By Brian Mugenyi
Open Uganda’s Local Governments Act (Cap. 138), and you will find a clear blueprint for grassroots governance. The law outlines the duties of local administrative units, sets firm limits on public authority, and defines how officials should be held accountable.
Yet, decades after Uganda introduced decentralisation, a critical question remains: Is the system delivering on its core promise? Has it truly brought government closer to the people while ensuring public funds are managed responsibly to deliver essential services?
As Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Local Government, Ben Kumumanya sits at the technical helm of a sector whose decisions directly affect millions of Ugandans. Public debate around his performance often generates fierce criticism. However, evaluating his stewardship requires stepping away from rhetoric and looking squarely at the legal mandates governing local administration, public expenditure, and anti-corruption oversight.
A Constitutional Mandate Under Strain
Uganda’s decentralisation framework is rooted in the 1995 Constitution and operationalised through the Local Governments Act. It divides power between political leadership—such as mayors—and technical officers like town clerks and Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs).
While President Yoweri Museveni’s decentralisation policy successfully transferred responsibilities to districts and municipalities, administrative gaps, negligence, and systemic corruption continue to erode public trust. At a recent ceremony at Kololo Independence Grounds, President Museveni reiterated his stance against corruption—a directive that requires local government institutions to aggressively safeguard public resources.
A key focus of Kumumanya’s tenure has been the systematic induction of local leaders, from Village (LC1) Chairpersons to CAOs. Training these grassroots leaders helps clarify their administrative duties and empowers communities to track local projects, identify service gaps, and demand accountability. However, the value of these inductions cannot be measured by workshops held—it must be proven through tighter administrative oversight, fiscal discipline, and tangible improvements in public service delivery.
The Legal Boundaries of Oversight
Critics often accuse the Ministry of failing to crack down on corrupt local officials. However, a fair assessment requires understanding the legal boundary between direct management and ministerial oversight:
- Section 102 (Local Governments Act): Mandates contract committees to report regularly on procurement activities, allowing councils and oversight bodies to scrutinise public spending.
- Section 105 (Local Governments Act): Empowers the Ministry to guide, inspect, monitor, and coordinate local administrative units to ensure compliance with the law.
These provisions establish Kumumanya’s statutory oversight authority. Yet, ministerial supervision operates alongside independent institutions, including Accounting Officers, the Inspectorate of Government (IGG), the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), and local Service Commissions.
Public commentary also frequently assumes the Permanent Secretary can unilaterally dismiss corrupt district officials. However, the Constitution strictly defines who holds disciplinary power. Under Article 188(2) and Article 200(4), the Public Service Commission (PSC) holds sole authority to appoint, discipline, and remove CAOs and Town Clerks. Demanding adherence to lawful procedure is not a defense of corrupt officials; it is a safeguard to ensure that administrative actions withstand legal scrutiny.
Holding Contractors Accountable
Focusing solely on public officials overlooks another key driver of poor service delivery: private contractors. When a local government awards a contract for a road, school, or health centre, accountability extends across the entire project lifecycle. When contractors deliver substandard work, abandon sites, or inflate costs, local authorities must enforce legal remedies, including blacklisting, contract termination, and financial recovery. Public officials who sign off on shoddy work must face equal scrutiny.
PS Kumumanya has repeatedly stressed that “People must take part in decisions that affect their livelihoods.” Active citizen participation remains the core engine of decentralisation. Ultimately, decentralisation is more than transferring administrative duties from Kampala to district headquarters—it is about ensuring that public power is exercised lawfully, transparently, and strictly in the interest of the Ugandan people.
About the Author: Brian Mugenyi is an investigative and multimedia journalist specializing in local government and public administration. He is currently pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and Mass Communication at Kampala University.
The post Reclaiming Decentralisation: The Fight to End Local Corruption and Restore Public Service Delivery appeared first on Watchdog Uganda.