More transparency and a stronger role for parliamentĪlthough the defence budget is published each year, with the latest figure for 2014/15 hitting the 1 trillion Ugandan shillings mark, the allocation of these funds also needs to be disclosed. A committee to oversee the activities of the intelligence agencies should be introduced, and their recruitment process made more transparent. Uganda should prevent politically connected defence personnel from grabbing land and evicting residents without impunity thereby disenfranchising local people, many of whom do not hold official land titles. The Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs is tasked with oversight of issues pertaining to the defence sector, including corruption, but the heavy executive influence on this department ought to be limited so that it does not undermine its effectiveness. The Uganda People’s Defence Force Act of 2005 does not specify what counts as corruption or what provisions are in place to investigate or prosecute it. Uganda performs worst in the area of corruption risks on operations (Band F), which is particularly worrying as Uganda has soldiers deployed in both Somalia and South Sudan, alongside ambitions to (significantly) scale up its peacekeeping activities. Uganda performs best as far as personnel corruption risks are concerned (Band D), including good practice on public information about pay rates and allowances.
Uganda’s overall ranking in Band E places it in the very high category for corruption risks in the defence and security sector.