We must reject the idea that every time a law is breached, society is guilty rather than the law

breaker.

It is time to understand that each individual is accountable for his/her actions. As a public
administrator with admin law knowledge do u agree to the ascension that administrators should
really be accountable for their actions?

If so, what actions should be taken to those who failed to account their actions while performing
a public duty?

Yes, I firmly believe that public administrators should be accountable for their actions in the
context of Administrative Law, but certain realities in the Ugandan context so be critically noted
regardless.

Whatever the nature of his work, every public officer owes special responsibility to the
government of the day and general responsibility to the public at large. It is therefore, necessary
to understand his status in society. He is first and foremost a public servant. The state has
appointed him or her in order to serve the community. Apart from the general requirements that a
public officer be qualified diligent, efficient, honest and use his knowledge and experience to the
best of his ability, there are other principles which apply to him specifically and not merely as an
ordinary member of the society in which he or she lives:

NATURE OF ADMINSTRATIVE LAW

Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of
government. Government agency action can include rule making, adjudication, or the
enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public
law. As a body of law, administrative law deals with the decision making of administrative units
of Government for example; tribunals, boards, committees, or commissions, that are part of a
national regulatory scheme in such areas as police law, international trade, manufacturing, the
environment, taxation, broadcasting, immigration and transport. Administrative law expanded
greatly during the 20th century, as legislative bodies world wide created more government
agencies to regulate the social, economic and political spheres of human interaction.

Administrative law is a branch of law that concerns itself with the exercise of powers and
procedures of public authorities. Administrative law controls the exercise of powers by public
authorities and it relates to powers which are given to public authorities for purposes of the day
to day running of the affairs of the state, as opposed to general rules that may be written in a
constitution.

Administrative law relates more to the establishment of powers, functions and procedures of
public administrative officials and authorities but less to the laws which govern the country.
Public authorities are those institutions which exercise public powers and operate through public
officials and public authorities. For example; the police, permanent secretaries.

Public administrative authorities are charged with the implementation of government policies
and execution of laws. Public administrative authorities include the President who can be an
administrative official in appointments for example in appointing judges, permanent secretaries,
ministers, public servants, chiefs, directors of public corporations like Bank of Uganda,
Universities, Uganda Revenue Authority, local authorities, administrative tribunals etc.

Public institutions and public authorities are given powers which enable them to carry out these
activities. These activities affect the rights of citizens and there is therefore need to control
exercise of power given to public officials.

Good governance requires that public authorities be transparent, fair and should exercise
principles of justice and this can be only guaranteed by observing principles of administrative
law. In managing the affairs of the state, officials are expected to respect the rights of individuals
at the same time, public officials and authorities are also expected to uphold public interests.
This delicate balancing of private and public interests is usually within the domain of public
authorities. They are not expected to violate individual rights for the sake of public interests
unless it is justifiable under the constitution.

This process of balancing is an aspect of administrative law. Administrative law controls public
authorities in the following ways:

It ensures that powers, functions and responsibilities are carried out by the proper authorities.
This guarantees efficiency and also ensures that tasks are carried out by competent or
professionally qualified authorities.

It also ensures that correct procedures are followed in executing public tasks. The requirement to
follow laid down procedures guarantees; fairness, consistency, transparency, thoroughness and
effiency.

Administrative law also ensures that public authorities operate within the confines of the rule of
law. The rule of law requires that all public authorities are subject to the ordinary law of the land.
The rule of law also requires that there should be equality before the law. No person should be
treated differently because of socio-economic inequality or other inequality. It is a duty of public
authorities to ensure the rule of law prevails since they are confronted with practical situations
regarding the observance of the rule of law.
Public authorities are also required to give accountability, a measure of performance of public
duties, that is officers are accountable for their actions and are responsible when they abuse their
powers by way of reporting appraisals etc.

Administrative law also ensures that private individuals who are wronged by public officials get
redress from authorities other than the public officer under whose hands they have suffered. The
aggrieved persons may go to court to get private or public law remedies for example damages,
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition and certiorari.

Furthermore, administrative law also ensures that public officials are controlled by other public
legal institutions for example police, parliament, Auditor General, Inspector General of
Government. They also control public authorities by ensuring that they put in place principles of
natural justice. These are common law principles which have been developing to ensure that
there is fairness in the administration of justice. These principles apply even if there is o rule or
procedure that provides that they should apply.

Administrative law is about the process of reaching the decision concerning issues. It is not about
the correctness of the particular decision reached and not about whether a decision was reached
and not about whether a decision was correct or wrong.

Administrative law is not concerned with merits of the decision because it normally involves the
exercise of discretionary power i.e., making decisions on what should be done, when, how, by
who, etc. It is therefore not appropriate for the courts to interfere with powers of discretion
because to do so undermines the whole essence of giving these powers. A 3rd party such as court
will intervene when the decisions are wrong or correct; hence administrative law is concerned
with appeals about the way decisions are made and not appeals from the decisions themselves. 1

In summary administrative law aims at the following:

 Ensuing those public authorities exercise fairness in decision making

 Ensuring that public authorities do justice to all, without fear or favor.

 Ensuring that public authorities follow laid and established procedures.

 Ensuring that public officials are accountable, that is through elections, disciplinary
processes, legal suits, monitoring by Inspectorate of Government, criminal proceedings
and judicial review.

1
Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155
These objectives are summarized in Article 422, which says that; “Any person appearing before
any administrative official or body has a right to be treated justly and fairly and shall have a right
to apply to a court of law in respect of any administrative decision taken against him or her.”

Administrative law is broken into several interrelated parts. They are administrative rules,
regulations and procedures for government agencies and bodies; the scope of agency authority,
in particular individual privacy; and the enforcement powers of agencies. Administrative law
encompasses laws and legal principles governing the administration and regulation of
government agencies. Such agencies are delegated power by the state legislature to act as agents
for the executive. Generally, administrative agencies are created to protect public interest rather
than to vindicate private rights. Administrative is the body of law that governs the activities of
administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rulemaking,
adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda

In other words, administrative law concerns itself with checking;

 Illegality

 Procedural impropriety

 Irrationality

 Denial of natural justice

When administrators fail to account for their actions, it can lead to a breakdown of trust between
the public and the government. This can have serious consequences, including undermining the
legitimacy of the government and eroding public confidence in the administration of justice.

In terms of actions that should be taken against administrators who fail to account for their
actions, I believe that the following measures should be considered:

1. Disciplinary action: Administrators who fail to account for their actions should face
disciplinary action, including suspension, demotion, or dismissal.

2. Criminal prosecution: In cases where administrators have engaged in criminal conduct,

they should be prosecuted and held accountable under the law.

3. Financial penalties: Administrators who have misused public funds or resources should
be required to pay back the amounts misused, with interest.

2
1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda
 4. Restitution: Administrators who have caused harm to individuals or communities should
be required to provide restitution to those affected.

5. Training and capacity building: Administrators who have failed to account for their
actions may require training and capacity building to improve their skills and knowledge
in areas such as ethics, accountability, and transparency.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE

To ensure accountability, these are the legally recognized and diverse actions that can be taken
against administrators who fail to account for their actions:

Uganda has gradually moved away from the colonial laws which stipulated public servants used
to be employed at the pleasure of the state. Consequently, machinery exists under which public
officers may be disciplined and removed from office. It would not be true to say that public
officers in Uganda are removed from office at the pleasure of the President or the State.

In almost all cases, they are removed for “cause’’. Detailed Regulations and Public Standing
Orders have been made enumerating the charges that may be brought against a public officer and
the manner and procedure in which the charges shall be disposed of. In Uganda, the nature of
disciplinary proceedings will depend on two things, namely; whether an officer is pensionable or
non-pensionable and on the gravity of the offence with which he is charged.

In terms of actions that can be taken against administrators who fail to account for their actions,
the Ugandan Public Service Standing Orders provide for disciplinary action against officers who
violate the code of conduct. This can range from a warning to dismissal from service, depending
on the severity of the misconduct. For instance, in the case of Attorney General v. Major General
David Tinyefunza (1997), the Supreme Court of Uganda held that public officers are accountable
for their actions and can be subject to disciplinary action if they fail to account for their actions.
Similarly, in the case of Uganda v. Commissioner General of Prisons & Another (2004), the
High Court of Uganda held that public officers have a duty to account for their actions and can
be held liable for any misconduct.

Dismissal of an officer whose pension has vested, that is to say, he has reached retirement age
and has completed a requisite number of qualifying years’ service, should be used only in the
most serious cases; retirement in the public interest is more appropriate in all others. It is further
provided that, ‘’when disciplinary are instituted against a public officer, they should be brought
to a speedy conclusion, hence the Responsible officers and Appropriate authorities should treat
such cases as matters of urgency and make sure that submissions to the Public Service
Commission are full and factual, that events which led to disciplinary action are isolated as to
place and time and that any supporting written material is properly annotated and cross
referenced so as to facilitate speedy handling by the commission

Removal of an officer from office is not effective until the Constitutional act of removal is in fact
done and therefore be back-dated. In all disciplinary proceedings whatever, the rules of natural
justice apply. Those who handle the cases must be impartial and both sides must be heard. No
officer can, therefore be subject to any punishment without first being informed, in writing, what
he or she has done wrong and being given an opportunity to make his defence in writing.3

The legal safeguards include the obligation on the responsible officer to make preliminary
inquiry and submitting the terms of the charge or charges to the Solicitor-General for his
approval together with a brief statement of the allegations.4 Then, he must call upon the accused
officer to furnish in writing before a day to be specified by the responsible officer any grounds
on which he relies to exculpate himself.

If the accused officer fails to furnish a reply or if the reply is not satisfactory, the officer
preferring the charges is required to send the charges and the comments to the Secretary to the
Public Service Commission.5

If the commission is of the view that the proceedings for the dismissal of the officer should be
continued it shall appoint a committee of not less than three members consisting of public
officers one of whom should be a judge, a magistrate or person with judicial or legal
qualifications.

In appointing, the committee, the standing of the accused shall be taken into account. Moreover,
neither the responsible officer nor any officer serving in the accused officer’s Ministry or
Department shall be a member of the committee.

The committee informs the accused officer that on a certain date, the charges against him shall
be investigated and that he will be allowed, and that if the committee so wishes, will be required,
to appear and defend himself.6 If any witnesses testify against him, he shall be given an
opportunity to be present and cross-examine them. No documentary evidence shall be used
against him unless he has previously been supplied with a copy thereof or given access thereto.

The committee may allow him to be represented by a public officer or a legal practitioner and, in
any event, he shall be entitled to be represented. After the committee has concluded their
hearing, they are required to forward the report to the commission. The report must contain the

3
Regulation 44 (1) of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2009

4
Regulation 42 (3) of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2009

5
Regulation 44 (2) of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2009

6
Regulation 45 (5) 0f the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2009
opinion of the committee and a summary of their findings. The committee cannot make any
recommendation regarding the form of punishment.

The commission may, if it considers it necessary, refer the case back to the committee for
clarification or further investigation. It is only when the commission is satisfied as to the guilt of
the officer that it determines the punishment, if any, which should be inflicted on the officer 7.

With regard to misconduct which is not so serious as to lead to dismissal, the procedure is the
same except those certain steps are omitted. The charge does not need to have approval of the
Solicitor-General. The commission does not have to appoint a committee to investigate the
allegations. On the other hand, if the commission is of the opinion that the case ought to be
investigated it can appoint a public officer for the purpose and he would make a report
accordingly. In either case, the Commission determines the appropriate penalty to be imposed. If
during the hearing of this type of misconduct the Commission is of the view that it is a
misconduct which ought to lead to dismissal or retirement in the public interest, it is required to
discontinue the proceedings and to order the other type of proceedings which lead to dismissal or
retirement in the public interest to proceed.

The regulations provide for other proceedings for an officer to be retired from the public service
on the ground of public policy.8 Again, it is the responsible officer who initiates the proceedings.
He obtains reports of the officer concerned from the responsible of every Ministry or department
in which the officer concerned has worked. He must allow the officer concerned to consider the
reports and to show cause why he should not be retired from the public service. If the responsible
officer is still of the same opinion, he forwards the report, the officer’s own statement, and his
recommendation to the Secretary to the Commission. The Commission determines what action if
any, should be taken against the officer concerned.9

The regulations, further cover the cases where an officer is convicted of a criminal offence or is
alleged to have committed a criminal offence. In case of conviction the responsible officer, if he
considers it in the public interest may suspend the convict from the exercise of his powers and
functions and may direct that a proportion of the latter’s emoluments, if any, be paid to him
while consideration of the case is pending under the regulations.10

When charged, the officer’s case should be reported to the Secretary of the Commission but no
disciplinary proceedings should be taken before the conclusion of the criminal proceedings
including any appeal. Sometimes an officer may be alleged to have committed a criminal offence
but perhaps the police or the Director Prosecutions as to whether he intends to institute
7
Regulation 48 (1) of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2009

8
Regulation 46 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2009

9
Ibid., Regulation 46 (3)

10
Regulation 47 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2009
proceedings. If the latter does not intend to do so, the responsible officer consults the Solicitor-
General as to whether disciplinary proceedings should be taken against the officer concerned.

If the Solicitor-General so advises, the responsible officer refers the charges to him for approval
before the disciplinary proceedings are taken. Non-pensionable officers and daily-rated
employees of the government, and these include a high proportion of the subordinate staff; have
no elaborate machinery that would ensure adequate protection. Besides the accused officer being
told of the charges against him, given an opportunity to exculpate himself and the officer
preferring charges against him reporting to the Commission for action, there are no statutory
safeguards for him. It is true that an officer on non-pensionable terms with a service agreement
and one on contract would be dismissed and disciplined under the terms and conditions of
service. Nevertheless, there is a general view that these employees are not fully protected. It has
been said that the Public Service Act, the Regulations made under it, the Standing Orders and the
attitude of the Public Service Commission are so rigid and protective that it is almost impossible
to move from office, any public officer whose terms of service under the pensionable scheme
have been confirmed.

JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.

Generally speaking, most countries that follow the principles of common law have developed
procedures for judicial review that limit the reviewability of decisions made by administrative
bodies. Often these procedures are coupled with legislation or other common law doctrines that
establish standards of proper rule making. Administrative law may also apply to review of
decisions of so-called semi-public bodies, such as non-profit corporations, disciplinary boards
and other decision-making bodies that affect the legal rights of members of a particular group or
entity.

While administrative decision-making decisions are often controlled by larger governmental

units, their decisions could be reviewed by a court of general jurisdiction, under some principle
of judicial review based upon due process or fundamental justice. Judicial review of
administrative decision, it must be noted, is different from an appeal. When sitting in review of a
decision, the court will only look at the method in which the decision was arrived at, whereas in
appeal the correctness of the decision itself will be under question. The difference is vital in
appreciating administrative law in common law countries.

The scope of judicial review may be limited to certain questions of fairness, or whether the
administrative action is ultra vires. In terms of ultra vires actions in the broad sense, a reviewing
court mat set aside an administrative decision if it is patently unreasonable or arbitrary and
capricious. In India, the Supreme Court also recognized two more grounds of judicial review
which were recognized but not applied by English Courts viz legitimate expectation of
proportionality.
Judicial review is the process by which administrative action is held up to scrutiny by the courts.
At present, applications for judicial review are heard by the High Court, staffed by judges
experienced in this type of action. Judicial review has its own proceedings and procedures. In
particular, leave to apply for judicial review must be made within three months of the event that
is alleged to give rise to the claim.

For an application to succeed, the application must show four things:

 That an application for Judicial Review is appropriate for the kind of loss suffered by the
claimant, and there is no other better remedy open to the applicant.

 That the body against which the claim is made is subject to Judicial review at all

 That the applicant has sufficient standing to make that claim

 That the actions of the reviewed organization give grounds for review

In Lukwago Erias, Lord Mayor v Jennifer Musisi KCCA E.D (2011)11, Eldard Mwangusuya
J held that judicial review cannot be availed where there are other alternative remedies which an
aggrieved party can be redressed.

The applicant can ask the court to grant a number of orders. A Mandamus or mandatory order
that compels the reviewed body to do something; a prohibitory order compels it to refrain from
doing something, a declaration sets out the courts view on legality of a particular course of
action, and a certiorari or quashing order nullifies a decision and remits it for reconsideration. In
addition, the applicant can seek an injunction which is, in practice, similar to a mandatory or
prohibitory order.

In Joseph Mutyaba V Kiseka Sub-County LC III Masaka (2000)12, Wangutusi J observed

that both the orders come into play as a process by which the High Court restrains courts inferior
jurisdictions for exceeding their powers. While prohibition will restrain the tribunal from
proceeding further in excess of jurisdiction, certiorari normally requires the record or order of the
lower court or tribunal to be sent up to the High Court to have its legality inquired into and if
found wanting in legality to have order quashed. Certiorari comes into play when the respondent
is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. That for a body to be amenable to a writ of
certiorari, it must be exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, that is to say arriving at its
decisions after hearing evidence between a proposal and an opposition.

11
Civil Misc. Cause No.116

12
HC Misc. Appl. 27
Kampala University V National Council for Higher Education (2014)13, Musota J: “This is
an application for judicial review and judicial review is governed by Sections 22, 36, 37, 38 of
the Judicature Act and the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules. Judicial review is concerned with
prerogative orders which are basically remedies for the control of the exercise of power by those
public offices. They are not aimed at providing final determination of private rights which is
done in normal civil suits. The said orders are discretionary in nature and court is at liberty to
refuse to grant any of them if it thinks fit to do so even depending on the circumstances of the
case where they had been clear violation of the principle of natural justice. John Jet Tumwebaze
v Makerere University Council and 2 others.

The discretion I have alluded to here has to be exercised judiciary according to settled principles.
It has to be based on common sense as well as justice: Moses Ssemanda Kazibwe v James
Ssenyondo (2004)14.

Factors that ought to be considered include;

Whether the applicant is meritorious in his or her cause or whether there is reasonableness
vigilance without any waiver of the rights of the applicant. Court has to give consideration to all
the relevant matter of the cause before arriving at a decision in exercise of its discretion. It was
held in the case of Koluo Joseph Andres & 2 Others v Attorney General and I agree that:

“It is trite law that judicial review is not concerned with the decision in issue per se but with the
decision-making process. Essentially judicial review involves the assessment of the manner in
which the decision is made. It is not an appeal and the jurisdiction is exercised in a supervisory
manner, not to vindicate rights as such but to ensure that public powers are exercised in
accordance with the basic standards of legality, fairness and rationality.”

was summed up by Lord Hailsham St Marylebone in Chief Constable of North Wales Police
v Heavens [1982] Vol.3 All ER as follows: -

“The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment not to
ensure that the authority after according a fair treatment reaches as a matter it is authorized or
enjoined by law to decide from itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court.”

Ultra vires acts are acts beyond the official’s statutory authority. These are acts or decisions
taken pursuant to constitutionally void powers or acts exercised in a constitutionally void
manner. An act of a government agency is ultra vires if it is beyond the express or implied
powers conferred by statute. When a decision is thought to be ultra vires, the typical remedy is to
get a higher-level judicial body such as this court to assess and rule on it. If the decision has

13
Misc. Cause No. 53

14
Misc. App. No 108
already been made, the remedy is certiorari. If the decision is anticipated then the remedy is
prohibition.

The provisions of order 6 relate to the pleading of all material facts and the requirement to set out
necessary particulars. Therefore, an application for judicial review cannot support a claim for
general, punitive and exemplary damages. It appears the type of damages envisaged under the
rules could be special damages only. I am fortified by my decision, by the supreme court
decision in Charles Harry Twagira v Attorney General and 2 others Civil Appeal No.4 of
2007, Tsekooko J.S.C, regarding a claim for punitive and general damages, the Supreme Court
made a holding in respect of the incompetence of a Motion to support a claim for such a claim
thus:

“Prayer 12 sought an order that the respondents should pay to the appellant general and
exemplary damages for gross violation of his constitutional rights. In my experience at the bar
and the bench, I cannot understand how by his notice of motion the appellant would be able to
call evidence to establish such damages without filing an ordinary suit.”

In view of the nature of pleadings made by the notice of motion, no sufficient justification has
been made to warrant the award of any type of damages to the applicant. I will consequently
decline to award any damages to the applicant.

Appropriateness of judicial review

In general, judicial review will not be granted if the claimant has a private-law cause of action
against the defendant, for example., in contract, or has a right of appeal against a decision. For
some years, courts were ready to give leave to apply for judicial review where the right of appeal
or the private law remedy would be expensive or time-consuming. However, the rapid rise in the
number of applications led the courts to reconsider this approach, and it is now more difficult to
get Judicial Review where alternative remedies exist. However, the courts have not applied this
policy consistently.

As well as limiting judicial review to cases where there is no private law action, it is now
recognized that judicial review should be the exclusive procedure where it would be appropriate
at all. For example, if a claim is based on the contention that a public body has acted Ultra vires,
this must normally be pursued through Judicial Review. However, there are a number of
exceptions. First, it was decided in Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster FPC
1992 that a private action could be used if there were a mixture of private law and public law
issues at stake. Second, Wandsworth LBC v Winder 1985, establishes that a counter-claim to a
private law claim can be based on the fact that the claimants’ original actions were Ultra Vires.
This is so even where the counter-claim involves no private law rights and therefore not fall into
the category of exceptions covered by Roy v Kensington.

Whether the body is reviewable

Judicial Review will only lie against bodies exercising public duties. However, “public duties” is
not always easy to define and the scope of judicial review has expanded enormously in the last
30-40 years. The major first milestone was the decision in R v Criminal Injuries
Compensation Ex Parte Lain 1967, which held that a body set up under prerogative powers
was reviewable. Traditionally only powers set up under statute were considered to be reviewable,
because only these bodies would have their powers clearly defined. The next development was R
v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers Ex Parte Datafin 1987. The panel was not a body whose
powers had any obvious source; it had no statutory or prerogative basis. Nevertheless, it was held
to be exercising “public duties” for the purposes of Judicial Review. This determination was
made because the Panel had extensive powers, and those powers do not arise entirely from the
consent of the organizations’ it regulates. In addition, its decisions were not subject to any
effective appeal procedure. The Datafin principle gives the courts considerable leeway to deem
that a body is subject to judicial review. However, there are certain bodies that remain
unreviewable. First, an employer is not generally reviewable on employment matters at the
behest of its employees, even if it is a public body. Second, many occupational regulatory bodies
are unreviewable, particularly in sport. Third, private educational bodies are unreviewable in
respect of their academic policies, although state schools and colleges are reviewable. If the body
under question is of a class which is considered to be appropriate for judicial review. In
particular, there are certain bodies and individuals that are excluded by statute from the scope of
Judicial Review. Moreover, statute will occasionally attempt to “oust” the jurisdiction of the
court. The courts have been ingenious in their approach to oust such ‘ouster classes and have
often found ways to circumvent them.

Grounds for review

The modern expression of the grounds for review is to be found in Lord Diplock’s speech in
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for civil Service 1984, usually known as the
“GHCQ’’ case. In this case the Union was challenging the right of the Prime Minister to disallow
trade unions operating in the GHCQ- an organization involved in surveillance for national
security purposes. The court held that the PM’s actions were reviewable but, in this case,
interests of security supported his decision.

Along the way, Lord Diplock divided grounds for judicial review into three classes: illegality,
irrationality and procedural impropriety. Illegality covers cases where a body acts beyond the
powers conferred on it by legislation (ultra vires) and where a decision maker incorrectly informs
himself as to the law. Irrationality covers cases of exceptional unreasonableness15. Procedural
impropriety covers failures to comply with procedures laid down in legislation and, in some
circumstances breaches natural justice.

15
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesday Corporation 1948
REALITIES AND CHALLENGES FACING ACCOUNTABILITY IN
ADMININSTRATIVE SETTING

1. Corruption: Corruption is a significant challenge to accountability in Uganda and East

Africa. Public officials may misuse public funds or resources for personal gain,
undermining public trust and confidence in the government. For example, in 2005 and
2006, political candidates from the National Resistance Movement (NRM) used money
from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria to finance their political
campaigns.

2. Lack of Transparency and Accountability Mechanisms: In many cases, there is a lack of

effective transparency and accountability mechanisms to hold public officials
accountable for their actions. This can lead to a culture of impunity, where public
officials feel they can act with little fear of consequences.

3. Weak Enforcement of Anti-Corruption Laws: While Uganda and East Africa have anti-
corruption laws in place, enforcement can be weak or inconsistent. This can lead to a lack
of accountability for public officials who engage in corrupt practices.

4. Political Interference: Political interference can also be a significant challenge to

accountability. Public officials may be influenced by political considerations rather than
the rule of law, leading to a lack of accountability and transparency.

5. Lack of Resources and Capacity: Public institutions may lack the resources and capacity
to effectively monitor and enforce accountability measures. This can lead to a lack of
accountability for public officials who engage in corrupt practices.

6. Cultural Factors: Cultural factors can also contribute to a lack of accountability. In some
cases, bribery and corruption may be seen as a normal part of doing business or accessing
public services, making it difficult to hold public officials accountable.

7. Lack of Public Awareness and Engagement: Public awareness and engagement can be
essential to promoting accountability. However, in some cases, there may be a lack of
public awareness or engagement in accountability issues, making it difficult to hold
public officials accountable.

8. Inadequate Whistleblower Protections: Whistleblowers can play a critical role in

promoting accountability by exposing corrupt practices. However, in some cases,
whistleblowers may face retaliation or other negative consequences, making it difficult to
hold public officials accountable.

9. Political Instability: Political instability can also be a significant challenge to

accountability. In times of political upheaval or transition, there may be a lack of
accountability for public officials, leading to a culture of impunity.
 10. Dependence on Foreign Aid: Uganda and other East African countries may be heavily
dependent on foreign aid, which can contribute to a lack of accountability. Foreign aid
can prop up corrupt government expenditure, reducing the government's accountability to
its citizens.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is essential to hold public administrators accountable for their actions. When
administrators fail to account for their actions, it can lead to a breakdown of trust between the
public and the government, undermining the legitimacy of the government and eroding public
confidence in the administration of justice. To ensure accountability, disciplinary procedures
should be in place, including suspension, demotion, or dismissal, criminal prosecution, financial
penalties, restitution, and training and capacity building.

In Uganda, the Public Service Standing Orders provide for disciplinary action against officers
who violate the code of conduct, and the courts have consistently held that public officers are
accountable for their actions and can be subject to disciplinary action if they fail to account for
their actions.

Judicial review is also an essential mechanism for holding public administrators accountable for
their actions. The courts have the power to review administrative decisions and actions to ensure
that they are lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The grounds for review include illegality,
irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

In summary, accountability is a critical aspect of good governance, and public administrators

must be held accountable for their actions. Disciplinary procedures and judicial review are
essential mechanisms for ensuring accountability and promoting transparency, fairness, and
justice in the administration of public affairs.

In Uganda, East Africa, and Africa as a whole, there are several examples of the importance of
accountability in public administration. For instance, in Uganda, the Constitution provides for
the accountability of public officials through various mechanisms, including the Parliament, the
Judiciary, and the Office of the Auditor General (Constitution of Uganda, 1995).

In East Africa, the East African Community (EAC) has established a framework for promoting
accountability and good governance in its member states. The EAC Treaty provides for the
establishment of institutions such as the East African Court of Justice and the East African
Legislative Assembly, which are responsible for promoting accountability and transparency in
the region (EAC Treaty, 1999).
At the African level, the African Union (AU) has also recognized the importance of
accountability in promoting good governance and development. The AU's African Charter on
Democracy, Elections and Governance provides for the promotion of accountability and
transparency in member states, and encourages the establishment of independent institutions to
promote accountability (African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, 2007).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Constitution of Uganda (1995)

The Leadership Code Act (2002)

The Public Service Act (2008)

The Anti-Corruption Act (2009)

The Office of the Auditor General Act (2013)

EAC Treaty (1999)

The East African Community (EAC) Protocol on Good Governance (2012)

The East African Court of Justice Act (2001)

African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (2007)

The African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (2003)

The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) (2003)

The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (2003)

The OECD Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying (2010)

The International Framework for Court Excellence (2014)

The World Bank's Governance and Anti-Corruption (GAC) Strategy (2011)