DOCSLIB.ORG

The 3Rd National Integrity Survey (Nis Iii)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The 3Rd National Integrity Survey (Nis Iii) INSPECTORATEINSPECTORATE OFOF GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT Final Report THE 3RD NATIONAL INTEGRITY SURVEY (NIS III) October 2008 INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT Final Report THE 3RD NATIONAL INTEGRITY SURVEY (NIS III) October 2008 REEV CONSULT INTERNATIONAL APEX HOUSE NTINDA, PLOT 897 KIRA ROAD P.O. BOX 28224 KAMPALA UGANDA Tel: +256 41 287779/+256 772 40260 EMAIL: [email protected] ii INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT THE 3RD NATIONAL INTEGRITY SURVEY (NIS III) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The consulting team of the National Integrity Survey (NIS III) is greatly indebted to all organizations and persons who assisted in the execution of the task. Special thanks go to Her Lordship, Lady Justice Faith Mwondha, the Inspector General of Government, for the tremendous assistance and her commitment to the exercise. We are grateful to members of the Steering Committee chaired by Bageya Waiswa, Secretary to the Inspectorate; Jossy Jules Rwereeza, the Director of Education and Prevention of Corruption. Other members included: Barbara Magezi Ndamira (World Bank), Joyce Ngaiza (Nertherlands Embassy), Dan Muwolobi (Irish Embassy), Charles Magara (Danish Embassy), Byron Twesigye (UBOS) and Sydney Asubo (Ag. DLA/IG). The consulting team would like to further extend its gratitude to the Technical Committee chaired by Jossy Jules Rwereeza with members comprising: Adrian Kiiza, Byron Twesigye, Smith Byakora, Christine Mugerwa, Julie Kasasa, Salome Mwanja, Catherine Sekandi, Dorothy Kabugho, Fabith Tugumusirize, Judith Katusiime, and Beatrice Ariko. The technical committee provided invaluable support through field monitoring and review of the draft report. We are also indebted to all the District Officials in the country notably Chairpersons, Resident District Commissioners, and Departmental Heads for their support to the consultants in the execution of the survey. The consulting team is grateful to the Chief Administrative Officers, who played a significant role in mobilizing public officials and provision of venues for FGDs. The support and cooperation of Private entrepreneurs and Non Governmental Organizations is equally appreciated. The consulting team is also thankful to all the Research Assistants who meticulously collected information from households, Public Institutions, and Private Enterprises across the regions. Last but not least the consulting team thanks the respondents who sacrificed their valuable time to furnish us with all the necessary information. Any possible errors and unquoted ideas are the responsibility of the Consulting Team. Augustus Nuwagaba TEAM LEADER iii iii INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT THE 3RD NATIONAL INTEGRITY SURVEY (NIS III) CONTENTS Acknowledgements iii Executive Summary xiv 1 Introduction 21 1.1 Background 21 1.2 Synthesis of Corruption in a Historical Perspective 21 1.3 The Inspectorate of Government (IG) 2 Objectives of NIS III 2 Main Objective 2 Specific objectives of NIS III 2 1.4 Team Building 3 1.5 Developing Research Instruments 3 1.6 Preparation of the Inception Report 3 1.7 Recruitment and Training of Research Assistants 3 1.8 Organization of the report 4 2 Study Approach and Methodology 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Methodology 5 Household Survey 5 Private Enterprises Survey 6 Public Institutions Survey 6 Focus Group Discussions (FGD) 6 Survey Instruments 6 Data Collection 7 (a) Household Respondents 7 (c) Focus Group Discussions and Key Informants 7 (d) Secondary Sources of Data 7 Data Processing and Analysis 8 2.3 Limitations and Challenges of the 3rd National Integrity Survey 8 3 Findings of the Household Survey 11 3.1 Introduction 11 3.2 Household Respondent Profile 11 3.3 Awareness of the IG 12 Awareness about IG by Region 13 Awareness about IG by Rural/Urban Distribution 14 Source of Information about IG 14 3.4 Household Perceptions on Corruption and Quality of Public Service Delivery 15 Forms of Corruption most Prevalent in the Country 15 Main Reasons for the Prevalence of Corruption 17 Reporting cases of Corruption 18 How households pay bribes to public officials 21 Household experiences on payment for services 25 Household rating of quality of services provided by selected Public Institutions 25 iv iv INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT THE 3RD NATIONAL INTEGRITY SURVEY (NIS III) 3.5 Perceptions on Success of Actions by Government to Fight Corruption 27 3.6 Key Learning Points 29 4 Findings of the Public Institutions Survey 31 4.1 Introduction 31 4.2 Respondent Profile 31 4.3 Human Resource Management 32 General Recruitment 32 Gender Consideration in Recruitment 34 Induction of Newly Recruited Employees 35 Performance Appraisals: 35 Disciplinary Measures and Handling of Appeals 36 4.4 Financial Management and Procurement 37 Financial Management 37 Public Procurement 39 4.5 Ranking of Forms of Corruption in Public Institutions 39 4.6 Ranking the Main Reasons for Corruption in Public Institutions 41 4.7 Reporting Corrupt Practices and Complaint Mechanisms 44 4.8 Rating Quality of Services in Selected Public Institutions 47 4.9 Rating Public Institutions by Levels of Integrity 49 4.10 Key Learning Points 52 5 Findings of the Private Enterprises Survey 54 5.1 Introduction 54 5.2 Respondents Distribution 54 5.3 Respondents Background Characteristics 52 5.4 Human Resource Management 56 General Recruitment 56 Gender and Recruitment 56 Performance Appraisals 57 Disciplinary Measures and Provision for Handling of Appeals 57 5.5 Financial Management and Procurement 58 Diversion of Funds 58 Reasons for Diversion of funds 58 Service for which Private Enterprises pay Bribes 59 Public Procurement 60 5.6 Rating of Corruption in Private Enterprises and NGOs 61 5.7 Main Reason for Corruption in Public Institutions as Perceived by Private Enterprises 59 5.8 Ranking Forms of Corruption in Public Institutions by Private Enterprises 63 5.9 Private Enterprises Perception of Government Action to Address Corruption 61 5.10 Private Entrepreneurs Perception of Public Officials’ demand for Bribes 62 5.11 Private Enterprises Perception of How Government Regards Corruption 64 5.12 Opinions by Private Entrepreneurs on how Government can Address Corruption in Public Institutions 65 5.13 Reporting and Complaint Systems by Private Enterprises 66 5.14 Rating Integrity in Public Institutions by Private Enterprises 68 5.15 Constraints to Investment in Uganda as Perceived by Private Enterprises 69 5.16 Key Learning Points 71 v v INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT THE 3RD NATIONAL INTEGRITY SURVEY (NIS III) 6.0 Trend Analysis of Causes and Incidences of Corruption 73 6.1 Trends Analysis of NIS I (1998), NIS II (2003) and NIS III (2008) Results 74 6.2 Key Learning Points 80 7.0 The Anti-Corruption Strategy (2004-2007) 82 7.1 Introduction 82 7.2 Strengthening Enforcement of Anti-Corruption Initiatives 82 Achievements 82 Challenges 83 7.3 Strengthening the Coordination Function to Improve Effective Anti-Corruption Action and Facilitate Achievement of Objectives 84 Achievements 84 Challenges 84 7.4 Strengthening the Legislative Framework to address Corruption 85 Achievements 85 Challenges 86 7.5 Ensuring Increasingly Active Public Involvement in the Fight against Corruption 86 Achievements 86 7.6 Building Sustainable Systems and Institutional Capacities within Anti-Corruption Agencies to Address Key Bottlenecks that Hamper Effective Action 88 Achievements 88 Challenges 89 7.7 Enhancing and Sustaining Political Support at all levels in the Fight against Corruption 90 Achievements 90 Challenges 90 8.0 Assesment of Effectiveness of Measures to Reduce Incidences of Corruption 93 8.1 Introduction 93 8.2 Government Instituted Measures 93 8.3 Private Anti-Corruption Initiatives 109 8.4 International Best Practices in Fighting Corruption 113 8.5 Key Learning Points 115 9.0 Emerging Issues and Recommendations 117 9.1 Introduction 117 9.2 Prevalence of Corruption Incidences and Administrative Injustice in Public Service and Factors that account for their occurrence 118 9.3 Trends in Prevalence of Corruption 120 9.4 Challenges Facing Implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy and the Inspectorate of Government Corporate Plan 121 9.5 Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Measures to Reduce Incidences of Corruption 122 REFERENCES 124 ANNEXES 125 vi vi INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT THE 3RD NATIONAL INTEGRITY SURVEY (NIS III) BOXES 3.1: Apac District: Corruption Involving Creating Psychological Fear to Extort Money from Individuals 17 3.2: Local Expressions of Corruption 18 3.3: Bundibugyo District: Failure to Report Corruption Due To Fear of Retribution 20 3.4: Wakiso District: Frustration of the Public in Seeking Services 23 3.5: Kabarole District: A Case of Connivance between the LCI Officials, the Police and Human Rights Commission to Silence a Case 24 3.6: Wakiso District: Case Study of Corruption in the Police 24 3.7: Wakiso District: Rationalization of Corruption in the Police Force 24 3.8: Key Learning Points 29 4.1: Bushenyi District: Corruption With In the Police 40 4.2: Bundibugyo District: Corruption Within The Town Council 40 4.3: Sembabule District: Bribery in Public Health Units 41 4.4: Kampala District: Corruption In Kampala City Council 41 4.5: Kibaale District: Corruption within the Public Hospital 41 4.6: Key Learning Points 52 5.1: Key Learning Points 71 6.1: Key Learning Points 79 8.1: Key Learning Points 115 vii vii INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT THE 3RD NATIONAL INTEGRITY SURVEY (NIS III) TABLES 3.1 Household Socio-economic Background characteristics 11 3.2 Household Experiences on payments for Services 21 4.1 Distribution of Respondents According to Sectors 31
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Inspector General of Government and the Question of Political Corruption in Uganda
    Frustrated Or Frustrating S AND P T EA H C IG E R C E N N A T M E U R H H URIPEC FRUSTRATED OR FRUSTRATING? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT AND THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN UGANDA Daniel Ronald Ruhweza HURIPEC WORKING PAPER NO. 20 November, 2008 Frustrated Or Frustrating FRUSTRATED OR FRUSTRATING? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT AND THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN UGANDA Daniel R. Ruhweza HURIPEC WORKING PAPER No. 20 NOVEMBER, 2008 Frustrated Or Frustrating FRUSTRATED OR FRUSTRATING? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT AND THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN UGANDA ­­aniel R. Ruhweza Copyright© Human Rights & Peace Centre, 2008 ISBN 9970-511-24-8 HURIPEC Working Paper No. 20 NOVEMBER 2008 Frustrated Or Frustrating TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS......................………..………............ ii LIST OF LEGISLATION & INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS….......… iii LIST OF CASES …………………………………………………….. .......… iv SUMMARY OF THE REPORT AND MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS……...... v I: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………........ 1 1.1 Working Definitions….………………............................................................... 5 1.1.1 The Phenomenon of Corruption ……………………………………....... 5 1.1.2 Corruption in Uganda……………………………………………….... 6 II: RATIONALE FOR THE CREATION OF THE INSPECTORATE … .... 9 2.1 Historical Context …………………………………………………............ 9 2.2 Original Mandate of the Inspectorate.………………………….…….......... 9 2.3
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Corruption in Africa – a Comparative Study of Uganda and Botswana Dissertation
    Fighting Corruption in Africa – A Comparative Study of Uganda and Botswana Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Verwaltungswissenschaften (Dr. rer. publ.) der Deutschen Hochschule für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer vorgelegt von: Stefan Ittner Speyer, 2009 Erstgutachter: Univ.-Prof. Dr. iur. Hans Herbert von Arnim, Dipl.-Volkswirt Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Sefik Alp Bahadir Datum der mündlichen Prüfung: 18. März 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ___________________________________________ 4 I. INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________ 5 1. Object and Scope of Study ______________________________________________ 5 2. Structure of the Study_________________________________________________ 15 II. DEFINING CORRUPTION ______________________________________ 17 III. FIGHTING CORRUPTION ______________________________________ 26 1. Common Strategies Against Corruption__________________________________ 26 2. Criteria For Judging the Effectiveness of Anti-corruption Measures __________ 30 3. Difficulties in Fighting Corruption ______________________________________ 34 3.1 General Problems _________________________________________________________34 3.2 Specific Problems of Fighting Corruption in African Countries ______________________43 IV. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ANTI-CORRUPTION STRATEGIES IN UGANDA AND BOTSWANA_____________________________________ 50 1. Historical Background and Determining Factors of Corruption ______________ 50 1.1 Country Profiles___________________________________________________________50
    [Show full text]
  • The Republic of Uganda in the Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala
    f' THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [CORAM:KATUREEBE,C.J; TUMWESIGYE; KISAAKYE; ARACH-AMOKO, 5 NSHIMYE, MWANGUSYA, OPIO-AWERI, MWONDHA, TmATEMWA- EK1RIKUBINZA, J JSC} CIVIL APPLICATION NO 03 OF 2016 [Arising from Election Petition No. 01 of2016] 10 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS AMICUS CURIAE BY THE APPLICANTS HEREIN ARISING FROM ELECTION PETITION NO. 01 OF 2016. 15 BE1WEEN 1. FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATNE. 20 2. UGANDA ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS (FIDA UGANDA) 3. CHAPrER FOUR UGANDA 4. HUMAN RIGHTS NETWORK UGANDA 5. CENTRE FOR CONSTITIITIONAL GOVERNANCE 25 6. KITUO CHA KATIBA, EASTERN AFRICAN CENTRE FOR CONSTITIITIONAL DEVELOPMENT 7. LEGAL AID SERVICE PROVIDERS NE1WORK UGANDA 8. TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS 30 AND AMAMA· MBABAZI··············································.............•.........•....••.•.......•...••.....•.... -] PE'I'll'IONER 1 ; ,,'" ". } 1. YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI 2. ELECTORAL COMMISSION 3 .~A 'TIORNEY GENERAL ........................•.........•...............................•.....•....... ] RESPONDENTS 5 RULING OF THE COURT This application was brought by 8 applicants which are Civil Society Organizations. The applicants are non-governmental organizations and Civil Society Organizations. They were 10 accredited by the Electoral Commission as Election Observers. Some of the applicants are members of the Citizen Coalition for Electoral Democracy (CCEDU) and others are members of Citizens Coalition for Election Observers Network (CEON). The applicants are seeking leave of this Court to be admitted as V 15 Amici Curiae in Presidential Election Petition No. 01 of 2016, permission to file amicus curiae brief in the form of written submissions and filing any further materials that the Court may deem fit. The applicants are also seeking such further orders that this Court may deem appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation on Performance of the Supreme Court Made to the 18 Annual Judges' Conference at the Speke Resort Hotel, 19 – 21
    PRESENTATION ON PERFORMANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT MADE TO THE 18TH ANNUAL JUDGES’ CONFERENCE AT THE SPEKE RESORT HOTEL, 19TH – 21ST JANUARY, 2016 BY HON. JUSTICE JOTHAM TUMWESIGYE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT 1 The Hon. Chief Justice The Hon. Deputy Chief Justice The Hon. Principal Judge The Hon. Justices of the Supreme Court The Hon. Justices of the Court of Appeal The Hon. Judges of the High Court The Secretary to the Judiciary The Chief Registrar Distinguished guests, Ladies and gentlemen. Introduction. The Supreme Court of Uganda is a creature of the 1995 Constitution. It is established under Article 130 of the Constitution which provides: The Supreme Court shall consist of – (a) The Chief Justice; and 2 (b) Such number of justices of the Supreme Court not being less than six, as parliament may by law prescribe. The Judicature (Amendment) Act No. 9 of 2011 provides that the Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief Justice and ten justices of the Supreme Court. However, currently the Supreme Court consists of 9 members who are: (i) Hon. Justice Bart Katureebe, C.J, (ii) Hon. Justice Jotham Tumwesigye, JSC, (iii) Hon. Lady Justice Dr. E.K Kisaakye, JSC, (iv) Hon. Lady justice Stella Arach-Amoko, JSC, (v) Hon. Justice Augustine Nshimye, JSC, (vi) Hon. Justice Eldad Mwangusya, JSC, (vii) Hon. Justice Rubby Opio Aweri, JSC (viii) Hon. Lady Justice Faith Mwondha, JSC, (ix) Hon. Lady Justice Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza, JSC. Commendation Five of the justices who were recently appointed replaced: Hon. Justice B.J Odoki, Chief Justice Emeritus Hon. Justice J.W.N Tsekooko Hon Justice G.M Okello Hon Lady Justice C.N.B Kitumba 3 I would like to take this opportunity to thank the recently retired justices of the Supreme Court for their dedicated and exemplary service to judiciary and the country as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Officers Should Retire with Benefits- Museveni
    DIC JU IA E R H Y T U GAN DA Magazine Issue 03 | April - October, 2015 INSIDE: Judicial officers should retire with benefits- Museveni Meet the newly Hotlines to boost fight elevated Justices against corruption Judges pose with President Yoweri Museveni after a meeting at State House, Entebbe on September 2. NEW JUDICIARY COMMITTEES Judiciary Editorial Board What you need to know Dear colleagues and friends of the Judiciary, on June 11, 2015, the Hon. Chief Justice, Mr Bart Katureebe, inaugurated the Judiciary Editorial Board Committee. s chairperson thereof, I take this Our duties are to regularly plan, poor internal communication, a opportunity to introduce my review and approve the content of negative public mindset towards the Ateam which includes Mr. Gad- official positions of the Judiciary which Judiciary and many others. However, it enya Paul Wolimbwa (Chief Registrar), are intended for the public; enhance is our hope that with your concerted Mrs. Dorcas Okalany (Secretary to and sustain information sharing and effort, we can achieve what we have set the Judiciary), Mr. Eliasa Omar Kisawuzi communication within and outside the out to do. We keep our communication (Registrar/PRO), Ms. Jessica Chemeri Judiciary with the view to improving lines open for ideas and means on how (Senior Law Reporting Officer) and Mr. public trust and confidence in the to take our Judiciary to greater heights Solomon Muyita (Senior Communica- Judiciary; create general awareness and call on all of you not to take the tions Officer). about the courts in Uganda; oversee back seat. the branding of the Judiciary to improve DIC JU IA E R H Y T U Our mandate includes the enhancement its image and the production of The Together we can! GAN DA of effective administration of justice Judiciary Insider magazine and other by judicial officers and streamlining publications from time to time.
    [Show full text]
  • Jsc Last Sent.Cdr
    THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2015/2016 JUDICIAL SERVICECOMMISSION ANNU 2015/2016 THE REPUBLICOF AL REP UGANDA OR T Judicial Service Commission Annual Report 2015/16 Table of Contents Table of contents......................................................................................................................... i List of Tables............................................................................................................................... ii List of Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................................. iii Foreword.................................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... v 6 1 / 1 Chapter One: Introduction........................................................................................... 1 5 1.1 Background.................................................................................................................... 1 1 1.2 Vision Statement............................................................................................................. 1 0 1.3 Mission, Mandate and Functions..................................................................................... 1 2 1.4 Core Values...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Human Rights Report: Uganda
    Uganda Page 1 of 33 Home » Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs » Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor » Releases » Human Rights Reports » 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices » Africa » Uganda 2010 Human Rights Report: Uganda BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices April 8, 2011 Uganda, with a population of 32 million, is a constitutional republic led by President Yoweri Museveni of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) party. The 2006 presidential and parliamentary elections were marred by serious irregularities. An influx of arms continued to fuel violence in the Karamoja region, resulting in deaths and injuries. The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), which relocated to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2005, continued to hold children forcibly abducted from the country. The governments of Uganda, Southern Sudan, and the DRC continued military actions against the LRA in the DRC, Southern Sudan, and the Central African Republic (CAR). There were instances in which elements of the security forces acted independently of civilian control. Serious human rights problems in the country included arbitrary killings; vigilante killings; mob and ethnic violence; torture and abuse of suspects and detainees; harsh prison conditions; official impunity; arbitrary and politically motivated arrest and detention; incommunicado and lengthy pretrial detention; restrictions on the right to a fair trial and on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association; restrictions on opposition parties; electoral irregularities; official corruption; violence and discrimination against women and children, including female genital mutilation (FGM), sexual abuse of children, and the ritual killing of children; trafficking in persons; violence and discrimination against persons with disabilities and homosexual persons; restrictions on labor rights; and forced labor, including child labor.
    [Show full text]
  • The Republic of Uganda in the Supreme
    5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION NO. O1 OF 2016 (CORAM: KATUREEBE, C.J, TUMWESIGYE, KISAAKYE, 10 ARACH AMOKO, NSHIMYE, MWANGUSYA, OPIO-AWERI, MWONDHA, TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, JJ. SC.) AMAMA MBABAZI …………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 15 YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI ……………. 1st RESPONDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION ……………… 2nd RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………… 3rd RESPONDENT PROFESSOR OLOKA ONYANGO & 8 ORS………..AMICI 20 CURIAE DETAILED REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The Petitioner, who was one of the candidates in the presidential 25 election that was held on the 18th February, 2016 petitioned the 1 5 Supreme Court under the Constitution, the Presidential Elections Act, 2000 and the Electoral Commission Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the PEA and the ECA, respectively). He challenged the result of the election and sought a declaration that Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the 1st Respondent, was not 10 validly elected and an order that the election be annulled. On the 31st March 2016, we delivered our decision in line with the Constitutional timeline imposed on the Court to render its judgment within 30 days from the date of filing the petition. We were not, however, in a position to give detailed reasons for our 15 findings and conclusion. We found that the 1st Respondent was validly elected as President in accordance with Article 104 of the Constitution and Section 59 of the PEA. Accordingly, we unanimously dismissed the petition. We made no order as to costs. 20 We promised to give the detailed reasons at a later date, which we now give in this judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance of the Supreme Court for 2017 Made to the 20Th Annual
    PRESENTATION OF PERFORMANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT MADE AT THE 20TH ANNUAL JUDGES’ CONFERENCE AT THE SPEKE RESORT HOTEL, MUNYONYO, KAMPALA 21ST – 25TH JANUARY, 2018 BY HON. JUSTICE JOTHAM TUMWESIGYE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT - The Hon. The Chief Justice - The Hon. Deputy Chief Justice 1 | P a g e - The Hon. The Principal Judge - Honourable Justices and Judges - Your Worships the Registrars and Magistrates - The Administrative Staff - The facilitators - Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen. Introduction: Am pleased to once more share the Performance, Opportunities and Challenges the Supreme Court experienced in the year 2017. The Supreme Court of Uganda is currently housed in rented premises at Kololo, Kampala. The Supreme Court of Uganda is a creation of the 1995 Constitution. It is the final Appellate Court in the country. In matters of Presidential Election disagreements, Section 59 of the Presidential Elections Act, gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in the Presidential Election Petitions. To those of us who have had the opportunity to listen to the previous reports, it will be clear that, the narrative in many aspects remains unchanged. The reason is that the circumstances on the ground have remained the same 2 | P a g e especially in as far as the physical challenges the Court faces are concerned. Composition of the Supreme Court: The composition of the Supreme Court is laid out under Article 130 of the Constitution. It consists of the Chief Justice and such other numbers of Justices not being less than six, as Parliament may by law prescribe. Currently the prescribed number of Justices, according to the Judicature (Amendment) Act 2007, inclusive of the Chief Justice, is 11.
    [Show full text]
  • “Good Governance“ on the Stage
    A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/47800 Copyright and reuse: This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Performing “good governance:” Commissions of Inquiry and the Fight against Corruption in Uganda by Monica Twesiime Kirya Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Degree in Law University of Warwick School of Law Supervisor: Prof. Abdul Paliwala July 2011 Table of Contents Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... i Lists of Tables, Cases and Laws ............................................................................................. ii Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... v Declaration ................................................................................................................................ vii Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................viii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Full Report
    “Letting the Big Fish Swim” Failures to Prosecute High-Level Corruption in Uganda H U M A N Allard K. Lowenstein R I G H T S International Human Rights Clinic Yale Law School WATCH “Letting the Big Fish Swim” Failures to Prosecute High-Level Corruption in Uganda Copyright © 2013 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-62313-0633 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www. Human Rights Watch.org The Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic is a Yale Law School course that gives students first-hand experience in human rights advocacy under the supervision of international human rights lawyers. The Clinic undertakes litigation and research projects on behalf of human rights organizations and individual victims of human rights abuses.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Report Uganda.Pdf
    UGANDA Uganda, with a population of 32 million, is a constitutional republic led by President Yoweri Museveni of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) party. The 2006 presidential and parliamentary elections were marred by serious irregularities. An influx of arms continued to fuel violence in the Karamoja region, resulting in deaths and injuries. The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), which relocated to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2005, continued to hold children forcibly abducted from the country. The governments of Uganda, Southern Sudan, and the DRC continued military actions against the LRA in the DRC, Southern Sudan, and the Central African Republic (CAR). There were instances in which elements of the security forces acted independently of civilian control. Serious human rights problems in the country included arbitrary killings; vigilante killings; mob and ethnic violence; torture and abuse of suspects and detainees; harsh prison conditions; official impunity; arbitrary and politically motivated arrest and detention; incommunicado and lengthy pretrial detention; restrictions on the right to a fair trial and on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association; restrictions on opposition parties; electoral irregularities; official corruption; violence and discrimination against women and children, including female genital mutilation (FGM), sexual abuse of children, and the ritual killing of children; trafficking in persons; violence and discrimination against persons with disabilities and homosexual persons; restrictions on labor rights; and forced labor, including child labor. RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From: a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life There were no reports that the government or its agents committed politically motivated killings; however, security forces killed demonstrators, suspects, detainees, and other citizens.
    [Show full text]