COUNTRY REPORT: UGANDA
Alice Komuhangi*
I. INTRODUCTION
Corruption has perhaps had the most varied definitions and conceptualization. The phrase ‘corrupt’ isvery elastic and is capable of including a wide range of disapproved behaviour or conduct. A definition ofcorruption often tends to commence with its 1931 conceptualization by the Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences as the “misuse of public power for private profit ”; the crucial key elements in the seven-worded
definition are ‘misuse’, ‘public’ and ‘private’. Other definitions have been offered over the past decades andyears, including, more broadly: “Corruption is, in its simplest terms, the abuse of entrusted power for
personal gain or for the benefit of a group to which one owes allegiance. The word ‘corruption’ is commonly
applied to situations of dishonesty in general ... ‘corruption’ involves behaviour on the part of officials in the
public sector, whether politicians or civil servants, in which they improperly and unlawfully enrichthemselves or those close to them by the misuse of public power entrusted to them.”1
Corruption has the most profound impact in terms of hurting public resources and the delivery ofservices (e.g. education, health care, and infrastructure). To that end, ‘corruption’ can be said to encompass
acts or conduct that cause harm to public funds, improper use of office for personal benefit, getting or
obtaining of bribes or commissions on government projects and unlawful gains. However, it can also occur
where public and private sectors meet, where a public official has direct responsibility for the provision of
goods and services to be delivered by the private sector. Further, private individuals and organizations
connected with the public sector (e.g. procurement firms) may take advantage of the opportunity to make‘easy ’ money through corrupt means.
Although perceived differently from country to country, corruption tends to include the following
behaviours: conflict of interest, embezzlement, fraud, bribery, political corruption, nepotism, and extortion.
In Uganda, the Inspector General of Government Act defines corruption as: “the abuse of office for private
gain and includes but is not limited to embezzlement, bribery, nepotism, influence peddling, theft of publicfunds or assets, fraud, forgery, causing financial loss or property loss or false accounting in public affairs.”2
This paper discusses the present situation of corruption in Uganda and the problems faced by the legal
system regarding corruption. It also gives some possible solutions to the problem of corruption.

II. CURRENT SITUATION OF CORRUPTION IN UGANDAThis section of the paper discusses the trends of corruption and gives an overview of the existing anticorruption legal and institutional framework and agencies in Uganda.

A. Trends of Corruption In Uganda
Uganda has designed the National Strategy to fight Corruption.3 The document inter alia indicates that a
considerable number of cases of grand corruption have emerged in recent years leading to significant lossesof public funds through mishandled procurements and outright embezzlement. For instance, in the area of
procurement, the Inspectorate of Government Report to Parliament4 indicated that district politicians
usually participate in and/or influence the irregular award of tenders. This they achieve by manipulating the
Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) and the Tender Board members who are usually appointed to theseoffices by the said politicians.
However, the recent Constitutional amendment entrusts the appointment, discipline and control of the
CAOs and their deputies to the Ministry of Public Service instead of the Districts. It is believed that this will
* Senior State Attorney, Acting Head of the Fraud Unit, Directorate of Public Prosecutions.
1 P. Langseth, ‘The Role of a National Integrity System in Fighting Corruption’ (1997) 23 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 499.
2 Inspector General of Government Act, Cap. 167, sec. 2.
3 2004-2007 policy document on operations of anti-corruption agencies.
4 July 2005-December 2005.

148

THE NINTH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON CORRUPTION CONTROL IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

enhance their impartiality while granting such tenders.
There has also been petty corruption associated with lack of motivation and indiscipline among poorly
paid civil servants like police and the lower cadres of the judiciary.
There have also been instances where corruption has gone unpunished, or there have been delays insanctioning due to weak systems and difficulties in obtaining evidence. In such cases, some people havedeveloped a perception that corruption is a condoned act. This has resulted in some people tolerating andparticipating in petty corruption, especially due to sympathy regarding the poor pay of some lower cadres ofcivil servants and the belief that there are those who are involved in more serious corruption but have not
faced deserving sanctions because they were not successfully prosecuted.
It has also been established by some surveys that the long procedures employed by the government inproviding certain services such as licences and permits exacerbate corruption, particularly the aspect ofgiving and taking of bribes. Some people see no reason to follow long procedures and wait for a service ifthey can give a bribe and get it with ease.
It is also unfortunate to note that according to the surveys, sectors that have featured in incidences ofcorruption have included the anti-corruption agencies themselves such as the lower levels of the police
force and the judiciary.
The above notwithstanding however, according to a 2003 survey report, anti-corruption efforts haveyielded positive results. Since the 1998 survey there has been a marked reduction in the reported incidencesof bribery relating to the police, tax collection agencies, magistrates’ courts, education services and healthservices.

B. Legal Framework in the Management of Corruption
The legal system in Uganda comprises the 1995 Constitution as the supreme law and other laws that
include Acts of Parliament, subsidiary legislation, case law, principles of common law and doctrines of equity
and customary law.5 The following section details principal legislation aimed at combating corruption.
1. The Constitution of The Republic of Uganda, 1995
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and has binding force on all the authorities and persons
throughout Uganda.6 As the primary legal instrument, the Constitution contains provisions on measures,concepts and institutions that are geared to preventing, monitoring and combating corruption. Under the
National Objectives and Direct Principles of State policy, the Constitution stipulates that the State andcitizens of Uganda are to “preserve and protect and promote a culture of preserving public property”7andthat all measures should be undertaken to eradicate corruption and abuse of office or misuse of power by
those in public office.8 The Constitution makes all public offices and those in positions of leadership
answerable and accountable to the people of Uganda.9 Besides, the Constitution enjoins the citizens of
Uganda to preserve and protect public property and combat corruption.10
2. The Prevention of Corruption Act Cap 121
This law, which commenced on 12 June 1970, is the major piece of anti-corruption legislation in Uganda.
It tries to define “corruption” in a broad and comprehensive manner. Under this law, corruption as an offence
involves the participation of a public official. In defining corruption, the Act prohibits the soliciting, receiving
or agreeing to receive by one or on behalf of another as well as giving, promising or offering to any person
whether for the benefit of that person or another person any gratification as an inducement or reward to amember, officer or servant of a public body. 11
5 Judicature Act Cap 13, Sec 14.
6 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Article 2(1).
7 1995 Constitution, objective xxv.
8 Ibid., objective xxvi.
9 Id.
10 Ibid., Art. 17(2)(d) and (i).
11 The Prevention of Corruption Act Cap 121 Sec. 2 (a) and (b).

149

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

The said law also criminalizes the act of corruptly withdrawing a tender which has been awarded. Boththe public official and the other party involved are treated as offenders. The law further criminalizes similarcorrupt transactions involving an agent when conducting the principal’s affairs or business and bribing any
public official in order to vote or not to vote in any matter.12
3. The Penal Code Act Cap 120
Other corruption-related offences are contained in the Penal Code Act and they include inter alia
embezzlement,13 causing financial loss,14 fraudulent false accounting,15 false accounting by public officers,16
fraudulent offences by directors and officers of corporations,17 abuse of office,18 etc. Embezzlement is theftby an employee of employer’s property and also covers directors of companies or corporations and membersof associations or religious organizations. On the other hand, causing financial loss is where the acts oromissions of a public official or employee of a bank, credit institution, or insurance company cause financial
loss to the employer or a customer. It must be proved that the offender had knowledge or reason to believethat his or her act or omission would cause financial loss. With abuse of office, arbitrary acts by a public
official or acts committed under his or her direction must be found to be prejudicial to the interests of theemployer or any other person. False accounting is where a public officer knowingly furnishes false
statements or returns relating to public property, revenue or balance of public funds.
It is also worth noting that in an attempt to fight corruption globally, Uganda is a signatory to both the UN
and AU Conventions against corruption. Though the conventions have not been domesticated into our laws,
the provisions therein are being considered in our amendments and new laws with a view to domesticatinginternational law regarding corruption. The proposals for the amendment of the Uganda’s Prevention of
Corruption Act embrace a number of the provisions of the UN Convention that are not yet part of ourcurrent law. The provisions in the UN Convention that relate to money Laundering and Bank Secrecy arebeing handled in the Money Laundering Bill.

C. The Anti-Corruption Institutional Framework/Agencies in Uganda
Uganda’s main anti-corruption institutions include the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP)19 (forcriminal prosecution), the Inspectorate of Government (ombudsman),20 the Auditor General (for financial
probity),21 the Uganda Police Force and in particular the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) (forinvestigating crimes),22 courts (for adjudication purposes),23 Parliament (by its oversight function through its
committees, in particular the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the power of censure of ministers),24
and the Directorate of Ethics and Integrity.
1. Parliament
The parliament is the legislative organ of government and inter alia, performs an oversight function andacts as a watchdog over the executive. This involves holding the executive accountable on a continuous
basis by way of public scrutiny to which it subjects the executive, through debate and question time, which
promotes both transparency and accountability. In the performance of its investigative functions, parliament
acts in liaison with the offices of the Auditor General (AG), the Inspectorate of Government (IG), theDirectorate of Ethics and Integrity (DEI) and the public.25
12 Ibid., Sections 3, 4 and 5.
13 The Penal Code Act Cap 120, sec 268.
14 Ibid., Section 269.
15 Ibid., Section 325.
16 Ibid., Section 326.
17 Ibid., Section 323.
18 Ibid., Section 87.
19 Ibid., Art. 120.
20 1995 Constitution, Art. 223.
21 Ibid., Art. 163.
22 Ibid., Art 211.
23 Ibid., Art. 129.
24 Ibid., Arts 90, 118.
25 Dr. Henry Onoria, Legislative and Policy Measures for Combating Corruption In Uganda; A study report on the practicalchallenges of compliance with the AU Anti-Corruption Convention, published by the African Parliamentary Network Against
Corruption (APNAC), Uganda, 2006, p.21.

150

THE NINTH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON CORRUPTION CONTROL IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

The Parliament has the power to create and constitute select committees for consideration of matters towhich the House may refer. Besides, Parliament can also appoint special committees to investigate any
matter of public importance that does not come within the jurisdiction of the standing committees or has notbeen dealt with by the select committee. Such special or ad hoc committees can be assigned to investigate
the acts of corruption as they arise. An instance was a special committee constituted to investigate the saleof the Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB) in 2002.26
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), as one of the standing committees of the Parliament, has overall
responsibility for matters of financial accountability. The PAC has the role of examining reports of the
Auditor General (AG) tabled before Parliament and to report back to the Parliament on remedial actions
recommended and to be acted upon by Cabinet. The PAC, for instance, has the power to summon any
controlling officer or department head to give an explanation and be accountable for breaches in financial
accounts in the Auditor General’s reports. The scrutiny of annual accounts and audit reports by PAC
completes the circle of the various stages of controls for ensuring financial accountability. Both the PAC andthe AG therefore play very important roles in overseeing public financial accountability.27 Parliament is also
empowered to censure ministers accused of engaging in acts of abuse of office, misconduct andmisbehaviour.28
2. The Police
The Uganda Police force is provided for under the Constitution29 and its functions inter alia include theprevention and detection of crime,30 including corruption. The function of the police in the prevention anddetection of crime is very crucial in efforts to combat corruption, with the Criminal Investigations
Department (CID) and its National Fraud Squad charged with carrying out investigations in the process of
prevention and detection of corruption. The investigations involve obtaining relevant documents andstatements of witnesses in the affected organization. Inputs are sought from experts in the affectedorganizations and others, especially Auditors, from the office of the Auditor General and document analysts
or handwriting experts from the Government Analytical Laboratory.
3. The Directorate of Public Prosecutions
Article 120 of the 1995 Constitution establishes the Directorate of Public Prosecutions with the mandate
over all criminal prosecutions, including acts of corruption, in Uganda. The DPP is independent in the sensethat in the exercise of his or her functions he or she is not subject to the direction or control of any person or
authority.31 Under Article 120 (3) of the Constitution, the major functions of the DPP include directing police
to investigate any information of a criminal nature and instituting criminal proceedings against any person inany court with competent jurisdiction, other than a court martial.
Under Article 120 (4) of the Constitution, the functions conferred on the DPP can be performed by him
or her personally or by officers authorized by him or her who are State Attorneys and State Prosecutors savefor withdrawal of cases from court, which must be exercised by him or her exclusively. The DPP does notcarry out investigations of cases. It is the exclusive role of the police and at times the office of theInspectorate of Government (IG) with regard to corruption.32 The role of the DPP is to guide and advise
police in the conduct of investigations. The cases are reported to police who carry out investigations andrefer them to the DPP for legal guidance and/or conducting the prosecution. The prosecutions of corruption
offences are done in the magistrates’ courts, although the DPP has the power to commit any case to theHigh Court for trial.33

26 Id.
27 Ibid., pp. 21 and 22.
28 1995 Constitution, Art.118 (1).
29 Ibid., Art. 211.
30 Ibid., Art. 212 (c) and section 4 (1) (e) of the Police Act Cap 303.
31 1995 Constitution, Art. 120 (6).
32 Police Act Cap 303, Section 4 (1) (e) and Section 8 of The IG Act No. 5 of 2002.
33 The Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23, Section 1. See also Section 168 of the Magistrates Courts Act Cap 16.

151

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

In order to improve efficiency in the management of corruption-related matters, the DPP in 2004 set up a
Fraud Unit as a specialized body to handle the prosecutions of all such cases. The Unit members attended a
one-month working experience attachment programme with the Directorate of Special Operations(‘scorpions’) of the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa. The Unit members handle and prosecute
selected high profile, sensitive and/or complex cases of corruption or fraud. The Unit currently consists offive members who work closely with the National Fraud Squad of the CID. The two entities work together
in handling cases of corruption from the early stages of investigation and remain in contact throughout thetrial through regular case management meetings between investigators, prosecutors, State Attorneys,
complainants and witnesses.
Further, in handling cases of corruption, the DPP enjoys the power to: cause the investigation of any
bank account, share account or purchase account; apply to court for orders restricting disposal of assets orbank accounts of accused persons; order the inspection of documents and obtaining of copies thereof; and toobtain information.34
4. The Inspectorate of Government
The Inspectorate of Government (IG) as the ombudsman and key anti-corruption agency is provided forunder Article 223 of the 1995 Constitution. The IG has the power to investigate, cause investigation, arrest,
cause arrest, prosecute or cause prosecution in respect of cases involving corruption. 35 The majordifferences in the roles of the DPP and IG are that while the IG has powers to investigate, arrest andprosecute offenders, the DPP does not investigate or arrest but relies on police for investigations and arrest.
Further, while the DPP has powers to control and handle all criminal prosecutions in the country, the IG
handles investigations and prosecutions only in corruption cases and cases of abuse of authority or public
office.
5. Courts of Law/ Judiciary
The Courts of Law as organs empowered with the administration of justice are provided for in Chapter 8of the 1995 Constitution.36 Cases of corruption in Uganda are handled in the magistrates’ courts. The judicial
officers presiding over these courts are qualified lawyers. The above notwithstanding, the DPP has powers
to commit any case to the High Court for trial despite the fact that magistrates have jurisdiction to handle
them.37
6. Directorate of Ethics And Integrity (DEI)
The establishment of the Directorate of Ethics and Integrity (DEI) was in response to a public outcry thatthe presence of specific anti-corruption bodies had not been effective in efforts to control and combat
corruption in public office, and against the background that some of the anti-corruption agencies were in fact
themselves corrupt. The DEI is therefore mandated to provide co-ordination policies and strategies towards
effective anti-corruption efforts.
7. Auditor General (AG)The office of the Auditor General is an autonomous public body established under Article 163 of the 1995
Constitution. It is the overall institution that acts as a watchdog over financial integrity and is responsible for
auditing government income and expenditure. The law empowers the AG to conduct financial and value-formoney audits on the public accounts of Uganda, including those of public offices, government projects andorganizations established by Acts of Parliament.38 The AG’s audit responsibility and function extends to local
government.39

34 Penal Code Act (supra), Section 274. See also Sections 16-20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act Cap 121.
35 1995 Constitution, Art. 230 (1). Also see Section 8 of the Inspectorate of Government Act No.5 of 2002.
36 1995 Constitution (supra) Arts 126-151.
37 The Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23. Section 1. See also Section 168 of the Magistrates Courts Act Cap 16.
38 1995 Constitution (supra), Art 163 (3).
39 Local Government Act., Section 88.

152

THE NINTH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON CORRUPTION CONTROL IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

III. PROBLEMS FACED IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UGANDAThis section of the paper appraises the problems faced in the legal system in combating corruption in
Uganda. They include the following:

A. Inadequacy of the Law
There are weaknesses in the law related to the management of corruption as discussed.
1. The Prevention of Corruption Act
It is the major anti-corruption law but restrictive in the sense that it only applies to members, officers
and servants of a public body and does not encompass private companies and corporations. It also addresses
only the offence of bribery. However, there is a Bill in place which aims at amending the above Act and isintended to redefine and broaden the offence of corruption.
2. The Inspectorate of Government Act
Though the above law is good as far as management of corruption is concerned, it also has its limitations.
For example, the jurisdiction of the Inspectorate of Government is limited to Government Department
undertakings or services; statutory corporations or authorities; the Cabinet; Parliament; courts of law;police; prisons; Government aided schools; UPDF; local Defence Forces; Council Boards; societies orcommittees established by law for the control and regulation of any profession; public commissions,associations or similar bodies, whether corporate or not, established by or under the law; national security
organizations and any other person, office or body that administers public funds on behalf of the public.
3. The Leadership Code Act
Section 7 of the Leadership Code Act provides that the contents of the declaration are to be treated as
public information. However, this information is only accessible to the members of the public upon
application to the IG in a form prescribed under the Code. This, given the level of literacy in Uganda is selfdefeating since it is unlikely that the majority of the population will be familiar with such a procedure. The
law also addresses only a specific category of people (leaders) as defined in the Act. This therefore meansthat it is limited in scope in that it caters only for that group of people. Private individuals who are notleaders within the meaning of the Act who may amass a lot of wealth through commission of corruption
offences are not required to declare their wealth to any authority. It therefore follows that such people will
enjoy their ill-gotten wealth unchecked. It is also important to note that Uganda lacks laws that target theproceeds of corruption and yet corruption empowers the offenders with economic gain. Even in cases where
the offender may be convicted, their ill-gotten wealth remains intact.

B. Inadequate Resources
Anti-corruption agencies suffer in common from a chronic shortage of resources, both financial andhuman. In spite of being constitutionally independent bodies, which puts them in an advantageous position tolobby government and urge for more funds, anti-corruption agencies have not benefited from any sectorwide approach or resources and are heavily dependent on core government funds as well as project funds
from the international community. In addition, by virtue of their mandates, anti-corruption agencies tend tohave uneasy relationships with some political institutions responsible for resource allocation andmanagement.
C. Lack of Specialization in Handling Corruption Cases
The anti-corruption agencies face a lot of challenges in their attempt to combat corruption. Corruption
offences are very intricate in nature, committed in a very complex manner and by very sophisticated people.
It requires an equally trained team of personnel as investigators, prosecutors and magistrates to combat
them. Whereas the police (CID) and DPP, as investigative and prosecuting bodies respectively, have madeattempts to set up specialized units to handle corruption related matters, the courts have not. There is no
specialization in the magistrates’ courts and they handle corruption matters in addition to all categories ofcriminal cases. It is also worth noting that even in institutions like the police and DPP, where attempts havebeen made to set up specialized units to handle corruption related matters, the members in those units lackadequate training necessary for effective management of corruption. There is therefore great need tocontinually train and upgrade staff in the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of corruption cases.

153

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.73

D. Inadequate Staffing
The agencies vested with the mandate of combating corruption are understaffed. Whereas corruption is
on the increase, the manpower responsible for fighting it is inadequate. For example, Uganda has only two
handwriting and document analysis experts and no police expertise in forensic auditing or investigation ofcorruption. Investigators uniformly lack the accounting and computer skills that would allow them to accessand analyse financial records.40 This causes delays in investigations of these crimes, which have very
adverse effects like the death of very vital witnesses and loss of interest in the cases, which grossly affecttheir outcome. At times, the State is forced to take the cases to court during early stages of investigations
and once the cases are in court, there is pressure to fix them for hearing. The cases are then fixed forhearing when the prosecution is not fully prepared to proceed. Investigations continue while cases are underhearing which is a dangerous trend and in many cases does not favour the prosecution. The problem ofunderstaffing also affects the prosecuting and adjudicating agencies.
The above problem is aggravated by the issue of poor remuneration of the personnel with responsibility
for managing corruption. This affects their morale and motivation in handling these crimes. It is also
tempting in that the perpetrators of these crimes have amassed a lot of wealth and they can easily
compromise the personnel who are underpaid. This of course affects the quality of investigation,prosecution and adjudication of corruption cases.

E. Insufficient Public and Victim Participation and AwarenessIn order to effectively combat corruption, and its adverse effects, there is need for effective public
involvement. However, many people do not seem to be aware of the fact that corruption involves and affects
everybody. Many people seem to be indifferent or ignorant of their role in the fight against corruption byserving as witnesses. Most people do not feel any obligation to play any direct role in preventing corruption,or where it has been committed, to act as witnesses. The public do not view corruption offenders with thesame intolerance as those who do grievous harm to them and commit other crimes of a personal nature.
Consequently, the public and the relevant officials are rather reluctant to assist the investigators andprosecutors in a number of cases.
There is also lack of co-operation from witnesses who are approached by investigators to provide
evidence or serve as witnesses for fear of reprisals from the culprits. Other witnesses do not want to
implicate relatives, friends, employers or any other influential person. For instance, it is often hard to secure
the attendance of witnesses in court where they are expected to give evidence implicating their bosses. Thisis either because of the good working relationship that existed between the parties before the commission of
the offence or the fear that when the culprits are acquitted and reinstated, the witnesses will be victimized.
Also, some victims such as banks, embassies and religious organizations do not want exposure and assuch, are reluctant to report or participate actively in those cases which get to court. In some cases, they
have no confidence in the criminal justice system to handle their cases properly.

F. Inadequate Co-Ordination among the Anti-Corruption Agencies
There has been inadequate co-operation and co-ordination between the anti-corruption agencies andthere have always been accusations and counter accusations amongst them. In order to improve efficacy inthe fight against corruption, Uganda has realized the need for increased co-ordination among the institutionsof the Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) with other institutions. In this regard, Uganda has put in place
the Anti-Corruption Inter-Agency Forum (IAF) in which JLOS institutions are active participants. The
Forum is chaired by the Minister of Ethics and Integrity and comprises the Inspector General of
Government (IGG), the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Judiciary, the Police, the Public
Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority, the Auditor General and other institutions. Throughthe Forum, the anti-corruption agencies have been working together on the design and implementation of
the National Strategy to fight corruption, promote publicity and advance legal reforms. For instance, they
made a report on the initiation of the whistleblower protection legislation in Uganda in August 2003 andinitiation of Qui Tam legislation in October 2003. Qui Tam is an abbreviation for “Qui tam pro domino regequam pro se ipso” which means, “Who sues on behalf of the king as well as for himself.” This legislation will
40 Ibid.

154

THE NINTH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE ON CORRUPTION CONTROL IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

allow private citizens or whistleblowers who know of fraud committed against the government to file suit forand on behalf of the government to recover the losses caused by the fraud.
Also, through the chain-linked initiative programme, the issue of close co-ordination, communication, andco-operation among the criminal justice agencies has been emphasized in streamlining operations that havean impact on the fight against corruption. Under the programme, performance standards for all theinstitutions have been designed. They set time limits within which investigations, perusals of police files,
prosecutions, adjudications and written judgments by relevant officers are supposed to be completed.
Further, the DPP and police have in a place a joint co-ordination committee which meets monthly toensure that the operations between the two key institutions in the criminal justice system remain coordinated. The DPP and police also have joint annual workshops where they share experiences, discusscommon challenges and stress the need for more co-ordination amongst them. It is proposed that the
judiciary be included in these workshops.

IV. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION
In order to effectively combat corruption, there is a need to reform the existing laws. The traditional
approach to corruption has been drafting of anti-corruption and penal legislation. In Uganda, there is thePrevention of Corruption Act (enacted in 1970) and the Penal Code Act as already cited above. The above
legislation has however always targeted corruption in the public sector and not the private sector. On theother hand, legislation and policy need to be backed and supported by strong institutional mechanisms,
standards and processes. There is already in place a bill amending the Prevention of Corruption Act, whichinter alia aims at widening the definition of corruption and will soon be passed into law.
Considering their complexity, there is also a need to establish specialized institutions to handle
corruption matters. Specifically, there is a need to have a special court in place to handle only corruption
matters. Given the fact that the DPP and the police already have in place those specialized units (Fraud Unit
for the DPP and National Fraud Squad for the police), establishment of a special court would greatly improvethe management of corruption. The staff in the above named units should be specially trained in matters ofcorruption so as to be able to address the challenge.
There is also need to have more funds allocated to the anti-corruption agencies, given the magnitude of
the challenges involved in the fight against corruption. This should include remuneration of the personnel
involved so that they are retained in those institutions. There is a further need to recruit more personnel tothe anti-corruption agencies since there is a problem of insufficient capacity. Co-ordination, co-operation andcommunication between the anti-corruption agencies should be emphasized.

V. CONCLUSION
Corruption, with its adverse effects, is on the increase both in the public and private sector. Though there
is an existing legal and institutional framework in Uganda to fight it, it is not adequate and there is a need forreform in the laws. Furthermore, the anti-corruption agencies need to be adequately equipped in terms of
training, funding, staffing and remuneration and there is also need to improve co-ordination among the anticorruption institutions and agencies in order to effectively fight corruption.

155