discarded.
Ugandan position
The government proceedings act was modelled on the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The GPA
makes it possible for government to be sued as if it was a private person. GPA cap 77. There
are special procedures and exemptions that may
affect government liability contained in the Civil
Procedure and Limitation
(miscellaneous provisions) Act cap 72.
When is government
liable?
The Government Proceedings
Act imposes legal liability on government
in respect
of;
-contracts
-torts
-breach of statutory duty
-any
breach of those duties which a person owes to his servants or agents at common law by reason
of being their employee.
Contract
Under common law, liability
under contract could only
be enforced by
way of a royal fiat. This
position was found to be unsuitable
when governments became increasingly party to contracts which were of a commercial nature. Such contracts included; contracts for supply of goods, services, construction contracts, employment contracts etc. Such contracts required each party
to meet it's obligation under contracts. S.2 of GPA provides that government may be sued in contracts
as
if it was a private person. This therefore means that government can contract as if it was a private person and once it contracts, it's bound by
the laws of contract. Such contracts may
be enforced under the general law of contract or under the specific laws relating
to various contracts e.g
employment contracts may be enforced under provisions of the Constitution, public service laws, public service regulations and
standing orders.
Section 2 of the Government Proceeding Act provides that where any person has a claim against the Government after the commencement of this Act and the claim is either (a) a claim based on
contract which, if this Act had not been passed, might by
virtue of the Suits By or Against the
Government Ordinance have been enforced by an action against the Government; or (b) such that, if
it had been made in England against the Crown in right of its Government in the United
Kingdom and if the Crown
Proceedings Act, 1947, of
the United Kingdom had not been passed, it might have
been enforced
in England, subject to the grant of Her Majesty’s fiat, by petition of right, then, subject to this Act,
the claim may
be enforced by
proceedings taken against the Government for that purpose in
accordance with this Act. The section evidently shows
among others that Uganda applies the
common
law principles before 1947 to proceedings against government.
Unenforceable Contracts
They may be unenforceable contracts against government. Examples of such contract are void contracts, contracts deemed to be contrary to public policy for instance contracts to commit crimes,
illegal contracts, and contracts entered into when the parties had no capacity. Stinger Vs Minister
of local government
Contracts involving money payment are only enforceable where parliament has provided for the
necessary funds. Contracts which may
be in form of treaties are unenforceable in the domestic perspective unless they have been part
of municipal
law.
Characteristics
of government contracts
The contracts have usual attributes of private contracts e.g consideration, agreement, parties, terms
and conditions. There are
however, special features which
are common in government
contracts;
1.
They are normally executed by senior public officers usually a minister, permanent secretary or an ambassador especially if the country and public officer executing the contract on behalf of
government. Personal liability may arise where public officer has failed / refused to oblige with the applicable
law
and procedures.
2. They are usually executed after the tendering process; it is an open and competitive biding process.
3.
Entered on standard terms and conditions of contract, government sets terms and conditions and the other party usually accept in
a stronger position in bargaining position
and set terms.
TORTS
Section 3 of
the Government Proceedings Act (herein called GPA)
provides that subject to this Act and section 4 of
the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the Government shall be subject to all those liabilities in tort to which, if it were a private person of full age and capacity, it
would be subject (a) in respect of torts committed by its servants or agents; (b) in respect of any
breach of those duties which a person owes to his or her
servants or agents at common law by reason of being their employer; and (c) in respect of any breach of the duties
attaching at common
law to the ownership, occupation, possession
or control of property, except that no proceedings
shall lie against the
Government
by
virtue of paragraph
(a) of this subsection in respect of any act or omission of a servant or agent of
the
Government unless the act
or omission would, apart from this Act, have
given rise to a cause of action in tort against that servant or agent or his or
her or estate.
Section 3 (2) of GPA, provides further that, where the Government is bound by
a statutory duty which is binding also upon persons other than the Government and its officers, then, subject to this
Act
and section 4 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the Government shall, in
respect of a failure to comply
with that duty, be subject to all those liabilities in tort, if any, to which
it would be so subject if
it were a private person
of full age and
capacity.
Under section 3 (3) of the GPA, where any functions are conferred or imposed upon an officer of the Government
as such, either
by
any rule of
the common law
or by any
enactment, and that officer commits a tort while performing or purporting to perform those functions, the liabilities of the Government in respect of the tort shall be such as they would have been if those functions had been conferred or imposed solely by
virtue of instructions lawfully
given by the Government.
Section 3 (4) of the GPA states that any enactment which negatives or limits the amount of the liability of any Government department or officer of
the Government in
respect of any tort committed by that department or officer shall, in the case of proceedings against
the Government under this section in respect of a tort committed by
that department or officer, apply in relation to the Government as it would have applied in relation to that department or
officer if the proceedings against the Government had been proceedings against that department or officer.
However, under section 3 (5) of the GPA, no proceedings shall lie against the Government by
virtue of this section in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by any person while
discharging or purporting to discharge any responsibilities of a judicial nature vested in him or her, or any responsibilities
which he or she has
in connection with the execution of judicial
process.
From S.3 GPA Cap 77 above,
government
is liable in torts
under the following limbs;
- Vicarious liability
-Employer's liability
-Occupier’s
liability.
Vicarious Liability
It arises like
where
there is master and servant relationships; employer and employees relationships. Under vicarious liability, a master / employer is liable for the torts committed by his servants during the course of employment while in
duty.
Such
torts can only arise where a
servant is acting
within the scope of employment. Thus, where a servant of then state commits
a tort in the course of his employment, the servant and the state are jointly and severally liable. See section 3(1)
(a)
of GPA makes government
liable for torts committed by its
servants or agents.
What is scope of employment?
a) Scope means doing what is expressly or
by
implication authorised.
b) Doing
what is authorised
in a way which
is not authorised e.g. driving recklessly. c)
What is incidental or consequential
upon what is authorised.
In Muwonge Vs AG
(1969) EA7, Newbold P stated that ‘the policemen had been sent to quell a riot and the means given to them was the refile having found the riot going on,
one of the police
fired just like others. For that reason the use of rifles must have been contemplated by their seniors
and
thus the act of the policeman, was in the course of his duty and the government was vicariously
liable.’
In Piovano V AG [1972] EA, Court held that the test to be applied in such cases was that, the
wrong of
the servant must
be the natural result of his
carrying on his master’s business
or duties.
Mukwase Vs AG (1972) HCB 29
In Namwandu V
AG [1972] EA, court
held that at the
time
of the accident, the
soldiers were
acting on frolic
of their own and not doing anything for their masters as such, government could
not be held vicariously liable
for the torts committed by them.
Employer's liability
S.3
GPA provides that government will be liable for breach of those
duties which a person
owes
his servant or agents
at common law by reason
of being their employer.
a) Reasonable for safety in
employment
by
employing competent staff.
b) Provision of safe,
suitable
place and tools
of work which are appropriate.
c)
Provision of effective supervision
and system of work e.g. when injured at work, compensation
is provided for under
worker's compensation act,
an employer
has a duty to pay
Occupier's liability
Government as an occupier of premises is also under a legal obligation to ensure safety of those premises.
S.3 GPA makes government
liable for breach of
those duties which
under common law are attached to ownership, occupation, possession or control
of property and generally these duties
relate to safety
of the property
to invitees( people who are legally
there) or neighbours ( persons likely to be affected by that ) e.g.
nuisance.
Exceptions
to liability
Liability of government
may
in some cases
be limited in certain
circumstances e.g
1. Where under any
law,
the responsible officer of government is absolved from liability for a
particular act/ omission e.g. police officers are not liable when they
act in good faith in carrying out their duties
as under the police act.
2. Judicial immunity
which protects judicial officers who may act in a manner which
inconveniences other persons e.g. wrong decision. In Anderson Vs Gorrie, Court
was of the view that
no action can lie against a judicial officer even where
it is shown that the judicial officer was malicious or corrupt.
In AG Vs Oluoch, the Magistrate was sued together with the AG and police
officers for wrongful arrest and detention. AG challenged the
suit was misconceived because
it was brought against magistrate who had judicial immunity. Court held a suit could not be
maintained against a public officer who had
judicial
immunity.
3. Act of
state doctrine as a defence.
This
means that transaction between state and foreign powers can not give rise to any action/suit
under municipal law to individuals.
In Olle Njogo Vs AG, which involved the treaty
between British government and Masai county and British government challenged the suit since it was an act of state and can not lie in a municipal court.
Court held not acceptable to sue
state. In Katikiro of Buganda Vs
AG,
the State successfully plead act
of state doctrine relating
to 1955 Buganda agreement.
4. Torts committed by
members of armed forces, as member of the armed forces can not sue
government for personal injuries which are inflicted by another member of the forces while on duty.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
S.7 GPA provides all civil proceedings by or against the Government in the High Court shall be
instituted and proceeded with in accordance with rules of court and not otherwise. There are
however, a few exceptions which are mainly
contained in Civil Procedure and Limitation Act
(miscellaneous provision Act).
NB. To protect public
interest some of the important procedural matters include; specific procedures
which apply to government
not other entities.
1. Statutory notice.
S.2 of Civil
Procedure and Limitation (miscellaneous provision)
Act It provides inter alia that no
suit shall be brought against government, local authority or scheduled
corporation until a statutory notice of 45 days has been served. The purpose of the notice has been served to appropriate officer (Attorney
General) or the head of scheduled corporation or CAO in Local Government. The
requirement of notice are
based on the idea that on receipt of notice, government will make a decision as
to it's whether
it is necessary to entertain the suit.
The notice includes the substance of the claim, amount of money claimed or other relief and also a summary of elements supporting the claim. The section also provides that the plaint against the
government must
also include the clause specifically pleading that notice was
served.
DR. J.W. RWANYARARE AND 2 OTHERS -V-SATTORNEY GENERAL: MISC. APPLICA
TION NO. 85 OF 1993
The High Court held that in matters concerning the enforcement of human
rights under the
Constitution no statutory notice was required because to do so would result in absurdity as the
effect
of it would be to condone the
violation of the right and deny the applicant the remedy.
Historic
Resources
Conservation
Initiatives & Others v AG (decided in 2012)
The plaintiffs, filed a suit against the Attorney General seeking among other reliefs a declaration
that the proposed demolition of the Uganda Museum and a permanent injunction against the
demolition. It was averred that the suit
was barred in law
and
should be struck out because the defendant was not served with the Statutory Notice of intention to sue and the plaint did not allude
to such service.
HELD
That the action of the plaintiffs did not pre-empt any act of the Attorney General that would have
infringed on the rights of the plaintiffs and this case was not considered to be one of the exceptions where a forty five day Statutory Notice would not be required. The failure of the plaintiffs to serve
the Statutory Notice renders
the plaint incompetent
before this Court
Greenwatch V Uganda Wildlife Authority and AG
In this application the applicant sought an order for temporary injunction against the respondents
restraining them from exporting or relocating any
chimpanzee from Uganda to the Peoples Republic of China or any other place or country in the world. When the matter
came up for hearing, counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to strike out the application on the basis
that, the respondents were not issued
with
a statutory notice as
required by the
Government Proceedings Act
HELD Per
JUSTICE GIDEON TINYINONDI
I agree with
this requirement that the respondent usually
the Government or a scheduled Corporation
needs sufficient period of time to investigate a case intended
to be brought against it so as to be able
to avoid unnecessary expense on protracted litigation.
This rationale cannot apply to a matter where the rights and freedoms of the
people are being or are about to be infringed. The people cannot afford to wait forty-five
days before pre-emptive
action is applied by Court. They need immediate redress. They need a short period which is one
provided under the ordinary rules of procedure provided by the Civil Procedure Act and its Rules.
To
demand from an aggrieved party a forty-five days' notice is to condemn them
to infringement of their
rights
and freedoms for that period which this
Court would
not be prepared to
do.
However court
has held that
this requirement is not mandatory.
KABANDIZE
and
20 Ors v KCCA (decided in 2014)
All the appellants were employed by the respondent for periods ranging from 6 to 36 years on
permanent terms. On 1st April 1997, the respondent terminated the employment of all the appellants and paid them a specific package amount
specified in their termination letters.
The appellants were not satisfied with the payments received and claimed
the amounts paid were
less than that they were entitled to under their terms and conditions of service. They brought a suit
at the High Court
to recover their claim. The High Court Judge held that the suit was incompetent,
as the appellants
had failed to prove that they had served the respondent
with a statutory notice of intention
to sue as required
by
the above law.
The
appellants appealed.
HELD. That Government and all scheduled corporations are under no obligation to serve statutory
notice of intention to sue to intended defendants. On
the other hand ordinary litigants are required
to first issue and serve a 45 days mandatory notice upon Government and scheduled
corporations. That in view of Article 20(1) of the Constitution a law cannot impose a condition on one party to
the suit and exempt the other from the same condition and still be in conformity with Article 20(1) of the Constitution. Be that as it may, the Constitution must be complied with by according parties to an intended suit equal treatment and protection of the law. That Section 2 referred is not a law that
treats all persons equally before the law neither does it accord them equal protection.
That the requirement to serve a statutory notice of intention to sue against the Government, a local authority or a scheduled corporation is no longer a mandatory requirement in view of Articles 274
and 20(1)
of the Constitution, and therefore non compliance with that impugned Section 2 does not render a suit subsequently filed incompetent.
2. Suits against the government are brought against the AG article 119 of the Constitution. It provides that the Attorney General shall represent government in courts or any other
legal proceeding in which government is a party. Section 10 of the GPA, provides that Civil proceedings by
or against the Government shall be instituted by or against the Attorney General. Section 11
thereof requires that all documents required
to be served on the Government
for the purpose of or in connection with any civil proceedings by
or against the Government shall be served on the
Attorney General.
3. Suits against AG may be brought in any court which has jurisdiction over the matter in question.
The AG may however, apply for a suit to have the suit transferred to high court, if it is filed in lower courts
and
AG may make the application where there is an opinion that an important matter of l aw may arise from
that suit.
This is provided under section
13 of the GPA.
4.
Limitation periods relate
to periods in which an action must be brought against a
party. Under S.2 of Civil Procedure and Limitation Act, no action founded on tort can be brought against
government, local authority
or scheduled corporation after the expiry
of 2 years from the date of which the action was done. The
section also provides that no action founded on contract shall be
brought after expiry of 3 years
from the date on which the action
arose.
Other rules which give special exemption to
government relate to remedies and evidence. Remedies in civil proceedings may with a few exceptions be made available against government. However, there some remedies which are
not available against government as provided under
section 14 of the GPA.
These include;
a) Injunction .
b) Specific performance and
C) No remedy of attachment can issue against government property i.e. can not attach government property. Section 19 (4) of the GPA Cap77. It provides that except as is provided in this section,
no execution or
attachment or process in the
nature of an execution or attachment
shall be issued out of any court for enforcing payment by the Government of any such money or costs as are
referred to in this section, and no person shall be individually
liable under any order for payment by
the Government, or any
Government department or any
officer of the Government as such, of any such
money
or costs.
S.14
Civil Proceeding and Limitation Act, provides that an injunction, specific performance and attachment
can not be awarded.
S.19
of GPA provides for the state faction of orders against government where a
person has been
granted,
he can on application in that behalf made at any time after the exemption of 21 days from
date of the order
or in case the
order
of costs to be paid.
In the case of Attorney General v. Silver Spring Hotel Ltd.,
the Supreme Court stated that an injunction whether temporary or permanent could not lie against the government, the rationale
being that the government machinery
should not be brought to a halt and embarrassment merely
to satisfy private interests.
However, the courts shifted
position in the aftermath of enactment of the 1995 Constitution. Hence
in the case of Osotraco [U] Limited v. Attorney General,
where Ministry of Information employees had occupied and refused to vacate the plaintiff company’s property
at
Mbuya Hill, orders were sought for the eviction
from the property and a permanent injunction from occupation against the defendants from the suit premises. The court found that the plaintiff company was the
registered proprietor of the
property. On the
issue of whether
court could make an order
of vacant possession against the
government, Court stated that Section 15 (now
S.14) of the Government
Proceedings Act prohibited court from making any order for the recovery of land or property, and instead enjoined
it to make a declaratory order that
the
complainant was entitled
to such property.
The Court found that this provision ran counter to the spirit of the 1995 Constitution, because such a ruling would have deprived the successful party of the most appropriate remedy namely, recovery of his or her land.
Court noted that since
Section15 of the Government Proceedings Act had been rooted in the non-
immutability of state powers and immunities, Article 126 of the 1995 Constitution enjoined the
courts to administer justice in
the
name of the people.
Egonda-Ntende. J., pointed out that,
“If government is in wrongful
occupation of property, substantive
justice demands that it
be ordered to vacate. A declaratory order leaves a successful party at
the mercy of
government functionaries as to when he
is to
enjoy the fruits of successful action against government, for the
declaratory order
cannot be enforced”.
On
appeal, AG V Osotraco the state’s contention was that the learned judge erred in interpreting
the constitution, a duty that was reserved for the Constitutional Court only under Article 137. In
the lead judgment of the court, Justice Mpagi Bahigeine upheld the lower court’s decision, stating that the learned judge had not interpreted the constitution but was merely bringing the Government
Proceedings Act
into conformity with the 1995 Constitution
under Article 273.
d) An exparte judge can not be made in default of appearance of government under the Government
Proceedings (civil
procedure)
Rules.
e) State privilege in the law of
evidence S.121 EA
and 132.
They give the state
privilege in the law of the evidence, that public officer cannot be compelled
to give evidence relating to confidential government
public communication.
See
article 41 of the Constitution. See, Tinyefunza Vs AG
see
Zachary Olum
& Anor v AG Is it a justifiable protection of the
state? are they in line with art
41
In the case of Green Watch
(U) Ltd v. A.G and Anor.,
the petitioner claimed
that it had a right
of access to the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) pertaining to the proposed construction of a hydro- electric power dam at Bujagali Falls on the River
Nile. The respondents raised a number of
objections regarding the appropriateness of the application and argued that it had not infringed
the right since it was not a party to the PPA. The Court
was
therefore tasked to determine whether the PPA was a ‘public document’ within the meaning of Section 72 of the Evidence Act. The Court
described the elements of the right to information,
holding that the right under Article 41 did not
only envisage possession of the required information. Therefore, the fact that the state was not a party to the PPA did not excuse it from having to avail the information
sought. On this point Justice
Egonda–Ntende stated: “Article 41(1) of the constitution refers to information in the possession of the state …. The state does not have to be a
party to the agreement.”
In Tinyefuza’s case, Mulenga JSC noted that where the state
contended that the information sought
fell
within the ambit of the restriction
in Article 41(1), it had the burden to prove that the disclosure
of such information was likely to prejudice the
security or sovereignty of the state.
In Zachary Olum and Anor v. Attorney General, Court
was
concerned with the
discretion given to the speaker of Parliament
to grant or reject
leave to
a member of parliament
to use proceedings of the house in evidence before a Court of law under Section 15 of the National Assembly (Powers
and
Privileges) Act. Justice Mpagi Bahigeine considered S.15 to be prescribing a special procedure for accessing information in the possession of Parliament which was inconsistent with Article 41
of the Constitution.
CONTROL OF PUBLIC FINANCE
The constitution provides for management of public funds under Chapter 9 i.e. Articles 152 to 164. Article 152 (1) - a collection of taxes which is the major source of revenue other sources being
fees,
loans and grants.
Government Budget Process
The present legal framework for
budget formulation, execution and external audit is provided by
the 1995 constitution, as amended in 2000 and 2005, the new Public Finance Management Act
2015 (as amended), the Judicature Act 1996, the Local Governments Act 1997, the Statistics Act
1998, the Leadership
Code Act 2002,
the Inspectorate of Government Act 2002, the Local
Government Finance Commission Act 2003, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets
Act 2003 and Amendment Act 2011,
the Access to Information Act 2005, the Anti-Corruption Act
2009, Public Service
Standing Orders, the Local
Government Financial and
Accounting
Regulations 2007 and the National
Audit Act 2008
The Budget Act 2000 provides for and regulates the budgetary
procedure for efficient budgetary process. The Act defines the budget as a process by
which government sets levels to efficiently
collect revenue and allocate the spending of resources among all sectors to meet the national
Objectives.
The
Budget Act prescribes the budget information and timing that Government is required to
present to Parliament. The
Act
also regulates budget procedures within Parliament. The Constitution and the PFMA give the Ministry
of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED)
the mandate to plan and
manage public finances.
Article 153- states that there shall be a consolidated fund into which shall be paid all revenues and
other monies raised or received for the purpose of or on the behalf of or in trust for the government.
A consolidated fund is one which consists of taxes
and any other revenue payable to the State.
Article
154 (1) – no money shall be withdrawn from the consolidated fund except:
a)
To meet the expenditure charged on the fund by this Constitution or by an Act of Parliament
b) Where the
issue of those monies has
been authorised by an appropriation Act.
No money shall be withdrawn from the consolidated fund unless the withdrawer has been authorised
by
the Auditor
General. If the president is
satisfied, then he can sign for release.
Appropriations Act
This
law is adopted by
Parliament every year to authorise the Executive to finance goods and
services required by any ministry or government departments in the financial year in question. The
Appropriations Act once signed by
the
Head of State, finances the budget process for any one
financial year.
Vote on Account
(VOA)
VOA is a sanction
of Parliament
for withdrawal of
money from the consolidated fund to meet
the government expenses before Parliament approves the budget. It is not meant to last longer than 3
months. VOA is only on expenditures appropriated by Parliament and not on statutory
expenditures.
Appropriated expenditures must be debated and voted by parliament. However, statutory expenditures are directly charged on the consolidated fund by
the
constitution or an Act of
Parliament.
NOTE: Statutory expenditure requires
no
Parliamentary approval as
they are
already State
obligations, i.e. Public Debt, pensions salaries of
state officials e.g. Presidents, vice-President, Prime Minister, Chief
Justice etc.
Money voted by
Parliament under the Appropriations Act (the Budget) is to finance government services through the country. The law requires the Auditor General, when satisfied with the correctness of those warrants to give approval to those warrants before money can leave the
consolidated fund account. It should be noted that the right to authorise
public expenditure is vested
solely in Parliament
through
the enactment
of the Appropriations Act.
The Public Finance Act 2003
(PFA)
The Public Finance
Management Act 2015 was enacted to provide
for fiscal and macroeconomic
management; to provide for the Charter for Fiscal Responsibility;
to provide for the Budget Framework Paper; to provide for the roles of the Minister and the Secretary to the Treasury in the budgeting process; to provide
for virements, multiyear expenditures, supplementary budgets and
excess expenditure;
to provide for the Contingencies Fund;
to provide for the
Consolidated Fund and commitments against the Consolidated Fund; to provide for bank account management,
management of expenditure commitments, raising of loans by
the Minister, management of the
Government debt, authority to receive monetary grants and assets
management; to provide for the roles of Accounting
Officers; to establish accounting standards and audit committees; to provide
for in-year reporting;
to provide for the preparation of annual accounts and for the
accounting for classified expenditure e; to establish the Petr
oleum Fund and the collection and deposit of revenues into and the withdrawal of revenue from the Petroleum Fund and for the management of
the Petroleum Revenue Investment Reserve;
to provide for the role of Bank
of Uganda in the operational management of the Petroleum Revenue
Investment Reserve;
to provide for the establishment of the
Investment Advisory
Committee; to provide for the
financial reports,
annual reports and annual
plans of the Petroleum Fund and
the Petroleum Revenue Investment Reserve;
to provide for the sharing of royalties;
to provide for offences; to repeal the Public Finance and
Accountability Act, 2003 and to provide for connected matters.
The
PFM Act specifies the
budget calendar, the main contents of budget
documents, and the roles
of the legislature and the executive in
the
budget process
The PFMA and related regulations and instructions provides the legal framework
for enhancing
the internal control and management of public resources along with fiscal transparency
and accountability
The power to raise
external financial resources is vested in the Minister responsible for
Finance, Planning and Economic Development. Both the Cabinet and Parliament should approve all
external borrowings. Parliament is also required to approve all loans including
domestic borrowing
and any PPPs
with contingent liabilities.
Expenditure management is supplemented by a number of initiatives in physical performance
management. The Minister responsible for Finance, together with MoPS, MoWT and PPDA, now aims to improve service delivery
by holding Accounting Officers and Chief Administrative Officers
personally responsible for the accounting of expenditures.
Annual performance contracts are agreed
with top civil servants down to the
level of Heads of Departments to strengthen performance management and enhance transparency
and accountability.
The Auditor General
and the National
Audit Act 2008 (NAA)
This gives effect
of Article 163 of the Constitution of
Uganda- Auditor General.
Article 163 (1) and S. 4 of the National Audit Act provides for the appointment of the Auditor
General that he shall be appointed
by
the president with the approval of Parliament.
Article
163 (6) and S. 14 of NAA
state that the Auditor General shall not be under the control
of any authority.
Article 163 (3) (9) and S. 13 of NAA – to audit and report on public accounts of Uganda and of all public offices including
the courts, the central and local government administrations, universities and public organisations established by an Act
of Parliament.
Article 154 (3), S. 83 (2) Local Government Act (LGA) provides that the Auditor General as the
sole authority to give approval for any money to be withdrawn from the consolidated fund account, the general
fund account or any district account.
Public Accounts Committee (PAC)
This examines the Auditor
General’s report and enforces accountability of the officials of the
executive after detailed interviews.
Inspectorate of Government
Act
2002 (IGG)
Article 223 establishes the functions of the Inspectorate of government, while Article 225 (1) spells out the function.
S. 10 of the IGG Act
2002 gives the Inspectorate
independence in performance.
S. 14 (5) gives special powers to investigate, cause a legal
action where public office is
misused.
Leadership Code Act
2002
S. 8 provides for penalties. There
is no doubt that the imposition of a code of conduct on leaders
and
requirement of them to declare their wealth is a necessary
requirement in the fight against
abuse of office.
Ministry of Finance,
Planning
and Economic
Development
(MFPED):
The ministry is mandated to formulate policies that enhance stability and development; mobilize
local and external financial resources for
public expenditure; regulate financial management and ensure efficiency
in public expenditure; oversee national planning and strategic development initiatives
for economic growth.
The Ministry
plays a critical role in fulfilling the accountability sector’s mandate, covering
economic management (macroeconomic policy, financial services, development policy and
investment promotion, research and monitoring); mobilisation of resources (tax policy, debt
management, budget
preparation,
execution
and monitoring
and project
management);
and
accounting for the of
resources (accounting policy/management,
procurement
policy, and internal audit).
Uganda Revenue Authority
(URA):
URA is mandated by the Uganda Revenue Authority Act No. 6 of 1991 to assess,
collect and
account
for all Central
Government tax revenue (including non-tax
revenue) and to advise Government on revenue implications, tax administration and aspects of policy changes relating to
all
taxes as spelt out in the URA
Act.
Uganda Revenue Authority plays a critical role in fulfilling the accountability sector’s mandate,
mainly covering the mobilisation and management of tax and nontax revenues and specifically, addressing the
accountability sector
objective of
increasing the
tax to GDP ratio.
Office of the Auditor General
(OAG):
Article 163 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda establishes the Office of the Auditor
General and its mandate as detailed
in Section 13(1)
and
18 of the National Audit Act 2008 is to audit and report to Parliament on the public accounts of all public offices including the courts,
the central and local government administrations, universities and public
institutions of like
nature, and any public corporations
or other bodies established by an
Act of Parliament.
The Office of the Auditor General plays a critical role in fulfilling the accountability sector’s mandate, mainly
covering accounting for the utilisation of public resources through financial audits, value
for money audits
and specialized audits.
Public Procurement
and
Disposal of Public Assets Authority
(PPDA):
The PPDA derives its mandate from the PPDA Act, 2003. The PPDA mandate is to ensure the
application of fair, competitive, transparent, non-discriminatory and value for money public
procurement and disposal standards and practices; harmonization of procurement and disposal policies, systems and practices of
the Central Government, Local Governments and Statutory
bodies; setting standards for
the public procurement and disposal systems in Uganda; monitoring
compliance of Procuring and Disposing Entities; and building
procurement and disposal capacity
in Uganda.
PPDA plays a critical role in fulfilling the accountability sector’s mandate, mainly addressing the
accountability sector objective of enhancing public contract management
and performance.
Inspectorate of Government
(IG):
The Inspectorate is the lead anti-corruption agency in Uganda, mandated in three broad categories
under Article 225 of the Constitution as the Ombudsman (Mostly proactive); Anti-corruption
(Reactive and coercive); and Leadership Code (Ethics Body; proactive
and
coercive). The
Inspectorate of Government plays a critical role in fulfilling the accountability sector’s mandate,
mainly addressing the accountability sector objective of enhancing the prevention, detection, and
elimination
of corruption through the following
functions of the IG
stipulated under
Article
225 of the Constitution:
a. Promote and foster strict adherence to the rule of law
and
principles of
natural justice
in administration;
b. Eliminate and
foster the elimination of corruption, abuse
of authority and of public office;
c. Promote fair, efficient and
good
governance in public offices;
d. Supervise
the enforcement
of the Leadership Code of Conduct;
e. Investigate any
act, omission, advice, decision or recommendation by a public officer or any other authority
to which this article applies, taken, made, given, or done in exercise of administrative functions;
f. Stimulate public awareness about the values of
constitutionalism in general, IG activities in particular,
through
media
or other means
Uganda Financial Intelligence Authority (FIA):
The mandate of FIA is given by the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2013, which provides the
objectives of the authority as
to:
•• enhance the identification of the proceeds of crime and the combating of money laundering;
•• ensure compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering
Act, 2013;
•• enhance public awareness
and understanding of matters
related to money laundering;
•• make information collected by Uganda Financial Intelligence Authority available to competent authorities
and to facilitate the administration
and enforcement of
the laws of Uganda; and
•• exchange information
with similar
bodies whose countries have treaties, agreements
or arrangements with the Government of Uganda regarding money laundering and similar offences;
In fulfilling its mandate, FIA plays a critical role in contributing
to the achievement of the
accountability sector’s mandate, mainly addressing the sector’s outcome of sustainable macroeconomic stability.
In Conclusion,
there are many players in control
of public finance, which
include
the Legislature,
Executive, Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development, Auditor General’s Office and
Central Bank
Comments
Post a Comment