EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF

PARLIAMENT IN THE PROMOTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE USE OF

PUBLIC RESOURCES.

BY

HARRIET KARUSIGARIRA

07/MMSPAM/13/051

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO UGANDA MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE

DEGREE OF MASTERS IN MANAGEMENT STUDIES (PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

AND MANAGEMENT) OF UMI.

NOVEMBER 2009

i
 DECLARATION

I, HARRIET KARUSIGARIRA, hereby declare that this is my original work and that it has never

been submitted elsewhere for any academic award or any other purpose.

Signed:

…..............................................................

Harriet Karusigarira

Reg. No: 07/MMSPAM/13/051

Date: ........................................

ii
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE

FOLLOWING SUPERVISORS:

………..…........................................ DATE:.............................................

DANIEL SSEKIBOOBO

UMI BASED SUPERVISOR:

………..…........................................ DATE:.............................................

SAM IGAGA IBANDA

WORK BASED SUPERVISOR:

iii
 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Karusigarira, for putting education first and my beloved son Alvin

Amani who makes my life complete.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My sincere gratitude and appreciation goes to various people who assisted me to conduct and

complete this Work. I am particularly indebted to my UMI Based Supervisor, Mr. Daniel Ssekiboobo

for his academic guidance that enabled me complete this study. I also wish to thank my Work Based

Supervisor, Mr. Sam Ibanda for the academic and professional support. His unfailing support has

always encouraged and pushed me through the challenging times.

My gratitude goes to Ms. Lillian M. Baite, my UMI colleagues especially Jane Katusiime who

continually helped me to improve this dissertation and John Mpande who gave this document a final

polish. I also wish to thank the staff of Parliamentary Development Coordination Office (PDCO) for

the support rendered to me during data collection. All the respondents that provided their valuable

time and input to this study are also appreciated.

Finally I thank my family for the love, support and prayers.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................ II

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................. IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... V

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................................................ IX

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONCEPTS .................................................................................................... X

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................................................................... XI

CHAPTER ONE: ................................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ......................................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................................................ 8
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY........................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.6 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................... 11

LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN SERVICE DELIVERY.................................................................... 11
2.2 CAPACITY FACTORS. .................................................................................................................................................................. 13
2.3 INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 FUNCTIONING OF OVERSIGHT INSTITUTIONS .......................................................................................................... 16
2.5 PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS ................................................................................................................... 19
2.6: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY ................................................................................................... 22
2.7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................................. 24

CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................................... 26

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.2 STUDY POPULATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 SAMPLE SIZE AND SELECTION ............................................................................................................................................ 27
3.4 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................... 29
3.5.1 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 31
3.6 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ............................................................................................................................................. 32
3.6.2 RELIABILITY................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
3.7 PROCEDURE OF DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................................................. 33
vi
3.8 DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
3.9 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................................................................. 34

CHAPTER 4...................................................................................................................................... 36
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATON OF FINDINGS ...................................................................... 36
4.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 36
4.1.1 CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 36
4.2 BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS ....................................................................................... 37

4.3.1. CAPACITY FACTORS AFFECTING PARLIAMENT’S ABILITY TO PROMOTE ACCOUNTABILITY. ......... 42

4.3.2 INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS .................................................................................................................................................... 46
4.2.3 THE PERFORMANCE OF OVERSIGHT INSTITUTIONS ............................................................................................. 51
4.1.4 THE PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS ...................................................................................................... 55
4.1.5 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION . .................................................................................................................................................... 57
4.1.5 ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC RESOURCES FOR SERVICE DELIVERY ........................................................... 60
4.1.6 OVERALL RATING OF PERFORMANCE. .......................................................................................................................... 65

CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................................... 66

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 66
5.0 INTRODUCTION:......................................................................................................................................................................... 66
5.1: SUMMARY: ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
5.3 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 75
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 77
5.5 AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................................ 83

REFERENCES.................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

vii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: SAMPLING TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................................................. 30
TABLE 2 LIST OF RESPONDENTS AND PERCENTAGE ........................................................................................................... 36
TABLE 3: AGE GROUP OF RESPONDENTS .............................................................................................................................. 37
TABLE 4: RESPONDENTS BY GENDER AND PERCENTAGE .......................................................................................... 38
TABLE 5: MPS’ TERMS OF OFFICE ..................................................................................................................................... 40
TABLE 6: NO. OF TIMES SERVED ON THE COMMITTEE .......................................................................................... 41
TABLE 7: RESPONSES ON C APACITY FACTORS AFFECTING PARLIAMENT’S PERFORMANCE ............................................ 42
TABLE 8 : QUALIFICATION OF MPS .................................................................................................................................. 44
TABLE 9 RESPONSES ON THE INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE PERFORMANCE OF PARLIAMENT
IN PROMOTING ACCOUNTABILITY ........................................................................................................................................ 47
TABLE 10 : RESPONSES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF OVERSIGHT INSTITUTIONS .............................................................. 51
TABLE 11 : RESPONSES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS ...................................................................... 55
TABLE 12: RESPONSES ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 58
TABLE 13: RESPONSES ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE OF ACCOUNTABILITY .............................................................. 60
TABLE 14: CORRELATION OF THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND ACCOUNTABILITY ........................................ 65
TABLE 6: MODEL SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 64
TABLE 6: RATING OF THE PERFORMANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEES .............................................................. 65
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: THE ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS IN PARLIAMENT ................................................................................................. 4
FIGURE 2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................ 6
FIGURE 3: PIE CHART SHOWING PARTY COMPOSITION OF MPS ........................................................................................... 39
APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: SAMPLE SIZE SELECTION BY KREJCIE AND MORGAN

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONAIRE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS
APPENDIX 4: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR OVERSIGHT INSTITUTION RESPONDENTS
APPENDIX 5: QUESTIONAIRE GUIDE FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
APPENDIX 6: QUESTIONAIRE FOR PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE STAFF
APPENDIX 7: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS
APPENDIX 8: QUESTIONAIRE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
APPENDIX 9 QUESTIONAIRE FOR MEDIA
APPENDIX 10: QUESTIONAIRE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY
APPENDIX 11: QUESTIONAIRE FOR CITIZENRY

viii
LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACCU: Anti Corruption Coalition Uganda

AG: Auditor General

APRM: Africa Peer Review Mechanism

COSASE: Committee on State Authorities and Statutory Enterprises

CSOs: Civil Society Organizations

DEI Directorate of Ethics and Integrity

GAC: Government Assurances Committee

IGG Inspector General of Government

IMF: International Monetary Fund

LGAC: Local Government Accounts Committee (LGAC)

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MoFPED: Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development

MP Member of Parliament

NGO Non-Governmental Organizations

PAC: Public Accounts Committee

PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan

PPDA Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority

PSIDP Parliamentary Strategic Investment Development Plan

TI Transparency International

UDN: Uganda Debt Network

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

WDR: WORLD Development Report

SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences

ix
 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONCEPTS

i)Accountability: The ability to cause public officials to account and to require them to be

answerable for policies, actions and use of funds (World Bank 2004). It is also an obligation for

public officials to report the usage of public resources and answer for failure to meet the stated

performance objectives (Armstrong, 2005).

ii) Capacity: The ability of the individuals, organizations and societies to perform functions, solve

problems and set and achieve goals.

iii) Corruption is the abuse of public office for private gain (World Bank 2004).

iv).The House: This is constituted by all the Members of Parliament in a session

v. Accountability Committees: These are part Parliament’s standing committee mandated with the

role of ensuring accountability of government. These are; PAC, COSASE, LGAC and GAC.

vii. Transparency: Is the free access by the public to timely and reliable information on decisions

and performance in the public sector (Armstrong, 2005).

viii. Good Governance: Is the efficient and effective exercise of the governance authority with

participation, interest and livelihood of the governed as the driving force.

x
 ABSTRACT

This study examined the factors that affect Parliament’s performance in promoting accountability.

It focused on the Parliament’s Accountability Committees namely Public Accounts Committee,

Local Government Accounts Committee and Committee on State Authorities and Statutory

Enterprises. Using qualitative and quantitative approaches the study findings indicated there is a

big relationship between the performance of Parliament and institutional factors that hinder its

performance. This includes multi party politics, independence and committee funding. The

capacity factors included the weak research capacity and capacity to perform value for money

audits. The Oversight Institutions that compliment the role of Parliament had challenges

including limited funding and lack of autonomy from the Executive. In addition, Public

institutions did not adhere to guidelines and financial regulations and fail to implement

recommendations made by Parliament. There was also limited public participation in ensuring

accountability. The study concluded that although Parliament faced challenges in promoting

accountability, its performance had improved due to the multi party political dispensation. The

study recommended increasing the research and performance of value for money audits, increased

funding to Parliament and independent review of the audit reports. Oversight institution

strengthening and independence was also needed. There was also need to ensure implementation

of Parliament’s recommendations and increase public participation to perform its accountability

role. This study complemented the studies already done on the performance of parliament but was

unique because it examined accountability as it is enforced under the new experience of a multi

party Parliament. The study helped to understand the interplay between Parliament and the other

oversight Institutions that have the legal mandate to promote accountability. The findings of this

study can be used for policy change to address the capacity and institutional bottlenecks of the

legislature.

xi
 CHAPTER ONE:

INTRODUCTION
This chapter explores the background of the problem of accountability in the public sector with

specific focus on the role of the Parliament of Uganda. It gives an overview of the factors that affect

Parliament in ensuring accountability for the use of public resources and justifies the need to

strengthen Parliament. The chapter concludes with a contextual and institutional basis for enforcing

accountability in Uganda.

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Good governance is a panacea for Poverty Eradication and one of the cardinal principles of good

governance globally identified, is the Culture of Transparency and Accountability. However, poor

accountability and corruption are some of the key issues that have been noted overtime to affect the

attainment of good governance and reported to be one of the biggest impediments to the world’s

efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals. It is reported that “Every year, over $ 1 trillion is

paid in bribes around the world, enriching the corrupt and robbing future generations” (UN Office on

Drug and Crime Control (UNODC, 2006) and Corruption on the other hand is an index used to assess

government’s orientation towards the provision of public services (The UN Charter; Shah, 2005). At

the regional level, Africa is reported to lose $150 billion in corruption (World Bank 2007)

Uganda on the other hand is reported to lose over $300 million in procurement related fraud (Global

Integrity Report, 2007). The high rate of corruption which manifests as lack of accountability is agreed

to be a governance issue and has an effect on public service delivery. It reduces the funding for public

services and the ordinary man is affected most with deterioration of public services like Public Health

Care, education, water and sanitation. The World Bank (1994) shows that corruption adversely affects

GDP growth by lowering quality of infrastructure, education and health services and adversely affects

capital accumulation, thus leading to income inequality and poverty.

To address the accountability challenges mentioned above, systems of checks and balances in

government structure have been put in place essentially to form a foundation for good governance. In

Africa, mechanisms for accountability by the state on public resources is in most countries provided for

in the constitution and enshrined in various African regional mechanisms such as the New Partnership

for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating

Corruption (2003) and institutions like the Pan African Parliament and the East African Legislative

Assembly. These structures are mandated to encourage good governance, transparency and

accountability in member states (Economic Commission for Africa, 2004).

Measures to promote accountability in Uganda have been a focus of the NRM government for the last

20 years. The 1995 Constitution of Uganda provides among others that ‘…all persons placed in positions of

leadership and responsibility shall, in their work, be answerable to the people, and all lawful measures shall be taken to

expose, combat and eradicate corruption and abuse or misuse of power by those holding political or other public offices’.

Other frameworks that are used to promote accountability include the Uganda Charter of

Accountability and the Anti-Corruption Strategy and the Public Finance Act of 2003.

In addition, Uganda has also put in place, oversight institutions to help in the promotion of

accountability. These include Parliament, Inspectorate of Government (IG) Department of Ethics and

Integrity (DEI); Office of the Auditor General (AG), Department of Public Prosecutions

(DPP),Uganda Human Rights Commission and Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets

Authority (PPDA). Institutional reforms such as decentralization that provides for Local Government

Public Accounts Committees and the civil service reforms were intended to consolidate the struggle

against bad governance and poor accountability.

In spite of these efforts, accountability is still a major governance challenge in Uganda. Sepuya (2003)

reports that the lack of accountability in poor countries like Uganda, is a historical problem for which

legislation has been in place as early as 1970 but the root causes have always remained untackled.

2
Transparency International (2007) ranks Uganda as one of the most corrupt countries of the world,

ranked 53rd out of the 163 countries. Similarly, the World Bank categorizes Uganda among sixty

countries most afflicted by ‘rampant corruption’.

The enforcement of anti-corruption measures in Uganda is said to be weak (National Strategy to Fight

Corruption, 2005). Media, AG and IG reports continue to document waste, fraud and misuse of public

resources highlighting a perception that the problem may not be the lack of resources per se but the

mismanagement of public funds and the unabated corruption which are crippling the country’s growth

and development. On the other hand, while efforts to promote accountability in the public service

emphasize roles and responsibilities of several actors, the potential contribution of Parliament of

Uganda has hitherto not been emphasized. This is despite elaboration in national legislation where the

entire organs of Parliament are mandated to promote accountability. Nonetheless, the previous sessions

tried to meet this objective through the committee system.

In the 8th Parliament1, accountability is enforced through four Accountability Committees that form

part of the 12 standing committees. These four Committees are; (1) Public Accounts Committee

(PAC); (2) Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises Committee (COSASEC), (3)

Government Assurances Committee (GAC); (4) the new Local Government Accounts Committee

(LGAC) formed by the 7th Parliament. GAC and COSASEC were formed by the 6th Parliament in 1996

while PAC is the oldest accountability committee established in 1962 by the first National Assembly.

These committees are comprised of members of Parliament and are headed and deputized by the

opposition members in order to provide checks and balances. (2006 Guide to Operation of

Committees).

The Accountability Committees have the following functions. PAC examines audited accounts of funds

granted by Parliament to meet the Public expenditure of the Central Government and the Judiciary;

1
8th Parliament running from 2006 to 2010
3
COSASE examines the reports and audited accounts, income and expenditure, and monitors

operations of Statutory Authorities, Corporations and Public Enterprises; GAC scrutinizes assurances,

promises and undertakings given by the Ministers and other agents of Government in Parliament and

reports on the extent to which they have been implemented while LGAC examines audited accounts of

the funds granted by Parliament to Local Governments. The functions for the other standing

committees2 are in the range of Oversight, Legislation, Representation, House Keeping and Advocacy

functions (Guide to Operations of Committees, 2006).

The Accountability role is Parliament is undertaken through the committee system and goes through

the processes shown below;

Figure 1: The accountability process in Parliament

1. Clerk receives Audit report from

222
22d
era
Auditor General & delivers to relevant

.
8. IGG investigates reported committees
cases
2. Report is scrutinized by the
committee. AG, CID/PAC & IG may be
11 called in to give guidance, detain and
7. Leader
.. of government business investigate issues respectively.
sends report to respective .office,
Accountant General & assures
implementation and follow up. 3. Committee makes
recommendations & a report is written

16. If adopted, it’s given to Leader of

.Government Business for executive to address
issues in report 4: Committee lays the report to the
5. Whole house debates & adopts main house(whole house).
/rejects the report

Adopted from the Guide to Operation of Committees 2006 and Krafchik (2003)

2
Other standing committees are Budget committee, Committee on Appointments, Rules, Privileges and Discipline,
Business Committee, Committee on the National Economy, Committee on Equal opportunities, Committee on
HIV/AIDS and related matters and Science and Technology Committee.
4
As shown in figure 1 above, Auditor General submits audit reports of public institutions to Parliament

through the Office of the Clerk to Parliament who further forwards them to the Accountability

Committees for scrutiny. With technical assistance from the Auditor General’s office, the accountability

committee scrutinizes the report can summon Accounting Officers (Permanent Secretary, the Chief

Administrative Office (CAO) among others) if there are queries. The committee thereafter makes a

report with recommendations and the chairperson of the accountability committee presents this report

to the main house which debates, adopts or even rejects the report. The report is then given to the

Leader of Government Business to ensure that the issues raised are addressed by government through

the relevant institution. The leader of Government Business then sends the adopted report to the

respective officers and to the Accountant General and copies to the Inspectorate of Government that

may do further investigation if Parliament recommends it. This is quite a lengthy process and the study

intended to find out if this process affected the committees’ performance in financial scrutiny.

Additionally, Parliament works with other key players in providing accountability oversight already

described above. Of these, AG forms Parliament’s major source of independent assurance. The AG

audits public sector accounts and reports directly to Parliament on the control of public funds and

property. The study intended to find out if the performance of these institutions affected the

performance of Parliament.

Parliament’s role is also complemented by the public to whom Parliament is first and foremost

accountable to. The participation of citizens is emphasized under the decentralization framework

through the harmonized participatory planning process. However public input seems to be insignificant

due to rigidities in the consultation and feed back process. The study will examine how public

participation enhances the role of Parliament.

From the above, it was noted that in examining the factors that affect Parliament’s performance in

promoting accountability, the interplay of roles and responsibilities of the above stakeholder entities in

5
the fight against poor accountability are considered. The relationship was conceptualized in the

following model which categorizes both internal and external factors.

1.1.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT

AFFETCT PARLIAMENT’S PERFORMANCE IN THE PROMOTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY

MODERATING
VARIABLE
Citizen
Participation
 Functioning
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
civil
FACTORS in enforcing accountability
society
1. Technical/ Capacity factors
and
 Expertise of MPs media
 Capacity building plan of Parliament
 Human Resource in the committees
A-Internal Factors DEPENDENT
2. Institutional factors VARIABLE
 Multi party Politics ACCOUNTABILI
 Funding availability Financial
TY and
 Independence of Parliament Managerial
accountability in
3 Oversight institutions the public sector
 Legal framework
 Independence of the institutions
 Funding of the institutions B-External factors
4 Performance of Public institutions
 Political influence
 Reporting
 Accounting requirements

Source: Researcher’s perception derived from the literature reviewed.

A=Internal factors (1&2) are the Technical /capacity factors and Institutions factors
B=External Factors(3&4) are the Performance of Oversight and Public Institutions.

The conceptual framework explains the relationship between the independent (IVs), dependent (DV)

and moderating variables. The framework also broadly explains the interplay of external and internal

factors and their impact on accountability. Such factors as capacity, skills base and capacity

development plan of Parliament, institutional development as well as management and administration

procedures influence Parliament’s ability to address accountability issues.

6
The study also examined the institutional factors including independence; poor funding and political

party allegiance in decision making that could be affecting Parliament’s performance.

This assessment examined the issues pertaining to the role of the oversight institutions such as IG and

AG that complement the activities of the Parliamentary committees. The study has assessed the extent

to which the oversight institutions factors of independence of oversight institutions, the existing legal

framework and the current funding levels of these institutions affect their performance.

Similarly, this study examined in detail the performance of Public Institutions that account for the use

of public resources approved by Parliament and how their performance affects the work of Parliament

in promoting accountability. These institutions include Line Ministries, Local Governments, Statutory

Authorities and Enterprises and all other public institutions.

The study considered citizen participation as a moderating factor that influences the functioning of

Parliament and the oversight structures. Citizens are mandated by the Constitution to exert

accountability of the use of public resources. The study therefore examined the extent to which citizens

influence the operations of Parliament through the activities of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and

the media.

The dependent variable (DV), Accountability for public service delivery is directly influenced by the

independent variables (IV) as shown in the model. The study examined both finance and managerial

accountability. The study looks at financial accountability as the verification of accounts to ascertain if

funds were properly utilized. On the other hand, Management accountability is ensuring that money is

spent as allocated and a given course of action is carried out. It also requires that there is value for

money and the intended results are achieved. The DV is influenced by the independent variables

already elaborated above, namely technical and institutional factors affecting accountability, the

performance of oversight and Public Institutions.

7
 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The issue of corruption and lack of accountability is one of the major hindrances to good governance

in Uganda. From the Transparency International (TI) Reports (http://www.transparency.org),

Uganda’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI) position was 117 out of 158 in 2005, 105/163 in 2006,

111/179 in 2007 and 126/180 in 2008. From the scale of 0-10, with the lower digit reflecting higher

corruption prevalence, TI reports indicated that since 05 and prior, Uganda fell below the mid-mark

with 2.5 in 2005 and 2006, 2.8 in 2007 and 2.6 in 2008. Most indicated cases were bribes from foreign

investors, falsification of accountabilities, procurement related corruption by public officials which all

undermine proper utilization of public resources and public service delivery (Transparency

International 2008,National Integrity Survey Report (2008). Accordingly, efforts have been made to

increase accountability and eliminate corruption through a number of strategies like the Public

Expenditure Tracking System (PETS), the National Integrity Surveys and streamlining Public

Procurement among others. In addition, Uganda has put in place institutions to promoting

accountability and these include, Inspectorate of Government, Directorate of Ethics and Integrity,

PPDA and Parliament. Among these institutions, Parliament of Uganda as the apex oversight

institutions is required to take a national lead in causing government to account for the use of public

resources. This is more importantly so in the present multi party political dispensation but in spite of

the impressive institutional framework, Parliament like other institutions continues to face challenges in

holding government to account. This research therefore isolated the factors affecting Parliament’s

ability to promote accountability in the delivery of public services.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1.3.1 General Objective

8
The overall objective of this research was to determine the factors that affect the ability of Parliament

to promote accountability in the use of public resources for efficient and effective service delivery.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 Analyze the capacity factors that affect Parliament’s role in promoting accountability in the use of

public resources

 Analyze the institutional factors that affect Parliament’s role in promoting accountability in the use

of public resources

 Examine the role of oversight institutions in facilitating Parliament to enforce effective

accountability for the use of Public resources.

 Examine the influence of Public Institutions on Parliament’s ability to promote accountability in

the use of public resources.

 To assess the moderating effect of Citizen Participation to exact Parliament’s performance in

promoting of accountability for public resources.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

 How Does the Capacity of Parliament affect its ability to promote accountability for the use of

public resources?

 How do institutional factors in the conduct of committee business affect Parliament’s ability to

promote accountability in the use of public resources?

 How does response of oversight institutions influence the ability of Parliament to enforce

accountability for the use of public resources?

 How does response of Public Institutions influence Parliament’s ability to promote accountability

in the use of public resources?

 What is the impact of citizen participation in enforcing Parliament’s role of promoting

accountability in the use of public resources?

9
 1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study was carried out in Kampala, the seat of the Parliament of Uganda. It covered the activities of

the 8th Parliament between the period of May 2006 and May 2009.This period was selected because this

Multi Party Parliament started in May 2006 and the research time could only allow a review up to May

2009. This was seen to be adequate time to review Parliament’s performance. The study focused on

the three Accountability Committees namely; the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Committee on

Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) and the Local Government

Accounts Committee (LGAC). These committees specifically carry out the accountability function with

a direct impact on provision of public services. GAC was not a focus on in this study because its role

is different from the other three Accountability Committees as earlier noted in the introduction section.

The study also assessed the activities of two oversight institutions namely; Auditor General and the

Inspectorate of Government. The aim was to highlight their role in the functioning of Parliament.

1.6 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

Parliament has a special mandate to enforce accountability in the use of public resources. However,

there has not been a study to specifically evaluate its performance and its influence in exacting

accountability in the use of public resources has always been a subject of debate. This analysis of the

factors that affect Parliament’s performance in ensuring public sector accountability was therefore

important to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of Parliament as a key gatekeeper institution charged

with monitoring implementation of the national budget. This enabled the Researcher to propose

mechanisms to strengthen Parliament and other oversight institutions to offer the much desired

function of minimizing loss or completely eliminating graft in the public sector. This would

consequently improve public service delivery and efficient use of public resources.

10
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction
This chapter details the review of related literature of the concepts which were derived from the

objectives of the study. It assesses the studies that have been undertaken on accountability in the public

sector in relation to the identified variables. It also defines and describes the concepts and presents the

linkage between them. The literature is presented under the themes below;

2.1 Accountability and Transparency in service delivery

Accountability is described as the obligation on the part of public officials to report the usage of public

resources and answer for failure to meet the stated performance objectives (Armstrong,

2005).Accountability involves organizations and individuals, being responsible for their decisions and

actions. It subscribes to appropriate external scrutiny and requires making amends for any fault and

taking steps to prevent its recurrence in the future (Cachalia, 2001).

Transparency on the other hand is defined as the free access by the public to timely and reliable

information on decisions and performance in the public sector (Armstrong 2005).Therefore, where

there is a high level of accountability, there must be a transparent system and vice versa. Accountability

and transparency are therefore surmised to include answerability, responsiveness, openness, public

trust, efficient management, participation and are a means of using available resources to achieve better

value for money in the public sector. This study looks at transparency as a component of accountability

which ultimately is a virtue of public service delivery. Public service delivery is considered to entail

concepts such as availability, accessibility, morality and efficiency, quantity of outputs, equity (fairness),

outcomes and consumer satisfaction (Ruzindana, 1989). This study assesses accountability and

transparency in the broad concept of delivery of public goods and focuses on Parliament’s mandate to

enforce compliance to public accountability guidelines with a key consequence of promoting efficiency

and effectiveness in the delivery of public services.

11
Accountability is categorized differently by Scholars in this area. Schacter (2005) differentiates between

horizontal and vertical accountability. With horizontal accountability, government is accounting to its

public oversight institutions such as the Legislature, Judiciary, Human Rights, Ombudsmen, Audit

agencies, anti corruption bodies, etc. On the other hand, with vertical accountability, government is

accounting to its citizens through the electoral process, civil society or the media. Vertical

accountability can also be through Civil Societies organizing themselves to lobby government and

demand for explanations (Jenkins, 2005).

Day and Klein (1987) distinguish accountability in three components namely; Financial, Managerial and

Political accountability. Financial Accountability refers to proper management of books of accounts

whereas Managerial Accountability refers to making those with delegated authority answerable for

carrying out agreed tasks in accordance to the agreed criteria of performance. This entails following

appropriate rules, achieving value for money in use of resources and ensuring that a given course of

action has achieved its intended results.

It can be said following the above description that financial accountability is reinforced by managerial

accountability. However, the emphasis seemed to be more on ensuring financial accountability while

neglecting the managerial accountability (Paul 2002). This was a shortcoming to realizing full

compliance and benefit from accountability overall.

Political accountability also termed as Public/Social accountability is where those with delegated

authority carry out tasks on behalf of fellow citizens and answer for their actions to the people (Paul,

2002, World Bank 2007). Shah (2005), further states that public officials have a duty to be responsive

and account for their actions to their managers, who in turn account to the legislature and the

executive. Accordingly, this study considered social/political accountability to be implied under

managerial and financial accountability.

12
On the other hand, one has to bear in mind the relationship between lack of accountability and

corruption. Sepuya (2003) defines corruption as the conduct or practice by a public official that is in

blatant violation of the existing rules and procedures for the realization of personal or group gains.

Corruption involves conflict of interest, nepotism, fraud, embezzlement and misuse of public funds

(Uganda Constitution 2005). In this regard, corruption is a consequence and a cause of poor

accountability.

This study considers financial and managerial accountability as integral aspects that broadly explain

accountability in the public sector. This definition though does not consider accountability issues in the

private sector which is an equally large sector that affects significant operations in the national

economy. It is also not easy to see from this concept definition, the linkage between accountability and

service delivery.

From the above analysis, this study aimed to establish the factors that affect Parliament in performing

its role in promoting financial and managerial accountability. These factors are categorized as Internal

factors (Capacity factors and Institutional Factors) and External factors (performance of oversight

institutions and Public Institutions). The linkage of these factors to accountability is elaborated in the

sections below.

2.2 Capacity factors and the promotion of accountability for public service delivery.
Studies have shown that there can never be democracy, transparency or accountability without a well

functioning system of Parliament (UNDP 2005). Parliaments in the worldover play an important role in

ensuring that resources received are properly utilized and government programs address people’s needs

in a timely manner (Marcia 2006).

As seen, a competent and well grounded Parliament is a critical strength for addressing accountability

issues. Studies have however shown that despite setting minimum qualification standards (A-level

certificate for Ugandan MPs), Parliaments usually end up with less qualified Parliamentarians with

13
limited skill and intellectual competence and cannot harness the highly technical business of

scrutinizing government financial and audit reports. Performance is further jeopardized by lack of

research skills, lack of research facilities, weak technical ability to scrutinize complex matters presented

by the Executive, lack of research assistants or access to relevant information (Human Development

Report (HDR) 2002; Short, 2005; ECA 2006). Short (2005) further contends that as Parliamentary

business becomes more technical with progression of business, some MPs tend to lack the expertise to

exercise their oversight responsibilities in many areas.

It is also reported that even for well developed Parliaments, Governments’ financial arrangements and

reporting are extremely complex. Consequently, there is difficulty in understanding the various

reporting documents and also following through from planned to actual expenditure and what has been

achieved (House of Commons Liaison Committee Report (2007). The above observations imply that

unless there is continuous skills development, MPS may fail to understand and grasp their

accountability and oversight roles that may sometimes be complex.

According to Said et al (2006), national assemblies can do better if relevant committees are trained in

investigative research, research infrastructure is fully provided and developed and knowledge

management framework is promoted in Parliament. A well functioning information relay system and

resource centre must facilitate each MP to harness a broad range of competencies through a

continuous process of exposure.

Parliament in Africa can effectively perform its roles if capacity is augmented through targeted on-job

skills development measures. However, it is noted that even with a highly skilled legislature, very little

may be attained if key institutional bottlenecks remain unchallenged. Institutional bottlenecks

manifested as weak structures, disharmony, and patronage lack of control and a host of organizational

rigidities.

14
 2.3 Institutional factors and the promotion of accountability in service delivery
Institutional development refers to strengthening internal functioning of an organization by

modernization of its entities, systems and processes (UNDP 2005). Researchers and development

theorists have underlined the importance of building institutional capacity as a prerequisite for attaining

good return on investments. Further, good institutional capacity is directly associated with cost-

effectiveness of investment choices (Lusthaus et al, 1995). The institutional factors that facilitate

performance of Parliament include independence of legislators to act with no duress, impact of political

party allegiance and financing of committee operations.

Parliament plays a role in holding the Executive to account. However, Parliament ought to discharge its

constitutional responsibilities free from government interference (Common Wealth Parliamentary

Association, 2005). According to UNDP (2005), Parliament must be constitutionally empowered

through the separation of powers to operate within an effective system of checks and balances. It is

however observed that choosing the Executive from the Legislature tends to erode the separation of

powers and hampers effective oversight especially under multi party dispensation. In this regard,

members of the party in power may be reluctant to compromise party allegiance by holding

government accountable. (Kituo Cha Katiba, 2005, the APRM Country Self Assessment Report and

Governance Programme of Action, 2007). Cachalia (2001) notes the over-emphasis of party discipline

in Multi party Parliaments that can weaken the Legislature leading to less transparent and accountable

governments. He nonetheless points out that the oversight function can promote cooperation between

the Executive and Legislature over service delivery and it should be promoted accordingly.

The above arguments also indirectly point to the shift in power relations between the Legislature and

the Executive arm of Government with the former being more answerable to the Executive instead of

the executive being answerable to Parliament. It is also not clear if election of opposition leaders to

head Accountability Committees augments independence of Parliament in any way in Uganda just like

15
it is in other developing countries. This study examined this relationship in order to draw new lines on

the relationship between party allegiance and Parliamentary Committee performance.

Funding of Parliament is another factor that may affect its performance. According to Short (2005),

Parliament needs adequate resources to perform effectively and be able to undertake investigations and

accountability related research. It is further argued that a financially constrained Parliament cannot

scrutinize the Executive or hold it accountable for its actions. In this case Parliament is not able to

question the Executive if it limits fund available for research or committee work

On the other hand, as observed by Short (2005), for Parliament to perform its functions it must

possess the clout and power to follow up on its recommendations. However, under the existing

circumstances, there is no requirement for the Executive to respond to the recommendations made by

the oversight committees (Kituo Cha Katiba, 2005). Therefore the Executive ends up taking advantage

of the committee findings thereby weakening their authority (The National Democratic Institute for

Democratic Affairs (2007).

Overall, Parliament’s ability is influenced by individual level and institution wide factors that weaken

their position in exacting accountability from not only the accounting officers of government but

largely from the ever powerful executive arm of government. Under multi-party dispensation, the role

of Parliament may be further compromised due to complexities of party allegiance.

2.4 Functioning of Oversight institutions and accountability

According to Gadroon et al (2001) and Short (2005), oversight agencies complement committee work

especially in calling the Executive to account. They too are key instruments in strengthening

governance. The independent oversight institutions that supplement the effectiveness of Parliamentary

oversight are identified as Ombudsman, Electoral Institutions, Human Rights Institution, and Auditor

General (Short, 2005, Schacter 2001, Transparency International, 2006). Schacter (2005), underlines the

relevance of oversight institution in terms of their ability to hold the state and its officials accountable

16
for their actions. He however warns that this must be institutionalized to seal their effect (p.231).

Jenkins (2005) however observes that although the oversight institutions have mandate to keep a

watchful eye on the performance of the Executive, this usually does not happen.

Schacter (op cit) complements Jenkins conclusion that direct accountability to citizens via the ballot

box should be accompanied by the State’s willingness to restrain itself by creating and sustaining

independent public institutions empowered to check its own abuses and inefficiencies and when

circumstances allow to impose penalties for improper or illegal activity. This accountability of the state

to its own public institutions is what Schacter refers to as horizontal accountability.

One of the key oversight institutions that complement the role of Parliament is the Office of the

Auditor General (OAG). It is observed by Short (2005) that Supreme Audit bodies are responsible for

auditing all public sector accounts to ensure money disbursed is spent well and for the intended

purpose. It is however noted by Jenkins (2005) that these supreme audit bodies face a crisis of

confidence whereby they fail to portray the specific accountability issued for fear of donor withdrawal

and pressure from government. In the end, accountability is made to external donors rather than to the

domestic institutions such as the Auditor General and Parliament. Jenkins terms this as; de facto

accountability which subverts formal reinstraints on the exercise of power and affects the role of the

institutions of accountability.

According to Funnel (in Gendron et al, 2001), the legislature’s ability to control the executive depends

heavily on the State Auditor, who ensures that it is informed of the executive’s activities. Krafchik

(2003) sees the relationship of Parliament and the Auditor General as a relationship of mutual

independence. Krafchik further argues that the AG has to balance the relationship with Parliament and

should maintain independence and objectivity from Parliamentary concerns. Too close a relationship

with Parliament creates the danger that uncomfortable audit findings may be sidelined or ignored while

17
too distant a relationship denies the OAG a powerful ally for effecting the recommendations emanating

from the audit.

Inversely, the establishment of oversight institutions should not be seen to necessarily guarantee their

effectiveness in promoting good governance and accountability. Analysts remain cynical about their

effectiveness and public legitimacy amidst weak power sharing, under-funding, lack of resources and

the fact that they are largely urban-based. According to Transparency International, (2006) and the

ECA (2004) the policy and legislative measures to combat corruption are outdated and enforcing

institutions are under funded and without sufficiently trained and motivated people. This undermines

their effectiveness and independence. It is also observed that a strong OAG may prove to be a threat

to government institutions that fear apprehension. As such, the OAG may lack adequate independence

or face poor cooperation from the executive and ultimately shortage of resources and/or skilled

personnel (Krafchik, 2003).

Short (2005) further asserts that the independence of oversight institutions is essential in order for

them to perform their role and assist Parliament to play its role. Kayrac (2008) and Short (2005) note

that active participation of Supreme Audit Institutions with financial, organizational, operational and

functional independence and audit mandate guaranteed by the constitution are essential for deterring

corruption because they promote accountability, openness and good governance. However, it is

observed that the institutions are largely devoid of functional autonomy from the very institutions they

are designed to investigate (The 2005 Democracy and Governance Assessment report).

Gendron et al (2001) takes this debate a little further by arguing that the state auditor has to be

independent from the executive to be able to fulfill his/her role. This independence is what

Normanton (1996) means when he argues that independent audit is the citizens’ best defense against

misuse of public funds. Independent audit is also presumed under New Public Management (NPM) to

be required for genuine accountability. This however cannot be realized if these institutions are headed

18
by corruptible and incompetent official (Short 2005, Armstrong 2005).

It is also argued that independence of oversight institutions is vital to ensure that they are not subject to

any control or influence by the Executive. These institutions should report to Parliament and not to the

Executive. Otherwise Parliament’s effectiveness in the eyes of civil society and the public may be

undermined (Short 2005). However, while this may be true, Parliament cannot improve accountability

without timely review of reports to pave way for timely corrective action by responsible institutions.

For instance, the AG’s report 2001/2002 was only scheduled to be reviewed by the Public Accounts

Committee in February 2007. This late scrutiny of reports makes it difficult to ensure follow up on

cases (www.Parliament.go.ug, 01/02/2007).

While in agreement with the above argument, the study observes that the argument limits itself to the

independence of the Auditor General without considering the independence of the other arms of the

state like the judiciary and legislature. The arguments are nevertheless relevant to Uganda because

oversight institutions are not perceived to be working effectively. The researcher acknowledges the

existence of the relationship between Parliament and the oversight institutions. A poorly performing

institution may undermine other institutions, the reverse being true.

2.5 Performance of Public Institutions and the accountability role of Parliament.

Governments deliver public goods and services through Public institutions (World Bank, 1997) and

these institutions are required to report on their performance to Parliament (Broadbent and Guthrie

2008). The study looks at these public institutions to include; Local Governments, Public Enterprises,

Statutory Authorities, Central Government entities among others. All these categories are used in this

study and referred to as Public Institutions and for Parliament to fully perform its accountability role, it

has to take into consideration performance of these public institutions that account to it.

It is noted by Ryan et al (2004) that the pressure on the public institutions to act in a more

collaborative and integrated manner pose challenges to the traditional models of public sector

19
reporting from vertical accountability (top-down/bottom up focus) to horizontal accountability across

government agencies. The above arguments are backed by behavioral theorists Max Weber and Taylor

who in 1900 attributed the lack of accountability in Public Institutions to the structural design of public

institutions. These theorists recommended bureaucratic structures and strict regulations to reinforce

accountability. Scholars further attributed corruption and lack of accountability to the politics in public

administration and advocated for separation of politics from administration. Multiple goals and roles of

the public sector and the lack of clear measurable objectives were later advanced by the classical

theorists as the reason that the hinder accountability (Sepuya, 2003). The Business management

scholars however made a case for accountability in the public and private sector recommending

privatization and competition as means to improve performance and accountability. This theory was

nonetheless contested on the account that accountability is more complex in the public sector than in

the private sector (Sinclair 1995). It can also be noted from the Uganda experience that privatization

does not singly stop corruption.

The New Public Management (NPM) perspective that emerged later in the 1980s and 90s, combine the

business and the classical theories and propose the adoption of business management principles and

values in the public sector management. Glynne and Murphy (2006) note that NPM attempts to make

management of public services more accountable for efficient and effective use of public resources by

moving from the traditional notion of accountability in public sector and emphasizing management

accountability. This implies that accountability shifts from line-item expenditure to specifying outputs

and link them to delivery of broader government policy outcomes. This type of accountability has been

adopted by many countries including Uganda in the Public institutions.

The performance of Public Institutions is also based on the way they report on the use of resources to

Parliament. However, financial reporting has been the main focus of accounting. In this scenario,

financial statements are used to provide tangible evidence of good accountability in government. This

argument is supported by the World Bank (2004) that auditing in financial management in Public
20
Institutions helps government hold itself accountable and traditionally focuses on basic financial

controls and financial flows. In this case, accounting should move from the traditional annual reports

which only allow the legislatures to verify budget execution (Collins 2007, Mark and Ryan 2007). The

researcher agrees that the auditing process should not only examine expenditure performance of Public

Institutions but also look out for conformance. This will enable the legislatures to hold the public

institutions accountable for the delivery of set outputs.

Accountability challenges in public institutions have also been attributed to accounting systems that

emerging economies have adopted from developed Western Economies. These systems do not meet

the information needs of the emerging economies. It is also observed that accounting requirements are

imposed by international agencies like IMF and World Bank which the least developed countries

depend on. The adopted accounting systems are criticized for not considering the differing socio-

political factors or the local contextual elements. When this is combined with political persuasion and

corruption provide a foundation for undesirable consequences (Tyrrall et al 2007, Samuels and Oliga

1989, Nadan, 1991). This study notes that these systems are imposed systems and are enough to

ensure proper accountability of resources. Ensuring that the reporting requirements are fully

understood by the personnel in Public Institutions and the legislators may pose a challenge.

Local governments are considered to be the closest provider of public services (Shah 2005) and are a

means to achieve good governance, public participation, and accountability of use of public resources

for poverty alleviation. However, there seems to be more insufficient accountability of public funds at

the local level in spite of the adoption of NPM and the use of the new reporting methods that were

introduced to improve accountability. Various reports of the Auditor General and IGG have continued

to document evidence of fraud and misuse of public funds at the local government level (Ministry of

Gender, Labour and Social Development (2006). This leads to the belief that corruption has been

decentralized.

21
According to the UNCDF (2006) information on local government activities and resources is essential

in informing local constituents and encouraging meaningful public participation thus proper record

keeping is considered to be at the heart of verification for resources at the local government level.

However, as observed by Marlize (2000), organizations and governments rarely see the connection

between records management and prevention of corruption. According to him, good records

management facilitates proper financial management and ensures the Public sector ability to function

effectively. Providing documentary evidence is a cornerstone in ensuring accountable and transparent

government.

Invariably, it is not enough for Public Institutions to provide accountability without being accountable.

Raga (2002) observes that public accountability rests both on giving an account and being held

accountable. This double barreled approach is at the core of responsive service delivery and is a key

measure of performance of the public servant and public institutions. Lodhia and Burritt (2004) also

conclude that it is through Public sector accountability that citizens are kept aware of the performance

of Public institutions.

From the above analysis, it can be said that the performance of Public Institutions can positively or

negatively affect the performance of Parliament in performing its accountability role. Public Institutions

can only reinforce the role of Parliament only when they have kept proper records, used a clear and

universally accepted and simple accounting system and have a results oriented reporting system that

clearly shows outputs achieved against budgets. As also argued above, the focus has to go beyond

vertical accountability that is within an institution to horizontal accountability across sectors.

2.6: Citizen Participation and accountability

The Citizen Participation is seen in this study to have a moderating effect on the performance of

Parliament to promote accountability and is vital in creating a sense of legitimacy for Parliament. As

Kutz (1997) contends; Parliamentary business may be jeopardized if citizens remain ignorant of the

legislative process. The South African Batho Pele principle (meaning people first) can be a good
22
description of citizen participation. It emphasizes consultation with the citizens, advertisement of

service standards, access to services by citizens, Courtesy in treatment of the citizens, Information,

openness and transparency and redress and handling of complaints (Raga and Taylor, 2002). Article 17

(1) of the 1995 Uganda Constitution also emphasizes Citizen Participation and empowerment.

Citizen participation plays a crucial role in achieving efficiency. It is also assumed that with

decentralization, people are likely to participate in decision making and demand responsive service

delivery (Johnson and Nakamura, 1999). However, as noted by Collins (2007), Citizens are largely

ignorant of the opportunities offered by decentralization and cannot demand appropriate conduct and

satisfactory services from the public agencies. (Armstrong 2005, Transparency International, 2006).

Paul (2004) however says that it is possible for citizens to monitor service delivery through use of

citizens’ report card. Citizens can rate service access and quality and report on general concerns,

grievances and corruption. The results on the score card can be used by Parliament to lobby for greater

accountability and improved resource management.

On the other hand, Schacter (2001) observes that horizontal accountability of government through its

institutions can only yield results where citizens can apprehend defaulters. If this is impracticable, then

strong vertical accountability must be emphasized through electoral processes, the media and concerted

civic action. This experience affirms the need to empower citizens as they play a crucial role in

demanding for accountability from the state and thus facilitates Parliaments work in holding

government to account.

Citizens voice and client power are seen as a complimentary approach to government monitoring of

public sector performance. Due to the closeness to the citizens, the CSOs can play a positive factor in

subjecting government and policies to public scrutiny. (Reinika et al 2006) further states that the CSOs

empower citizens to demand certain standards, to monitor service quality and to challenge abuses by

23
officials with whom they interact. This analysis is true but in reality, only a few civil society

organizations are organized enough to hold the state to account in developing countries like Uganda.

The above analysis shows how citizen participation is a moderating factor in the performance of

Parliament in promoting accountability. When there is a high level of citizen participation in

monitoring service delivery and holding public officials to account, then Parliament’s work in holding

government to account is greatly enhanced. As shown above, scholars stress that having an active

citizenry involved in the budget formulation process; monitor service delivery through participatory

approaches like citizen’s report card enhances the promotion of accountability of the state to the

people. Citizen participation is also facilitated by an active Civil Society and media that link citizens to

their governments and to Parliament. In this way, citizens are empowered and can hold governments to

account therefore facilitating the role of Parliament in holding government to account. However, the

reverse is true. An ignorant citizenry with weak media and civil society that does not monitor service

delivery hinders the role of Parliament and leads to poor accountability for service provision. It can

therefore be said that citizen participation can strengthen or weaken the relationship between

Parliament and the promotion of accountability.

Active citizen participation can also complement the work of oversight institutions, ensure that public

institutions deliver and account for public resources used thereby ensuring that the bottlenecks that

affect Parliaments performance are eliminated.

2.7 Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed and discussed existing relevant literature, covering the concepts of

accountability in relation to the objectives of this study. Accountability was considered broadly

according to views of different scholars and later discussed in the context of Parliament. Factors that

are seen to hinder Parliament’s role in promoting accountability and how these can be solved were

discussed. It also outlined the processes and routes of accountability. The review leads to the

24
conclusion that the institution of Parliament has a big role to play in promoting transparency and

accountability, working with other stakeholders like oversight institutions, Central Ministries, Civil

Society, the media and the citizens.

25
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction
This chapter discusses the research methodology and lays out the research issues with which the study

concentrated on. It describes the research design, location of the study, the research population, sample

size and selection, sampling procedure, data collection methods and instruments and data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

The method used was a cross sectional study design where data was gathered from the sample

population at a point in time. Given the fact that Parliamentary process is continuous, the researcher

could not study the whole period and the whole population. A cross sectional design was therefore

used. This was seen by Neuman (2003) to be simple, less time consuming and less costly. The

researcher further used case study of three out of the four accountability committees and 12 standing

committees. This was also motivated by the observation by Amin (2005) that case studies can enable

the researcher to have a variety of issues to be examined. A Case study was also seen to be a good

method for obtaining true and comprehensive picture of individuals and for its applicability to real life

situation.

This study used triangulation with both qualitative and quantitative approaches to information

generation. Amin 2005 quotes Meridith et al 2003 that Triangulation is a process of using multiple data

collection methods, data collection strategies and or data sources.

3.2 Study Population

The study population total number was 205 and these comprised of the categories mentioned below.

The study population comprised of Members of Parliament on the three selected accountability

committees of PAC, LGAC and COSASE (each committee having 20 members) as the main focus of

the study. This was based on the preliminary information gathered that indicated that much as the

26
entire Parliament holds Parliament to account, the accountability function on behalf of Parliament was

a core function of the four mentioned committees namely PAC, LGAC,COSASE and GAC.

Apart from the MPs, the population also included the following elements:

Other MPs (20) from the remaining standing committees to get their views on how they see the

accountability committees performing

Parliamentary staff, Officials from Public institutions (Local governments, central government

ministries) and Oversight institutions formed part of the study population. These were presumed to be

working closely with the accountability committees and therefore possessed knowledge on the

workings of Parliament. The challenges of the oversight and public institutions were also seen to be

affecting the performance of Parliament. The media, civil society organizations and the public also

formed a part of the study population. This was aimed at understanding how public participation may

affect positively or negatively the Parliament’s performance of its accountability role.

3.3 Sample size and selection

To generate a sample of 134 respondents out of the total population of 205, a guide by Krejcie and

Morgan was used (Sekaran 2003). The sample size that Krejcie recommends in a population of 205 is

134 (see appendix A).

From the selected 3 Accountability Committees, the researcher used simple random sampling to

determine the sample. This is believed by scholars to give members an equal chance of being selected

from the total population (Amin 2005)

The other sample population was selected using the qualitative methods of purposive and convenience

sampling. These were from the following categories;

27
Parliamentary staff including Parliamentary Development and Coordination Office (PDCO). Staff

members from the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) and Inspectorate of Government were also

part of the sample population because they work closely with the Accountability Committees.

Other categories were; Local Government Officials from 4 Local Governments of Wakiso, Jinja, Mpigi

and Mukono, 4 line ministries of Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Finance, Planning and

Economic Development, Ministry of Works and Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture. These

were selected because there were some of the key institutions that deliver key public services.

Respondents selected included Planners, Commissioners and Councilors.

Members of the general public also formed part of the sampled population. These were purposively

selected by the researcher from Parliament. Given the big population of citizens, the researcher

targeted the members of the public that were within the Parliamentary building while Parliament was

conducting Parliamentary business. These included those that were in attendance of the committee

sessions and visitors. The researcher used the assumption that the public’s presence in Parliament

meant that there were interested and were aware of business of Parliament. This assumption had its

limitations and that the number that responded to the questionnaire may not have been representative

enough. This was the reason why the selected population was backed up by members of Civil Society

Organizations. CSOs selected were those that were actively involved in advocacy work related to

Transparency and Accountability. This comprised of Directors and senior Programme Officers of

CSOs namely, Uganda Debt Network (UDN), Transparency International, Kituo Kya Katiba and

Centre for Women in Governance.

Donors that work with Parliament on the Parliamentary Donor Working Group also formed part of

the population. These were United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Anti Corruption

Threshold Programme / Linkages Programme and Human Rights and Good Governance (HRGG).

28
From the Media, key reporters from the electronic media namely WBS, NTV, SANYU and UBC were

purposively selected. Respondents here were chosen to give a perception on the relationship of

Parliament and the media.

The above categories gave their views and opinions on the factors that they think are affecting the

performance of Parliament in promoting accountability based on the level of relationship,

understanding and perception of what Parliament does in the area of accountability.

3.4 Sampling techniques and procedure

The study used both scientific and non scientific sampling methods as mentioned above.

Probability random sampling was used to select committee members and staff. Mugenda (1999)

justifies this method that it provides an efficient system of capturing in a small group, the variations or

heterogeneity that exists in the target population. Simple random sampling was used as a method so

that all respondents have an equal chance of being selected (Amin, 2005).

Non-probability sampling was used to select other respondents from oversight institutions, Local

Governments, Line Ministries, Civil Society, Donors, the media and the public (including CSOs). As

justified by Mugenda 1999, this provided a focus on in-depth information which the researcher

obtained from key respondents in these institutions. The study used purposive sampling which

according to Sekaran (2003) is an appropriate method to be used when desired information is to be

obtained from specific target groups.

29
The table below shows the sample size and sample selection techniques

TABLE 1. SAMPLING TECHNIQUES.

Category of Respondents Sample Sampling technique

Population

Committee MPs 45 Simple random sampling

Committee Chairpersons 2 Purposive sampling

Parliamentary staff 10 Purposive sampling

MPs from Other Committees 10

Key Staff from Oversight Institutions 9 Purposive sampling

Public Institution officers from 30 Purposive sampling

Ministries & Local Governments)

Media(I reporter on parliamentary 5 Purposive sampling

issues from each station)

Donors Supporting Parliament 3 Purposive sampling

Public including CSOs 20 Purposive sampling

TOTAL 134

Note: for numbers less than 10, the whole population was taken as sample.

3.5 Data Collection Methods

The data collection methods used were;

Key informant interviews of the key respondents like the Committees Chairpersons, Oversight

Institution respondents, and Donors.

30
Questionnaire was used to get quantitative and qualitative information from Committee members and

staff, Public institution Respondents, Parliamentary Service Staff, media, the Public/Citizenry including

CSOs.

Documentary Review of materials related to parliamentary proceedings and studies was also done.

This information helped the Researcher to supplement the information gathered from the interviews

and questionnaires.

3.5.1 Data Collection Instruments

The data collection instruments used included a structured/semi-structured questionnaire; interview

guide and documentary review checklist were used.

Questionnaires were used and this had both open-ended and close ended questions to gather both

quantitative and qualitative data. This was both structured and semi-structured. Close ended questions

were used to get uniform information from the respondents while open ended questions were used in

cases where the researcher wanted to get more in-depth information from the respondents (Sekaran,

2003). These questionnaires were self/Researcher administered.

An interview guide was used to gather qualitative information. These had sets of questions, relevant

to the objectives of the study that were used while interviewing the leaders of the committees, oversight

institution respondents, and Donors. In-depth interviews enabled narration and free expression by

respondents and to allow deeper probing

31
Document review guide-The researcher reviewed relevant documents such as the committee reports,

newspapers, journals and audit reports and vital information was recorded. This information was used

to supplement other methods of data collection and provided deeper understanding of the study

variables.

3.6 Validity and reliability

3.6.1 Validity

Amin (2005) defines validity to be the ability to produce findings that are in agreement with the

conceptual values. Validity of an instrument therefore means that the instrument is able to measure

what it is intended to measure.

Validity in this research was determined by looking at the extent to which the content of the

instruments were valid and could measure the concepts it was meant to measure. This was primarily

determined by expert judgment of the work-based and UMI supervisors who reviewed the research

instruments. These made judgment of whether the instruments would be able to capture the

information it was intended to capture.

Instrument validity was determined through reviews of items constituted as related to research

questions. Reviews were done by the researcher, peers and pre-testing of instruments.

Altering questions on respondents’ perceptions were used to improve face validity of the instruments.

3.6.2 Reliability
This refers to how consistent the research instrument is. It also refers to the stability and dependability

of the instrument and the degree to which the instrument measures what it is intended to measure.

Amin (2005) says that the instrument is reliable when it produces the same results when it is used

repeatedly hence ensuring dependability and precision.

32
Reliability was also ensured by pre-testing and retesting the instruments in the field on the same

population to determine whether the respondents are giving similar answers. A pilot pretest was done

on 7 respondents. The researcher selected 4 former members of Parliament, one respondent from Civil

Society, One person working with a donor organization, 1 person from the Ministry of Local

Government and 1 member of the public to pretest the questionnaires. This number was considered

acceptable since Mugenda and Mugenda (1999) cautions that the number for the pre-test should not be

very large and should vary from 1 and 10 depending on the sample size. The pretest was done to

ensure appropriateness and comprehension of the questions. From the pretest, the questions that were

too long were made short and precise and ambiguous questions were either removed or revised. The

researcher also used face validity after the pretest and incorporating the changes. As Sekaran (2003)

noted, face validity indicates that the items used to measure the concept, do on the face of it look like

they can indeed measure that concept.

3.7 Procedure of Data collection

To carry out this research, permission was given through an introductory letter from the Uganda

Management Institute. The researcher presented the letter to the head of the Parliamentary

Development and Coordination Office (PDCO) who gave a go ahead to administer questionnaires to

MPs and used the office staff to mobilize some MPs. The same letter was presented to the other

respondents together with the questionnaires and during the interviews. During the Research, rapport

was created with the respondents to make responding to questions easy and also ensured confidentiality

of the responses.

Editing and coding of data was done both in the field and after data collection. Data was thereafter

analyzed and this gave the basis for writing the findings.

A research assistant was also employed to administer and collect questionnaires from some

respondents while the Researcher herself did all the interviews with the selected key respondents.

33
Secondary data was obtained from the various documents, summarized and included in the report as

supporting evidence.

3.8 Data Analysis

The data from all the instruments was edited by examining and ensuring the completeness and accuracy

of the information given. After editing, the data was coded by first assigning numbers against each

respondents answers to enable the researcher classify the responses. The data was analyzed using a

quantitative and qualitative approach to get in-depth analysis of the respondents’ views. For the

qualitative data, meaningful data was extracted and analyzed manually. For quantitative data, it was

coded and analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Variables were then linked

and interpretations done. These were presented in the tables for easier understanding. The study used

Pearson’s Correlation coefficient to study the relationship between variables and used the regression

analysis to get the effect of the dependent variables on the accountability for service delivery. The

results are shown in Chapter 4, table 14 and 15 respectively.

From this Data analysis, the researcher also realized that some of the data collected was not useful and

this was not reflected in the results of the study.

3.9 LIMITATIONS

The limitations faced while carrying out the research were; the financial constraints, busy schedules of

the MPs who would go on recess, hence non response and delayed response of some respondents

which was unpredicted. Some of the respondents who were members of Parliament did not respond to

some questions that they thought were sensitive.

Data collection from the respondents took a long time. This meant that a lot of follow up had to be

done and the researcher used the assistance of the assistant researcher to follow up and collect

34
questionnaires from the respondents. This improved on the response rate.

This being a young multi party parliament, the research area was cumbersome and seen to be sensitive.

Some respondents were hesitant in answering some questions. To resolve this, the respondents were

assured utmost anonymity and maximum confidentiality. Respondents were also informed that this was

purely an academic research to boost their response to some questions that were earlier thought to be

sensitive. However some questions were still left unanswered by some respondents especially by MPs.

35
 CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATON OF FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction
This chapter covers the presentation, analysis, interpretation and discussion of the research findings

regarding the internal and external factors that affect the performance of Parliament in promoting

accountability. The study looked at the responses given and from these, analyzed and interpreted the

responses of the various respondents to make conclusions.

4.1.1 Category of Respondents

The research findings were based on the respondents as detailed in the table below

TABLE 2: LIST OF RESPONDENTS AND PERCENTAGE

Respondents Frequency Valid Percent

Accountability Committee MPs 45 33.6

Other MPs 10 7.5

Public Institutions 30 22.4

Committee chairpersons 2 1.5

Parliamentary Staff 10 7.5

Donors 3 2.2

Media 5 3.7

Oversight Institutions 9 6.7

Citizenry (including CSOs) 20 14.9

Total 134 100.0

From table 2 above, it is shown that the majority of the respondents were MPs on the Accountability

Committees. These were the main respondents because they work within the targeted Accountability

Committees i.e. Public Accounts Committee, Local Government Accounts Committee and Committee
36
on Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises. A number of other MPs that were not members of the

3 selected accountability committees were added as respondents to get their perceptions on how the

Accountability Committees were performing. Other respondents were drawn from the oversight

institutions of Auditor General and Inspectorate of Government; Public institutions included

Ministries and Local Governments, donors, media, civil society and the general public.

4.2 Background Characteristics of Respondents

The study first looked at the background characteristics of the respondents in terms of age, gender,

party composition and level of education of the respondents. This is presented in the section below.

4.2.1 Age of Respondents

It is generally understood that the age of a person has a bearing on his or her way of thinking and

perception. In this regard, the respondents were asked to select their age bracket and the findings are

tabulated in the table below

TABLE 3: AGE GROUP OF RESPONDENTS

Age category Frequency Percent

Below 25 3 2.2

26-35 44 32.8

36-45 49 36.6

46 and above 38 28.4

Total 134 100

Field data

From the above table, it was therefore noted that majority of the respondents were in the age bracket

of 36-45 years (36.6%). Overall, 65% of the respondents were above 35 years of age. This is considered

the active/working age group in politics and in civil service and the respondents were mature people

with considerable knowledge and experience to respond to the questions that were posed.

37
 4.2.2 Sex of the Respondents
The objective of establishing the gender composition of the respondents was to find out if there were

any differences in perception of the factors that affect Parliament’s performance in promoting

accountability basing on gender.

TABLE 4: RESPONDENTS BY GENDER AND PERCENTAGE

Respondents Sex Valid Percent

Male % Female %

Accounting Committee MPs 34 76 11 24

Other MPs 6 60 4 40

Public Institutions(Ministries local governments) 25 83 5 17

Committee chairpersons 2 100 0 0

Parliamentary Staff 7 70 3 30

Donors 2 67 1 33

Media 4 80 1 20

Oversight Institutions 6 67 3 33

Citizenry (general public) 10 50 10 50

Total 96 38

Overall total 134

From the above table, the majority of the respondents were male with 71.6% and 28.4% female. The

findings showed a male dominated Parliament. Particularly, the Accountability Committees/structures

of Parliament are significantly dominated by males with 75.6%. In addition, this is also a reflection of

the various public institutions that are generally dominated by males. This is a reflection that in the area

of accountability promotion, it is still a male dominated task with minimal involvement and

contribution from the women. For instance, all the oversight institutions are dominated by males, the

38
accountability Committees are also chaired and deputized by males. It was however important to note

that from subsequent responses, there were no varied responses that the study could attribute to the

gender dimension. This implied that the factors that were seen to affect Parliament’s performance were

cross cutting and were not biased according to gender.

4.2.3 Party Composition

The chart below shows the political affiliation of the Members of Parliament on the Accountability

Committees. Political affiliation was considered important in this study because of the fact that the

multi party political dispensation brought in the different parties and the composition explains some of

the trends and the factors influencing the performance of the committees.

Figure 3: Pie chart showing party composition of MPs

PARTY COMPOSITION OF MP RESPONDENTS UPC (Uganda Peoples

Congress) (5%)

5%OTHER DP (Democratic Party) 4%

5%IND 5%UPC 4%DP
FDC (Forum for
0%
9% FDC Democratic Change) 9%
NRM (O)
National
Resistance Movement 72%
Conservative Party 0%

INDEPENDENT 5%

72% NRMO
OTHER 5%

The findings show that the majority of the MPs are from the ruling NRM Party with 72%. FDC

commands membership up to 9% and the combined opposition strength is 28%. This is minimal

representation. The above picture is a true reflection the picture in the Parliament where NRM has 212

members, FDC 39, DP 9, UPC 10, Justice Forum 1, CP 1 and 37 independents. As already noted in the

literature reviewed, opposition plays a big role in holding the executive to account. Its minimal
39
representation in Parliament may not play in their favor as they can be outnumbered while at the same

time it is extremely difficult for members of the ruling party to hold the executive to account.

4.2.4 Experience of the MPs

Experience was looked at in terms of the number of the terms that the MP has served in Parliament

and the number of times that the MP has served on the Accountability Committee as elaborated below

in 4.2.4.1 and 4.2.4.2.

4.2.4.1: Terms in Office for MP Respondents

The study found it pertinent to establish the terms that the MPs have spent in Parliament with a view

of establishing the relationship between terms of office and skills/experience of the Members of

Parliament. The responses given are tabulated below;

TABLE 5: TERMS IN OFFICE OF THE MP RESPONDENTS

No. of terms Frequency Percentage

One term 37 67.3%

Two terms 16 29.1%

Three terms 1 1.8%

Four terms 1 1.8%

Total 55 100

From the above, it was noted that the majority of the MPs (67%) were serving their first term in

Parliament while 29% are in Parliament for the second term. This means that multi party politics

enabled many new comers to enter Parliament on party tickets and this factor may have a bearing on

the capacity of the MPs to carry out their duties.

4.2.4.2: Number of times that MP has served on the present accountability Committee
This was also meant to establish the level of experience that the member could be having after serving

on the committee. This is shown in the table below.

40
 TABLE 6: NUMBER OF TIMES SERVED ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
No. of terms Frequency Percentage

First time 38 69.1%

Two times 16 29.1%

Three times 1 1.8%

Total 55 100

The above table revealed that majority of the MPs (69%) had served the accountability committee for

the first time. This was indeed linked to the number of times that the MP had served in Parliament and

the fact that the majority (67%) were serving in Parliament for the first time. It was important to find

out the number of times MPs have served in Parliament and on the committees as this had a bearing

on their capacity in terms of skills like in audit and scrutiny that the old members that could have

gained through experience and training.

The subsequent section gives detailed responses to the research questions posed. In this section,

responses were categorized as i) A-Agree (combining respondents who answered Strongly Agree and

Agree), ii) NC/DK-Do not know and No comment were combined in this category and iii) D-Disagree

combining respondents with Strongly Disagree and Disagree.

4.3 Empirical Findings.

The main objective of the study was to establish the Internal and External factors affecting Parliament

in promoting accountability. This section therefore presents the analysis and interpretation of the study

findings. The Chapter is divided in two broad categories of Internal Factors which include the Capacity

and Institutional Factors and External Factors which include Performance of Oversight and Public

Institutions. Also included were the findings on the intervening variable of citizen participation. These

findings are presented below objective by objective.

41
INTERNAL FACTORS

4.3.1. Capacity factors that affect Parliament’s ability to promote accountability for the use
of public resources.
This study established the capacity factors that affected Parliament’s role in promoting accountability in

the use of public resources. Respondents below(Accountability Committee members and other MPs)

were asked questions relating to; clarity of their accountability functions, skills of committee members

to scrutinize audit reports and the human resource given to the committees, the adequacy of the

capacity development plan and the training provided to the committees. The findings are indicated in

Table 4.2 (a) below:

TABLE 7: RESPONSES ON CAPACITY FACTORS AFFECTING PARLIAMENT’S PERFORMANCE

Question A NC/NK D

(%) (%)

 The accountability functions of this committee are clearly 98.2% 0% 1.8%

stated

 Accountability committee members have adequate skills to 75% 1.8% 23.2%

scrutinize the submitted Audit reports

 Adequate human resource is provided to the committees to 69.7% 1.8% 28.6%

accomplish their tasks

48.2% 3.6% 48.2%
 The Accountability Committees have adequate research

infrastructure to perform their functions

58.9% 1.8% 39.3%
 The capacity development plan of Parliament caters for the

capacity needs of Accountability committee members

 Relevant training has been provided to accountability

50% 1.8% 48.2%
committee members to enhance their skills

Source: Primary Data:

Key: A Agree, NC/DK-Do not know/No Comment, D Disagree

42
From table 10, the majority of the respondents gave positive responses about the capacity of

Parliamentarians to perform their accountability functions. The detailed discussions and analysis of

findings is given below.

Experience of the Committee members

This was measured by looking at the Expertise (functions and skills), the human resource capacity

(including the research capacity) and the capacity building plan of Parliament.

Functions of MPs

From the above table, 98.2% of the respondents believe that the functions of the accountability

committee members are clearly stated. The functions referred to here are described in the Rules of

Procedure of Parliament (2006) and they include i) Examination of audited accounts and reports from

the Central Government and the Judiciary; ii) Examination of the reports and audited accounts, income

and expenditure, and monitoring operations of statutory authorities, corporations and public

enterprises and examination of audited accounts of the funds granted by Parliament to Local

Governments. This finding was further reaffirmed by a senior staff from Parliament that at the

beginning of the 8th Parliament, Members of Parliament were oriented to their functions and to the

rules and regulations of Parliament. Each member was also availed the guide to operations of

Parliament.

Skills

The respondents also agreed that the MPs had the requisite skills to perform their accountability

function of audit scrutiny and advocacy. A quick search into the qualifications of one of the

Accountability Committees revealed that 8 out of 20 members were Accountants by profession

(www.Parliament.go.ug 28/10/2008). These can ably guide debate and guide other members on

43
accountability issues. In addition, the qualifications of the respondents also revealed that a big majority

are graduates with Bachelors and Masters Degrees as shown in the table below. This implies that this is

an elite Parliament and they are able to grasp their tasks with minimal training.

TABLE 8. QUALIFICATIONS OF MPS

Age category Frequency Percentage

PHD and above 3 8%

Masters degree 9 23%

Bachelors degree 23 58%

Diploma 3 8%

UACE or equivalent 2 5%

Total 40 100%

In spite of the above observation, having the required academic qualifications and skills does not

necessarily lead to improved performance. This has to be combined with motivation and commitment

to perform their duties. The above response from MPs also conflicts with what other

respondents(oversight institutions, donors and the Public) gave. These identified lack of skills as a

factor that affects Parliament’s performance. It was mentioned that Parliamentarians lack financial skills

to analyze and the technical reports presented to them in the committees. This was attributed to the

fact that majority of MPs are new (67% as shown in table 7) and there is constant change of committee

members. The Capacity Assessment Report of the Accountability Committees (2007) also confirmed

that “some members of Accountability Committees do not have the requisite skills to execute the

functions of the Committees to the required level of proficiency” (Parliamentary Commission, page 6).

Human Resource

In terms of Human Resource, 69.7% of the respondents were of the view that the Accountability

Committees have adequate committee staff. However, up to 28.6% would not agree to this effect and

44
interviews with key Parliamentary staff and key committee members revealed that sometimes

committees have to share staff such as the legal officers and research officers and this was noted to

delay investigations and analysis of reports tabled before them.

Research capacity

From the findings on the research infrastructure, nearly 50% of Parliamentarians did not think that the

Accountability Committees have adequate research infrastructure needed to accomplish their tasks.

Accountability Committees were said to lack researchers to undertake investigations and value for

money assessments. This limitation leaves the committees handicapped and the committees cannot

ascertain their achievements or performance over outputs.

Capacity Building Plan

Capacity of Parliament is understood in terms of knowledge of Parliamentarians and relevant staff to

understand and interpret the faces of corruption and the dimensions of accountability. Parliament’s

capacity building plan is supposed to spell out skills development and human resource development

issues especially pertaining to strengthening of competences of Parliament to address corruption. From

the responses given in Table 10, Parliamentarians disagreed that there is an adequate planning for

capacity development. The Capacity Building Plan was expected to have promoted key issues in

knowledge management and transfer as well as grounding in basis rules and procedures for the

Accountability Committees. However, this Capacity building and training plan as outlined in the

Parliamentary Strategic Investment and Development Plan (PSIDP) was not meeting the needs and

expectations of Parliamentarians. Over 50% of Parliamentarians affirmed this position.

45
Further consultations with Parliamentary staff confirmed that there was no holistic approach to

capacity building of Parliament. The efforts expended so far in conducting a capacity needs analysis of

the accountability committees and developing a comprehensive capacity building plan had not yet

yielded the intended outcomes.

The above table and subsequent responses also revealed that some respondents either did not know or

had no comment to the questions asked. This can be explained by the fact that some respondents

especially the non accountability committee respondents genuinely did not know the capacity situation

in the Accountability Committees. Others may have thought the questions were sensitive. Nonetheless,

the percentage of these responses was too small to have an effect of the overall response.

It can be concluded that the lack of research capacity, an adequate capacity building plan and absence

of continuous skills development are factors that affect the performance of Accountability Committees.

Although Parliamentarians do not regard limited skills base as a key bottleneck, this was nonetheless

considered a major hindrance noted by other stakeholders.

4.3.2 Institutional factors affecting Parliament’s ability of Parliament to promote

accountability in the use of public resources?

A second objective of this study was to find out how institutional factors influence the performance of

Accountability Committees of Parliament. The questions asked to answer this were related to the

funding of the committees, the influence of multi party politics, the independence of the committees,

period for submission of reports, follow up and implementation of recommendations. Below are the

findings, interpretation and discussions.

46
 TABLE 9 SHOWING RESPONSES ON THE INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS THAT AFFECTING PARLIAMENT’S
PERFORMANCE

Question A(%) NC/DK D(%)

o The Accountability Committees are well funded to carry 46.4 5.4 48.2

out their work

o The Accountability Committees have the independence 82.2 5.3 12.5

needed to carry out their work

o The Accountability Committees’ work is not influenced by 67.8 5.0 27.2

party politics

o The Accountability Committees review audit reports 37.5 7.0 55.3

within the stipulated timeframe

o There is follow up by the committees to ensure 73.2 0 26.8

implementation of recommendations made

o Government fulfils the promises it makes to implement 33.4 5.0 61.6

committee recommendations

From table 9, it is noted that the factors that affect performance of Parliament are lack of funding

(48%), late review of audit reports 55% and failure to implement committee recommendations (62%).

On the other hand, majority of Parliamentarians (68%) agree that the Accountability Committees are

not influenced by party politics in their operations and they follow up on implementation of

recommendations (73%).

The discussion below is triangulated with findings on this subject from CSOs, oversight institutions,

citizens and Public Institutions).

47
4.3.2.1 Committee funding

From table 9, majority of respondents (48%) disagreed that there was sufficient funding of Parliament’s

Committees to efficiently perform the accountability function. This position was also affirmed by the

Parliamentary staff and key Committee members. This lack of sufficient funds and the earlier identified

human resource capacity issued were seen to be key factors for the increased backlog and lack of follow

up by the committee members to ensure value for money. It is also an indicator that Parliament lacks

financial independence.

Committee Independence

Majority of the Parliamentarians (82%) were of the view that the committees were independent enough

to carry out their functions. This is because the Accountability Committees are in all cases headed by

the opposition members. However, this view was not supported by other key stakeholders who argued

that there is political influence from the executive and involvement of influential politicians. A

Respondent from Civil Society further observed that;

“Both the opposition and NRM(O) MPs do not usually take a firm stand against the Executive in some

sensitive cases because they do not want to ruin their chances of being selected as Ministers. They see

themselves as ‘Ministers in Waiting”.

The above observation of choosing the executive from the legislature can therefore hamper effective

oversight by Parliament and erode separation of powers between the Executive and Parliament.

Influence of Party Politics

Majority of Parliamentarians (69%) said that party politics did not influence Committee performance.

This view was however opposed by the citizens (30%), CSOs (60%), media (50%) and Public

48
Institutions (75%) and affirmed the influence of Party Politics on Committee performance. According

to these respondents, the attitude of MPs to Parliamentary proceedings is very partisan. This means

that when the cases under scrutiny involve highly placed public officials and politicians, the MPs on the

various accountability committees take sides with their parties other than having a committee stand that

is not prejudiced on the basis of Party lines.

Delayed audit scrutiny/Back log

Majority of the Parliamentarians (55%) could not agree that Auditor General’s reports are scrutinized

on time. All the other respondents also identified this issue. It was reported that even when audit

reports are submitted on time, they are not reviewed on time mainly due to work overload. For

example PAC scrutinizes audit reports of all government ministries and other public institutions. The

gravity of this problem would never have been more evident than the discovery at the time of interview

that the Accountability Committees were still in the process of reviewing 2001/2002 audit reports in

July 2008. These delays jeopardize the implementation of Committee Recommendations and the ability

to obtain evidence due to transfers, retirements and deaths of responsible officials. One of the key

respondents also asserted that:

“The members of the accountability committees also sit on sessional committees which take priority over

accountability committee work in spite of the many cases to be handled in the accountability committees”.

It should however be noted that the submission and scrutiny of reports does not necessarily affect the

speed at which reports are scrutinized but this is rather affected by earlier stated factors of funds,

limited time, delay in report submission, backlog, among other factors. The accountability process as

noted in chapter one also indicates a long process with 7 stages that contributes to backlog.

Lack of follow up

49
Majority of Parliamentarians (72%) mentioned that there was follow up of committee

recommendations. This was also mentioned by oversight institution and Local Governments who

affirmed that there is follow up on their part to ensure that recommendations made by the

Accountability Committees of Parliament are implemented. However, while the oversight and Public

Institutions were following up their cases, this is not entirely the case with Parliament. Parliament was

noted to have problems in this area. Up to 29% of Parliamentarians agree that there is inadequate

follow up to ascertain value for money audits. For example the Committee members are not facilitated

to conduct field visits to ascertain achievement of planned activities. Follow up also suffers from

political interference of some by Political officials. Similarly, it was observed that Committees scrutinize

the Auditor General’s reports after a year or more of implementation which is largely a post mortem

effort.

Implementation of committee recommendations

A majority of Parliamentarians (61%) agree that Committee Recommendations do not usually get

implemented by government and its institutions. Failure to implement recommendations is also caused

by inability to follow up and/or incompetence by Local governments to implement the stated

recommendations. The fact the Parliament’s Accountability Committees are still dealing with post

mortem work of 5 years back also makes it hard to implement recommendations. When one of the

Committee chairpersons was asked to comment of the implementation of committee

recommendations, he stressed that: that

“We sometimes get frustrated by the slow implementation of recommendation. We shall continue to do our

work. These cases do not rot and one day, the culprits will be held accountable”

Weak implementation of laws

50
In addition to the above factors, respondents mentioned the existence of weak implementation of laws

to be among the other factors affecting the performance of accountability committees. It was also

reported that Parliament is only empowered to make laws but their implementation is with government

and there was no legal requirement for the Accountability Committees to punish those involved in

mismanagement of public resources. For example, there is no clear law pertaining to attachment of

property of those found corrupt or deductions of allocations to defaulting Public Institutions. This

makes the implementation of recommendations difficult.

From the above assessment though, the key institutional factors affecting the performance of the

Accountability Committees are issues of backlog, poor funding and failure to implement audit

recommendations. This study notes that these factors have the following direct and indirect

consequences on the overall effectiveness of Parliament in performing its accountability and oversight

role to ensure proper utilization of public resources.

EXTERNAL FACTORS

4.2.3 The performance of oversight institutions

The study also set out to examine how the oversight institutions influence the promotion of

accountability by Parliament. Oversight institutions include Auditor General, Inspectorate of

Government, CID, Accountant General, among others and they undertake such role as auditing the

performance of public institutions and investigating issues of corruption in public institutions

respectively. The responses to the questions posed on the performance of Public Institutions are given

in the table below;

TABLE 10 : RESPONSES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF OVERSIGHT INSTITUTIONS

Question Agree Don’t Disagree

(%) know/ no (%)

51
 comment

o The Accountability Committees engage well with oversight 92.8 5.4 1.8

institutions to enhance accountability

o The oversight institutions always submit reports on time 42.9 10.1 47

o The oversight institutions are well funded to carry out their 35.8 5.4 58.9

functions 62.5 1.8 35.7

o The oversight institutions have adequate powers to perform

their functions 64.3 5.5 30.2

o In my opinion, the oversight institutions are independent to

carry out their functions 87.5 3.6 8.9

o The oversight institutions have the legal mandate needed to

perform their functions

The majority of respondents responded that oversight institutions engage well with Parliament, that

oversight institutions are independent, have the legal mandate and they have powers to carry out their

functions. However, the following factors were seen to affect the performance of the oversight

institutions.

4.1.3.1 Funding of oversight institutions

Similar to the Accountability Committees, the majority of respondents (59%) observed that oversight

institutions are not well funded and they generally did not submit their reports to Parliament on time.

The other respondents also highlighted poor funding of oversight institutions and late release of funds

as factors that affect the audit process. This was seen to affect carrying out of investigations, audits and

timely submission of reports to Parliament. The poor funding of these institutions was also noted to

52
be a key reason why these institutions were understaffed and faced challenges in training and retain

quality staff.

4.1.3.2 Submission of reports

Majority of the respondents (47%) did not agree that reports are submitted on time. According to line

ministries, bottlenecks are caused by laxity of external auditors and the Auditor General to delay in

producing audited accounts and the final accounts respectively. One members of the accountability

committee stressed the effect of late submission of reports that”

“Late submission of reports breeds backlog. When reports are not submitted on time, this

means that they will also not be scrutinized in time thereby building up more backlog”.

There is also a problem of understaffing of Accounts and Audit units which are central to the

functioning of oversight institutions. Ultimately, this affects the performance of the Accountability

Committees that rely on the oversight institutions to submit reports and provide technical assistance in

scrutiny of these reports.

Independence of Oversight Institutions

Members of Parliament (64.3%) were of the view that Oversight Institutions have the independence

they need to perform their functions. However, this was refuted by the other respondents from Public

institutions and CSOs that these oversight Institutions lack financial independence and this affects their

performance. The issue of poor staffing and limited skills of the OAG in handling investigations such

as integrity surveys was also noted in the Uganda Country Self Assessment Report and Governance

Programme of Action (2007. This may exacerbate corruption and poor accountability in Uganda.

53
The independence of the oversight institutions is seen as very vital to improve their performance and

also have a positive effect on the performance of Parliament.

In addition to the above respondents identified failure to implement AG’s recommendations by Public

Institutions as once of the indicators that the oversight institutions are not independent. This was

exacerbated by poor funding and understaffing of oversight institutions which did not facilitate them to

perform their mandates effectively..

The relationship between Parliament and Oversight Institutions

It was the view of Parliamentarians and respondents from the Oversight Institutions that there was a

good relationship between Parliament and Oversight institutions. This was confirmed by the regular

submission of reports and information by oversight institutions to Parliament as mandated by the

constitution. According to them, well functioning oversight institutions are essential and supplement

the ability of the legislature to hold the executive accountable.

Legal Mandate of Oversight Institutions

When respondents were asked whether the oversight institutions had the legal mandate to perform

their tasks, a significant 88% of the respondents agreed. This was elaborated by the significant strides

that Uganda has made in establishing the legal framework to help oversight institutions in the fight

against graft and promotion of accountability. This was the view of most respondents and means that

Uganda has sufficient laws and institutions required to enforce proper utilization and accountability of

resources.

Overall, it can be observed from the above that the key factors affecting the performance of Oversight

Institutions include failure of the executive to implement recommendations, inadequate funding, poor

staffing and lack of financial independence. All these factors affect the performance of Parliament.

54
 4.1.4 The Performance of Public Institutions and Parliament’s role to promote
accountability in the use of public resources?

The Research also set out to establish the extent to which performance of Public Institutions influences

the ability of Parliament to offer services. This was done by examining the relationship between

performance of Public Institutions and Parliament’s role to promote accountability. Below are the

responses to the questions posed.

TABLE 11 : RESPONSES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

o Question A (%) DK/NC D (%)

o Public Institutions always follow guidelines given in utilizing 30.4 0 69.6

public funds

o Public Institutions adhere to regulations in utilizing funds 28.6 1.8 69.6

o Public Institutions always submit their reports on time 23.2 1.8 75

o Public Institutions always implement recommendations made 43.9 6.9 49.2

by the committees

o There is no political interference in the performance of Public 30 5.9 64.1

Institutions

From the table, it is observed that majority of respondents are of the view that Public Institutions do

not always follow guidelines given to utilize public funds (70%); additionally, they do not adhere to

regulations required in utilizing funds (69%); Public Institutions also do not always submit their reports

on time (75%); and neither do they implement recommendations made by the committees (49.2%).

There is also political interference in the performance of Public Institutions as reported by 64.1% of

the respondents.

Following guidelines and adhering to regulations

As already noted, it was observed by 69.6% of Parliamentarians that guidelines for utilizing public

funds are not followed and that accounting regulations were not adhered to. This was attested by
55
respondents from line ministries and local government that there are instances where funds are

diverted due to insufficiency. This assertion shows failure to follow guidelines. In such cases, there is a

big risk of misappropriation and negligence of duties. This further resulted in delaying Committees’

work in scrutinizing reports and follow up individual cases to ensure provision of proper accountability.

Timely submission of reports

According to respondents, many Public Institutions do not submit their reports on time. This though

was attributed to delays by the Auditor General to audit the required books of accounts. It was also

reported that there was no strict adherence to deadlines in submission of reports and because of the

late scrutiny by the Accountability Committees, the issue of ensuring that reports are submitted on time

is not given priority.

Implementation of Recommendations

It was the view of Parliamentarians that Public Institutions do not always implement the

recommendations made by the Accountability Committees of Parliament. This is attributed to lack of

follow up and incompetence of especially local government officials to implement recommendations. It

was also a concern that mounting backlog resulted in recommendations being overtaken by events and

therefore unable to be implemented. Other factors mentioned include, delays in funding which leads to

delayed implementation and reporting. This ultimately results into misappropriation of funds and

failure to account. In the event that recommendations cannot be implemented, amendments for faults

and steps to prevent recurrence cannot be taken. One respondent from Citizenry attested that;

“It is common to see culprits getting away with misuse of public funds. This continues to

encourage corruption and low delivery of Public services”.

Political interference

56
According to Members of Parliament, political interference in the implementation of recommendations

is still a challenge. This is also a considered view of the Public Institutions. In extreme cases, the

political interference affected the committee independence needed to implement recommendations and

some public officials seemed to be beyond reproach even when they are found to be corrupt.

In addition to the above, further probing of some respondents from Public institutions revealed that it

was not only Parliament that grapples with understanding the complex reporting but the public

institutions are facing the same challenge. These institutions struggle to compile the required reports

and later on understand the figures especially so for the approving officers. Government finances were

therefore seen to be inherently complex and needed experts both on the public institution side and for

Parliament to understand them.

It can be concluded from the above discussion that failure to follow guidelines, failure to adhere to

regulations, failure to submit reports on time, failure to implement recommendations, political

interference and complexity in reporting are the key factors affecting the performance of Public

Institutions. These in turn affect the performance of the Accountability committees, leading to

untimely submission of reports thereby increasing case backlog. It also leaves the recommendations of

the Committee on paper without being implemented.

4.1.5. Citizen participation influence in enforcing Parliament’s role of promoting

accountability in the use of public resources.

The study assessed the moderating effect of citizen participation on Parliament’s performance in

promoting accountability in utilization of public resources.

57
 TABLE 12: RESPONSES ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN FACILITATING THE WORK OF PARLIAMENT
Question A(%) DK/NC D (%)

o Information about the committee’s work is accessible to the 82.2 5.4 12.5

public

o The Public is empowered to demand accountability 57.2 0 42.8

o In my opinion, there is public ignorance about 62.5 5.4 32.1

accountability

o This committee consults with civil society in performing its 60.7 0 39.3

functions

o The media has been adequately involved in the activities of 94.6 0 5.4

this committee

From the table, the MPS were of the view that the general public has access to information pertaining

to the work of the Accountability Committees; the public is empowered to demand for accountability;

there is consultation with civil society in matters of accountability and that the media is adequately

involved in the activities of the Accountability Committees. On the other hand, it is the view of

Parliamentarians that there is public ignorance on issues of accountability majority of the other

respondents were of the view that the public was not empowered to demand accountability(43%) and

there was still inadequate consultation and Partnership with CSOs(39%).

Access to information

Majority of the respondents (82%) were of the view that that information pertaining to accountability is

accessible to the general public. Overall, the citizens were found to be knowledgeable about

58
Parliament’s role in ensuring accountability. This was tested by asking about the citizen respondents

about the role of the accountability committee. Indeed some of the members of the Public were aware

the specific roles of the Accountability Committees. This was an interesting finding that points to the

fact that there is access to information. The media reported that they involved the general public in

ensuring accountability through talk shows and in exposing corruption cases. This was probably the

single factor promoting the observed level of awareness. It was also observed that Parliament is open

to everyone with a Public Gallery and committee proceedings being openly accessible. However, the

majority of those attending were from the media. There was limited attendance of members of the

public. According to the CSOs, the citizens do not have any involvement in Parliament’s work and they

do not know the role of the Accountability Committees.

Media involvement and demand for Accountability

On the other hand, Members of Parliament expressed the view that the media is adequately involved in

Committee proceedings. It was also a considered view that the media has the capacity to put pressure

on Parliament to perform its accountability role. Through advocacy on TV, radio and in the

newspapers, the media is a powerful instrument in causing Parliament to perform its roles and keeping

the Public informed of the Parliamentary Accountability Committee business. Press briefings at the end

of the committee meetings were particularly critical in highlighting accountability issues in the house.

However, while some CSOs did not yet think that the media was involved enough, the mere fact that

the media houses had free access to committee proceedings and even free attendance was an important

milestone in realizing public accountability.

Civil Society Involvement

The MPs also noted the high Civil Society involvement in information sharing, awareness creation and

media debates. Despite this, the other respondents considered that there is still public ignorance of the

accountability role of Parliament. However, in as much as the CSO involvement was noted, it seemed
59
to be limited to a few and information sharing was not nation wide but limited to a few elite who have

access to papers, TV and can attend the usually organized workshops. Other than that, the majority

remained ignorant of the potential they have in holding government to account and ensuring that

Parliament plays its role.

The above factors have a moderating effect on the performance of Parliament. The Respondents

indicated the poor participation of the members of the public in exerting accountability for use of

public resources. The existent media debates do not necessarily result in Parliament effectively

performing its role of promoting accountability given that the extent to which citizens influence the

role of Parliament through media and civil society also seems to be limited. Overall, it is the view of

this study that financial and managerial accountability can improve when the public is able to demand

and monitor accountability from public officials through the media and relevant CSO.

4.1.5 Dependent Variable: Accountability of Public Resources for Service Delivery

The responses below were given on the above dependent variable;

In performing its accountability role, Parliament ensures that public resources are efficiently utilized

and there is improved service delivery. Below are the responses given on the committees’ work on

resource use, on achievement of outputs and outcomes, on existing policies and following up to ensure

resources have benefited the general public.

TABLE 13 : RESPONSES ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

DELIVERY

Question Agree Don’t know Disagree

(%) /No comment (%)

o The work of this committee has a significant impact on 89.3 0 10.7%

resource use for improved service delivery

o Our committee goes beyond scrutinizing books of 78.6 7.1 14.3%

60
 accounts to ascertain whether outputs have been

achieved

o The audit reports show outcomes achieved by Public 75 0 25%

Institutions

o This committee follows up to ensure resources used 64.2 0 35.8%

have benefited the people

o The existing policies are effective to ensure 62.5 0 37.1%

accountability

From the above responses, the majority of the Parliamentarians were of the view that the

Accountability Committees’ work improves resource use and service delivery; that the Accountability

Committees ascertain whether outputs have been achieved; that audit reports show outcomes achieved

and that committees try to ensure that resources utilized have benefited the people and that the existing

policies are effective to ensure accountability.

Accountability on outputs achieved

Majority of the Parliamentarians were of the view that Parliament has gone beyond financial

accountability to ascertain achievement of outputs. Similarly, majority of respondents from Oversight

Institutions, Local Government respondents and Line Ministries agreed that outputs, impact and

outcomes are reported on by the Public Institutions. However, the majority of the respondents from

the general public, donors and civil society would not agree that the Committees go beyond desk

scrutiny but that they rely on the submitted reports to measure achievement of outputs. A quick perusal

in one of the submitted audit reports also showed an emphasis on quantity other than quality thereby

limiting effective financial scrutiny. From the way the report was presented, planned spending is not

broken down by objective. This makes it difficult for committee members to monitor from planned

61
spending to actual spending and be able to examine what the reported spending actually achieved.

Matching funding given to the public institutions with government’s stated priorities and ensuring

managerial accountability is also a challenge.

Follow up on outputs and outcomes

While the majority of MPs mentioned that there was follow up on outputs achieved, it was the view of

other stakeholders that there is no follow up of the committees to ensure that resources have benefited

the people. It was observed that the only follow up in place is done at individual level by the

constituency MPs in their constituencies but there is limited follow up at committee level. This was a

factor that was earlier attributed to lack of funding for the committees to conduct value for money

audits and field visits. It was mentioned that the Committees had just started the practice of conducting

value for money audits using the funds from the Financial Management and Accountability Programme

(FINMAP).

Existing policies

The majority of the parliamentarians and oversight institutions were of the view that there are polices

and laws in place to ensure accountability. These policies and laws that were mentioned were the Penal

Laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Penal Code, the Inspectorate of Government Act

2002, the Leadership Code Act 2002, the Access to Information Act 2005 that gives a right to every

citizen access to information, the Local Government Act that intends to tackle corruption at the Local

Government level and the PPDA Act of 2003 that underlines the functions of the Authority (PPDA) in

procurement and disposal among government entities. While improvements were noted in laws,

regulations, and institutions, it was observed that these laws were not implemented. Respondents

sighted instances like the failure to punish officials linked to graft-related scandals like the Global Fund

and GAVI. This compliments Kituo Kya Katiba (2005) report that there was no requirement of the

Executive to respond to recommendations made by the committee.

62
In spite of the above findings, it was noted that the existing policies are adequate but there is a

challenge of implementation, there was more concentration of financial accountability that ensuring

value for money. It was nevertheless noted that the concern for economy and efficiency of

expenditure was increasing.

TABLE 14. THE CORRELATION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT FACTORS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Capacity Institutio Accounting Citizen Accountability
factors nal institution Participation and Service
factors performance Delivery
Institutional factors .469**

Oversight institution factors .433** .554**

Performance of accounting .280* .426** .631**

institutions
Citizen participation .364** .549** .648** .685**

Accountability and service delivery .375** .598** .368** .374** .498**

From the above table, a significant positive correlation exists between the independent and

dependent variables. Between capacity factors and accountability, there is a positive relationship

(r=.375). This implies that an increase in capacity factors will increase accountability by 37.5%.

The same applies to institutional factors, Oversight, Public institutions and Citizen Participation

that have a positive relationship with r of .598 for institutional factors, r of .368 for Oversight

institutions, r of .374 for Accounting Institutions and r of .498 for Citizen Participation. This

implies that as these factors increase, accountability for public services is also increased by

59.8%, 36.8%, 37.4% and 49.8% respectively.

63
The Relationship between the Independent Variables and the Dependent Variable.

Regression analysis was used to measure the effect of the independent variables in the dependent

variable as shown in the table below.

TABLE 15: MODEL SUMMARY

Model Unstandardized Standardize t Sig. R Adjust F Sig
Coefficients d sq ed
coefficients
R
B Std Beta
error
1(constant) .158 .421 .375 .709
Capacity factors .121 .142 .110 .848 .400

Institutional factors .506 .160 .461 3.166 .003

Oversight institutions .151 .193 .130 .782 .438

.410 .348 6.660 .000a

Accounting .073 .136 .089 .541 .591

institution
Performance

Citizen participation .252 .202 .219 1.248 .218

with media and civil
society
a. Dependant variable: Accountability and Service Delivery

Interpretation:

The value used is Adjusted R sq 0.348. This is 34% of the variance in accountability and service

delivery is attributed to the Capacity factors, Institutional factors, Oversight institutions and

Performance of accounting institutions. However, out of them all, institutional factors have a

statistically significant prediction for the dependent variable at 0.003. Therefore institutional factors

have a significant influence over the dependent variable than the other factors.

Institutional variable has a strong effect on the dependent variable with a coefficient Beta (β) =.461.

64
 Citizen Participation also has a relatively high positive effect on the accountability with a coefficient

Beta (β)=.219. However, Capacity, Oversight and accounting institution variables have a weaker

effect on the dependent variable with coefficient Beta (β) of =.110, .130 and .089 respectively.

Overall Rating of Performance.

TABLE 16: RATING OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEES
Respondents Very Good Fair Poor Very TOTAL

Good Poor

MPS 6 34 13 2 55

Public Institutions 19 8 3 30

Oversight institutions 5 2 2 9

Donors 2 1 3

Media 1 2 2 5

Parliamentary staff 7 3 10

Citizens 1 7 11 1 20

Committee chairpersons 2 2

Total 10 76 40 8 134

Percent 7.4% 56.7% 29.9% 6.0% 0

Majority of respondents rated the committee performance as good (56.7%) despite the factors that

were known to hinder proper functioning of the committees. In spite of this good rating, nearly 36%

of the respondents considered the committee performance as unsatisfactory thus contributing to the

ongoing debate on rigidities affecting committees’ performance. This performance of Parliament would

be better when the factors affecting performance are identified and dealt with.

65
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction:
The previous chapter presented the findings of the study from which conclusions were derived in this

section. This chapter therefore summarized the study undertaken; presented conclusions and

recommendations based on the study findings. The recommendations were proposed as a means of

improving the performance of Parliament in performing its accountability role.

5.1: Summary:

5.1.1 Capacity Factors affecting Parliament’s performance of its accountability role

The research objective was to analyze the capacity factors that affect Parliament’s role in promoting

accountability in the use of public resources. Questionnaires, interviews and documentary review were

used to gather quantitative and qualitative data. Information was gathered from a wide range of

respondents who were perceived to be more knowledgeable and competent to provide adequate

information that would answer the research question.

The findings indicated that the functions of the Accountability Committees were well understood by

committee members. Although the MPs agreed that the had adequate skills, there was lack of Research

capacity and infrastructure as mentioned by 48.2% of the respondents from Parliament. It was also

clear that the MPs have high levels of education but seemed to lack audit and value for money skills.

5.1.2. Institutional factors that affect Parliament’s role in promoting accountability in the use
of public resources
The study analyzed the institutional factors that affect parliament in playing its accountability role and

answer this objective, questionnaires, interviews and document reviews were done to gather both

66
qualitative and quantitative data. The factors analyzed how political parties, the independence of

Parliament and the funding of the accountability committees influenced Parliament’s performance.

The findings indeed indicated that Parliament’s accountability role is affected by institutional factors.

This was evidenced by 48.2% response that funding for the committees was not adequate, there was

delayed scrutiny of audit reports (55.3%) and non implementation of audit recommendations as

mentioned by 61.6%. Although political influence was not seen by MPs as a factor affecting

performance, other respondents from civil society, media, citizens indicated this as one of the main

factors.

5.1.3 Examine the role of oversight institutions in facilitating Parliament to enforce effective

accountability for the use of Public resources.

With the use of questionnaires, interviews and document review, the role of oversight institutions in

the performance of Parliament’s accountability role was assessed. 58.9% of respondents thought that

oversight institutions are not well funded to carry out their tasks and 47% were of the view that reports

that are submitted to Parliament were always late. This meant that Parliament’s work was also delayed

and contributed to the backlog of cases. A good number of respondents, 30% and 35.7% also thought

that the oversight institutions did not have the independence and powers respectively. This means that

although Government efforts to empower oversight institutions were recognized to be taking effect,

there still seemed some level of dependence and control of oversight institutions on the Executive.

5.1.4 The influence of Public Institutions on Parliament’s ability to promote accountability in

the use of public resources.

This was assessed still using questionnaires, interviews and documentary review. Several factors were

seen to be affecting the performance of Parliament were failure to follow guidelines(69.6%), lack of

adherence to regulations(69.6%), late submission of reports(75%),failure to implement

67
recommendations from Parliament’s accountability committees 49% and political interference (64%).

Basing on this and the oversight factors, the researcher concluded that there was still lack of

commitment by the executive to ensure proper resource use and accountability.

5.1.5 Moderating factor of Citizen Participation

Using results from questionnaires and interview guides, the role of citizen participation was seen to

hamper accountability. There was general consensus that there was high level of public ignorance of

accountability issues (62%) and of the role that the citizens had to play to demand for accountability of

resources and ensure proper service delivery. The role of the media and civil society was recognized to

have enhanced citizen participation although it was still at a limited scale. This was further affected by

the absence of the relevant legislation like the whistle blowers’ act to encourage citizens to play an

active role

5.2 Discussion of findings

The findings presented are in agreement with literature review. These are discussed objective by

objective:

5.2.1. Capacity factors affecting the performance of Parliament’s accountability role.

The capacity factors were assessed in terms of the functions, skills, research capacity and an adequate

capacity building plan. In view of these factors, it was generally agreed that: the functions of

Parliamentarians are clearly stated but the skills in value for money auditing and financial accounting

are still inadequate. Although MPS were seen to be having the some level of skills needed to perform

their duties, the complex work of ensuring accountability demanded further retooling especially in the

ever changing committee membership. In the literature review, it was observed by Short (2005) that

MPs’ capacity usually does not match the rate at which Parliamentary business becomes more technical.

This implies that a good number of them may settle in passive or reactionary positions that have no

value or impact to the accountability debate and also face a challenge of handling intricate cases that

68
may be hidden from plain scrutiny.

In the area of research, this is a key functional requirement needed by MPs to be able to carry out audit

investigations, Value for Money audits, among others. This was underlined elsewhere by Short (2005)

who stresses the importance of technical expertise and research by MPs in order to live to high

expectations raised by the Executive. However the lack of this research infrastructure was having a

bearing on the quality and quantity of work done by the accountability committees. This factor was also

attributed to the limited funding. The study therefore concluded that the research capacity was not

given priority as one of the key elements that can enhance Parliamentary effectiveness.

However, in measuring the coefficient Beta, the capacity factors were seen to have a weaker effect on

the performance of Parliament in ensuring accountability for the use of use of Public Resources with

coefficient Beta (β) of =.110. This means that the accountability role of Parliament can still be

performed well even when Parliament has a weak capacity.

Institutional Factors affecting the performance of Parliament’s accountability role.

Institutional factors analysed were the funding, the independence and the political party influence on

the performance of Parliament. As already seen in the previous chapter, the main factors of

institutional nature were funding, late audit review and the lack of implementation of audit

recommendations. In terms of funding, the Capacity Assessment report (2007) also affirmed that the

committees did not have the requisite resources (financial and non-financial) to enable them shift the

oversight function from desk scrutiny of reports (compliance) to the field to ascertain value for money.

In addition to this, much as the Ugandan Parliament was mandated by the 1995 Constitution to

approve its own budget, the Ministry of Finance controlled the allocation that goes to Parliament. This

usually resulted into Parliament getting less than it required and out of this, the capacity building of the

committees and running of committee activities did not take priority. It was also noted that even when

oversight institutions were given more funds to fight corruption, the oversight committees of

Parliament were not considered (The New Vision, 17th June 2007-Shs 120b more to fight corruption by
69
Bucharest Tem merman). This observation confirms that a financially constrained Parliament cannot

scrutinize the Executive or hold it accountable for its actions.

In terms of independence, this was seen to be constant struggle of Parliament to exhibit its

independence from the Executive especially in the multi party political dispensation. The APRM

Report (2007) also observed this challenge for Parliament to exert its independence more so in this

multi party politics where there seems to be constant fear to compromise party allegiance. Further

noted in the literature review, Short (2005) observed that among the three arms of government

supposed to provide checks and balances on each other under Parliamentary democracy, the Executive

is still more powerful than the other two arms especially in countries with Executive Presidents. This

was seen to jeopardize the Accountability Committee work to effectively discharge their oversight

responsibility over the executive. The appointment of Ministers from the Executive was also seen by

respondents to compromise the independence of Parliament. According to respondents, products of

such processes fear to lose their posts and cannot take a stand against public officials caught in

corruption or lack of accountability.

In terms of Party Politics, this young multi party Parliament was seen to be facing challenges. The

Political Parties have been on several occasions seen to be exerting control through the party MPs who

unilaterally take party positions that conflict those of the committees. According to the Parliamentary

Accountability Committee Capacity Assessment Report of 2007, party interests more often override

interests of the Accountability Committees with party discipline taking precedent over professional

content. It is also a truism that the ruling party is reluctant to hold the executive to account and since it

commands a large majority. This emerges as a very serious bottleneck to performance and impact of

the Accountability Committees.

70
The Parliamentary Capacity Assessment Report (2007) also identified backlog as the 3rd major factor

out of 11 critical bottlenecks of the Committees and it was attributed to limited access to information,

lack of funding and a poorly facilitated research unit.

In line with this, the Parliamentary Capacity Assessment Report of 2007 identified lack of a legal or

regulatory framework for the Government Assurances Committee (GAC) to effectively perform its

functions. Nonetheless, by the time of the study, the GAC was moving a private members bill to

compel government to report on assurances and to inform the public on what assurances are. Similarly,

a Whistle blowers and witness protection bill was under debate to protect witnesses in corruption cases.

Overall, however, implementation of laws is still a bottleneck as identified above.

Given the above and as already explained in chapter 4, the institutional variable has a strong effect on

the dependent variable of accountability for public resources. This was explained by the coefficient

Beta (β) =.461. There is also a strong relationship between the institutional factors and accountability

meaning that addressing institutional challenges like funding, independence minimize multi party

politics in accountability issues, among others would greatly improve the performance of Parliament.

5.2.3 Oversight Institutions factors that affect the performance of Parliament’s

accountability role.
From the findings, funding was one of the key factors that were mentioned to be affecting oversight

institution performance. This is further affirmed by Krafchik (2003) that oversight institutions are

always under funded and this largely affects their performance. The IGG report (2008) also identified

lack of funding as a key bottleneck. Like any other institution, institutions that are inadequately funded

can only perform to a certain limit. They have limited staff, there is also high staff turnover and cannot

adequately carry out timely investigations.

The findings further indicated that the oversight institutions did not have the adequate independence

required because they are part of Government and the institution Heads are selected by the Head of

71
State for the approval of Parliament. Worst still an institution like Directorate of Ethics and Integrity is

under the Office of the President and cannot exercise its full mandate. Efforts to make oversight

institutions independent were further seen with the passing of the Auditor General’s bill but this

independence is yet to be seen.

The above observation is further reinforced by Short (2005), that in many developing countries, the

Auditor Generals’ reports and respective recommendations are frequently ignored by line ministries

and the sector public agencies implicated in the reports. Accordingly, they are not held accountable. If

oversight institutions were independent, they would be having enough powers to ensure that their

recommendations are not ignored.

In terms of relationship, it is critical that the oversight institutions relate well with Parliament and as

Krafchik’s (2003) confirms, this is a relationship of mutual independence and there is reliance on each

other to ensure effective oversight and implementation of recommendations.

However, it was noted that apart from the Auditor General, the relationship between Accountability

Committees and other oversight Institutions like IG, DEI, and PPDA was not mandatory and

entrenched in any legislation. There was no systematic approach established to foster a relationship in

the fight against corruption. This explains some of the power conflicts especially between the

Parliament and the IGG. It was also noted that the recommendations made by the AG were not

implemented which implies inadequate follow up by Parliament.

This is also observed in the literature review; by Transparency International, (2006), the IGG

report(2008) and the ECA (2004) that the effectiveness and public legitimacy of these institutions was

affected by the weak power sharing, under-funding, clashing mandates, lack of resources and the fact

that they are urban-based, among other factors.

72
In terms of laws, some respondents cited the ranking of Uganda’s framework in the Global Integrity

Report (2007) as one of the best in Africa with a 90 mark out of 100. The rated laws included the

Inspectorate of Government Act 2002, the Leadership Code Act 2003, and the Access to Information

Act 2005, Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Act 2003 among others.

However, in spite of this progress, challenges loom in terms of enforcement of these laws which the

Global Integrity Survey (2007) ranked 47 out of 100. Further more, as revealed in the IGG report

(2008), although Uganda was a signatory to the UN-Anti Corruption Convention, this had not been

customized to the Ugandan Legal System. This and the lack of a Specific Anti-corruption legislation

meant that there was inadequate specific legislation and sufficient Sanctions for the oversight

institutions to be able to curb and punish corrupt public officials. It is therefore noted that the main

issue is not the lack of legislation but the effective application of the laws that are already in place.

Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the factors above affect the performance of Parliament, there is a

weaker effect of the oversight institution factors on the dependent variable with a Coefficient Beta (β)

of .130.

5.2.4 Performance of Public institutions and the role of Parliament in promoting

accountability.

In public institutions, it was noted that there was a challenge of following guidelines and adhere to

regulations hence contravening the essential element of Accountability. Armstrong (2005) further

contends that effective accountability involve reporting on usage of resources and the achievement of

stated performance objectives. However, the noted complexities in reporting have a serious

consequence on Parliamentary scrutiny in that even members with financial of business experience

struggle to understand the financial information provided.

Reporting complexities were also observed to be hindering the performance of Parliament and the

Public institutions. This was more or less a Global problem and as advocated in the House of

Commons Liaison Committee report (2007), removing reporting complexity from government’s
73
financial system is fundamental to improving financial scrutiny and also improving the performance of

the public institutions. This issue was also looked at in relation to the terms and times that the

Committee Members had served in Parliament and on the respective accountability committees. As

noted in Chapter 4, the majority of MPs (67%) were in Parliament for the first time with 2009 as their

3rd year while 69% were serving on the Accountability Committees for the first time. More so, only a

few of the MPs has financial and accounting skills needed to do thorough scrutiny. This makes the

understanding of the reporting complexities more difficult not only for the Public Institutions but for

the MPs too.

However, just like oversight factors, in spite of the fact that accounting institution variable affect the

performance of Parliament in promoting accountability, there is a weaker effect on the dependent

variable with coefficient Beta (β) .089.

5.2.5 The moderating effect of Citizen Participation

The study findings also indicated that the committees are still concentrating more on financial

accountability by looking at the regularity of expenditure and less on managerial accountability to

ensure achievement of results. This confirms Paul’s (2002) earlier argument that the emphasis seems to

be on questioning officials for failure to meet the expenditure targets rather than the failure to meet

output or quality standards. It is also a saying that officers have learnt how to provide paper

accountability and the results on the ground may be different. As recommended by Day and Klein

(1987, financial accountability should be complemented by managerial accountability that assesses

outputs and impact of public resources.

As seen above, Citizen Participation influences the role of Parliament in promoting accountability. This

was also seen in Chapter 4 where Citizen Participation had a relatively high positive effect on the

accountability with a coefficient Beta (β) =.219.

74
 5.3 Conclusions

There are several internal and external factors that are seen to hinder the performance of Parliament as

elaborated in the previous chapter. From that analysis, the conclusions below were drawn.

5.3 (a) Internal Factors:

5.3.1. Capacity factors

The capacity factors that were seen to affect the performance of Parliament to promote accountability

were the weak research capacity and lack of comprehensive capacity building plan. This resulted into

lack of continuous skills building for members of the committees with skills like auditing, Value for

Money scrutiny among others. The weak research capacity also affected the performance of Parliament

in carrying out investigations and value for money audits. At the time of the research, heavy reliance

was still on the auditor General’s reports which are also not scrutinized on time.

5.3.2. Institutional factors

It was concluded that the performance of Parliament is mainly affected by the institutional factors

given the strong relationship between these factors and accountability. The factors of institutional

nature included; increased backlog of audit reports, poor funding of the accountability committees and

failure to implement recommendations made by the Accountability Committees. In addition to these,

the influence of the multi party politics continuously affected the performance of these committees.

This usually came into plan when dealing with high profile cases as seen in the controversial purchase

of Temangalo Land by National Social Security Fund(NSSF).

5.3 (B) EXTERNAL FACTORS:

5.3.3 The oversight institution factors

The factors that were seen to be affecting the performance of Parliament were concluded to be;

inadequate funding of the oversight institutions, lack of financial and institutional independence; lack of

75
enabling legislation and poor staffing. This meant that the oversight institutions were not effectively

performing their functions to complement the work of parliament.

5.3.4 Accounting institutions

Accounting Institutions also faced challenges that in turn affected the performance of the

Accountability Committees. These were; failure of accounting institution factors to adhere to guidelines

and financial regulations, late submission of reports, failure to implement recommendations and

political interference in implementation of recommendations made by the accountability committees.

5.3.5. Citizen Participation

It was also noted that the above were exacerbated by the limited citizen participation in promoting

accountability. As one of the respondents noted, one the factors that have hindered the performance of

oversight institutions was the public perception about accountability and corruption. This meant that

the poor had little say in shaping institutions or influencing the use of resources. This however needs to

change and the initiation of taking Parliament’s closer to the people through parliamentary Forums was

a welcome effort but this needs to be done on a regular basis. This would ensure that citizens

participate and appreciate the role of Parliament.

In spite of the above, the study revealed that the general performance of Parliament in promoting

accountability has improved in the last years and that the selected Accountability Committees of PAC,

LGAC and COSASE are active. This is shown on the overall rating that was given by respondents as

56.7% in table 6, section 4.1.4. This performance was largely attributed the multi party political

dispensation that was reestablished in 2006 providing for opposition members to take on leadership

positions especially of chairing the Accountability Committees. This gave opposition an opportunity to

play a better watch dog role. However as already seen, several factors are hindering Parliament’s
76
performance which needed to be eliminated in order to give Parliament the much needed credibility in

performing its roles.

From the above, it was also concluded that the above stated factors are an indication of lack of strong

government commitment to promote accountability and fighting corruption was limited to the

institutional set up and did not ensure that the institutions are fully functional. The 2006 Global

Corruption report also reported that Uganda was at the brink of failure to curb corruption due to lack

of the political will despite the legal framework and the ample opportunity for the media and Civil

Society to participate.

It is also concluded that the research questions that were posed were answered namely; How the

capacity of Parliamentarians and staff affect their ability to promote accountability for the use of public

resources; how institutional factors in the conduct of committee business affect Parliament’s ability to

promote accountability in the use of public resources; How the performance of oversight institutions

influence the ability of Parliament to enforce accountability for the use of public resources and how the

performance of Public Institutions influence Parliament’s ability to promote accountability in the use of

public resources. The impact of citizen participation on the performance of Parliament’s role of

promoting accountability in the use of public resources was also answered

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

In view of the above findings, the study made the following recommendations

Recommendations to address Internal Factors

5.2.1: Capacity recommendations

There is need for capacity building of the members of the Accountability Committees especially in the

areas of auditing, financial accounting and investigation skills. Civil servants that serve on the

committees should also be given training to efficiently backstop the committees they work with. In the

last years of the existence of these structures, these skills have not been given apart from generic
77
sensitization and learning from the job. There is need for formal introduction to the basic skill

requirements for undertaking the tasks.

The capacity assessment report (2007) also recommends further training in value for money and

performance-based audits to Committee members. This is because of their increasing interface with

value for money issues and the constant change of committee members. This will enable the

committees shift the current culture of paper accountability to a holistic view of ensuring that public

funds are well utilized for delivery of public services.

It should be a desired objective for the Accountability Committees to hire experts to assist the

committees in conducting performance audit, an area where the Parliamentarians still lack skills. The

experts would also provide on job training for the Committee members. This would minimize the

wastage of time and Committees will be able to conduct value for money audits.

In addition, Party Chief Whips should be in position to identify skills and experience requirements of

candidate members of the Accountability Committees. These skills may include audit skills, public

management and finance or generally accumulation of experience that would enable the member

effectively articulate committee issues. In any case, such knowledge of individual member competences

would be critical in establishing future skills requirements.

Additionally, this study recommends that Committees should be better staffed to expand knowledge

base. For example, the Research unit of Parliament should be strengthened to facilitate Committees’

investigations and offer ground for report synthesis and referencing.

The study further recommends that the Parliament’s capacity building plan should be implemented.

Alongside this plan periodic trainings should be conducted on a demand driven basis. There should be

a systematic capacity needs assessment and monitoring of performance of Committee members to

78
identify the capacity gaps. The Parliamentary Development Coordination Office (PDCO) in

consultation with the committee members would be central to this objective.

Given the backlog and untimely scrutiny of audit reports, there is a need to revise the processes of

Parliamentary scrutiny of government finances.

5.2.2 Institutional recommendations

To address institutional bottlenecks, the study recommended the following.

Increase of funding for Parliament especially for accountability work. The above recommendations

cannot be implemented without adequate funding. Funding gaps were observed in nearly all areas of

capacity development. Parliament should also use its position of approving own budget to increase the

funding of Accountability Committees to particularly enable them hire experts to address the Capacity

gaps and enable the Committees to clear the backlog. The PDCO can use its position to mobilize this

funding through courting donors to support the Accountability Committees of Parliament.

Backlog clearance should be given priority and this should go beyond the few influential cases like the

CHOGM probe,NSSF probe, and a few others. Accountability Committees should consider putting in

extra efforts by working beyond the mandatory time and overtime and during recess to clear backlog.

This would enable the committees catch up and review reports on time. A strict timeframe for clearing

backlog can be outlined and adhered to.

Emphasis needs to be drawn to Value For Money audits and this can be given a special budget.

Ensuring that outputs are achieved on funds spent is central to the success of the Committee activities.

In this regard, Public hearings could be organized to bring Parliament closer to the people and enhance

public participation. The accountability committees should also be supported to carry out field audits

and on the spot assessments of Parliament approved expenditure

79
The study further recommends that government’s financial reporting to Parliament should have in

addition to audit information, the same information that can enable Parliament monitor performance.

The information provided should provide an overall overview of planned expenditure, planned

objectives and what was achieved. Information does not have to be in figures and numbers only but

use of graphs, simple English and importantly, provided in good time. This would enable assessment of

the quality that is often ignored. Provision of improved financial information combined with increased

scrutiny will in the long run raise the quality of financial management and accounting of public

resources.

It was further suggested that Members of Parliament acquire experiences of Accountability Committees

in other countries to share in their best practices on how to handle accountability issues. Particularly in

this regard, exposures are further needed in managing multi party Parliaments. This would address the

issue of political patronage and bias that has been characterized the work of these Committees.

The study recommends that Accountability Committees should have higher membership from the

opposition. In addition, the research supports the proposal in the 2007 Capacity Assessment report of

Parliament to have inter-party dialogues and debates that are open to the public to assist in promoting

the culture of tolerance that is still missing. Such dialogues can be adopted as a safeguard against short

sighted party inclinations.

The study also recommends that the Government Assurance Bill should be enacted by Parliament.

This will enable Parliament follow up government to implement the assurances made on the floor of

Parliament especially assurances concerning accountability.

Recommendations for External Factors

5.2.3 Recommendations on the Performance of Oversight institutions

It is observed that there is need to harmonize the framework for Parliament’s engagement with the

Oversight Institutions such as IGG, AG and PPDA. These institutions were considered to be facing
80
challenges affecting the performance of their roles. The study recommends further strengthening of

oversight Institutions especially empowering them with resources and sufficient clout to operate

independently.

Parliament should also implement the recently passed Audit General’s bill to ensure that the OAG has

the administrative, operational and financial independence it requires to fully operate. Accordingly, this

study recommends an institution like DEI should be independently instituted and cease to be part of

Office of the President but be independently instituted. It is proposed that the Heads of the oversight

institutions like IG and OAG, DEI be selected by Parliament other than the Executive. Parliament

should also use its position to lobby for operational and financial independence of these oversight

institutions to ensure that they are not subject to direct or indirect control and influence of the

Executive.

The above and the establishment of the Special Anti Corruption Court would complement the work of

the oversight institutions and further enhance and improve Parliament’s effectiveness in promoting

accountability.

5.2.4 Recommendations for Accounting Institutions

The study recommends that Parliament should exercise its powers to penalize institutions that have not

provided adequate accountability or implemented recommendations. For example Parliament can

refuse to approve budgetary allocations of those Public Institutions that have not accounted properly

and/or implemented recommendations.

On complexity of reporting, government needs to simplify its reporting especially to Parliament but

ensure that there is clarity, comprehensiveness and accuracy of information given in the reports. This

will make it possible for accountability committees to scrutinize government finances more effectively

to know how public resources have been spent and thus improving managerial efficiency and

accountability.
81
 5.2.5 Recommendation for Public Participation
The study recommends that Parliament expedites the passing of the Whistle Blowers and Witness

protection Bill in order to have a facilitating disclosure in public interest. The bill would play an active

role in the fight against corruption. However, enforcement is critical in this regard as Uganda continues

to face challenges of enforcing enacted laws.

The study further recommends that public feedback mechanisms be enhanced. More information

regarding Parliamentary scrutiny should be provided to the public for example a record of actions of

legislators and the proceedings in the Committees should be availed to the public through the media

and civil society. The management letters that Auditor General provides to the public institutions

should be published to enable monitoring of audit recommendations given. This would eliminate

ignorance on issues of accountability and improve transparency of the legislature.

The study recommends that there should be a separate assessment of performance of Parliament on

accountability issues by an independent expert. This would improve their performance and increase

public participation in monitoring national programs.

The study also recommends adoption of a systematic way of citizen participation using Paul’s (2004)

model of Citizen Report Cards to seek client feedback on public services. In this way, the citizens will

help Parliament to monitor public projects, expenditures and over-all performance. This information

can be used by Parliament when performing their accountability role in scrutinizing audit reports

backed by information from the citizens in order to link expenditures to outputs.

If the above-mentioned recommendations are implemented, Uganda will have moved a step further to

ensuring accountability and eliminating corruption. This will ensure better utilization of public

resources to deliver better public services like education and health care.

82
5.3 AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study has concentrated on three Accountability Committees of Parliament, namely; PAC, LGAC

and COSASE due to their common roles. The Researcher has not studied the fourth Accountability

Committee of the GAC. The researcher recommends that more investigations be done to assess the

performance of the GAC which is uniquely placed to ensure implementation of government assurances

and promises. The performance of members should also be measured.

On the other hand, there is need for a deeper assessment of performance and linkage of the other

committees of Parliament which complement the work of the Accountability Committees assessed by

this study.

Deeper analysis on the role of citizen participation in promoting accountability is also needed especially

now that the whistle blowers’ bill is in the offing.

83
REFERENCES

Publications and Reports

Adejumobi, S, & Onyejekwe,O (2006).Capacity needs for the implementation of poverty reduction strategies and
attainment of the MDGs. Economic Commission for Africa. Cairo, Egypt

Anti Corruption Coalition (2004). Nature, impact and extent of political corruption at national and local level.
Page 4.

Armstrong, E (2005). Integrity, transparency and accountability in public administration: Recent trends, regional
and international developments and emerging issues.

Cachalia, F. (2001) article to South African Magazine, UMRABULO Number 1

Common Wealth Parliamentary Association (2005). The financing and administration of parliament. A
report of a CPA study group hosted by the legislature of Zanzibar, Tanzania.

Economic Commission for Africa and African Union (2006): African plenary on national strategies for poverty
reduction and implementation of the millennium development goals. Egypt, Cairo

Global Integrity Survey Report (2007); independent information on governance and corruption.

Government of Uganda (2007). The executive summary of the country self assessment report and governance
programme of action. Africa Peer Review Mechanism. National Planning Authority

House of Commons Liaison Committee (2007): Parliament and government finance. Recreating financial scrutiny

Jesse, C. R (2004).Waiting for democracy: the politics of choice in natural resource decentralization. World
Resources Institute, USA.

Krafchik, W. (2003). What role can civil society and parliament play in strengthening the external audit? Paper
presented at an African regional workshop. 12-15 May 2003.

Khemani, S (NY). Local government accountability for service delivery on Nigeria. Development Research
Group, World Bank, Washington DC

Marcia M. (2006). The crucial contribution of parliaments to post conflict economic recovery (including PRSPs and
MDGs). Case Study of Timor Liste;

84
Martin E. Amin (2005) Social science research. Conception, methodology and analysis: Makerere University
Printery.

Ministry of Local Government (2006).The local government handbook: a basic guide for local government
councilors.

Mugenda M.O and Mugenda A.G (1999). Research methods. Quantitative and qualitative approaches: Africa
Centre of Technology, Nairobi Kenya

Neuman,W.L(2003). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Fifth Edition Pearson
Education; Inc.2003 Boston USA

Paul S (2002). Holding the state to account: citizen monitoring in action. First Edition. Bangalore: Books for
Change

Republic of Uganda (2006) A guide to Operations of Committees. Office of the Clerk to Parliament.
Parliament of Uganda

________________ (2005). Democracy and governance assessment: Republic of Uganda, ARD Inc

Ruzindana, A. (1989). Corruption and mismanagement in government. A paper presented at a seminar on

Uganda’s Economy. Sheraton Hotel, Kampala, Uganda.

Schacter M (2001). When accountability fails: a framework for diagnosis and action. Isuma magazine, Vol 2

Sekaran,U (2003).Research methods for business.(4th Ed). New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Shah, A (2005).Public services delivery: Public sector governance and accountability series. World
Bank. Washington DC

Shah, A and Schacter M (NY). Combating corruption. Look before you leap. Page 1

Short E (2005): Government and opposition-roles, rights and responsibilities; research paper to the common wealth
secretariat and common wealth parliamentary association. Trinidad and Tobago, 25th July 2005.

The New Vision Newspaper, Wednesday, June 17th, 2007

UNCDF (2006). Delivering the goods; building local government capacity to achieve the millennium development goals

85
_______, (2005).Uganda human development report of 2005: Linking environment to human development: A
deliberate choice.

_______, (2002) “Uganda human development report of 2002: Deepening democracy in a fragmented world” -New
York

_______, (2005) paper on UNDP and Parliaments

UNDP and UN-OHRLLS (2006). Governance for the future: Democracy and development in the least developed
countries.

UN in Uganda (2004). Common country assessment of Uganda. Kampala, Uganda

World development report (2004): Making Services Work for the Poor People. Oxford Press. World Bank

Journals and Articles

Broadbent J and Guthrie J (2008).Public sector to public services: 20 years of ‘alternative’ accounting
research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol.21:2, 129-169

Tyrrall D, Woodward, D., Rakhimbekova, A (2007).The relevance of international financial reporting

standards to a developing country: Evidence from Kazakhstan. International Journal of Accounting, 42(1),
p.82-110;

Collins, P (2007).Public administration and development. Journal Vol 27 No.2, Page 95-188.

Daniel K, Aart K and Massimo M (2007).Measuring corruption: myths and realities. Journal in the
Global Corruption Index Report: Compiled by Transparency International

Gendron Y, Cooper D.J and Tawny B (2001).In the name of accountability; state auditing,
independence and new public management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(3) 278-310

Glynn J and Murphy M.P, (1996).Public management: Failing accountability and failing performance
review. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9 (5/6): 125-137.

Hague M.Shamsul (2000). Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance.
International Review of Administrative Sciences 66(4):599-617.

Jarrar, Y and Schiuma G (2007). Measuring performance in the public sector; challenges and trends.
Measuring Business excellence Journal, 11, Issue 4 4-8
86
Lodhia. S.K and Burritt.R.L(2004): Public sector accountability: failure in an emerging economy; The
case of the National Bank of Fiji. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17 ( 4), 345-359

Kayrac M (2008). The evolving challenged for Supreme Audit Institutions in struggling with
corruption. Journal of financial crime, 15(1) 60-70.

Marlize P. (2000). Records management and accountability versus corruption, fraud and
maladministration. Records Management Journal,10(2), 61-72.

Mark J and Ryan C. (2007): International journal of Public Sector Management: Vol. 20, Issue 2, Page 134-
146.

Sepuya M, (2003) Accountability in the Public Sector. Dissertation. Uganda Management Institute

Electronic Publisations
Kayrac, M (2007) “Fighting the elusive beast: corruption in Africa”
<http://psdblog.worldbank.org/psdblog/2007/03. Chris Monasterski, Private Sector Development
Blog. Viewed, 14/03/2007.

Kurtz T. (1997) Legislatures and Citizens: Public Participation and Confidence in the Legislature
National conference of state legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org. Viewed 21/12/2007)

Transparency International: A global coalition against corruption: http://www.transparency.org.

Viewed 21/12/2007, 14th April 2008 and 19/07/2009.

World Bank Institute: Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations & Local Financial Management Program.
http://www1.worldbank.org. Viewed 12/09/2008

Pan African Parliament: www.pan-african-Parliament.org. Viewed 21/12/2007

87
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1

88
 APPENDIX 2
QUESTIONAIRE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dear Honorable member,
My name is Harriet Karusigarira, a student at Uganda Management Institute. I am conducting a research in
partial fulfillment of a Masters degree in Public Administration about the factors that affect the
promotion of Accountability for public service delivery: A case of Parliament.
Due to your unique experience and position, you have been selected as a respondent. You are therefore
requested to respond to the questions below. The information you will provide will be handled with utmost
confidentiality and will be used for only academic purposes.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

SECTION A: SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
Please circle the appropriate response for questions 1 to 9.
1. Sex of respondent:
1) Male 2) Female
2. Highest level of education
1) PHD and above 2) Masters Degree 3) Bachelors’ Degree
4) Diploma 5) UACE or equivalent
3. What is your age category?
1) Below 25 2) 26-35 3) 36-45 4) 46 and above
4. What party do you belong to?
1) UPC 2) DP 3) FDC 4) NRM (O) 5) CP 6) Independent 7)
Other(…………)
5. The current term is my ___________term in Parliament
1) First term 2) Second 3) Third 4) Fourth 5) Fifth 6) Other
6. Which Committee do you serve on?
7. How many times have you served on this committee?
1) Once 2) Twice 3) Thrice 4) Four times and above
8. In what position are you currently serving on this committee:
1) Member 2) Chairperson 3) Vice Chairperson 4) Other(specify)
SECTION B: IV FACTORS THAT AFFECT ACCOUNTABILITY
The statements below have been ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 ranging from 1-Strongly Agree (SA), 2- Agree
(A)
89
 (A), 3-No Comment(NC)/Do not Know(DK),4- Disagree (D), 5-Strongly Disagree(SD). Please use the
scale given below to indicate the opinion you agree with against each of the statements
SCALE 1 2 3 4 5
SA A NC/ D SD
DK D

I) CAPACITY FACTORS
The functions of the accountability committees are clearly stated
9. Accountability committee members have adequate skills to scrutinize Audit
reports submitted to the committee
10. Adequate human resource is provided to assist these committee members
to accomplish their tasks
11. The accountability committees have adequate research infrastructure to
perform their functions
12. The capacity development plan of parliament is shared with members

13. The capacity development plan of parliament caters for the capacity needs
that the Accountability committee members may have.
14. There is total commitment of members to promoting accountability

15. Relevant training has been provided to accountability committee members

to enhance their skills

ii) INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

16. The accountability committee reporting mechanism does not affect its
work
17. The accountability committees are well funded to carry out their functions
18. This accountability committees are independent to carry out their
functions
19. Accountability committees’ work is not influenced by party politics
20. There is timely review and scrutiny of accountability reports submitted
21. The accountability committees submit reports to committee of the whole
house in time

90
22. There is adequate follow up to ensure implementation of
recommendations made by these committees
23. Government is committed to zero tolerance to corruption
24. Government fulfils the promises it makes to implement committees’
recommendations
25. Accountability committee members are provided with adequate office
space to do their work
26. The executive influences implementation of the recommendations made
by the accountability committees
27. There is clear separation of powers of parliament from the executive
28. Feedback on the findings of the accountability committees is always given
on time
iii) OVERSIGHT INSTITUTIONS
(e.g. Auditor General (AG) and Inspectorate of Government (IG),CID)

29. The accountability committees cooperate with the oversight institutions it

works with.
30. The oversight institutions always submit reports on time
31. The Auditor General’s (AG) office is well facilitated to carry out its
functions
32. The office of the IG has adequate facilitation to perform its functions
33. The oversight institutions’ performance is adequate to facilitate he work
of committees
34. Poor performance of oversight institutions affects accountability
committee s’ performance.
35. In my opinion, the oversight institutions are independent to carry out
their functions
iii) PERFORMANCE OF ACCOUNTING INSTITUTIONS
(Institutions that provide accountability to Parliament i.e. Ministries, Local
Government, Public enterprises, etc)
36. There are always issues of poor accountability in the audit reports
submitted by accounting institution(s).
37. Accounting institutions adhere to accounting guidelines most of the times
91
38. The performance of accounting institutions affects the performance of
the accountability committees
39. Accounting institutions always submit their reports on time
40. Accounting institutions implement recommendations made by these
committees
41. There is no political interference in the performance of accounting
institution(s)
42. Accounting institutions go beyond providing expenditures to specify
outputs achieved.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (MODERATING VARIABLE)

43. Information concerning the work of the accountability committees is

accessible to the public
44. The public is empowered to demand for accountability
45. In my opinion, there is public ignorance about accountability
46. The public is involved in monitoring accountability for public service
delivery
47. The accountability committees take consideration of the public interests
in performing their activities
48. The accountability committees involve Civil Society in performing its
functions
49. The media has been adequately involved in the activities of the
accountability committees

SECTION C
ACCOUNTABILITY
50. The work of the accountability committees has improved on public
service delivery
51. Accountability committees go beyond scrutinizing books of accounts to
see whether outputs have been achieved.
52. The audit reports provided clearly show total outcomes achieved from
funds utilized by accounting institutions?

92
 53. Accountability committees follow up to ensure resources utilized have
had an impact on the beneficiaries
54. More work needs to be done by the accountability committees to ensure
accountability
55. It is easy to link expenditures given to delivery of public services

56. How would you rate the performance of the accountability committees?
a) Very good b) good c) fair d) poor e) Very poor
57. What do you think are the factors that have affected the performance of accountability committees
in enforcing accountability?
58. What can be done to improve Accountability Committees’ role of ensuring accountability?
THANK YOU!

93
 APPENDIX 3

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS

SECTION A: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS
Please circle the appropriate response
1. Gender:
1) Male 2) Female
2. Level of education
1) PHD and above 2) Masters Degree 3) Bachelors’ Degree
4) Diploma 5) A-level or equivalent
3. What is your age category?
1) Below 25 2) 26-35 3) 36-45 4) 46 and above
4. What party do you belong to?
1) Independent 2) DP 3) FDC4) NRM (O) 5) CP
5. Which Accountability Committee do you serve on?
1) GAC 2) COSASEC 3) LGAC 4) PAC
6. How many times have you served on this committee?
1) Once 2) Twice 3) Thrice 4) Four times and above
7. How many terms have you served in Parliament?
1) One term 2) Two Terms 3) Three terms 4) Four and above
SECTION B: IV FACTORS THAT AFFECT ACCOUNTABILITY
TECHNICAL FACTORS
8. Are the functions of this Committee Clearly stated.
9. Do the committee members have the skills they need to perform their functions?
What essential skills do the members lack?
10. This being the first multi party parliament since 1986, how has this facilitated or hindered the
committee role in promotion of accountability?
11. How is the funding of the committees
If the funding is not adequate, how does this affect the performance of the committee?
12. What are your views on government’s commitment to zero tolerance to corruption?
13. How do you rate the performance of oversight institutions that you work with in promoting
accountability?
Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad
94
14. Are there factors affecting the performance of oversight institutions that may affect your
committee’s performance? a) Yes b) No
14b). If Yes, what are these factors?
15. Are committee recommendations implemented?
16. What follow up mechanism to ensure implementation of committee recommendations?
17. Does this committee’s work go beyond ensuring financial accountability to see whether outputs
and impact on resources utilized has been achieved?
18. Is there collaboration with civil society and Media in this committee’s work? ho
18b) How does this committee involve the media and CSO’s in its work?
19. Is there public involvement in the work of this committee?
20. 18b) If response above is NO, what hinders the involvement of the public?
21. How do you rate the performance of this committee so far?
Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad
22. What factors do you think have hindered the performance of this committee in promoting
accountability?
23. What can be done to improve the performance of this committee to promote accountability?

APPENDIX 4
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR OVERSIGHT INSTITUTION RESPONDENTS

SECTION A: SOCIO ECONOMIC BACKGROUND

Please circle the appropriate response
1. Gender:
1) Male 2) Female
2. Level of education
1) PHD and above 2) Masters Degree 3) Bachelors’ Degree
4) Diploma 5) A-level or equivalent
3. What is your age category?
1) Below 25 2) 26-35 3) 36-45 4) 46 and above
4. Which Institution do you work with?
5. How many years have you worked in this institution?
1) One to 5 years 2) Six to Ten years 3) Above ten years
6. What is your title?
95
7. Do you work with Accountability committees of parliament?
If yes, how?
8. Do you submit annual reports to parliament on time? a) Yes b) No
8b. If response above is b) please state reasons why

9. Are the reports submitted to parliament precise on the outputs and outcomes pertaining to
resources used? a) Yes b) No
10. Is there follow up on your part to ensure that the recommendations made by accountability
committees are implemented?
a) Yes b) No c) Not always d) Never
11. Do accounting institutions provide adequate accountability?
11b). If not, why?
12. What is the major source of funding? …………………….. …………………….
13. Does this institution get adequate funding from government to perform its functions?
14. Is this institution independent enough to adequately perform its functions? a) Yes b) no
15. Are their factors that you think have hindered your work?
Name them.
16. Do you think these factors mentioned above affect the performance of parliament in promoting
accountability?
How?………………………………………………………………………………

17. In your opinion, do you think parliament has performed its accountability role adequately?
1) Yes 2) No
18. How do you rate the performance of the accountability committees?
1) Very good, 2) Good, 3) Fair 4) Poor 5) Very Poor
19. 5b) If response above is 4 or 5, what do you think are the factors that affect the performance of
parliament in promoting accountability?
20. What recommendations do you give to improve the performance of parliament in promoting
accountability?

96
 APPENDIX 5
QUESTIONAIRE GUIDE FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Harriet Karusigarira, a student of Uganda Management Institute. I am conducting a research in

partial fulfillment of my Masters degree in Public Administration about the factors that affect the
promotion of Accountability for public service delivery: A case of Parliament.
Due to your unique experience and position, you have been selected as a respondent. You are therefore
requested to respond to the questions below. The information you are going to provide will be handled
with utmost confidentiality and will be used for only academic purposes.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

SECTION A: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS
Please circle the appropriate response
1. Gender:
1) Male 2) Female
2. Level of education
1) PHD and above 2) Masters Degree 3) Bachelors’ Degree
4) Diploma 5) A-level or equivalent
3. What is your age category?
1) Below 25 2) 26-35 3) 36-45 4) 46 and above
4. Please state the Institution work with
5. How many years have you worked in this institution?
1) One to 5 years 2) Six to Ten years 3) Above ten years
6. What is your title?

SECTION B: CENTRAL MINISTRIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SERVICE

DELIVERY
7. What public services do local governments provide? Please state them
8. In your opinion, do you think Ministries submit accountability to Parliament on time?
1) Yes 2) No
97
 8b) If response above is No, state the reasons why accountability is not provided on time?
9. In your opinion, do Ministries report on outputs achieved in the delivery of public services? 1)
Yes 2) No
9b). If No, state reasons……………………………………………………………………………….
10. Do you think the funds utilized by Ministries to provide public services have had any impact on
the beneficiaries?
i. Yes 2No)
11. Is this impact also reported on to parliament when giving accountability of resources utilized.
i. Yes 2No)
12. Several reports by the Auditor General, IGG have documented accountability issues in several
institutions. What do you think are the factors that have hindered the provision of accountability by most
accounting institutions?
13. Do you think these factors mentioned above affect the performance of parliament in promoting
accountability? a) Yes b) No
12b) If yes, How?………………………………………………………………………………
14. Do you think Ministries in general follow up on recommendations made by parliament?.If No,
why do you think some local governments do not implement recommendations?
15. Do you think Ministries have the capacity to provide the adequate reports on accountability of
funds received?
16. The anti corruption strategy is also aimed at ensuring active public participation against
corruption. What is your opinion on the public participation?
17. How do you rate the performance of the accountability committees in ensuring accountability?
a) Very good, 2) Good, 3) Fair 4) Poor 5) Very Poor

18. If response above is 4 or 5, what do you think are the factors that affect the performance of
these committees in promoting accountability?
19. What can Ministries do to facilitate Parliaments role of ensuring accountability?
THANK YOU!

98
 APPENDIX 6
QUESTIONAIRE FOR PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE STAFF
Dear Respondent,
I am a student of Uganda Management Institute and I am conducting a research in partial fulfillment of my
Masters in Management Studies degree about the factors the Accountability role of Parliament.
Due to your unique experience and position, you have been selected as a respondent. You are therefore
requested to respond to the questions below. The information you are going to provide will be handled
with utmost confidentiality and will be used for only academic purposes.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

SECTION A: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS
Please circle the appropriate response
1. Gender:
1) Male 2) Female
2. Level of education
1) PHD and above 2) Masters Degree 3) Bachelors’ Degree
4) Diploma 5) A-level or equivalent
3. What is your age category?
1) Below 25 2) 26-35 3) 36-45 4) 46 and above
4. If you are a committee staff, which Accountability Committee do you serve on?
1) GAC 2) COSASEC 3) LGAC 4) PAC
TECHNICAL FACTORS. Please tick or circle appropriate response. Where necessary give details
5. Has training been provided to committee staff that work with the accountability committees?
1) Yes 2) No
5b) If yes what kind of training has been provided?
6. Do you think that committee members has the requisite skills to perform their functions
1)Yes 2) No
7. Do you think that committee staff has the requisite skills to perform their functions
1)Yes 2) No
7b) If response in 7 above is No, please what essential skills are lacking?
8. Do the committees have adequate human resource to facilitate their work?
1)Yes 2) No
9. Is there a capacity building plan that caters for all capacity needs of Parliament
99
 1)Yes 2) No
10. Has this Plan adequately addressed the capacity gaps of parliament?
1)Yes 2) No
10b) If Answer above is No, please state reasons why it has not been adequate?
11. What institutional mechanisms are in place to facilitate parliament perform its accountability
function?
12. Are all Audit reports that are tabled to the scrutinized on time?
1)Yes 2) No
12b). If Answer above is No, please state reasons for this
13. If audit reposts are not scrutinized on time, how are the backlogs handled?
14. Do you think the committees go beyond ensuring paper accountability to scrutinize whether
outputs have been achieved?
1)Yes 2) No 3) Sometimes but not always
14b) If response to 14 above is 2 or 3, please state reasons for this
15. Do you think that parliament is independent to perform its functions?
1) Yes 2) No
16. Is the institution of parliament adequately funded to perform its functions?
1) Yes 2) No
16b) If response above is No, how does this affect the performance of the accountability committees?
17. What is the source of funding for parliament? tick appropriate sources
1) Government 2) Donors 3) Other (Specify)……………………
18. Do you think that the institutions that parliament works with are independent?
1) Yes 2) No
19. Do you think this parliament has performed better than the previous committees in ensuring
accountability
i. Justify response
20. How do you rate the performance of the accountability committees in the multi party setting?
1) Very Good 2) Good 3) Fair 4) Poor 5) Very Poor
21. What do you think are the factors that affect the performance of parliament in promoting
accountability?

100
 APPENDIX 7
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS
SECTION A: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS
1. Gender:
1) Male 2) Female
2. Level of education
1) PHD and above 2) Masters Degree 3) Bachelors’ Degree
4) Diploma 5) A-level or equivalent
3. What is your age category?
1) Below 25 2) 26-35 3) 36-45 4) 46 and above
4. What party do you belong to?
1) Independent 2) DP 3) FDC4) NRM (O) 5) CP
5. Which Accountability Committee do you serve on?
1) GAC 2) COSASEC 3) LGAC 4) PAC
6. How many times have you served on this committee?
1) Once 2) Twice 3) Thrice 4) Four times and above
7. How many terms have you served in Parliament?
1) One term 2) Two Terms 3) Three terms 4) Four and above
SECTION B: IV FACTORS THAT AFFECT ACCOUNTABILITY
TECHNICAL FACTORS
8. The committee members functions are clearly stated
Strongly agree Agree No comment Disagree Strongly disagree
9. The committee members have the skills they need to perform their functions?
Strongly agree Agree No comment Disagree Strongly disagree
9b). If disagree, what essential skills do the members lack?
10. This being the first multi party parliament since 1986, how has this facilitated or hindered the
committee role in promotion of accountability?
11. The committees are well funded to perform their functions?
Strongly agree Agree No comment Disagree Strongly disagree
11.b If the funding is not adequate, how does this affect the performance of the committee?
12. What are your views on government’s commitment to zero tolerance to corruption?
13. How do you rate the performance of oversight institutions in promoting accountability?

101
 Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad
14. Are there factors affecting the performance of oversight institutions that may affect your
committee’s performance? a) Yes b) No
14b). If Yes, what are these factors?
15. Committee recommendations made always implemented?
Strongly agree Agree No comment Disagree Strongly disagree
16. What follow up mechanism to ensure implementation of committee recommendations?
17. Does this committee’s work go beyond ensuring financial accountability to see whether outputs and
impact on resources utilized has been achieved? 1) Yes 2)No Please justify response
18. Is there collaboration with civil society and Media in this committee’s work?
a) Yes b) No
18b) How does this committee involve the media and CSO’s in its work?
19. Is there public involvement in the work of this committee? a) Yes b) No
18b) If response above is NO, what hinders the involvement of the public?
20. How do you rate the performance of this committee so far? Please tick answer
Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad
21. What factors do you think have hindered the performance of this committee in promoting
accountability?

102
22.
APPENDIX 8
QUESTIONAIRE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Dear Sir/Madam,
My name is Harriet Karusigarira, a student of Uganda Management Institute. I am conducting a research in
partial fulfillment of my Masters degree in Public Administration about the factors that affect the
promotion of Accountability for public service delivery: A case of Parliament.
Due to your unique experience and position, you have been selected as a respondent. You are therefore
requested to respond to the questions below. The information you are going to provide will be handled
with utmost confidentiality and will be used for only academic purposes.
Thank you in advance for your responses.
SECTION A: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS
Please circle the appropriate response
1. Gender:
1) Male 2) Female
2. Level of education
1) PHD and above 2) Masters Degree 3) Bachelors’ Degree
4) Diploma 5) A-level or equivalent
3. What is your age category?
1) Below 25 2) 26-35 3) 36-45 4) 46 and above
4. Institution ……………..
5. How many years have you worked in this institution?
1) One to 5 years 2) Six to Ten years 3) Above ten years
SECTION B: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SERVICE
DELIVERY
6. What public services do local governments provide? Please state them
7. In your opinion, do you think local governments submit accountability to Parliament on time?
1) Yes 2) No
8b) If response above is No, state the reasons why accountability is not provided on time?
8. In your opinion, do Local Governments report on outputs achieved in the delivery of public
services? 1) Yes 2) No . If No, state reasons
9. Do you think the funds utilized by local governments to provide public services have had any
impact on the beneficiaries?
103
i. Yes 2No)
10. Is this impact also reported on to parliament when giving accountability of resources utilized.
1)Yes 2No)
11. Several reports by the Auditor General, IGG have documented accountability issues in several
institutions. What do you think are the factors that have hindered the provision of accountability by most
accounting institutions?
12. Do you think these factors mentioned above affect the performance of parliament in promoting
accountability? a) Yes b) No
12b) If yes, How?………………………………………………………………………………
13. Do you think Local Governments in general follow up on recommendations made by
parliament?........................If No, why do you think some local governments do not implement
recommendations?
14. Do you think local governments have the capacity to provide the adequate reports on accountability
of funds received?
15. The anti corruption strategy is also aimed at ensuring active public participation against corruption.
What is your opinion on the public participation?
16. How do you rate the performance of the accountability committees?
a) Very good, 2) Good, 3) Fair 4) Poor 5) Very Poor
17. If response above is 4 or 5, what do you think are the factors that affect the performance of
parliament in promoting accountability?
18. What can local governments do to facilitate Parliaments role of ensuring accountability?

THANK YOU!

104
 APPENDIX 9
QUESTIONAIRE FOR MEDIA
Dear Respondent,

My name is Harriet Karusigarira, a student of Uganda Management Institute. I am conducting a research in

partial fulfillment of my Masters degree in Public Administration about the factors that affect the

promotion of Accountability for public service delivery: A case of Parliament.

Due to your unique experience and position, you have been selected as a respondent. You are therefore

requested to respond to the questions below accurately and sincerely. The information you are going to

provide will be handled with utmost confidentiality and will be used for only academic purposes.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

SECTION A: SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND

Please circle the appropriate response

1. Sex of respondent:

1) Male 2) Female

2. What is your age category?

1) Below 25 2) 26-35 3) 36-45 4) 46 and above

3. Name of organization

4. Title

SECTION B: ACCOUNTABILITY

5. How has your organization facilitated the work of parliament? ( technical support, financial, etc

6. In your opinion, has there been adequate involvement of media in the work of parliament

concerning accountability? Please explain

7. Do you think that media have the capacity to put pressure on parliament to perform its

accountability role? Please explain

105
8. In your opinion, do you think that the citizenry have had any involvement in the work of parliament

in promoting accountability?

a) Yes b) No

9. How has the media involved the public in ensuring accountability?

10. Do you think that the accountability committees have gone beyond ensuring paper compliance to

ensure that outputs and impact is achieved for resources used?

a) Yes b) No

10b. If No, why?

11. What do you think that media can do more to improve the accountability role of parliament?

12. What do you think about the performance of oversight institutions (IG and AG?)

13. What is your opinion on parliament’s independence from government control?

Do you think parliament has performed its accountability role better in a multi party setting than

before? a) Yes b) No

14. Do you think the accountability role of accountability committees is affected by the poor

performance of the institutions that are supposed to account to parliament? Tick answer

a) Yes b) No

15. In your opinion, do you think parliament has adequately performed its accountability role?

1) Yes 2) No

16. How do you rate the performance of the accountability committees?

1) Very good, 2) Good, 3) Fair 4) Poor 5) Very Poor

17. If response above is 4 or 5, what do you think are the factors that affect the performance of

parliament in promoting accountability?

106
 APPENDIX 10
QUESTIONAIRE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY
Dear Respondent,

My name is Harriet Karusigarira, a student of Uganda Management Institute. I am conducting a research in

partial fulfillment of my Masters degree in Public Administration about the factors that affect the

promotion of Accountability for public service delivery: A case of Parliament.

Due to your unique experience and position, you have been selected as a respondent. You are therefore

requested to respond to the questions below accurately and sincerely. The information you are going to

provide will be handled with utmost confidentiality and will be used for only academic purposes.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

SECTION A: SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND

Please circle the appropriate response

1. Sex of respondent:

1) Male 2) Female

2. What is your age category?

1) Below 25 2) 26-35 3) 36-45 4) 46 and above

3. Name of organization

4. Title

SECTION B: ACCOUNTABILITY

5. How has your organization facilitated the wok of parliament? ( technical support, financial, etc

6. Do you think there is adequate involvement of CSOs in the work of parliament concerning

accountability?

107
7. Do you think that CSOs have the capacity to put pressure on parliament to perform its

accountability role?

8. In your opinion, do you think that the citizenry have had any involvement in the work of parliament

in promoting accountability?

1) Yes 2) No

9. How have Civil society involved the public in ensuring accountability?

10. Do you think that the accountability committees have gone beyond ensuring paper compliance to

ensure that outputs and impact is achieved for resources used?

11. What do you think that CSOs can do more to improve the accountability role of parliament?

12. Do you think that there is adequate involvement of the media?

a) Yes B) No

13. What do you think about the performance of oversight institutions (IG and AG?)

14. Do you think parliament has performed in a multi party setting?

15. Do you think that the support given to parliament is adequate for it to perform?

16. What is your opinion on parliament’s independence vis-a-vis government control?

17. Do you think the accountability role of accountability committees is affected by the poor

performance of the institutions that are supposed to account to parliament? a) Yes b) No

18. In your opinion, do you think parliament has adequately performed its accountability role?

1) Yes 2) No

19. How do you rate the performance of the accountability committees?

a) Very good, 2) Good, 3) Fair 4) Poor 5) Very Poor

20. If response above is 4 or 5, what do you think are the factors that affect the performance of

parliament in promoting accountability?

108
 APPENDIX 11
QUESTIONAIRE FOR CITIZENRY
Dear Respondent,

My name is Harriet Karusigarira, a student of Uganda Management Institute. I am conducting a research in

partial fulfillment of my Masters degree in Public Administration about the factors that affect the

promotion of Accountability for public service delivery: A case of Parliament.

Due to your unique experience and position, you have been selected as a respondent. You are therefore

requested to respond to the questions below accurately and sincerely. The information you are going to

provide will be handled with utmost confidentiality and will be used for only academic purposes.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

SECTION A: BACKGROUND ISSUES

Please circle the appropriate response

1. Sex of respondent:

1) Male 2) Female

2. What is your age category?

1) Below 25 2) 26-35 3) 36-45 4) 46 and above

3. Level of education

1) PHD and above 2) Masters Degree 3) Bachelors’ Degree 4) UACE Certificate

5) UCE certificates 6) Other (Specify)……………….

SECTION B: PERCEPTIONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY

4. Are you aware that parliament’s role to ensure accountability?

a) Yes b) No

5. Are you aware of the accountability committees of parliament?

1) Yes b) No

5b). If Yes, which ones do you know?

109
6. Do you think there is adequate involvement of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in the

accountability work of parliament?

1) Yes 2) No

Please elaborate on response given

7. In your opinion, do you think that the citizenry have had any involvement in the work of

parliament in promoting accountability?

1) Yes 2) No

8. Do you think that the accountability committees have gone beyond scrutinizing expenditures to

ensure that outputs and impact is achieved for resources used?

9. Do you think that there is adequate involvement of the media?

a) Yes b) No

10. What more can the media do to facilitate the accountability work of parliament?

11. Do you think parliament is independent to do its work?

1) Yes 2) No

15b). If answer above is No, what do you think hampers parliament’s independence to perform it

accountability functions

12. How do you rate the performance of the accountability committees in ensuring that government

accounts properly?

a) Very good, 2) Good, 3) Fair 4) Poor 5) Very Poor

12b) If response above is 3, 4 or 5, what do you think are the factors that affect the performance of

parliament in promoting accountability?

13. Do you think the factors given above have affected public service delivery?

1) Yes 2) No

If Yes, how?

THANK YOU
110