[{"content": "T H E R E P U B L I C O F U G A N D A\nA N N U A L R E P O R T O F T H E A U D I T O R G E N E R A L \nT O P A R L I A M E N T F O R T H E\nF I N A N C I A L Y E A R E N D E D\n3 0 T H J U N E 2 0 2 2\nDECEMBER 2022\nC O N S O L I D A T E D A U D I T F I N D I N G S", "metadata": {"page": 0, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \n \n \n \n \n \n \nREPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL TO PARLIAMENT \nFOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 30TH JUNE 2022 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nOFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL \nUGANDA \n \n \n \n \n \nDECEMBER, 2022 \nii \n \nTABLE OF CONTENTS \n \nLIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... X \nLIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. XIII \nGLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................... XV \nFOREWORD BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL ................................................................................................... XVI \nPART 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT .................................................................... 1 \n1.0 \nINTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ...................................................................................................... 1 \n1.1 \n1.1 \nGENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 \n1.2 \n1.2 \nPURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................... 1 \n1.3 \n1.3 \nSUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 2 \n1.3.1 \nGENERAL PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................... 2 \n1.3.2", "metadata": {"page": 1, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1.3.2 \nSUMMARY OF OPINIONS ................................................................................................................ 3 \nPART 2: REPORTS ON CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS \n2.0. \nREPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL ON THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE \nGOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 30TH JUNE 2022 ... 5 \nBASIS OF OPINION ...................................................................................................................................... 5 \nKEY AUDIT MATTER ..................................................................................................................................... 5 \n2.1 \nIMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROVED BUDGET .............................................................................. 5 \nEMPHASIS OF MATTER ................................................................................................................................ 8 \n2.2 \nUNSPENT BALANCES FROM THE PRIOR YEAR ................................................................................. 9 \n2.3 \n2.3 \nGOVERNMENT LOANS (BORROWINGS) \u2013 UGX.77.97TN ................................................................... 9 \n2.4 \nPAYABLES \u2013 UGX.7.545TN ............................................................................................................. 9 \n2.5 \n2.5 \nPENSION LIABILITIES - UGX.442.99BN ......................................................................................... 10 \n2.6 \nCLASSIFIED EXPENDITURE \u2013 UGX.780BN ..................................................................................... 10 \nOTHER MATTER......................................................................................................................................... 10 \n2.7 \n2.7 \nPUBLIC DEBT .............................................................................................................................. 10 \n2.7.1 \n2.7.1 \nPORTFOLIO ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 10 \n2.7.2 \nANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL DEBT ..................................................................................................... 12 \n2.7.3", "metadata": {"page": 2, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2.7.3 \nMOVEMENT OF DOMESTIC DEBT STOCK ...................................................................................... 13 \n2.7.4 \nTHE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR USING PRIVATE PLACEMENTS - UGX.1.2TN ........................ 15 \n2.7.5 \nHIGH COST OF BOND SWITCHES TO GOVERNMENT ..................................................................... 15 \n2.7.6 \nDEBT TO GDP RATIO ................................................................................................................... 17 \n2.7.7 \nINTEREST TO TOTAL REVENUE RATIO ......................................................................................... 18 \n2.7.8", "metadata": {"page": 2, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2.7.8 \nUSE OF NON-CONCESSIONAL LOANS FOR BUDGET SUPPORT \u2013 UGX.4.5TN ................................... 18 \n2.7.9 \nCONTINUED HIGH COMMITMENT FEES ........................................................................................ 19 \n2.8 \nCANCELLATION OF THE LOAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MUZIZI HYDROPOWER PLANT .................. 20 \n2.9 \n2.9 \nREVIEW OF JINJA EXPRESS HIGHWAY PROJECT ........................................................................... 21", "metadata": {"page": 2, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "iii \n \n2.10 \nCOMMERCIAL CONTRACT FOR THE REFURBISHMENT OF THE METER GAUGE RAILWAY LINE KAMPALA \n- MALABA (250KM) ...................................................................................................................... 21 \n2.11 \nCONCESSIONAL LOAN AGREEMENT TO FINANCE CAPACITY BUILDING FOR THE RAILWAYS SYSTEM", "metadata": {"page": 3, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "IN UGANDA ................................................................................................................................. 22 \n2.12 \nFINANCING AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLY OF SOLAR PUMPING SYSTEMS IN THE MINISTRY OF WATER \nAND ENVIRONMENT (EURO.95.8MN EQUIVALENT TO UGX.381BN) ................................................ 23 \n2.13 \n2.13 \nREHABILITATION OF THE TORORO-GULU RAILWAY LINE ............................................................. 24 \n2.14 \nPLANNING FOR CAPITALISATION OF INVESTMENTS IN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ........................ 26", "metadata": {"page": 3, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................... 26 \nMANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ......................................................... 27 \nAUDITOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ....................................... 27", "metadata": {"page": 3, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "OTHER REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................................................... 28 \nREPORT ON THE AUDIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION .................................................................... 29 \n2.15 \nMANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) INVESTMENTS IN GOVERNMENT .................. 29 \n2.16 \n2.16 \nMANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC LAND .................................................................................................. 32 \n2.16.1 \nStrategic Planning for Land Acquisition and Compensations ............................................................ 32 \n2.16.2", "metadata": {"page": 3, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2.16.2 \nBudgeting, Funding, and Absorption of Funds, for Land Acquisition ................................................ 33 \n2.16.3 \nCompliance of Land Acquisition With The Relevant Laws ................................................................ 33 \n2.16.4 \n2.16.4 \nInvolvement of Uganda Land Commission ..................................................................................... 34 \n2.16.5 \nValuation by the Chief Government Valuer .................................................................................... 34 \n2.16.6", "metadata": {"page": 3, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2.16.6 \nRegistration and Titling of Land .................................................................................................... 34 \n2.16.7 \nFailure to Transfer Land into the Custody of ULC ........................................................................... 34 \n2.16.8 \n2.16.8 \nRecording and Reporting of Government Land ............................................................................... 35 \n2.16.9 \nUtilization of Government Land for Delivery of Service ................................................................... 35 \n2.16.10 Lease of Public Land .................................................................................................................... 35 \n2.16.11 Allocation of Land By District Land Boards (DLB) ........................................................................... 36", "metadata": {"page": 3, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2.16.12 Management of Land Outside Uganda ........................................................................................... 36 \n3.0. \nREPORT AND OPINION OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL ON THE GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA \nCONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30TH \nJUNE 2022 .................................................................................................................................. 37 \nBASIS FOR OPINION .................................................................................................................................. 37 \nKEY AUDIT MATTERS ................................................................................................................................. 37 \n3.1 \nPAYROLL MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ....................................................................... 37 \n3.2", "metadata": {"page": 3, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.2 \nLAND MANAGEMENT IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT .............................................................................. 50 \nEMPHASIS OF MATTER .............................................................................................................................. 55 \n3.3 \nINCONSISTENCIES THE IN THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTING IN FINANCIAL REPORTING GUIDE AND \nTREASURY INSTRUCTIONS .......................................................................................................... 56 \n3.4 \nCONSOLIDATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES WITH DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING BASES ....................... 56 \niv \n \n3.5 \nMANAGEMENT OF YLP AND UWEP IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ........................................................ 57 \nOTHER MATTER......................................................................................................................................... 58 \n3.6", "metadata": {"page": 3, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.6 \nIMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROVED BUDGET ............................................................................ 58 \n3.6.1 \nApproval of Budgets by Parliament Without Corresponding Strategic Plans ...................................... 58 \n3.6.2 \n3.6.2 \nRevenue Performance .................................................................................................................. 59 \n3.6.3 \n3.6.3 \nUnutilised Funds .......................................................................................................................... 61 \n3.6.4 Off-Budgetet Financing/Receipts .................................................................................................... 61", "metadata": {"page": 4, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.6.5 \nExcess Release of Wage Funds to LGS .......................................................................................... 62 \n3.6.6 \nTransfer of Funds to LLGS by LGS To Avoid Sweep Backs .............................................................. 63 \n3.6.7 \n3.6.7 \nMisclassification Of Expenditure .................................................................................................... 64 \n3.7 \nFUNDS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR ..................................................................................................... 64 \n3.8 \n3.8 \nEX-GRATIA PAYMENTS ................................................................................................................ 65 \n3.9 \nDISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS TO OPM ............................................................................................. 65 \n3.10 \n3.10 \nIMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED SERVICE DELIVERY ACTIVITIES ................................................. 66 \n3.11 \nPARISH DEVELOPMENT MODEL .................................................................................................... 66 \n3.11.1", "metadata": {"page": 4, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.11.1 \nGuidance on the Utilisation of the PDM Funds ................................................................................ 67 \n3.12 \nDEVELOPMENT RESPONSE TO DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS PROJECT (DRDIP) ................................... 70 \n3.12.1 \n3.12.1 \nFunding and Absorption ............................................................................................................... 70 \n3.12.2 \nDelayed Implementation of Subprojects for the FY 2021/22 ........................................................... 71 \n3.12.3", "metadata": {"page": 4, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.12.3 \nLack of Environment And Social Management Plans ....................................................................... 72 \n3.12.4 \nInspections of Service Delivery Activities Fys 2019/20 And 2020/21 ................................................ 73 \n3.12.5 \n3.12.5 \nIdle Funds on Completed Subproject Accounts .............................................................................. 74 \n3.12.6 \nFunding of Non-Existent Subprojects............................................................................................. 74 \n3.12.7 \n3.12.7 \nProcurement Irregularities ............................................................................................................ 75 \n3.13 \nIMPLEMENTATION OF MICRO SCALE IRRIGATION PROGRAMME .................................................... 75 \n3.13.1 \n3.13.1 \nBudget Allocation Of Programme Expenditure By Category ............................................................. 76 \n3.13.2 \nSlow Program Implementation ...................................................................................................... 76 \n3.13.3 \n3.13.3 \nInspections Of Service Delivery ..................................................................................................... 77 \n3.14 \nSUPPORT TO ORGANISED GROUPS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PEOPLE\u2019S LIVELIHOOD ....................... 78 \n3.15 \n3.15 \nOPERATIONALIZATION OF NEW CITIES ....................................................................................... 81 \n3.15.1 \nUn Utilised Funds ......................................................................................................................... 81 \n3.15.2 \n3.15.2 \nRevenue Sharing ......................................................................................................................... 82 \n3.15.3 \nDelayed Implementation Of The Approved City Structure ............................................................... 82 \n3.15.4 \n3.15.4 \nTransfer of Assets and Liabilities ................................................................................................... 83 \n3.15.5 \nImplementation Challenges .......................................................................................................... 84 \n3.16 \n3.16 \nIMPLEMENTATION OF UGANDA INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL TRANSFERS (UGIFT) ..................... 85 \n3.16.1 \nFailure To Absorb Project Funds ................................................................................................... 85 \n3.16.2 \n3.16.2 \nDelayed Progress Of Works/Constructions ..................................................................................... 85", "metadata": {"page": 4, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "v \n \n3.16.3 \nPayments To UPDF Engineers Brigade For Construction Works ....................................................... 86 \n3.16.4 \nUganda Support To Municipal Infrastructure Development Program (USMID-AF) \u2013 REFUGEE Hosting \nDistricts....................................................................................................................................... 87 \n3.17 UGANDA SUPPORT TO MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN CITIES AND MUNICIPAL \nCOUNCILS ................................................................................................................................... 89 \n3.17.1 \n3.17.1 \nFunding And Absorption Of Funds ................................................................................................. 90 \n3.17.2 \nUnreleased Previous Year Committed Funds .................................................................................. 90 \n3.18", "metadata": {"page": 5, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.18 \nMANAGEMENT OF ROYALTIES ...................................................................................................... 91 \n3.18.1 \nLAck of Data Regarding the Volume And Value Of Minerals Mined .................................................. 91 \n3.18.2 \nLack of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between District And MEMD ................................. 91", "metadata": {"page": 5, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.18.3 \nFailure By Mining Companies to Submit Monthly Returns To MEMD................................................. 92 \n3.18.4 \nNon-Verification Of Monthly Returns By MEMD .............................................................................. 92 \n3.18.5 \nNon-Participation of the CAO in Licencing And Lease Approval Process ........................................... 93 \n3.19 \n3.19 \nLUWERO-RWENZORI DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (LRDP) ................................................................ 93 \n3.19.1 \nAllocation of Funds Among Program Activities ............................................................................... 94 \n3.19.2 \n3.19.2 \nFunding And Absorption ............................................................................................................... 94 \n3.19.3 \nImplementation of LRDP Activities ................................................................................................ 95 \n3.19.4 \n3.19.4 \nTransfer To LLGS ......................................................................................................................... 96 \n3.20 \nIMPLEMENTATION OF UGANDA ROAD FUND (URF) ....................................................................... 96 \n3.20.1 \n3.20.1 \nFunding ...................................................................................................................................... 96 \n3.20.2 \nStatus Of Implementation Of Road Activities ................................................................................. 96", "metadata": {"page": 5, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................... 97 \nRESPONSIBILITIES OF MANAGEMENT FOR THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ........................... 98 \nAUDITOR\u2019S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE AUDIT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS .............. 98 \nOTHER REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................................................... 99 \nREPORT ON THE AUDIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION .................................................................... 99 \n3.21", "metadata": {"page": 5, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.21 \nTransfer Of Accounting Officers In Local Governments ................................................................. 100 \n3.22 \nRisk Management In Lgs ............................................................................................................ 100 \n4.0. \nREPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL ON THE CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL \nPERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS AND STATE ENTERPRISES FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30TH", "metadata": {"page": 5, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "JUNE 2022 ................................................................................................................................ 102 \n4.1. \nREVIEW OF THE CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC \nCORPORATIONS AND STATE ENTERPRISES ................................................................................ 102 \n4.2", "metadata": {"page": 5, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4.2 \nREVIEW OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS AND STATE ENTERPRISES .... 105 \n4.3. \nOVERALL CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................... 117 \nPART 3: SECTORAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CROSS-CUTTING FINDINGS ............................... 118 \nA. \nA. \nSECTORAL KEY FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 118 \n1.0. \nPUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 118", "metadata": {"page": 5, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "vi \n \n1.1. \nDelayed Realignment Of The Comprehensive National Development Framework (CNDPF) to the Program \nPlanning Approach ..................................................................................................................... 118 \n1.2. \nProgress Towards Full Implementation Of The Programme Development Approach ....................... 118 \n1.3.", "metadata": {"page": 6, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1.3. \nOperation Of Unlicensed And Unregistered Schools In Kampala .................................................... 118 \n1.4. \nFunctionality Of District Service Commissions .............................................................................. 119 \n1.5. \nReview Of The Operations Of The Kampala District Land Board .................................................... 119 \n2.0. \nPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ......................................................................................................... 120 \nA) \nReview Of Operations Of Missions ............................................................................................... 120 \nB) \nB) \nFailure To Organise Women Councils/ Committees Elections ........................................................ 120 \n3.0. \nAGRICULTURE SECTOR .............................................................................................................. 121 \nA)", "metadata": {"page": 6, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "A) \nStatus Of The Sugarcane Production Project In Northern Uganda ................................................. 121 \nB) \nPerformance Of Agricultural Extension Services ........................................................................... 121 \n4.0. \n4.0. \nJUSTICE LAW AND ORDER SECTOR ............................................................................................ 122 \nA) \nReview Of The Performance Of The Police Canine Unit................................................................. 122 \nB)", "metadata": {"page": 6, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "B) \nOperations Of The Forensic Laboratory ....................................................................................... 122 \nC) \nLack Of A Laboratory Information Management System For The Forensic Unit ............................... 123 \nD) \nAssessment Of Road Map For Mass Registration And Renewal Of National IDS .............................. 123 \nE)", "metadata": {"page": 6, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "E) \nCourt Award And Compensation ................................................................................................. 123 \nF) \nUnderfunding Of Liabilities Arising From Court Awards And Compensations ................................... 124 \nG) \nDelayed Settlement Of Court Awards As At The 30th Of June 2022 ................................................ 124 \n5.0.", "metadata": {"page": 6, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5.0. \nINFORMATION COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY SECTOR ........................................................... 125 \nA) \nRegistration And Certification Of It Professionals And It Institutions Without Enabling Regulation ... 125 \nB) \nFailure To Charge 2% Gross Annual Revenue For Registered Television Stations And Fm Radio Stations \n................................................................................................................................................ 125 \nC) \nOperations Of Smiles Telecommunications Limited ....................................................................... 126 \nD)", "metadata": {"page": 6, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "D) \nLack Of A Policy On Confiscated Equipment ................................................................................. 127 \nE) \nDelayed Completion Of The National E-Commerce Platform .......................................................... 127 \nF) \nSharing Of Funds For Information And Communication Technology Development .......................... 128 \nG) \nG) \nLow Reduction In The Cost Of Internet ....................................................................................... 128 \nH) \nWeaknesses In Certifying ICT Service Providers ........................................................................... 129 \nI) \nI) \nRefund To World Bank Of Ineligible EGP Funds - USD.249,500 ..................................................... 129 \n6.0. \nACCOUNTABILITY SECTOR ........................................................................................................ 130 \nA) \nA) \nUn-Funded Approved Consolidated Budget .................................................................................. 130 \nB) \nPublic Debt Portfolio Analysis ...................................................................................................... 131 \nC) \nC) \nMovement Of Domestic Debt Stock ............................................................................................. 131 \nD) \nAssessment Of Debt Sustainability .............................................................................................. 132 \nE) \nE) \nUnderperformance In Revenue Collection .................................................................................... 133 \nF) \nPending Tax Appeals .................................................................................................................. 134", "metadata": {"page": 6, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "vii \n \nG) \nINADEQUACIES IN HANDLING PRECIOUS MINERALS BY URA ...................................................... 134 \nH) \nWEAKNESSES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF DIGITAL STAMPS .......................................................... 135 \nI) \nCancellation Of Loan For Construction Of Muzizi Hydropower Plant ............................................... 135 \nJ)", "metadata": {"page": 7, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "J) \nRehabilitation Of The Tororo-Gulu Railway Line ........................................................................... 136 \nK) \nFailure To Honour GOU Co-Financing Obligation Leading To Termination ...................................... 137 \nL) \nConflict Of PFMA And Financial Institutions Act ............................................................................ 137 \n7.0. \nENERGY SECTOR ....................................................................................................................... 138 \nA) \nRampant Vandalism Of The Electricity Infrastructure .................................................................... 138 \nB)", "metadata": {"page": 7, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "B) \nOperation And Maintenance Of Isimba Hydro Power Plant (HPP) .................................................. 138 \n8.0. \nGENDER AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTOR ........................................................................... 139 \nA) \nInadequate Measures To Curb The Increasing Number Of Street Children ..................................... 139 \n9.0. \n9.0. \nLAND SECTOR ........................................................................................................................... 140 \nA) \nManagement Of Public Land ....................................................................................................... 140 \nB) \nUnder Utilization Of Funds By USMID \u2013 AF Project ....................................................................... 142 \n10.0 \nEDUCATION SECTOR ................................................................................................................. 143 \nA)", "metadata": {"page": 7, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "A) \nDelayed Finalisation Of Education Policies And Other Frameworks ................................................ 143 \nB) \nDelayed Review of the Education Curricula for the Different Education Institutions ........................ 144 \nC) \nSports Management And Administration By The National Council Of Sports (NCS) ......................... 145 \n11.0", "metadata": {"page": 7, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11.0 \nWORKS SECTOR ........................................................................................................................ 146 \nA) \nLoss On Compensation For Stolen Materials From Steel Companies- UGX.12.757BN....................... 146 \nB) \nLoss Of Abandoned Dismantled Railway Materials-Eur.3,083,846.54 And Unrecovered Advance Payment", "metadata": {"page": 7, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Of Euro 8,854,839.68 ................................................................................................................. 146 \nC) \nLoss Of Potential Revenue From A Concession Agreement For Pamba Ferry .................................. 147 \nD) \nDelayed Completion Of The Consultancy for the Unit Cost Study for Road Construction And Maintenance \nin Uganda ................................................................................................................................. 147 \nE) \nMaintenance Of District and Zonal Road Equipment ..................................................................... 148 \nF)", "metadata": {"page": 7, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "F) \nGrounded Aircraft at the East African Civil Aviation Academy ........................................................ 148 \nG) \nAccumulation of Liabilities - UGX.760.4Bn ................................................................................... 148 \n12.0 \n12.0 \nHEALTH SECTOR ....................................................................................................................... 149 \nA) \nManagement Of Essential Medicines And Health Supplies In Health Facilities ................................. 149 \nB) \nB) \nUnderstaffing In Health Facilities ................................................................................................ 150 \nC) \nUtilization And Maintenance Of Medical Equipment ...................................................................... 150 \nD) \nD) \nUnresolved Contingent Liabilities ................................................................................................ 151 \n13.0 \nTRADE SECTOR ......................................................................................................................... 151 \nA)", "metadata": {"page": 7, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "A) \nPayments Outside The Work Plan ............................................................................................... 151 \nB) \nPayments To Cooperatives through Third Parties - Law Firms ....................................................... 152 \nC) \nUnder Absorption Of Funds In Uganda Development Corporation (UDC) ....................................... 153 \nD) \nD) \nFailure To Seek Approval for Unspent Balances ........................................................................... 154", "metadata": {"page": 7, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "viii \n \nE) \nFailure to Enforce Collection Of NTR as Required by the Act ......................................................... 154 \n14.0 \nTOURISM SECTOR ..................................................................................................................... 155 \nA)", "metadata": {"page": 8, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "A) \nLack Of A Comprehensive Plan For The Management Of The Invasive Species............................... 155 \nB) \nOngoing Cases Of Claims In Gazetted Areas ................................................................................ 155 \n15. \nCROSS CUTTING ISSUES IN SCHOOLS ....................................................................................... 156", "metadata": {"page": 8, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "B. \nCROSS CUTTING ISSUES IN LLGS ........................................................................................ 157 \nPART 4: INFORMATION SYSTEMS, ENGINEERING, VALUE FOR MONEY AND SPECIAL AUDITS .... 159 \n4.1,. \nKEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE ENGINEERING AUDITS................................................................... 159 \n4.1.1 \nAudit Of Grid Extension Projects Implemented By The Rural Electrification Agency Currently Under The", "metadata": {"page": 8, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ministry Of Energy And Mineral Development For The Period 2009 \u2013 2017 .................................... 159 \n4.2. \nREDACTED INFORMATION SYSTEMS AUDIT REPORTS ................................................................ 168 \n4.3. \nHIGHLIGHTS OF VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT RESULTS ................................................................. 191 \n4.3.1 \nGovernment of Uganda\u2019s Efforts to Eliminate Intimate Partner Violence Against Women In Line With", "metadata": {"page": 8, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Nationally Agreed Target Linked to SDG 5.2 ......................................................................... 191 \n4.3.2 \nAudit on the Management Of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in Uganda by Ministry Of Health (MOH)", "metadata": {"page": 8, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "................................................................................................................................................ 193 \n4.3.3. \nImplementation of Small-Mini-Independent Power Producers Under The Getfit Scheme In Uganda . 196 \n4.3.4 \nPromotion of Safe and Sustainable Management of Electronic Waste in Uganda by the Ministry of", "metadata": {"page": 8, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Information and Communication Technology And National Guidance ............................................ 199 \n4.3.5. \nEffectiveness Of Mechanisms Established For Management Of Road Equipment By The Ministry Of Works \nAnd Transport ........................................................................................................................... 201 \n4.3.6 \nA Value For Money Audit Report on the Regulation And Promotion Of Safe And Reliable Public Road", "metadata": {"page": 8, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Transport System by the Ministry of Works And Transport ........................................................... 203 \n4.3.7 \nValue For Money Audit Of Grid Extension Projects Implemented by the Rural Electrification Agency \nCurrently under the Ministry Of Energy And Mineral Development for the Period 2009 \u2013 2017 ........ 206 \n4.3.8. \nA Value For Money Audit Report on Management Of Senior Citizens Grant by the Expanding Social \nProtection Programme under the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development ................... 209 \n4.3.9 \nA Value For Money Audit Draft Report On The Management Of Electricity Connections Under Rural", "metadata": {"page": 8, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Electrification Programme (MEMD) .............................................................................................. 212 \n4.3.10 \nValue for Money Audit On Preparedness By OPM to respond to Disasters ...................................... 215 \n4.3.11 \nValue For Money Audit On Management Of Revenue By KCCA ...................................................... 216", "metadata": {"page": 8, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4.3.12 \nValue For Money Audit On Implementation Of Development Plans by MDAs And LGS .................... 216 \n4.3.13 \nValue For Money Audit On Production Of Agricultural Statistics By Ministry Of Agriculture Animal Industry \nAnd Fisheries (MAAIF) ................................................................................................................ 218 \n4.3.14. \nFollow Up Report on the Status of Implementation Of Audit Recommendations on the Value For Money \nAudit On The Regulation Of Labour Externalization by the Ministry Of Gender Labour And Social \nDevelopment ............................................................................................................................. 221", "metadata": {"page": 8, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ix \n \n4.3.15 \nFollow-Up Audit Report on the Status Of Implementation Of Audit Recommendations On The Value For \nMoney Audit on the Management of Wildlife Conservation by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) 226 \n4.3.16. \nFollow-Up Report on the Status Of Implementation of Audit Recommendations on the Value For Money \nAudit on the Regulation of the Construction Sector by the Ministry of Works and Transport ........... 231 \n4.3.17. \nValue For Money Audit Report On Management Of Piped Water Systems In Rural Areas Of Uganda by \nMinistry of Water And Environment ............................................................................................. 234", "metadata": {"page": 9, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5. \nPART 5: HIGHLIGHTS FROM TREASURY MEMORANDA AUDIT ........................................... 238 \nA) \nREPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL ON THE AUDIT OF THE TREASURY MEMORANDUM PRESENTED \nTO PARLIAMENT BY THE HON. MINISTER OF FINANCE, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT \nON VARIOUS MDAs .................................................................................................................... 238 \nB) \nTREASURY MEMORANDUM REPORT ON THE VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT OF THE UGANDA SUPPORT", "metadata": {"page": 9, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "TO MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT (USMID) PROGRAM FOR 2015/16 .................... 239 \nAPPENDIX 1 I: DELAYED ACCESS AND REMOVAL ...................................................................................... 263 \nAPPENDIX 1 J: INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN IPPS AND INTERFACE FILES, AND PAYMENTS OF SALARIES,", "metadata": {"page": 9, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "PENSION & GRATUITY OFF THE IPPS ......................................................................................... 268 \nAPPENDIX 1 K: MANAGEMENT OF DEDUCTIONS BY UCLA/UBA .................................................................. 272 \nANNEXURE I: SUMMARY OF ENTITY FINDINGS AND OPINIONS FOR MDAS, COMMISSIONS, STATUTORY \nCORPORATIONS AND STATE ENTERPRISES AND PROJECTS ........................................................ 355 \nANNEXURE II: REPORTS AND CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS .......... 561 \nx \n \nLIST OF TABLES \nTable 1: Summary of Performance ..................................................................................................................... 2", "metadata": {"page": 9, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 2: Summary of Current Year Opinions ....................................................................................................... 3 \nTable 3: Trend of Opinions for MDAs, Higher Local Governments for the last three years ...................................... 3", "metadata": {"page": 10, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 4: Showing findings from the review of Budget Performance ...................................................................... 6 \nTable 5: Showing Public Debt for the last 5 Years ............................................................................................. 10", "metadata": {"page": 10, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 6: Showing growth in external debt ........................................................................................................ 12 \nTable 7: Showing domestic debt stock for the past four years ........................................................................... 13", "metadata": {"page": 10, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 8: Showing trends in net domestic financing ........................................................................................... 14 \nTable 9: Debt acquired on a non-calendar auction/ private placement ............................................................... 15 \nTable 10: Bond Switches UGX 0.9Bn ................................................................................................................ 16 \nTable 11: Showing interest to total revenue ratio.............................................................................................. 18 \nTable 12: Showing non-concessional loans for budget support .......................................................................... 19 \nTable 13: Showing commitment fees ............................................................................................................... 19 \nTable 14: Showing cancelled loans .................................................................................................................. 20 \nTable 15: Showing commission fees paid ......................................................................................................... 21", "metadata": {"page": 10, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 16: Showing approvals by NEC ............................................................................................................... 22 \nTable 17: Details of Certificates paid and unpaid obligations by GOU (amounts in Euros) .................................... 25 \nTable 18: Capitalization requirements .............................................................................................................. 26 \nTable 19: Showing budget allocations for IT Systems and Equipment ................................................................ 29", "metadata": {"page": 10, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 20: Showing findings from the review of Implementation of IT Activities ................................................... 29 \nTable 21: Payroll Management findings ............................................................................................................ 38", "metadata": {"page": 10, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 22: Land Management audit finding in Local Governments ....................................................................... 50 \nTable 23: Management of YLP and UWEP in Local Governments ........................................................................ 57 \nTable 24: Local Government revenue performance ........................................................................................... 59 \nTable 25: Unutilised funds in Local Governments .............................................................................................. 61 \nTable 26: Reasons founder-absorptionon of funds in Local Governments ........................................................... 61 \nTable 27: Local Governmenoff-budgetet financing ............................................................................................ 62", "metadata": {"page": 10, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 28: Excess release of wage funds to Local Governments .......................................................................... 63 \nTable 29: Misclassification of expenditure in Local Governments ........................................................................ 64", "metadata": {"page": 10, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 30: Disbursement of funds to OPM ......................................................................................................... 65 \nTable 31: Funding and absorption of 7.2Development \nResponse \nto \nDisplacement \nImpacts \nProject \nImpacts \nProject\n ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 \nTable 32: Funding of non-existent subprojects ................................................................................................. 74 \nTable 33: Budget allocation of programme expenditure by category .................................................................. 76 \nTable 34: Slow Program implementation .......................................................................................................... 76 \nTable 35: status of beneficiary databases ......................................................................................................... 80 \nxi \n \nTable 36: Non-disclosure of liabilities ............................................................................................................... 84 \nTable 37: Funding and absorption of USMID-AF ............................................................................................... 87 \nTable 38: Funding and absorption of USMID .................................................................................................... 90 \nTable 39: unreleased previous year committed funds ........................................................................................ 91 \nTable 40: allocation of funds among program activities ..................................................................................... 94 \nTable 41: Allocation of investment thresholds ................................................................................................... 94 \nTable 42: Funding and absorption ................................................................................................................... 95 \nTable 43: Transfer to LLGs .............................................................................................................................. 96 \nTable 44: Status of implementation of road activities ........................................................................................ 97 \nTable 45: Entities not consolidated ................................................................................................................ 102 \nTable 46: Entitiesthath did not submit summary statements ............................................................................ 103 \nTable 47: Inconsistencies in the submitted information ................................................................................... 104 \nTable 48: Profitability of Public Corporation and State Enterprises.................................................................... 106 \nTable 49: Profitability for the Financial Institutions .......................................................................................... 108 \nTable 50: Returns on Assets .......................................................................................................................... 109 \nTable 51: Return on Asset for the Financial Institutions................................................................................... 111 \nTable 52: Enterprise Liquidity ........................................................................................................................ 112 \nTable 53: Liquidity assessment for financial institutions ................................................................................... 114 \nTable 54: Loans and Advances performance ................................................................................................... 115 \nTable 55: Enterprise Gearing ......................................................................................................................... 115 \nTable 56: Constitution and functionality of Service Commissions ...................................................................... 119", "metadata": {"page": 10, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 57: Underfunding of liabilities from Court awards and compensations ..................................................... 124 \nTable 58: Time taken to settle court awards and compensations ..................................................................... 124 \nTable 59: Government budget performance per spending category ................................................................. 130 \nTable 60: Government Debt Stock ................................................................................................................. 131 \nTable 61: Domestic debt stock for the past four years .................................................................................... 131 \nTable 62: Interest in the total revenue ratio ................................................................................................... 133 \nTable 63: Ageing analysis for pending cases ................................................................................................... 134 \nTable 64: Cancelled loans ............................................................................................................................. 136 \nTable 65: Status of development of some policies under the MoES .................................................................. 143 \nTable 66: Unresolved Contingent Liabilities .................................................................................................... 151 \nTable 67: Under absorption of funds in UDC ................................................................................................... 153 \nTable 68: Projects with delays in design review .............................................................................................. 163 \nTable 69: Project overpayments .................................................................................................................... 164 \nTable 70: Unclaimed liquidated damages ....................................................................................................... 166 \nTable 71: Unrecovered advances from expired guarantees .............................................................................. 167 \nTable 72: Overpayments in different projects ................................................................................................. 167 \nTable 73: Status of implementation ............................................................................................................... 170 \nxii \n \nTable 74: NDP III Public sector Budget Allocations against Approved Budget estimates FY 22/23 for selected \nprogrammes ................................................................................................................................ 185", "metadata": {"page": 11, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 75: PIAP indicators and their measurement ........................................................................................... 186 \nTable 76: Detailed status of implementation of OAG recommendations ............................................................ 223 \nTable 77: Detailed status of implementation of OAG recommendations ............................................................ 228", "metadata": {"page": 12, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 78: Recommendations of the 2015 audit ............................................................................................... 232 \nTable 79: Summary of treasury memoranda implementation status ................................................................. 238 \nTable 80: Summary of implementation of Audit recommendations the 2019/2020 Treasury Memoranda ............ 239 \nTable 81: Summary of implementation of on consolidated USMID and Non USMID Projects audit recommendations \n................................................................................................................................................... 240", "metadata": {"page": 12, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "xiii \n \nLIST OF ACRONYMS \nACRONYM \nDESCRIPTION \nAG \nAuditor General \nAO \nAccounting Officer \nBn \nBillion \nBoU \nBank of Uganda \nCAs \nContracting Authorities \nCFR \nCentral Forest Reserve \nDGAL \nDirectorate of Government Analytical Laboratory \nDLB \nDistrict Land Board \nFY \nFinancial Year \nGDP \nGross Domestic Product \nGoU \nGovernment of Uganda \nICT \nInformation Communication Technology \nIDA \nInternational Development Association \nIESBA \nInternational Ethics Standards Board for Accountants \nIFMS \nIntegrated Financial Management System \nIMF \nInternational Monetary Fund \nKIS \nKalangala Infrastructure Services \nMAAIF", "metadata": {"page": 13, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "MAAIF \nMinistry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries \nMDAs \nMinistries, Departments and Agencies \nMEMD \nMinistry of Energy and Mineral Development \nMOFPED \nMinistry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development \nMoGLSD \nMinistry of Gender Labour and Social Development \nMoU \nMemoranda of Understanding \nMTEF \nMedium Term Expenditure Framework \nNAA \nNational Audit Act \nNBI \nNational Backbone Infrastructure \nNDP \nNational Development Plan \nNDPII \nSecond National Development Plan \nNEF \nNational Environment Fund \nNEMA \nNational Environment Management Authority \nNFA \nNational Forestry Authority \nNGO \nNon-Governmental Organisation \nNIN \nNational Identification Number \nNIRA \nNational Identification Registration Authority \nNPA", "metadata": {"page": 13, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "NPA \nNational Planning Authority \nNWSC \nNational Water and Sewerage Corporation \nOAG \nOffice of the Auditor General \nPAPs \nProject Affected Persons \nPDMF \nPublic Debt Management Framework \nPFMA \nPublic Finance Management Act, 2015 \nPS/ST \nPermanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury \nPSST \nPermanent Secretary and Secretary to Treasury \nTAI \nTreasury Accounting Instructions, 2016 \nTIN \nTax Identification Number \nTn \nTrillion \nTWGs \nTechnical Working Groups \nUCC \nUganda Communications Commission \nUCF \nUganda Consolidated Fund \nUDC \nUganda Development Corporation \nUETCL \nUganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited \nUGX \nUganda Shillings", "metadata": {"page": 13, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "xiv \n \nACRONYM \nDESCRIPTION \nURA \nUganda Revenue Authority \nUSD \nUnited States Dollars \nUSMID \nUganda Support for Municipal Infrastructure Development \nWMD \nWetlands Management Department \nYIGs \nYouth Interest Groups \nYLP \nYouth Livelihood Programme", "metadata": {"page": 14, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "xv \n \nGLOSSARY OF TERMS \nTerm \nDefinition \nClassified Expenditure \nThe expenses and commitments incurred by an authorised agency for the \ncollection and dissemination of information related to national security \ninterests \nContingent Liability \nA potential liability that may occur depending on the outcome of an uncertain \nfuture event. \nDomestic Arrears \nDomestic arrears refer to short-term debts incurred by Governments against \nunpaid procurement invoices for supply of goods and services during the \nfinancial year \nExternal Debt \nPortion of a country's debt that was borrowed from foreign lenders including \ncommercial banks, Governments or international financial institutions. \nGarnishee order \nA form of enforcing a judgment debt against a creditor to recover money. \nNugatory Expenditure \nExpenditure that does not achieve any result \nOff-budget financing \nOff-buget refers to expenditure that is not funded through the budget", "metadata": {"page": 15, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Recruitment \nRefers to the process of attracting, screening, selecting, and on boarding a \nqualified person for a job, provided by an employer in another territory and \nthe preparation for their departure. \nRevolving Fund \nA fund that is continually replenished as withdrawals are made.", "metadata": {"page": 15, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "xvi \n \nFOREWORD BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL \nIn accordance with my audit mandate set out under Article 163 of the Constitution of the Republic of \nUganda, 1995, as amended, the National Audit Act 2008 and the Public Finance Management Act, \n2015, as amended, I hereby present to you the Annual Audit Report on the Consolidated Public \nAccounts of Uganda; Local Government, and Summary Statement of Financial Performance of Public \nCorporations, and State Enterprises and Companies in which Government has a controlling interest. \n \nIn line with the above mandate, I audited financial statements for 186 MDAs, 83 Statutory Corporations \nand 151 Local Governments. In addition, I undertook four (4) thematic audits covering: Payroll \nmanagement in Local Governments following last year's audit outcomes that necessitated deepening \npayroll audit procedures; Management of IT investments across Government; Management of Public \nLand; and Implementation of the Approved Budget for the 3rd time since 2019/2020 financial year, to \nensure that the appropriated funds are spent appropriately as planned.", "metadata": {"page": 16, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Office's commitment to undertake audits that add value to society remains my main focus. \nHowever, during the year, the emergency of Ebola, insecurity in the Karamoja region as well as limited \nstaff resources affected audit activities in the affected areas. These audits will be performed in the 2nd \nhalf of this financial year 2022/2023. \n \nI extend my gratitude to the Government of Uganda and all other stakeholders for the support rendered \nto my Office during the audit year to ensure the continued delivery of my mandate. I also thank my \nstaff for their steady commitment and support towards undertaking audits aimed at improving `the \nwell-being of Citizens\u2019. \n \n \n \nJohn F.S. Muwanga \nAUDITOR GENERAL \n \n30th December 2022", "metadata": {"page": 16, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1 \n \nPART 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT \n1.0 \nINTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE \n1.1 \nGeneral Introduction \n \n \nI am required by Article 163(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and \nSection 13 and 19 of the National Audit Act, 2008 and the Public Finance Management \nAct, 2015 as amended, to audit and report on the public accounts of Uganda and of \nall public offices including the Courts, the Central and Local Government \nAdministrations, Universities and Public Institutions of like nature and any Public \nCorporations or other bodies established by an Act of Parliament. \n \n \nSection 13 (b) of the National Audit Act, 2008 further requires me to conduct the \nfollowing audits: \n \n\uf0b7 \nFinancial audits \n\uf0b7 \nValue for money \n\uf0b7 \nEngineering \n\uf0b7 \nInformation Systems", "metadata": {"page": 17, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nInformation Systems \n\uf0b7 \nSpecial/Forensic Audits \n\uf0b7 \nGender and Environment and any other audits in respect of any project or activity \ninvolving public funds \n\uf0b7 \nClassified expenditure \n\uf0b7 \nGovernment investments \n\uf0b7 \nProcurement audits, and \n\uf0b7 \nTreasury Memoranda \n \nUnder Article 163 (4) of the Constitution, I am also required to submit to Parliament \nannually a report of the accounts audited by me for the year immediately preceding. I \nam therefore, issuing this report in accordance with the above provisions. \n \n1.2 \nPurpose \n \n \nThe purpose of this report is to provide; \n \n(i) \nA summary of audit results and opinions for audits done in the year. \n(ii) \nA report and Opinion of the Auditor General on the;", "metadata": {"page": 17, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nConsolidated Financial Statements of the Government of the Republic of \nUganda for the year ended 30th June 2022 \n\uf0b7 \nConsolidated Financial Statements of Local Governments for the year ended \n30th June 2022 \n\uf0b7 \nThe Consolidated Summary Statement of Financial Performance of Public \nCorporations and State Enterprises for the year ended 30th June 2022 \n \n(iii) \nA summary of audit results from audit of thematic and focus areas. \n \n(iv) \nSectoral and cross cutting findings, implications and recommendations from the \naudit of Ministries, Departments, Agencies, Commissions, Statutory Corporations \nand Local Governments and other specialised audit findings. For the second time,", "metadata": {"page": 17, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n \na summary of IT Audit findings have been included in the report under Part 4 of \nthe report. \n \n(v) \nA summary of findings of completed audits which include opinions from the audit \nof Ministries, Departments, Agencies, Commissions, Statutory Corporations \n(Annexure I). \n \n1.3 \nSummary of Audit Results \n \n1.3.1 General Performance \n \nAt the beginning of the year, I undertook the Shared Overall Risk Assessment (SORA) \nwhich determined the planned audits to be undertaken in 2022 Audit Year. The SORA \nprofiled all the audits under the mandate based on different risk factors. Out of the \ntotal population of 17,494, 3,996 (21%) with a total budget of (UGX.43.42Tn) \nrepresenting 97% of the total GoU budget were selected for audit.", "metadata": {"page": 18, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "A total of 2,056 audits which includes schools and tertiary institutions could not be \ncompleted due to the effects of Ebola pandemic, insurgencies in Karamoja region and \nresource constraints. The restricted movement in Mubende and Kassanda districts \ndisrupted the audit schedules and 5 HLGs of Karenga DLG, Kaabong DLG, Kotido DLG, \nKotido MC, Abim DLG have not been audited due to security concerns. \n \nThe forensic investigations and special audit reports have been issued to the respective \nstakeholders who requested for them. The summary is in Table 1 below and details \nare in Annexure I. \n \nTable 1: Summary of Performance \nType of \nEntity/Audit \nPlanned \nAudits for \nthe audit \nyear 2022 \nRevised \nPlanned \nAudits for the \nyear 2022 \nActual", "metadata": {"page": 18, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "year 2022 \nActual \nPerformance \nas at \nDecember \n31, 2022 \nAudits in \nprogress \nMDAs \n 160 \n 190 \n186 \n4 \nFunds \n 6 \n 6 \n6 \n- \nClassified entities \n 26 \n 26 \n10 \n16 \nInternational Audits \n 4 \n 4 \n3 \n1 \nCommissions, \nStatutory Authorities \nand State Enterprises \n 99 \n 85 \n83 \n2 \nProjects \n 250 \n 251 \n153 \n98 \nPSAs \n 4 \n 27 \n10 \n17 \nDistricts \n 156 \n 156", "metadata": {"page": 18, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "156 \n 156 \n151 \n5 \nMunicipal Councils \nand Cities \n 58 \n 58 \n56 \n2 \n Divisions \n 20 \n 20 \n12 \n8 \nLower Local \nGovernments for \n2020/2021 and \nBacklogs \n 1,833 \n 1,833 \n458 \n1,375 \nRegional Referral \nhospitals \n 24 \n 22 \n22 \n-", "metadata": {"page": 18, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \n \nType of \nEntity/Audit \nPlanned \nAudits for \nthe audit \nyear 2022 \nRevised \nPlanned \nAudits for the \nyear 2022 \nActual \nPerformance \nas at \nDecember \n31, 2022 \nAudits in \nprogress \nSchools/Tertiary \ninstitutions year \nended 20/21 \n 776 \n 769 \n633 \n136 \nForensics/Special \nAudit \n 80 \n 82 \n23 \n59 \nVFM Studies \n 28 \n 25 \n15 \n10 \nEngineering Audits \n 99 \n 416 \n102 \n314 \nIT Audits", "metadata": {"page": 19, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "314 \nIT Audits \n 10 \n 12 \n3 \n9 \nTreasury Memoranda \n 3 \n 14 \n14 \n- \n Audit of Companies \nwith GOU minority \ninterest \n - \n - \n- \n- \n TOTAL \n 3,725 \n 3,996 \n1,940 \n2,056 \n \n1.3.2 Summary of Opinions \n \nOf the financial audits concluded (MDA, Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State \nEnterprises, Projects, Districts and Municipalities), 654 (98%) entities had unqualified \nopinions while thirteen (13) entities had qualified opinions. Table 2 and figure 1 below \nprovides the summary of the Opinions: \n \nTable 2: Summary of Current Year Opinions", "metadata": {"page": 19, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Type of Opinion \n2021/22 \nUnqualified \n654 \nQualified \n13 \nAdverse \n1 \nDisclaimer \n1 \nTotal \n669 \n \nTable 3: Trend of Opinions for MDAs, Higher Local Governments for the last three \nyears \nType of Opinion \n2021/22 \n2020/21 \n2019/20 \nUnqualified \n654 \n502 \n420 \nQualified \n13 \n27 \n33 \nAdverse \n1 \n0 \n0 \nDisclaimer \n1 \n0 \n0 \nTotal \n669 \n529 \n453", "metadata": {"page": 19, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4 \n \nFigure 1: Summary of opinions for the last 3 years \n0\n100\n200\n300\n400\n500\n600\n700\n2019/20\n2020/21\n2021/2022\nUnqualified\nQualified", "metadata": {"page": 20, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5 \n \nPART 2: REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL ON THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL \nSTATEMENTS \n2.0. REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL ON THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS \nOF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED \n30TH JUNE 2022 \n \nTHE RT. HON. SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT \n \nOpinion \n \nI have audited the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements of the Government of the \nRepublic of Uganda for the year ended 30th June 2022. These financial statements comprise the \nConsolidated Statement of Financial Position as at 30th June 2022, the Consolidated Statement of \nFinancial Performance, and Consolidated Cash Flow Statement together with other accompanying \nstatements, notes, and accounting policies. \n \nIn my opinion, the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Government of Uganda for the financial \nyear ended 30th June 2022 are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with Section 51 of", "metadata": {"page": 21, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the Public Finance Management Act, 2015 (as amended), and the Financial Reporting Guide, 2018. \n \nBasis of Opinion \n \nI conducted my audit in accordance with the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions \n(ISSAIs). My responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor's Responsibilities \nfor the Audit of the Financial Statements section of my report. I am independent of the Treasury in \naccordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended), the National Audit Act, \n2008, the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) Code of Ethics, the \nInternational Ethics Standards Board for Accountants Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (Parts \nA and B) (IESBA Code), and other independence requirements applicable to performing audits of \nFinancial Statements in Uganda. I have fulfilled my other ethical responsibilities in accordance with the \nIESBA Code, and in accordance with other ethical requirements applicable to performing audits in \nUganda. I believe that the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis", "metadata": {"page": 21, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "for my opinion. \n \nKey Audit Matter \n \nKey audit matters are those matters that, in my professional judgment, were of most significance in \nmy audit of the financial statements of the current period. These matters were addressed in the \ncontext of my audit of the financial statements as a whole and in forming my opinion thereon, and I \ndo not provide a separate opinion on these matters. I have determined the matters described below \nto be key audit matters communicated in my report. \n \n2.1 \nIMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPROVED BUDGET \n \nParagraph 2 of Schedule 5 of the PFMA 2015, requires Accounting Officers to prepare an \nappropriation account showing the services for which the money expended were voted, the \nsums actually expended on each service and the state of each vote compared with the amount \nappropriated for that vote by Parliament.", "metadata": {"page": 21, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6 \n \n \nOver the years, I have observed improvements in the performance regarding implementation \nof the budget but entities still face a number of challenges including Covid-19, which continue \nto affect implementation of activities, service delivery and credibility of the budget. It is against \nthis background that budget performance was considered a key audit area during the office-\nwide planning. I reviewed documents such as work plans, performance reports, conducted \ninterviews and physical inspection in arriving at my findings. \n \nThe approved initial revenue and expenditure budget estimates of the Government of Uganda \nwere UGX.44.8Tn. This was later revised, with the revenue budget being increased to \nUGX.47.2Tn while the expenditure budget was increased to UGX.51.6Tn. A total of \nUGX.48.9Tn was finally warranted to implement Government programmes. I reviewed the \nimplementation of the approved 2021/2022 budget by Government and noted the following;", "metadata": {"page": 22, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 4: Showing findings from review of Budget Performance \nNo \nObservation \nRecommendation \n1.1 \nRevenue Performance \n \nA review of the approved budget estimates of the \nGovernment of Uganda for the financial year ended 30th \nJune 2022 revealed that the initial approved revenue \nbudget \nwas \nUGX.44.8Tn. \nThis \nwas \nlater \nrevised/increased by UGX.2.4Tn to UGX.47.2Tn. \nHowever, \nUGX.44.4Tn \nwas \nrealised \nrepresenting \n94.2% revenue performance level. \n \nAlthough the performance is commendable, the shortfall \nimplies that government could not fully finance its planned \nprogrammes, which in turn affected service delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 22, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Accounting Officer explained that while tax revenues \nwere affected by poor economic conditions in 2021/22, \nthe overall performance was very good. He further stated \nthat Non-Tax Revenue collections were affected by the \ngeneral slow economic recovery from the effects of the \nCOVID-19. \n \n \n \nThe PS/ST was advised to \ncontinue \nexploring \nmore \navenues of ensuring that all \nbudgeted revenue is always \nrealised to fund the budget \nas approved. \n \n1.2 \nUtilization/expenditure of Funds \n \nOut of the total available funds of UGX.48.9Tn warranted \nduring the financial year, UGX.44.4Tn was spent by \nGovernment resulting into an unutilized balance of \nUGX.4.5Tn representing a performance level of", "metadata": {"page": 22, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "90.93%.The summary is shown in the table below; \n \nTable: Showing Utilization of Warrants \n \nRevised \nbudget \n(Tn) \nA \nTotal \nwarrants \n(Tn) \nB \nTotal \npayments \n(Tn) \nC \nVarian\nce \n(Tn) \nD=B-\nC \n% \nVari\nance \nMDAs \n46.286 \n43.758 \n40.004 \n3.754 \n8.58 \nLGs \n5.274 \n5.095 \n4.417 \n0.678 \n13.3 \nTotal \n51.561", "metadata": {"page": 22, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "51.561 \n48.854 \n44.421 \n4.432 \n9.07 \n \n \nThe PS/ST was advised to \nexplore strategies aimed at \naddressing implementation \nchallenges and also consider \nissuing warrants based on \nmore \nrealistic \nrevenue \nprojections.", "metadata": {"page": 22, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7 \n \nNo \nObservation \nRecommendation \n \nI observed that the failure to utilize the funds was \nattributed to the following; \n \na) Some entities could not raise invoices to utilise all the \nfunds available to them, due to implementation \nchallenges and late release of funds. \nb) There was a mismatch between total funds issued and \nthe total actual revenue collections, resulting into a \nfunding gap. \n \nThe PS/ST stated that in the FY 2021/22, the economy \nwas slowly recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and \nthe projected revenues were not realised. However, the \nMinistry is committed to ensuring that Budget preparation \nand execution is credible. To enhance revenues, \nGovernment is implementing the Domestic Revenue \nMobilisation Strategy, while on the expenditure side,", "metadata": {"page": 23, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Government has re-prioritised interventions to fit the \nresource envelop and in line with the NDP III. This will \nensure revenues are matched with expenditure. \n \n1.3 \nUn-funded Approved Budget \n \nThe PFMA, 2015 Section 15 (1) and (2) requires that after \napproval of the annual budget by Parliament, the \nSecretary to the Treasury shall issue the annual cash flow \nplan of Government, based on the procurement plans, \nwork plans, and recruitment plans approved by \nparliament. The annual cash flow plan shall form the basis \nfor release of funds by the Accountant General to the \nAccounting Officers. \n \nSection 25(1) of the Public Finance and Accountability Act \n(PFMA) \nstipulates \nthat \nthe \ntotal \nsupplementary \nexpenditure that requires additional resources over and", "metadata": {"page": 23, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "expenditure that requires additional resources over and \nabove what is approved by Parliament shall not exceed \n3% of the total approved budget for that financial year, \nwithout the approval of Parliament. \n \nWhereas the initial budget appropriated by Parliament \nwas \nbalanced \n(i.e. \nRevenue \nestimates \nequaled \nexpenditure estimates), I noted that the revised budget \nas a result of supplementaries, had revenue estimates of \nUGX.47.2Tn as compared to expenditure estimates of \nUGX.51.6Tn, creating a budget deficit of UGX.4.4Tn. \n \nContinued approval of supplementary budgets without a \ncorresponding increase in revenue/financing, leads to \nincreased funding gap that affects the earlier budget \nobjectives and plans. For example, whereas the \nperformance contracts with Accounting Officers are \npremised on availing the appropriated budgets during the", "metadata": {"page": 23, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The PS/ST was advised to \nensure \nthat \nall \nsupplementary expenditure \napprovals are supported with \nsupplementary sources of \nfinancing to ensure that the \nearlier appropriated activities \nare implemented as planned.", "metadata": {"page": 23, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8 \n \nNo \nObservation \nRecommendation \nyear, such contracts are not revised in situations of \nshortfalls in budgets. \n \nThe detailed impact of the budget shortfall on the entity \nactivities has been reported in the individual entity \nreports. The PS/ST stated that supplementary funding \nwas issued against targeted borrowings and enhanced \nrevenue mobilization measures that did not materialize. \nHowever, going forward, supplementary funding will be \nissued against confirmed funding sources of inflows to \navoid unfunded activities and over commitments. \n \n1.4 \nBudgeting for Non-Tax Revenue \n \nSection 6 of the Budget Execution Circular for the FY \n2021/22 provides that all work plans and Budgets for \nFY2021/22 are prepared and approved using the Program \nBudgeting System (PBS). All Budgets, irrespective of the", "metadata": {"page": 24, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "source of financing (GoU, NTR/AIA, Donor or LG \nRevenue), will be migrated and loaded into the Integrated \nFinancial Management System (IFMS) to facilitate Budget \nImplementation and reporting. \n \nAccording to the approved Budget estimates for the \nFY2021/22, it was projected that a total of UGX.1.59Tn \nwould be collected as NTR. Review of Program Based \nBudgeting (PBB) tool used by the Government and IFMS \nrecords revealed that that NTR budgets for the respective \nMDAs were neither uploaded on PBS nor IFMS. The \nbudgeting tool only had details regarding expenditure, \nand no revenue was included. I further noted that several \nAccounting Officers disowned the figures incorporated the \nNTR Estimates book, indicating that they had not been \nconsulted in arriving at the estimates incorporated there \nin. \n \nAs a result, I was unable to compare respective entity", "metadata": {"page": 24, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "budget figures with the URA NTR collections that totaled \nto UGX.2.42Tn. Absence of proper revenue estimates for \neach entity undermines transparency, affects motivation \nof staff, and hampers performance assessment. \n \nManagement explained that the PBS system has been \nenhanced and effective FY 2023/24, all Votes have \nbudgeted NTR online and is uploaded into the IFMS. Going \nforward, the Accounting Officers are now able to budget \nfor NTR on the PBS system. \n \n \n \nThe Accounting Officer is \nadvised to ensure that all \nMinistries, Departments and \nAgencies budget for the \nNon-Tax Revenue and have \nthe details provided in the \nIFMS and the PBS. \n \nEmphasis of Matter \n \nWithout qualifying my opinion I would like to draw the readers\u2019 attention to the following matters", "metadata": {"page": 24, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "which have been reflected in the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Government of the Republic \nof Uganda, or disclosed in the accompanying Notes;", "metadata": {"page": 24, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "9 \n \n \n2.2 \nUNSPENT BALANCES FROM THE PRIOR YEAR \n \nAs reflected in the Consolidated Fund Statement on page 30 of the financial statements, prior \nyear unspent balances amounting to UGX.29.41Bn (2020/2021: UGX.26.05Bn) were applied \nas part of the monies to fund the budget for FY2021/2022. Given that such balances arise out \nof the GoU Appropriation that expires at the end of the year in line with the PFMA 2015, its \napplication in the subsequent financial year would require that a supplementary appropriation \nis sought before utilising the said balances. \n \nThis omission in the sources of funds available to fund the budget leads to distortions in form \nof an understatement of the country\u2019s available resources for spending.", "metadata": {"page": 25, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The PS/ST explained that indeed all GoU Appropriations expire at the end of the year in line \nwith the PFMA 2015. However, it should be noted that GoU has been operating a deficit budget \nand therefore any residual unspent funds form part of the opening balances. All eligible \nrequests for re-voting, that are submitted with proper justification, the unspent balances are \nprovided as supplementary, for example for external funding, which is already provided \nthrough supplementary budgets since it necessitates adjustments to appropriation and work \nplans for the current year. \n \nI advised PS/ST going forward, to consider explicitly seeking a supplementary appropriation \nfor all such unspent balances. \n \n2.3 \nGOVERNMENT LOANS (BORROWINGS) \u2013 UGX.77.97Tn \n \nAs disclosed in the statement of financial performance, the government Loans have increased", "metadata": {"page": 25, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "from UGX.69.60Tn in 2021, to UGX.77.97Tn in 2022 constituting an increase of UGX.8.36Tn \n(12%). This position reflects an increase in borrowing that could make debt payment \nunsustainable for the country. \n \nManagement indicated that they intend to address the increasing public debt through \nimplementation of the Public Investment Financing Strategy (PIFS) by aligning Government\u2019s \npriority programmes and restricting borrowing to critical projects. \n \n2.4 \nPAYABLES \u2013 UGX.7.545Tn \n \nAs disclosed in the statement of financial performance, the domestic arrears have increased \nfrom UGX.4.65Tn in 2021, to UGX.7.55Tn in 2022 constituting a 62% increase. The amount \nrepresents 15% of the revised budget of Government of Uganda for the financial year", "metadata": {"page": 25, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2021/22. This is an indication of the failure of the commitment control system and exposes \ngovernment to litigation risks. The growth trend appears unsustainable and on the rise. This \ncould also be as a result of approving supplementary budgets which amounted to UGX.6.42Tn \nduring the year under review with no matching funding, other than utilising the already \nidentified revenue sources, hence reallocating funding within the existing resource envelope \nand impacting MDAs across government. \n \nThe PS/ST explained that government is currently implementing a Domestic Arrears Strategy \nto clear significant amounts of the verified arrears. I advised Government to further consider", "metadata": {"page": 25, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "10 \n \nundertaking measures that limit supplementary budgets with no matching grants, that end up \nimpacting on already identified and appropriated revenue sources. \n \n2.5 \nPENSION LIABILITIES - UGX.442.98Bn \n \nAs disclosed in the statement of public debt, Pension liabilities increased from UGX.162.3Bn \nin 2021 to UGX.442.98Bn in 2022, representing of an increase of UGX.280.68Bn (173%). \nI noted that the Ministry of Information, Communication and National Guidance had the most \nsignificant amount of UGX.320Bn, arising out of the former employees of the defunct Uganda \nPosts and Telecommunications Limited. The continued failure to settle the pension arrears \nimpacts on the welfare of the pensioners. \n \nI advised PS/ST to prioritise payment of pension arrears going forward. \n \n2.6", "metadata": {"page": 26, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2.6 \nCLASSIFIED EXPENDITURE \u2013 UGX.780Bn \n \nAs disclosed under Note 8, a total of UGX.780Bn relates to classified expenditure. In \ncompliance with Section 24 of the Public Finance Management Act, 2015 (Classified \nExpenditure), this expenditure is audited separately and a separate audit report issued. \n \nOther Matter \n \nI consider it necessary to communicate the following matters other than those presented or disclosed \nin the financial statements; \n \n2.7 \nPUBLIC DEBT \n \n2.7.1 Portfolio Analysis \n \nThe reported total public debt as at 30th June, 2022 stood at UGX.86.6Tn (2020/2021: \nUGX.75.1Tn), of which Domestic Debt Stock was UGX.38.1Tn and the External Debt Stock", "metadata": {"page": 26, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "was valued at UGX.48.5Tn. This is an increase of UGX.11.5Tn, equivalent to 12.5% when \ncompared to the debt stock of UGX.75.1Tn reported as at 30th June 2021. Table below shows \nthe details; \n \nTable 5: Showing Public Debt for the last 5 Years \nFinancial \nyear ended \nDomestic debt \n(UGX Tn) \nForeign debt \n(UGX Tn) \nTotal (UGX Tn) \n% change \nJune 2022 \n38.1 \n48.5 \n86.6 \n15.3% \nJune 2021 \n30.8 \n44.3 \n75.1 \n24.3% \nJune 2020 \n18.0 \n38.2 \n56.9", "metadata": {"page": 26, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "56.9 \n23.5% \nJune 2019 \n15.2 \n30.9 \n46.1 \n11.1% \nJune 2018 \n13.1 \n28.4 \n41.4 \n \nSource: Audited financial statements of Vote 130 \n \nFrom the above, it was noted that there has been a consistent increase in the total debt as \nevidenced by an increase of 104% in the five years from 2017/18 of UGX.41.4Tn, to \nUGX.86.6Tn as at 30th June 2022. The net increase in the debt is due to increased borrowing \nfrom both the domestic and external sources, with domestic debt accounting for a higher \nincrease.", "metadata": {"page": 26, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11 \n \nI observed that Public debt is continuously on the rise, a fact that is attributed to persistent \nbudget deficits (mismatch of Government revenue and expenditure), rollover of liquidity \npapers, Bond switches, private placements, new borrowings for various development projects \nand foreign exchange loss arising from the depreciation of Ugandan Shilling against stronger \ncurrencies. The graph below illustrates the trend of public debt stock by type over the past \nfive years; \n \n \nFigure 2: OAG Analysis: Public Debt Portfolio \n \nAlthough Government has strengthened the budgeting process and reduced the number of \nunwarranted supplementary budget expenditure, this appears not to be in harmony with the \ncontinuing Government expenditure, raising concerns of debt sustainability. \n \nManagement explained that Government intends to address the concerns raised through the \nfollowing ways; \n \ni.", "metadata": {"page": 27, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "i. \nImplementation of the Public Investment Financing Strategy (PIFS) by aligning \nappropriate financing to Government\u2019s priority programmes. \nii. \nBorrowing will be restricted for projects/expenditures that are critical to the economy. \niii. \nInstituting a more stringent process for prioritizing, vetting, rescheduling programmes \nand projects to be financed using borrowed resources in the next FY and medium \nterm. \niv. \nThe economy recovers from the effects of COVID-19. In order to create fiscal space \nand minimise payment of commitment charges, Government will continue to review \nprojects funded by debt and cancel those that are not performing. Poor performing \nbut strategic projects will be restructured and aligned to priorities with \nrespective \nprogrammes. \nv. \nWe will slow down on the rate of debt accumulation by instituting a more stringent", "metadata": {"page": 27, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "process for prioritizing, vetting, rescheduling projects to be financed using borrowed \nresources in the next FY. \n0\n10\n20\n30\n40\n50\n60\n70\n80\n90\nJune 22\nJune 21\nJune 20\nJune 19\nJune 18\nPublic Debt Portfolio\nDomestic debt (UGX Tn)\nForeign debt (UGX Tn)\nTotal (UGX Tn)", "metadata": {"page": 27, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "12 \n \nI advised Government to devise a comprehensive strategy aligning revenue mobilisation and \nfiscal management. \n \n2.7.2 Analysis of External Debt \n \nUganda\u2019s external debt as at 30th June 2022 is made up of Multilateral Creditors \n(UGX.29.9Tn), Bilateral Creditors (UGX.13.5Tn) and Commercial Banks (UGX.5Tn). Refer \nto the figure below; \n \n \nFigure 3: OAG Analysis: External Debt \n \nAnalysis of the trend of external debt over the last five years revealed a linear growth in the \nlevel of external debt over the years. There has been a consistent increase from UGX.28.4Tn \nin the Financial Year 2017/18 to UGX.48.4Tn in 2021/22, representing an overall growth of", "metadata": {"page": 28, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "70.6% over the period. The details are given in Table and graph below; \n \nTable 6: Showing growth in external debt \nFinancial year \nAMOUNT (UGX Tn) \nIncrease (UGX Tn) \n% Change \n2021/22 \n48.4 \n4.4 \n10.1 \n2020/21 \n44.0 \n5.1 \n13.1 \n2019/20 \n38.9 \n8.0 \n25.9 \n2018/19 \n30.9 \n2.5 \n8.8 \n2017/18 \n28.4 \n6.2 \n \n \n62%\n28%\n10%\nExternal Debt \nMultilateral Creditors\nBilateral Creditors\nCommercial Banks \nBilateral Creditors\nCommercial Banks", "metadata": {"page": 28, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "13 \n \n \nFigure 3: OAG External debt analysis \n \nIt was established that the major driver of the growth is the contraction of new debt mainly \nfor budget support, which has put pressure on the economy and has led to further borrowing \nfrom the domestic market. However, there is a risk that this may not be sustainable in the \nshort term. \n \nThe Accounting Officer stated that Government intends to borrow largely on favourable terms \nby first exhausting concessional financing options to finance government projects. \nGovernment will continue to implement Domestic Revenue Mobilization efforts which will help \nin reducing the fiscal deficit and relive government on expensive borrowings. \n \nGovernment is advised to review the rate of contracting debt and also devise strategies to \nincrease domestic revenue collections to enable servicing of the debt obligations. \n \n2.7.3 Movement of Domestic Debt Stock \n \nDomestic debt portfolio is composed of long term borrowings (Treasury Bonds and", "metadata": {"page": 29, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Government \nBonds), \nshort-term \nborrowings \n(Treasury \nBills \nand \nGovernment \noverdraft/temporary advances), Court Awards, principal and Interest payment. \n \nThe country\u2019s domestic debt stock, which is mainly on Treasury Bonds and Treasury Bills, and \nun-securitised debt amounted to UGX.38.15Tn as of 30th June 2022 (2021: UGX.30.81Tn). \nTrends for the past four years of domestic debt portfolio are shown respectively in table below; \n \nTable 7: Showing domestic debt stock for the past four years \nFY \nDomestic Debt Stock (face \nvalue) \nIncrease \n \nUGX-Tn \nUGX (Tn) \n% \n2021/22 \n38.1 \n7.3 \n23.7", "metadata": {"page": 29, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "23.7 \n2020/21 \n30.8 \n12.9 \n71.5 \n2019/20 \n18 \n2.5 \n16.0 \n2018/19 \n15.5 \n2.4 \n18.7 \n2017/18 \n13.1 \n \n \n \nFrom the above table, it is evident that domestic debt has kept growing over the years at an \naverage rate of more than 32.5%. \n \nFurther analysis has revealed a corresponding movement in the net domestic financing over \nthe years. Table below shows the trends over the same period; \n0\n10\n20\n30\n40\n50\n60\n2017/18\n2018/19\n2019/20\n2020/21 \n2020/21\n2021/22\nExternal Debt(Tn)\nAMOUNT (UGX Tn)\nLinear (AMOUNT (UGX\nTn))", "metadata": {"page": 29, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "14 \n \n \nTable 8: Showing trends in net domestic financing \nDetails \nFY \n2017/18 \n(UGX-Tn) \nFY \n2018/19 \n(UGX-Tn) \nFY \n2019/20(\nUGX-Tn) \nFY \n2020/21 \n(UGX-Tn) \nFY \n2021/22 (UGX-Tn) \nIssuances (Bills \n& Bonds) \n6.4 \n7.4 \n8.5 \n13.7 \n13.0 \nRedemptions \n(Bills & Bonds) \n4.6 \n5.2 \n5.9 \n7 \n8.4 \nNET", "metadata": {"page": 30, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8.4 \nNET \nDomestic \nFinancing \n1.8 \n2.2 \n2.6 \n6.7 \n4.6 \n \nFrom the above analysis, it can be deduced as follows; \n \na) \nAll Government instruments that have reached maturity/redemption are financed \nthrough debt rollover (borrowing to pay existing debt) and this has created a high \ndependence on the market and thus increases refinancing risk. Under subscription was \nobserved, due to highly priced bids that were rejected in a bid to reduce the cost of \ndebt. \nb) \nIn the year under audit, a decrease of 31% was registered in Net Domestic Financing \n(NDF) from UGX.6.7Tn to UGX.4.6Tn. However, it should be noted that the \ndecrease in net domestic financing was as a result of under subscription of treasury", "metadata": {"page": 30, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "instruments as the approved NDF for the FY was UGX.5.5Tn. \nContinued reliance on Net Domestic Financing, signals Government\u2019s borrowing appetite, \nwhereby the market players are inclined to demand increased rates well aware that \nGovernment is in dire need to finance the budget. In addition, the commercial banks will \nprefer lending to Government instead of the private sector thus affecting growth in the private \nsector. \n \nManagement explained that GoU has two options to handle redemptions. Firstly, it can opt for \nan outright settlement of these obligations and secondly, rollover. The first option is not \nfeasible, as this will constrain the budget. Further to note, with the introduction of Primary \nDealer Reforms in 2020, GoU no longer has a challenge of under subscriptions (since PDs are \nobligated to fully fund auctions). \n \nThe UGX.6.7Tn NDF in FY2020/21, was necessitated by the low tax revenue that was", "metadata": {"page": 30, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. After full re-opening of the economy, NDF for the \nsubsequent FY was naturally reduced to UGX.5.5Tn, which was accordingly mobilized. GoU \nis implementing the DRMS which is envisaged to reduce on the fiscal deficit. Further to this, \nGoU is pursuing fiscal consolidation, evidenced by deliberate reduction in NDF for FY2022/23 \nand the medium term. \n \nI advised Government to consider initiating real steps to reverse this trend and ensure fiscal \nbudget discipline and promptly servicing a portion of such domestic obligations including \ninterests.", "metadata": {"page": 30, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "15 \n \n2.7.4 The Cost to Government for using Private Placements - UGX.1.2Tn \n \nSection 1.4 (C) of the Guidelines for selling Uganda Government Securities through Non-\nCalendar Auctions and Private Placement Mechanism 2019 provides that the use of non-\ncalendar auctions and private placements shall be on a purely exceptional basis and as a last \nresort. This is intended to minimize the secondary bond market price distortions that may \nresult from the off-calendar increased stock supply, and the potential subsequent impact on \nprimary auctions and the cost of borrowing through increased rates. \n \nI observed that UGX.510.8Tn was borrowed from the domestic market on the 29th June 2022 \nusing a private placement. I noted that this domestic borrowing was outside the approved \nauction-calendar dates. I further noted that the use of private placements to raise funding", "metadata": {"page": 31, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "attracted higher interest charges of UGX.1.2Tn due to absence of competition. Refer to Table \nbelow; \n \nTable 9: Debt acquired on a non-calendar auction/ private placement \nInstr\numen\nt \nInstrument ID \nMaturit\ny \nAuction \nheld \nAmou\nnt \nBorro\nwed \n(UGX \nBn) \n% \nIntere\nst to \nbe \nCharg\ned \nInteres\nt Per \nAnnum \n(UGX \nBn) \nTotal \ninterest \n(UGX Bn) \nBond \nUG12F0709234 \n10.000% 07-SEP-2023 \n2 Years", "metadata": {"page": 31, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 Years \n29/06/2022 \n142.2 \n15 \n21 \n42 \nBond \nUG12J0605277 \n16.000% 06-MAY-2027 \n5 Years \n29/06/2022 \n31.9 \n15 \n4.8 \n23.9 \nBond \nUG12K0403325 \n16.375% 04-MAR-2032 \n10 Years \n29/06/2022 \n29.3 \n16 \n4.7 \n46.9 \nBond \nUG12K0811352 \n16.250% 08-NOV-2035 \n15 Years \n29/06/2022 \n16.2 \n16 \n2.6", "metadata": {"page": 31, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "16 \n2.6 \n39.6 \nBond \nUG12L0111405 \n17.500% 01-NOV-2040 \n20 Years \n29/06/2022 \n291.1 \n19 \n53.9 \n1077.1 \n \n \n \nTotal \n510.8 \n \n86.9 \n1,229.50 \nSource: MoFPED front office desk \n \nGovernment borrowing through private placements and use of non-calendar auction days \ndistorts the domestic markets leading to higher interest rates paid by government. \n \nManagement explained that Government required these funds as part of a structural \nbenchmark requirement with IMF on partial reimbursements to BoU. It was not practically \npossible to have raised these funds from the domestic market through the auction calendar.", "metadata": {"page": 31, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I advised PS/ST to ensure that domestic borrowing is restricted to only the approved Auction \ncalendar days by Parliament to avoid such high interest rates. \n \n2.7.5 High cost of Bond switches to Government \n \nThe Operational Framework for Bond Switch Auction 2019 provides that Bond conversion shall \nbe done through a Bond Switch auction and shall be undertaken by Bank of Uganda (BoU) on \ninstruction of the GoU to exchange a bond with another bond for purposes of restructuring \nthe debt profile, smoothen interest payment and managing debt levels during periods of \nreduced government\u2019s financing needs.", "metadata": {"page": 31, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "16 \n \nI observed that among other challenges, the Treasury was facing cash flow constraints. The \nTreasury requested BoU to switch Bonds totalling to UGX.0.9Tn in two consecutive financial \nyears (FY2020/21 and FY2021/22) which resulted into accumulation of accrued interest \ntotalling to UGX.1.184Tn over a period of years. Refer to table below; \n \nTable 10: Bond Switches UGX 0.9Bn \nInstrumen\nt \nTenure \nFY \nAuction Date \nCost \n(UGX \nBn) \nInteres\nt rate \nInteres\nt per \nannum \n(UGX \nBn) \nTotal \ninterest \nAccumulate\nd (UGX Bn) \nBond", "metadata": {"page": 32, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Bond \n10 years \n2020/21 \n21-Jan-21 \n28.6 \n16 \n4.6 \n45.7 \nBond \n10 years \n2020/21 \n21-Jan-21 \n41.6 \n16 \n6.7 \n66.5 \nBond \n20 years \n2020/21 \n21-Jan-21 \n67.8 \n17.5 \n11.9 \n237.4 \nBond \n5 years \n2020/21 \n21-Jan-21 \n19.8 \n16.6 \n3.3 \n16.5 \nBond \n5 years \n2020/21 \n21-Jan-21 \n110 \n16.6", "metadata": {"page": 32, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "110 \n16.6 \n18.3 \n91.4 \nBond \n2 years \n2020/21 \n21-Jan-21 \n98.8 \n11 \n10.9 \n21.7 \nBond \n2 years \n2020/21 \n21-Jan-21 \n125 \n11 \n13.8 \n27.5 \nBond \n15 years \n2020/21 \n21-Jan-21 \n36 \n14.3 \n5.1 \n77 \nBond \n2 Years \n2021/22 \n10-Feb-22 \n149.1 \n11 \n16.4 \n32.8 \nBond \n10 Years \n2021/22", "metadata": {"page": 32, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2021/22 \n10-Feb-22 \n49.4 \n17 \n8.4 \n84 \nBond \n10 Years \n2021/22 \n10-Feb-22 \n69.4 \n16 \n11.1 \n111.1 \nBond \n15 Years \n2021/22 \n10-Feb-22 \n11.4 \n16 \n1.8 \n27.3 \nBond \n20 Years \n2021/22 \n10-Feb-22 \n98.6 \n17.5 \n17.3 \n345.1 \n \n \n \nTotal \n905.5 \n \n129.4 \n1184.1 \nSource: MoFPED front office desk", "metadata": {"page": 32, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Source: MoFPED front office desk \n \nWhile the intent of bond switches is to postpone redemption of maturing debt, it creates \nincremental debt at new/prevailing interest rates which are not favourable to Government as \nit increases the Public debt. It was further noted that in the same two financial years, the \nTreasury rolled over debt to a tune UGX.14.6Tn in domestic debt. \n \nManagement stated that in the recent past, MoFPED has carried out two bond switches. In \nFY2020/21, a successful switch was conducted (favourable yields) with advantages such as: \nincreased the average maturity of the debt portfolio and increased liquidity of benchmark \nsecurities (deepens financial market). In FY2021/22, again, GoU was obliged to honour high \nredemptions. Practically, they had three options; \n \ni- \nto budget and retire this obligation (was feasible-GoU operated a deficit budget); \nii-", "metadata": {"page": 32, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ii- \nlet BoU pay on their behalf and let her obligation became part of the accumulated \nreimbursements to BoU. This would not make any difference, because the Central \nbank charges GoU, interest equivalent to the prevailing market rates; \niii- \ncarry out a bond switch which, would not have come at good rates due to the prevailing \nhigh interest environment, but had the above advantages of a switch. \nManagement is advised to re-evaluate bond switching as a means of debt management and \nfurther develop policies that will widen the country\u2019s revenues and cash flows so as to reduce \non reliance on debt.", "metadata": {"page": 32, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17 \n \n2.7.6 Debt to GDP Ratio \n \nThe Debt to GDP ratio is a measure that compares what a country owes (total debt) and what \nit produces (manufactures or a service provided). The ratio reliably indicates a country\u2019s ability \nto pay back its debt. A high debt-to-GDP ratio may make it more difficult for a Country to pay \nboth internal and external debt and may lead creditors to seek higher interest rates to \ncompensate for financing risk due to likely default or unnecessary debt extension. \n \nThough the IMF has recommended 50% as the point of safety, many developed countries \nhave gone up to 200%. However, according to the IMF, the developing countries are more \nprone to economic shocks and exchange rate risk, thus advising on a 50% threshold. \n \nA re-computation of Uganda\u2019s Debt to GDP revealed a consistent linear growth over a period", "metadata": {"page": 33, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of five years as Debt to GDP grew by 21% from 31% to 52%. The graph below illustrates the \nmovement; \n \nGraph Showing Debt to GDP ratio \n \nSource: Uganda Bureau of Statistics \n \nFrom the above, it can be seen that though Uganda\u2019s GDP has been increasing over the years \nsince FY2016/17, its debt position has also increased. The rate of increase of debt is higher \nthan the rate of increment in the GDP levels, which creates a risk factor of accumulation of \nunsustainable debt. \n \nThe Country is now above the set bench mark by the World Bank for unsustainable Debt. It \nshould be noted that the country is already facing the impact of the public debt which is \nevidenced by debt restructuring and high cost of borrowing offered by the lenders. \n \nManagement stated that Government is aware of the recent increase in debt levels, largely as", "metadata": {"page": 33, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. To maintain prudent and sustainable levels of public debt, \nGovernment is making efforts to reduce borrowing in the medium term, mostly by increasing \ntax revenues as well as re-purposing the budget to areas with large multiplier effects for \neconomic growth. In addition, suffice to note, the debt to GDP ratios are projected to go \n31\n34\n35\n41\n51\n52\n0\n20\n40\n60\n80\n100\n120\n140\n160\n180\nJun 2017\nJun 2018\nJun 2019\nJun 2020\nJun 2021\nJun 2022\nDebt to GDP\nGDP\nTotal debt\nDebt/GDP\nExpon. (Debt/GDP)", "metadata": {"page": 33, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "18 \n \nslightly above the 50% policy threshold by the end of FY2021/22 and to peak at 53.1% in \nFY2022/23, before gradually reducing to below 50% by the end of FY2025/26. \n \nThe Accounting Officer should consider alternative ways of reducing dependence on debt \nwhile exploring avenues of enhancing revenue generation for the country and/or \nreducing/rationalising government expenditures. \n \n2.7.7 Interest to Total Revenue Ratio \n \nThis benchmark shows the proportion of the domestic revenue that goes into servicing \ndomestic interest costs. Since donor grants are inherently subject to uncertainty, the interest \ncost of domestic debt is considered in relation to the domestically-raised component of the \nbudget only. The table below shows the assessment of the benchmark over the years; \n \nTable 11: Showing interest to total revenue ratio \nFinancial \nyear \nTotal domestic Revenue", "metadata": {"page": 34, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "year \nTotal domestic Revenue \n\u2013 UGX.Tn \nTotal Interest \u2013 \nUGX.Tn \n% of Interest to \nrevenue \nBench\nmark \n2021/22 \n22.8 \n5.5 \n24.1 \n<12.5 \n2020/21 \n20.2 \n3.1 \n15.4 \n<12.5 \n2019/20 \n17.5 \n2.5 \n14.2 \n<12.5 \n2018/19 \n17.1 \n2.0 \n11.71 \n<12.5 \n2017/18 \n15.2 \n1.9 \n12.73 \n<12.5", "metadata": {"page": 34, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "<12.5 \n \nIt has been established that the interest to revenue benchmark has been overwhelmingly \nbreached as evidenced above. It has been noted that 24.1% of the revenue being collected \nis going into servicing interest payments. This is gradually reducing the funds available for \nfunding other critical Government expenditures. \n \nI advised the PS/ST to devise strategies of reducing the growth of interest expenditures at \nthe same time increasing revenue mobilisation. \n \n2.7.8 Use of Non-concessional loans for Budget support \u2013 UGX.4.5Tn \n \nThe Government Medium Term Debt Strategy has for the past five financial years restricted \nnon concessional/commercial loans to financing infrastructure and self - financing projects \nthrough on-lent agreements that have the capacity of generating non tax revenue to enable \ndebt repayment. This has been done in the spirit of ensuring long term debt sustainability.", "metadata": {"page": 34, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "However, I obtained and reviewed the external debt stock and noted that the Government \nobtained four (4) non-concessional loans amounting to UGX.4.5Tn for budget support which \nwas not directed to infrastructure development. This therefore means that government \nobtained external debt at non-concessional terms to fund recurrent expenditure such as wage \nand administrative expenditure at high interest rates, for which repayments are to be incurred \nin the short term. Table below refers;", "metadata": {"page": 34, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "19 \n \nTable 12: Showing non-concessional loans for budget support \nLoan Id \nPurpose \nDate \nSigned \nLast \nPayment \nDebt Type \nInterest \nRate \nInterest \nRate Type \nOutstanding \nIncluding \nArrears \n(UGX Tn) \n30.06.2022 \n20910000 \nProg. \nSupport \n02.06.2020 \n02.06.2027 \nCommercial \nBanks \n4.47 \nEuribor \n1.2 \n20909000 \nProg. \nSupport \n24.03.2020 \n25.03.2027 \nCommercial \nBanks \n4.45 \nEuribor", "metadata": {"page": 35, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Euribor \n1.1 \n20931000 \nProg. \nSupport \n13.09.2021 \n13.09.2031 \nCommercial \nBanks \n5.5 \nEuribor \n0.8 \n20931000 \nProg. \nSupport \n13.09.2021 \n13.09.2031 \nCommercial \nBanks \n5.72 \nLibor 6 \nMonths \nDeposit \n0.6 \n20923000 \nProg. \nSupport \n08.06.2021 \n11.06.2028 \nCommercial \nBanks \n4.75 \nEuribor \n0.8", "metadata": {"page": 35, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Total \n4.5 \nSource: DMFAS/MoFPED \n \nIn the past, budget support has been financed by grants, domestic debt (i.e. T-bills and T-\nBonds), concessional loans with very generous terms and internally generated revenue. Non-\nconcessional debt financing will increase financial leverage and financial risk. It will reduce the \ngovernment\u2019s liquidity, given the fact that commercial loans do not give longer grace periods \nof debt repayment as compared to concessional loans. Commercial bank debt often has higher \ninterest rates and contracting fees which is never a requirement for concessional loans. The \ncountry further runs a risk of losing its national key assets in the event of default. \n \nManagement explained that concessional financing is limited and Government has been forced \nto borrow from semi-concessional institutions to meet its liquidity obligations. \n \nManagement is advised to consider financing Budget support with loans that have", "metadata": {"page": 35, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "concessional terms, to avoid high interest payments and very short grace periods. \n \n2.7.9 Continued high Commitment Fees \n \nCommitment fees are paid for debt that has been contracted but not yet disbursed. I \nperformed a trend analysis of commitment fees over the past five years and noted that a total \nof UGX.359.5Bn was paid as commitment fees. There was a slight decline by 2% between the \nFY2020/21 and FY21/22, from UGX.79.1Bn to UGX.77.5Bn. The table below refers; \n \nTable 13: Showing commitment fees \nFinancial year \nCommitment fees Paid (UGX Bn) \nPercentage charge \n2021/22 \n77.5 \n-2% \n2020/21 \n79.1 \n1% \n2019/20 \n78.6 \n-10% \n-10% \n2018/19 \n87.8 \n140% \n2017/18 \n36.5 \n \nTotal \n359.5 \n \nOAG Analysis", "metadata": {"page": 35, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "20 \n \nHowever, UGX.31.6Bn of commitment fee payments was a result of a loan obtained for \nbudget support in the year under review. Relatedly I noted that at the end of the financial \nyear 2021/22, undisbursed loans stood at UGX.15.6Tn. Government\u2019s failure to draw down \nand low absorption of contracted government debt continue to attract high commitment fees \nand affect service delivery. \n \nManagement explained that the Ministry is aware of the problem of payment of Commitment \nfees due to delays in signing of Agreements when Sectors and implementers of projects are \nnot ready. Going forward, the Ministry will only sign financing Agreements when sectors are \nready to implement the projects to avoid payment of commitment fees. In addition, emphasis \nis being made on ensuring that feasibility studies are conducted before projects are submitted \nto parliament. \n \nI advised Government to identify and resolve any bottlenecks hindering the smooth", "metadata": {"page": 36, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "implementation of projects/programmes and activities so as to increase its loan/debt \nabsorption rates. \n \n2.8 \nCANCELLATION OF THE LOAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MUZIZI HYDROPOWER \nPLANT \n \nIn the year 2016, the GoU signed financing agreements with the ADF and KFW to fund the \nconstruction of a hydropower plant in Muzizi the project was for the construction of a 45 MW \nMuzizi hydropower plant in western Uganda with the aim of improving the electricity supply \nto the growing economy and the households. \n \nIn my report of the FY 19/20, I pointed out the challenges of under absorption of funds for \nthis project and in the report for FY 20/21, I further emphasized the losses associated with \nthe failure to absorb the said loan. \n \nIn a letter dated 22nd February 2022, the Minister sought to cancel the loan agreement entered", "metadata": {"page": 36, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "into with KFW, to which KFW acknowledged and agreed to the cancellation of the loan. The \ntable shows the details of the loans; \n \nTable 14: Showing cancelled loans \nSN \nLoan particulars \nLoan Amount (Euro \nMn) \nDate of signing \n1 \nConstruction of Muzizi Hydropower Plant \n40 \n25 November 2016 \n2 \nConstruction of Muzizi Hydropower Plant \n45 \n09 December 2016 \n3 \nKfW Grant Finance (Euros) \n5.36 \n22 September 2015 \n \nTOTAL \n90.36 \n \n \nI noted that by the time of cancellation of the loan, no disbursement had been made. However, \nUGX.3.97Bn had been incurred as commitment fees to secure the loan. Another", "metadata": {"page": 36, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.4.66Bn (1.2Mn Euros) is payable by government as cancelation fees. This is a loss to \nGoU considering that the funds were paid for no particular gain. \n \nFailure to implement the project meant that the intended economic and social benefits were \nnot achieved. \n \nI advised the PS/ST to ensure that projects are subjected to a comprehensive appraisal by \nthe development committee before committing government.", "metadata": {"page": 36, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "21 \n \n2.9 \nREVIEW OF JINJA EXPRESS HIGHWAY PROJECT \n \nKampala-Jinja Expressway Project Phase 1 agreement was entered into between the GOU and \nthe African Development Bank for a total amount of USD.229.5Mn (equivalent to \nUGX.0.863Tn). The parties agreed to 0.25% (beginning 60 days after the date of the loan \nagreement) commitment fee and front end fees of 0.25% (not later than 60 days after the \ndate of entry of the agreement. \n \nThe loan was secured to finance Phase 1 of the construction of 77Km Kampala- Jinja \nexpressway project. Development of the first 35Kms from Kampala to Namagunga and the \nKampala Southern Bypass is supposed to be completed by 2023. \n \nThe following Observations were noted; \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 37, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nIn spite of the availability of the funds, the project had not commenced. \n\uf0b7 \nIn the FY 20/21, no funds were drawn from this facility indicating the slowdown of \nwork on the project. It was however noted that a total of USD.0.8Mn (UGX.3Bn) \nwas paid to the lender as commission fees for the undisbursed funds as indicated in \nthe table below; \n \nTable 15: Showing commission fees paid \nSN Description \nAmount \n(USD) \nExchange \nRate` \nAmount \n(UGX.Bn) \n1 \nFront End Fee \u2013Kampala Jinja \nExpressway Project \n573,675 \n3,570.57 \n2.1 \n2 \n\u2026003201 \nKampala \n\u2013 \nJinja", "metadata": {"page": 37, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\u2013 \nJinja \nExpressway 1 \n251,982 \n3,550.43 \n0.9 \n \nTOTAL \n825,657 \n \n3 \n \nThis expenditure constitutes a nugatory expense considering that the funds are paid for no \nparticular gain. The delays in project implementation impact on the economic and social \ndevelopment of the country. Besides the associated commitment fees are wasteful. \n \nManagement explained that the project execution has delayed because of protracted \nprocurement processes by UNRA. This matter has been discussed with UNRA during portfolio \nreviews for ADB funded projects. In future, such scenarios will be addressed through advance \nprocurement processes to ensure that projects are implemented as planned as soon as \nFinancing Agreements are signed. \n \nManagement is advised to ensure the absorption of all loans to avoid exposing the GOU to \nlosses in form of commission fees for undisbursed funds.", "metadata": {"page": 37, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2.10 COMMERCIAL CONTRACT FOR THE REFURBISHMENT OF THE METER GAUGE \nRAILWAY LINE KAMPALA - MALABA (250KM) \n \nThe GoU entered into a facility agreement with the Italian Government for a financial facility \nof Euro.16.9Mn (equivalent to UGX.67Bn) as a commercial contract for the refurbishment \nof the Meter Gauge Railway line Kampala - Malaba (250KM). The contract provided that the \ndrawdown deadline for the facility was to be Sixty months from coming into effect of the", "metadata": {"page": 37, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "22 \n \nagreement with option to extend to 30 days before expiry of the date. The parties agreed for \nan interest rate of 3.7% to be charged on the disbursed amount per annum. \n \nI noted that a total of UGX.67Bn had been drawn by GoU from this facility since it came into \neffect. \n \nA review of the signed agreement against the Minutes of the National Economy Committee of \nparliament when approving the loan request by the MoFPED revealed that although the \nparliament authorized interest to be charged on the loan of 3.6% of the disbursed amount, \nthe final loan agreement however indicated interest of 3.7%. The loan agreement condition \non interest therefore contradicted what was approved by Parliament. \n \nThe Accounting Officer stated that the Financing for the Meter Gauge Railway Line project is \nblended financing with tranche2 of Euro 16.9Mn being semi-concessional with a Maturity", "metadata": {"page": 38, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Period of 20 years, Grace period of 5 years, Interest of 2% p.a, Management Fees of 0.25% \nand Commitment Fees of 0.25% while Tranche 1 amounting to Euro 9.1Mn is highly \nconcessional with a Maturity Period of 50 years, Grace period of 15 years, interest of 0.055%, \nManagement Fees of 0.1% and Commitment Fees of 0.1% thus the financing was adequately \nnegotiated as per the prevailing time. This is being handled in all current agreements. \n \nI advised Government to be more cautious in the acquisition of loans to ensure the terms of \nthe loan agreement are consistent with parliamentary approvals. \n \n2.11 CONCESSIONAL LOAN AGREEMENT TO FINANCE CAPACITY BUILDING FOR THE \nRAILWAYS SYSTEM IN UGANDA \n \nIn a resolution of the Parliamentary Committee dated May 2021, the National Economic \nCommittee (NEC) of Parliament approved the following facilities for the Kampala Meter Gauge \nrailway project as shown in the table below;", "metadata": {"page": 38, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 16: Showing approvals by NEC \nLender \nAmount (UA) Mn \nAmount (Euro.Mn) \nAfrican Development Fund \n179.6 \n216.7 \nAfrican Development Bank \n69.9 \n84.4 \nCorporate Internationalization Fund of Spain \n \n26 \nTOTAL \n249.5 \n327.1 \n \nSubsequently, the GoU entered into a facility agreement with the Spanish Government for a \nfinancial facility of Euro 9,120,100 (equivalent to UGX.36Bn) as a concessional facility to \nfinance the strategic consultant services for capacity building for the railways systems in \nUganda. It was agreed by the parties that the drawdown deadline for the facility would be \nSixty months from coming into effect of the agreement with an option to extend to 30 days", "metadata": {"page": 38, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "before expiry of the date. The parties agreed on a fixed annual interest rate of 0.055% payable \nat 6 month intervals on all disbursed funds. The GOU would also be charged a Commission of \n0.1% per year applied to all the amounts that have not been withdrawn during drawdown \nperiod, and would commence six (6) months after the agreement comes into force. \n \nIt was further agreed that a flat management commission of 0.1% shall be applied to the total \namount of the credit of Euro.16.8Mn payable within six (6) months from date of coming into \nforce of the agreement. Interest on late payments shall be 2% per annum.", "metadata": {"page": 38, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "23 \n \nI noted that in a letter dated 20th September 2021, Spain communicated that all conditions of \nthe agreement had been met and as such, the loan became effective. In effect, the loan \ncommenced attracting commission for non-withdrawal. I noted that no drawing had been \nmade by the time of the audit in November 2022. There was also no evidence that any \npayments had been made in form of management commission yet. I further noted that in \nlight of the fact that the loan became effective on 20th September 2021, the GOU had an \nobligation to utilize the funds or continue to pay commission fees for the loan and risk a delay \nor failure of the project. \n \nThe delay in withdrawing the said funds by the GOU continues to accrue unnecessary charges \nof commissions to government. It also has the implication of slowing the progress of the \nprojects. \n \nManagement explained that the financing Agreements for the ADF and ADB are now due for", "metadata": {"page": 39, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "signature following the ADB Board Approval on 8th December 2022. \n \nI advised Government to expedite the outstanding processes to enable utilization of the loan \nand mitigate further escalation of unnecessary charges in form of commissions. \n \n2.12 FINANCING AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLY OF SOLAR PUMPING SYSTEMS IN THE \nMINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT (EURO.95.8Mn equivalent to \nUGX.381Bn) \n \nA financing agreement between Government of Uganda (GoU) and the Export Credits \nGuarantee Department of UK (UKEF) was signed on 12th February 2021 to support the project. \nThe estimated project cost of the project was Euro.100 million. The total loan amount is Euro \n95.8Mn (Equivalent to UGX.381Bn) with the GOU counterpart funding the project with 15% \nof the projected cost. \n \nA commercial Contract, for Design, Supply and Installation of Solar Powered Water Supply", "metadata": {"page": 39, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and Irrigation Systems was signed between GoU and a contractor on 3rd July 2020. The \ncontractor commenced works a year later, on 12th July 2021 after receipt of the advance \npayment (5% of the GoU counterpart funding). The project is expected to end on 30th June \n2025. \n \nBy end of June 2022, the contractor had received Euros.14Mn (14%) of the Contract Sum, \nwhile the Consultant had received 27% of the contract Sum (UGX.11.6Bn). The second \ntranche for counterpart financing supposed to be disbursed in February was postponed to \nOctober 2022 due to resource constraints. However, in the same period the third tranche \nshould be released. \n \nContradiction of the Agreement with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda \n1995 (as amended) \n \nSection 5.8 (a) of the financing agreement, provided that the Agent's Bank Account would", "metadata": {"page": 39, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "constitute a Public Fund for the purposes of Article 159(3) of the Constitution of Uganda 1995 \n(as amended). \n \nArticle 159(3)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended) provides \nthat an Act of Parliament made under clause (2) of this article shall provide that any monies \nreceived in respect of that loan shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund and form part of that", "metadata": {"page": 39, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "24 \n \nfund or into some other public fund which is existing or is created for the purpose of the loan. \nSection 30(1) of the Public Finance Management Act 2015, provides that all revenues or other \nmoney raised or received for the purpose of the Government, shall be paid into and shall form \npart of the Consolidated Fund. \n \nThe provision of the financing agreement in allowing an account not resident in Uganda to be \nconstrued as a public fund for purposes of receipt of government loan proceeds violates the \nConstitution and the PFMA. It also seeks to amend the provisions of the said laws. \n \nManagement explained that as part of the standard negotiation procedures for all Agreements, \nthe Attorney General is involved from the beginning to the end until Clearance of the Financing \nAgreement is done. The Ministry has communicated to the Attorney General to advise on \nwhether this constitutes a Public Fund within the provisions of Article 159(3) of the 1995", "metadata": {"page": 40, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Constitution and Section 30(1) of the PFMA 2015. \n \nI advised Management to ensure that all provisions of the different financing agreements \nconform to the existing laws of the country. \n \n2.13 REHABILITATION OF THE TORORO-GULU RAILWAY LINE \n \nThe European Union and the Government of Uganda are supporting the development initiative \nfor Northern Uganda through the rehabilitation of Tororo - Gulu railway line that commenced \nin March 2020 and is expected to be completed on the second half of 2023. In the Grant \nagreement signed on the 16th December 2019 between the GOU and the EU, it was resolved \nthat the total cost of the project would be Euros.34.6Mn (GoU Euros.13.1Mn and EU \nEuros.21.5Mn) respectively. \n \nI reviewed the contract implementation and noted the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to article 65.1 of the grant agreement, GOU defaulted on their contribution", "metadata": {"page": 40, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "to payment of the contractor. This resulted into termination of the contract by the \ncontractor. By the time of termination, Euros.3.1Mn was due to the contractor. As at \n30th August 2022, only 15.47% works had been completed. Article 65.3 states that in \nthe event of such termination, the contracting authority shall pay the contractor for \nany loss or damage the contractor may have suffered. The maximum amount shall be \n10% of the contract price. \n\uf0b7 \nIn a letter dated 24th June 2022 and referenced UG/T-G-R/SOGETF/FIN/06-22/052, \nthe Contractor, informed GOU of their notice of termination of the contract. This \nfollowed the contractor\u2019s notice of suspension of works due to delayed payment. The \ncontractor indicates that by the time of contract termination, the outstanding un-paid \namount was totalling to Euros.0.7Mn (Equivalent to UGX.2.5Bn) in respect to the \ngovernment portion. See details in table below;", "metadata": {"page": 40, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "25 \n \nTable 17: Details of Certificates paid and unpaid obligations by GOU (amounts in Euros) \nIPC \nNo. \nSubmission \nPeriod \nInvoice \nAmount \nInvoice \nproportion \nAmount \nPaid \nDue date \nPayment status \n1 \nFeb.20 - Sep.20 \n \n0.4 \nEU \n0.1 \n \n0.1 \n24-Dec 20 \nPaid \nGoU \n0.3 \n0.3 \nPaid \n2 \nOct.20 \u2013 Feb.21 \n \n1.1 \nEU \n0.3 \n0.3 \n12-Jul 21 \nPaid \nGou", "metadata": {"page": 41, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Paid \nGou \n0.8 \n0.8 \n \nPaid 2nd Dec 2021 \n3 \nMar.21 - Apr.21 \n \n0.4 \nEU \n0.1 \n0.1 \n23-Sep 21 \npaid \nGoU \n0.3 \n0.2 \nPaid 2nd Dec 2021 \n4 \nMay.21 \u2013 Aug.21 \n \n0.9 \nEU \n0.3 \n0.3 \nFeb 22 \nPaid:28-Jan22 \nGoU \n0.6 \n0.5 \nMay 22 \nGOU overdue \n0.1 \n5 \nSept.21 - Feb.22 \n0.7 \nEU", "metadata": {"page": 41, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0.7 \nEU \n0.2 \n0.2 \nEU paid \n8-Jun 22 \nGOU portion overdue \nGou \n0.5 \n0 \n \nTotal-Un paid \n3.5 \n2.8 \n \n \n \nAs a result of the termination, the Government of Uganda will incur termination damages up \nto 10% (Euros.2.15Mn). According to the Monthly progress report No. 34 of August 2022, \nTermination claim 3 had not yet been submitted by the contractor for final determination and \nestimation of amounts due. Review of the Treasury Operations financial statements indicated \nthat no contingent liability had been provided for/disclosed in respect to the out-standing \nclaim. \n \n\uf0b7 \nIn addition, I noted that after termination of the contract by the contractor, the", "metadata": {"page": 41, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "contractor never handed over the demolished materials that were supposed to be used \nfor reconstruction of the railway line, besides, evidence from supervising consultant \nindicated that 136,416 railway items equivalent to Euro 3.08 Mn had been stolen. \nSimilarly, although the Contracting Authority had made 30% advance payment to the \ncontractor amounting to Euro 11.8 Mn by the time of termination of the contract only \nEuro 2.95Mn had been recovered with the balance Euro 8.85Mn not yet recovered. \nDelayed reconciliation with the contractor may lead to loss of public resources. \nThe Accounting Officer explained that this is an issue that is being handled following \nprocedures of closure of Contract at Termination. The Final Account shall detail what is \npayable to the Contractor at the time of termination less what the Contractor owes the Client \nincluding losses of Inventory as determined by the inspections mentioned above. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to ensure a comprehensive verification process is carried out \nso that all outstanding obligations by the contractor are discharged before any payments are", "metadata": {"page": 41, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "made. \n \nI also advised the Accounting Officer to also seek legal advice from Attorney General on the \ncourse of action to be taken.", "metadata": {"page": 41, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "26 \n \n2.14 PLANNING \nFOR \nCAPITALISATION \nOF \nINVESTMENTS \nIN \nFINANCIAL \nINSTITUTIONS \n \nIn the Financial Institutions (revision of minimum capital Requirements) Instrument, 2022, it \nwas provided that for a person to transact in the financial institution business in the capacity \nof a bank, they should have a minimum paid-up capital of not less than six million currency \npoints (equivalent to UGX.120Bn) by December 2022 invested initially in such liquid assets \nin Uganda as the central bank may approve. \n \nThe instrument further provides that a person proposing to transact a financial institution \nbusiness in the capacity of a bank shall have a minimum paid-up capital of not less than seven \nmillion five hundred thousand currency points (equivalent to UGX.150Bn) by 30th June 2024 \ninvested initially in such liquid assets in Uganda as the central bank may approve.", "metadata": {"page": 42, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I noted that the GoU has interests in four financial institutions as listed in table below; \n \nTable 18: Capitalization requirements \nSN Financial Institution \nReported paid-\nup capital (UGX \nBn) \nRequirement 31 \nDecember 2022 \n(UGX Bn) \nRequirement \n30 June 2024 \n(UGX Bn) \n1 \nHousing Finance Bank Limited \n122. \n-2 \n28 \n2 \nTropical Bank Limited \n88.2 \n31.8 \n61.8 \n3 \nPost Bank Limited \n98. \n22 \n52 \n \nTotal \n \n51.8 \n141.8 \n \nI noted that two of the financial institutions require additional funding of capital totaling", "metadata": {"page": 42, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.51.8Bn by the year ending 31st December 2022 as indicated in table above. There is \ntherefore a need of additional funding by GoU especially in the case of financial situations in \nwhich GoU has majority shareholding. In the case of Post Bank limited, there would be a need \nfor an additional investment of UGX.22Bn to be compliant to operate as a bank as of 31st \nDecember 2022. In the case of M/S Tropical Bank Limited, the GoU will have to liaise with its \nother shareholder to secure a total of UGX.31.8Bn to be compliant by 31st December 2022. \n \nIn addition, GoU would have to ensure that in the next financial year, it plans for capital \ninjection in all the three banks of a total of UGX.141.8Bn to ensure that the banks are \ncompliant as of 30th June 2024. \n \nFailure to plan for the capital requirements for the different financial institutions may result in", "metadata": {"page": 42, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the banks not being compliant and therefore not authorized to operate as banks. \n \nThe Accounting Officer stated that they would budget for it accordingly. \nManagement is advised to liaise with the different stake holders and plan for and ensure the \navailability of funds for the capitalization of the different financial institutions. \n \n \nOther Information \n \nThe Accounting Officer is responsible for the other information. The other information comprises the \nstatement of responsibilities, a statement from the Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic \nDevelopment, a statement from the Secretary to the Treasury, a statement from the Accountant", "metadata": {"page": 42, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "27 \n \nGeneral, and other supplementary information. The other information does not include the financial \nstatements and my auditors\u2019 report thereon. \n \nMy opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and I do not express an \naudit opinion or any form of assurance conclusion thereon. \n \nIn connection with my audit of the financial statements, my responsibility is to read the other \ninformation and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially consistent with the \nfinancial statements or my knowledge obtained in the audit, or otherwise appears to be materially \nmisstated. If, based on the work I have performed, I conclude that there is a material misstatement \nof this other information; I am required to report that fact. I have nothing to report in this regard. \n \nManagement Responsibilities for the Financial Statements \n \nUnder Article 164 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended) and Section 45", "metadata": {"page": 43, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of the Public Finance Management Act, 2015 (as amended), the Accounting Officers are accountable \nto Parliament for the funds and resources of the Government of Uganda. \nThe Accountant General is appointed as the Accounting Officer and Receiver of Revenue for the \nConsolidated Fund. The Accountant General is therefore responsible for the preparation of financial \nstatements in accordance with the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act 2015, and \nthe Financial Reporting Guide 2018, and for such internal control as management determines is \nnecessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatements, \nwhether due to fraud or error. \n \nIn preparing the financial statements, the Accountant General is responsible for assessing the \nGovernment\u2019s ability to continue delivering its mandate, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to \naffecting the delivery of the mandate of the Government of Uganda, and using the Financial Reporting \nGuide 2018 unless the Accountant General has a realistic alternative to the contrary. \n \nThe Accountant General is responsible for overseeing the Government\u2019s financial reporting process.", "metadata": {"page": 43, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Auditor's Responsibilities for the audit of the Financial Statements \n \nMy objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements \nof government as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error and to \nissue an auditor\u2019s report that includes my opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, \nbut is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with ISSAIs will always detect a material \nmisstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material \nif, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic \ndecisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements. \n \nAs part of an audit in accordance with ISSAIs, I exercise professional judgement and maintain \nprofessional skepticism throughout the audit. I also; \n \n\uf0b7 \nIdentify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether", "metadata": {"page": 43, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and \nobtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my opinion. The \nrisk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one \nresulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, \nmisrepresentations, or the override of internal control.", "metadata": {"page": 43, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "28 \n \n\uf0b7 \nObtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit \nprocedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing \nan opinion on the effectiveness of the government\u2019s internal control. \n\uf0b7 \nEvaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of \naccounting estimates and related disclosures made by the management. \n\uf0b7 \nConclude on the appropriateness of management's use of the going concern basis of \naccounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists \nrelated to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the government\u2019s ability to \ncontinue as a going concern. If I conclude that a material uncertainty exists, I am required to \ndraw attention in my auditor's report to the related disclosures in the financial statements or, \nif such disclosures are inadequate, to modify my opinion. My conclusions are based on the", "metadata": {"page": 44, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "audit evidence obtained up to the date of my auditor's report. However, future events or \nconditions may cause the government to cease to continue as a going concern. \n\uf0b7 \nEvaluate the overall presentation, structure and content of the financial statements, including \nthe disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions \nand events in a manner that achieves fair presentation. \nI communicate with the Accounting Officer regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and \ntiming of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal \ncontrol that I identify during my audit. \n \nI also provide the Accounting Officer with a statement that I have complied with relevant ethical \nrequirements regarding independence and to communicate with them all relationships and other \nmatters that may reasonably be thought to bear on my independence, and where applicable, related \nsafeguards. \n \nFrom the matters communicated with the Accounting Officer, I determine those matters that were of", "metadata": {"page": 44, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "most significance in the audit of the financial statements of the current period and are therefore the \nkey audit matters. I describe these matters in my auditor's report unless law or regulation precludes \npublic disclosure about the matter or when, in extremely rare circumstances, I determine that a \nmatter should not be communicated in my report because the adverse consequences of doing so \nwould reasonably be expected to outweigh the public interest benefits of such communication. \n \nOther Reporting Responsibilities \n \nIn accordance with Section 19(1) of the National Audit Act (NAA), 2008, I report to you, based on my \nwork described on the audit of the GoU Consolidated Financial Statements that; except for the matters \nraised in the compliance with legislation section below, and whose effect has been considered in \nforming my opinion on the GoU consolidated financial statements, the activities, financial transactions \nand information reflected in the consolidated financial statements that have come to my notice during \nthe audit, are in all material respects, in compliance with the authorities which govern them.", "metadata": {"page": 44, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "29 \n \nReport on the Audit of Compliance with Legislation \n \nIn accordance with Section 19 of the NAA 2008, I have a responsibility to report material findings on \nthe compliance of Government with specific matters in key legislations. I performed procedures \nprimarily to identify findings but not to gather evidence to express assurance. \n \nThe material findings in respect of the compliance criteria for the applicable subject matters are as \nfollows; \n \n2.15 MANAGEMENT \nOF \nINFORMATION \nTECHNOLOGY \n(IT) \nINVESTMENTS \nIN \nGOVERNMENT \n \nThe Government of Uganda (GoU) is making large investments in Information Technology \n(IT) systems because of the tremendous benefits that IT can bring to its operations and \nservices. One of the key programmes of NDPIII 2020/21-2024/25 is Digital Transformation, \nin which Government of Uganda aims to increase Information, Communication Technology", "metadata": {"page": 45, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(ICT) penetration and use of digital services for enhancing social and economic development. \n \nAs a result of national prioritization of ICT, I undertook a thematic audit covering three \nfinancial years\u2019 expenditure (2019/20 to 2021/22) to scrutinise the management of IT \nInvestments across Government. The overall objective was to assess whether the IT \ninvestments in Government are strategically aligned, managed appropriately and focused on \nachieving the NDP III objective. The procedures undertaken covered: planning and budgeting; \nprocurement, utilization, maintenance and disposal of IT systems; governance, and financial \nreporting. \n \nI reviewed a sample of 68 MDAs with IT budgets of UGX.968Bn, for the three years in \nrespect of acquisition and implementation of IT systems and equipment of which UGX.894Bn \nwas warranted, as summarised in the table 19 below; \n \nTable 19: Showing budget allocations for IT Systems and Equipment \nFinancial \nYear", "metadata": {"page": 45, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Financial \nYear \nBudget \n(UGX Bn) \nWarrants/Release \n(UGX Bn) \nVariance \n(UGX Bn) \n2021/2022 \n331.754 \n312.233 \n19.521 \n2020/2021 \n357.098 \n331.691 \n25.407 \n2019/2020 \n279.017 \n249.989 \n29.028 \n \n967.869 \n893.913 \n73.956 \n \nA review of ICT activities implemented revealed the following; \n \nTable 20: Showing findings from review of Implementation of IT Activities \nNo Observation \nRecommendation \n1.0 \n \nProcurement/Development and Use of Software/Licenses", "metadata": {"page": 45, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(IT Systems) and Equipment \n \nThe ICT Systems Development Lifecycle (SDLC) requires a \nsystematic approach which includes; initiation, planning and \nexecution. In addition, I made my assessment basing on PS/ST and \nNITA-U guidance on ICT developments which aim to promote \nrationalisation and avoid further development of isolated IT systems \nin MDAs and LGs. \n \n \n \n \nI advised the PS/ST to \nliaise \nwith \nthe \nresponsible \nstakeholders \nto \nenhance controls and \nimprove \ncompliance \nwith the Policies and", "metadata": {"page": 45, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "30 \n \nNo Observation \nRecommendation \nDuring the audit of the sampled MDAs, I observed the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \n81% (95 out of 118) of IT systems/equipment procured by 42 \nMDAs lacked clearance from NITA-U. \n \n\uf0b7 \n52 IT systems/equipment acquired by 15 MDAs were not \noptimally utilized as envisaged. \n \n\uf0b7 \n24 Systems acquired at a cost above UGX.200Mn by 9 MDAs \nwere not approved by Solicitor General as required by law. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed inception reports for sampled MDAs and noted that \n44 IT projects with a total cost of UGX.34.8Bn, were not \nimplemented within the contractual timelines. \n \n\uf0b7 \n38 IT Systems costing UGX.55Bn implemented in 15 MDAs did", "metadata": {"page": 46, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "not meet the user requirements and the users not trained on \nthe usage of the systems. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 29 IT systems acquired by 13 MDAs were not \nowned by the MDAs, as there was no formal handover of the \nsystems and/ or source codes. \n \n\uf0b7 \n37 systems at 14 MDAs that hold data and information that is \nrequired and/or used by various MDAs, were found not \nintegrated. \n \nNon-compliance may lead to duplication of acquisition, procurement \nof non-compatible solutions and equipment; and general deviation \nfrom Government\u2019s efforts to rationalize resources for better service \ndelivery. \n \nGuidelines, prioritise \nsystems maintenance \nand \nupgrades \nto \npreserve the integrity \nand \navailability \nof \ndata and systems, \nand to this effect,", "metadata": {"page": 46, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and to this effect, \nformal \nprocedures \nshould be put in place \nto guide the process. \n \n1.1 \n \nDisposal and Decommissioning of ICT Assets \n \nParagraph 15.11.1 of the TIs, 2017, PPDA Act, 2003 (as amended) \nand PPDA Regulations, 2014 together with the PFMA 2015, require \nMDAs and LGs to efficiently and transparently dispose assets as \nrecommended. \n \nHowever, I noted that most MDAs are not disposing off IT assets as \nper the recommendations of the respective Boards of Survey. \n \nDelayed disposal of IT assets leads to a further diminution in value \nand loss to the government. In addition, a lack of appropriate policies \nmay lead to the loss and misuse of critical data. Besides, hazardous \nmaterials from ICT equipment may be harmful to the environment.", "metadata": {"page": 46, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I \nadvised \nthe \nAccounting Officers to \ndevelop \nappropriate \npolicies, \nstrategies \nand \nprocedures \nto \nensure \ndata \navailability \nand \nintegrity preservation \nin the event that \nsome IT assets are \ndecommissioned. \nIn addition, the Board \nof \nSurvey \nrecommendations \nshould be adhered to. \n \n1.2 \n \nICT Governance \n \nIT governance entails leadership, structures, and processes that \nenable an organization to make decisions to ensure that its IT \n \n \nI \nadvised \nthe \nAccounting Officers to", "metadata": {"page": 46, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "31 \n \nNo Observation \nRecommendation \nsustains and extends its strategies and objectives. However, a review \nof the ICT governance structures of the sampled MDAs revealed the \nfollowing; \n \ni. \n40 MDAs did not have specific structures that steer and oversee \nICT implementation. \n \nii. 12 MDAs did not have an approved IT staff structure. \n \niii. Out of 1200 approved ICT staff positions across 43 MDAs, 689 \n(57.4%) were filled, leaving 511 (42.6%) positions vacant. \n \niv. 40 MDAs did not have an approved IT risk management \nframework/policy, while 39 did not have an IT risk register in \nplace. \n \nv. There was no business continuity plan in 37 MDAs contrary to \nSection 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014.", "metadata": {"page": 47, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Absence of ICT governance structures hampers formulation of \nappropriate ICT policies, strategies and real time upgrade of ICT \ninterventions. In addition, it may lead to misalignment of IT \ninvestments with the overall entity strategic objectives. \n \ninstitute governance \npolicies \nand \nstructures \nto \neffectively \nmanage \nICT investments in \nconsultation \nwith \nother stakeholders. \n \nI also advised the \nAccounting Officers to \nensure that the IT \nstaff structure is fully \nfilled. In addition, a \nfully-fledged business \ncontinuity plan should \nbe developed. \n \n1.3 \n \nManual/Off-System Preparation of Financial Statements \n \nThe MDAs acquired IT Systems to improve accountability and \nreporting, however, I noted that 13 MDAs were preparing financial", "metadata": {"page": 47, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "statements off their financial reporting systems. \n \nAs a result, the financial statements are prone to errors due to human \nintervention and manipulation. \n \nI \nadvised \nthe \nAccounting Officers to \ninstitute mechanisms \nto enforce usage of \nthe \nsystems \nin \npreparation \nof \nfinancial statements. \n \n \n1.4. \nRegistration and certification of IT professionals and IT Institutions without \nenabling regulation \n \nSection 5(i) NITA-U Act 2009, provides for the functions of the Authority to include; regulation \nof the information technology in Uganda in order to ensure its effective promotion and \ndevelopment. In addition, the Authority is required to act as an authentication centre for \ninformation technology training in Uganda in conjunction with the Ministry responsible for \nEducation. However, I noted the following; \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 47, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Authority is currently registering professionals and the training institutions without \nprescribed regulations and standards. Over 62 applicants for individual Service \nProvider and IT institutions applications were received since 2017; 13 of the applicants \nwere certified and only 2 Individual Service Providers have updated certificates while \nthe 11 are expired. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority has service provider regulations but they lacked timelines for the \napplicants to get certified. There is a risk that the potential clients to the Authority \ncontinue to operate even beyond their valid period. From a sample examined, I", "metadata": {"page": 47, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "32 \n \nobserved that seven (7) companies were providing services to MDAs without \ncertification by NITA-U. \n \nUnder the circumstances, the registration and certification without enabling regulations is \nirregular. \n \nThe NITA-U Accounting Officer explained that the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs \nadvised that a regulation for IT Professionals would not suffice in governing and/or regulating \nthe IT Profession. They recommended the development of an ICT Professionals Bill which will \nupon approval, become an Act that guides the regulation and development of the IT \nProfession just like the other professions (Lawyers, Engineers, Accountants) etc. The \ndevelopment of the IT Professionals Bill is being spearheaded by the Ministry of ICT and \nNational Guidance. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to strengthen and align NITA-U in the delivery of its mandate \nby developing and implementing all the required regulations, laws and standards. \n \n2.16 MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC LAND", "metadata": {"page": 48, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2.16 MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC LAND \n \nBACKGROUND \n \nPublic land management is the process by which public land is put to good effect. It focuses \non establishing and sustaining an optimum balance of use, conservation and development of \nresources in harmony with the values and needs of society. \n \nVision 2040 prioritizes Land as a crucial resource for provision of public utilities and calls for \nsustainable land use and management, as one of the fundamentals to be strengthened in \norder to harness the country\u2019s abundant opportunities. Whereas Government owns vast land \ncomprising numerous properties used by government agencies to perform their functions in \nthe delivery of services to Citizens, many government entities have had challenges in \nmanagement of public land. These include; inadequate record keeping, loss of entity control \ndue to encroachment and encumbrances, lack of land titles, uncoordinated and \nunstandardized approach to acquisition of land for public use, among others.", "metadata": {"page": 48, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Subsequent to these challenges and others I have reported upon over time, I undertook a \ncompliance study in 57 selected Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and Local \nGovernments (LGs), over a period of four years, to assess whether Government had efficiently \nand effectively managed public land for better service delivery to the Citizens, and in \naccordance with the existing Iegal and reporting frameworks. The following were my summary \nfindings and recommendations; \n \n2.16.1 Strategic Planning for Land Acquisition and Compensations \n \nNineteen (19) entities that acquired land out of the 57 sampled entities in the period under \nreview indicated that, only nine (9) entities (47%) included lands acquisitions in their strategic \nplans, while ten (10) entities (53%) did not. In addition, four (04) entities did not specify the \nsizes/cost of land to be acquired. This was mainly attributed to laxity by management not to \nprovide complete recording of land size and approximate land cost in the plans. \nFailure to include such details leads to incomplete plans and also stifles proper budgeting and \nassessment of performance.", "metadata": {"page": 48, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "33 \n \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to ensure that the size, cost and purpose for proposed land \nacquisitions are included in the respective strategic plans of entities to enable attainment of \nNDP III objectives and guide effective preparation of annual entity budgets. \n \n2.16.2 Budgeting, funding, and absorption of funds, for land acquisition \n \nFifteen (15) entities included land acquisition in their annual budgets for the period under \nreview, while four (04) entities acquired land without budgets. The fifteen (15) entities \nbudgeted for acquisition of 17,831 hectares of land at a cost of UGX.483.6Bn; the entities \nwere availed UGX.447.5Bn (93%), and acquired 25,786 hectares at a total cost of \nUGX.435.3Bn (including a mischarge of UGX.1.74Bn which was not budgeted for land", "metadata": {"page": 49, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "acquisition) leaving a sum of UGX.14.Bn (3% of availed funds) un-utilised. \n \nHowever, Ministry of Defence which acquired 7,562.07 hectares at a cost of UGX.84.64Bn did \nnot indicate the land size in its budgets. I further noted that four (4) entities acquired 5.06 \nhectares of land at a total of UGX.20.47Bn without budgeting (both size and amount). \n \nSeven (7) entities received inadequate funding, having budgeted for UGX.333.613Bn and \nreceived UGX.297.531Bn (89%)) for land acquisition in the period under review. I further \nnoted that Wakiso and Oyam DLGs diverted a sum of UGX.0.354Bn from funds for land \nacquisition in the period under review. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to; \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 49, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nLiaise with PS/ST to ensure that funds appropriated for acquisition of land are \navailed. \n\uf0b7 \nEnsure that availed funds for land acquisition are utilised for the intended purpose. \n \n2.16.3 Compliance of Land Acquisition with the relevant Laws \n \nI noted that out of the nineteen (19) entities that acquired land in the period under review, \neight (8) entities acquired a total of 3,937.336 hectares at a cost of UGX.79.77Bn directly \nwithout competitive participation. The procurement methods used by six (6) entities in the \nacquisition of 1,666.016 hectares costing UGX.62.83Bn were not approved by their Contracts \nCommittees. I further noted that two (2) entities commenced acquisition of 319.6 hectares of \nland costing UGX.6.72Bn without confirmation availability of funding. In addition, seven (7)", "metadata": {"page": 49, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "entities acquired 15,760.82 hectares with a value above the UGX200Mn threshold each, at a \ntotal cost of UGX.64.76Bn without clearance from the Attorney General. \n \nI advised the Government to ensure that appropriate procurement methods are adhered to in \nregards to land acquisitions. For MDAs with peculiar requirements, the Accounting Officers \nshould always endeavor to ratify the procurements with the contracts committee. In addition, \nPPDA should provide additional guidelines to address the unique needs for land acquisition by \nMALGs.", "metadata": {"page": 49, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "34 \n \n2.16.4 Involvement of Uganda Land Commission \n \nI noted that out of the nineteen (19) entities that acquired land in the period under review, \nfive (5) entities acquired 1,669.84 hectares at a cost of UGX.45.9Bn prior to notifying the \nUganda Land Commission to enable effective public land management, including advising on \navailability of other options. I also observed that there was no coordination by the various \ngovernment entities with ULC in regard to land acquisition. \n \nI advised Government entities to coordinate with ULC when acquiring Public land to ensure \nthat before acquisition, all available options through Uganda Land Commission are exhausted. \n \n2.16.5 Valuation by the Chief Government Valuer \n \nOut of the nineteen (19) entities that acquired land in the period under review, two (2) entities", "metadata": {"page": 50, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "procured 1.96 hectares at a cost of UGX.1.6Bn without obtaining Chief Government Valuer \n(CGV) valuation. I also noted that the CGV took more than twenty (20) working days in \napproving consultants\u2019 valuation reports on land government projects contrary to the statutory \ntimelines. \n \nDelayed valuation of Land by the CGV may result into increase in project costs, delayed \ncommencement of infrastructure projects which affects loan absorption rates, and increases \ncommitment charges arising from undisbursed loans from multilateral and bilateral lenders. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer of the Ministry of Lands to ensure that approval of consultant\u2019s \nvaluation reports on government projects are always fast-tracked to avoid project delays and \nincreasing liability to government. \n \n2.16.6 Registration and Titling of Land \n \nI noted that out of the 57 sampled entities, forty-two (42) entities did not have land titles for", "metadata": {"page": 50, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "a total of 4,398 pieces of land comprising twenty-six (26) entities which had 1,638 pieces of \nland measuring approximately 80,038.88 hectares and sixteen (16) entities held 2,760 pieces \nwith unknown land sizes. I also noted that seven (7) entities which held 81 pieces of land \nmeasuring 12,521.1 hectares had land titles for all the pieces of land held. The anomalies \nwere attributed to the following; inadequate funds to process land titles and land having been \ndonated by individuals who passed on without transferring title to the entity, delays by MZOs \nto effect registration and transfers, continuous acquisitions of land and delays in the survey \nprocess. \n \nLack of land titles results into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to engage with responsible stakeholders to secure funding \nto facilitate land titling. In addition, Ministry of Lands is advised to streamline and expedite \nprocessing of titling public land.", "metadata": {"page": 50, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2.16.7 Failure to transfer Land into the Custody of ULC \n \nI noted that out of the titled 1,909 land tittles held by 42 of the 45 MDAs in the sample, 15 \nMDAs did not transfer 167 land titles into the name and custody of the Uganda Land \nCommission for the benefit of the user MDAs. The Accounting Officers of public Universities", "metadata": {"page": 50, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "35 \n \nand URA explained that Universities were body corporate with a right to own and manage \ntheir own land. \n \nI advised the Attorney General to give a general guidance to corporate government entities \nin regard to the custody of entity land with ULC. \n \n \n2.16.8 Recording and Reporting of Government Land \n \nI noted that out of the 57 sampled entities, 20 entities did not record a total of 636 pieces of \nland measuring approximately 19,275.25 hectares in their respective Land registers rendering \nit difficult to confirm the completeness of their Land inventory. I also noted that 26 entities \ndid not record a total of 1,355 pieces of land measuring approximately 21,603.08 hectares of \nland in their respective GFMIS fixed asset module thus affecting the accuracy of the non-\nproduced assets in the financial statements. \n \nThe non-recording of land in the land register and GFMIS Asset module affects the", "metadata": {"page": 51, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Government\u2019s ability to keep track of all its land which could easily lead to loss and /or \nmisstatement of the non-produced asset in the financial statements. \n \nI advised the Accountant General to ensure that the asset module under the GFMIS is \nfunctioning properly. In addition, I advised the respective Accounting Officers to update both \nthe fixed asset registers and the asset module under the GFMIS. \n \n2.16.9 Utilization of Government Land for Delivery of Service \n \nI noted that out of the 57 sampled entities, 29 entities did not utilise a total of 258 pieces of \nland measuring approximately 10,066.8 hectares of land held by 30th June 2022. Non-\nutilization and use of land for unapproved use defeats the purpose for acquisition which may \naffect Government\u2019s ability to achieve its intended objectives and deliver services its citizens. \n \nIn addition, thirty-four (34) entities had 434 pieces of land encroached upon, of these, 182", "metadata": {"page": 51, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "pieces measured approximately 61,207.04 hectares. Ninety-six 96 of the 182 pieces of land \ncost UGX.134.4Bn, while 252 of the 434 pieces had unknown measurements. Land \nencumbrances hinder management\u2019s ability to utilize the affected land for the intended \npurposes. \n \nI advised the PS/ST and the Accounting Officers to institute mechanisms to ensure that land \nutilization plans are developed by entities. I further advised the PS/ST to address the funding \ndeficits for land utilization in MALGs. Meanwhile the Accounting Officers should ensure that \nthe un-utilized land is protected against encroachments. \n \n2.16.10 \nLease of Public Land \n \nI noted that nine (9) entities with a total of 573 leases did not have updated lease registers \nfor proper management of leases. This has led to increased litigations resulting from multiple", "metadata": {"page": 51, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "allocation of leases; loss of land and revenue due to late or non- billing for ground rent, and \nlease premiums; which impact on service delivery to the citizens. Sixteen (16) leases granted \nby six (6) entities had expired, Six (6) entities did not receive lease rentals of UGX.1.13Bn \nfrom eighty five (85) leases, and Two (2) entities irregularly renewed three (3) leases without", "metadata": {"page": 51, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "36 \n \nrealization of ground rent arrears or development of land as per lease agreement. In addition, \nSeven (7) entities without mandate to lease out government land granted thirty one (31) \nleases. \n \nI advised the respective Accounting Officers of ULC, other MDAs and Local Governments to \nensure that comprehensive lease registers are maintained for proper management of leased \nland. \n \n2.16.11 \nAllocation of Land by District Land Boards (DLB) \n \nI noted that there was no comprehensive database of Public Land by the DLB\u2019s. As a result, \ntwo (2) District Land Boards (DLBs) allocated four (4) pieces of land which were not under \ntheir jurisdiction. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to ensure strict adherence to the internal controls and \ncompliance with land allocation procedures. \n \n2.16.12 \nManagement of Land outside Uganda", "metadata": {"page": 52, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Management of Land outside Uganda \n \nThe Land Act mandates the ULC to hold and manage any land acquired by the Government \nabroad, except that the Commission may delegate the management of such land to Uganda\u2019s \nMissions abroad. I noted that ULC neither had information concerning government land abroad \nnor delegated management of such land to Uganda\u2019s Missions abroad. There is a risk of \nmismanagement of government land abroad. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage and liaise with other Government agencies to \nensure that the provisions in the law in regard to management of government land abroad \nare fulfilled. \n \n \n \n \nJohn F. S. Muwanga \nAUDITOR GENERAL \n \n30th December, 2022", "metadata": {"page": 52, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "37 \n \n3.0. \nREPORT AND OPINION OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL ON THE GOVERNMENT \nOF UGANDA CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE LOCAL \nGOVERNMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30TH JUNE 2022 \nTHE RT. HON. SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT \n \nOpinion \n \nI have audited the accompanying consolidated financial statements of Local Governments, \nwhich comprise the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as at 30th June 2022, the \nConsolidated Statement of Financial Performance, the Consolidated Statement of Changes in \nEquity, the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows, together with other accompanying \nConsolidated statements for the year then ended, and notes to the Consolidated financial \nstatements, including a summary of significant accounting policies. \n \nIn my opinion, the consolidated financial statements of Local Governments for the year ended \n30th June, 2021 are prepared in all material respects, in accordance with Section 52(b) of the \nPublic Finance Management Act (PFMA), 2015 (as amended) and the Financial Reporting", "metadata": {"page": 53, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Guide, 2018. \n \nBasis for Opinion \n \nI conducted my audit in accordance with International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions \n(ISSAIs). My responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor\u2019s \nResponsibilities for the audit of the Financial Statements section of my report. I am \nindependent of the District Local Government in accordance with the Constitution of the \nRepublic of Uganda (1995) as amended, the National Audit Act, 2008, the International \nOrganisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) Code of Ethics, the International Ethics \nStandards Board for Accountants\u2019 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (IESBA Code) \nand other independence requirements applicable to performing audits of Financial Statements \nin Uganda. \n \nI have fulfilled my ethical responsibilities in accordance with the other requirements and the \nIESBA Code. I believe that the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to \nprovide a basis for my opinion. \n \nKey Audit Matters", "metadata": {"page": 53, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Key Audit Matters \n \nKey audit matters are those matters that, in my professional judgment, were of most \nsignificance in my audit of the financial statements of the current period. These matters were \naddressed in the context of my audit of the financial statements as a whole, and in forming \nmy opinion thereon, and I do not provide a separate opinion on these matters. \n \nI have determined the matters described below as the key audit matters to be communicated \nin my report. \n3.1 \nPayroll management in Local Governments \nDuring my audit of the financial year 2020/21, I undertook an audit of payroll \nmanagement in Local Governments which revealed major challenges. The audit \nfindings and my recommendations thereof were communicated to various \nstakeholders.", "metadata": {"page": 53, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "38 \n \nDespite my recommendations, payroll management challenges still exist in LGs \nincluding lack of consolidated staff list by MoPS, irregularities in payments and \ndeductions, and access to the payroll by ineligible staff, among others. \n \nDuring the audit of the Financial Year 2021/22, I considered payments and deductions \nin 130 Districts as a Key Audit Matter. Below are my key findings that are also reported \nin the individual entity reports. \n \nTable 21: Payroll Management findings \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \n3.1.1 \nFunding and absorption of wage, pension and gratuity \n \nThe approved wage, pension and gratuity estimates for the \nfinancial \nyear \n2021/2022 \nfor \n130 \nLGs \nwas", "metadata": {"page": 54, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "LGs \nwas \nUGX.2,539,812,346,618 of which UGX.2,532,930,356,421 was \nreceived representing 99.7% performance, as shown in the \ntable below and details in Appendix 1 a. \n \nTable showing breakdown of LGs Budget and releases \nfor the year \nCategory \nApproved \nEstimates (UGX\u2019 \nBn) \nAmount released \n(UGX\u2019 Bn) \n% age \nfunding \nreceived \nSalary \n2,193,691,448,69\n7 \n2,188,910,570,95\n3 \n100% \nPension \n177,207,071,969 \n175,939,228,687 \n99% \nGratuity", "metadata": {"page": 54, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Gratuity \n130,713,824,879 \n130,616,662,851 \n100% \nPension \narrears \n29,721,908,925 \n29,067,345,448 \n98% \nSalary arrears \n8,478,092,148 \n8,396,548,482 \n99% \nTotal \n2,539,812,346,61\n8 \n2,532,930,356,4\n21 \n99.7% \nSource: BIG quarterly budget performance analysis \n \nOut \nof \nthe \ntotal \nreceipts \nof \nUGX.2,532,930,356,421,", "metadata": {"page": 54, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.2,356,575,342,414 was spent by the LGs resulting an \nunspent \nbalance \nof \nUGX.176,355,014,007, \nrepresenting \nabsorption level of 93% as shown in the table below. \n \nCategory \nAmount \nreleased (UGX) \nExpenditure - \nUGX \nUnspent - \nUGX \n% \nAbsorpt\nion \nSalary \n2,188,910,570,953 2,044,622,014,526 \n144,288,556,42\n7 \n93% \nPension \n175,939,228,687 \n167,980,071,241 \n7,959,157,446 \n95%", "metadata": {"page": 54, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "95% \nGratuity \n130,616,662,851 \n111,292,450,768 \n19,324,212,083 \n85% \nPension \narrears \n29,067,345,448 \n25,635,336,217 \n3,432,009,231 \n88% \nSalary \narrears \n8,396,548,482 \n7,045,469,662 \n1,351,078,820 \n84% \nTotal \n2,532,930,356,42\n1 \n2,356,575,342,41\n4 \n176,355,014,00\n7 \n93% \nSource: BIG quarterly budget performance analysis", "metadata": {"page": 54, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The unspent balances of salaries at the end of the financial year \nresulted from failure/delays to carry out planned recruitments, \nwhile the unspent balances for pension and gratuity was \n \nI \nadvised \nthe \nMoFPED to ensure \nthat \nrecruitment \nand wage funds \nare released early \nenough to enable \nthe LGs to carry \nout the planned \nrecruitments \ntimely, and to also \nensure \nthat \nreconciliations are \ndone \nbefore \nsupplementary \nfunds are released \nto the LGs. \n \nI also advised the \nPermanent \nSecretary \n(PS), \nMinistry of Local \nGovernment \n(MoLG) to ensure \nthat \nAccounting", "metadata": {"page": 54, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "that \nAccounting \nOfficers start the \nretirement \nprocess 6 months \nbefore \nthe \ndue \ndate and that the \nrequired \ninformation is in \nplace.", "metadata": {"page": 54, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "39 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \nattributed to release of funds beyond the requirement, and \ndelayed validation of pensioners. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the unspent balances \nwere due to; \n \n\uf0b7 Delays in recruitment and deployment of secondary school \nteachers by Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) and \nEducation Service Commission (ESC). \n\uf0b7 Delays by Ministry of Public Service (MoPS) to approve and \nclear the recruitment plans. \n\uf0b7 Absence of fully constituted District Service Commissions \n(DSCs) caused by delays in approving members by MoPS. \n\uf0b7 Late release of recruitment and wage funds by MoFPED as \nmost LGs received funds in May, 2022. \n\uf0b7 Receipt of funds in excess of the supplementary \nrequirement. \n\uf0b7 Delay in submission of requirements for access to pension", "metadata": {"page": 55, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and gratuity payroll, and inconsistency in the bio-data \nbetween the IPPS and NIRA. \n \nMy interaction with MoPS revealed that a recruitment calendar \nwas issued to provide for clearance of planned recruitments \nafter the 2nd Budget Call. This will resolve the issue regarding \nunder absorption resulting from late recruitments. \n \nDuring my interaction with MoFPED, the PSST explained that \nrecruitment plans are contained within the PBS and Accounting \nOfficers have been guided to start the recruitment process after \nthe approval of the budget. \n \n3.1.2 \nPayments of salaries, pension and gratuity \n \na) \nPayment of ineligible persons \nGovernment has lost a total of UGX.19,026,546,948 due to \npayment of salaries to ineligible persons/individuals in 129 LGs.", "metadata": {"page": 55, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The payments contravene section (B - a) (1) & (2) of Uganda \npublic service standing orders, 2021 requiring public officers to \nbe appropriately appointed. \n \nI reviewed a file of teachers from the Education service \nCommission (ESC) and noted that 609 secondary school and \ntertiary institution employees used forged minutes to access \ngovernment payroll. The individuals had been on the payroll for \na varied number of years, ranging from 1 to 39 with some even \napproaching the retirement. Details are in Appendix 1 b. \n \nWhen I brought up the matter to the respective DLGs, the \nAccounting Officers discontinued salary payments and pledged \nto take up the matter with police for further investigations. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the issue of ineligible \nsecondary school and tertiary institutions\u2019 employees was \nbeyond them since the appointment and posting is done by \nMoES. I observed that the inability by the LGs to validate", "metadata": {"page": 55, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "eligibility of the posting instructions was due to lack of a \n \nI advised ESC and \nMoES to automate \nthe database for \nall \nteachers, \nstreamline \nthe \nvalidation process \nand \nconsider \nrecruiting \nteachers \nto \nreplace \nthose \ndeleted from the \npayroll. \nIn \naddition, \nother \ngovernment \norgans \nshould \ninvestigate \nhow \nthe \nappointment \nand \nposting \nof \nineligible \nsecondary school \nand \ntertiary \ninstitutions", "metadata": {"page": 55, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "40 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \nautomated database in ESC containing minute extracts of all \nsecondary school teachers. \n \nemployees \nwas \ndone by MoES. \n \nb) \nOver payment of salary, pension and gratuity \nSection B-a (7) of the Uganda Public Standing Orders, 2021 \nrequires salaries to be fixed at annual rates and paid in twelve \n(12) equal instalments. It also requires salaries to be paid \ncorrectly, promptly and as a lump sum in accordance with the \napproved salary structure for the Public Service. \n \nArticle 254 (1) & (3) of the constitution of the Republic of \nUganda 1995 as amended provides that a public officer shall, \non retirement, receive such pension as is commensurate with \nhis or her rank, salary and length of service. The payment of", "metadata": {"page": 56, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "pension shall be prompt and regular and easily accessible to \npensioners. \n \nMy review of the payroll registers (IPPS) and IFMS payments \nrevealed an over payment of UGX.3,837,170,480 in 75 LGs in \nrespect of 2,085 employees and 270 pensioners/beneficiaries as \nshown in the table below and details in Appendix 1 c. \n \nCategory \nNumber of \nstaff/pensioners \nOver payment - UGX \nSalaries \n2,085 \n2,261,246,384 \nGratuity \n208 \n1,293,882,652 \nPension \n62 \n282,041,444 \nTotal \n2,355 \n3,837,170,480 \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the overpayments to errors", "metadata": {"page": 56, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "in processing of payments for which recovery measures have \nbeen instituted. \n \nMy interaction with MoPS revealed that the Ministry issued \nEstablishment Notices guiding Accounting Officers to reconcile \nthe payrolls before payments are made. \n \n \nI advised the PS \nMoPS to resolve \nIPPS \nsystem \nerrors \nand \nexpedite the roll \nout of HCM. I \nfurther \nadvised \nthe PS to ensure \nthat \nthe \nAccounting \nOfficers undertake \neffective \nreconciliations \nbefore payments \nare made. \nc) \nUnder payment of salary, pension and gratuity \nSection B-a (7) of the Uganda Public Standing Orders, 2021 \nrequires salaries to be fixed at annual rates and paid in twelve", "metadata": {"page": 56, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(12) equal instalments. It also requires salaries to be paid \ncorrectly, promptly and as a lump sum in accordance with the \napproved salary structure for the Public Service. \n \nArticle 254 (1) & (3) of the constitution of the Republic of \nUganda 1995 as amended provides that a public officer shall, \non retirement, receive such pension as is commensurate with \nhis or her rank, salary and length of service. The payment of \npension shall be prompt and regular and easily accessible to \npensioners. \n \nMy review of the payroll registers (IPPS) and IFMS payments \nrevealed an under payment of UGX.24,934,143,289 in 115 LGs \nin \nrespect \nof \n3,802 \nemployees \nand \n4,545 \npensioners/beneficiaries as shown in the table below and \nAppendix 1 d.", "metadata": {"page": 56, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Appendix 1 d. \n \nI advised the PS \nMoPS to resolve \nIPPS \nsystem \nerrors \nand \nexpedite the roll \nout of HCM. I \nfurther \nadvised \nthe PS to ensure \nthat \nthe \nAccounting \nOfficers undertake \neffective \nreconciliations \nbefore payments \nare made. \n \nI advised MoFPED \nto consider paying", "metadata": {"page": 56, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "41 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \n \nCategory \nNumber of \nstaff/pensioners \nUnder payment - \nUGX \nSalaries \n3,802 \n3,608,932,261 \nGratuity \n3,600 \n6,327,639,889 \nPension \n945 \n14,997,571,139 \nTotal \n8,347 \n24,934,143,289 \n \nI noted that the underfunding was mainly caused by Medium \nTerm Expenditure Framework (MTEF) ceilings communicated by \nMoFPED \n \nUnder \npayments \naffected \nlivelihood \nof \nstaff \nand", "metadata": {"page": 57, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "staff \nand \npensioners/beneficiaries. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the underpayment to \ninadequate funds to pay all approved salary, pension and \ngratuity benefits and errors in processing of payments for \nemployees and pensioners/ beneficiaries. The arrears were \nsubmitted to MoFPED for payment in the financial year 2022/23. \n \nsalary, \npension \nand \ngratuity \nobligations as a \nstatutory \ncharge \nwithout subjecting \nit \nto \nbudget \nceilings. \nd) \nPayment of salary using wrong salary scales and salary \nsteps/ levels/notches \n \nSection B \u2013 a (6) & (7) of the Uganda Public Service Standing \nOrders, 2021 provides that the Salary Structure shall indicate", "metadata": {"page": 57, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "salaries attached to each salary scale in the public service, \nhence, salaries should be paid correctly, promptly and as a lump \nsum in accordance with the approved salary structure for the \nPublic Service. \nSection (B - c) 1 of Public Service Standing Orders, 2021 \nprovides that a public officer who holds a post graded in a salary \nscale with incremental levels, shall receive annual increments \nup to the maximum of the salary scale. \n \nMy comparison of the base pay as per IPPS payroll registers \nwith the base pay as per salary structure for 2021/22 revealed \nthat, 1,264 employees in 26 LGs were paid on the wrong scales \nleading to over payments of UGX.532,949,259 and under \npayments of UGX.886,806,364. \n \nAdditionally, 28,172 employees in 26 LGs were paid on wrong \nsteps/levels/notches \nleading \nto", "metadata": {"page": 57, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "leading \nto \nover \npayments \nof \nUGX.2,386,682,931 \nand \nunder \npayments \nof \nUGX.2,652,787,176. Details are in Appendix 1 e. \n \nCategory \nNumber of \nstaff/pensioners \nOverpayment \n- UGX \nUnderpaymen\nt - UGX \nWrong \nscale \n1,264 \n532,949,259 \n886,806,364 \nWrong \nnotches \n28,172 \n2,386,682,931 \n2,652,787,176 \nTotal \n \n2,919,632,190", "metadata": {"page": 57, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3,539,593,540 \n \nUnder payment due to lower notches denies the affected staff \ntheir rightful emoluments and affects their terminal benefits \nwhile over payments caused financial loss to government. \n \n \nI \nadvised \nGovernment \nthrough MoFPED \nto \nallocate \nsufficient funds to \nenable LGs to pay \nstaff at the correct \nsteps. \nI \nalso \nadvised MoPS to \nfast track the roll \nout of the HCM to \nall LGs.", "metadata": {"page": 57, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "42 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the above to: \n \n\uf0b7 Non-automation of the incremental dates in the IPPS by \nMoPS for which the Accounting Officers had no control. \n\uf0b7 Inadequate staff capacity in the Human Resource \nDepartments \nto \nmonitor \nstaff \nappointment \nanniversaries/assumption \nof \nduty \nconsidering \nthe \noverwhelming numbers. \n\uf0b7 Failure by staff who qualify for salary increments to notify \nthe Human Resource Department. \n\uf0b7 The slow rollout of Human Capital Management System \n(HCMS) in all MDALGs. \n \nMy interaction with MoPS revealed that there is still a challenge \nin moving staff from one step to another because this comes", "metadata": {"page": 58, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "with extra budget costs which are not provided by MoFPED. \n \n3.1.3 \nPayment of deductions (LST, PAYE, UNATU, UCLA) \n \nSection B-a (17) of the Uganda Public Standing Orders, 2021 \nrequires the Accounting Officer to deduct any monies due to \nGovernment from an Officer\u2019s salary by way of statutory taxes \nlike and any other authorized deductions. Furthermore, section \nB-a (18) requires that a public officer\u2019s individual contractual \nobligations such as hire purchase, loan, and contributions to \nsaving schemes, trade unions and staff associations may be \ndeducted from his or her salary in accordance with the \nregulations. \n \nIn addition, section 10.2 of the guidelines and procedures for \ndecentralized salary processing 2014 required MALGS to pay \ndeductions to the respective beneficiaries and that no arrears in", "metadata": {"page": 58, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "respect to payroll deductions would be accepted. \n \nI compared the deductions in the IPPS payroll registers with the \nremittances/payments in the IFMS details XML payment file and \nnoted \nan \nover \nand \nunder \nremittance \namounting \nto \nUGX.5,013,885,697, and UGX.7,697,912,554 respectively as \nshown in the table below and appendix 1 f. \n \nS\nN \nBeneficia\nry \nDe\nduc\ntion \ncod\ne \nIPPS \npayroll \nDeduction \namount \n(UGX) \nAmount \nremitted as \nper \nIFMS", "metadata": {"page": 58, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "per \nIFMS \n(UGX) \nVariance \nOver \nremittance \n(UGX) \nUnder \nremittance \n(UGX) \n1 \nURA \n249 \n177,249,202,\n488 \n173,280,707\n,359 \n-\n1,501,880,7\n13 \n5,470,375,\n842 \n2 \nLST \n250 \n5,980,754,39\n6 \n8,118,380,5\n44 \n-\n2,583,748,0\n85 \n451,598,8\n59 \n3 \nUBA/UCL", "metadata": {"page": 58, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UBA/UCL\nA \n482 \n80,065,479,6\n59 \n79,383,042,\n549 \n-\n902,686,46\n4 \n1,611,519,\n228 \n4 \nOthers \n \n3,549,448,15\n4 \n3,410,599,9\n64 \n-\n25,570,435 \n164,418,6\n25 \n \nTotal \n \n266,844,884,\n697 \n264,192,730\n,416 \n-\n5,013,885,6\n97 \n7,697,912, \n7,697,912,\n554 \n \n \nI advised MoLG to \nensure Accounting \nOfficers remit the \ndeductions \npromptly.", "metadata": {"page": 58, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "43 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \nOver remittance creates avenues for siphoning funds leading to \nloss of Government funds. Under remittance creates un-\nnecessary obligation to Government. \n \nI observed that Kaliro District diverted UGX.314,678,624 from \nthe wage bill to cater for activities that are not related to the \nwage. These payments are under investigation and a separate \nreport will be issued. \n \n3.1.4 \nNon-deduction of PAYE from Political leaders\u2019 and \nCommissioners\u2019 gratuity \n \nSection 19(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act provides that \nemployment income mean any income derived by an employee \nfrom any employment and includes the following amounts \nwhether of a revenue or capital nature; any wages, salary, leave", "metadata": {"page": 59, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "pay, payment in lieu of leave, overtime pay, fees, commission, \ngratuity, bonus or the amount of any travelling, entertainment, \nutilities, cost of living, housing, and medical or other allowances \namong others. \n \nI noted that in 43 LGs, Political Leaders and District Service \nCommissioners were paid gratuity of UGX.1,352,773,796 which \nwas not subjected to PAYE computations and deductions on the \nIPPS leading to a loss of tax revenue of UGX.363,098,974 to \ngovernment. Details are in Appendix 1 g. \n \n \nIn 9 LGs Political Leaders and District Service Commissioners\u2019 \ngratuity of UGX.439,505,102 was subjected to PAYE manually \nand UGX.112,440,114 was deducted and remitted to Uganda \nRevenue \nAuthority. \nThis \npractice", "metadata": {"page": 59, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "This \npractice \ncomplicates \npayroll \nmanagement in LGs and creates inconsistencies where some \nLGs deduct the PAYE and others don\u2019t. Details are in Appendix \n1 g. \n \nThe Accounting officers explained that computations were not \nactivated in the IPPS to automatically deduct PAYE from Political \nleaders and commissioners\u2019 Gratuity. \n \nMy interaction with MoPS revealed that the error arose from the \nfailure to distinguish between untaxable gratuity as per the \nPensions Act and other taxable terminal benefits. MoPS has \nengaged the IPPS developer who required additional funding to \nrectify the error. \n \n \n \nI advised MoPS to \nensure \nthat \ndeduction of PAYE \nfrom \nPolitical \nleaders\u2019 \nand", "metadata": {"page": 59, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "leaders\u2019 \nand \nCommissioners\u2019 \ngratuity \nis \nautomated \nin \nIPPS. \n \n3.1.5 \nInaccurate computation of pension and gratuity \n \nParagraph (L-d) (1) & (2) of the Uganda Public Service Standing \nOrders, 2021 on the computation of pension and commuted \npension gratuity provides that pension is computed on the basis \nof (1/500)th of the annual salary at the time of retirement, \nmultiplied by the total number of completed months of service \nusing the formula P = LS x Sal/ (500) where P is Pension, LS is \nthe length of Service in months, and Sal is the annual salary on \nretirement. \n \n \nI advised MoPS to \nensure that IPPS \naccurately \ncaptures \nstaff \ninformation \nstaff \ninformation \nand \nautomatically \ncomputes \nthe \ncorrect \npension \nand \ngratuity \nobligation. \nMoPS", "metadata": {"page": 59, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "44 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \nAdditionally, Paragraph (L-d) (3) provides that a public officer \nhas an option to receive all his or her pension as an annuity or \nto commute a third (1/3) of his or her pension for a 15-year \nperiod and receive it as a lump sum at retirement. \n \nI recomputed the pension and gratuity benefits and noted that \n37 LGs did not accurately compute pension and gratuity benefits \nfor 423 pensioners. Details are in Appendix 1 h. \n \nCategory \nNumber \nof \npensioners/benefi\nciaries \nOverpayment \nUnderpayment \nGratuity \n222 \n 276,463,546 442,670,972 \nPension \n201", "metadata": {"page": 60, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Pension \n201 \n53,663,042 \n61,942,500 \nTotal \n423 \n330,126,588 \n504,613,472 \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed this to failure by IPPS to \nautomatically update the notches at the individuals\u2019 anniversary \nof appointment/assumption. Additionally, adjustment of scales \nand subscales at the point of capturing pension and gratuity by \nthe Accounting Officers was not guided by MoPS. \n \nMy interaction with MoPS revealed that there is a provision for \nthe Accounting Officers to rectify retiree\u2019s base pay on the IPPS \ntowards the date of retirement for which they are either not \naware or are reluctant to adjust. \n \nwas also advised \nto \nguide \nLG \nAccounting \nOfficers on how to \nrectify", "metadata": {"page": 60, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "rectify \nthe \nretiree\u2019s \npension \ninformation in the \nsystem \nbefore \ncomputation \nis \nmade. \n \n3.1.6 \nAccess and deletion from the payroll \n \na) \nDelayed access of newly recruited or transferred staff \nto the payroll \n \nSection B-a (11) of the Uganda Public Standing Orders, 2021 \nstates that the Accounting Officer shall ensure that the Public \nofficer accesses the payroll within four (4) weeks from the date \nof assumption of duty. \n \nI noted that 4,341 newly recruited/ transferred employees \ndelayed to access payroll with the worst delays ranging from 5 \nto 12 months. As a result, by close of the financial year, 1,746 \nstaff had not been paid a total of UGX.2,802,520,509. Details", "metadata": {"page": 60, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "are in Appendix 1 i. \n \nFailure to access payroll affects staff livelihood and leads to un-\nnecessary accumulation of arrears. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed this to challenges with \nsetting-up staff in the IPPS by MoPS because the process is not \nfully decentralised for which the LGs have no control. \n \nDuring my interaction with MoPS, the PS attributed the delay to \nrecruitments outside the approved structure that necessitates \nverification and subsequent clearance. \n \nI advised MoPS to \nensure that the \nbottlenecks \nin \nrecruitment \nare \nresolved and that \nverification \nand \nsubsequent \nclearance \nof \nrecruited staff is \ndone \nin \nthe \nshortest \ntime \npossible.", "metadata": {"page": 60, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "possible. \n \nb) \nDelayed access to the pension payroll \n \nParagraph 5.1 of establishment notice no. 1 of 2020 requires \nresponsible officers to initiate and complete the processing of \nretirement benefits within six months to the mandatory", "metadata": {"page": 60, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "45 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \nretirement date. In case of death or early retirement, the \nprocess should be initiated immediately the Letters of \nAdministration are issued and/or the early retirement has been \ngranted. \n \nParagraph 5.1.2 of establishment notice no. 3 of 2019 provides \nthat pensioners\u2019 retirement benefits are authorised 5 days after \nretirement for payment. \n \nI however noted that 1,019 new pensioners/beneficiaries in 65 \nLGs delayed to access pension payroll, with some delays \nranging from 50 to 110 months. As a result, UGX.1,380,739,357 \nwas not paid. Details are in Appendix 1 i. \n \n \nFailure to access pension payroll affects pensioners\u2019 livelihood \nand also leads to accumulation of pension arrears. While non-", "metadata": {"page": 61, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "removal of transferred staff affects the releasing LGs as \nreplacements cannot access the payroll until the transferred \nstaff have been discontinued. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed this to challenges with \nsetting-up pensioners in the IPPS by MoPS because the process \nis not fully decentralised for which the LGs have no control. Most \nAccounting Officers had hopes that the introduction of HCM will \nmost likely address the issue. \n \nMy interaction with MoPS indicated that this is still a challenge \nand as a stop gap measure, the Accounting Officers are advised \nto bring cases of un-validated staff to the attention of MoPS for \nfollow up with NIRA. Going forward, with the introduction of \nHCM, data of only validated staff will be migrated. \n \nc) \nDelayed removal of staff from payroll \n \nSection B-a (12) of the Uganda Public Standing Orders, 2021", "metadata": {"page": 61, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "provides that payment of a salary to a public officer shall be \nstopped immediately the officer ceases to render services to \nGovernment under whatever circumstances including death. \n \nI noted that UGX.1,071,478,611 was paid to 795 staff who had \neither retired, transferred, absconded or died with the worst \ndelays ranging from 1 to 16 months. Details are in Appendix \n1 i. \n \nDelayed removal of staff from payroll resulted into financial loss \nto government. \n \nThe Accounting Officer attributed some of the delays to staff \nwho had not been validated before decentralisation of payroll \nmaking the removal process difficult. Some of the delays were \nattributed to inconsistences in dates of birth in IPPS and \nNational IDs. Going forward, the introduction of HCMS, will most \nlikely resolve this issue. \n \nMy interaction with MoPS indicated that this is still a challenge \nand as a stop gap measure, the Accounting Officers are advised", "metadata": {"page": 61, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "46 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \nto bring cases of un-validated staff to the attention of MoPS for \nfollow up with NIRA. Going forward, with the introduction of \nHCM, data of only validated staff will be migrated. \n \n3.1.7 \nInconsistencies between interface files and payroll \nregisters \n \nSection 13.1 and 13.2 of the guidelines and procedures for \ndecentralised salary payment processing, 2014 requires that the \nIPPS information tallies with the interface file of the vote. By, \nthe final payroll should be mapped onto the interface to show \nthe same data. \n \nI compared the detailed payroll register reports (MoPS) with the \ninterface files from the Core FTP (MoFPED) and noted variances", "metadata": {"page": 62, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of UGX.28,347,479,053 in 107 LGs. Details are in Appendix 1 \nj. \n \nCategory \nNumber \nof \nemployees/Pensioners \nAmount \nSalaries \n10,504 \n27,545,118,941 \nPension \nand \nGratuity \n25 \n 802,360,112 \nTotal \n10,529 \n28,347,479,053 \n \nI further noted that some employees captured on the payroll \nand uploaded onto the Core FTP system did not appear in the \ninterface files prompting the Accounting Officers to include \nthem manually. \n \nThis has created an opportunity for manipulation of salary funds \nthus leading to over/under payments. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the LGs had no control", "metadata": {"page": 62, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "over the above, since Core FTP system is controlled by \nMoFPED. \n \nDuring my interaction with MoFPED, the Accountant General \nindicated that the Accounting Officers were permitted to make \nadjustments to rectify possible errors on the payroll without \nnecessarily abusing the system. The Accountant General further \nexplained that the window for making adjustments was \ndeactivated after the audit. \n \n \nIn addition, my \ninteraction \nwith \nMoPS \nrevealed \nthat \nwith \nthe \nmigration to HCM, \nthe \nprocess \nof \npayroll payments \nwill be seamless \nbecause the HCM \nwill \ndirectly \ninterface with the \nIFMS. \n \n3.1.8", "metadata": {"page": 62, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.1.8 \nPayments of salaries, pension & gratuity off the IPPS \n \nParagraph 4.5 of establishment notice no. 2 of 2019 requires \nthe responsible officer to pay for only salaries, pension and \ngratuity processed through IPPS. \nA comparison of the IPPS payroll register and IFMS payment file \nrevealed that UGX.13,502,944,430 was paid off the IPPS to \n3,926 employees and 870 pensioners/beneficiaries as shown \nbelow and detailed in the table below and Appendix 1 j. \n \nCategory \nNumber \nof \nstaff/pensioners \nPayment Off IPPS \nSalaries \n3,926 \n 4,898,961,116 \n \nI advised the PS \nMoPS to expedite \nthe roll out of HCM \nto all LGs. \nto all LGs.", "metadata": {"page": 62, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "47 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \nPension and gratuity \n870 \n 8,603,983,314 \nTotal \n4,796 \n13,502,944,430 \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained these were eligible \nemployees and pensioners/ beneficiaries and attributed the \npayments off the IPPS to continuous drop off from the payroll, \nand delayed access to the payroll by new employees and \npensioners/ beneficiaries. \n \nMy interaction with MoPS revealed that the drop offs were \nattributed to the use of dummy employee numbers, employees \nhaving deductions more than 50% of their net pay and \nrecruitments outside the approved structure. MoPS further \nexplained that the introduction of HCM will resolve these \nchallenges. \n \n3.1.9", "metadata": {"page": 63, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.1.9 \nManagement of deductions by UCLA/UBA \n \nGovernment of the Republic of Uganda represented by the \nMinistry of Public Service entered into a service agreement with \nUCLA/UBA on 3rd January 2020 to manage the loan deductions \nof civil servants. \n \nUganda Consumer Lenders\u2019 Association/ Uganda Bankers \nAssociation (UCLA/UBA) contracted Payroll Consults Africa \n(PCA) to manage employee deductions on their behalf using the \nPayroll Deduction Management System (PDMS). \n \nI reviewed employee payroll deductions (non-statutory) and the \nPDMS records (active deductions report and my approvals) and \nobserved the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \nLetters of undertaking or Consent \n \nSection 4.2 (b) of the guidelines of managing salary \ndeductions on the Government payroll, 2014 states that", "metadata": {"page": 63, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "as part of the due diligence process, the credit lending \ninstitutions and banks will seek for a letter of undertaking \nfrom the Accounting Officer/employer or a designated \nofficer confirming that the officer is a bona fide \nGovernment employee indicating his or her positions in \nthe MDA/LG, payment details, terms of appointment and \nother details that may be prescribed by the lending \ninstitution. \n \nIn addition, only deductions consented by employees in \nwriting should be submitted to MoPS (employer) for \ntimely monthly payroll processing or as advised by the \nemployer. \n \nI observed that MoPS deducted UGX.20,792,707,030 \nfrom 15,002 staff in 44 HLGs on behalf of UCLA/UBA \nwithout letters of undertaking or consent as a prerequisite \nof approval of the deductions. Details are in Appendix 1 \nk.", "metadata": {"page": 63, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Government \nthrough \nMoPS \nshould \nconsider \nrevisiting the MoU \nwith \nUCLA/UBA \nwith a view of \nstreamlining \nthe \nmanagement \nof \ndeductions. In the \nmeantime, \nthe \nrole of coding and \ndecoding \nof \ndeductions should \nrevert \nto \nthe \nrespective \nAccounting \nOfficers.", "metadata": {"page": 63, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "48 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \nLoans/savings not supported by letters of under-\ntaking/consent may lead to; unauthorized deductions and \nlack of assurance/guarantee to lending institutions which \nmay limit access to loan services and affects the \nlivelihoods of civil servants. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that this was an \noversight and promised to keep copies of letters of \nundertaking and consent letters in the subsequent years. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to ensure that letters of \nundertaking are duly prepared, signed by the bank and a \ncopy retained on the staff personnel file for ease of \nreference. \n \n\uf0b7 Deduction past the deduction end date \n \nI observed that MoPS deducted UGX. 1,458,405,180 \nrelating to 2,143 employees in 83 LGs past the end date", "metadata": {"page": 64, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "on behalf of UCLA/UBA. Details are in Appendix 1 k.\n \nDeductions past the end date result into financial loss to \nthe affected staff. \n \n\uf0b7 Unrealistic loan end dates \n \nI noted that unrealistic loan end dates for 2,729 \nemployees in 69 LGs with the worst ranging from ranging \nfrom 11 to 5,642 years. In the year under review, \nUGX.4,745,884,699 had been deducted from these \nemployees. Details are in Appendix 1 k. \n \nThe above end dates are unrealistic and cast doubt on the \nintegrity of the PDMS system controlled by PCA. This has \nled to continuous deductions from staff and there are \npossibilities of making deductions from staff without \nrunning loans. \n \n\uf0b7 Unapproved loan deductions by Accounting \nOfficer in the PDMS", "metadata": {"page": 64, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I observed that UCLA/UBA deducted UGX.8,885,902,311 \nfrom 8,468 staff in 95 LGs without approval of the \nAccounting Officers from the PDMS contrary to Section \n2.1.2 & 2.1.4 of the service agreement. Details are in \nAppendix 1 k. \n \nThis creates opportunities to misappropriate funds \nthrough making fictitious deductions as well as over \ndeductions. \n \nIn addition, UGX.1,643,636,038 was deducted by \nUCLA/UBA from 8,756 staff over and above the approved \namounts by the Accounting Officers in 68 LGs. Details are \nin Appendix 1 k.", "metadata": {"page": 64, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "49 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \nThis resulted into financial loss to the affected staff. \n \n\uf0b7 Reliability of the Payroll Deduction Management \nSystem \n \n \u201cActive\u201d deductions report and \u201cmy approvals\u201d report in \nthe PDMS should have consistent deduction amounts to \ngive confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the \nsystem. \n \nA comparison of the \u201cactive deductions\u201d and \u201cmy \napprovals\u201d reports in the PDMS revealed that there were \nvariances in deduction amounts. Details are in Appendix \n1 k. \n \n \nLack of integrity of the system creates opportunities for \nmanipulation of the deduction which could result into \nfinancial loss to the affected employees. Details are in \nAppendix 1 k. \n \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that entities had no control", "metadata": {"page": 65, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "over the challenges above in the management of non-statutory \ndeductions in the PDMS system by UCLA/UBA. The Accounting \nOfficers further explained that the issues would be resolved if \nthe LGs do not have rights for coding and decoding of \ndeductions. \n \n3.1.10 \nUse of wrong formula to compute statutory deductions \n \nSection 22 1(d) of the Income Tax Act as amended by \nAmendment Act of 2008 provides that for the purpose of \nascertaining the chargeable income of a person for a year of \nincome, Local Service Tax paid by an individual should be an \nallowable deduction. \n \nThe Local Governments (Amendment) (No. 2) Act of 2008 \ndefined \u201ctake-home salary\u201d as gross salary after deducting \nincome tax in the form of Pay as You Earn (PAYE) and \nprescribed the rates of local service tax in respect of", "metadata": {"page": 65, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "persons in gainful employment and earning a monthly take-\nhome salary. \n \nI noted a contradiction between the Income Tax Act and the \nLocal Government Act in regard to computation of PAYE and \nLST. The contradictions result from the Income Tax treating LST \nas an allowable deduction when computing PAYE while the Local \nGovernment Act treats PAYE as an allowable deduction when \ncomputing LST. \n \nConsequently, the contradiction has resulted to over deduction \nof PAYE of UGX.3,040,220,504 and under deduction of \nUGX.2,387,243,619 from 75,094 employees in 96 LGs. This has \nalso resulted into under deduction of LST of UGX.682,208,048 \nand over deduction of UGX.1,043,454,067 from 94,892", "metadata": {"page": 65, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "employees in 102 LGs which is a loss to Government. Details \nare in Appendix 1 l. \n \nI advised MoPs to \nengage \nthe \nAttorney General \nto have the above \ncontradiction \nresolved.", "metadata": {"page": 65, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "50 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendation \n \nIn addition, I also observed that 55 LGs, did not deducted LST \nof UGX.700,135,000 from 11,645 employees while 102 LGs, did \nnot deducted PAYE of UGX.447,775,826 from 1,621 employees. \nDetails are in Appendix 1 l. \n3.2 \nLand management in Local Government \nThe reviews on the country\u2019s performance under the NDP I and II pointed out \ninadequacies in land management as impediment to effective and efficient service \ndelivery in the country. In NDP III, and in line with Vision 2040, Government has \nprioritised land management reforms to prevent degradation, adverse effects of \nclimate change and unsustainable land use practices. \n \nAs a result, I considered Management of Public Land in a Key Audit Matter because of", "metadata": {"page": 66, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "its importance to the county\u2019s development agenda. \n \nConsequently, I designed audit procedures to ascertain whether the 11 LGs sampled \nundertake planning for public land acquisition, whether such acquisitions comply with \nland acquisition and budgeting guidelines and whether the acquired land is registered \nand titled. \n \nBased on the audit procedures performed, I made the following significant audit \nfindings; \n \nTable 22: Land Management audit finding in Local Governments \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendatio\nn \n3.2.1 \nStrategic Planning for Land acquisition \n \nRegulation 25 (1) of The National Planning Authority \n(Development \nPlans) \nRegulations, \n2018 \nrequires \na \ndecentralised planning institution (Ministry, Department or \nAgency of Government, a sector or Local government) to \nprepare a decentralized development plan highlighting the", "metadata": {"page": 66, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "development needs of the institution. \n \nInstruction 3.9.5 of the Treasury Instructions, 2017 requires \nthe budget estimates to be based on the pre-determined \nobjectives and outputs as provided in the strategic plans of \nthe sector/entity. \n \nI noted that of the 12 sampled entities for the period \n2018/19-2021/22 4 entities acquired Land 10 pieces of land \nof which 3 pieces measured 42.47 hectares and 7 pieces had \nundefined measurements. Details are in Appendix 2 a. \n \n\uf0b7 Only 1 of the 10 pieces measuring 40.47 hectares was \nplanned in the strategic plan. \n\uf0b7 8 of the 10 pieces of which 1 piece measuring 40.47 \nhectares and 7 pieces of undefined measurements were \nbudgeted for at a cost of UGX.0.627Bn while 2 pieces \nmeasuring 2 hectares were not budgeted for. \n \n \nI \nadvised \nthe", "metadata": {"page": 66, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "advised \nthe \nAccounting Officers \nto liaise with the \nrelevant \nstakeholders \nto \nensure \nthat \nthe \nplanned \nfund \nallocation for Land \nacquisition \nare \nrealised \nand \nundertake \nspending as per \napproved \nbudget \nlines \nor \nseek \napproval for any \nreallocations \nand \nvirements \nwhere \nneed arises.", "metadata": {"page": 66, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "51 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendatio\nn \n\uf0b7 Of the budgeted amount of UGX.0.627Bn, UGX.0.624Bn \nwas availed resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.003Bn \n(0.5%).Of this UGX.0.296Bn was spent on Land \nacquisition while UGX0.305Bn (49%) was diverted and \nthe unspent difference of UGX.0.024Bn was swept back \nto the consolidated fund. \n \nInadequate budgeting for land acquisition may lead to \nmischarges, diversions, interest costs arising from delayed \npayments and accumulation of Domestic arrears while under \nabsorption and failure to acquire the planned size of land \naffects the entities abilities to achieve the intended objectives \nfor Land acquisition.", "metadata": {"page": 67, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "for Land acquisition. \n \n3.2.2 \nTitling and Transfer \n \nSection 49 (c) of the Land Act, Cap 227, states that the \nUganda Land Commission shall procure certificates of title for \nany land vested in or acquired by the Government. \n \nI noted that out of the 631 pieces held by the 12 sampled \nentities of which 348 pieces measured 2384.78 hectares and \n283 pieces had undefined measurements, 11 entities did not \nhave titles for 428 pieces of land of which 172 pieces \nmeasured 651 hectares and 256 pieces had undefined \nmeasurements. Details are in Appendix 2 b. \n \nThe anomalies were attributed to the following; inadequate \nfunds by the entities to process Land titles and land having \nbeen donated by people who passed on without transferring \ntitle to the entity. \n \nLack of Land titles results into encroachment, disputes and", "metadata": {"page": 67, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "loss of public land. \n \n \nI \nadvised \nthe \nAccounting Officers \nto \nexpedite \nthe \ntitling of all its land \nto secure it from \npotential loss. \n \n3.2.3 \nFailure to transfer Land into the Custody of ULC \n \nInstruction 16.13.11 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 \nrequires that for land, a government entity shall be \nconsidered to have control if it has the title. If the \ngovernment entity does not have title to the land, the entity \nshall not be considered to have control (the title of \ngovernment land is supposed to be kept with the Uganda \nLand Commission). \nSection 49 of the Land Act Cap 227 further requires the \nUganda Land Commission to hold and manage all the land in \nUganda which is vested in or acquired by the Government", "metadata": {"page": 67, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "including land acquired by the Government abroad. \n \nI noted that out of the 631 pieces held by the 12 sampled \nentities of which 348 pieces measured 2384.78 hectares and \n283 pieces had undefined measurements, 6 entities did not \ntransfer 102 pieces of land measuring approximately 676.253 \nhectares into the custody of the Uganda Land Commission. \nDetails are in Appendix 2 c. \n \nI \nadvised \nthe \nAccounting Officers \nto \nensure \nthat \nensure that all Land \ntitles \nare \njointly \nregistered in the \nnames \nof \nboth \nentities and ULC \nand also fast track \nthe establishment \nand maintain ace of \nthe \nGovernments \nLand Inventory.", "metadata": {"page": 67, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "52 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendatio\nn \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the District Local \nGovernments were body corporates hence had a right to own \nland in their own names. \n \nFailure to transfer all Government Land into the custody of \nULC is irregular and affects the Government\u2019s ability to \neffectively manage Public Land. \n \n3.2.4 \nMaintenance of land Register \n \nInstruction 16.6.1 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 requires \nthe Accounting officer to maintain an electronic or manual \nregister, in a form (TF 26) for all assets that contain the \nminimum of the following; Date of purchase of the asset, \nThe supplier, The type and description of each asset,(for land \n- land registration number, The acquisition cost of the asset,", "metadata": {"page": 68, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The physical location of the asset, User of the asset/, \nCondition of the asset, Date of disposal (as applicable); and \n(l) \nDisposal \nproceeds \n(as \napplicable). \nFurthermore \nInstruction 10.12.4 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 \nrequires all fixed asset acquired to be captured in the fixed \nasset module of the Government Financial Management \nInformation System (GFMIS)-IFMS. \n \nI noted that out of the 631 pieces held by the 12 sampled \nentities of which 348 pieces measured 2384.78 hectares and \n283 pieces had undefined measurements, 9 entities did not \nrecord a total of 583 pieces of land measuring approximately \n1944.63 hectares in their respective Land registers rendering \nit difficult to confirm the completeness of their Land \ninventory. Details are in Appendix 2 d.", "metadata": {"page": 68, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I also noted that 10 entities did not record a total of 603 \npieces of land measuring approximately 2234.98 hectares in \ntheir respective GFMIS fixed asset module thus affecting the \naccuracy of the non-produced assets in the financial \nstatements. Details are in Appendix 2 e. \n \nThe lack of an updated land register was mainly attributed \nto the absence of a reconciled position between land \nacquired by the lower local governments and the various \ndepartments in the district while the failure to update the \nGFMIS was attributed to non-functionality of the GFMIS \nsystem and valuation \n \nThe non-recording of land in the land register and GFMIS \nAsset module affects the Government\u2019s ability to keep track \nof all its land and could lead to misstatement of the non-\nproduced asset in the statement of financial position and in \nthe summary statement of stores and other assets (physical \nassets).", "metadata": {"page": 68, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "assets). \n \n \n \nI \nadvised \nGovernment \nto \nensure that all Land \nacquired \nis \nduly \nrecorded \nin \nthe \nentity Land register \nand GFMIS Asset \nmodules.", "metadata": {"page": 68, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "53 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendatio\nn \n3.2.5 \nUse of Land in accordance with approved purpose in \nthe entity Strategic Plan \n \nOut of 631 pieces of land of which 348 pieces measured \n2384.78 \nhectares \nand \n283 \npieces \nhad \nundefined \nmeasurements, held by the 12 sampled entities, 3 pieces of \nland measuring approximately 11.767 hectares (33%) were \nnot used in accordance with the approved purpose set out in \nthe strategic plan by 1 entity. Details are in Appendix 2 f. \n \nThe anomalies were attributed lack of adequate funds to put \nthe land to its intended use. \n \nUse of land for unapproved purposes defeats the purpose for", "metadata": {"page": 69, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "acquisition which may affect the entity\u2019s ability to achieve its \nintended objectives. \n \n \nI \nadvised \nthe \nAccounting Officer \nto lobby for funds \nto put the land to \nits intended use. \n \n3.2.6 \nUnutilized Land \n \nInstruction 16.13.12 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 \nrequires that to control an asset, a government entity usually \nbe the predominant user of the asset. \n \nI noted that out of the 631 pieces of land measuring \napproximately 2384.78 hectares held by the 12 sampled \nentities, 19 pieces of land of which 13 measured \napproximately 20.786 hectares and 6 pieces had undefined \nmeasurements were not utilized by the entity at the time of \nAudit. Details are in Appendix 2 g. \n \nThe anomalies were attributed to inadequate funding by the", "metadata": {"page": 69, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "respective Local Governments to develop the land. \n \nVacant land if not secured is susceptible to encroachment \nhence depletion of Public Land \n \n \nI \nadvised \nthe \nAccounting Officer \nto lobby for funds \nto put the land to \nits intended use. \n \n3.2.7 \nEncumbrance on Public Land \n \nInstruction 16.13.12 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 \nrequires that to control an asset, a government entity should \nbe the predominant user of the asset. \n \nI noted that out of the 631 pieces of land measuring \napproximately 2384.78 hectares held by the 12 sampled \nentities, 37 pieces of land of which 13 measured \napproximately 121.257 hectares and 16 pieces had \nencumbrances in the form of caveats, court injunctions and", "metadata": {"page": 69, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "encroachment. Details are in Appendix 2 h. \n \nThe anomalies were attributed to the following; Lack of title \nand supporting documentation of ownership and prolonged \nnon utilisation of land. \n \n \nI \nadvised \nGovernment \nto \nensure \nthat \ndue \ndiligence is done \nprior to acquisition \nof land and that the \nland is put to use \nwhen \nacquired. \nMeanwhile \nthe \nAccounting Officers \nshould ensure that \nall \nforms \nof \nencumbrances \non \nits \nland \nare \nresolved.", "metadata": {"page": 69, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "54 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendatio\nn \nLand encumbrances hinder management\u2019s ability to utilize \nthe affected land for the intended purpose, and may pose a \nrisk of loss of land. \n \n3.2.8 \nLease of public land \n \nA review of records and inquiry from management of the 12 \nsampled entities revealed that 4 entities leased out 159 \npieces of land with undefined measurement in the period \nunder review. A review of the lease process revealed the \nfollowing; \n \n \na) \nRegister of Leased land \n \nGuideline 8.4.4 of the GoU Asset Management Framework \nand Guidelines, 2020 requires a schedule of land or any other \nasset disposed through a lease arrangement to be \nmaintained following the provided format.", "metadata": {"page": 70, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I noted that all the 4 entities that a total of 159 pieces of \nland did not have updated lease register rendering it difficult \nto establish the actual size of land leased, lease expiry date, \nlease rentals to be collected and in arrears. Details are in \nAppendix 2 i. \n \nThe anomalies were attributed to the Leases having been \ngranted by former controlling Authorities that did not pass \non inventory or lease records to the Boards for effective \nmanagement. \n \nFailure to have an updated leased land register affects \nentities ability to properly manage the public land, which may \nresult into losses due to either fraud or negligence. \n \n \nI \nadvised \nGovernment \nto \nensure \nthat \nupdated \nlease \nregisters are put in \nplace. \n \nb)", "metadata": {"page": 70, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "b) \nIrregularities in Management of leased land \n \nRegulation 6 of the Land Regulations, 2004 requires a lease \noffer made by a board or the commission to communicate \nthe offer stating the terms and conditions of the offer \nconditioned upon payment of fees and other charges, in full \nor by instalment. \n \nA review of a sample 159 leases issued by the 4 DLB\u2019s \nrevealed the following; \n \n\uf0b7 No leases had expired at the time of carrying out this \nAudit. \n \n\uf0b7 2 leases granted by one entity for land measuring 5.821 \nhectares leased out had not been developed as per \nconditions of the lease agreement. Details are in \nAppendix 2 i. \n\uf0b7 2 entities did not receive any lease rentals from 82 \nlessees of UGX.96, 990,000 expected in the period under \n \nI \nadvised", "metadata": {"page": 70, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I \nadvised \nthe \nGovernment \nto \nensure that records \nfor \ndecentralised \nPublic \nLand \nand \nleases are passed \nto the respective \nDLBS for proper \nmanagement \nand \nfollow up.", "metadata": {"page": 70, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "55 \n \nSN \nObservation \nRecommendatio\nn \nreview the hence an under collection of UGX.96,990,000. \nDetails are in Appendix 2 i. \n \n\uf0b7 2 entities renewed leases for 3 pieces of land of \nundefined measurement without realisation of ground \nrent arrears or development of land as per lease \nagreement. Details are in Appendix 2 i. \n \nThe anomalies regarding expiry, non-development of leased \nland and failure to collect lease rentals were mainly \nattributed to the following; Leases having been granted by \nformer controlling Authorities that did not pass on inventory \nor lease records to the Boards for effective management. \n \nThe anomalies regarding non collection of ground rent \narrears were attributed to poor internal controls surrounding \nmanagement of leases.", "metadata": {"page": 71, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "management of leases. \n \nIrregularities in lease management processes lead to loss of \nrevenue and public land. \n \n3.2.9 \nIrregular allocation of Land by District Land Boards \n(DLB) \n \nRegulation 23 (1) of the Land Regulations, 2004 on \nprocedure in connection with allocation of land by the board \nrequires a person to apply to the board to be allocated land \nin the district which is not owned by any person or authority. \nIn addition Regulation 23 (2) of the Land Regulations, 2004 \nrequires the commission to advertise the application by \ngiving notice in a newspaper with wide circulation to draw \nthe attention of persons likely to be affected by the \napplication, invite any person to comment on or object to the \napplication and thereafter determine whether the applicant \nshould be allocated the land for which the application is made \n \nI noted that during the period under review 2 Boards", "metadata": {"page": 71, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "allocated 4 pieces of land without defined measurement that \nwere not under their jurisdiction. Details are in Appendix 2 \nj. \n \nThe above anomalies were attributed to; Lack of \ncomprehensive databases of Public Land by the DLB\u2019s \n \nIrregular allocation of Land by the DLB may lead to litigation \nand Land conflict. \n \n \nI \nadvised \nthe \nAccounting Officers \nto put in place \ndatabases \nof \nall \npublic land under \ntheir \njurisdictions \nand \ndesist \nfrom \nallocating \nland \noutside them. \n \n \nEmphasis of Matter \n \nWithout qualifying my opinion, I draw attention to the following matters in the consolidated \nfinancial statements of Local Government that in my judgment are of such importance and \nfundamental to users\u2019 understanding of the financial statements;", "metadata": {"page": 71, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "56 \n \n3.3 \nInconsistencies in the basis of accounting in Financial Reporting Guide and \nTreasury Instructions \nInstruction 5.2.1 of the Treasury Instructions, 2017 states that as a transitional \narrangement towards the adoption of the full accrual basis of accounting, all votes \n(Central Government, district and urban municipalities) shall maintain their books of \naccount on the modified accrual basis of accounting, \n \nGuideline 2.4 of the Financial Reporting Guide, 2018 provides that there are two bases \nof accounting currently being used by the Government entities (Modified Cash and \nAccrual Basis of Accounting). \n \nFurthermore, accounting policy 1(e) of the Financial Reporting Template used for Cities \nand Municipals provides for preparation of financial statements using accrual basis of \naccounting. \n \nAs a result, inconsistencies affect the accuracy of the criteria used by Auditor General", "metadata": {"page": 72, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "to provide opinions on the financial statements. \n \nThe Accountant General explained that; \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Treasury Instructions are clear about the transitional arrangement towards \nthe adoption of the full accrual basis of accounting. However, the natural \nprogression is to move from Cash basis through modified cash and modified \naccrual and eventually full accrual basis of accounting and the Accountant General \nrevises guidelines from time to time to facilitate this transition. Furthermore, the \nConsolidated Financial Statements are prepared based on the latest guidance \nprovided in the Financial Reporting Template. \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Financial Reporting Guide and Financial reporting Template is in \nprogress and the above will be harmonised. \n \nThe Accountant General was advised to expedite the revision of the Financial Reporting \nGuidelines and Templates. \n3.4 \nConsolidation of Local Authorities with different accounting bases \nA review of the Treasury Instructions, 2017 and Financial Reporting Guide, 2018", "metadata": {"page": 72, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "revealed that there were no guidelines on how the consolidation of entities that \nprepare financial statements using different bases of accounting is done. \n \nFurthermore, I noted that the consolidation of financial statements was done for \nDistricts and urban authorities that prepared financial statements using modified \naccrual and accrual basis of accounting respectively. \n \nAs a result, some consolidated account/components do not accurately represent the \ntrue nature of transactions. \n \nThe Accountant General explained that: \n \n\uf0b7 \nGovernment is in the process of transiting from modified cash basis of Accounting \nto Accrual basis of Accounting.", "metadata": {"page": 72, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "57 \n \n\uf0b7 \nWhile the transition is being done, necessary adjustments and disclosures are \ndone in order to comply with the provisions of PFMA 2015 of having Consolidated \nFinancial Statements of Local Government. \n \nThese adjustments will cease once all the entities (Municipals and DLGs) comply with \nthe accrual basis of Accounting, which is the ultimate goal. \n \nI advised the Accountant General to consider revising the Treasury Instructions and \nFinancial reporting guideline to include guidance on the consolidation of financial \nstatements prepared on different bases of accounting. \n3.5 \nManagement of YLP and UWEP in Local Governments \nYouth Livelihood Program (YLP) and Uganda Women Entrepreneurship Programme \n(UWEP) commenced in the FYs 2013/14 and 2015/16 respectively with aim of \nproviding affordable credit through an interest-free revolving fund.", "metadata": {"page": 73, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I reviewed the progress reports of various LGs data obtained from the MoGLSD as at \n30th June 2022 and noted the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \nUnder YLP the recovery rate was only 23% of the amount due as at 30th June \n2022. The table below refers. The best performing DLGs with collections above \n60% were Kotido, Kazo and Kyankwazi while the worst LGs were Bugweri DLG, \nLamwo DLG, Tororo MC, Amudat DLG and Abim DLG with collections of 5% and \nbelow. Appendix 3 a refers. \n \n\uf0b7 \nUnder UWEP, the recovery was relatively fair at 71% of the amount that was due \nas at 30th June 2022. The best performing LGs were Luwero DLG, Wakiso DLG,", "metadata": {"page": 73, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Bushenyi DLG, Nebbi DLG, Kyenjojo DLG, Kyankwanzi DLG, Sheema MC, Lira DLG \nand Sironko with 100% recoveries. Appendix 3 b refers. \nTable 23: Management of YLP and UWEP in Local Governments \nDetails \nAmount Disbursed - \nUGX \nAmount Due by 30th \nJune 2022 - UGX \nAmount Recovered \n- UGX \nVariance - UGX \n% \nReco\nvered \nYLP \n164,992,797,049 \n164,992,797,049 \n38,018,366,215 \n127,788,117,770 \n23 \nUWEP \n111,476,011,092 \n32,038,054,728", "metadata": {"page": 73, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "22,867,682,221 \n9,170,372,507 \n71 \nTOTALS \n278,920,746,571 \n197,030,851,777 \n60,886,048,436 \n136,144,803,341 \n \nSource: MoGLSD \n \nThere is a high risk that the outstanding amount may not be recovered in a timely \nmanner given the slow progress of recovery hindering the access of funds by other \ngroups through a revolving mechanism as had been anticipated. \n \nThe Accounting Officers and MoGLSD attributed the low recovery under YLP to the \ndisintegration of the groups, non-funding of monitoring and supervision activities and \nstaff capacity gaps in the LGs. MoGLSD \nIn order to improve on the performance of recoveries, MoGLSD has suggested", "metadata": {"page": 73, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "sensitization of district leaders, development of a database of defaulting groups to be \nforwarded to investigative organs of government for follow-up and availing additional \nfunding to compliant groups to encourage others to pay back. \n \nI await the outcome of the strategies devised by the MoGLSD to improve on the \nrecovery rate. In addition MoGLSD should clearly communicate the strategies to LGs.", "metadata": {"page": 73, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "58 \n \nOther Matter \n \nIn addition to the matters raised above, I consider it necessary to communicate the following \nmatters other than those presented or disclosed in the financial statements; \n3.6 \nImplementation of the Approved Budget \nOver the years, Local Governments have experienced challenges in the implementation \nof the approved budget and these have affected service delivery. Previous OAG audit \nreports on budget performance have also revealed significant weaknesses that have \naffected the credibility of the LG budgets; these include diversion/mischarge, revenue \nunderperformance, under absorption and implementation of off-budget activities, \namong others. \n \nAlthough there has been an improvement in the quantification of activities and the \npreparation of performance reports, I identified areas that need improvement to make \nthe planning processes better, improve performance, credibility of future budgets and \nservice delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 74, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "service delivery. \n \nBelow is a summary of my findings, details of which are included in the individual \nreports that have been issued separately; \n3.6.1 Approval of budgets by Parliament without corresponding strategic plans \nRegulation 26(1) of the National Planning Authority (NPA) [development of Plans] \nRegulations requires entities to submit five-year development plans for certification \nbefore approval to ensure that strategic plans are well aligned to the National \nDevelopment Plans. \n \nBy the end of the FY2021/22, only 80 (47%) out of 169 LGs had their strategic plans \ncertified by NPA. By the time of writing this report, NPA had not yet certified strategic \nplans for 89 (53%) LGs that had submitted, as shown below; \n \n \n \nApproved\n47%\nNot approved\n53%\nSTATUS OF APPROVAL OF STRATEGIC PLANS BY NPA", "metadata": {"page": 74, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "59 \n \nI noted that Parliament approved budgets for 169 LGs in the FY 2020/21 and 89 LGs \nin the FY 2021/22 without the corresponding certification of strategic plans by NPA. \nDetails are in appendix 4 a. \n \nAs a result, some of the Annual Work Plans and Budgets (AW&Bs) and therefore the \nactivities implemented in the FY 2021/22 may not be consistent with the NDP III, \nwhich may hinder the attainment of the development goals, objectives and targets set \nby the country. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the above to delays by NPA to review and give \nfeedback on the strategic plans, compounded by lack of training and technical support \nfrom NPA and MoFPED during the development of the strategic plans. \n \nMy interaction with the PSST, revealed that the change from sector to programmatic \napproach led to delayed issuance of the NDP III implementation plan by NPA to LGs", "metadata": {"page": 75, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "thus affecting the preparation and approval of the strategic plans. \n \nI advised NPA to expedite the issuance of NDP III implementation plan and to build \ncapacity of planners in the government entities to minimize delays in the preparation \nand approval of strategic plans. \n3.6.2 Revenue performance \n \n169 LGs budgeted to receive a total of UGX.5,995,310,337,537 but realized only \nUGX.5,426,900,787,092 (91%), leading to a shortfall of UGX.568,409,550,445 (9%). \nThe performance of each revenue source is summarised in the table below: \n \nTable 24: Local Government revenue performance \nRevenue Source \nApproved Budget - \nUGX \nWarrants - UGX \nVariance - UGX \n%age \nperformance \nLocal Revenue", "metadata": {"page": 75, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "performance \nLocal Revenue \n223,518,772,109 \n131,349,888,815 \n92,168,883,294 \n59% \nCentral Government grants \n4,944,460,827,948 \n4,833,248,994,175 \n111,211,833,773 \n98% \nTransfers \nreceived \nfrom \nother government units \n629,935,041,555 \n390,759,823,561 \n239,175,217,994 \n62% \nExternal Assistance \n197,395,695,925 \n71,542,080,541 \n125,853,615,384 \n36% \nTotal \n5,995,310,337,537 \n5,426,900,787,092 \n568,409,550,445 \n91% \nSource: BIG report, quarterly budget performance reports", "metadata": {"page": 75, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "60 \n \n \n \nGenerally, LGs are heavily dependent on the central government grants which \ncontribute 98% of the LG total funding. \n \nLocal revenue performance, where 148 HLGS did not collect UGX.92,168,883,294 \n(41%) affected activities for which local revenue funding was earmarked. Details are \nin appendix 4 a. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the shortfall in local revenue collection to the effects \nof COVID 19 on markets, trading licenses, hotels tax and royalties. \n \nOther than the local revenue source, the LGs had no control over the performance of \nother revenue sources, which affected the implementation/ payment for the following \nactivities; \n \n\uf0b7 Council allowances and other council activities. \n\uf0b7 Funding of some gazetted PDM SACCOs and the recruitment of parish chiefs \n\uf0b7 URF road activities under routine mechanised and periodic maintenance.", "metadata": {"page": 76, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 Health service activities, including immunisation, treatment of Malaria and \nTuberculosis. \n \nI advised as follows: \n \n\uf0b7 MoLG and Local Government Finance Commission should expedite the roll out of \nIntegrated Revenue Administration System (IRAS) in all LGs to improve revenue \nassessment, collection and reporting, which will enhance local revenue \nperformance. \n \n\uf0b7 LGs should prepare budgets in consultation with donors to ensure realistic and \nattainable revenue estimates. LGs should further ensure compliance with donor \nrequirements to avoid penalties and unnecessary delays. \n \n\uf0b7 Adequately sensitize and mobilize communities on tax related matters like \ncompliance and carry out a robust tax payer assessment and enforcement. \n \n0\n1,000,000,000,000\n2,000,000,000,000\n3,000,000,000,000\n4,000,000,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 76, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5,000,000,000,000\n6,000,000,000,000\nLocal Revenue\nCentral Government\ngrants\nTransfers received\nfrom other\ngovernment units\nExternal Assistance\nLG Revenue Performance\nApproved Budget\nwarrants", "metadata": {"page": 76, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "61 \n \n3.6.3 Unutilised funds \nFrom \nthe \ntotal \nreceipts \nin \nthe \nFY \nof \nUGX.5,426,900,787,092, \nonly \nUGX.4,723,235,613,153 (87%) was utilised, resulting in an unspent balance of \nUGX.703,665,173,939 as shown in table below and in appendix 4 b. \n \nTable 25: Unutilised funds in Local Governments \nNo \nActivity \nAmount-Unspent (UGX) \n1 \nSalary, pension and gratuity payment \n176,355,014,007 \n2 \nUSMID AF in refugee hosting districts", "metadata": {"page": 77, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "USMID AF in refugee hosting districts \n41,830,160,377 \n3 \nMicro scale irrigation \n28,315,288,149 \n4 \nDRDIP funding subprojects \n12,412,158,314 \n5 \nUSMID construction of roads \n31,425,512,796 \n6 \nOthers \n413,327,040,296 \n \nTotal \n703,665,173,939 \nSource: LG work plans, budgets and performance reports \n \nThe failure to utilise funds led to either partial or non-implementation of the following \nactivities; \n \n\uf0b7 \n8,347 staff and pensioners/beneficiaries in 115 LGs were under paid. \n\uf0b7 \n4 LGs did not implement 25 infrastructure projects under USMID AF. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 77, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nIn 23 LGs, 190 farmers were not supported with irrigation equipment which \nexposed a large number of farmers\u2019 plantation to drought. \n\uf0b7 \n46 subprojects under DRDIP in 2 LGs were not implemented. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the failure to absorb the funds as highlighted in the \ntable below; \n \nTable 26: Reasons for under absorption of funds in Local Governments \nNo \nActivity \nExplanations from the Accounting Officers \n1 \nSalary, pension and \ngratuity payment \n\uf0b7 \nLate disbursement of funds by MoFPED for recruitment of \nteachers and health workers. \n\uf0b7 \nDelay by MoES to approve the recruitment plans for \nsecondary school teachers. \n\uf0b7 \nDelays by MoPS to approve staff structures. \n2 \nUSMID \nAF \nin \nrefugee \nhosting", "metadata": {"page": 77, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "refugee \nhosting \ndistricts \n\uf0b7 \nDelayed dissemination of the approved project designs and \nimplementation guidelines by the USMID secretariat in \nMoLHUD. \n3 \nMicro \nscale \nirrigation \n\uf0b7 \nLate disbursement of program funds \n\uf0b7 \nFailure to co-fund. \n4 \nDRDIP \nfunding \nsubprojects \n\uf0b7 \nLate disbursement of program funds and approval of \nsubprojects \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to ensure that activities are rolled over and funds re-\nvoted for implementation in the subsequent financial year. I also advised MoFPED to \ntimely release the appropriated funds to avoid the failure to utilise. \n3.6.4 Off Budget Financing/Receipts \nSection 43 (1) of the PFMA 2015 requires all expenditure incurred by the Government", "metadata": {"page": 77, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "on externally financed projects in a financial year to be appropriated by Parliament. \nParagraph 29 of the Budget Execution Circular for the Financial year states that if an \nexternal agency provides funds in the course of implementation of the budget or any", "metadata": {"page": 77, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "62 \n \nfunds remain unspent at the expiry of an appropriation, these must be declared and a \nsupplementary issued in line with the Public Finance Management Act 2015. \n \nI noted that 5 LGs received UGX.3,670,739,179 from external development partners \nfor implementing activities not budgeted for. However, these funds were neither \ndeclared to PSST nor a supplementary budget issued contrary to Section 43 (1) of the \nPFMA 2015. \n \nThis therefore implies that the total budgets of these entities was understated, thus \ndistorting planning and, may result in duplication of activities. Details are shown in the \ntable below. \n \nTable 27: Local Government off- budget financing \nS\nN \nVote Code \nEntity Name \nAmount - UGX \n1 \n523 \nKayunga District", "metadata": {"page": 78, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kayunga District \n773,412,069 \n2 \n544 \nNakasongola District \n400,000,000 \n3 \n586 \nOtuke District \n342,888,374 \n4 \n602 \nRubirizi District \n350,890,654 \n5 \n556 \nYumbe District \n1,803,548,082 \n \nTotal \n \n3,670,739,179 \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed this to limitations of the PBS system which has no \nprovision for inputting such off budget receipts and also receipt of funds not expected \nat the time of planning. \n \nDuring my interaction with PSST indicated that MoFPED created a window to allow off", "metadata": {"page": 78, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "budget financing to be recognised in PBS. In addition, MoFPED is continuously \nengaging development partners to fund LGs through the government funding system. \n \nI advised Government to ensure that all funds are included in the PBS and appropriated \nby Parliament, and expenditure of such funds follows the government financial system. \nIn addition, all funds received outside the approved budget during the year should be \ndisclosed to the PS/ST for supplementary appropriation. \n3.6.5 Excess release of wage funds to LGs \nDuring the year under review, I observed that 101 LGs did not utilise all warranted \nwage funds. I sampled 19 LGs that had not utilised wage funds in excess of \nUGX.2,000,000,000 and observed that all these entities received supplementary wage \nfunding towards the end of the financial year. These entities did not utilise a total of \nUGX.54,585,930,745 during the year. Details are in appendix 4 b.", "metadata": {"page": 78, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I noted that the funds unutilised were in many instances in excess of the annual wage \nrequirement of the respective LGs. The Accounting Officers of Kiryandongo DLG, Kisoro \nDLG, Kole DLG and Nakasongola DLG explained that they received wage funds \namounting to UGX.3,862,110,354 in excess of what was requested. Details are in the \ntable below;", "metadata": {"page": 78, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "63 \n \nTable 28: Excess release of wage funds to Local Governments \nSN Entity \nAmount released in excess of the requirement - UGX \n1. Kiryandongo DLG \n2,578,969,118 \n2. Kisoro DLG \n753,706,312 \n3. Kole DLG \n414,577,139 \n4. Nakasongola DLG \n114,857,785 \n \nTOTAL \n3,862,110,354 \nSource: BIG Quarterly budget analysis report and LGs payments details XML report \n \nI also observed that whereas the cities had not operationalised the city staff structures, \nfunds for recruitment were released and therefore remained unutilised at the end of \nthe financial year. \n \nThis limits the availability of funds to cater for priority areas and creates an avenue for", "metadata": {"page": 79, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "misappropriation of funds. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the mandate to disburse funds lies with \nMoFPED. \n \nI advised the PSST to ensure that funds are released in accordance with the approved \nbudgets. \n3.6.6 Transfer of funds to LLGs by LGs to avoid sweep backs \nSection 17(1) of the PFMA 2015 provides that every appropriation by Parliament shall \nexpire and cease to have any effect at the close of the financial year for which it is \nmade. \n \nSub Section (2) provides that a vote that does not expend money that was \nappropriated to the vote for the financial year shall at the close of the financial year, \nrepay the money to the Consolidated Fund. \nDuring my audit of the FY 2021/22, I observed that 23 LGs transferred \nUGX.6,493,901,877 to LLGs towards the end of the financial year to avoid funds", "metadata": {"page": 79, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "remaining unutilised. Details are in appendix 4 b. \n \nThis action contradicts Section 17(1) and (2) of the PFMA 2015 and will result into \nmisappropriation of public funds. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the transfer was based on the advice from the \nPS MoH to transfer the construction funds to the Health Centres. The Accounting \nOfficers further explained that the funds for other construction projects were meant \nfor committed contracts that were still ongoing and that the process of re-voting the \nfunds swept back always delays or may not be successful. \n \nDuring my interaction with MoFPED, PSST acknowledged the observation and promised \nto take corrective action. \n \nI await the outcome of the corrective action.", "metadata": {"page": 79, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "64 \n \n3.6.7 Misclassification of expenditure \nInstruction 7.10.3 of the Treasury Instructions 2017 stipulates that the chart of \naccounts provides a basis for a uniform budget classification and execution; therefore, \nit is mandatory for all votes to use the coding structure to budget and execute the \nbudget. \n \nHowever, I made the following observations: \n \n\uf0b7 \nIn 43 LGs, UGX.5,461,616,914 relating to pension (212102), pension arrears \n(321608) and gratuity (213004) was misclassified on code 212102 relating to \nmonthly pension, thus overstating the monthly pension expenditure. Details are \nin appendix 4 b. \n \n\uf0b7 \nIn some LGs, UGX. 39,524,117,773 was charged on wrong account item codes", "metadata": {"page": 80, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "contrary to those in which they were budgeted for as shown in the table below. \nTable 29: Misclassification of expenditure in Local Governments \nProgram \nNumber of HLGs \nAmount (UGX) \nPension and gratuity \n43 \n5,461,616,914 \nMicroscale Irrigation \n39 \n20,478,337,116 \nEx-gratia \n11 \n525,038,679 \nOther expenditure lines \n43 \n13,059,125,064 \nTotal \n \n39,524,117,773 \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed that: \n \n\uf0b7 \nAll payments of pension, gratuity and pension arrears are aggregated to one code \nin the interface file. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 80, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nDifferent program activities were budgeted for under one account code which led \nto expenditure being charged wrongly contrary to where they were budgeted for. \nThis is a matter that can only be addressed by PSST MoFPED. \n \nI explained to the Accounting Officers that the LGs are likely to deviate from the \nplanned activities without early detection by management. \nDuring my interaction with MoFPED it was explained that the PSST will engage MoPS \non the aggregation of pension and gratuity matters while misclassifications arising from \nbudgeting on wrong codes, the Accounting Officers will be reminded to appropriately \nbudget for expenditure on the correct codes. \n \nI advised the MoPS ensure that pension, gratuity and pension arrears are \ndisaggregated and sent on the right budget codes. I advised PSST to ensure that \nAccounting Officers appropriate allocated funds to the right codes during budgeting. \n3.7 \nFunds not accounted for", "metadata": {"page": 80, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Funds not accounted for \nTreasury Instruction 24.10.1 provides that financial records include all source \ndocuments (budgets, invoices, vouchers, bank statements, credit advice, journals, \ncheques, receipts and any other documents), which serve as evidence of financial \ntransactions.", "metadata": {"page": 80, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "65 \n \nSimilarly, Regulation 42 and 43 (2) of the Local Government Financial and Accounting \nRegulations 2007, require funds to be properly vouched and accounted for within a \nperiod of a month. \n \nFrom the review of documents supporting payments made in the year, it was noted \nthat payments amounting to UGX.2,495,441,197 in 23 LGs remained un-accounted for \nby close of the financial year as shown in Appendix 4 b. \n \nConsequently, I could not confirm that the funds were utilized for the intended purpose \nand therefore this implies that the expenditure account balances are overstated by the \namount not accounted for. \n \nI advise the Accounting Officer to provide supporting documentation for this \nexpenditure with a view of initiating a recovery process from the officers who hav failed \nto account. \n3.8 \nEx-gratia payments", "metadata": {"page": 81, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ex-gratia payments \nIn the 2nd budget call circular for the financial year 2021/2022, the PS/ST requested \nHLGs to adequately budget for Ex-gratia and Councillor\u2019s allowance in FY 2021/2022. \n \nI noted that 31 LGs received UGX.4,543,306,404 (72%) out of the approved budget \nof UGX.6,290,484,980 resulting into a deficit of UGX.1,747,178,576 as shown in the \ntable below. \n \nConsequently, \n3,002 \nCouncillors \nin \n36 \nHLGs \nwere \nnot/under \npaid \nby \nUGX.1,168,823,662 during the financial year under review as shown in appendix 4 c. \n \nThis has affected the political oversight role in monitoring the implementation of", "metadata": {"page": 81, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "government programs at a local council level thus affecting service delivery. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed this to the increase in the number of councillors \nwithout a corresponding increase in funding as a result of MoFPED capping the IPF for \nwhich the entity has no control. The Accounting Officers further stated that the matter \nhad been presented to MOFPED and MOLG for their action. \n \nI advised MoFPED to provide sufficient funding to cater for the increased number of \npolitical leaders due to the creation of new administrative. \n3.9 \nDisbursement of funds to OPM \nI noted that MoFPED disbursed funds amounting to UGX.214,454,571,577 to OPM to \nundertake various projects in LGs such as DRDIP, PCA and support to micro groups \ninstead of funding the HLGs directly. Details of the disbursements are in the table \nbelow;", "metadata": {"page": 81, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "below; \n \nTable 30: Disbursement of funds to OPM \nProjects \nAmount released - \nUGX \nAmount spent - \nUGX \nUnspent - UGX \nDRDIP \n211,983,309,284 \n198,556,306,121 \n13,427,003,163 \nSupport \nto \nmicro \nprojects \n2,471,262,293 \n2,269,711,970 \n201,550,293 \nTotal \n214,454,571,577 \n200,826,018,091 \n13,628,553,456", "metadata": {"page": 81, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "66 \n \nAs a result, there have been challenges in implementing and monitoring the related \nservice delivery activities. For instance, in the year under review, a sum of \nUGX.13,628,553,456 was returned to the consolidated fund because of failed \nimplementation. \n \nI further noted that there is always either a delay to re-vote the funds or the funds are \nnot re-voted thus affecting the implementation of service delivery activities. \n \nI have audited the implementation of these programs and a separate report will be \nissued and this will form part of the report on the consolidated financial statements of \nLocal Government. \n \nCurrently, program monitoring is a responsibility of only OPM and yet they are thin on \nthe ground. My interaction with PS MoLG indicated that there is need to establish a \nstrong project coordination unit to effectively monitor and supervise government \nprograms at local government.", "metadata": {"page": 82, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I advised the PSST to consider sending the program funds directly to the implementing \nLGs. \n3.10 Implementation of selected service delivery activities \nOut of the LG expenditure of UGX.4,723,235,613,153 in the financial year 2021/2022, \n49.9% was spent on employee costs which has been reported above as KAM and the \nbalance was utilised in major interventions. I undertook a review of these interventions \nto assess the extent of service delivery; \n \n1. \nParish Development Model \n2. \nDevelopment Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) \n3. \nMicro Scale Irrigation Programme \n4. \nSupport to organized groups for improvement of people\u2019s livelihood \n5. \nOperationalisation of new cities \n6. \nUganda Inter-Governmental Fiscal Transfers Reform Program \n7.", "metadata": {"page": 82, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7. \nUganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development Program (USMID-AF) \n\u2013 Refugee Hosting Districts \n8. \nThe Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development in Cities and \nMunicipal Councils \n9. \nManagement of Royalties \n10. \nUtilisation of the Discretionary Development Equalisation Grant (DDEG) \u2013 LRDP \n11. \nUganda Road Fund \n3.11 Parish Development Model \nThe Government of Uganda over the years has implemented development programs \ngeared towards improvement of incomes and welfare of all Ugandans and achieved \nsome intended objectives. Despite the achievements, various challenges have \nmanifested during the implementation of these programmes, including slow recovery \nof funds, poor financial literacy, and disintegration of funded groups, among others. \n \nDespite these challenges, the Government of Uganda is implementing the Parish \nDevelopment Model which is a Government strategy for wealth creation and \nemployment generation at the Parish level as the lowest economic planning unit. It is \nexpected to cover 10,594 parishes.", "metadata": {"page": 82, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "67 \n \n \nDuring the Financial Year 2021/2022 169 LGs had an approved total budget of \nUGX.175,429,879,581 for PDM activities, out of which, the entities received only \nUGX.108,857,715,367 (62%), leading to a shortfall of UGX.66,572,164,214 (38%) as \nshown in the table below. \n \nThe programme registered a number of achievements in some LGs including \nrecruitment of Parish Chiefs to carry out the overall administration and management \nof a Parish unit in Local Government, and registration of SACCOs. \n \nHowever, despite the above, there have been challenges in the implementation of PDM \nthat indicate lack of Government preparedness in implementing the programme at the \nLocal Government level as illustrated below and in appendix 5 a and b. \n3.11.1 Guidance on the utilisation of the PDM funds", "metadata": {"page": 83, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Guideline 3.6.4(i) of the Implementation Guidelines for Parish Development Model, \n2021 bestows upon the PDM Secretariat the role of ensuring that guidelines and other \ninstruments for operationalizing decentralized services under the PDM are issued \nbefore the commencement of the Financial Year. \nMy audit of the program implementation revealed the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the FY 2021/22 169 LGs received UGX.108,857,715,367 for \nimplementation of PDM activities without guidance on how the funds should be \nutilised. The guidelines/directives on utilisation of the PDM funds were issued \ntowards the end of the financial year after the funds had been released. \n \n\uf0b7 \nMy interaction with the LG Accounting Officers revealed that when the guidance \nwas issued, they were in many instances contradicting. For instance, while the \nPDM secretariat guided that funds should go direct to PDM SACCO accounts in", "metadata": {"page": 83, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "commercial banks, the PSST guided that the funds should be sent to the entity \ngeneral fund account. While the PDM secretariat required that LGs procure \ngadgets and tools following the PPDA guidelines, PSST guided that funds for \ngadgets and tools be repurposed to the parish revolving fund. \n \nThe lack of clear guidance and conflicting directives affected program implementation \nthereby causing a number of challenges as listed below; \n \na) Repurposing of funds \n \nI noted that UGX. 17,891,724,298 was repurposed from gadgets and tools, staff \ncosts and administrative costs to the revolving fund in 146 LGs without \nauthorisation contrary to Regulation 16(1) of the PFMR, 2016 that requires an \nAccounting Officer to request the Minister for approval to vary, within a vote, the \namount of money allocated to the vote. \n \nTherefore, the initially planned activities under gadgets and tools, staff costs and", "metadata": {"page": 83, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "administrative costs were not be implemented. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed this to the late dissemination of the guidelines \nfor the utilisation of the PDM funds and the directives from the PSST to repurpose \nfunds for staff costs and gadgets and tools to the revolving fund.", "metadata": {"page": 83, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "68 \n \nI advised the PSST to ensure that repurposing of appropriated funds is done within \nthe law. \n \nb) Under funding of PDM SACCOs \n \nAnalysis of funds disbursed to SACCOs revealed that 8,703 SACCOs received \nvarying amounts ranging from UGX.2,365,097 to UGX.17,812,103. I also noted \nthat 1,502 SACCOs in 70 LGs did not receive any funding. \n \nThe funding variations were due to lack of accurate data on the number of \nparishes. \n \nThis may affect program implementation and attainment of objectives of wealth \ncreation and employment generation at the Parish level. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the failure to fund all SACCOs to shortfalls in \nreleases. \nI advised MoFPED to ensure that baseline data is collected by UBOS to inform the", "metadata": {"page": 84, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "subsequent PDM disbursement and other decisions. \n \nc) Payment of PDM SACCOs before registration \n \nGuidance 16 by the PSST in the letter referenced EDP86/103/02 and dated 25th \nMay 2022 required Accounting Officers to register PDM SACCOs on IFMS after duly \nregistering them under the Cooperative Societies Act (as amended) and signing a \nFinancing Agreement. \n \nI noted that in 49 LGs, a total of UGX.29,523,564,220 for revolving funds was \ntransferred to 3,214 SACCOs that were neither registered under the Cooperative \nSocieties Act nor had signed Parish Revolving Fund (PRF) Financing Agreements. \n \nThis led to funding of ineligible SACCOs which negatively affected the objective of \nwealth creation and employment generation. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that this was done to avoid the sweep back of \nfunds to the consolidated account. The Accounting Officers further explained that", "metadata": {"page": 84, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the process of registering SACCOs was ongoing. \n \nI advised the MoLG (PDM secretariat) to ensure that Accounting Officers expedite \nthe registration of PDM SACCOs and ensure that the PRF Financing Agreements \nare signed. \n \nd) Failure to send funds directly to the PDM SACCO \n \nGuideline 3.6.1(c) of the step-by-step guide for rolling out the PDM at the \ncommunity level issued in May 2022 by the PDM secretariat requires that the funds \nshould be channelled directly to beneficiary PDM SACCO\u2019s accounts. \n \nContrary to the above, I noted that funds amounting to UGX.79,214,076,265 were \nreleased by MoFPED to the District accounts instead of the beneficiary PDM SACCO \naccounts.", "metadata": {"page": 84, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "69 \n \nAs a result, 5 LGs diverted a total of UGX.358,069,571 from the revolving fund to \nadministrative activities without the PSST\u2019s guidance. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the mandate to release funds lies with \nMoFPED for which they had no control. \n \nI advised the PSST to ensure that funds are channelled directly to the PDM SACCOs \nin line with the guidance. \n \ne) Un-utilised funds on SACCO accounts \n \nI noted that a total of UGX.79,214,076,265 revolving funds paid to 8,703 SACCOs \nin 169 LGs remained idle on the SACCO bank accounts. \n \nFailure to timely utilise disbursed funds delays the achievement of the PDM \nobjectives of improving community livelihoods and will also compromise recovery \nof the advanced funds.", "metadata": {"page": 85, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Accounting Officers attributed the non-utilisation of the funds to the halting \nof PDM activities due to insufficient funds to commence the SACCO operations, \ndelays to register SACCOs and lack of guidance on funds utilisation. \n \nI advised the PDM Secretariat and MoFPED to resolve the implementation \nchallenges so that the SACCO operations can commence. \n \nf) \nIrregularities in recruitment of parish chiefs \n \nThese funds were meant for the recruitment and payment of salaries for the Parish \nChiefs whose main role is to mobilize, sensitize and create awareness on PDM \nprograms to the community, as well as coordinate and support implementation of \nPDM activities among others. \n \nI noted irregularities in the recruitment of parish chiefs. For instance, in Butaleja \nDLG, 15 out of the 39 parish chiefs recruited, had forged academic documents,", "metadata": {"page": 85, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "resulting in loss of government funds worth UGX.12,328,680 which the Accounting \nOfficer had started recovering. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to revoke the appointment letters of the affected \npersons and recover the paid funds. In addition, the matter should be forwarded \nto other government investigative agencies for follow up. \n \ng) Unaccounted for funds \n \nI noted that funds amounting to UGX.594,792,251 in 5 LGs relating to \nadministrative costs, staff costs and gadgets and tools were not adequately \nsupported with the requisite documentation. \n \nThe unaccounted for funds are likely to be mismanaged due to delayed \naccountability and there is risk that the funds may not have been utilised for the \nintended purposes.", "metadata": {"page": 85, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "70 \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the failure to account to the ongoing program \nactivities and delayed submission of accountabilities by the respective staff. \n \nI advised MoLG to ensure that Accounting Officers adequately account for all the \nPDM funds utilised. \n \nConclusion \n \nIn a bid to address the challenges in the implementation of the PDM, Government \nthrough MoFPED should harmonise the issuance of guidelines and ensure all guidelines \nare issued through the PDM secretariat. Considering that the SACCOs have been \nfunded, the PDM Secretariat should guide on funds utilisation to enable \nimplementation of enterprise activities leading to wealth creation and employment. \n3.12 Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) \nUganda is Africa\u2019s largest refugee hosting country with over 1.5 million refugees and \nasylum-seekers. This has occasioned social, economic and environmental needs to the", "metadata": {"page": 86, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "host communities and the displaced (refugees and returnees). \n \nIn response to these needs, the GoU, through the Office of the Prime Minister, \nimplemented the Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP), \naimed at improving access to basic social services, expanding economic opportunities \nand enhancing environmental management in the 15 districts. \n \nDespite the achievements of the programme, such as increased earnings of vulnerable \ncommunities, improved infrastructures and provision of alternative energy sources \namong others, the overall implementation of the project has been slow with notable \nchallenges. \n \nDuring the FY 2021/22, 15 LGs received UGX.211,983,309,284 from Central \nGovernment to implement various activities under DRDIP. Below are my summary \nfindings, details of which are included in the individual reports that have been issued \nseparately; \n3.12.1 Funding and Absorption", "metadata": {"page": 86, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.12.1 Funding and Absorption \nThe approved budget allocation for DRDIP for the FY 2021/22 for the 15 districts was \nUGX.285,140,369,146, out of which, only UGX.211,983,309,284 (74%) was received, \nleading to a shortfall of UGX.73,157,059,862 (26%), as shown in the table below and \nAppendix 6 a.", "metadata": {"page": 86, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "71 \n \nTable 31: Funding and absorption of 7.2 \nDevelopment \nResponse \nto \nDisplacement Impacts Project \nSN \nPurpose \nBudgeted \namount - UGX \nReleased \namount by \nOPM - UGX \nUtilised \namount by the \nDLGs - UGX \nUnutilised \nfunds - UGX \n1 \nSocial \nand \nEconomic \nServices Infrastructure \n195,564,238,35\n3 \n154,667,673,38\n9 \n142,866,878,89\n1 \n11,800,794,498 \n2 \nSustainable Environmental \nManagement \n40,033,537,720", "metadata": {"page": 87, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "19,558,580,728 \n18,689,049,164 \n869,531,564 \n3 \nLivelihoods Program \n39,530,477,364 \n30,230,194,334 \n29,784,194,334 \n446,000,000 \n4 \nDRDIP Operations \n10,012,115,709 \n7,526,860,833 \n7,216,183,732 \n310,677,101 \n \nTotal \n285,140,369,146 \n211,983,309,284 \n198,556,306,12\n1 \n13,427,003,163", "metadata": {"page": 87, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Out of the total receipts of UGX.211,983,309,284, only UGX.198,556,306,121 (94%) \nwas spent, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.13,427,003,163 (6%). \n \nAs a result of the failure to utilise all funds released, 46 subprojects in the 2 LGs were \nnot funded, which affects the attainment of the program objective of providing support \nto the poor and vulnerable people in the refugee hosting areas. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the mandate to release funds lies with the \nDRDIP secretariat at OPM. \n \nI advised the PSST to release funds in accordance with the appropriation. \n3.12.2 Delayed Implementation of subprojects for the FY 2021/22 \nI reviewed the DRDIP approved work plans, performance reports and undertook audit", "metadata": {"page": 87, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "inspections to ascertain the status of implementation of the subprojects and \ncompliance with the project guidelines. I made the following observations and the \ndetails are in appendix 6 b to d; \n \na) Infrastructure subprojects \n \nUGX.142,866,878,891 was released by OPM and subsequently disbursed by the \nrespective districts to 192 subprojects for construction, rehabilitation or expansion of \nbasic social services such as education, human health facilities; and economic \ninfrastructure such as roads and market structures. A review of the progress reports \nand interviews with the DRDIP liaison officer revealed the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \n182 subprojects that received UGX.135,411,714,542 in 15 districts had not \ncommenced construction activities for which they were funded by the end of the \nfinancial year. \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 87, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOnly 4 subprojects that received UGX.1,400,664,349 in Arua and Koboko DLGs \nwere ongoing as at the close of the financial year. \n \n\uf0b7 \n6 subprojects that received UGX.6,054,500,000 in Kamwenge and Koboko DLGs \nhad fully implemented the planned activities as at the close of the financial year. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the delayed implementation of infrastructure \nsubprojects to late release of funds, with most of the funds being received in the last \nquarter of the financial year.", "metadata": {"page": 87, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "72 \n \nb) Livelihoods Program \n \nUGX.29,784,194,334 was released by OPM and subsequently disbursed by 13 districts \nto 668 subproject groups for small businesses, skills-based jobs, and service \nenterprises. A review of the progress reports and interviews with the DRDIP liaison \nofficers revealed the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \n307 subprojects groups that received UGX.12,847,363,682 in 8 districts had not \ncommenced as at the close of the financial year. \n \n\uf0b7 \n149 subprojects groups that received UGX.8,223,780,652 in 5 districts were \nongoing as at the close of the financial year. \n \n\uf0b7 \n212 subprojects groups that received UGX.8,713,050,000 in Kamwenge, Isingiro", "metadata": {"page": 88, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and Obongi districts were fully implemented as at the close of the financial year. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the delayed implementation of infrastructure \nsubprojects to late release of funds, with most of the funds being received in the last \nquarter of the financial year. \n \nc) Sustainable environmental management \n \nBy the close of the financial year, all the Sustainable Environmental Management \nactivities had not commenced in all the 309 subprojects in 15 DLGs, yet a sum of \nUGX.19,703,894,013 was released by OPM. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed it to suspension of activities owing to an \ninvestigation by the Inspectorate of Government. \n \nDue to the delayed commencement of the subprojects and suspension of sustainable \nenvironment management subprojects, UGX.161,993,299,642 was lying idle on the", "metadata": {"page": 88, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "subprojects\u2019/ subgroups\u2019 bank accounts as at 30th June 2022. Therefore, the program \nobjective of providing services and support to the vulnerable communities may not be \nachieved. \n \nI advise MoFPED to timely release funds to enable timely implementation of planned \nactivities leading to attainment of program objectives. \n3.12.3 Lack of environment and social management plans \nSection 4.2 of the DRDIP Operation Manual, 2019 provides for an Environmental and \nSocial Management Framework (ESMF). The ESMF provides for the identification of \nlikely environmental and social impacts, development of environment and social \nmanagement plans, identification of appropriate mitigation measures as well as \nmethods of monitoring and reporting of mitigation implementation with a view of \nachieving a sustainable socio economic development. \n \nI noted that 57 subprojects that received funding totalling UGX.12,285,464,249 in 5 \ndistricts lacked environment and social management plans. Details are in appendix 6 \ne.", "metadata": {"page": 88, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "73 \n \nThis hinders the implementation of corrective action against negative environmental \nand social effects of the subprojects. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the lack of the environmental and social \nmanagement plans to the failure by Ministry of Works and Transport to conduct \nenvironmental assessment as per the DRDIP guidelines. \n \nI advised Ministry of Works and Transport to expedite the environmental assessment \nprocess and produce the environmental and social management plans to inform the \nenvironmental mitigation activities. \n3.12.4 Inspections of service delivery activities FYs 2019/20 and 2020/21 \nThe FY2021/22 (year under review) activities were largely not implemented. I \ntherefore undertook inspection of subprojects and subgroups funded in the FYs \n2019/20 and 2020/21 and observed the following details of which are in appendix f. \n \n\uf0b7 \n85 infrastructure and sustainable environment subprojects were completed and", "metadata": {"page": 89, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were operational while 39 livelihood subgroups were ongoing at the time of audit. \n \n\uf0b7 \nOf the 85 infrastructure and sustainable environment subprojects, 32 \ninfrastructure subprojects worth UGX.11,447,182,034 had not been put to use \nby the communities, by the time of inspection. These subprojects included; Morta \nbridge in Yumbe had no access road, Out-Patients Departments, maternity \nwards, among others. \n \n\uf0b7 \n179 sustainable environment subprojects worth UGX.9,949,108,151 had stalled. \n \n\uf0b7 \n70 \nsustainable \nenvironmental \nmanagement \nsubprojects \nworth \nUGX.3,353,875,333 had not commenced due to ongoing investigations by the \nInspectorate of Government. \n \nIdle projects undermine the objective of the projects and deprive the community of", "metadata": {"page": 89, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the intended services/benefits. \n \nFailure to put in use completed infrastructure subprojects, delays in implementation of \nsubprojects and subgroups, and failure to complete the infrastructure subprojects was \nattributed to none appointment of contract managers. Indeed, I noted that 3 LGs did \nnot \nappoint \ncontract \nmanagers \nto \naid \nin \nthe \nimplementation \nof \nthe \nUGX.21,860,851,866 sub projects. \n \nSimilarly, the failure to put in use completed infrastructure subprojects, delays in \nimplementation of subprojects and subgroups, and failure to complete the \ninfrastructure subprojects was attributed to failure to undertake monitoring and \nsupervision of the subprojects by the LGs and OPM. Indeed, I noted that M&E was not", "metadata": {"page": 89, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "undertaken in 2 DLGs in the year under review because the sub projects had not yet \nbeen implemented. \nThe Accounting Officers explained that monitoring of subprojects and subgroups is \nbeing done by the implementing partners with limited support of the District staff.", "metadata": {"page": 89, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "74 \n \nI advised the OPM and Accounting Officers to ensure that adequate monitoring and \nsupervision of the subprojects and subgroups. The Accounting Officers were further \nadvised to expedite the implementation of all stalled activities. \n3.12.5 Idle funds on completed subproject accounts \nI reviewed the implementation of infrastructure subprojects funded in the FYs 2018/19, \n2019/20 and 2020/21, and noted UGX.2,751,804,956 in 66 subprojects in 3 districts \nremained unutilised after completion of the planned subproject activities. These funds \nare lying idle in commercial bank accounts of the respective subprojects. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that this due to lack of specific guidance from OPM \non how to manage the unutilised funds on subproject accounts. \n \nI advised OPM to recover the unutilised funds and going forward, issue guidelines on", "metadata": {"page": 90, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the utilisation of the unspent funds. \n3.12.6 Funding of non-existent subprojects \nThree unapproved subprojects were supported with a total of UGX.2,777,500,000 in \nLamwo DLG contrary to Section 5.6 of the DRDIP Operation Manual, 2019 requiring \napproval of all subproject plans/proposals by OPM. \nI further inspected the purported subprojects and noted that they were non-existent, \nas detailed in the table below; \nTable 32: Funding of non-existent subprojects \nSN Name of the subproject \nAmount (UGX) \nAudit remark \n1. \nConstruction of Community Centre \nand Fencing at Palabek Gem Zone \none Block 1. \n1,212,000,000 \n\uf0b7 No documents availed in \nsupport of existence of the \nproject.", "metadata": {"page": 90, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "project. \n\uf0b7 Project does not exist in the \nDRDIP \nManagement \nInformation System (MIS). \n\uf0b7 UGX.800m was recovered \nfrom an individual, who had \nirregularly withdrawn funds \nfrom the subproject account \nbetween 9th November, 2021 \nand 30th April, 2022. The \ncase was reported at Lamwo \nPolice \nstation \nSD \nRef \n11/04/05/2022. \n2. \nDesign and construction of Sludge \nDrying Beds for Management of \nFeacal Matter plus 1km Access Road \nfor Palabek Refugee settlement in \nPalabek Ogili Sub County. \n1,010,000,000 \n\uf0b7 No documents availed in \nsupport of existence of the \nproject. \n\uf0b7 Project does not exist in the \nDRDIP", "metadata": {"page": 90, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "DRDIP \nManagement \nInformation System (MIS). \n3. \nConstruction of Dormitory at Paludah \nS.S.S, 1 block for boys and 1 block \nfor girls and School fencing in \nPalabek Ogili Sub County. \n555,500,000 \n\uf0b7 No documents availed in \nsupport of existence of the \nproject. \n\uf0b7 Project does not exist in the \nDRDIP \nManagement \nInformation System (MIS). \n \nTotal \n2,777,500,000", "metadata": {"page": 90, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "75 \n \nFunding of unapproved projects, led to the misappropriation of funds in the \nConstruction of Community Centre and Fencing at Palabek Gem Zone one Block 1 \nsubproject. \n \nThe Accounting Officer promised to institute an investigation into the transfer of funds \nfor the design and construction of sludge drying beds at Palabek Refugee settlement \nin Palabek Ogili Sub County and construction of dormitory at Paludah S.S.S. The \nAccounting Officer further explained that the funding of the construction of community \ncentre and fencing at Palabek Gem Zone one Block 1 is under investigation by IGG. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to expedite the recovery of funds and consult the \nAccountant General on where the funds should be remitted. \n3.12.7 Procurement irregularities \nI noted a number of procurement irregularities in the implementation of DRDIP \nprogram which are illustrated below; \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 91, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \n99 procurements in the districts of Arua, Terego and Obongi worth \nUGX.4,646,434,329 were not cleared by the subproject Community Project \nManagement Committees and Community Procurement Committees. These \nprocurements were not undertaken by the communities but rather by OPM and \ntherefore the selected contractors were rejected. \n \n\uf0b7 \n1 procurement worth UGX.250,000,000 in Yumbe DLG was awarded to a \ncontractor who lacked capacity as required by the procurement selection criteria. \nSubsequently, the contractor abandoned the works. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the procurement of the service providers were \nundertaken by OPM without the involvement of the communities. \n \nI advised OPM to harmonise the DRDIP guidelines with the procurement laws to guide \nthe process of procuring contractors. \n3.13 Implementation of Micro Scale Irrigation Programme", "metadata": {"page": 91, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Government of Uganda is implementing the micro scale irrigation programme in \n47 LGs with the aim of supporting smallholder farmers transition from subsistence to \ncommercial agriculture through the provision of irrigation equipment. \n \nThe programme objectives include; building awareness of farmers on the importance \nof irrigation equipment in commercial farming, and provision of irrigation equipment \nto farmers to promote regular production output. \n \nDuring the FY 2021/22, 40 LGs received UGX.49,038,618,192 from Central \nGovernment to implement various activities under micro scale irrigation. \n \nI designed procedures to establish whether the farmers were properly selected, funds \nbudgeted and transferred to support individual farmers to purchase and use micro-\nscale irrigation equipment in accordance with the program guidelines. Below are my \nobservations;", "metadata": {"page": 91, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "76 \n \n3.13.1 Budget allocation of programme expenditure by category \nParagraph 3.1 of the grant, budget and implementation guidelines-Micro Scale \nIrrigation states that the Micro Scale Irrigation Grant will fund two types of expenditure \ncategories: (i) capital development (micro scale irrigation equipment) (75%) and (ii) \ncomplementary services (25%). \n \nI noted, 8 LGs allocated 71% for capital development and 29% for complementary \nservices contrary to the guidelines that require the allocation to be 75% and 25% \nrespectively as shown in the table below and appendix 7 a. \n \nTable 33: Budget allocation of programme expenditure by category \nItem \nRevised \nbudget - UGX \n% Allocation \nof the total \nbudget \nVariance \n(%) \nCapital Development (micro scale \nirrigation equipment) (75%)", "metadata": {"page": 92, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "irrigation equipment) (75%) \n4,840,551,221 \n71% \n(4%) \nComplementary services (25%) \n1,963,248,498 \n29% \n4% \nTotal \n6,803,799,719 \n100% \n0% \n \nFailure to budget according to the set thresholds led to diversion of funds to non-\npriority activities thus hindering achievement of intended program objectives. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the mandate of determine IPFs and release of \nfunds lies with MoFPED for which we have no control. \n \nI advised MoFPED to allocate funds in accordance with the guidelines. \n3.13.2 Slow program implementation \nI noted that 40 LGs budgeted to receive UGX.50,081,789,451 for micro scale irrigation", "metadata": {"page": 92, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "program, out of which UGX.49,038,618,192 (98%) was warranted resulting into a \nshortfall of UGX.1,043,171,259 (2%). Out of the total receipts of UGX.49,038,618,192, \nUGX.20,723,330,043 (42%) was spent resulting into unutilised funds of \nUGX.28,315,288,149. \n \nIncluded in the UGX.49,038,618,192 is UGX.36,501,761,177 released to 40 LGs to \nprocure 3,681 micro scale irrigation equipment for farmers; However, only \nUGX.9,662,606,574 (26%) was utilised to procure irrigation equipment for 479 (13%) \nfarmers. Refer to the table below: \n \nTable 34: Slow Program implementation \nItem", "metadata": {"page": 92, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Item \nRevised budget - \nUGX \nWarrants/ \nRelease - UGX \nTotal \nexpenditure - \nUGX \nUnspent - UGX \n% \nabsorpti\non \nCapital \nDevelopment \n(micro \nscale \nirrigation \nequipment) \n(75%) \n37,690,186,415 \n36,501,761,177 \n9,662,606,574 \n26,839,154,603 \n26 \nComplementary \nservices (25%) \n12,391,603,036 \n12,536,857,015 \n11,060,723,469 \n1,476,133,546 \n88 \nTotal \n88 \nTotal \n50,081,789,451 \n49,038,618,192 \n20,723,330,043 \n28,315,288,149 \n42", "metadata": {"page": 92, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "77 \n \nI reviewed the status of implementation of the Micro-Scale Irrigation-Development \nunder Production and Marketing and noted slow progress as indicated below and in \nappendix 7 b and 7 c; \n \n\uf0b7 \n10 LGs did not utilise any of the funds warranted for procurement of irrigation \nequipment of UGX.9,778,756,031. These included; Luuka, Sironko, Kyotera, \nTororo, Bududa, Kamuli, Mubende, Manafwa, Kapchorwa and Ntungamo DLGs. \n \n\uf0b7 \n23 LGs planned and sensitised 31,487 farmers to educate them on the benefits \nof irrigation and the importance of co-funding. I also noted that 16 LGs did not \nplan to sensitise farmers despite allocating funds for procurement irrigation \nequipment. \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 93, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total of farmers who were sensitised, only 8,781 farmers expressed \ninterest to uptake the irrigation equipment, out of which, only 642 co-funded \nUGX.2,212,604,768 to receive equipment worth UGX.9,393,753,304. \n \n\uf0b7 \n479 farmers who co-funded received irrigation equipment. 190 farmers did not \nreceive \nirrigation \nequipment \ndespite \npaying \nthe \nco-funding \nworth \nUGX.168,172,295. \n \n\uf0b7 \n27 farmers received irrigation equipment worth UGX.680,694,598 without paying \nco-funding while some farmers received irrigation equipment worth \nUGX.329,281,703 with partial co-funding. This was contrary to the program \nguideline and therefore irregular.", "metadata": {"page": 93, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The slow implementation exposes the farmers to adverse effects caused by the \nchanges in weather thus affecting the crop yields. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the under absorption to program design challenges \nwhich include: inefficient training and sensitisation mechanism, high co-funding rates \nand high cost of the irrigation equipment compared to the market prices. \n \nI advised MAAIF to consider redesigning the program with the view of making the co-\nfunding affordable for small scale farmers. \n3.13.3 Inspections of service delivery \nI carried out inspections in 28 LGs where irrigation equipment worth \nUGX.8,171,521,507 to 479 farmers was procured and delivered to ascertain whether \nthe irrigation equipment was in use and observed that a number of equipment were \nnot operational because of the following: \n\uf0b7 \nThe concrete stands to hold the tanks were incomplete and therefore the water \ntanks that support the irrigation equipment could not be installed.", "metadata": {"page": 93, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe water sources were shallow and therefore the water pump could not pump \nadequate water need for the gardens. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe water tank stands were not of the required height to enable adequate flow \nof water.", "metadata": {"page": 93, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "78 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe contractor had delivered under capacity tanks than required 10,000 litre \nwater tanks and therefore underutilising the irrigation equipment. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe drag hose pipes were not yet been fitted to enable the flow of water to \nthe garden hence making the equipment idle. \n \nThe challenges in the functionality of the irrigation equipment were attributed to the \nfailure by LGs to carry out monitoring and supervision of the installation of the \nequipment supplied to farmers. This was due to inadequate resources to the District \nProduction Departments that undertake the supervision of the irrigation activities. \n \nI advised Government through MAAIF to ensure that Accounting Officers have \nadequate resources to undertake supervision activities. \n3.14 Support to organised groups for improvement of people\u2019s livelihood \nSupport to Micro Projects is a Government of Uganda programme which is part of the", "metadata": {"page": 94, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Peace, Recovery and Development Plan 2 (PRDP 2) in Bunyoro, Teso and Luwero-\nRwenzori regions. The program aims at enhancing Household Incomes through \nmobilizing communities for social economic development and peace building to spur \neconomic recovery of the supported communities. \n \nHowever, previous OAG audits have highlighted challenges in the management and \nimplementation of the grant. These challenges include: lack of accountability, \nInadequate monitoring, and exclusion of district technical teams in the appraisal and \napproval of supported groups among others. \n \nIt is against this background that I audited the implementation of Micro Projects to \nestablish whether the funds released to the groups were utilized in accordance with \nthe guidelines. \n \nDuring the FY 2021/22, 24 LGs received UGX.2,471,262,293 from Central Government \nto fund Micro Projects. \n \nBelow is a summary of my findings, details of which are included in individual reports", "metadata": {"page": 94, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "that have been issued separately; \n \nA. \nUnder funding of micro projects \n \nGuideline 6.0 of the Grants to support Household Income Enhancement Projects under \nSpecial Programmes 2020 requires the Office of the Prime Minister OPM to give \nIndicative Planning Figures (IPFs) to LGs in advance to enable the entities adequate \nplanning for the micro projects. \n \nI noted that 24 LGs budgeted to receive UGX.5,429,565,605 to fund 543 micro \nprojects. However, only UGX.2,471,262,293 (46%) was received to fund 318 (58%) \nmicro projects leaving the 225 micro projects unfunded. Details are in appendix 8 a. \n \nI further noted that out of UGX.2,471,262,293 received, 6 LGs failed to absorb \nUGX.201,550,293 (8%). The under absorption hindered the achievement of the \nprogram objective.", "metadata": {"page": 94, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "79 \n \nThis was attributed to failure by OPM to provide appropriate IPFs based on the number \nmicro projects planned for by the LGs. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the Indicative Planning Figures are issued by \nMoFPED for which they had no control while under absorption was attributed to delay \nin release of funds by MoFPED. \n \nI advised the MoFPED to timely fund budgets as appropriated by Parliament. \n \nB. \nDelayed disbursement of funds \n \nGuideline 11.2 (e and f) of the Grants to support Household Income Enhancement \nProjects under Special Programmes, 2020 requires the district to disburse/transfer \nfunds to the respective beneficiary groups/institution and ensure proper and timely \naccountability of Programme funds released to the beneficiary groups.", "metadata": {"page": 95, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I noted that OPM delayed to disburse funds to the 20 LGs. As a result, the LGs also \ndelayed to disburse UGX.836,470,000 to the 168 groups with delays of up to 9 months. \nDetails are in appendix 8 a. \n \nAs a result of the delayed disbursement, the activity implementation at the group level \nhad not started thus the program objective of enhancing household incomes was not \nachieved. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed this to the delays in execution of the appraisal and \nverification processes of target groups. \n \nI advise OPM to always provide Indicative planning figures in advance to enable the \nentities adequately plan for the program. \n \nC. \nUnaccounted for funds \n \nI noted that in 7 LGs failed to account for UGX.248,510,000 meant to support the", "metadata": {"page": 95, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "implementation of micro projects in community based groups. Details are in appendix \n8 a. \n \nThis was attributed to failure by management to appraise and enforce the internal \ncontrols regarding accountability for funds advanced for micro projects activities. \n \nI advised OPM to ensure that the Accounting Officers adequately account for the funds \nreleased for the support to the micro projects. \n \nD. \nFailure to maintain a beneficiary data base \n \nGuideline (7.3) of the Guidelines for Grants to support Household Income \nEnhancement Projects under Special Programmes 2020 states that the group must not \nhave benefited from other Government program in the last two years. \n \nI noted that 5 LGs did not maintain a data base of beneficiaries contrary to grant \nguideline 7.3. I further noted that out of 19 LGs who maintained a data base of \nbeneficiaries, 17 LGs maintained a manual data base while 2 LGs maintained electronic \ndata base as shown in the table below.", "metadata": {"page": 95, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "80 \n \nTable 35: status of beneficiary databases \nSN Category \nNumber of LGs \nElectronic \nManual \n1 Maintained a data base \n19 \n2 \n17 \n2 Did not maintain \n5 \n0 \n0 \n \nTotal \n24 \n2 \n17 \n \nI could not rule out the possibility of multiple government funding to groups. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the Accountant General had recently introduced \na policy of e-registration for all groups which would resolve the current challenge. \n \nI advised the Accountant General to expedite the introduction and rollout of the e-\nregistration for all groups. \n \nE. \nFunding of groups above the maximum threshold", "metadata": {"page": 96, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Guideline 5.6 for Grants to support Household Income Enhancement Projects under \nSpecial Programmes issued on September 2020 requires funding to groups of people \nand progressive individuals to be between 1,000,000/= and 10,000,000/= depending \non the nature of the project and group numbers. In some special cases with the \nexpress authority of the Political Leadership, the grant may be increased after \nevaluation of the need. \n \nI noted that 33 groups in 5 LGs were supported beyond the maximum funding \nthreshold resulting into an excess payment of UGX.221,000,000 without authorization \nfrom political leadership as required by the grant guidelines. Details are in appendix \n8 b. \n \nThis limited the number of groups that should have benefited from the grant and \ncontravenes the limits set in the guideline. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that these groups received funding directly form \nOPM for which they had no control.", "metadata": {"page": 96, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I advised OPM to consider funding groups through the district administration and in \naccordance with the set thresholds. \n \nF. \nPhysical inspection of supported micro projects \n \nGuideline 8.3 requires OPM to carry out desk appraisal and thereafter conduct field \nverification in collaboration with the Local Governments of the funded groups or \nindividuals. \n \nI conducted inspection of the projects to ascertain whether the projects existed and \nimplementation was in line with the guidelines. I made the following observations \ndetails of which are in appendix 8 b. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that 2 micro projects in Nakasongola DLG funded with UGX.25,000,000 \nwere non-existent groups. \n\uf0b7 \nI also noted that 18 groups in 10 LGs implemented un-approved activities worth \nUGX.104,320,000.", "metadata": {"page": 96, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "81 \n \nThis resulted in a diversion of funds and hindered the Government\u2019s objective of \nenhancing Household Incomes. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the funds that were released to the groups \nwere less than the initial IPFs as determined by OPM. This resulted into diversion of \nfunds to undertake affordable enterprise activities on the premise that the funds \navailable were insufficient. \n \nI advised OPM to provide sufficient funding for approved group activities. \n3.15 Operationalization of new cities \nOn 28th April, 2020, Parliament approved the creation of 15 new cities in Uganda, in \nline with Article 179 (1) (A) of the Constitution out of which 10 cities were \noperationalized. \n \nThe creation of these Cities brought on board 42 sub-counties, five (5) Town Council \nand merged 28 Municipality Divisions into 20 new City Divisions to form the ten (10) \nnew Cities.", "metadata": {"page": 97, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "new Cities. \n \nThe creation was meant to attract good quality leaders, facilitate improved delivery of \nservices and meet the expectations of the Citizens. \n \nDuring the audit of Financial Year 2020/21, a number of challenges were identified \nincluding; funding the operations of the new cities, restructuring of the staff \nestablishment following annexation of lower local governments, lack of guidance from \nthe Minister of Local Government on equitable sharing of assets among affected LGs, \nand transfer of liabilities. \nDuring the Financial Year 2021/22, I noted that the challenges have persisted despite \nmy earlier recommendations. In addition, I noted that there are challenges in financial \nreporting. \n \nDuring the FY 2021/22, 10 Cities received UGX.427,337,108,536 from Central \nGovernment to fund the operations of Cities. Below is a summary of my findings, \ndetails of which are included in individual reports that have been issued separately and \nin appendix 9 of this report;", "metadata": {"page": 97, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "in appendix 9 of this report; \n3.15.1 Un utilised funds \nI noted that out of the total receipts of UGX.427,337,108,536 for the financial year, \nUGX.371,283,149,009 (87%) was spent by the Cities resulting in an unspent balance \nof UGX.41,220,515,164 (13%). The unspent warrants remained utilised at the end of \nthe financial year. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the most of the unabsorbed funds were for \nUSMID project which were affected by delay in design reviews by the consultants hired \nby the USMID secretariat in the Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development. \n \nI advised the MoLHUD to expedite the completion of the USIMD project designs.", "metadata": {"page": 97, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "82 \n \n3.15.2 Revenue sharing \nSection 85(1) of the Local Governments Act, CAP 243, (as amended) requires that the \nCity and Municipal Council\u2019s revenue shall be collected by the Division Councils, and a \nDivision Council shall retain 50 percent of all the revenue it collects in its area of \njurisdiction and remit 50 percent to the City or Municipal Council. \n \nParagraph 78 of the Budget Execution Circular (BEC) for the FY 2021/2022, issued by \nthe PS/ST reminded the Cities to utilize 50 percent of the total revenues collected at \nthe centre and the remaining 50 percent to be utilized at the Divisions. \n \nOut of the budgeted local revenue collections of UGX.37,963,421,372, 8 Cities \ncollected UGX.20,061,189,792 out of which UGX.10,030,594,896 was supposed to be", "metadata": {"page": 98, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "remitted to the Divisions. It was however observed that only UGX.9,621,037,504 \n(96%) was remitted leading to under remittance of UGX.409,557,393 (4%). Under \nremittance of shared revenue affected implementation of planned activities at the \ndivision level. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed this to funding challenges which forced the cities to \nutilise the funds at the Headquarters. \n \nI advised MoLG and MoFPED to ensure that the Accounting Officers always comply \nwith the requirement of the Local Governments Act and Guidance of the PS/ST with \nregards to revenue sharing. \n3.15.3 Delayed implementation of the approved City structure \nAccording to the Guidelines for the implementation of the City structures, the Cabinet \nunder minute 21 (CT 2022) approved the recommended mandate, strategic objectives, \nfunctions, staff structures and proposed wage requirements for the new Cities.", "metadata": {"page": 98, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Guideline 5.6 of these implementation guidelines require City Councils to adopt the \ncustomised structure, implement the structure in accordance with the implementation \nguideline and secure funding for new structure in accordance with Local Government \nFinancial and Accounting Regulations. \n \nI noted that all the cities had not implemented the new approved City structure. \n \nConsequently, these cities have not been able to fill the staffing gaps which has greatly \ndemoralized employees since most of them are in acting capacity thus affecting the \ndelivery of services. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the Cities were yet to receive a validation report \nfrom MoPs to be able to implement the staff establishment. \n \nI advised Government through MoPS to expedite the validation exercise to enable \nrecruitment of staff.", "metadata": {"page": 98, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "83 \n \n3.15.4 Transfer of assets and liabilities \nSection 188 of the Local Governments Act CAP 243, (as amended) provides that at the \ncreation of a new Local Government unit, the Minister shall ensure the equitable \nsharing of property between the original and new Local Governments. \n \nIn a letter dated October 21st 2021, the Attorney General guided all Districts to \nestablish their headquarters outside the Cities\u2019 jurisdiction. The immovable assets will \nnaturally pass on to the Cities while movable assets should equitably be shared \nbetween the LGs and the New Cities as the Minister shall advise in accordance with \nSection 188 of the Local Government Act. \n \nFrom my review of the financial statements, asset registers, board of survey reports \nand interview with management, I made the following observations; \n \na) Lack of guidance on property sharing \n \nI noted that the Minister had not issued guidance on the equitable sharing of movable", "metadata": {"page": 99, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "assets contrary to Section 188 of the Local Governments Act. Consequently, the assets \nof LGs had neither been transferred nor disclosed in the financial statements of the \nCities. \n \nTherefore, the financial statements of the Cities do not reflect the correct financial \nposition at the year end and the assets could be misappropriated during this \ntransitional period. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that this was a challenge for them in the absence \nof guidelines from the Minister responsible for Local Government. \n \nMy interaction with MoLG revealed that there challenges in developing guidelines and \nregulations because the earlier guidance and regulations issued by the Minister of Local \ngovernment where challenged in courts of law and Parliament. MoLG indicated that \nthey were in the process of amending the Local Government Act. \n \nI advised Government through MoLG to expedite the issuance of property sharing \nguidelines to streamline the management and use of these properties.", "metadata": {"page": 99, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "b) Failure to hand over immovable property \n \nI noted that the DLGs from which the 10 Cities were carved have not released \nimmovable property such as administration blocks, land and other assets from sub-\ncounties and divisions that were annexed contrary to guidance of the Attorney General. \n \nThis has created conflicts that have affected the operations of the Cities thus affecting \nservice delivery. \n \nThe Accounting Officers acknowledged the observation and attributed it to lack of \nguidelines from the Minister responsible for Local Government. \n \nGovernment through MoLG should expedite the issuance of property sharing guidelines \nto streamline the management and use of these properties.", "metadata": {"page": 99, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "84 \n \nc) Non-disclosure of liabilities \n \nI noted that there were liabilities in 5 Cities amounting to UGX.1,763,698,264 resulting \nfrom the merger of 75 LLGs. These liabilities were not disclosed in the entities\u2019 financial \nstatements as shown in the table below. \n \nTable 36: Non-disclosure of liabilities \nSN \nCity \nAmount (UGX) \n1. \nJinja \n1,320,853,586 \n2. \nMbarara \n187,992,208 \n3. \nMbale \n75,946,748 \n4. \nSoroti \n12,300,210 \n5. \nFort portal \n166,605,512 \n \nTotal", "metadata": {"page": 100, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Total \n1,763,698,264 \n \nI further noted that Hoima, Lira, Masaka and Arua cities had not reconciled the position \nof liabilities as at the close of the financial year due to insufficient information. \n \nDelayed settlement of these obligations will lead to litigation thus a loss to Government \nthrough court fines. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the liabilities for the Municipal Council were \ntaken over by the Cities and are being settled as and when the funds are made \navailable. \n \nDuring my interaction with the Accountant General indicated that the Office of the \nAccountant General is yet to provide guidance on the presentation and disclosure of \nliabilities. \n \nI advised Government through the MoFPED to ensure that Accounting Officer disclose \nthese arrears in the financial statements and budget for them accordingly. \n3.15.5 Implementation Challenges", "metadata": {"page": 100, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.15.5 Implementation Challenges \nI noted a number of challenges regarding operationalization of the Cities. These have \nbeen summarised in below; \n \n\uf0b7 \nFailure to fund operations. The cities did not receive any additional grants except \nfor increase in wage to cater for salaries of annexed staff. \n\uf0b7 \nLimited Office space and inadequate Office Equipment. \n \nInadequate funding hinders implementation of the Cities\u2019 mandate. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the challenge of sharing of assets between the \nDistrict and City had caused inadequate office accommodation. \n \nI advised MoFPED to ensure that budgeted funds are released to the cities. I also \nadvised the MoLG/ MoFPED to engage development partners for an increase in \nfunding.", "metadata": {"page": 100, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "85 \n \nConclusion \n \nIn the bid to streamline the operationalisation of new cities, there is need for Ministry \nof Local Government to fast track the amendment of the Local Governments Act. \n3.16 Implementation of Uganda Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers (UGIFT) \nDuring the Financial years 2018/2019, 2019/2020, and 2020/2021 Government \nreleased UGX.81,640,150,547 and contracted firms to construction Seed school and \nHealth centres in 43 HLGs. \n \nOver the years the UGIFT program has faced implementation challenges and therefore \nthat projects have either stalled, remained incomplete or have been abandoned raising \nstake holders\u2019 concerns. \n \nConsequently, during the financial year 2021/2022, I sampled 41 projects in Education \nand 58 Health in 43 HLGs to assess the extent of project implementation. I made the \nfollowing observation; \n3.16.1 Failure to absorb project funds", "metadata": {"page": 101, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I noted that a sample of 39 projects in Education and 51 projects failed to absorb funds \navailed to them form implementation of activities and as a result a total of \nUGX.48,596,056,121 remained on projects accounts. \n \nI noted that in 43 HLGs, out of the total receipts of UGX.81,640,150,547, \nUGX.33,044,094,426 was spent representing absorption level of 40%. I further noted \nthere were delays in procurement processes in 40 HLGs which delayed the \ncommencement of works. Details are in appendix 10 a. \n \nUnder absorption of funds limits the implementation of planned activities thus affecting \nservice delivery. \nThe Accounting Officer explained that there was delayed procurement of the \ncontractors as well as delayed release of funds. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to address the bottle necks that impede on the \nimplementation of activities to avoid funds being swept back.", "metadata": {"page": 101, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.16.2 Delayed progress of works/constructions \nI noted slow progress and non-commencement of works in 29 projects with budget \ncosts UGX.21,617,416,824 in 24 HLGs. Details are in appendix 10 b. \n \nOf the delayed 29 projects, there were 2 abandoned projects in 2 HLGs. \n \nA comparison of the expected dates of completion of works and progress at the time \nof audit inspection revealed delays in works ranging from 1 to 42 months. \n \nAs a consequence, the anticipated objective of service delivery to the communities was \nnot achieved. In addition, in order to complete the project, more time will be required \nto re-tender the works causing extra delays to deliver services to the community.", "metadata": {"page": 101, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "86 \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed delayed completion of works to weaknesses in \ncontract supervision, limited capacity of contractors in terms of equipment, finance \nand human resources as well as the effects of Covid-19 restrictions that curtailed \nmobilisation of equipment, materials and manpower. \nI informed the Accounting Officer that the matter will be brought to the attention of \nthe relevant authorities. \n3.16.3 Payments to UPDF Engineers Brigade for Construction Works \nThe MoH and MoLG signed a MoU on 5th November, 2021 with the Ministry of Defence \n& Veterans Affairs (MoDVA) to undertake construction of Health facilities using the \nUPDF Engineers Brigade. \n \nTo operationalise the arrangement, the LGs were also required to sign implementation \nagreements/MoUs with the Engineers Brigade, in which; \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe LGs were to advance 30% funds for the total project cost to the Engineers \nBrigade. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 102, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Brigade. \n\uf0b7 \nPayments to the Engineers Brigade should be supported by certification of \nprevious works by the LG and requisitions for subsequent works done as agreed \nin the drawings, price schedule and BoQs. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Engineers Brigade submits a Project Implementation Schedule to Project \nManagement Teams of the LGs prior to commencement of works, to enable \nprogress monitoring. \n \nDuring my audit, I noted the following; \na) Funds advanced \n \n88 projects in the LGs worth UGX.14,901,441,747 were awarded to the Engineers \nBrigade, of which UGX.12,168,409,694 (82%) had been advanced by year end, \ncontrary to the requirement of advancing 30% of the contract sum. The Accounting \nOfficers attributed it to the guidance by the PS MoH to release all funds meant for the \nconstruction of UgIFT projects to avoid funds being returned to the consolidated fund.", "metadata": {"page": 102, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "By the time of writing this report (December 2022) only UGX.6,819,552,726 (56%) \nhad been released by the Brigade for project implementation with a balance of \nUGX.5,348,856,968 remaining unutilised. \n \nI noted that funds advances were taken as transfers and expensed in the statements \nof financial performance instead of recognizing them as receivables in the statements \nof financial position, thus misstating the entities\u2019 surplus/deficit for the year and thus \nthe closing net financial worth. \n \nDelays in utilization of advanced funds led to delayed completion of projects thus \naffecting timely delivery service to the communities. \n \nb) Status of Projects \n \nAccording to Status report (30 November 2022) on MoLG projects by the Engineers \nbrigade, the physical progress of works for 88 projects was at 47%, as detailed in \nAppendix 10 c. \nAppendix 10 c.", "metadata": {"page": 102, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "87 \n \n \nMy inspection of 81 (92%) projects worth UGX14,744,224,567 revealed that works \nwere still ongoing, while 7 projects in Namutumba DLG worth UGX.157,217,180 had \nnot commenced because land had not been handed over to the Engineers Brigade. \n \nAccounting Officers attributed the delayed commencement of construction works to \nlack of capacity by the Engineers Brigade to implement all LG projects. \n \nI advise Government to ensure that in future timely instructions are communicated to \nLGs to enable implementation of Government projects. Meanwhile the stalled projects \nshould be started and expedited. \n3.16.4 Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development Program \n(USMID-AF) \u2013 Refugee Hosting Districts \nThe Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development Program (USMID-AF) is \na 5 year program being implemented by the Government of Uganda, through the", "metadata": {"page": 103, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (MoLHUD), with the aim of \nenhancing service delivery through improved local infrastructure in 11 Local \nGovernments (LGs) hosting refugees effective Financial Year 2018/2019. \n \nWith the Financial Year 2021/22 being its fourth year of implementation, there has \nbeen a notable delay in the commencement of the infrastructure projects in the \nbeneficiary Districts. \n \nDuring the FY2021/22, MoLHUD transferred UGX.50,119,497,453 to the 11 \nimplementing LGs. I audited the implementation of the program to establish the status \nof implementation and below is a summary of my findings, details of which are included \nin individual reports that have been issued separately; \n \n \nA. \nFunding and Absorption \n \nI reviewed the approved USMID-AF budget allocation for the Financial Year 2021/2022", "metadata": {"page": 103, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and noted that 11 entities had approved total budgets of UGX.54,254,412,669, out of \nwhich, only UGX.50,119,497,453 (92%) was received, leading to a shortfall of \nUGX.4,134,915,216 (8%) as shown in the table below and Appendix 11 a. \n \nTable 37: Funding and absorption of USMID-AF \nSN \nPurpose \nBudgeted \namount - UGX \nReleased \namount - UGX \nUnderfundi\nng - UGX \nUtilised \nWarrants - \nUGX \nUnutilised \nWarrants - \nUGX \n1 \nRehabilitation \n& Construction \nof \ninfrastructure \ninvestments \n51,181,725,732", "metadata": {"page": 103, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "47,483,614,440 \n \n3,698,111,2\n92 \n7,387,708,067 \n40,095,906,37\n3 \n2 \nUSMID-AF \nOperations \n3,072,686,937 \n2,635,883,013 \n436,803,924 \n901,629,009 \n1,734,254,004 \n \nTotal \n54,254,412,669 \n50,119,497,453 \n4,134,915,2\n16 \n8,289,337,076 \n41,830,160,37\n7 \n \nAs a result of the shortfalls in releases, funds available for implementation of USMID- \nAF activities were not sufficient to meet the originally planned activity targets.", "metadata": {"page": 103, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "88 \n \nIn addition, out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.50,119,497,453, only \nUGX.8,195,395,478 (16%) was utilised by the 11 HLGs resulting in an unutilised \nbalance of UGX.41,924,101,975 (84%). Consequently, 31 funded projects were not \nimplemented while 22 funded projects were partially implemented. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the shortfalls to the fact that the funds are released \nat the discretion of the USMID-AF secretariat at MoLHUD. The Accounting Officers also \nattributed the under absorption of funds to the delayed procurement processes owing \nto the delayed dissemination of approved project designs by the USMID-AF Secretariat \nat the MoLHUD. \n \nI advised Government through the MoLHUD to ensure that returned funds are revoted", "metadata": {"page": 104, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "for the implementation of planned activities by the Accounting Officers. \n \nB. \nDelayed Implementation of Infrastructure Investments \n \nI reviewed the USMID-AF approved work plans, performance reports and carried out \nphysical inspections to ascertain the status of implementation of the funded projects \nand made the following observations; \n \n\uf0b7 During F/Y 2020/2021, 8 Districts did not implement 46 infrastructure projects \nfunded at a total of UGX.60,611,012,948 Appendix 11 b refers. \n \n\uf0b7 During F/Y 2021/22, 7 Districts partially implemented 22 infrastructure projects \nfunded at a total of UGX.26,126,296,470. Appendix 11 b refers. Further, 4 \nDistricts did not implement 25 infrastructure projects despite receiving funding \ntotalling UGX.21,387,083,470. Appendix 11 b refers. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed this to the delay by the USMID-AF Secretariat/", "metadata": {"page": 104, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "MoLHUD to avail the districts with approved infrastructure project designs and \nimplementation guidelines. \n \nThe unspent balances were returned to the Consolidated Fund and thus the program \nobjective of ensuring enhanced service delivery through improved local infrastructure \nwas not achieved. \nI advised Government through the MoLHUD to ensure that infrastructure project \ndesigns and implementation guidelines are issued to Accounting Officers timely to \nensure the implementation of planned activities. I further advised the MoLHUD to \nensure that returned funds are revoted for the implementation of planned activities by \nthe Accounting Officers. \n \nC. \nMismatch between USMID work plans and activities implemented \n \nArticle 4 (a) of the Program Participating Agreement requires the Accounting Officer \nto prepare work plans and budgets as required under the Local Governments Act (LGA) \nCap 243, Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), 2015, Public Procurement and", "metadata": {"page": 104, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA), 2006, and other applicable laws and regulations. \n \nUGX.50,119,497,453 meant for the implementation of 47 infrastructure projects in 11 \nLGs were included under Discretionary Development Equalization Grants and not \ndirectly linked to the program, contrary to Article 4 (a) of the Program Participating \nAgreement.", "metadata": {"page": 104, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "89 \n \nFailure to directly link planned activities to the program may lead to diversion of funds \nto unplanned activities thus affecting the achievement of the intended program \nobjectives. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the anomaly to the guidance received from the \nMinistry to plan for the USMID-AF activities under Central Government Transfers. \n \nI advised the MoFPED and MoLHUD to instruct Accounting Officers to ensure that \nUSMID-AF funded activities are directly linked to the program and thus identifiable in \nthe district budget. \n \nD. \nFailure to maintain separate bank accounts for USMID-AF program \nfunds \n \nArticle 4 (e) of the Program Participating Agreement requires the Accounting Officer \nto ensure that a separate Program Bank Account is opened through which program \nfunds are managed. Article 4 (p) of the Program Participating Agreement requires the", "metadata": {"page": 105, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Accounting Officer to ensure that proceeds of the grant and any interest earned are \nused exclusively to fund eligible program activities. \n \nI noted that the beneficiary LGs did not maintain separate bank accounts for the \nUSMID-AF program funds, contrary to Article 4 (e) of the Program Participating \nAgreement. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the funds were managed through the districts\u2019 \nTSA accounts held in Bank of Uganda in accordance with Section 24.6 of the Treasury \nInstructions. \nFailure to maintain a separate bank account for USMID-AF resulted in failure to earn \ninterest revenue from unutilised program funds. Failure to maintain a separate bank \naccount may also result in comingling of funds hence exposing them to diversion. \n \nI advised the Government through MoFPED and MoLHUD to harmonise the \nrequirement for opening a separate bank account and where necessary, ensure that \nthe Accounting Officers open and maintain separate bank accounts for USMID-AF", "metadata": {"page": 105, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "funds in accordance with the program agreement. \n3.17 The Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development in Cities and \nMunicipal Councils \nThe Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (MoLHUD) is implementing \nthe Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development (USMID) Program with \nthe aim of improving urban service delivery in 7 Cities and four Municipal Councils. \n \nDuring \nthe \nFY \n2021/22, \nthe \n11 \nbeneficiary \nurban \ncouncils \nreceived \nUGX.156,321,511,324 from Central Government to implement various activities under \nUSMID. Below is a summary of my findings, details of which are included in individual \nreports that have been issued separately;", "metadata": {"page": 105, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "90 \n \n3.17.1 Funding and absorption of funds \nI reviewed the approved USMID allocation for the Financial Year 2021/2022 and noted \nthat 11 Municipal Councils received UGX.156,321,511,324 as budgeted representing \n100% revenue performance. \n \nOut of the total receipts of UGX.156,321,511,324, only UGX.124,895,998,528 (80%) \nwas spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.31,425,512,796 (20%) as shown in \nthe table below. \n \nTable 38: Funding and absorption of USMID \nYear 2021/22 \nDescription \nApproved Budget \n(A) (UGX) \nRelease (B) (UGX) \nExpenditure \n(C) (UGX) \nUnspent", "metadata": {"page": 106, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unspent \n(B-C) (UGX) \n% \nabsorption \nDevelopm\nent grant \n156,321,511,324 156,321,511,324 \n124,895,998,528 \n31,425,512,796 \n80 \n \nUnder absorption of released funds resulted in non-implementation of planned \nactivities. For example, 8 infrastructure projects worth UGX.12,832,857,565 in Hoima \nCity were not completed. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed this to delayed procurement of contractors by \nMinistry of lands, Housing and Urban Development as well as delays in design review \nby the contractor. \n \nI advised Government through the MoLHUD to ensure that in future, contractual \ndesigns are planned early to avoid delays. In the meantime, the Ministry should ensure", "metadata": {"page": 106, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "that Accounting Officers rollover the unimplemented activities to the subsequent \nperiod. \n3.17.2 Unreleased previous year committed funds \nSection 17(1) of the Public Finance Management Act, 2015 stipulates that every \nappropriation by Parliament shall expire and cease to have any effect at the close of \nthe financial year for which it is made. Furthermore, Section 17 (2) of the same Act \nstipulates that \"A vote that does not expend money that was appropriated to the vote \nfor the financial year shall at the close of the financial year repay the money to the \nConsolidated Fund.\" \n \nSection 17(3) of the same Act states that, \u201cA vote that repays money under subsection \n(2) shall revise its annual work plan, procurement plan and recruitment plan to take \ninto account the unexpended money and submit them as part of the Budget for the \npreceding year\".", "metadata": {"page": 106, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "preceding year\". \n \nI noted that unspent balance at the end of financial year 2020/2021 amounting to \nUGX.44,708,174,471 belonging to four Municipal Councils was not re-voted. The funds \nwere meant for implementation of the infrastructure development activities that were \nnot fully implemented in the FY 2020/2021. Details are in the table below and in \nAppendix 12.", "metadata": {"page": 106, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "91 \n \nTable 39: unreleased previous year committed funds \nSN \nEntity \nUnspent balance FY. \n2020/2021 \nAmount re-voted FY \n2021/2022 \nAmount un-re-\nvoted \n1 Jinja \n1,714,473,110 \n- \n1,714,473,110 \n2 Masaka \n19,529,858,900 \n14,445,481,454 \n5,084,377,446 \n3 Mubende \n26,879,987,744 \n19,123,795,715 \n7,756,192,029 \n4 Hoima \n30,153,131,886 \n- \n30,153,131,886", "metadata": {"page": 107, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "30,153,131,886 \n \nTotal \n78,277,451,640 \n33,569,277,169 \n44,708,174,471 \n \nConsequently, the activities for the current year were affected. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the mandate to re-vote funds lies with MoFPED \nfor which they do not have control. \n \nI advised the MoFPED to ensure that the unutilised funds are re-voted to the Cities \nand Municipal councils for implementation of planned activities. \n3.18 Management of Royalties \nBelow are the brief highlights of my findings, from the audit of management of \nRoyalties in Busia District Local Government, the details of which are in my report to \nParliament for the financial year ended 30th June 2022. \n3.18.1 Lack of data regarding the volume and value of minerals mined", "metadata": {"page": 107, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Section 98(1) of the mining Act, 2003 states that subject to section 100 of the Act, all \nminerals obtained or mined in the course of prospecting, exploration, mining or mineral \nbeneficiation operations shall be subject to the payment of royalties on the gross value \nof the minerals based on the prevailing market price of the minerals at such rates as \nshall be prescribed. \n \nI noted that the District lacked records regarding the volume and value of minerals \nmined by the various mining parties (Companies, individuals and Associations) in the \nDistrict. \n \nThe District was also unable to access data on periodic returns to MEMD regarding \nvolume and value of minerals mined by the companies, either from MEMD or mining \nparties. \n \nIn the absence of this information, management cannot ascertain the amount of \nroyalties due to the District, which affected its planning and budgeting processes and \nthus the District is unable to interrogate any under-remittance of royalties to the", "metadata": {"page": 107, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "District, which in turn negatively affects service delivery. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage MEMD to establish mechanisms of \naccessing periodic data on volume and value of minerals mined in the District so as to \nbe able to establish and thus demand for what is rightfully due to it. \n3.18.2 Lack of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between District and MEMD \nGood practice requires a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between major parties \nin the mining industry spelling out the rights and obligations of each party, mechanism", "metadata": {"page": 107, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "92 \n \nfor dispute resolutions etc. It communicates the mutually accepted objectives and \nexpectations of all the parties involved. \n \nI however noted that there was no MoU between the District and MEMD which ought \nto operationalize the relationship regarding mining activities, monitoring, inspection of \nmining sites, sharing of information and records. \n \nThis renders the District a dormant stakeholder in the mining process and as a result, \nthe Local Government is only at the receiving end of royalties determined by other \nparties. In this kind of arrangement, the District\u2019s interests tend to be suppressed by \nthe other stakeholders. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage the MEMD with a view of redefining the \nrelationship in the mining industry and having a MoU clearly spelling out the rights and \nobligations of each party. \n3.18.3 Failure by mining companies to submit monthly returns to MEMD", "metadata": {"page": 108, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Regulation 53 of the Mining Regulation 2004 \u201cMonthly returns to be furnished\u201d \nprovides that Every holder of an exploration or retention licence shall, as soon as \ncircumstances permit and in any case not later than fourteen days after the end of \neach quarter, lodge in triplicate at the nearest office of the Commissioner, statements \nin English in Form XXVI in the First Schedule to these Regulations; and in the case of \nthe holder of a prospecting or location licence or a mining lease such statements shall \nbe provided to the Commissioner in Forms XXV and XXVII in the First Schedule to \nthese Regulations not later than fourteen days after the month reported on. \n \nHowever, I reviewed the declarations made by the mining companies on the cadastre \ninterface at the MEMD and noted that, a number of these companies failed to \nsubmit/lodge monthly returns to the MEMD. \n \nThis encourages under or non-declaration of revenue by the mining companies, which \naffects the royalties thereof.", "metadata": {"page": 108, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The above is attributed to deliberate non-compliance by the companies to the \nregulation and failure by MEMD to enforce compliance. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to liaise with the MEMD to always enforce mining \ncompanies to lodge monthly returns, which inform the assessment, verification and \npayment of expected royalties to the Government, as well as the Local Governments. \n3.18.4 Non-verification of monthly returns by MEMD \nRegulation 53 of the Mining Regulation 2004 provides that every holder of a mineral \nright shall submit or lodge mineral returns not later than fourteen days after the month \nreported on. These returns are self-assessed. \n \nI noted a weakness in that MEMD is not required to undertake verification process to \nascertain whether the mining parties declare the true results of their mining \noperations.", "metadata": {"page": 108, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "93 \n \nThis encourages under-declaration of the volume and value of minerals mined by the \nmining parties. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage the MEMD to consider emphasising \nverification of mineral returns to ensure that the Central government, District and land \nowners receive rightful revenue share from royalties declared and paid by the mining \nparties. \n3.18.5 Non-participation of the CAO in licencing and lease approval process \nRegulations 11, 19, 23 and 38 of the Mining Regulations 2004 provide guidance in the \napplication for exploration, retention, location licences and mining lease, stating that \napplications for such mineral rights shall be logged with the Chief Administrative Officer \n(CAO) of the district concerned within thirty days of erection of a location beacon for \nforwarding to the Commissioner. In addition, Regulation 8 stipulates the procedure on \nreceipt of application for mineral right by the Chief Administrative Officer.", "metadata": {"page": 109, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "However, I noted that the CAO does not participate in the receiving and forwarding of \nthe applications for mineral rights to the Commissioner, MEMD. \n \nThis has contributed to disconnect in collaboration between the mining parties \n(companies, associations and individuals) and the District, thus affecting the sharing \nof information between the parties. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage the MEMD and establish a mechanism of \nactive participation in the licencing and lease approval processes. \n \n3.19 Luwero-Rwenzori Development Program (LRDP) \nLRDP is Discretionary Development Equalization Grant (DDEG) that seeks to enable \ncommunities enhance their household incomes. The program was rolled out in 39 LGs \nin the Luwero-Rwenzori Triangle and is one of the fiscal reforms implemented by \nGovernment to improve service delivery. LRDP accounts for 5% of the entire DDEG", "metadata": {"page": 109, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "funds allocated to these Districts in the financial year 2021/2022. \n \nHowever, previous OAG audits have highlighted challenges in the management and \nimplementation of the LRDP grant. These challenges include: application of LRDP \nfunds to ineligible expenditures and activities, under remittances of funds, late release \nof funds, under absorption of LRDP funds, diversion of funds. \n \nSimilarly, the Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) in consultation with other key \nstakeholders embarked on the review of the DDEG to address challenges encountered \nduring implementation. \n \nIt is against this background that I audited the implementation of LRDP to establish \nwhether the funds released to Districts were utilized in accordance with the DDEG \nguidelines. \n \nDuring the FY 2021/22, 18 LGs received UGX.25,576,920,152 from Central \nGovernment to implement various activities under LRDP. Below is a summary of my", "metadata": {"page": 109, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "94 \n \nfindings, details of which are included in individual reports that have been issued \nseparately; \n3.19.1 Allocation of funds among program activities \nParagraph 1.4 Table 5 (as hereunder) of the DDEG guidelines 2021/2022 provides the \nmaximum thresholds for which a District can use to implement a wide range of \ninfrastructure within their mandate and according to their local priorities and needs. \n \nTable 40: allocation of funds among program activities \nMain Expenditure Items \nThreshold \nInfrastructure Projects, including Physical Planning and land titling \nMinimum 80% \nInvestment Servicing and Monitoring \nMaximum 10% \nPerformance Improvement \nMaximum 10% \n \nI observed that 7 LGs did not allocate funds in accordance with the required thresholds. \nFor instance, in 7 LGs, infrastructure projects funds were allocated below minimum \nrequirement of 80% whereas the investment servicing and performance improvement", "metadata": {"page": 110, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were allocated above the maximum of 10% as indicated in the table below and in \nappendix 13 a. \n \nTable 41: Allocation of investment thresholds \nNo. Main Expenditure items \nThreshold \nAllocation \nAmount - \nUGX \n1 \nInfrastructure Projects, including \nPhysical Planning and land titling \nMinimum 80% \n70% \n1,871,695,608 \n2 \nPerformance Improvement \nMaximum 10% \n13% \n299,789,983 \n3 \nInvestment \nServicing \nand \nMonitoring \nMaximum 10% \n17% \n483,628,600 \n \nTOTAL \n \n \n2,655,114,191", "metadata": {"page": 110, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The diversion of funds hindered the achievement of intended outcomes of the grant \nof equalizing development of LGs and therefore affecting equitable distribution of \nresources and delivery of services. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the allocation of Indicative Planning Figures \n(IPFs) is a mandate of MoFPED for which the LGs do not have control. \n \nI advised MoFPED to ensure that the budget allocation criteria as per the guidelines is \nadhered to and releases should be based on the allocation. \n3.19.2 Funding and absorption \nI noted that 18 LGs budgeted to receive UGX.25,626,954,504 to implement various \nactivities under LRDP. However, UGX.25,576,920,152 was received leading to a \nfunding variance of UGX.50,034,352 representing 0.2%. A summary is shown in the \ntable below and appendix 13 b.", "metadata": {"page": 110, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "95 \n \nTable 42: Funding and absorption \nSN \nCost centre \nApproved \nBudget - UGX \nAmount \nReleased - UGX \n% \nfundin\ng \nExpenditur\ne - UGX \nAmount not \nabsorbed - \nUGX \n% \nAbsorpti\non \n1 \nInfrastructure \nProjects, including \nPhysical Planning \nand land titling \n8,164,927,374 \n8,153,926,373 \n100% \n7,682,602,7\n04 \n471,323,669 \n94% \n2 \nPerformance \nImprovement \n843,710,153", "metadata": {"page": 111, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "843,710,153 \n843,710,153 \n100% \n853,914,340 \n-10,204,187 \n101% \n3 \nInvestment \nServicing and \nMonitoring \n1,111,423,280 \n1,075,179,930 \n97% \n1,063,687,3\n38 \n11,492,592 \n99% \n4 \nTransfer of LRDP \nfunds to LLGs \n15,506,893,697 \n15,504,103,696 \n100% \n15,514,093,\n696 \n-9,990,000 \n100% \n \nTOTAL \n25,626,954,504", "metadata": {"page": 111, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "25,576,920,152 \n100% \n25,114,298,\n078 \n462,622,074 \n98% \n \nI observed that Investment servicing and monitoring was the most affected where LGs \ndid not receive UGX.50,034,352. \n \nI further noted that out of UGX.25,576,920,152 released by MoFPED, 6 LGs failed to \nabsorb UGX.462,622,074. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the Indicative Planning Figures are issued by \nMoFPED for which they had no control while under absorption was attributed to \ndelayed completion of the infrastructure projects by the contractors and bottlenecks \nin the procurement process. \n \nI advised MoFPED to ensure that budget is funded in accordance with appropriation \nby Parliament while the MoLG was advised to ensure Accounting Officers adequately", "metadata": {"page": 111, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "manage program implementation to eliminate unnecessary delays. \n3.19.3 Implementation of LRDP activities \nFrom the review of the status of implementation of infrastructure projects, \nperformance improvement activities and investment servicing activities, I observed the \nfollowing, details of which are in appendix in 13 b. \n \n\uf0b7 \n18 LGs planned to undertake 109 activities under infrastructure projects. \nHowever, only 100 activities were implemented while 9 activities worth \nUGX.521,220,854 were not implemented. \n \n\uf0b7 \n18 LGs planned to undertake 70 activities under performance improvement \nactivities and all these activities were implemented. I also noted that 1 activity \nimplemented worth UGX.3,000,000 was not eligible. \n \n\uf0b7 \n18 LGs planned to undertake 53 activities under investment servicing and all \nthese activities were implemented. \n \nNon implementation of planned activities hindered the achievement of intended", "metadata": {"page": 111, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "outcomes of the grant of equalizing development of LGs and therefore affecting \nequitable distribution of resources and delivery of services. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the non-implementation to the delays in \nprocurement processes and the phased approach of the infrastructure projects.", "metadata": {"page": 111, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "96 \n \nI advised MoLG to ensure that Accounting Officers manage program implementation \nto eliminate unnecessary delays in the procurements. \n3.19.4 Transfer to LLGs \nParagraph 1.3.2 of the guidelines provides the rationale for specific rule for sharing of \nthe grant among levels of Local Government. Accordingly, the District is required to \ntransfer 65% of the LRDP funds to LLGs and only retain 35%. \n \nI observed that 16 LGs transferred less funds to the LLGs than the 65% required by \nUGX.1,144,383,168 as indicated in the table below; \n \nTable 43: Transfer to LLGs \nTotal \nreleases \nreceived (UGX) \nExpected transfer to \nLLGs 65% (UGX) \nActual transfers to \nLLGs (UGX) \nVariance (UGX)", "metadata": {"page": 112, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Variance (UGX) \n25,576,920,152 \n16,624,998,099 \n15,480,614,931 \n1,144,383,168 \n \nThis affected the implementation of service delivery programs at the Lower Local \nGovernments. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the allocation of discretionary transfers is a \nmandate of MoFPED for which they only transfer to LLGs what has been pre-\ndetermined and released. \n \nI advised MoLG and MoFPED to harmonise the guidelines and the determination of the \nIPFs. \n3.20 Implementation of Uganda Road Fund (URF) \n3.20.1 Funding \nI noted that 96 LGs budgeted to receive UGX.51,950,654,755 to cater for \nDistrict/City/Municipal Council roads activities using road gangs and the force account", "metadata": {"page": 112, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "mechanism. However, UGX.32,552,444,851 was received from Uganda Road Fund. \nDetails are in appendix 14 a. \nThe failure to fully fund the road activities hindered access to service delivery centres \nlike Schools, Hospitals and Markets. \n \nThe Accounting Officers attributed the shortfall to budget cuts for which the LGs have \nno control. The LGs have written to MoWT requesting for support. \n \nI advised URF to ensure funding is secured for planned road activities. \n3.20.2 Status of implementation of road activities \nI noted that 96 LGs planned to rehabilitate 23,632 km of roads using routine manual, \nroutine mechanized and periodic maintenance at a cost of UGX.32,564,110,678. \nHowever, only 12,687 km (54%) were rehabilitated at a cost of UGX.18,772,267,873 \n(58%). Details are shown in the table below and appendix 14 b.", "metadata": {"page": 112, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "97 \n \nTable 44: Status of implementation of road activities \nCategory \nPlanned \nLength \n(KM) \nPlanned \nAnnual \nExpenditure - \nUGX \nActual \nlength \n(KM) \nActual \nExpenditure - \nUGX \nRoutine Manual Maintenance \n16,067 \n8,494,132,458 \n7,385 \n4,089,157,242 \nRoutine Mechanized \nMaintenance \n6,720 \n15,394,408,459 \n4,924 \n10,306,553,352 \nPeriodic Maintenance \n845 \n8,675,569,761 \n378 \n4,376,557,279 \nTotal distance", "metadata": {"page": 113, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Total distance \n23,632 \n32,564,110,678 \n12,687 \n18,772,267,873 \nSource: URF work plan and quarterly performance reports \n \nAccording to my inspection carried and progressive performance reports, I have \nobserved the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \n89 LGs planned to maintain 16,067 km under routine manual maintenance at a \ncost of UGX. 8,494,132,458, however only 7,385 km (46%) were maintained at \ncost UGX.4,089,157,242 (48%). \n \n\uf0b7 \n90 LGs planned to maintain 6,720 km under routine mechanised maintenance at a \ncost of UGX.15,394,408,459, however only 4,924 km (73%) were maintained at", "metadata": {"page": 113, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "cost UGX.10,306,553,352 (67%). \n \n\uf0b7 \n45 LGs planned to maintain 845 km under periodic maintenance at a cost of \nUGX.8,675,569,761, however only 378 km (45%) were maintained at cost UGX. \n4,376,557,279 (50%). \n \n\uf0b7 \n88 LGs did not budget for routine manual, routine mechanise and periodic \nmaintenance of roads despite the destruction of a number of roads by the rainy \nseasons. There is a risk that the roads will further deteriorate given the meagre \nresources. Access to service delivery centres like Schools, Hospitals and Markets is \nhindered. \n \nThe Accounting Officer attributed this to late release of funds and inadequate and \nunmaintained road construction equipment. \n \nI advised the MoFPED timely release appropriated funds for the implementation of", "metadata": {"page": 113, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "planned road activities. \n \nOther Information \n \nThe Accounting Officer is responsible for the other information. The other information \ncomprises the statement of responsibilities, a statement from the Secretary to the Treasury, \na commentary by the Accountant General, and other supplementary information. The other \ninformation does not include the financial statements and my auditors\u2019 report thereon. \n \nMy opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and I do not \nexpress an audit opinion or any form of assurance conclusion thereon. \n \nIn connection with my audit of the financial statements, my responsibility is to read the other \ninformation and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially consistent \nwith the financial statements or my knowledge obtained in the audit, or otherwise appears to \nbe materially misstated. If, based on the work I have performed, I conclude that there is a", "metadata": {"page": 113, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "98 \n \nmaterial misstatement of this other information; I am required to report that fact. I have \nnothing to report in this regard. \n \nResponsibilities of Management for the Consolidated Financial Statements \n \nUnder Article 164 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended) and \nSection 45 of the Public Finance Management Act, 2015 (as amended), the Accounting Officers \nare accountable to Parliament for the funds and resources of the Government of Uganda. \n \nThe Accountant General is appointed as the Accounting Officer and Receiver of Revenue for the \nConsolidated Fund. The Accountant General is therefore responsible for the preparation of \nConsolidated Financial Statements of Local Governments in accordance with the requirements \nof the Public Finance Management Act 2015, and the Financial Reporting Guide 2018, and for \nsuch internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of \nconsolidated financial statements that are free from material misstatements, whether due to \nfraud or error.", "metadata": {"page": 114, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "fraud or error. \n \nIn preparing the financial statements, the Accountant General is responsible for assessing the \nLocal Government\u2019s ability to continue delivering its mandate, disclosing, as applicable, \nmatters related to affecting the delivery of the mandate of the Government of Uganda, and \nusing the Financial Reporting Guide 2018 unless the Accountant General has a realistic \nalternative to the contrary. \n \nThe Accountant General is responsible for overseeing the Government\u2019s financial reporting \nprocess. \n \nAuditor\u2019s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Consolidated Financial Statements \n \nMy objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial \nstatements of local government as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due \nto fraud or error and to issue an auditor\u2019s report that includes my opinion. Reasonable \nassurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in \naccordance with ISSAIs will always detect a material misstatement when it exists.", "metadata": {"page": 114, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in \nthe aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users \ntaken on the basis of these financial statements. \n \nAs part of an audit in accordance with ISSAIs, I exercise professional judgment and maintain \nprofessional skepticism throughout the audit. I also; \n \n\uf0b7 \nIdentify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial \nstatements, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures \nresponsive to those risks, and obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate \nto provide a basis for my opinion. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement \nresulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve \ncollusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal \ncontrol. \n \n\uf0b7 \nObtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design", "metadata": {"page": 114, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of \nexpressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the local government\u2019s internal control.", "metadata": {"page": 114, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "99 \n \n\uf0b7 \nEvaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of \naccounting estimates and related disclosures made by management. \n \n\uf0b7 \nConclude on the appropriateness of management\u2019s use of the going concern basis of \naccounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty \nexists related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the \ngovernment\u2019s ability to deliver its mandate. If I conclude that a material uncertainty \nexists, I am required to draw attention in my auditor\u2019s report to the related disclosures \nin the financial statements or, if such disclosures are inadequate, to modify my opinion. \nMy conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to the date of my auditor\u2019s \nreport. However, future events or conditions may cause the government to fail to \ndeliver its mandate. \n \n\uf0b7 \nEvaluate the overall presentation, structure, and content of the financial statements,", "metadata": {"page": 115, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the \nunderlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves a fair presentation. \n \nI communicate with the Accounting Officer regarding, among other matters, the planned \nscope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant \ndeficiencies in internal control that I identify during my audit. \n \nI also provide the Accounting Officer with a statement that I have complied with relevant \nethical requirements regarding independence, and to communicate with him/her all \nrelationships and other matters that may reasonably be thought to bear on my independence, \nand where applicable, related safeguards. \n \nFrom the matters communicated with the Accounting Officer, I determine those matters that \nwere of most significance in the audit of the financial statements of the current period and \nare therefore the key audit matters. I describe these matters in my auditor\u2019s report unless law \nor regulation precludes public disclosure about the matter or when, in extremely rare", "metadata": {"page": 115, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "circumstances, I determine that a matter should not be communicated in my report because \nthe adverse consequences of doing so would reasonably be expected to outweigh the public \ninterest benefits of such communication. \n \nOther Reporting Responsibilities \n \nIn accordance with Section 19(1) of the National Audit Act, 2008, I report to you, based on \nmy work described on the audit of the Local Government Consolidated Financial Statements \nthat; except for the matters raised in the compliance with legislation section below, and whose \neffect has been considered in forming my opinion on the Local Government consolidated \nfinancial statements, the activities, financial transactions and information reflected in the \nconsolidated financial statements that have come to my notice during the audit, are in all \nmaterial respects, in compliance with the authorities which govern them. \n \nReport on the Audit of Compliance with Legislation \n \nIn accordance with Section 19 of the NAA 2008, I have a responsibility to report material", "metadata": {"page": 115, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "findings on the compliance of Government, with specific matters in key legislations. I \nperformed procedures primarily to identify findings but not to gather evidence to express \nassurance. \n \nThe material findings in respect of the compliance criteria for the applicable subject matters \nare as follows;", "metadata": {"page": 115, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "100 \n \n3.21 Transfer of Accounting Officers in Local Governments \nSection 45(5) shall be responsible and personally accountable to parliament for the \nactivities of a Vote. \n \nSection 43 (3) requires an Accounting Officer to enter into an annual budget \nperformance contract with the Secretary to the Treasury which shall bind the \nAccounting Officer to deliver on the activities in the work plan of the vote for a financial \nyear. \n \nDuring the audit, I noted that the MoLG made frequent transfers of Accounting Officers \nfrom one LG to another. In the case of the LGs of Bulisa DLG, Hoima DLG and Fort \nPortal City, Amuria DLG, Mityana DLG, Butebo DLG, Kabarole DLG and Kitagwenda \nDLG, two to four Accounting Officers were posted within the same financial year. \n \nThe above disrupts implementation of activities thus affecting service delivery and", "metadata": {"page": 116, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "accounting for funds which may in the long run hinder attainment of strategic \nobjectives in the affected LGs. In some cases, it was noted that the Technical Planning \nCommittee (TPC) structures are not fully constituted to lead implementation of the \nbudgets without continuity of service and guidance by the Chief Administrative Officer. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that it was the mandate of MoFPED and MoLG to \nappoint and transfer Accounting Officers respectively. \n \nDuring my interaction with MoLG, the PS acknowledged the effect of the anomaly on \nservice delivery and stated that the challenge can be solved by strengthening the \nadministrative structure by recruiting substantive heads of departments. The PSST also \nacknowledged the observation and promised to engage the MoLG on the matter. \n \nI advised the MoLG to streamline the transfer of LG Accounting Officers to ensure \ncontinuity in service delivery with minor interruptions. The ministry should also liaise \nwith MoPS and MoFPED to provide guidance and funding to strengthen the Technical", "metadata": {"page": 116, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Planning Committees (TPCs) for all LGs. \n3.22 Risk management in LGs \nInstruction 6.5.2 (e) of the Treasury Instructions 2017 require the Accounting Officer \nto institute risk management practices in their operations. \n \nI observed that all the 169 LGs audited have not incorporated risk management in \ntheir operations, contrary to instruction 6.5.2 (e) of the Treasury Instructions, 2017. \nThis is evidenced by lack of risk strategies, detailed registers of risk and officers \nresponsible for risk mitigation. \n \nThe lack of mechanisms of risk identification and response may hinder LGs from \nachieving their strategic and operational objectives and therefore respective mandates. \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the guidelines issued by PS/ST in line with \nparagraph 6.5.4 of the Treasury Instructions 2017 were disseminated to selected Local \nGovernments. \n \nDuring my interaction with MoFPED indicated that the Internal Auditor General had \nissued guidance to Accounting Officers of Local Governments. LGs will be trained on", "metadata": {"page": 116, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "101 \n \nthe preparation and application of the risk mitigation plans in the financial year \n2022/23. The tools that have been developed are being inbuilt in the draft GOU \nNational Enterprise Risk Management Guidelines. \n \nI advised MoFPED to disseminate guidelines on risk management to all Accounting \nOfficers and ensure that they put in place a detailed risk register and an officer \nresponsible for risk management to minimise the entity\u2019s exposure to risks that may \naffect the implementation of planned activities. \n \n \n \n \nJohn F.S. Muwanga \nAUDITOR GENERAL \n \n30th December, 2022", "metadata": {"page": 117, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "102 \n \n4.0. \nREPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL ON THE CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY \nSTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS \nAND STATE ENTERPRISES FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30TH JUNE 2022 \n4.1. Review of the Consolidated Summary Statement of Financial Performance \nof Public Corporations and State Enterprises \n \nAccording to Section 3 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), 2015 (as \namended); \u201cA Public Corporation means an authority established by an Act of \nParliament other than a local Government which receives a contribution from public \nfunds, and any public body which in a financial year receives any income from public \nfunds\u201d. Similarly, \u201cA State Enterprise means a body established under any Act other \nthan the Company\u2019s Act or a local Government council, and a company registered \nunder the company\u2019s Act in which the Government or a state enterprise has controlling \ninterest\u201d.", "metadata": {"page": 118, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "interest\u201d. \n \nIn line with the PFMA, 2015, I reviewed the Consolidated Summary Statement of the \nFinancial Performance of Public Corporations and State Enterprises for the year ended \n30th June 2022, and noted the following; \n \na) \nCompleteness of the Consolidated Summary Statement of Financial \nPerformance of Public Corporations and State Enterprises \n \nSection 52 (1c) of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), 2015 requires the \nAccountant General, within three months after the end of each financial year, to \nprepare and submit to the Minister responsible for Finance and the Auditor General \nthe consolidated summary statement of the financial performance of Public \nCorporations, State Enterprises and Companies where Government has controlling \ninterest. \n \nFurthermore, Section 51(2) of PFMA, 2015 provides that, the Accounting Officer of a \npublic corporation shall, within two months after the end of each financial year, using", "metadata": {"page": 118, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the format prescribed by the Accountant General, prepare and submit to the \nAccountant General, a summary statement of financial performance of the public \ncorporation and give a copy of the summary statement to the Secretary to the \nTreasury. \n \nI noted that 50 public corporations and state enterprises were supposed to be \nconsolidated (Appendix 15 a refers) in accordance with Section 52 (1c) of the Public \nFinance Management Act (PFMA), 2015. However, only 34 entities were consolidated \nand 12 were disclosed as having not submitted summary statements for consolidation. \nI further noted that four (4) entities were not included in the consolidated summary \nstatement submitted by the Accountant General, The Tables below refer; \n \nTable 45: Entities not consolidated \nS/N \nEntity Name \n1 \nUganda Energy Credit Capitalization Company Limited (UECCCL) \n2 \nNile Hotel International Limited \n3 \nUganda Hotel and Tourism Training Institute \n4 \n4 \nNational Pipeline Company (NPC)", "metadata": {"page": 118, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "103 \n \nTable 46: Entities which did not submit summary statements \nS/N \nEnterprise \n1. \n \nNakivubo War Memorial Stadium \n2. \n \nUganda Air Cargo Corporation \n3. \n \nDairy Corporation Limited \n4. \n \nUganda Crane Industries Limited \n5. \n \nUganda Livestock Industries Limited \n6. \n \nUganda Refinery Holding Company Limited \n7. \n \nProduction Enterprises Corporations Limited \n8. \n \nUganda Fisheries Enterprises Limited \n9. \n \nKampala Industrial and business park Ltd \n10. \n \nScience and Technology Equipment Production (unit) Ltd \n11. \n \nUGMA Engineering Corporation Limited \n12.", "metadata": {"page": 119, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "12. \n \nHousing Finance Investments \n \nIn absence of the summary performance of the above mentioned corporations, the \nconsolidated summary statement of financial performance of public corporations and \nstate enterprises does not reflect the accurate status of government ownership and \ninterest. \n \nIn addition, I noted that Government does not maintain a comprehensive database of \nPublic Corporations and State Enterprises to enable independent verification of the \nnumber of entities consolidated in the summary statement. \n \nIn the absence of a comprehensive database, I was not able to ascertain the \ncompleteness of the submitted consolidated summary statement of financial \nperformance of public corporation and state enterprises. \n \nI advised the Accountant General to establish a comprehensive database for all Public \nCorporations and State Enterprises which should profile entities by capturing \ninformation, such as; Name of entity, Business/Industry, Location, Shareholding, Share \nCapital, Directors, E-mail addresses, among others, to enable the conduct of an", "metadata": {"page": 119, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "independent verification. \n \nb) \nReview of the Process of Consolidation of the Summary Statement of \nFinancial Performance of Public Corporations and State Enterprises \n \nThe process of consolidation of the summary statement of financial performance of \npublic corporations and state enterprises commences with the issuance of the request \nfor submission letter by the Accountant General to the consolidating entities. The \nAccounting Officers of the respective entities submit entity summary statement of \nfinancial performance basing on unaudited financial statements which are then used \nby the Accountant General to prepare the initial Draft Consolidated Summary \nStatement. \n \nI noted that when the entity financial statements were audited and adjustments made, \nAccounting Officers were not submitting adjusted summary financial performance \nstatements, arising from adjusted accounts, to Accountant General. As a result, I noted \nvariances between amounts in the entity audited financial statements and the \ncorresponding amounts in the consolidated summary statement prepared by the \nAccountant General as shown in the table below;", "metadata": {"page": 119, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "104 \n \nTable 47: Inconsistencies in the submitted information \nSN \nEntities \nSurplus/Deficit \nNet Worth \nAccounta\nnt \nGeneral \n(A) \nUGX Bn \nAudited \nAccounts \n(B) \nUGX Bn \nVariance \n(B-A) \n \nUGX Bn \nAccounta\nnt \nGeneral \n(C) \nUGX Bn \nAudited \nAccounts \n(D) \nUGX Bn \nVarianc\ne (D-C) \n \nUGX Bn \n1 \nBank of Uganda \n477.168 \n501.982 \n24.814", "metadata": {"page": 120, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "24.814 \n3,771.135 \n3,780.067 \n8.932 \n2 \nElectricity \nRegulatory \nAuthority \n(0.659) \n(0.709) \n(0.050) \n36.441 \n36.391 \n(0.050) \n3 \nNational Water \n& Sewerage \nCorporation \n6.874 \n(38.866) \n(45.740) \n1,438.149 \n1,392.544 \n(45.605\n) \n4 \nMandela \nStadium Limited \n78.786 \n78.786 \n- \n258.741 \n258.390 \n(0.351)", "metadata": {"page": 120, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(0.351) \n5 \nThe Micro \nFinance Support \nCentre Ltd \n(30.638) \n(11.101) \n19.537 \n181.781 \n202.528 \n20.748 \n6 \nPost Bank \nUganda Limited \n3.364 \n12.236 \n8.872 \n121.823 \n117.126 \n(4.697) \n7 \nPride Micro \nFinance Limited \n10.803 \n11.788 \n0.984 \n155.212 \n153.559 \n(1.653) \n8 \nUganda \nElectricity \nDistribution \nCompany \nLimited \n(0.146)", "metadata": {"page": 120, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(0.146) \n(0.086) \n0.060 \n169.390 \n169.488 \n0.098 \n9 \nUganda \nElectricity \nGeneration \nCompany \nLimited \n(39.568) \n27.863 \n67.430 \n793.181 \n860.611 \n67.430 \n10 \nUganda \nElectricity \nTransmission \nCompany \nLimited \n(14.929) \n37.703 \n52.632 \n1,710.606 \n1,763.238 \n52.632 \n11 \nUganda National \nOil Company \nLimited \n(1.356) \n(1.356)", "metadata": {"page": 120, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(1.356) \n(0.000) \n564.090 \n564.090 \n(0.000) \n12 \nHousing Finance \nBank Ltd \n49.042 \n40.975 \n(8.067) \n274.255 \n278.692 \n4.437 \n \nThe variances were attributed to the failure by entities to submit the adjusted summary \nstatement of financial performance after audit, to the Accountant General. This was \nalso attributed to absence of the reporting guidelines to streamline the consolidation \nprocess. \n \nI advised the Accountant General to consider issuing reporting guidelines to all \nconsolidating entities to streamline the consolidation process, to ensure that only \naudited and adjusted amounts in the entity summary statements form a basis for the \nfinal consolidation.", "metadata": {"page": 120, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "105 \n \n4.2 \nReview of Financial Performance of Public Corporations and State \nEnterprises \n \nThe Government of Uganda (GoU) owns shares in a number of Public Corporations \nand State Enterprises. These enterprises, which are independently managed, are \nsupposed to operate efficiently, make profits and pay dividends to Government. Their \nfinancial performance is therefore of interest to Government. \n \nAs noted in my previous reports, the Government Consolidated Summary Statement \nof financial performance of public corporations and State enterprises only reports on; \ngovernment shareholding, total income, total expenditure, dividends declared, \nretained earnings, and net worth of entities. However, key performance assessment \nparameters, such as; profitability, return on assets, liquidity assessment, and debt \nanalysis are not reported on. As a result, I computed these ratios using audited \nfinancial statements for further analysis of performance of Public Corporations and \nState Enterprises.", "metadata": {"page": 121, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "State Enterprises. \n \nI assessed a total of 22 entities out of the 50 Public Corporations and State Enterprises. \nFrom the financial performance analysis undertaken, I noted the following; \n \na) \nProfitability of Enterprises \n \nI analysed profitability of 18 public corporations and state enterprises and noted that \nonly ten (10) made profits/surplus in the year under review, with Uganda Electricity \nTransmission Company Limited (UETCL), Uganda Electricity Generation Company \n(UEGCL) and NEC Luwero Industries Limited posting profits of UGX.37.7Bn, \nUGX.27.9Bn and UGX.7.9Bn, respectively. I further noted that Mandela National \nStadium registered a surplus of UGX.78.8Bn from UGX.1Bn posted in the previous year \non account of government support of UGX.80Bn received during the year. Table below \nrefers.", "metadata": {"page": 121, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "refers. \n \nIn comparison with the previous year, a number of state enterprises and corporations \nincluding; UNOC, UEDCL, Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and Uganda Broadcasting \nCorporation (UBC) recorded significant reductions in losses from the previous year, \nwhile entities including NEC Luwero Industries Limited and NEC Farm Katonga Limited \nregistered improved profit positions of over 100% from the previous year. This was \nmainly attributed to the recovery of the related industries from the negative effects of \nCOVID-19. \n \nConversely, Uganda National Airlines Company Limited posted a higher loss of \nUGX.266Bn from UGX.164.6Bn recorded in the previous year on account of low \nindustry recovery from COVID-19 effects, which slowed down the Airline\u2019s expansion \nefforts into new markets like China. In addition, Uganda Electricity Transmission \nCompany Limited (UETCL), Uganda Electricity Generation Company Limited (UEGCL)", "metadata": {"page": 121, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation (UPPC) registered reduced profit \npositions by over 60% from the previous year. This was attributed to foreign exchange \nlosses (UETCL), delayed commissioning of Karuma HPP (UEGCL) and stiff competition \nin the market (UPPC). \n \nOther loss-making enterprises included; Uganda Railways Corporation (UGX.32.3Bn), \nUganda Air Cargo Corporation (UGX.9Bn), and Kilembe Mines (UGX.2.4Bn). This may", "metadata": {"page": 121, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "106 \n \naffect the entities\u2019 ability to meet future obligations or investments. The table below \nrefers. \n \nTable 48: Profitability of Public Corporation and State Enterprises \nNo. \nEntity \n2021/\n2022 \n(UGX \nBn) \n2020\n/202\n1 \n(UGX \nBn) \n% \nincreas\ne/decr\nease \nResponse \n1 \nMandela \nNational \nStadium \n78.785 \n1.078 \n7,206 \nManagement explained that the increment \nwas \ndue \nto \nthe \nCompany \nreceiving \ngovernment support of UGX.80Bn in form of", "metadata": {"page": 122, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "a subvention from Ministry of Education and \nSports (MOES) without it, the Company \nwould have had a deficit. \n \n2 \nUganda \nElectricity \nTransmission \nCompany \nLimited \n37.703 \n112.12\n4 \n-66 \nManagement explained that the previous \nyear profit arose from a favorable foreign \nexchange translation while the current year \nloss is as a result of an unfavorable foreign \nexchange \ntranslation. \n \n3 \nUganda \nElectricity \nGeneration \nCompany \n27.862 \n91.932 \n-70 \nManagement explained that the decline was \ndue to delayed commissioning of Karuma \nHPP (Increase in asset- WIP with no \ncorresponding revenues) \n \n4", "metadata": {"page": 122, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4 \nNEC Luwero \nIndustries \nLimited \n7.882 \n3.682 \n114 \nManagement explained that the Company \ntook over 5 years when there was no \nproduction. Production resumed in 2016 and \nin 2017., the first profits were recorded, by \nwhich \ntime \naccumulated \nlosses \nwere \nUGX.22,821,246,024. \n \n5 \nNEC \nConstruction \nWorks & \nEngineering \nLimited \n \n4.352 \n3.264 \n33 \n No Management response \n6 \nInsurance \nTraining \ncollege \n1.992 \n2.419 \n-18 \nManagement explained that it has set clear", "metadata": {"page": 122, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Management explained that it has set clear \ntargets for income and the relevant revenue \ncentres have set strategies of realizing. \n \n7 \nNEC AGRO \nSMC Limited \n \n1.638 \n1.470 \n11 \nNo management response. \n8 \nThe \nMicrofinance \nSupport \nCentre Ltd \n(Dec 2019) \n1.480 \n30.070 \n-95 \nManagement explained that this was due to \nreduction in impairment allowance which \nmoved from UGX 15,629,327,000 to UGX \n405,393,000 \n \n9 \nUganda \nPrinting and \nPublishing \nCorporation \n1.204 \n3.383 \n-64 \nManagement explained that it has strategies", "metadata": {"page": 122, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Management explained that it has strategies \nsuch as asset (machinery) acquisition, \ndiversification, \nand \nbuilding \nstrategic \nrelations \nwith \nthe \naim \nof \nimproving \nefficiency, quality and revenue. \n \n10 \nNEC Farm \nKatonga \nLimited \n \n0.253 \n0.032 \n672 \n No management response", "metadata": {"page": 122, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "107 \n \nNo. \nEntity \n2021/\n2022 \n(UGX \nBn) \n2020\n/202\n1 \n(UGX \nBn) \n% \nincreas\ne/decr\nease \nResponse \n \n11 \nUganda \nElectricity \nDistribution \nCompany \nLimited \n- \n0.085 \n-\n10.904 \n-99 \nManagement explained that despite making \na positive EBITDA, the net deficit for the year \nis as a result of the unclaimed depreciation \ncharge as disallowed by ERA for the use of \nthe concession assets by Umeme Ltd. UEDCL", "metadata": {"page": 123, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "has every year engaged the regulator on this \nmatter and until it\u2019s addressed by ERA, it will \ncontinue to affect the retained earnings. \n \n12 \nUganda \nNational Oil \nCompany \nLimited \n-1.355 \n-\n34.717 \n-96 \nManagement explained that UNOC\u2019s anchor \ninvestment projects are greenfield projects \nwhich require 3 \u2013 4 years of construction, \nafter taking Final Investment Decision (FID) \nbefore revenue can be generated. So far \nGovernment has provided funding for \nUNOC\u2019s equity in EACOP, while for Tilenga \nand Kingfisher, UNOC is carried up to First \nOil. These projects can only generate \nrevenues after First Oil. \n \n13 \nKilembe Mines \nLimited \n-2.389 \n-3.908", "metadata": {"page": 123, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "-3.908 \n-39 \nManagement explained that it was fast-\ntracking the investor. The operations have \nbeen affected by COVID-19 restrictions as \nwell as ravages to mine infrastructure, and, \nlater \u201cEbola\u201d impasse. Further, the available \nlaw for such a transaction, the Public \nEnterprises Reform and Divestiture (PERD) \nAct is being repealed and Government has \ndisbanded the overseer (Privatization Unit) \nwhich impacts coordination of the investor \nsearch between the two ministries; that for \nEnergy and Mineral Development and of \nFinance, \nPlanning \nand \nEconomic \nDevelopment. \n \n14 \nUganda Air \nCargo \nCorporation \n-9.039 \n-7.694 \n17 \nManagement explained that to realize the", "metadata": {"page": 123, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Management explained that to realize the \nannual budgeted revenue, UACC has put in \nplace a number of strategies in order to \nbecome a profitable corporation. Such \nstrategies include; having a serviceable fleet, \nstrengthening partnerships/alliances with \nother operators in the industry, re-engaging \nformer business contacts such as PAE, UN, \nRed Cross and Government of Uganda. With \nsuch measures and strategies, UACC is \noptimistic that the budgeted revenue \nperformance will be achieved going forward. \n \nIn addition, the Board approved the \nCorporation\u2019s 5-year Business Strategy and \nInvestment Plan in January, 2022. \n \n15 \nUganda \nBroadcasting \nCorporation \n(UBC) \n-9.345 \n-\n19.320 \n-52 \nManagement explained that the UBC Act", "metadata": {"page": 123, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Management explained that the UBC Act \n2005 vested the Corporation with all the \nAssets and liabilities of the Former UTV and \nRadio Uganda. As a result, UBC inherited a \nnumber of assets and infrastructure that are", "metadata": {"page": 123, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "108 \n \nNo. \nEntity \n2021/\n2022 \n(UGX \nBn) \n2020\n/202\n1 \n(UGX \nBn) \n% \nincreas\ne/decr\nease \nResponse \nobsolete hence the high cost of the operation \nand maintenance. Management is engaging \nthe Government for funding to enable the \nCorporation \nreplace \nthe \nobsolete \ninfrastructures and equipment. The UBC Act \nis also being reviewed to streamline the \nsource of funding for the Corporation. In \naddition, the UBC Strategic Plan is also being \nreviewed to ensure that the Corporation \ngenerates revenue for its sustainable \ngrowth. \n \n16 \nCivil Aviation", "metadata": {"page": 124, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "16 \nCivil Aviation \nAuthority \n-\n10.827 \n-\n27.757 \n-61 \nManagement explained that in the previous \nyear the reported deficit was largely \nattributed to the effects of COVID-19. \nHowever, there is a significant reduction of \nthe deficit from last year by 60.81%. This is \nexplained by the recovery of aviation \nindustry from the negative effects of COVID \n-19. \n \n17 \nUganda \nRailways \nCorporation \n-\n32.328 \n-\n37.796 \n-14 \nManagement explained that the loss was \nlargely attributed to the poor performance of \nthe main (freight and other cargo & \npassenger related revenue) income. \n \n18 \nUganda \nNational", "metadata": {"page": 124, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda \nNational \nAirlines \nCompany \nLimited \n- \n265.90\n9 \n-\n164.60\n1 \n62 \nManagement explained that the industry \nrecovery from Covid-19 effects has been low \nand has slowed down the Airline\u2019s expansion \nefforts into new markets like China. \nDevelopments like Brexit also further slowed \ndown launch plans for London. \n \n \nSimilarly, I assessed the profitability of the 4 financial institutions and noted that all \nthe 4 institutions were profitable for the 2 consecutive years. However, the profitability \nof Pride Microfinance declined by 7% from the previous year. The details are shown in \nthe table below; \n \nTable 49: Profitability for the Financial Institutions \nNo. \nEntity \n2021/2022 \nUGX (Bn)", "metadata": {"page": 124, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX (Bn) \n2020/2021 \nUGX (Bn) \nIncrease/\nDecrease \nResponse \n1 \nHousing \nFinance \nBank \n40.97 \n20.689 \n98% \nNo \nmanagement \nresponse \n2 \nUganda \nDevelopment Bank \n38.820 \n22.109 \n76%. \nNo \nmanagement \nresponse \n3 \nPost Bank Uganda \nLimited \n12.236 \n10.070 \n22% \nNo \nmanagement \nresponse \n4 \nPride Microfinance \nLimited \n11.788 \n12.690 \n-7% \nNo \nmanagement \nNo \nmanagement \nresponse", "metadata": {"page": 124, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "109 \n \nI advised the entities to develop clear strategies to improve operations and adopt \nefficient financial management practices to lower operating costs and increase revenue \ngeneration. Government should also consider recapitalizing the most affected entities \nto revamp their operations. \n \nb) \nReturn on Assets \n \nThe Return on Assets (ROA) shows the percentage of how a company\u2019s assets are \ngenerating revenue. It measures management\u2019s efficiency in using the enterprise\u2019s \nassets to generate earnings. Although companies that require large initial investments \nwill generally have lower return on assets, ROAs below 5% are generally considered \ninadequate. \n \nI assessed the ROAs of 16 enterprises/corporations and noted that Six (6) entities, \nincluding; The Microfinance Support Centre Ltd, Mandela National Stadium, NEC AGRO \nSMC Limited, Insurance Training college, NEC Construction Works & Engineering", "metadata": {"page": 125, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Limited, and Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation posted a favourable ROA of \nover 5%. however, ten (10) enterprises/corporations registered a poor performance \non ROA of below 5%. The worst performing enterprises were; Uganda Electricity \nDistribution Company Limited, Uganda Railways Corporation, Kilembe Mines Limited, \nUganda National Airlines Company Limited and Uganda Broadcasting Corporation \n(UBC). \n \nThe noted performance was mainly attributed to low revenue performance and high \ncost of operations for entities such as UBC, Uganda Airlines, CAA and Uganda Railways \nCorporation among others. For the electricity sub-sector, the low ROAs were attributed \nto a number of running projects which are still under Work in Progress (WIP) and not \ngenerating revenue (UEGCL & UETCL) and desire by GoU to reduce the electricity tariff \nwhich limits profitability of the related entities. For Kilembe Mines, the entity has \ncontinued to post a negative ROA mainly due to the fact that the mine is still under", "metadata": {"page": 125, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "care and maintenance without the core business activity of mining due to the delayed \ndivesture process. The table below refers; \n \nTable 50: Returns on Assets \nNo. \nEntity \nReturn On Asset (%) \nResponse \n2021/2022 \n2020/21 \n1 \nThe Microfinance \nSupport Centre Ltd \n-5% \n-2.3% \nThe increase in return on assets was \nattributed to the improved Earnings before \ninterest and tax of UGX 1,480,168,000 \ncompared to UGX (30,070,363,000) of the \nprevious year. \n \n2 \nMandela National \nStadium \n30% \n0.6% \nManagement explained that the performance \nwas attributed to the subvention of UGX", "metadata": {"page": 125, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "80,136,938,512 that was received from the \nMinistry of Education and Sports for the \nupgrade and renovation of the stadium. \n \n3 \nNEC AGRO SMC \nLimited \n19 \n21.6 \nManagement explained that the decrease \nwas attributed to the purchase of land at Ugx \n450,000,000 which increased the value of \nassets. Since there was no significant \nincrease in net profit after tax, the returns on \nassets decrease.", "metadata": {"page": 125, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "110 \n \nNo. \nEntity \nReturn On Asset (%) \nResponse \n2021/2022 \n2020/21 \n4 \nInsurance Training \ncollege \n12% \n16% \nManagement explained that it shall only \ncommit resources to investment proposals \nwhose \nprojected \nROI \nis \nabove \nthe \nrecommended 5%. \n \n5 \nNEC Construction \nWorks & \nEngineering Limited \n7.50% \n14% \n No response from management. \n6 \nUganda Printing \nand Publishing \nCorporation \n5% \n26% \nManagement explained that it has income \ngenerating strategies such as utilizing one of \nthe properties as a printing school. Should", "metadata": {"page": 126, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the properties as a printing school. Should \nresources become available, the properties \nshall be overhauled to attract investment \nopportunities. In addition, management \nexplained that it was diversifying revenue \nstreams and products and expanding the \ngeographical reach to all regions of Uganda \nto make products and services accessible. \n \n7 \nNEC Farm Katonga \nLimited \n2.60% \n0.40% \nNo response from management. \n8 \nNEC Uzima Limited \n1.90% \n12.10% \nManagement explained that new installed \nmachinery had not been operating because \nof technicalities involved but ROA is expected \nto increase again when full production \ncommences \n \n9 \nCivil Aviation \nAuthority \n1.20% \n-3.30% \nNo response from management.", "metadata": {"page": 126, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "No response from management. \n10 \nUganda Electricity \nTransmission \nCompany Limited \n0.70% \n2.28% \nManagement explained that it is committed \nto expedite completion of projects in pipeline \n(Entebbe Mutundwe, Karuma, Gulu Agago) \nso that such projects become part of the \nrevenue generation base. \n \n11 \nUganda Electricity \nGeneration \nCompany \n0.38% \n1.30% \nManagement explained that the decline was \ndue to delayed commissioning of Karuma \nHPP (Increase in asset- WIP with no \ncorresponding revenues) \n \n12 \nUganda Electricity \nDistribution \nCompany Limited \n-0.008% \n-0.56% \nManagement explained that it shall continue", "metadata": {"page": 126, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Management explained that it shall continue \nto engage ERA to agree on a method of \nrecovering the outstanding lease rental \npayments. \n \n13 \nUganda Railways \nCorporation \n-0.85% \n-1.03% \n \n14 \nKilembe Mines \nLimited \n-9% \n-10% \nManagement attributed the lower ROA to the \nfact that the mine is under care and \nmaintenance without the core business \nactivity of mining. \n \n15 \nUganda National \nAirlines Company \nLimited \n-23% \n-13.10% \nManagement explained that the return on \nAssets is negative for both years as the \nCompany is still loss making. \n \n16 \nUganda \nBroadcasting \nCorporation (UBC)", "metadata": {"page": 126, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Corporation (UBC) \n-2.62 \n-5.88 \nManagement explained that this has been \ngreatly due to the high cost of operation. For \nexample, example running the equipment\u2019s \nfor the DTT sites, electricity bill and other \nexpenses.", "metadata": {"page": 126, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "111 \n \nNo. \nEntity \nReturn On Asset (%) \nResponse \n2021/2022 \n2020/21 \n \n \nThis implies that the Companies/Corporations are not generating enough income from \nthe use of their assets. \n \nSimilarly, I assessed the Return on Assets of the 4 financial institutions and noted that \nthe ROA of the institutions improved compared to the previous year with exception of \nPride Microfinance which a slight reduction of 0.3%. The details are shown in the table \nbelow; \n \nTable 51: Return on Asset for the Financial Institutions \nNo. \nEntity \nReturn On Asset (%) \nResponse \n2021/2022 \n2020/21 \n1 \nUganda \nDevelopment Bank \n5.3 \n2.91", "metadata": {"page": 127, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2.91 \nNo management response \n2 \nHousing \nFinance \nBank \n4 \n2.27 \nThe performance was attributed to an \nincrease in the asset value from UGX \n1,108.03bn in the prior year to UGX \n1,304.16bn in the year under review. \n \n3 \nPride \nMicrofinance \nLimited \n3 \n3.3 \nThe reduction in the ROA was attributed to \nthe low Earnings before interest and tax of \nUGX 11,440,731,000 compared to UGX \n15,484,355,000 of the previous year. \n \n4 \nPost Bank Uganda \nLimited \n2.5 \n2.25 \nThe Reduction in return on assets was", "metadata": {"page": 127, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Reduction in return on assets was \nattributed to an increase in the asset value \nby 9.49% (from UGX 674.555bn to UGX \n745.29 bn in the year under review). \n \n \nI advised the entities to institute mechanisms to increase income generation from use \nof their assets. \n \nc) \nDividends \n \nI noted that, only Housing Finance Bank Limited declared a dividend pay-out of \nUGX.20.5Bn in the year under review. During the year, Uganda Property Holdings \nLimited and Housing Finance Bank Limited paid out dividends declared in the previous \nyear totalling to UGX.400Mn and UGX.6.1Bn respectively. \n \nI further noted that although some companies were making significant amounts of \nprofits, they were not paying dividends to Government. Examples included; UETCL,", "metadata": {"page": 127, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UEGCL, UEDCL, NEC Luwero Industries Limited, and NEC Construction Works & \nEngineering Limited, among others. \n \nThe enterprises attributed the non-payment of dividends to the loss-making positions \nand retention of funds to fund planned investments/projects. \n \nI advised the Accountant General to ensure that profit making enterprises provide a \nshare of government dividend.", "metadata": {"page": 127, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "112 \n \nd) \nLiquidity Assessment \n \nI analysed the ability of Public Corporations and State enterprises to meet their short-\nterm financial obligations by comparing the current assets and current liabilities using \nthe Current Ratio analysis. Generally, the ratio of Current Assets to Current Liabilities \nbetween 1.5 and 2 is desirable, although acceptable current ratios vary between \ndifferent industries or sectors. \n \nI noted that thirteen (13) entities were above the ideal threshold, implying that they \nare able to meet their liabilities as they fall due. However, out of the 13 entities, 8 had \nexcessively higher current ratios of 4 and above, these included UNOC, Mandela \nNational Stadium, NEC Luwero Industries Limited and UEDCL among others. The very \nhigh current ratio implies that the Companies are not efficiently utilizing their current \nassets or short-term financing facilities.", "metadata": {"page": 128, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Five (5) entities had ratios below 1.5 and may have a challenge of paying their \nobligations as and when they fall due, these included UEGCL, UBC, Kilembe Mines \nLimited, NEC Construction Works & Engineering Limited and Uganda National Airlines \nCompany Limited. The table below refers. \n \nTable 52: Enterprise Liquidity \nNo \nEntity \nCurrent Ratio \nRemarks \n2021/2022 \n2020/2021 \n1 \nUganda \nNational Oil \nCompany \nLimited \n30.2 \nN/A \nManagement explained that the company\u2019s \ncurrent ratio was significantly impacted by the \nrecognition of funds related to GOU\u2019s first (1st) \ntranche of the 15% shareholding in EACOP Co \nthrough UNOC, of UGX.480.9 billion. For the", "metadata": {"page": 128, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "period between July 2022 \u2013 November 2022, \nthe \ncompany \npaid \nUSD.62.3 \nMillion \n(equivalent to UGX.230.4 billion), as cash calls \nto EACOP Co. The current ratio should return \nto expected levels as the company continues \nto meet its cash call obligations to EACOP Co. \n \n2 \nMandela \nNational \nStadium \n30.03 \n0.73 \nManagement explained that the Board and \nManagement engaged the Shareholders to \nrecapitalize the company. As a result, \nGovernment funded the renovation and \nupgrade of Mandela National Stadium to \ninternational standards. This will make it \nmarketable and attractive to business. Public \nPrivate Partnerships will be entered into to \nenhance the performance of the company. \n \n3 \nNEC Luwero", "metadata": {"page": 128, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "NEC Luwero \nIndustries \nLimited \n20.3 \n11.9 \nNo Management response. \n4 \nNEC AGRO SMC \nLimited \n10.7 \n7.1 \nManagement explained that this was due \nto the nature of business the company is \nengaged i.e., fertilizer sales and Food Supply. \nPayments by the main clients (Uganda Prisons \nService and Ministry of Defense and Veteran \nAffairs) are received on quarterly basis \nwhereas the company settles suppliers on \nmonthly basis.", "metadata": {"page": 128, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "113 \n \nNo \nEntity \nCurrent Ratio \nRemarks \n2021/2022 \n2020/2021 \n5 \nUganda \nElectricity \nDistribution \nCompany \nLimited \n10.4 \n6.8 \nThis performance was attributed to an \nincrease in the Company\u2019s current asset \nduring the year under review. \n6 \nThe \nMicrofinance \nSupport Centre \nLtd \n4.1 \n11.6 \nThe reduction in the entity\u2019s current ratio is \nattributed to an increase in the current assets \nfrom \nUGX.197.7Bn \nprevious \nyear \nto \nUGX.272.97Bn. Despite the increase in", "metadata": {"page": 129, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "current liabilities from UGX.17Bn to UGX.66Bn \nin the current year under review. \n \n \n7 \nUganda Air \nCargo \nCorporation \n4 \n2.5 \nManagement indicated that UACC\u2019 s current \nasset levels which are mainly from the current \ndebtors \nand \ncash/bank \nbalances, \nare \nsignificantly contributed to by subvention \nreceived from Government. \n \n8 \nCivil Aviation \nAuthority \n4 \n2.59 \nNo Management response. \n9 \nUganda Printing \nand Publishing \nCorporation \n2.8 \n2.1 \nManagement indicated that it has strategies \nto efficiently utilize its current assets by \nmanaging payments well and intensifying", "metadata": {"page": 129, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "managing payments well and intensifying \ndebt collection. \n \n10 \nUganda \nRailways \nCorporation \n2.78 \n2.67 \nNo Management response. \n11 \nInsurance \nTraining college \n2.4 \n3.3 \nManagement explained that it shall continue \nto closely monitor the liquidity ratio and take \nall necessary measures to keep it within the \ndesirable range. \n \n12 \nNEC Uzima \nLimited \n2.2 \n2.3 \nNo Management response. \n13 \nUganda \nElectricity \nTransmission \nCompany \nLimited \n2.04 \n1.9 \nManagement explained that it will continue to \nengage the various distributors in an effort to \nenhance \ndebt", "metadata": {"page": 129, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "enhance \ndebt \ncollection. \nAmong \nother \ninitiatives, Management has agreed on \npayment plans with a number distributors and \nis engaging a number of them routinely, \npressing for remittances. It should be noted \nthat the trend of receivables position has \nimproved \nover \nthe \nyears. \n \n14 \nUganda \nNational Airlines \nCompany \nLimited \n1.4 \n2.7 \nManagement explained that although this \ndropped in the FY2021/2022 when compared \nto the FY2020/2021, it remained positive \nimplying that the Company is still able to meet \nits short-term obligations. \n \n15 \nNEC \nConstruction \nWorks & \nEngineering \nLimited", "metadata": {"page": 129, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Engineering \nLimited \n1.3 \n1.4 \nManagement explained that this was due to \nadvance payments received from their clients \nfor work being executed. \n16 \nKilembe Mines \nLimited \n0.57 \n0.56 \nManagement indicated that as a measure to \nimprove the current ratio, it has sought \nfinancial support from the shareholders \nthrough the Board of Directors to rehabilitate", "metadata": {"page": 129, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "114 \n \nNo \nEntity \nCurrent Ratio \nRemarks \n2021/2022 \n2020/2021 \nand refurbish the Company assets and \nprovide funding to clear the outstanding \nliabilities to enable a fresh start to KML. \n \n17 \nUganda \nBroadcasting \nCorporation \n(UBC) \n0.44 \n0.38 \nManagement attributed the performance to \nthe fact that the UBC Act had specified some \nof the sources of funding for UBC. However, \nat implementation some could not take place \nlike the case of TV tax which Act is now under \nreview. In addition, the Corporation is also \nreviewing its strategic plan for revenue \nmobilization. \n \n18 \nUganda \nElectricity \nGeneration \nCompany", "metadata": {"page": 130, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Generation \nCompany \n0.27 \n0.43 \nManagement attributed the performance to \nthe following; \n \na) \nLower revenue for Isimba based on \nenergy sold as opposed to the \napproved \npower \npurchase \nagreement which was supposed to \nbe capacity based. Revenues not \nable to meet loan obligations. ERA \ndictated \nthis \nposition \nas \na \ngovernment strategy to keep energy \ntariffs \nlow. \n \nb) \nDelayed \ncommissioning \nof \nKaruma HPP has resulted in delayed \npayment \nof \nthe \nloan \ninterest \nexpenses that have fallen due.", "metadata": {"page": 130, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "For the financial institutions, I noted that the four (4) institutions were above the ideal \nthreshold, implying that they are able to meet their liabilities as they fall due with an \naverage current ratio of 3. The Uganda Development Bank had the highest ratio of \n9.87 while Post Bank had the lowest ratio of 1.07. The details are as per the table \nbelow; \n \nTable 53: Liquidity assessment for financial institutions \n \n Institution \nLiquidity assessment for banking institutions \nSN \nBank \nCurrent ratio \n \n \n31st Dec 2021 \n31st Dec 2020 \n1 \nPride Micro Finance \n1.55 \n1.45 \n2 \nPost Bank \n1.07 \n1.08 \n3 \nUganda Development Bank \n9.87 \n8.074", "metadata": {"page": 130, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8.074 \n4 \nHousing Finance Bank \n1.24 \n1.25 \n \nAverage \n3.4 \n3 \n \nI further noted that the Loans and advances to customers for the 3 out of the 4 Banks \nincreased on average from UGX.343.32Bn to UGX.472.89Bn in the current year (31st \nDec 2021). The Uganda Development Bank had the highest Loans and Advance \ndeposits to customers of UGX.781.66Bn while Pride Micro Finance had the lowest \nLoans and Advance deposits to customers of UGX.182.16Bn. The details are as per the \ntable below;", "metadata": {"page": 130, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "115 \n \nTable 54: Loans and Advances performance \nSN \nBank \n31st Dec 2021 \n(UGX-Billions) \n31st Dec 2020 \n(UGX-Billions) \n1 \nPride Micro Finance \n182.16 \n183.39 \n2 \nPostbank \n454.86 \n334.70 \n3 \nUganda Development Bank \n781.66 \n511.88 \n \nAverage \n472.89 \n343.32 \n \nThe increase in the Loans and advance deposits to customers is a sign of good \nperformance for the Banks as long as there are no significant non-performing loans. \ne) \nDebt Analysis \n \nPublic Corporations and State Enterprises should be able to meet their short and long-", "metadata": {"page": 131, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "term debt obligations. Gearing (debt) ratio measures the proportion of the enterprises\u2019 \nassets that are financed by debt. Although the risk levels vary from industry to industry, \na debt ratio of more than 50% is considered undesirable. \n \nTwelve (12) out of the thirteen (13) Public Corporations and State enterprises assessed \nhad debt ratios of less than 50% implying that owners\u2019 equity was sufficient to cover \ntotal debt with the exception of NEC Uzima Limited which had a debt ratio above 50%. \nFurther analysis noted that 11 Public Corporations and State enterprises had very low \ngearing levels below 10% indicating availability of untapped source of financing for \ngrowth. The table below refers. \n \nTable 55: Enterprise Gearing \nNo. \nEntity \nDebt Ratio (%) \nRemarks \n2021/2022 \n2020/2021 \n1 Civil Aviation \nAuthority \n48 \n51.9", "metadata": {"page": 131, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "48 \n51.9 \nNo response from Management. \n2 Uganda \nElectricity \nDistribution \nCompany \nLimited \n10.31 \n10.23 \nManagement noted that the debt arises \nfrom the financial liability on the buyout \namount of \nUMEME. \nThis is the \nresponsibility of the Government of \nUganda. \n \n3 Uganda \nElectricity \nGeneration \nCompany \n0.88 \n0.74 \nManagement indicated that it had \ninstituted \nstrategies \nto \nimprove \nprofitability in the short term such as: \na) Karuma and Isimba HPP loans have \nbeen converted from USD to UGX to \navoid \nforex \nlosses.", "metadata": {"page": 131, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "forex \nlosses. \nb) Commissioning of Karuma HPP is \nbeing fast tracked to generate revenue \nin the next financial year. \n \n4 Uganda \nElectricity \nTransmission \nCompany \nLimited \n0.67 \n0.65 \nManagement indicated that Conversion \nof debt to equity will be discussed in the \nnext Annual General Meeting, slated for \nDecember 2022. \n5 NEC \nConstruction \nWorks & \nEngineering \nLimited \n0.666 \n0.69 \nNo response from Management.", "metadata": {"page": 131, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "116 \n \nNo. \nEntity \nDebt Ratio (%) \nRemarks \n2021/2022 \n2020/2021 \n6 NEC Uzima \nLimited \n55 \n53.5 \nManagement explained that the debt \ncomponent related to the internal \nborrowing from NEC-Luwero Industries \nLtd. This was used to acquire the new \nfactory machinery and construction of \nthe new building and this debt is \ninterest free. \n7 Insurance \nTraining \ncollege \n0.24 \n0.35 \nManagement \nindicated \nthat \nevery \nfinancial year, it develops strategies to \nreduce the debt obligations. This is \nevidenced by the debt reduction over \nthe past three (3) financial years, 2019-", "metadata": {"page": 132, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "20 (4%), 2020-21 (6%), 2021-22 \n(23%). This has been achieved by \ntimely payment of quarterly debt \nobligations and a prepayment of UGX.1 \nbillion made in the FY 2021-22 over and \nabove the annual debt obligations. \n \n8 Kilembe \nMines Limited \n0.23 \n0.21 \nManagement indicated that, to further \nimprove \nthe \ndebt \nposition, \nmanagement will continue following up \nwith MOFPED on the issue of debt \nrestructuring of the UGX.4.7bn. \n \n9 Uganda \nBroadcasting \nCorporation \n(UBC) \n0.227 \n0 \nManagement indicated that a proposal \nhad been submitted to the board for \napproval \nto", "metadata": {"page": 132, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "approval \nto \nlease \nsome \nof \nthe \nCorporations land to raise money to pay \noff \nsome \nof \nthe \ndebts. \n \nSecondly, the corporation is following \nup on the presidential directives of \nwriting off the penalties for NSSF and \ncoming up with payment plan for the \ndebts with NWSC, Umeme and the \nprinciple \nfor \nURA \nand \nNSSF. \n \n10 Uganda \nPrinting and \nPublishing \nCorporation \n0.13 \n0.22 \nNo response from Management. \n11 NEC AGRO \nSMC Limited \n0.09 \n0.136 \nNo response from Management. \n12 Uganda Air \nCargo", "metadata": {"page": 132, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "12 Uganda Air \nCargo \nCorporation \n0.075 \n0.13 \nManagement noted that it is desirous of \nincreasing revenue generation, mainly \nby use of its own air assets, ensure \nfrugality and enter into partnerships in \norder \nto \nmake \nthe \nCorporation \nprofitable. Management shall ensure its \nworking capital is organically generated \nand an anticipated upward trend will \nfacilitate debt ratio improvement to \nrecommended industry averages.", "metadata": {"page": 132, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "117 \n \nNo. \nEntity \nDebt Ratio (%) \nRemarks \n2021/2022 \n2020/2021 \n13 Uganda \nRailways \nCorporation \n0.0307 \n0.0207 \nNo response from Management. \n \nI advised the enterprises to review their debt-to-equity mix and keep a balance to \nensure entity profitability. \n4.3. \nOverall Conclusion/Recommendation \n \nGovernment established public corporations and state enterprises with an objective of \nensuring efficient and effective management of government operations while \ndelivering services to the citizens. I noted that 56% of the assessed companies made \nprofits while others were not making profits, thus affecting their return on assets, \nability to pay dividends to Government, and ability to settle their obligations as they \nfall due. Therefore, these companies should put in place strategies to improve their", "metadata": {"page": 133, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "performance and deliver to the expectations of Government. In addition, Government \nshould develop appropriate financial and non-financial performance assessment \nindicators for each category of Public Corporations and State Enterprises to enable \ncomprehensive and standardised performance assessment.", "metadata": {"page": 133, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "118 \n \nPART 3: SECTORAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CROSS CUTTING FINDINGS \n \nThis part contains cross cutting key findings noted in the respective sectors and cross cutting \nservice delivery issues in Local Governments. \n \nA. \nSectoral Key Findings \n \n1.0. \nPUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT \n \n1.1. \nDelayed realignment of the Comprehensive National Development \nFramework (CNDPF) to the program planning approach \n \nThe National Planning Authority developed a comprehensive national development framework \nin 2009 to guide planning in the country. This framework was developed based on the sector \nwide approach to planning and budgeting and should have been realigned to the new \nprogramme-based approach to planning and budgeting with the shift from the sector wide \napproach. At the time of writing this report (December 2022), the CNDPF was yet to be re-", "metadata": {"page": 134, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "aligned to the new programme approach to planning and budgeting. The CNDPF therefore in \nits current form therefore cannot appropriately guide planning at both national and entity \nlevel. I advised the NPA to ensure that the CNDPF adequately realigned to the programme-\nbased planning and budgeting adopted by Government. \n \n1.2. \nProgress towards full implementation of the programme development \napproach \nThe Programme Approach to planning was adopted so as to reduce the silo approach to \nplanning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring & evaluation (M&E), which always led to \nthe duplication and wastage of resources. This approach was supposed to bring together \nstakeholders so as to achieve the delivery of common results, in an effective and efficient \nway. There have been areas of commendable performance towards transition by government \nto the programme approach for instance; Programme Implementation Action Plans (PIAPs) \nare providing the basis for planning, budgeting, implementation and M&E. In addition, the", "metadata": {"page": 134, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "budgeting Systems have been adjusted to adopt the Programme approach which has \nimproved the link between the Development Plan and the National Budget. \n \nDespite these achievements there are areas that need attention; there is still resistance from \nsome stakeholders to the intervention, there are capacity gaps at the entity level regarding \nthis approach, limited funding to programme secretariats which affects their operations, there \nno service delivery standards and outcome indicators for measuring performance. In addition, \nonly four (4) of the twenty (20) programmes had functional programme working groups and \nworking procedures within some entity operations are still not fully aligned to the programmed \napproach. \n \nGovernment therefore needs to develop and implement change management programmes \nthat will include training for technocrats and political heads, undertake capacity building of \nplanners at both MDAs and LGs and also ensure that programme secretariat through their \nlead ministries are adequately funded to execute their mandates. Mops and OPM should also \ncoordinate the development of service delivery standards within programmes.", "metadata": {"page": 134, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1.3. \nOperation of unlicensed and unregistered schools in Kampala \nI reviewed the status of registration and licencing of schools with Kampala and noted Only \n865 out of 1,927 schools were registered with KCCA representing 45%, while 928 schools", "metadata": {"page": 134, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "119 \n \nwere not registered and licensed, representing 48%. The balance of 134 schools were \nprovisionally licensed. The provisional licenses for 102 out of the 134 schools had expired \n(exceeded the two years in operation) and had not been renewed, implying that the schools \nwere operating illegally. \nI further noted that except for the schools which were issued closure notices as far back as \n2018 but are still operating, other schools had never been issued closure notices by KCCA. \nThe above inactions affected service delivery, and the education service standards in the city \nschools are at risk of declining to worrying levels. This was attributed to the inadequate \nmonitoring and enforcement by the KCCA education department. I advised the Accounting \nOfficer to enhance the monitoring and enforcement of by the education department to ensure \nthat all schools are dully licenced and registered. \n1.4. \nFunctionality of District Service Commissions \nI noted that several Districts and Cities had not constituted Service Commissions contrary to", "metadata": {"page": 135, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "section 54 (1) of the Local Government Act 1997. The table below refers \n \nTable 56: Constitution and functionality of Service Commissions \nStatus of DSC \nNo of Districts & \nCities \n%age of total \nDSCs \nFunctional and fully Constituted-(5 members) \n37 \n26 \nFunctional but not fully constituted (4 members)- \n46 \n32 \nFunctional but not fully constituted (3 members) \n59 \n41 \nFunctional but not fully constituted (2 members) \n2 \n1 \nNot functional \n1 \n1 \nTotal \n145 \n100 \n \nFailure to constitute District and City Commissions affects service delivery since recruitment, \npromotion and confirmation of staff cannot not be undertaken. \n \nI advised MoLG to ensure that going forward all districts have fully functional district service", "metadata": {"page": 135, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Commissions as required by law. \n \n1.5. \nReview of the Operations of the Kampala District Land Board \nThe Kampala District Land Board is mandated by Section 54 of the Land Act to manage all \npublic land within Kampala on behalf of the citizens. I reviewed the operations of the board \nfor the financial years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 and noted that the board did not have a \nsubstantive secretary, and there were no minutes for some of the meetings of the board. \nFurther, the board had not prepared annual reports for the two years reviewed nor did the \nboard prepare financial statements. \n \nI also noted inadequate coordination between the Board and KCCA, failure by the board to \nfully automate its operations and lack of a complete and updated inventory of all the Public \nland under its management. \n \nI advised the board to ensure that a substantive secretary is appointed, the board prepares \nfinancial statements, and an inventory of public land maintained. In addition, mechanisms", "metadata": {"page": 135, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "should be put in place to ensure that there is proper coordination between the Board and \nother stakeholders on land matters.", "metadata": {"page": 135, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "120 \n \n2.0. \nPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION \na) \nReview of Operations of missions \n \n(i) \nI noted that a number of Missions signed agreements with Insurance Companies for \nthe provision of medical services to the Mission Officials. However, most of the \ninsurance covers given to the foreign service officers did not cover heart diseases, \ndiabetes, and major operations. As a result, officers have been forced to use their \npersonal funds which is very costly for the foreign service officers. In some cases, the \nforeign service officers are forced to seek for refunds which contravenes the Public \nService Standing Orders. \n \n(ii) \nPPDA issued abridged PPDA guidelines to be used by missions when undertaking \nprocurements outside Uganda. These guidelines are however impractical in most cases \ngiven the unique circumstances and procurement requirements in the different host", "metadata": {"page": 136, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "countries. As a result, there has been a lot of non-compliance to these guidelines. \n \n(iii) \nA review of the mission work plans and budgets revealed that most of missions were \nnot provided with capital budgets in the past three years. As a result, missions were \nunable to undertake activities of a capital nature such as renovations of chanceries \nand offices, procurement of vehicles, and procurement of furniture. This undermines \nthe efforts of promoting Uganda\u2019s image abroad. \n \n(iv) \nI noted that Government continues to receive offers inform of trade opportunities, \nscholarships, financial offers among others. I however observed that Government does \nnot have a comprehensive and effective system of follow-up on such offers. As a result, \na number of offers have expired without action being taken by Government. This \nresults in loss of a many opportunities for the country. \n \n(v) \nAt the end of every financial year Missions are required to return unspent funds back", "metadata": {"page": 136, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "to the UCF. However, a comparison between the amounts wired back as per the \nfinancial statements and the Navision system and the amount received as per the \nactual receipts given by treasury shows that the value of these transfers is lost through \nexchange losses and bank charges. A review of funds returned by a sample of six \nmissions revealed that UGX.15.8Mn was lost in bank charges and foreign exchange \nlosses on various transactions made to return these unspent balances in two financial \nyears. \n \nI advised the PS MoFA to engage MoFPED for provision of adequate capital development \nfunding for the missions and minimising the effects of foreign exchange losses on return of \nfunds by the mission. In addition, the PS MOFA should engage PPDA to review the abridged \nguidelines issued with a view of addressing the current challenges procurement challenges \nfaced by the mission. MoFA should also establish a mechanism for follow-up of on the offers \nprovided to Government. \n \nb)", "metadata": {"page": 136, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "b) \nFailure to organise Women Councils/ Committees elections \nThe Electoral Commission planned to conduct women council elections following the end term \nof office for Women Councils/ Committees from village to national level which lapsed on the \n23rd August 2022. During the financial year 2021/2022, the Commission undertook activities \nfrom verification of administrative units to nominations and spent UGX. 6,887,367,121, \nhowever the exercise was never completed and abandoned mid-way due to inadequate \nfunding. As a result, there are no women representatives in the various Local Councils which", "metadata": {"page": 136, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "121 \n \ncontravenes the constitution. I advised the Electoral Commission to engage stakeholders \nparticularly MoFPED and Parliament for provision of resources to have these elections \nconcluded. \n \n3.0. \nAGRICULTURE SECTOR \n \na) \nStatus of the Sugarcane production project in Northern Uganda \n \nGovernment of Uganda owns 40% of the shares in Horyal Investments Holdings Company \nLimited (HIHC) whose main business is the establishment and running of the Atiak Sugar \nFactory. During the year Government allocated UGX 108Bn for purchase of agricultural \nmechanisation equipment to be given to HIHC under a finance lease arrangement. \n \nAtiak sugar factory was an intervention started by Government under the sugar cane out \ngrowers scheme. It started at the pioneer sugarcane production site in Atiak sub county Amuru \nDistrict, and subsequently expanded to two additional sites in Lamwo district, namely, Palabek", "metadata": {"page": 137, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kal (Lamwo-1) and Palabek Nyimur (Lamwo 2). \nAt inception in 2017, the intervention targeted to establish 13,841 acres of sugarcane at the \npioneer site at Atiak, 15,000 acres at Palabek kal and 31,159 acres at Palabek Ogili site. By \nOctober 2019 only 7,906 acres of sugar cane had been established at the pioneer production \nsite in Atiak after which the contractor ceased operations at the site. Similarly, by end of 2020 \nonly 4,994 acres had been established at Palabek Kal Production site. \nAt the time of writing this report in December 2022, the project operations were currently on \nhold pending the acquisition of machinery through UDC. The project had not performed as \nexpected due to the following; \n(i) \nSlow progress at the Atiak site was attributed to adverse weather, difficulties \nexperienced by the contractor in mobilizing the required heavy machinery, and the", "metadata": {"page": 137, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "heavy rains during season 2018B. \n(ii) \nSlow progress at the Palabek Kal production site was attributed to the shortage of seed \ncane within the proximity of the plantation site, difficulty in mobilizing labour and \nCOVID 19. \n(iii) \nFire outbreaks in 2020 also wiped out a substantial acreage especially at the production \nsite in Atiak. \n(iv) \nThe decision by the Shareholders (of HHIC Ltd) to halt operations after 2020 to allow \nfor the proposed shift from the predominantly manual field operations mechanized \nfarm operations under the oversite of Uganda Development Cooperation (UDC). \n \nThe delayed implementation of the sugarcane production project of Northern Uganda \nnegatively impacts the livelihoods the beneficiary communities. \nI advised the Government to review the performance of this investment and ensure that the \ncontractor delivers all deliverables as agreed in the contacts. \n \nb) \nPerformance of Agricultural Extension Services", "metadata": {"page": 137, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Performance of Agricultural Extension Services \n \nOne of the key mandates of MAAIF is to support farmers within the country with high quality \nand reliable agricultural extension services. MAAIF is also the entity responsible for Pillar 1", "metadata": {"page": 137, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "122 \n \n(Agriculture Value Chain Development (Production, Storage, Processing and Marketing) under \nthe PDM for which an effective extension system will be required. \n \nI reviewed the current extension system and noted gaps for example; there were no \nperformance indicators for extension workers, out of the desired 9,275 extension workers only \n4,031 (57%) are available, the extension workers face challenges of transport, inadequate \ntraining among others. These challenges were due to insufficient budget allocations for this \nactivity. \n \nI advised Government to prioritize this provision of extension services through recruitment \nand training of extension workers, and provision of transport since the success of the PDM is \ndirectly affected by the effectiveness of extension services. \n \n4.0. \nJUSTICE LAW AND ORDER SECTOR \na) \nReview of the Performance of the Police Canine Unit", "metadata": {"page": 138, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda Police Force had a total of One hundred seventy-nine (179) dogs in the police canine \nunit; I reviewed the management of the dogs by the UPF and observed the following. \n \nThe dogs are deployed in seventy-eight (78) policing districts out of the total of one hundred \nforty-five (145) Policing districts, representing a coverage of 58%. More than 50% of these \nare within Kampala. The unit requires three (3) veterinary doctors and 22 veterinary assistants \nto handle medical requirements for the dogs out of which the unit only has one (1) veterinary \ndoctor and nine (9) assistants who are all based at the Canine headquarters in Kampala. \n \nThe unit has thirty (30) vehicles, seven (7) of which are grounded due to mechanical issues. \nOut of the remaining twenty-three (23), eleven (11) are allocated to Kampala, and the rest \n(52%) are spread across regions which affects the transportation of the dogs. The above was", "metadata": {"page": 138, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "attributed to inadequate funding and prioritization of the unit within UPF. I advised the \nAccounting Officer to develop measures that will improve the geographical spread and \navailability of the dogs. There is also need to recruit more veterinary doctors and provide more \nvehicles to the unit to facilitate movement by the unit. \n \nb) \nOperations of the forensic laboratory \nThe Police Forensics Unit was established to support criminal investigations by providing \nscientific means and study. This unit has four laboratories for; a) chemical, biological and \nradiology, b) questionable documents, c) criminal investigations, d) cybercrime and digital \nforensics. I reviewed the performance of these laboratories and noted the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the 446 cases received for chemical, biological, and radiology analysis, only 203 \nwere analyzed and concluded, representing a performance of 46%. \n\uf0b7 \nThe questionable documents laboratory received 623 cases during the year 2021 in", "metadata": {"page": 138, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "addition to a backlog of 1,161 at the beginning of the year. By the end of the year, only \n511 cases were analysed and concluded, representing a performance of 29% \n\uf0b7 \nThe crime investigations laboratory had 407 scene of crime officers and only 224 Scene \nof Crime Officer kits, 210 cameras and 108 motorcycles. This implies that the available \nkits and cameras are insufficient since each of the Officers is expected to have a kit and \ncamera at least.", "metadata": {"page": 138, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "123 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe cybercrime and digital forensics laboratory had a case backlog of 478 at the \nbeginning of the year 2021 and received 330 cases during the year, out of these only \n224 were analysed and concluded, representing a performance of 28%. \nThis performance affects completion of cases and delays administration of justice. The \nAccounting Officer explained that this was due to lack of sufficient funds to equip the \nlaboratories and hire more staff. I advised the Accounting Officer develop strategies of \nensuring that these laboratories are well staffed and equipped in order to improve their \neffectiveness. \nc) \nLack of a Laboratory Information Management System for the forensic unit \nA Laboratory Information Management System is software that supports laboratory operations \nmanagement. The software\u2019s key functionality includes sample management, including \ntracking a chain of custody, workflow management, integration with other systems for real-\ntime reporting, and any other information that the users may require to track.", "metadata": {"page": 139, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I observed that Uganda Police\u2019s Forensics Unit does not have a Laboratory Information \nManagement System to manage its operations. As a result, the unit relies heavily on manual \nrecording, which is cumbersome, inefficient, and prone to errors. I advised the Accounting \nOfficer to ensure the implementation of a Laboratory Information Management System is fast \ntracked for improved operations. \nd) \nAssessment of Road map for Mass Registration and Renewal of National IDs \nNIRA is expected to undertake mass registration and mass renewal of the IDs that will be \nexpiring in 2024. This will involve replacing old IDs with a next-generation ID system \nembedded with a microchip containing citizens\u2019 electronic and biometric information. \n \nI noted that at the time of writing this report in December 2022, the Authority did not have a \nclear strategy and roadmap on how and when the new IDs will be rolled out, the costs \ninvolved, sensitization arrangements of the public were also not clear and other key activities", "metadata": {"page": 139, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "such as signing of contracts for supply of the blank cards, procurement of equipment and \nrecruitment of staff to manage the exercise were yet to be undertaken. There is a risk that \nthe Authority will face challenges due to the large number of applications in 2024 which will \nresult in processing delays, congestion and frustration of applicants. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to develop a comprehensive roadmap and strategy which will \nguide the planning and execution of this activity. \n \ne) \nCourt award and compensation \nIn 2016, government decentralised the payment/retirement of court awards from the Ministry \nof Justice and Constitutional Affairs (MoJCA) to the Ministries, Departments, Agencies, Local \ngovernments and State Enterprises (MDALS) responsible for causing the obligations. The \ndecentralisation of court awards and compensation was adopted to curb the accumulation of \narrears arising from court awards and compensation, starting with obligations for the financial \nyear 2016/2017. However, my preliminary findings indicate that some MDALSs still accumulate", "metadata": {"page": 139, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "arrears from court awards even after decentralising the payment/retirement of court awards. \n \nI sampled nine (9) entities for the review of court awards and compensation, and I noted the \nfollowing;", "metadata": {"page": 139, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "124 \n \nf) \nUnderfunding of liabilities arising from Court awards and compensations \nI noted that nine (9) entities owed a sum of UGX.604,091,207,112 in outstanding court awards \nat the start of the year. Whereas these entities declared their liability fully to the Ministry of \nFinance for budgeting and settlement, only UGX.26,622,994,920 (4%) was provided, leaving \na balance of UGX. 577,468,212,192 unbudgeted. Details are in the table below. \n \nTable 57: Underfunding of liabilities from Court awards and compensations \nNo. \nEntity \nRequired funding \n- UGX \nReleased funds - \nUGX \nVariance - UGX \n1. \n \nMinistry of Justice", "metadata": {"page": 140, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ministry of Justice \n377,429,099,424 \n19,160,000,000 \n358,269,099,424 \n2. \n \nOffice of the Directorate of Public \nProsecution (ODPP) \n182,834,548 \n0 \n182,834,548 \n3. \n \nMinistry of Lands, Housing and \nUrban Development \n165,210,577,218 \n0 \n165,210,577,218 \n4. \n \nUganda Land Commission \n5,690,000,000 \n160,000,000 \n5,530,000,000 \n5. \n \nMinistry of Education and Sports \n22,881,496,579 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 140, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n22,881,496,579 \n6. \n \nUganda Police Force \n8,884,474,063 \n500,000,000 \n8,384,474,063 \n7. \n \nUganda Prisons Services \n244,335,022 \n0 \n244,335,022 \n8. \n \nKampala Capital City Authority \n23,019,117,745 \n6,802,994,920 \n16,216,122,825 \n9. \n \nMinistry of Agriculture, Animal \nIndustry and Fisheries \n549,272,513 \n0 \n549,272,513 \n \nTotal \n604,091,207,112", "metadata": {"page": 140, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "26,622,994,920 \n577,468,212,192 \n \nThe failure to provide a sufficient budget for liabilities resulted in delayed settlement and \nfurther accumulation of interest on the outstanding debt. For instance, I noted that as of the \n30th of June 2022, the outstanding awards at MoJCA had accumulated interest amounting to \nUGX.115,667,496,357, which is 73% of the principal amount awarded. \n \nThe Accounting Officers explained that the budgeting is not controlled by the respective \nentities but rather follow the budget ceiling provided by the Ministry of Finance; however, \nthey pledged that they would continue to engage the relevant stakeholders, including The \nPresidential Advisory Committee on Budget (PACOB), the Committee on Legal and \nParliamentary Affairs and MoFPED, to provide sufficient budget provisions to cater for the \nsettlement of arrears. \nI advised the Accounting Officers to engage MoFPED to ensure that adequate resources are", "metadata": {"page": 140, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "allocated to settle the arrears. \n \ng) \nDelayed settlement of Court awards as at the 30th of June 2022 \nI reviewed 278 court awards across six (6) entities and noted that 37 awards have remained \noutstanding for more than ten years; 116 cases ranged between 5 to 10 years without \nsettlement. Details in the table below; \n \nTable 58: Time taken to settle court awards and compensations \nDetails \n0-4 \n5-10 \n11-15 \nOver 15 years \nMinistry of Justice and Constitutional affairs \n5 \n39 \n21 \n23 \nUganda Land Commission \n6 \n2 \n1 \n0 \nUganda Prisons \n4 \n7 \n0 \n0 \nUganda Police Force \n84 \n66 \n14 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 140, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "14 \n0 \nMinistry of Agriculture \n2 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nOffice of the Directorate of Public Prosecution \n2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \nTotal \n103 \n116 \n14 \n23", "metadata": {"page": 140, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "125 \n \nOf these, the 23 cases in the Ministry of Justice had accrued interest of approximately UGX. \n105,646,446,256 by the 30th of June 2022. \n \nDelays to compensate affected parties result in further interest accumulation and deny timely \ndelivery of justice. The Accounting Officers explained that whereas management is committed \nto the timely compensation of claimants, execution depends on the funding level availed by \nMoFPED. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to put in place a system that ensures that claimants are \ncompensated in time. \n \n5.0. \nINFORMATION COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY SECTOR \na) \nRegistration and certification of IT professionals and IT institutions without \nenabling regulation \nSection 5(i) NITA-U Act, 2009 provides for the functions of the Authority to include; regulation \nof the information technology in Uganda in order to ensure its effective promotion and", "metadata": {"page": 141, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "development. In addition, the Authority is required to act as an authentication centre for \ninformation technology training in Uganda in conjunction with the Ministry responsible for \nEducation. However, I noted the following; \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority is currently registering professionals and the training institutions without \nprescribed regulations and standards. Over 62 applicants for individual Service \nProvider and IT institutions applications were received since 2017, 13 of the applicants \nwere certified and only 2 Individual Service Providers have updated certificates while \nthe 11 are expired. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs \nadvised that a regulation for IT Professionals would not suffice in governing and or \nregulating the IT Profession. They recommended the development of an ICT \nProfessionals Bill, which the Ministry of ICT and National Guidance is spearheading. \n \n\uf0b7 \nRelatedly, the Authority has Service Provider Regulations but they lack timelines for \ncertification of applicants. Consequently, clients of the Authority continue to operate", "metadata": {"page": 141, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "without renewal of certification. From a sample examined, I observed that seven (7) \ncompanies were providing services to MDAs without certification. \n \nManagement explained that it has instituted additional measures to address the matter. \n \nUnder the circumstances, the registration and certification without enabling regulations is \nirregular. \nI advised the Accounting Officer to strengthen and align NITA-U in the delivery of its mandate \nby developing and implementing all the required regulations, laws and standards. \nb) \nFailure to Charge 2% Gross Annual Revenue for Registered Television \nStations and FM Radio stations \nThe UCC New License Framework on fees and fines under General Notice No. 977 of 2017 as \npublished in the Uganda Gazette on 3rd November 2017, provided for the 2% gross annual \nlevy on licensed operators such as commercial televisions and radio stations.", "metadata": {"page": 141, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "126 \n \nHowever, I noted that UCC had not enforced the payment of a 2% gross annual levy on the \nlicensed Television and FM radio operators, and no licensed Television and FM radio operator \nhad submitted audited financial statements to the Commission for assessment. \n \nFailure to collect a 2% Gross Annual Revenue levy from the operators deprives the \nCommission of revenue hence affecting the implementation of activities to deliver services to \nthe public. \n \nThe Accounting officer explained that the Broadcasters under their Umbrella the National \nAssociation of Broadcasters appealed the levy to the Minister of ICT & National Guidance and \nthe appeal had not yet been resolved. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to follow up on the outcome of the appeal from the Minister \nof ICT & National Guidance. In the meantime, the Commission should comply with the \nprovisions of the existing law and institute a mechanism to levy a charge on the GAR of the \noperators. \nc)", "metadata": {"page": 142, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "operators. \nc) \nOperations of Smiles Telecommunications Limited \nPart II of the Uganda Communications (fees and fines) Amendment Regulations 2020 states \nthat an operator who without authority from the Commission discontinues its services licensed \nby the Commission is liable to a fine of up to 10% of the Gross Annual Revenue of the \nOperator. \n \nM/s Smiles Telecommunications Limited discontinued its operations in January 2022 without \nany authorization from the Commission. UCC however, did not suspend or revoke the license \nas guided by the Act. The Commission did not fine M/s Smiles Telecommunications Limited \nfor violating the terms and conditions of the issued license. \n \nFurthermore, I noted that M/s Smiles Communications Uganda Limited has an outstanding \nobligation to UGX.227.300Mn and USD.505,079.47 payable to UCC. The Commission had not \nput any measures to recover this money from M/s Smiles Communications Uganda Limited.", "metadata": {"page": 142, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "With the discontinuation of M/s Smiles Telecommunications Limited\u2019s operations, the \nCommission is at risk of losing the outstanding revenue from the Company as well as loss of \nfunds by the subscribers. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that effective 1st July 2020, the Commission introduced a \nnew licensing framework where all existing operators were required to apply for licenses of \ntheir choice and transition to the new licenses. In the meantime, all existing operators were \ngiven the authorization to continue providing services as the Commission was evaluating their \nlicense applications. As part of the transition Smile applied for a Regional PSP and National \nPIP but midway, they changed their application to a Regional PIP and Regional PSP license. \nThe process is still ongoing, save for the general authorization issued to all transiting \noperators, Smile Communications does not hold a valid license. \n \nThe procedure leading to a fine of up to 10% of the operator\u2019s gross annual revenue under \nthe fees and fines regulations would arise where the operator on their own discontinues", "metadata": {"page": 142, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "services or operations. In the case of Smile, the discontinuation of services was a result of an \naction by M/s American Tower Company Ltd (ATC) disconnecting their network for failure to \npay accumulated tower carriage fees.", "metadata": {"page": 142, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "127 \n \nIt was further explained that Smile took ATC to court citing irregular and unfair treatment \nleading to the disconnection. The case is still ongoing. The Commission is monitoring the \nprogress of the court case as it also engages both ATC and Smile for a possible amicable \nsettlement of the underlying dispute. \n \nI advised the Accounting officer to put in place measures to ensure that the outstanding \nobligation is recovered from M/s Smile communications Uganda Limited, as I await the \noutcome of the ongoing initiatives on the matter. \nd) \nLack of a policy on confiscated equipment \nRegulation 112(1&2) of the Uganda Communications Commission (Licensing) Regulations, \n2019 stipulates that the Commission may upon an investigation, confiscate from a licensed \noperator or agent of an operator or any person any apparatus which is possessed, installed, \nconnected or operated unlawfully. The owner of any apparatus confiscated by the Commission", "metadata": {"page": 143, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "may appeal to the Uganda Communications Tribunal against the confiscation within 30 days. \n \nOn several occasions, the Commission has confiscated equipment from operators however, \nthere are no laid down procedures on how this equipment should be stored, returned to the \noperators, or even destroyed and who is responsible for the costs thereof. This is attributed \nto the failure of the Accounting Officer to come up with the procedures, for the Board\u2019s \napproval, on how the confiscated equipment should be managed. \n \nThe lack of a policy may lead to misuse of the confiscated equipment and may deepen disputes \nand cause financial losses to Government. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the development of the policy on the management of \nthe confiscated equipment was ongoing. The Policy was currently at the draft stage and \nmanagement expects full approvals and policy to be in place by March 2023 \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to expedite the development of a policy on the management", "metadata": {"page": 143, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of the confiscated equipment to mitigate associated the risks. \ne) \nDelayed completion of the National E-commerce Platform \nThe Commission is spearheading a project to design, build and pilot an enterprise-grade smart \nE-commerce platform that is aimed at supporting SMEs in the informal sectors of the \nAgriculture, Retail, and Services industry in Uganda, in order to promote access to online \nsales, overcome challenges in delivering too hard to reach communities and to spur economic \ngrowth. The National E-commerce platform seeks to develop and deploy an ICT-enabled \nplatform through which SMEs in the targeted informal sector can reach wider national and \ninternational markets, enable seamless payments and banking and obtain data-driven \nbusiness insights and manage their sales inventories. \n \nThe project is worth UGX.843.4Mn was approved by Top Management on 10/05/2021 and \nwas intended to be completed by 18th April 2022.", "metadata": {"page": 143, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I however noted that by the time of the audit in October 2022, the platform had not been \ncompleted and was therefore not ready for implementation, contrary to the objectives of the \nproject as well as the ToRs of the steering committee members. This was attributed to delays \nin the procurement of the necessary computer equipment.", "metadata": {"page": 143, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "128 \n \nWith delayed completion of NEP, SMEs in the informal sector lose out on the benefits of E-\ncommerce. \n \nThe Accounting officer explained that the completion of the platform development processes \nwas affected by a prolonged delay in procurement and delivery of the high-performance \ncomputer with graphics processing unit capability and hosting server, caused by the global \nscarcity of computer chips. The specialized computer and server were however received at \nthe end of October 2022 and the team was now completing the final installation and \nconfiguration of the systems. The project steering committee had prepared a final report to \nManagement for consideration of the recommendations on how the project would be \nimplemented beyond the development phase. \n \nI advised the Executive Director to liaise with the project steering committee members to \nensure that the NEP is completed and operational to support SMEs in the informal sector \nf) \nSharing of funds for information and communication technology \ndevelopment", "metadata": {"page": 144, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "development \nRegulation 10 (1) (a) of the Uganda Communications (Universal Service and Access Fund) \nRegulations, 2019 provides that the Fund shall be utilised for information and communication \ntechnology development and rural communications. The percentage of the monies shall be \nshared between UCC and the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology \n(MoICT). \n \nHowever, the Regulation does not provide the sharing ratio and/or details against which the \nsharing would be based. During the year under review, the Commission budgeted to transfer \nUGX.6.5Bn to MoICT for its share from the information and communication technology \ndevelopment fund. The basis for arriving at this figure could not be supported. \n \nWithout the basis of the percentage sharing ratio, I was unable to establish how the amount \ntransferred was arrived at. The lack of these ratios creates uncertainty in funding and may \nlead to inter-institutional funding conflict. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the proportions are based on the Ministerial guidance", "metadata": {"page": 144, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "issued by the Minister following the enactment of the Communications Act of 2013 in respect \nof ICT development. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to follow up on the matter with the UCC Board and the \nMinister for ICT to specify in the regulations the sharing ratio between the benefiting \ninstitutions. \ng) \nLow reduction in the cost of internet \nThe World Bank funded the expansion and extension of the NBI/EGI through the Regional \nCommunication Infrastructure Program (RCIP) to increase internet accessibility and \naffordability to MDAs, Lower Local Governments and the everyday user. At the \ncommencement of the Last Mile project under RCIP, the Internet cost was USD.70 per MBPS, \nwhich was to be reduced to USD.20 per MBPS at the completion of the Last mile project under \nRCIP. The RCIP World Bank project was completed by 30th August 2022, which resulted into \nan increase of connectivity on the number of active sites from 321 MDAs to 1,400 MDAs, lower \nlocal authorities, schools and hospitals on to the NBI/EGI.", "metadata": {"page": 144, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "129 \n \nHowever, I noted that the projected reduction in cost of the internet to USD.20 per MBPS has \nnot materialized, despite an increase in the number of sites connected to the NBI/EGI. Failure \nto reduce the internet cost will deny service delivery such as affordable communication and \nelectronic learning in both public and private institutions country wide. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that NITA-U had engaged PSST on the same and the final \ndiscussions are underway to reduce the cost to USD.35. \n \nI await the outcome of the engagement with PSST and further urge the Accounting Officer to \nreview the Internet Billing Card/costs to achieve the intended goal of increasing internet \nconnectivity and affordability. \nh) \nWeaknesses in certifying ICT service providers \nNITA-U\u2019s strategic goal Part 1, aims to achieve a well-regulated Information Technology (IT) \nenvironment in Public and Private Sector, while Part 2, is to Strengthen capacity and", "metadata": {"page": 145, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "awareness creation about IT in Uganda (both institutional and human). \n \nI sampled and observed from a total of Seven (7) companies that they were providing services \nto MDAs without certification by NITA-U and therefore compromising on the quality of services \nor goods received. A further review of the certification tool revealed that the Authority has \nbeen able to register 686 applications from inception and only 301 certifications are valid. The \nrisk that unqualified and sub-standard works fill the market is highly likely and that insufficient \nconsumer protection in regards to IT Services and Products goes un-monitored. \n \nManagement explained that NITA-U had instituted additional measures for renewal of \ncertifications that had expired. They also continue to partner with key stakeholders such as \nBank of Uganda, Lotteries and Gaming Regulatory Board, heads of PDUs, Professional \nAssociations and others who require that their licensees/ bidders for IT Services obtain the \nNITA-U certification before they apply for a license/bid for services.", "metadata": {"page": 145, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I advised the Accounting Officer to institute measures of follow-up and management of the \ncertification process of the IT service providers country wide. \ni) \nRefund to World Bank of ineligible EGP funds - USD.249,500 \nGovernment of Uganda (GoU) with funding under RCIP Phase V, invested in the E-Government \nProcurement system (e-GP system) and contracted a supplier at an initial system acquisition \ncost of USD.1,347,000. However, in a letter dated 26th June 2020 from the MoFPED and \naddressed to the Executive Director NITA-U, the government expressed concerns about the \napproach of the System provider and the long-term sustainability of the e-GP system project. \nReference is also made to an Aide Memoire from the World Bank dated 8th \u2013 12th February \n2021, in which the World Bank acknowledged receipt of a termination request of the e-\nProcurement Contract.", "metadata": {"page": 145, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Procurement Contract. \n \nI noted that subsequently, the PSST requested the Executive Director of NITA-U to refund a \ntotal of USD.249,500 worth of payments to the World Bank. The payments to the Vendor were \nfound to be ineligible due by the World Bank, due to the absence of a no objection in \naccordance with the guidelines.", "metadata": {"page": 145, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "130 \n \nUndertaking project expenditures without obtaining the required no-objections exposes the \nproject to a risk of suspension by the World Bank of disbursements of funds to qualifying \nproject expenditures that are supported by the Bank. \n \nManagement explained that the World Bank guideline was complied with. However, the \npayment was made based on the approval for termination of the contract by the Steering \nCommittee under the MOFPED and a no objection by the World Bank. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to always comply with the World Bank guidelines to avoid \npenalties that will cost Government. \n \n6.0. \nACCOUNTABILITY SECTOR \n \na) \nUn-funded Approved Consolidated Budget \n \nThe PFMA, 2015 Section 15 (1) and (2) requires that after approval of the annual budget by \nParliament, the Secretary to the Treasury shall issue the annual cash flow plan of the", "metadata": {"page": 146, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Government, based on the procurement plans, work plans, and recruitment plans approved \nby the Parliament. The annual cash flow plan shall form the basis for the release of funds by \nthe Accountant General to the Accounting Officers. \nDuring the financial year 2021/2022, Parliament appropriated an initial budget of \nUGX.44.778Tn which was later revised to UGX.51.562Tn through a supplementary budget \nof UGX.6.784Tn, to finance Government expenditure as summarised in the table below; \nTable 59: Government budget performance per spending category \n \nIniti\nal \nBudg\net \n(UGX \nTn) \nA \nRevise\nd \nbudge\nt \n(UGX \nTn) \nB \nTotal \nwarrant\ns \n(UGX", "metadata": {"page": 146, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(UGX \nTn) \nC \nActual \nexpenditu\nre (UGX \nTn) \nD \nUnwarrant\ned funds \n(UGX Tn) \nE=B-C \nUnutilized \nwarrants \n(UGX-Tn) \nF=C-D \n% \nwarrante\nd funds \n% \nWarrants \nspent \nMDAs \n39.94\n3 \n46.287 \n43.759 \n39.927 \n2.528 \n3.832 \n94.54 \n91.24 \nLGs \n4.836 \n5.275 \n5.095 \n4.508", "metadata": {"page": 146, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4.508 \n0.18 \n0.587 \n96.59 \n88.48 \nTotal \n44.78 \n51.562 \n48.854 \n44.435 \n2.708 \n4.419 \n94.75 \n90.95 \nSource: OAG analysis of the Government budget performance report \n \nWhile the approved revised budget was UGX.51.562Tn, the total amount warranted was \nUGX.48.854Tn causing a variance of UGX.2.708Tn. This implies that the supplementary \nbudget was approved without identifying the funding sources. Consequently, the \nsupplementary warrants were funded using resources meant for MDAs and LGs leading to \nbudget shortfalls in some Votes. \nWarrants totalling UGX.48.854Tn were issued to different votes and a total of", "metadata": {"page": 146, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.44.435Tn was spent leading to an underutilization of UGX.4.419Tn. This was due to \ninsufficient funds, cancelled invoices, unimplemented activities by MDAs and LGs as well as \nlate releases among others. \nI further observed that a total of UGX.44.435Tn was spent against warrants of \nUGX.48.854Tn indicating unutilized warrants of UGX.4.419Tn. This implies that there was \nno need for a supplementary budget since the original budget was not fully funded.", "metadata": {"page": 146, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "131 \n \nFailure to fully fund the revised budget affected the implementation of the planned activities \nwhich were intended to contribute to the achievement of the NDP III and Vision 2040. \nI advised Government to adopt prudent budgeting principles by periodically reviewing its \npriorities against the funding mix and ensuring that all supplementary appropriations are \nsupported by new funding sources. Besides, Management should warrant funds based on the \nmoney available in the consolidated fund. \nb) \nPublic debt portfolio analysis \nThe reported total public debt as at 30th June 2022 stood at UGX.86.6Tn, of which Domestic \nDebt Stock was UGX.38.1Tn and the External Debt Stock was valued at UGX.48.5Tn. This \nis an increase of UGX.11.5Tn, equivalent to 15.31% when compared to the debt stock of \nUGX.75.1Tn reported as of 30th June 2021. Refer to Table below for details;", "metadata": {"page": 147, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Table 60: Government Debt Stock \nFinancial year \nended \nDomestic debt \n(UGX Tn) \nForeign debt \n(UGX Tn) \nTotal (UGX Tn) \n% change \nJune 2022 \n38.1 \n48.5 \n86.6 \n15.3% \nJune 2021 \n30.8 \n44.3 \n75.1 \n24.3% \nJune 2020 \n18.0 \n38.2 \n56.9 \n23.5% \nJune 2019 \n15.2 \n30.9 \n46.1 \n11.1% \nJune 2018 \n13.1 \n28.4 \n41.4 \n \nSource: Audited financial statements of Vote 130", "metadata": {"page": 147, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "From the above analysis, it was noted that there has been a consistent increase in the total \ndebt as evidenced by an increase of 109% in the five years from 2017/18 (UGX.41.4Tn) to \nUGX.86.6Tn as at 30th June 2022. The net increase in debt is due to increased borrowing \nfrom both domestic and external sources, with domestic debt accounting for a higher increase. \nThe composition and trend of debt are highlighted in the figure below; \n \nPublic debt is continuously on the rise, a fact that is attributed to persistent budget deficits \n(mismatch of Government revenue and expenditure), rollover of liquidity papers, Bond \nswitches, private placements, new borrowings for various development projects and foreign \nexchange loss arising from the depreciation of Ugandan Shilling against stronger currencies. \nI advised that Government should prudently project and manage the funding mix as well as \nreview its priorities to avoid escalation of debt beyond a sustainable level.", "metadata": {"page": 147, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "c) \nMovement of domestic debt stock \n \nThe domestic debt portfolio is composed of long-term borrowings (Treasury Bonds and \nGovernment \nBonds), \nshort-term \nborrowings \n(Treasury \nBills \nand \nGovernment \noverdraft/temporary advances), Court Awards, and principal and Interest payments. \nThe country\u2019s domestic debt stock, which is mainly on Treasury Bonds and Treasury Bills, and \nun-securitised debt amounted to UGX.38.15Tn as of 30th June 2022 [2021: UGX.30.8Tn]. \nTrends for the past four years of domestic debt portfolio are shown respectively in the table \nand graph below; \n \nTable 61: Domestic debt stock for the past four years \nFY \nDomestic Debt Stock \n(face value) \nIncrease \nIncrease \n \nUGX-Tn \nUGX (Tn) \n% \n2021/22 \n38.1 \n7.3 \n23.7 \n2020/21 \n30.8 \n12.9 \n71.5", "metadata": {"page": 147, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "132 \n \n2019/20 \n18 \n2.5 \n16.0 \n2018/19 \n15.5 \n2.4 \n18.7 \n2017/18 \n13.1 \n \n \n \nFrom the above, it is evident that domestic debt has kept growing over the years at an average \nrate of more than 23.1%. \n \nContinued reliance on Net Domestic Financing signals the Government\u2019s borrowing appetite, \nwhereby the market players are inclined to demand increased rates well aware of the fact that \nGovernment is in dire need to finance the budget. \n \nIn addition, commercial banks will prefer lending to the Government instead of the private \nsector thus crowding out the private sector. \n \nI have advised Government to consider initiating steps to reverse this trend and ensure fiscal", "metadata": {"page": 148, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "budget discipline and promptly servicing a portion of such domestic obligations including \ninterest. \n \nd) \nAssessment of debt sustainability \ni.Debt to GDP ratio \n \nThe Debt to GDP ratio is a measure that compares what a country owes (total debt) and what \nit produces (manufactures or a service provided). The ratio reliably indicates a country\u2019s ability \nto pay back its debt. A high debt-to-GDP ratio may make it more difficult for a Country to pay \nboth internal and external debt and may lead creditors to seek higher interest rates to \ncompensate for financing risk due to likely default or unnecessary debt extension. \n \nThough the IMF has recommended 50% as the point of safety, many developed countries \nhave gone up to 200%. However, according to the IMF, developing countries are more prone \nto economic shocks and exchange rate risk, thus advising on a 50% threshold.", "metadata": {"page": 148, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "A review of Uganda\u2019s Debt to GDP revealed a consistent linear growth over five years and in \nthe year under review, it was noted that Debt to GDP grew by 22% from 31% to 53%. The \ngraph below illustrates the movement; \n \nGraph showing Debt to GDP ratio \n \nSource: GDP Data from Uganda Bureau of Statistics and graphical representation by OAG \n \n31\n34\n35\n41\n51\n53\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\nJun 2017\nJun 2018\nJun 2019\nJun 2020\nJun 2021\nJun 2022\nGDP\nTotal debt\nDebt/GDP\nExpon. (Debt/GDP)", "metadata": {"page": 148, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "133 \n \nFrom the above, it can be seen that though Uganda\u2019s GDP has been increasing over the years \nsince FY2016/17, its debt position has also increased. The rate of increase of debt is higher \nthan the rate of increment in the GDP levels, which creates a risk factor of accumulation of \nunsustainable debt. \nThe Country is now at the set benchmark by the World Bank for unsustainable Debt. I noted \nthat the country is already facing the impact of public debt which is evidenced by debt \nrestructuring and the high cost of borrowing offered by the lenders. In the FY 2020/2021 and \n2021/2022, Treasury restructured debt totalling to UGX.0.9Tn by way of bond switches that \nattracted an additional interest of UGX.1.2Tn. \nThe Government should consider exploring ways of reducing dependence on debt while \nexploring \navenues \nof \nenhancing", "metadata": {"page": 149, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of \nenhancing \nrevenue \ngeneration \nfor \nthe \ncountry \nand/or \nreducing/rationalising government expenditures and investments. \nii.Interest to total revenue ratio \n \nThe country\u2019s risk benchmark sets the maximum proportion of the domestic revenue that goes \ninto servicing domestic interest costs. Since donor grants are inherently subject to uncertainty, \nthe interest cost of domestic debt is considered in relation to the domestic-raised component \nof the budget only. The table below shows the trend of the interest accruing against the risk \nbenchmark over the 5 year period; \nTable 62: Interest in the total revenue ratio \nFinancial year \nTotal domestic \nRevenue \u2013 \nUGX-Tn \nTotal Interest \u2013 \nUGX-Tn \n% of Interest \nto revenue \nBenchmark \n2021/22 \n22.8", "metadata": {"page": 149, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "22.8 \n5.5 \n24.1 \n<12.5 \n2020/21 \n19.9 \n3.98 \n20.0 \n<12.5 \n2019/20 \n17.5 \n2.5 \n14.2 \n<12.5 \n2018/19 \n17.1 \n2.0 \n11.71 \n<12.5 \n2017/18 \n15.2 \n1.9 \n12.73 \n<12.5 \n \nThe interest-to-revenue surpassed the risk benchmark as illustrated in the graph above. \nDuring the year, 24.1% (UGX. 5.5Tn) of the revenue collected was utilised towards the \ninterest payments and UGX.1.4Tn in principal debt repayment representing 6% of the", "metadata": {"page": 149, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "domestic revenue collected. Therefore 30.1% (UGX.6.9Tn) of the total revenue collected \nwas used to service the debt (principal and interest) leaving only 69.9% (UGX.15.93Tn) \navailable for funding other critical Government expenditures. \nThe amount available for service delivery constitutes 30.89% of the total revised budget of \nUGX.51.56Tn implying that 69.1% was financed by grants and loans. \nI advised the PS/ST to devise strategies for reducing the growth of interest expenditures while \nat the same time increasing revenue mobilisation. \ne) \nUnderperformance in Revenue collection \nUganda Revenue Authority (URA) had a total revenue collection target of UGX.22.802Tn, of \nwhich UGX.22.098Tn was realised, representing 96.9% of the budget and therefore \nresulting into a shortfall of UGX.704.55Bn (3.1%) for the financial year 2021/22, compared \nto the prior year's shortfall of 11%.", "metadata": {"page": 149, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "134 \n \nUnder-collection of revenue affects the overall delivery of Public services by Government and \nleads to the escalation of public debt as borrowing increases to close budget funding gaps. \nURA Management explained that the organisation is focused on closing all revenue collection \nloopholes by revamping the Business Intelligence tool (e-hub) into a data lake to facilitate big \ndata analytics for compliance support in audits and investigations; Working with the \nGovernment to curb tax expenditures in the form of exemptions, allowances rate reliefs among \nothers. \nI commended URA Management on the revenue collection improvements and urged the \nAccounting Officer to make all necessary efforts to close revenue collection loopholes to \nensure sustainable collection of the planned revenue. \nf) \nPending Tax Appeals \nA review of the tax disputes received and managed by Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT) revealed \nthat 163 cases with a value of UGX.356.7Bn were pending before the Tribunal. This was", "metadata": {"page": 150, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "attributed to the inadequate numbers of Tribunal members that limit their ability to hear and \nmake timely rulings for all the tax appeals the Tribunal receives timely. Included in the pending \ncases is one case for VAT and exercise duty amounting to UGX.14.19Bn which has been \noutstanding for more than 11 years. Below is the ageing list of tax cases; \nTable 63: Ageing analysis for pending cases \nNo of \ncases \n Details \nTaxes Amount in \ncontention \u2013 UGX Bn \n15 \nCases of more than 2 years \n85.8 \n23 \nCases above 1 (one) year and less than 2 (two) years \n111.6 \n125 \nCases below one year \n159.3 \n163 \nTotal \n356.7 \nSource: OAG Analysis \n \nLong outstanding tax disputes lock potential Government revenue that would have been used", "metadata": {"page": 150, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "to deliver services and is a disincentive for effective tax mobilization. \nManagement explained that mediation has been adopted at the Tribunal and this has helped \nresolve 70% of the tax disputes. Management further explained that the TAT Act was \namended this year in June 2022 to allow for 4 more members. However, the operationalisation \nof this has been pushed to the subsequent year when funds are available. \nI await for the appointment and deployment of the four tribunal members. \ng) \nInadequacies in handling precious minerals by URA \nI reviewed the processes of revenue collection of mineral exports and noted that; \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that a total of UGX.340Bn in taxes had not been collected from Gold exports \nvalued at UGX.6.962Tn for the year under review. Management attributed non-\ncollection to the Minister\u2019s statutory guidance of staying the implementation of the 5% \nexport levy. \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 150, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThere was no documented step-wise processes on how the importation and \nexportation of precious minerals should be handled by the customs officials. The \nprocesses are not embedded in the customs business compendium despite precious \nminerals being of high value, exposing the Authority to a risk of loss of revenue.", "metadata": {"page": 150, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "135 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the exportation of Gold was being processed manually, with only two \nentries captured during the year under review. \n \nThe Government is at risk of loss of revenue if the Minister\u2019s statutory guidance is not reviewed \nand the processes are not enhanced. \nI advised the Accounting Officer to streamline documentation of mineral imports and exports \nand engage the Minister responsible to enforce the Mining (Amendment) Act 2021. In addition, \nthe Authority should initiate to recover the taxes due up to the date when the new law became \neffective. \nh) \nWeaknesses in management of digital stamps \nUNBS / URA and a Supplier executed a framework contract for the supply, implementation, \ntraining, commissioning, support and maintenance of a DTS Solution, dated 4th October 2018, \nfor a period of five (5) years, effective from the Go-Live Date at the unit prices specified in", "metadata": {"page": 151, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the Contract. The DTS solution involves affixing digital stamps (specialised paper stamps or \ndigital imprints) on all excisable gazetted products as and when they are manufactured or \nimported with information being transferred to URA in near real-time. The solution enables \nthe tracking and tracing of the product throughout the supply chain. \n \nThe digital stamp fees are collected by URA and remitted to the Supplier. The fees structure \nvaries from commodity to commodity but includes UGX.3 for UNBS conformity stamps. I \nreviewed the contract and noted that there was delayed implementation of the conformity \nstamps by Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) because of lack of the regulations. \n \nManagement attributed this delay to the long process of formulating regulations as required \nby the law. As a result, UNBS has failed to claim the conformity stamp levy totalling \nUGX.19.754Bn. \n \nFailure to implement Digital Conformity Stamps not only affects UNBS revenue performance", "metadata": {"page": 151, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "but also derails the Governments focus on ensuring compliance to Quality Standards aimed at \nreducing substandard items in the market. \nI advised the Accounting Officer to expedite formulation of the Digital Conformity Stamps \nRegulations. \n \ni) \nCancellation of Loan for Construction of Muzizi Hydropower plant \nIn the year 2016, the GOU signed financing agreements with the ADF and KFW to fund the \nconstruction of a hydropower plant in Muzizi the project was for the construction of a 45 MW \nMuzizi hydropower plant in western Uganda, intending to improve the electricity supply to the \ngrowing economy and the households. \nIn my report for FY 2019/2020, I pointed out the challenges of under-absorption of funds for \nthis project and in the report for FY 2020/2021, I further pointed out the losses associated \nwith the failure to absorb the said loan. \nIn a letter dated 22nd February 2022, the Minister sought to cancel the loan agreement entered", "metadata": {"page": 151, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "into with KFW. In a letter dated 11th May 2022, the KFW acknowledged and agreed to the \ncancellation of the loan.", "metadata": {"page": 151, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "136 \n \nI noted that the GOU in the FY 2020/21 decided to cancel three loans that had been \ncontracted, as shown in the Table below; \nTable 64: Cancelled loans \nS\nN \nLoan particulars \nLoan Amount (Euro-\nMn) \nDate of signing \n1 \nConstruction of Muzizi Hydropower Plant \n40 \n25 November 2016 \n2 \nConstruction of Muzizi Hydropower Plant \n45 \n09 December 2016 \n3 \nKfW Grant Finance (Euros) \n5.36 \n22 September 2015 \n \nTOTAL \n90.36 \n \n \nThe following observations were noted; \ni. \nI noted that from the date of execution of the said loan to the cancellation, the GoU had", "metadata": {"page": 152, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "paid to the KFW a total of UGX.3.967Bn in commission fees for unutilised funds. This \nin effect caused a financial loss to the GOU of the said amount as there was no benefit \nfor the said money. The failure to absorb the funds therefore can be categorised as a \nnugatory expense. \nii. \nIn a letter dated 14th July 2022, the KFW indicated that the total amount payable for the \ncancellation of the loan would be Euro.1,171,875 as cancellation and commitment \nfees. The said letter was countersigned by the Minister of Finance on 11th July 2022. \niii. \nThe audit noted that the initial agreement entered into by the GOU and the KFW had a \ndraw-down period of 30th December 2021. Following the lapse of the draw-down period, \nthe government successfully secured a renewal of the facility. The same facility was", "metadata": {"page": 152, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "subsequently cancelled which cost the GOU a total of Euro.1,171,875 (Equivalent to \nUGX.4.657Bn). This payment amounts to an unnecessary payment which could have \nbeen avoided either by allowing the facility to lapse or not renewing it before \ncancellation. \niv. \nThere is no evidence that the Minister sought the advice of the Attorney general before \nthe cancellation process was undertaken. \nv. \nA review of the status reports provided to the MOFPED by UEGCL on the execution of \nthe project revealed that the UEGCL had expensed some funds totalling UGX.2.695Bn \ntowards the compensation of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) and acquisition of land. \nThis indicates that the additional expense of GOU if not properly secured could also be \na nugatory expenditure by government. \nThe continued delays in absorbing the loan amounts will continue to expose GOU to \nunnecessary payments of commission fees which could have been avoided.", "metadata": {"page": 152, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I advised Government to ensure the absorption of all loans to mitigate the risk of losses in \nform of commission fees for un-disbursed funds. \nj) \nRehabilitation of the Tororo-Gulu Railway Line \nThe European Union and the Government of Uganda are supporting the development initiative \nfor Northern Uganda through the rehabilitation of the Tororo - Gulu railway line, which \ncommenced in March 2020 and is expected to be completed in the second half of 2023. The \ntotal cost project cost including supervision and resettlement action plan among others \namounts to Euros 47.6 million, of which the Government of Uganda will contribute Euros 26.1 \nmillion (UGX.113) and the European Union Euros 21.5 million (UGX.93 Bn).", "metadata": {"page": 152, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "137 \n \nThe Tororo \u2013 Gulu Railway Line will go a long way to divert cargo from road to rail and create \nan alternative mode of transport which is cheaper and more environmentally friendly because \nof less emission of green gasses. This route will also provide a link between the port of \nMombasa and Northern and Eastern Uganda, as well as South Sudan and the Democratic \nRepublic of Congo \nOn 16th December 2019, The Government of Uganda signed a grant financing agreement of \nup to 34.6 million Euros with the European Commission. The grant termination date was 10th \nDecember 2023. I noted the following; \nk) \nFailure to honour GOU co-financing obligation leading to termination \nIn the Grant agreement signed between the GOU and the EU the parties resolved that the \ntotal cost of the project would be Euros.34,600,000 of which the GOU would be responsible \nfor the financing of a total of Euros.13,100,000.", "metadata": {"page": 153, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Contrary to article 65.1 of the grant agreement, GOU defaulted on their contribution to \npayment of the contractor. This resulted in the termination of the contract by the contractor. \nBy the time of termination, Euros.3,112,726.52 was due to the contractor. As at 30th August \n2022, only 15.47% work had been completed. Article 65.3 states that in the event of such \ntermination, the contracting authority shall pay the contractor for any loss or damage the \ncontractor may have suffered. The maximum amount shall be 10% of the contract price. \nAs a result of the termination, the Government of Uganda will incur termination damages up \nto 10% (Euros.3,933,775.6). According to the Monthly progress report no. 34 of August 2022, \nTermination claim 3 had not yet been submitted by the contractor for final determination and \nestimation of amounts due. A review of the Treasury Operations financial statement indicated \nthat no contingent liability had been provided for/ disclosed with respect to the outstanding", "metadata": {"page": 153, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "claim. \nI advise the Accounting Officer to provide for the liability in the financial statements. \nl) \nConflict of PFMA and Financial Institutions Act \nSections 35 and 81 of the PFMA 2015 provide guidance on the processes and procedures to \nbe taken when executing a proposal to write off a public asset by the GOU. This indicates that \nunless the Parliament resolves and authorizes a write-off of any asset, no write-off can be \nundertaken with the limited exception of a write-off by the minister under section 35(4). \nThe Financial Institutions (Credit Classification and Provisioning) Regulations, 2005 guides the \ndifferent Financial institutions including the public banks on the classification of different \nfacilities. The regulation provides for the write-off of capital after it reaches a loss \nclassification. This has an effect on the capital of the company and in effect the position of \nGOU shareholding for the banks in which the GOU has interests.", "metadata": {"page": 153, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The conflict in laws has resulted in uncertainty in the decision-making on how to address \nlosses in Financial institutions. \n \nManagement is advised to liaise with relevant stakeholders and reconcile the position of the \nlaw.", "metadata": {"page": 153, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "138 \n \n7.0. \nENERGY SECTOR \n \na) \nRampant Vandalism of the Electricity Infrastructure \n \nI noted cases of increased vandalism on UETCL\u2019s installations specifically the transmission \nlines, substations and towers. Examples of stations which have been vandalised include; \nNamanve substation - theft of capacitor banks, Queen\u2019s way substation - theft of copper \ncables, Soroti substation - theft of transformer oil, NELSAP Transmission Line - destruction of \ntowers and vandalism. \n \nIn the FY 2021/22 UETCL incurred UGX 494.15Mn to purchase Galvanized Angle bars to \nreplace vandalized tower members excluding replacement costs. Further analysis revealed \nthat the company also incurred UGX 1.56Bn in replacement costs on assorted transmission \nline items vandalized between 2017 and 2021.", "metadata": {"page": 154, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "According to a management report, 135 towers were vandalised and re-instated in the period \nbetween May 2021 and June 2022. In the last four (4) months preceding December 2022, \n255 (53% of the prior year number) had been vandalised and reinstated. \n \nIn addition Management asserted that it had spent UGX 3.86Bn to provide a temporary \nsolution in form of wooden structures so as to restore supply. The estimated cost of replacing \na 220kV tower is UGX. 220Mn and UGX. 120Mn for a 132kV tower. This translates to UGX. \n12.72Bn for the collapsed towers after vandalism within a period of two years. \n \nThe total estimated cost including the cost of repairs, replacement and security is UGX 16.58Bn \nas at 15th December 2022. \n \nFailure to stump out the vice by Government may cause severe socio-economic consequences", "metadata": {"page": 154, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "including retarding economic growth. \n \nThe Accounting Officers in the electricity sub-sector explained that the recent vandalism was \nunprecedented, and it has become a national security matter whereby Government security \nagencies have been asked to take up the matter, and a number of arrests made. \n \nI advised Government to ensure that the security of the power infrastructure is enhanced to \nsafeguard the integrity of the power lines, substations and the attendant equipment. \n \nb) \nOperation and Maintenance of Isimba Hydro Power Plant (HPP) \n \nIsimba dam is a newly constructed 183 MW per hour dam supplying approximately an average \nof 105 MW per hour to the National Grid, during the year. I noted that the physical completion \nof the dam was at 99.5% whereas the financial progress stood at 94.7%. The project is under \na new Defect Liability Period (DLP) till March 2023, after the expiry of the earlier DLPs, which", "metadata": {"page": 154, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were extended twice in in March 2021 and March 2022. A number of snags were yet to be \naddressed. \n \nAs the contactor was rectifying the snags, the dam was hit by floods heavily damaging the \npower house which led to a total shut down of the plant for over ten (10) days. The Company \nspent UGX 1.3Bn to fix the damage, however, other repairs and replacements were yet to be \nundertaken and therefore the cost is anticipated to be much higher. \n \nThe flooding was attributed to the contractor\u2019s failure to fix all the snags including; a \nmalfunctioning Gantry Gate, safe access to the plant facilities and lack of operational and", "metadata": {"page": 154, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "139 \n \nmaintenance manuals to guide the staff on the safety precautions that needed to be \nundertaken. \n \nThere is a risk that if these snags are not addressed in a timely manner, the costs of the \nowners\u2019 engineer and feasibility of the project may affect the overall plant effectiveness. \nFurthermore, the risk of the flooding re-occurring cannot be ruled out if the causes are not \nclearly established and rectified in a timely manner. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the EPCC has committed to fix all outstanding defects \nbefore the defects liability period ending 31st March 2023. UEGCL is preparing a claim against \nEPCC. \n \nI advised the responsible Accounting Officer to ensure that the snags are rectified in time. \nGoing forward, a robust maintenance place should be put in place and implemented. \n \n8.0. \nGENDER AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTOR \n \na)", "metadata": {"page": 155, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "a) \nInadequate measures to curb the increasing number of street children \nThe Ministry did not regularly carry out activities to control and manage street children by \nidentifing gaps and suggesting recommendations towards eliminating them and improving \ntheir welfare. Whereas the Ministry estimates that the number of street children could be \n1,000, only 292 could be accounted for leaving 708 children untraceable. \n \nThis was caused by inadequate allocation of financial resources and staffing gaps for \ncommunity development workers at the districts to carry out their activities relating to child \nprotection. \n \nThere is a risk that the street children will continue to be a challenge to the country which \ncould eventually result into increased urban crimes. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the Ministry had a strategy for management of street \nchildren which is used alongside other Policies and enacted laws like the National Child Policy \n2020 and its Implementation Plan (FY 2020/2021-2024/50, Practical Guidelines for Working", "metadata": {"page": 155, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "on Street Children, Prevention of Trafficking in Persons (PTIP) Act, 2009, Kampala Capital City \nChild Protection Ordinance 2022 and the Local Government Act (1997 as amended- Child Care \nand Protection is a decentralized Service under Schedule II). He further explained that the \nMinistry had withdrawn a total of 1,582 children from Kampala streets, transported and \nrehabilitated them at Kobulin Youth Skilling Centre, Napak District during the period 2017 to \n2022. \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage relevant stakeholders and institute measures to \neliminate or control existance of street children. In addition, the Accounting Officer should \nconsider engaging the source communities and address causal factors.", "metadata": {"page": 155, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "140 \n \n9.0. \nLAND SECTOR \na) \nManagement of Public Land \nGovernment of Uganda owns land both in Uganda and abroad. This land is held for purposes \nof service delivery to Citizens. Section 45 of the Public Finance and Management Act (PFMA), \n2015 (as amended) requires the Accounting Officers across Government to be responsible for \nthe management of the land under their custody. A review of the Management of Public land \nin 56 selected Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and Local Authorities (LAs), over \na four year period ending 30th June 2022, revealed the following; \n \n(i) \nPlanning & Budgeting for Land Acquisition \n \nInstruction 3.9.5 of the Treasury Instructions, 2017 requires the budget estimates to be based \non the pre-determined objectives and outputs as provided in the strategic plans of the sector", "metadata": {"page": 156, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "or entity. A review of a sample of 56 MDA\u2019s and LA\u2019s, revealed that 40.47 hectares of \nGovernment land acquired at UGX 0.647Mn in the period under review were not adequately \nplanned for in the various entity Strategic Plans and 6.4 hectares costing UGX 0.627Bn were \nacquired by MDAs and LAs but had not been adequately budgeted for. The un-budgeted \nacquisitions were not aligned to the development goals and priorities as per the NDP III, \nsector, entity plans and budgets. \n \nI also noted that out of the total budget of UGX 8.9Bn for land acquisition, UGX 7.3Bn (82%) \nwas availed, resulting into a shortfall of UGX 1.6Bn (18%). Funding shortfalls resulted into \nGovernment\u2019s failure to acquire 45 hectares of land planned for infrastructure development to \nenhance service delivery. The funding gap was attributed to budget cuts due to the effects of", "metadata": {"page": 156, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "COVID-19 pandemic. \n \nI advised the PS/ST to engage all Accounting Officers and Parliament to ensure that all budget \nallocations are aligned to the Development Goals as set out in the NDP III. In addition, I \nadvised the PS/ST to ensure that the planned and appropriated allocations for Land acquisition \nare released. \n \n(ii) \nRegistration, titling and reporting of land \n \nSection 49 (c) of the Land Act, Cap 227 requires the Uganda Land Commission to procure \ncertificates of title for land vested in or acquired by the Government. \n \nHowever, a total of five (05) pieces of land measuring approximately 346 hectares (14%) out \nof 13 pieces measuring approximately 2,532 hectares sampled and reviewed, lacked \nappropriate land titles. In addition, a total of 8 pieces of titled land measuring approximately \n52,186.1 hectares were neither recorded in the respective entity land/assets registers nor in", "metadata": {"page": 156, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the GFMIS fixed asset module. This affects the accuracy of the non-produced assets reported \nin the respective financial statements and limits Government\u2019s ability to track and monitor its \nland. The un-recorded and untitled land is susceptible to encroachment and land grabbing. \n \nRelatedly, I observed that Uganda Land Commission (ULC) did not maintain a comprehensive \nnational register of Government land and therefore, the number, acreage, location, user- \nMDA/LG and status of Government land remains unknown.", "metadata": {"page": 156, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "141 \n \nFurthermore, whereas Government leased out several pieces of land, I noted irregularities \nsuch as; double allocation of leases, allocation of leases by entities without mandate to lease \nout Government land, breach of lease terms and conditions. I further noted MDAs and LGs \nwith expired and un-renewed leases and non-payment of lease rentals. \n \nThis has led to increased risk of litigation and associated costs, loss of land and revenue, \nthereby negatively affecting service delivery to the citizens. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to enforce the securing of titles for all Government land and \nproper recording of Asset registers by the respective MDA\u2019s and LG\u2019s as well as maintenance \nof a comprehensive national register for Government land by the ULC. \n \n(iii) \nUtilisation and encumbrance of land \n \nInstruction 16.13.12 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 requires that to control an asset, a", "metadata": {"page": 157, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Government entity should usually be the predominant user of the asset. \n \nOut of a sample of 56 MDA\u2019s and LG\u2019s, I noted that 19 pieces of land measuring approximately \n20.786 hectares out of the 631 pieces of land measuring approximately 2384.78 hectares \nwere not utilized by 12 entities at the time of Audit. This was majorly attributed to inadequate \nfunding to develop the land as planned. \n \nUn-utilised land if not secured is susceptible to loss via encroachment or land grabbing. \n \nIn addition, 2 entities had a total of 4 pieces of land measuring approximately 961 hectares \nwhich had encumbrances in the form of; encroachment by the local population, court \ninjunctions and claims by other parties. \n \nI advised the PS/ST to harmonize the planning, funding, acquisition and utilisation of all \nGovernment land. This will minimize instances of wastage though non-utilisation and loss of", "metadata": {"page": 157, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "public resources. \n \n(iv) \nManagement of Land by Uganda Land Commission \n \nSection 49 of the Land Act Cap 227 requires the Uganda Land Commission to hold and manage \nall the land in Uganda which is vested in or acquired by the Government including land \nacquired by the Government abroad. \n \nHowever, I noted that ULC did not have a comprehensive national register of Government \nland held within and outside Uganda. \n \nIn addition, contrary to the existing guidance, 5 entities did not transfer 175 pieces of land \nmeasuring approximately 60,518.826 hectares to Uganda Land Commission to enable \ncomprehensive updating of the GoU land register. These mainly related to Universities and \nstatutory corporations that claimed that incorporation by seal meant that they had the legal \nrights to acquire and hold land in their custody. Interviews with the entities also revealed a \nsense of mistrust associated with losing their land if placed under the custody of ULC.", "metadata": {"page": 157, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Failure to transfer all Government Land into the custody of ULC affects the Government\u2019s \nability to effectively manage Public Land for effective and efficient service delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 157, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "142 \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to comply with the Act. In addition, Government should \nharmonise the requirements of the Land Act and other statutes. The MDAs/LGs should \ninstitute measures to ensure that their land is safeguarded. \n \n(v) \nIrregularities in Management of leased Land \n \nRegulation 6 of the Land Regulations, 2004 requires a lease offer made by a Board or the \nCommission to communicate the offer, stating the terms and conditions of the offer \nconditioned upon payment of fees and other charges, in full or by instalment. \n \nI observed that 5 entities leased 175 pieces of land measuring approximately 60,518.826 \nhectares in the period. However the following irregularities were noted; \n \n\uf0b7 \n2 entities without mandate to lease out Government land allocated 5 pieces of land \nmeasuring approximately 25 hectares. \n\uf0b7 \n2 entities allocated 5 pieces of land measuring approximately 25 hectares to more than", "metadata": {"page": 158, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "one beneficiary. \n\uf0b7 \n5 lease agreements were in breach of lease terms and conditions for example; expired \nand un-renewed leases and non-payment of lease rentals. \n\uf0b7 \nULC leased out 5 pieces of land measuring approximately 25 hectares without consulting \nthe primary user agencies. \n \nThe above irregularities expose Government to risks of litigation and associated costs and loss \nof public land. \n \nI advised the Boards and Commision to enforce proper management of leases for Government \nland. \n \nb) \nUnder utilization of funds by USMID \u2013 AF project \nA total of UGX.339.9Bn (USD.92Mn) remained unutilised over a period of three years \n(2019/2020 - 2021/2022) even when there are signed commitments for infrastructure \ncontracts and the funds have not been released to the implementing entities.", "metadata": {"page": 158, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "These funds included UGX 268Bn for 22 Program Cities/MCs and UGX.64Bn for the 8 refugee \nhosting districts. \n \nThe Ministry of Land, housing and Urban Development (MoLHUD) has made several \nsupplementary requests to the PS/ST MoFPED for re-voting the funds with no success, \nhowever, the PS/ST promised that the funds shall be re-voted in the coming year. \n \nThis has constrained fulfillment of contractual obligations of the entities to pay the service \nproviders which resulted into claims for interest due to delayed payments. \n \nI advised the PS/ST to make the USMID funds a first call on the budget for the subsequent \nfinancial year.", "metadata": {"page": 158, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "143 \n \n10.0. EDUCATION SECTOR \na) \nDelayed Finalisation of Education Policies and other frameworks \nDuring the previous financial year (2020/2021), the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) \ndrafted several policies, including; the National Inclusive Education Policy; the National Higher \nEducation Policy; the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Policy; the Education \nManagement Information System (EMIS) Policy; the Instructional Materials Policy; and the \nSchool Health Policy, which were not concluded. \n \nIn the year under review, the Ministry planned to conclude several policies and draft others, \nsuch as; National Curriculum Assessment, and Placement Policy; School Feeding Policy; \nInspection and Quality Assurance Policy, the private Education Provision Policy, among others. \n \nAdditionally, I noted that at the time of concluding the audit (December, 2022), the Ministry \nhad not concluded the development and issuing of some of the planned policies, bills and", "metadata": {"page": 159, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "other frameworks. For instance; some draft policies have been pending for a while, only one \nout of the eight policies have been passed and a number are pending the issuance of the \ncertificate of financial implication. The details are shown in the table below; \n \nTable 65: Status of development of some policies under the MoES \nS/N \nPOLICY \nPURPOSE \nSTATUS \n1 \nGovernment White \nPaper on Education \n(1992) \nProviding Government \nwith \na \nholistic \nunderstanding of the \neducation value chain in \nthe country including \nEducation Planning and \nPolicy Analysis \n\uf0be The Education Policy Review Commission was \nestablished under Legal Notice No. 5 of 2021. \n\uf0be The \nprocess \nof \nreviewing \nthe \n1992 \nGovernment White Paper on Education is on-", "metadata": {"page": 159, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Government White Paper on Education is on-\ngoing. \n2 \nGovernment White \nPaper on Higher \nEducation \nProviding Government \nwith \na \nholistic \nunderstanding of the \nUniversity \nEducation \nand \nother \nHigher \ninstitutions \n\uf0be The Government White Paper on Higher \nEducation was approved by Top Management \nMeeting. \n\uf0be Pending the costing of the Whitepaper and \nPolicy implications. \n\uf0be Needs a Certificate of financial implication. \n3 \nNational Teachers\u2019 Bill \nTo \nprovide \na \nlegal \nframework \non \nmanagement \nof \nteachers including their \neducation and training \n\uf0be The Minister issued drafting instructions to \nFirst Parliamentary Counsel to draft the \nNational Teachers\u2019 Bill per the approved", "metadata": {"page": 159, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "National Teachers\u2019 Bill per the approved \nPrinciples. \n4 \nTechnical and Vocation \nEducation and Training \n(TVET) Bill. \nTo \nprovide \na \nlegal \nframework \non \nmanagement \nof \nTechnical and Vocation \nEducation and Training \n\uf0be The Minister issued drafting instructions to \nFirst Parliamentary Counsel to draft the TVET \nBill per the approved Principles. \n5 \nTechnical and \nVocational Education \nand Training (TVET) \nPolicy \nTo operationalize the \nprovisions that would \narise from the enacted \nTVET Act \n\uf0be Implementation of the policy is on-going. \n\uf0be The Department is required to submit quarterly \nreports on the achievements or status of \nimplementation and this should also capture \nthe challenges being experienced and the \nproposed measures.", "metadata": {"page": 159, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "proposed measures. \n6 \nEducation for \nSustainable \nDevelopment Policy \nTo \nprovide \npolicy \nguidelines \non \n\uf0be The Ministry is awaiting a Certificate of \nFinancial Implications from the Ministry of", "metadata": {"page": 159, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "144 \n \nS/N \nPOLICY \nPURPOSE \nSTATUS \nsustainable education in \nthe country \nFinance, \nPlanning, \nand \nEconomic \nDevelopment. \n\uf0be After obtaining a Certificate of Financial \nImplications, a Cabinet Memorandum has to be \nsubmitted to Cabinet Secretariat to obtain a \nCabinet \nMemo \nnumber \nto \nenable \nthe \npresentation of the draft policy to the Cabinet. \n7 \nNational Physical \nEducation and Sports \nPolicy \nTo \nprovide \npolicy \nguidelines on Physical \nEducation and Sports in \nthe country \n\uf0be The draft policy was submitted to the Ministry \nof \nFinance \nPlanning \nand \nEconomic", "metadata": {"page": 160, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and \nEconomic \nDevelopment to obtain a certificate of Financial \nImplications to enable submission to Cabinet. \n8 \nUNATCOM Policy \nFramework \nTo provide to regulate \nand guide UNATCOM \nactivities \n\uf0be Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) \nreport is in place. \n \nThe lack of approved policies affects the Ministry\u2019s ability to effectively and efficiently influence \ndecision making processes and improve service delivery in the Education Sector. In addition, \nthe monitoring and supervision of education activities becomes a challenge in the country. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the Ministry had not concluded the development of the \nplanned policies mentioned. This was due to the prolonged process of developing them which \ninvolves consultations with several stakeholders including the public to solicit their views and \nfor ownership. This is a requirement by Cabinet before they are submitted for approval. \nHowever, all the policies mentioned had been consulted upon and were awaiting approval by", "metadata": {"page": 160, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Cabinet. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to liaise with all stakeholders and fast-track the completion \nand approval of the above mentioned policies and other frameworks to enable efficient and \neffective deliverance of educational services. \n \nb) \nDelayed Review of the Education Curricula for the different education \ninstitutions \nA review of the Needs Assessment study report on Uganda Community Polytechnic Education \ndated February 2022, indicated that the Curriculum review of the Uganda Community \nPolytechnic Curriculum was last undertaken in 2008. In the year under review, I noted that \nonly three (3) (5.7%) courses had been reviewed out of the fifty-two (52) courses. This has \nan impact on the quality of trainees and graduates and their competitiveness in the job \nmarket. \n \nIn addition, I noted that while the Government changed the BTVET curriculum from majorly \ntheoretical to a more competence based, modularized and learner centered for both certificate", "metadata": {"page": 160, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and diploma programs which run for two years, the reviewed curricula were not yet printed \nfor onward distribution to institutions. This affects training in the various vocational \ninstitutions. \n \nI further noted that for the reviewed curricula, no related training materials were developed \nto facilitate self-study since the curricula is learner centered. This compromises the quality of \nthe learners produced under the curricula.", "metadata": {"page": 160, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "145 \n \nFurthermore, I noted that there was no Business and Technical Vocational Qualifications \nFramework in place rendering it difficult for UBTEB to effectively execute its mandate. This \nrenders it difficult to equate qualifications hence limiting competitiveness in the global job \nmarket. Relatedly, there was no central database for technical education and training, and \nnational qualifications. The lack of a centralized technical qualification database affects the \nGovernment's ability to have an accurate, reliable, and robust data on all qualifications in the \ncountry that facilitates comparability/equation, recognition and global placements in the job \nmarket. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to address the above fore metioned challenges to enhance \nthe quality of the learners and their competitiveness in the job market. \n \nc) \nSports Management and Administration by the National Council of Sports \n(NCS) \nI reviewed the mandate, operations and management of NCS and noted the following;", "metadata": {"page": 161, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(i) \nWhereas NCS has the mandate to promote quality physical education and sports in \nthe country, it was noted that there is inadequate sports management and \nadministration. In the year under review, NCS released a sum of UGX.13.40Bn \n(100.3%) out of the budgeted UGX. 13.43Bn to a number of sports Associations and \nFederations. \n \n(ii) \nA number sports associations and federations were facing structural and operational \nchallenges, including the failure to properly account for the funds disbursed to them \nresulting into UGX. 270Mn remaining unaccounted for. \n \n(iii) \nNCS regulates over 52 sports disciplines; however, there is currently a shortage of \nacademies (grassroots sports schools) in a number of the disciplines. For example, \nwhereas football and boxing disciplines had 77 and 57 sports academies, respectively,", "metadata": {"page": 161, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "25 sports disciplines had no sports academies at all. \n \n(iv) \nThere was inadequate technical capacity in terms of personnel with internationally \naccredited skills. There were few coaches, Umpires, referees and sports medical \npersonnel for most of the sports disciplines. \n \n(v) \nDistrict Sports Councils were not functional and as such, there was general shortage \nof standard sporting infrastructure and facilities to facilitate the mentorship of sports \nactivities at the grassroot level. \n \n(vi) \nNCS lacked a comprehensive strategy of ensuring the development and \nadministration of all sports disciplines in the country. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the funding of the sports activities by Government was \nstill inadequate, though of recent Government has increased the Council\u2019s budget. \n \nThe above challenges hinder NCS from achieving its mandate of promoting quality physical \neducation and sports in the country.", "metadata": {"page": 161, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I advised the Accounting Officer to develop and implement comprehensive sustainable \nstrategies for the management and development of all sports disciplines in the country in \nconsultation with stakeholders.", "metadata": {"page": 161, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "146 \n \n11.0. WORKS SECTOR \n \na) \nLoss on Compensation for Stolen Materials from Steel Companies- \nUGX.12,757,503,000 \n \nDuring the year, the Managing Director of Uganda Railways Corporation (URC) instituted an \ninvestigation on the stolen and recovered railway materials from two steel companies. \nHowever, the review of the investigation reports and other documents related to stolen and \nrecovered railway materials revealed that URC went into an out of court settlement which \nresulted into a total compensation loss of UGX. 12.76Bn from both the two steel companies \nand an indication that the legal cases were mismanaged. \n \nManagement explained that the computation was based on sections that had been vandalised \nover the years and not the materials that the two companies were found with. This was done \nas a deterrent measure against the two companies in order to discourage them from buying", "metadata": {"page": 162, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "vandalised materials. It was further explained that it is difficult to prove that the two \ncompanies were responsible for vandalising sections of the line yet the materials recovered \nwere not for the whole section. The factory in Mukono negotiated to pay less as it claimed to \nbe on the verge of bankruptcy due to Covid 19. Management considered it prudent to secure \nthe settlement amount. \n \nI advised the Board to review the process of out of court settlement to ensure transparent \nand verifiable procedures. In the event that collusion is identified, appropriate action including \nrecovery measures from responsible parties should be instituted. \n \nb) \nLoss of Abandoned Dismantled Railway Materials-EUR.3,083,846.54 and \nunrecovered advance payment of EURO 8,854,839.68 \nThe PSST/National Authorising Officer of the European Development Fund (EDF)-Ministry of", "metadata": {"page": 162, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Finance, Planning and Economic Development (PSST/NAO) signed a contract with a contractor \non 21st November 2019 for Civil works for the Rehabilitation of the Tororo-Gulu Railway under \ncontract reference number EUROPWAID/139549/IH/WRKS/UG at Contract price of EUR \n39,337,756 (excluding VAT/other taxes). My review of the contract implementation revealed \nthat after termination of the contract by the contractor, the contractor never handed over the \ndemolished materials that were supposed to be used for reconstruction of the railway line. \nEvidence from supervising consultant indicated that 136,416 railway items equivalent to Euro \n3,083,846.54 had been stolen. Similarly, the Contracting Authority made 30% advance \npayment to the same contractor amounting to EURO 11,801,326.80, by the time of \ntermination of the contract only EURO 2,946,487.12 had been recovered with the balance \nEURO 8,854,839.68 not yet recovered.", "metadata": {"page": 162, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Accounting Officer explained that this is an issue that is being handled following \nprocedures of closure of Contract at Termination. The Final Account shall detail what is \npayable to the Contractor at the time of termination less what the Contractor owes the Client \nincluding losses of Inventory as determined by the inspections mentioned above. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to ensure a comprehensive verification process is carried out \nso that all outstanding obligations by the contractor are discharged before any payments are \nmade. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to also seek legal advice from Attorney General on the course \nof action to be taken.", "metadata": {"page": 162, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "147 \n \nc) \nLoss of Potential Revenue from a Concession Agreement for Pamba Ferry \nOn 18th May 2020, the Minister of State for Transport signed an agreement between the \nGovernment of Uganda and Mango Tree (U) Ltd, to rehabilitate and upgrade the Marine Vessel \n(MV) Pamba without recourse to public funds as a PPP. I however noted that there was no \nprocurement process followed in identifying the company. I also noted that Mango Tree (U) \nLtd incurred a verified amount of UGX.10,618,736,676 to undertake the refurbishment, \nwhich funds are to be recovered from the collections charged by the firm during operations. \nAlthough the Marine Vessel (MV) Pamba operated during the year, there were no \narrangements by URC in respect to monitoring of revenue collected by the operator of the \nvessel and also the revenue sharing terms which would allow both parties to mutually benefit \nas required in the agreement.", "metadata": {"page": 163, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Accounting Officer explained that engagements with the Ministry of Works and \nTransport will continue to ensure that a revenue sharing agreement is established. \n \nThe Accounting Officer should establish a verifiable monitoring mechanism of the operations \nof (MV) Pamba to keep track of the revenue performance. In addition, the Accounting Officer \nis advised to engage the line Ministry and ensure that a revenue sharing agreement is \nestablished. \n \nd) \nDelayed Completion of the consultancy for the unit cost study for road \nconstruction and maintenance in Uganda \nOn 30th July 2019, the Ministry entered into a contract for a unit cost study for road \nconstruction and maintenance in Uganda at a contract price of UGX.2,102,966,500. The \ncontract was to be executed in nine (9) months from the date of contract signing, implying \nthat the contract completion date was supposed to be 30th April, 2020. \n \n A review of the performance of the contract revealed the following: -", "metadata": {"page": 163, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "i. \nAlthough the cumulative payments to the consultant totalled to UGX.1,472,076,550 \n(70% of the contract price) by end of September 2022, almost 2 & \u00bd years later, most \naspects of the contract such as testing the cost management system, 2nd stakeholders\u2019 \nworkshop, final report, cost estimation and monitoring systems and implementation \nstrategy had not been delivered. \n \nii. \nAlthough, section 7.6 of Terms of Reference (TORs) for the study required six (6) staff \nfrom MoWT, UNRA, KCCA and Uganda Road Fund to be attached to the Consultant as \ncounterpart staff for training and technology transfer, there was no evidence that it was \ndone. \n \niii. \nThe most recent report submitted by the Consultant was the draft final report in \nDecember 2020. This report was not approved by the Ministry as it reportedly lacked \ncost drivers for road maintenance.", "metadata": {"page": 163, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "There is a risk of loss of UGX.1,472,076,550 so far paid to the Consultant if no acceptable \nreport is eventually delivered. In addition, there was no evidence that the Ministry was \nemploying the penalty provisions in the contract. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the Consultancy has been delayed because of a number \nof issues, including the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak and the insufficient data that has been \ngathered from key stakeholders both internally and outside the benchmarking countries. It is", "metadata": {"page": 163, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "148 \n \nimportant to highlight that access to offices and documents was necessary for the majority of \nthe Consultancy's primary activities. \n \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to follow up with the Consultant to ensure that the report is \ndelivered expeditiously to enhance decision making. \n \ne) \nMaintenance of district and zonal road equipment \nI carried out inspection of the regional mechanical workshops and established that 23 Districts\u2019 \nroad equipment, especially Motor graders remained in the Workshops\u2019 yards for more than a \nyear without repair with some having been grounded since 2016. \n \nThis has affected the maintenance of roads in the affected districts. \n \n \nThe \nAccounting \nOfficer \nexplained \nthat \nthe \nRegional \nWorkshops \nreceived \nonly \nUGX.10,492,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 164, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "as \noperational \nfunding \nagainst \nan \nactual \nrequirement \nof \nUGX.45,000,000,000 thereby not able to carry out all the necessary repairs. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to lobby the responsible authorities and have the road \nequipment maintenance budget improved. \n \nf) \nGrounded Aircrafts at the East African civil Aviation Academy \nThe inspection of the East African civil Aviation Academy (Soroti Flying School) indicated that \nall its nine (9) training aircrafts were grounded due to the expiry of their insurance or being \nfaulty. I further noted that three aircrafts involved in accidents during the year under review \nhad not been repaired due to the delayed compensation by the insurance service provider. \n \nThe training of pilots had been suspended resulting into un-necessary costs of keeping \nstudents on the campus without training and extension of the time within which students", "metadata": {"page": 164, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "would complete their courses. In addition, salaries for the Instructors and staff are being paid \nwithout activities, which is wasteful. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the financial challenges have derailed the Academy \nfrom executing its mandate. It was further explained that the Academy procured an insurance \nservice provider (Sanlam) at a cost of UGX.570,832,735, however after accepting the offer, \nthe Academy received a late communication from Sanlam declining to offer the service. The \nissue has however been escalated to the Attorney General for further guidance on the next \naction against Sanlam Insurance. In addition, 5X-UAN 310 aircraft was manufactured in 1978 \nwhose production line had been stopped, hence the Academy had to make special \narrangements for the production of the parts required. It should also be noted that the aircraft \nwas undergoing major structural repairs which required lots of parts. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage relevant authorities to ensure that the insurance", "metadata": {"page": 164, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "cover is renewed and urgently follow up with the insurance provider for compensation of the \naircrafts involved in accidents. Management of Ministry of Works should work out a strategy \nfor enhancing the revenues of the Academy. \n \ng) \nAccumulation of liabilities - UGX.760.4Bn \nI reviewed the financial statements of UNRA and noted that it has accumulated liabilities to \nthe tune of UGX. 760.4Bn. These comprise of certified and approved liabilities UGX. 616.1Bn \nand unapproved certificates by management of UGX. 144.3Bn. \n \nThe accumulation of liabilities was attributed to lack of funds and delayed payments.", "metadata": {"page": 164, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "149 \n \n \nFurther UNRA has a policy of approving certificates within 60 days by a committee appointed \nby the Accounting Officer, however, I noted that the approval process takes much longer and \nby the end of the year the un approved certificates had accumulated to UGX.144.3Bn. \n \nAccumulation of liabilities lead to interest payments related to non-settlement of certificates \nissued for work done leading to escalation of construction costs. Furthermore, it paints a bad \npicture on road contracts and some intrinsic costs may be built in the contract to cater for \ndelays leading to high cost contracts. During the year an amount of UGX.41.34Bn was paid \nas interest for delayed payment for various projects. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the exercise for the verification and approval of works \ncertificates is a very lengthy because of the technicalities and the amounts involved. \nFurthermore, the delayed release of funds also leads to late payments hence interest \npenalties.", "metadata": {"page": 165, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "penalties. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage the MoFPED with a view of securing additional \nresources to settle the liabilities. I also advised the Accounting Officer to review the payment \napproval process and payment terms to mitigate the risk of interest charges due to penalties \n \n12.0. HEALTH SECTOR \na) \nManagement of Essential Medicines and Health Supplies in Health Facilities \nSection 4 of the Essential Medicines and Health Supplies Manual 2012 requires an effective \nstock management system which ensures that the right medicines of the right quality and \nquantities are available at the right place, at the right time, and at the right cost. Furthermore, \nSection 4 of the National Medical Stores Act 1993 provides that one of the objectives is to \nsecure, safe and efficient storage, administration, distribution and supply of the goods, having \nregard to national needs and to the special nature of the goods in question in accordance with \nthe national drug policy and the national drug authority.", "metadata": {"page": 165, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "A review was undertaken of the supply, storage, administration and distribution of EMHS in \nNational Referral Hospitals and specialized health facilities and I noted the following: \n \n\uf0b7 \nMost of the hospitals and facilities had expired drugs which were kept in the stores instead \nof being returned to NMS for appropriate handling. In addition, NMS had Non Viable Stock \nof UGX.13.4Bn at the close of the Financial year representing an increment of Ugx.8.25Bn \n(160%) from 2020/2021. The expired drugs included ARVs, donated latex gloves that \nfailed NDA tests and items which could not be ordered for and utilised during the covid-\n19 lockdown. \n \n\uf0b7 \nMost hospitals and specialized health facilities still experienced drug stock outs ranging \nfrom 9-360 days. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe storage areas for drugs in most of the hospitals and specialized facilities were small", "metadata": {"page": 165, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and medicines were congested with some medicines on the floors instead of pallets and \nboxes leaning on walls. Some stores were not well lit and appropriately ventilated. \n \nDrug stock-outs are not only detrimental to the life of patients who need these drugs but also \nerode patients\u2019 confidence in the public health care system, which may lead them to seek \ninappropriate and expensive alternative health care services elsewhere. In addition, expired \ndrugs present a loss to the public and further losses may be incurred in the process of", "metadata": {"page": 165, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "150 \n \ntransporting and destroying them. Further, poor storage conditions for drugs may result into \nloss of potency or degradation of products that may harm patients. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to liaise with the responsible stakeholders such as NMS, \nMinistry of Health, NDA, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and \nDevelopment Partners to improve the management of EMHS at National Referral Hospitals \nand specialized health facilities. \n \nb) \nUnderstaffing in Health Facilities \n \nNational Regional Referral Hospitals and specialized health facilities have staff structures that \nneed to be adequately filled for efficient and effective service delivery. I however noted that \nthe facilities had staffing gaps with the critical gaps being in the National Referral Hospitals \nthat were recently elevated from Regional Referral status and specialized facilities (UCI and \nUHI) whose staff structures are yet to be approved by the Ministry of Public Service.", "metadata": {"page": 166, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I also noted that for most of the facilities, funds for recruitment of staff were warranted and \nreleased in the last quarter of the financial year (May 2022). As a result, there was not enough \ntime for Health Service Commission to recruit staff so that the facilities can absorb the funds. \nFunds were thus returned to the UCF. \n \nInadequate staffing results in heavy workloads and exploitation of existing staff, creates job-\nrelated stress which negatively affects the quality-of-service delivery to the community. \nI advised Management to follow up the recruitment funding for re-voting and ensure \ncompletion of recruitment exercise. \n \nc) \nUtilization and Maintenance of Medical Equipment \nAccording to Section 7 of Operation Manual for Regional Medical Equipment Maintenance \nWorkshops and Medical Equipment Maintenance Guidelines, 2013, the entity should plan and \nbudget for maintenance under two main categories of Planned Preventive Maintenance and \nBreakdown maintenance to ensure efficient maintenance of medical equipment.", "metadata": {"page": 166, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I made an assessment of medical equipment in the National Referral Hospitals and specialized \nhealth facilities focusing on the functionality and availability of medical equipment and \nmaintenance of the same. The results of my assessment are summarized below; \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe hospitals and specialized health facilities did not plan for preventive maintenance \nbased on analyzed equipment data such as usage statistics and dates of previous \nmaintenance. This led to persistent breakdown of equipment and prolonged down time \nwhich affected service delivery in terms of reliability and quality of health care. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere were budget shortfalls for maintenance of equipment with some hospitals and \nfacilities receiving less than 50% of the budget. As a result, a number of vital equipment \nwere not appropriately maintained during the year. \n \n\uf0b7 \nFor Mulago National Referral Hospital I undertook a special audit which included among \nothers the procurement and maintenance of medical equipment and noted various \nanomalies in the payments for maintenance of medical equipment. The details are included \nin separate audit report.", "metadata": {"page": 166, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "151 \n \nI advised the Accounting Officers to improve medical equipment maintenance planning and \nliaise with the relevant stakeholders including Ministry of Health and Ministry of Finance, \nPlanning and Economic Development to secure adequate funding for maintenance and \nreplacement of medical equipment. \n \nd) \nUnresolved Contingent Liabilities \nI reviewed the financial statements of Ministry of Health and noted that there was a sum of \nUGX.120,829,578,815 in respect of potential obligations/payables due to various organisations \nas at 30th June 2022. Refer to the table below for details: \n \nTable 66: Unresolved Contingent Liabilities \nContingent liabilities \nDetails \nAmount (UGX) \nLegal proceedings \ni. \nSpencon Services Ltd \n45,656,660,072 \n \nii. Family Care Hospital \n550,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 167, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "550,000,000 \nOther \nContingent \nliabilities \niii. National Drug Authority \u2013 verification \nfees, import fees and licenses \n43,210,405,917 \n \niv. National Medical Stores \u2013 Storage and \ndistribution of drugs \n31,412,512,826 \nTotal \n \n120,829,578,815 \n \nUnder the circumstances, settlement of the above potential obligations is likely to adversely \naffect future operations of the Ministry. \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that the Ministry constituted a team comprising NDA, the \nMOH Pharmacy department, and MOH Internal Audit to verify and reconcile the above figures. \nThe exercise was still ongoing. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to fast track the reconciliation process. In addition, \nmanagement should consider liaising with NMS and NDA to agree on a payment plan to settle", "metadata": {"page": 167, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the validated domestic arrears. \n \n13.0. TRADE SECTOR \na) \nPayments outside the Work Plan \nParagraph 10.33.1 (d) of the Treasury Instructions 2017 requires additional internal controls \nrelating to payments to be noted by each Accounting Officer and that all commitments should \nbe consistent with the approved annual budget, and relate to activities in the annual work \nplan. \n \nI noted that a supplementary of UGX.27.9Bn was used to pay 13 (thirteen) Cooperative \nSocieties that were not in the original Ministry payment work plan. The Cooperative Unions \npaid were: Jinja Multipurpose Cooperative Society, Bwavu Mpologoma Growers Cooperative \nUnion Limited, Bumwambu Growers Cooperative Union Limited, and Uganda Cooperative \nTransport Union, among others. \n \nI further noted that Parliament appropriates cooperative societies compensation funds based \non a list not consistent with the Ministry\u2019s submission, as a result, some cooperatives have \ncontinued to receive money whereas others have not received at all.", "metadata": {"page": 167, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "152 \n \nThe Accounting Officer stated that these payments were made because the Ministry received \nadditional funding to settle additional cooperatives via supplementary releases appropriated \nby Parliament for that purpose. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage Parliament and other stakeholders to streamline \nprioritization of cooperative compensations to ensure equitable allocation of resources and \ntransparency. \nb) \nPayments to Cooperatives through Third parties - Law Firms \nParagraph 10.6.1 of the Treasury Instructions 2017, states that in general, all Government \npayments processed through the Government Financial Management Information system \n(GFMIS) will be made by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) to the beneficiary bank accounts. I \nreviewed the compensation process and payments made and noted the following: \n \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the financial year, War claims compensation of UGX. 29.09 Bn was made to \ndifferent persons and law firms but not directly to the beneficiary Cooperative societies", "metadata": {"page": 168, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "for onward remittance to beneficiary Cooperative members. It was observed that, \nCooperative compensations are not driven by Cooperative members. As a result, the \nprocess and resolutions pertaining to valuation of the claimed amounts attached to the \nlost properties during the war are not known by members. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Cooperative Unions currently do not have constituted Boards, contrary to \nsection 18A (1) of the Cooperative Societies Act 2020, that requires every society to \nhave a Board consisting of an odd number of members not less than five and not \nexceeding nine. \n \n\uf0b7 \nFurthermore, files relating to fifty-five (55) Cooperative Societies were not availed for \naudit; hence I could not confirm the authenticity of the compensation claims. The \nverification reports for only fifteen (15) cooperative societies were seen but these also \ndid not have their specific files, hence posing a risk of having non-existing Cooperatives \nbeing compensated. \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 168, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nMinutes to prove any agreement on the resolutions taken were not availed hence casting \ndoubt on the authenticity of the transactions, member participation and physical \nexistence of these Cooperatives leading to a risk that the bonafide beneficiaries may not \nhave received the payment. \n \n\uf0b7 \nOnly the verification committee members signed the compensation claims report. \n \n\uf0b7 \nManagement paid excess amount of UGX .588.2 Mn above the planned (in regard to \npayments to Teso Cooperative Union - UGX.352.9Mn and North Bukedi Cooperative \nUnion \u2013 UGX.235.2Mn). Similarly, UGX.6.17Bn that was earmarked to pay three \nCooperative Unions; Masaba Cooperative Union (UGX.882.35 Mn), West Nile Growers \nCooperative Union (UGX.882.35Mn) and Wamala Growers Cooperative Union", "metadata": {"page": 168, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(UGX.4.41Bn) but was not paid. Management attributed the overpayment to the \navailability of resources. \n \nIn the circumstances, I was not able to obtain evidence of participation of members or their \nrepresentatives with respect to the compensation claims contrary to Section 16(2) of the \nCooperative Societies Act, 2020 that prescribes the rights of the members of Cooperative \nSocieties among which to attend, participate and vote for decisions taken at all general \nmeetings of the society. In addition, overpayments are potentially a loss of public resources.", "metadata": {"page": 168, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "153 \n \nI further found the practice of payment through third parties both inconveniencing and \nexposing the Ministry to loss of public funds to non-bonafide members, given the lack of \nparticipation of members \n \nThe Accounting Officer explained that Cooperatives\u2019 legal representatives, instructed the \nMinistry formally to pay compensations through third parties, adding that some of the files \nhad been transferred to Entebbe for temporally storage, hence could thus not be readily \navailed to auditors. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to ensure that all Cooperative Unions are legally constituted, \ntheir existence verified and review the practice of making payments through third parties and \npay directly to Cooperatives. Meanwhile, a follow up process to confirm that the payments \nreached the beneficiary Cooperatives should be initiated and the overpayments recovered. \nc) \nUnder absorption of funds in Uganda Development Corporation (UDC)", "metadata": {"page": 169, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Section 45 (3) of the Public Finance Management Act, 2015 states that an Accounting Officer \nshall enter into an annual budget performance contract with the Secretary to the Treasury \nwhich shall bind the Accounting Officer to deliver on the activities in the work plan of the vote \nfor a Financial year, submitted under Section 13 (15)\u201d of the said Act. UDC receives \nappropriation through Vote 015. \n \nIt was established that overall, in addition to the unspent funds from the prior year of \nUGX.80.4 Bn, only UGX.33.14 (13%) was spent by the Corporation leaving a balance of \nUGX.210.48 as summarized below; \n \nTable 67: Under absorption of funds in UDC \nItem \nFunds \nbrought \nforward \n(UGX Bn) \nFunding \nreceived \nduring the \nyear (UGX \nBn) \nTotal", "metadata": {"page": 169, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Bn) \nTotal \nfunds \navailable \nAmount \nspent \n(UGX Bn) \nVariance \n\u2013 UGX Bn \nWage and \nnon-wage \n3.8 \n12.87 \n16.67 \n8.7 \n7.97 \nDevelopment/ \nprojects \n76.6 \n150.35 \n226.95 \n24.44 \n202.5 \nTotal \n80.4 \n163.22 \n243.62 \n33.142 \n210.48 \n \nFrom above, UGX.8.7 Bn (52%) was spent on wage and Non-wage, while absorption on \ndevelopment expenditure was only UGX.24.44 Bn (11%). A critical review of the expenditure", "metadata": {"page": 169, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "revealed that notable under absorption was on the funding for the Atiak Sugar factory which \naccounts for over 50% of the funds, while there was no expenditure on most of the projects. \n \nFailure to fully absorb funds by the Corporation negatively affects the corporation's efforts in \nachieving its strategic objectives and projects for which the funds were appropriated. \nThe Executive Director explained that the under absorption was majorly due to supplementary \nfunding of 129.5Bn that was appropriated by the Parliament during the year and of which \n67% of the funds were availed in May 2022. \n \nManagement explained that 87% of the funds related to the mechanisation of the Atiak Sugar \nfactory which involved procurements that could not be completed by year-end though the \nprocurements have since been completed. Additionally, they stated that the under absorption", "metadata": {"page": 169, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "154 \n \nin relation to the other projects was due to the investment process that is followed to ensure \nviability and sustainability and has operated without a Board for the greater part of the year. \n \n \nI advised the Executive Director to devise strategies for expediting the implementation of the \nprojects to improve funds absorption. \nd) \nFailure to seek approval for unspent balances \nSection 17 (1) of the Public Finance Management Act 2015 states that \u201cEvery appropriation \nby Parliament shall expire and cease to have any effect at the close of the financial year for \nwhich it is made.\u201d Sub Section (2) of the same section further requires the unspent money \nthat was appropriated for the financial year, to be repaid to the Consolidated Fund at the close \nof the financial year. \n \nSubsection (3) of the same section further states that a vote that repays money under", "metadata": {"page": 170, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "subsection (2) shall revise its annual work plan, procurement plan and recruitment plan to \ntake into account the unexpended money and the Minister responsible for the vote shall \nsubmit, as part of the budget for the preceding year, the revised work plan, procurement plan \nand recruitment plan to the Minister. \n \nUganda Development Corporation receives project funds that are appropriated under the \nMinistry of Trade Industry and Cooperatives. The funding caters for operations (wage and \nNon-wage) and specific projects. However, UDC has accumulated project funds of UGX. \n80.4Bn since 30th June 2021. The funds in issue were not returned to the consolidated fund \nand neither was supplementary funding approval sought. This may be attributed to the \naccounting policies of the Corporation where all Government funds are capitalised. \n \nRetention of un-spent balances without authority contravenes the PFMA and May lead to the \ndiversion of funds resulting from accounting policies adopted.", "metadata": {"page": 170, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Executive Director explained that UDC was being funded in accordance with the UDC Act \n2016 and that according to Section 24 of the Act, the Board is required to declare to the \nMinister any money of the Corporation that is not utilised at the end of each financial year \nand also allows the Corporation to invest any funds not immediately required for any purpose \nupon approval of the Board. \n \nI advised the Executive Director to always ensure compliance with the PFMA regarding budget \nexecution and seek appropriate authority to retain the funds. In addition, Management is \nadvised to engage all stakeholders to change the funding model to allow all funds appropriated \nand remitted to the Corporation to be capitalised. \ne) \nFailure to enforce collection of NTR as required by the Act \nSection 12 (1)(a) of the Uganda Export Promotion Board Act states that the funds to be \ncollected by the board shall consist of a levy of not more than 0.5% on designated imports.", "metadata": {"page": 170, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "It was however noted that the entity has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on \ndesignated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the \nBoard contrary to the Act, leading to loss of revenue. \n \nThe Accounting Officer indicated that all Non-Tax Revenue collections were reverted to URA. \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage all stakeholders responsible and institute measures \nto ensure compliance with the law.", "metadata": {"page": 170, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "155 \n \n14.0. TOURISM SECTOR \na) \nLack of a comprehensive plan for the management of the invasive species \nAccording to Section 21(1-2) of the Uganda Wildlife Act 2019, The Board shall develop a \nconservation planning manual that takes cognizance of the national policies and development \nplanning frameworks and the Executive Director shall, with the approval of the Board prepare \nand publish a comprehensive management plan for each wildlife protected area and wildlife \nmanagement area, in accordance with the conservation planning manual. \n \nDuring my review of the plans for the Authority, I was not availed with a conservation planning \nmanual and a comprehensive management plan for each wildlife protected area and wildlife \nmanagement area and I was unable to confirm whether there is a deliberate effort to manage \nthe invasive and exotic plant species that cover an average of 30% of the surface areas of \nQueen Elizabeth, Lake Mburo Park, Murchison Falls, and Kidepo Valley National Parks.", "metadata": {"page": 171, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "These invasive/exotic or endemic plants, amongst others, include different species such as \nDichrostachys cinerea, Lantana Camara, Parthenium hysterophorus, Opuntia Vulgaris, \nImperata cylindrica, Maeruade cumbens, Caesalepina decaputala, Acacia hockii, Tecoma Stan, \nSenna siamea and Thevetia peruviana. \n \nI attributed this to the delayed decision by the Board and Management of UWA to determine \nthe approach that can comprehensively deal with the invasive species. \n \nThe invasive species contract the grazing areas for herbivores animals and affect the \nrangeland and environmental quality that consequently reduce the wildlife population of \ngrazers such as hippos, buffalos, zebras, topis, and Uganda Kobs. \n \nThe Accounting Officer acknowledged the issue and informed me in his response that invasive \nplant management is a real challenge in the management of protected areas and that this", "metadata": {"page": 171, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "needed more funds than UWA could allocate. He further explained that management had \nannually allocated funds for the eradication of the invasive species and so far 2000 hectares \nhad been freed and are being maintained. He added in his response that a total of UGX.770Mn \nhad been allocated to invasive management under UWA internally generated funds and \nanother UGX.1.590Bn under World Bank (IFPA-CD project). \n \nAdditionally, he further explained that the funds allocated to the management of invasive \nincluded engaging a consultant to spearhead the development of the Invasive Species \nManagement Strategy to be concluded before the close of this financial year 2022-2023 and \nthe procurement of a consultant to develop a strategy for eradication of invasive species is at \nadvertising stage. \n \nI await the outcome of the actions being undertaken by the Accounting Officer intended to \nmanage the challenge imposed by the invasive species on the tourism sector. \nb) \nOngoing cases of claims in Gazetted Areas", "metadata": {"page": 171, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ongoing cases of claims in Gazetted Areas \nAccording to section 25(1) of the Uganda Wildlife Act 2019, The Minister may, by statutory \ninstrument, after consultation with the Local Government Council in whose area a proposed \nwildlife conservation area falls and with the approval of Parliament signified by its resolution, \ndeclare an area of land or water to be a wildlife conservation area.", "metadata": {"page": 171, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "156 \n \nWhereas all the ten (10) national parks were dually gazetted in accordance with the law, I \nnoted that there were several ongoing cases of claims on land in the gazetted areas under \nthe management of Uganda Wildlife Authority as evidenced by active court cases in some \nparks namely Lake Mburo National Park, Mt. Elgon National Park, Semiliki National Park and \nMatheniko Bokora. This was attributed to increased encroachment on the National parkland. \nFailure to resolve these cases may lead to the loss of gazetted land areas that will affect \nwildlife conservation. \nThe Accounting Officer explained in his response that prior to the creation of Uganda National \nParks and later Uganda Wildlife Authority; the protected areas mentioned above were being \nmanaged under the Forest and Game Departments of Government. These two Departments \nwere ill-facilitated by Government and therefore had no funds to enforce the protection of the \nsaid areas and this resulted in a number of encroachments. When UWA took over", "metadata": {"page": 172, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "management, a number of efforts have been made to resolve these conflicts, most of which \nare in court. UWA has no jurisdiction over the Courts of Law and is therefore incapacitated to \nhave the court cases fast-tracked. \nHe further explained that the Authority engaged the Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and \nAntiquities and the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development which led to the \ncancellation of some of the erroneously issued titles; the process of cancellation of others is \nstill ongoing. Additionally, the Accounting Officer informed that the Ministry of Tourism, \nWildlife and Antiquities is already engaging the Ministry of Lands on the matter. \nI advised the Accounting Officer to closely monitor illegal encroachments in the gazetted areas \nand take appropriate actions to resolve these claims. \n15. \nCROSS CUTTING ISSUES IN SCHOOLS \nI undertook financial audit of Secondary schools and Tertiary Institutions for the financial year \nending 30th December 2020 and 30th June 2020 respectively and observed the following key \nfindings that are also included in individual entity reports.", "metadata": {"page": 172, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "i. \nA review of Approved budget estimates of 207 schools revealed that they budgeted to \nreceive UGX.390,261,047,176 but only realised UGX.209,516,751,825 leading to an \nunderfunding of UGX.180,744,295,351 (46%). Failure to realise all budgeted amounts \naffected implementation of several school activities. \n \nii. 16 schools did not prepare financial statements for the year under review. Failure to \nprepare financial statements hinders effective oversight over expenditure, revenue, assets \nand liabilities of the school. \niii. Receivables of UGX.21,094,320,460 had accumulated in 117 schools by the end of the \nfinancial year. Receivables represent an idle asset, since it denied schools the revenue \nrequired to implement planned activities.", "metadata": {"page": 172, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "iv. Domestic arrears of UGX.22,010,317,124 had accumulated in 102 schools by the end of \nthe financial year. Accumulation of payables damages the School\u2019s creditworthiness and \ncould lead to litigation \nv. 72 Schools did not have titles for the pieces of land in which they were located. There is \na risk of loss of these pieces of land in cases of encroachment or disputes \n \nvi. A review of staff establishments of 151 Schools revealed that out of the 10,547 approved \nstaff positions, only 5,139 (49%) were filled leaving 5,408 (51%) vacancies. As a result, \neducation service delivery is negatively affected.", "metadata": {"page": 172, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "157 \n \n \nvii. 55 schools did not have strategic plans to guide them in planning for achievement of short \nterm, medium term and long-term goals. Non-existence of the school strategic plan affects \neffective planning and budgeting in the short term and long term. \n \nviii. 49 schools did not have procurement plans to guide the procurement processes executed \nduring the year. Lack of a procurement plan could result into diversion of funds to non-\ncritical procurements not initially intended to be executed. \nB. \nCROSS CUTTING ISSUES IN LLGs \n \nI sampled 335 LLGs for audit in the financial year of 2020/2021. I reviewed the funding for \nthe year and noted that the LLGs had budgeted to receive UGX.138,533,294,237, but only", "metadata": {"page": 173, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "received UGX.112,296,656,986 (81%) which led to a shortfall of UGX.26,236,637,251 (19%). \n \nA review of the implementation of the planned activities in the LLGs revealed the following; \n \ni. \n325 of the audited LLGs had unqualified opinions, 8 of them had qualified opinions and 2 \nwere issued with disclaimers. \n \nii. They budgeted to collect local revenue of UGX.41,936,664,586, but only collected \nUGX.29,999,490,158 (71.5%) which resulted into a shortfall of UGX.11,937,174,428 \n(28.5%). Shortfalls in local revenue collections negatively affect the implementation of \nplanned activities which frustrates service delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 173, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "iii. Only 2,928 posts were filled out of 7792 approved staff posts. Understaffing overstretches \nthe available staff beyond their capacity, creates job-related stress to the fewer staff and \nnegatively affects the level of public service delivery to the community. \n \niv. I noted that 140 LLGs lacked title deeds for 632 plots of land. This implies that the land is \nexposed to a risk of encroachment and land disputes. \n \nv. Out of the 335 LLGs sampled, only 28 had strategic plans in place and the remaining 307 \ndid not have. There is a risk that the budgets prepared and activities implemented during \nthe financial year were not aligned to the NDP- III which negatively affects the \nachievement of NDP-III objectives. \n \nvi. I noted that 162 LLGs did not have Physical Development Plans whereas 78 did not have \nPhysical Planning Committees in place. This leaves the LLGs exposed to risks of", "metadata": {"page": 173, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "unregulated physical developments including creation of undesirable slums. \n \nvii. 159 LLGs budgeted to receive UGX.2,587,748,230 as funding for garbage management, \nbut only received/spent UGX.2,142,640,315 resulting into a shortfall of UGX.445,107,915. \n \nviii. 194 LLGs did not have by-laws for the management of garbage and also lacked sufficient \nequipment and facilities for Garbage collection and disposal. Failure to undertake proper \ngarbage management leads to piling of garbage on the streets which further poses a \nhealth threat to the surrounding communities. \n \nix. 77 LLGs did not remit UGX.788,151,117 to the lower local councils (counties, parishes & \nvillage councils) as required by the Fifth Schedule, Part V (16), of the Local Government \nAct 1997 (as amended). Non remittance of shared revenue impairs the participation of the", "metadata": {"page": 173, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "158 \n \nLower Local Councils in the implementation of Government programs which affects service \ndelivery at the grass roots. \n \nx. 6 LLGs failed to account for UGX.459,463,633 in the FY 2020/2021 and therefore I was \nunable to confirm that the funds were used for the intended purpose. \n \nxi. 16 LLGs spent UGX.200,229,143 in excess of the required amount on council allowances. \nThere is a risk that funds meant for implementation of planned activities was diverted and \nused to pay Council emoluments.", "metadata": {"page": 174, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "159 \n \nPART 4: INFORMATION SYSTEMS, ENGINEERING, VALUE FOR MONEY AND \nSPECIAL AUDITS \n \nDuring the financial year 2020/2021, I undertook three Information Systems audits, three \nEngineering audits covering 90 projects, eight Value for money audits. In addition, I undertook \nspecial and forensic audits which are reported on separately. \n \nBelow is a summary of the key findings I noted in each category, the details of which are \nincluded in individual reports issued separately. \n \n4.1. \nKEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE ENGINEERING AUDITS \n \n4.1.1. Audit of GRID Extension Projects implemented by the Rural Electrification \nAgency Currently under the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development for \nthe period 2009 \u2013 2017 \nBetween 2009 and 2017, REA secured over USD.80Million from SIDA, JICA, World \nBank, NORAD and the Government of Uganda to implement priority Rural", "metadata": {"page": 175, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Electrification Projects most of which were part of the sample of projects under review. \n \nThe Scope of the audit covered the GRID extension power line projects implemented \nin the 13 service territories under the various funding programs between the financial \nyears 2013/14 to 2017/18. \n \nThe scope of the GRID Extension power-line projects assessment was the following; \n \ni. \nCompleted Grid Projects Implemented by REA since Financial Year 2013/2014 \nto 2016/17 when RESP II was being implemented \nii. \nCompleted UMEME Cost Shared Lines since 2013/2014 and 2014/15. \niii. \nSchemes Implemented through Concession Operators \n\uf0b7 \nKilembe Mines Ltd \n\uf0b7 \nFerdsult Engineering Servcies Ltd \n\uf0b7 \nWenrenco \n\uf0b7 \nUEDCL \niv. \nOngoing Grid Projects under Implementation by REA \nv.", "metadata": {"page": 175, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "v. \nCompleted Grid Projects Implemented by REA from (2009-2017) Prioritized by \nRural Electrification Agency. \nI undertake a Value for Money audit and assess whether construction of Grid extension \npower lines and associated installations implemented by the Rural Electrification \nAgency (REA) was undertaken in accordance with recommended technical standards, \ndesigns and specifications; assess the quality and functionality of the completed \npower-lines and associated installations and its impact on the user communities. \n \nFollowing the Value for money audit I noted the following; \n \nThere have been Positive Economic Impacts have been realized from constructed GRID \nLines, for instance;", "metadata": {"page": 175, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "160 \n \nUrbanization of several trading centres has taken place along the power lines \nconstructed, many income-generating activities were initiated by the locals such as \nmaize milling, wielding, salons, juice production thus improving their incomes and way \nof life and creation of employment opportunities; promoting value addition to the local \nagricultural products and dairy products; reduction in greenhouse emissions; \nimproving investment climate in targeted communities; and increase in government \nrevenue. \n \nHowever, there are still some performance gaps in operation of rural electrification \nprojects that need to be addressed as follows; \n \ni. \nAudit carried out creditor circularization to determine any outstanding amounts \nowed to Contractors, Consultants and Concessioners and noted that, REA owed \nnine (9) firms for works already completed worth USD.28,080,776.53 and \nUGX.3,350,908,860. \n \nii.", "metadata": {"page": 176, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ii. \nOut of the commissioned lines, UMEME attracted and obtained O&M rights for \nabout 25% and these were largely township lines. UEDCL obtained about 60% \nof the O&M rights leaving the 15% to the other operators, however audit did not \nget evidence of any deliberate O&M policies or practices largely on the \npreventative maintenance. The auditors were not provided with preventative \nmaintenance plans, nor was there proof of a structured and consistence \nimplementation of basic prudent maintenance practices on the lines. Although \nERA is mandated to issue license to the operators, review and approve the O&M \nBudgets as well as regulate the operations of these licensee, audit noted minimal \nsupervision by ERA in line with oversight monitoring and Evaluation. \n \niii. \nAdditionally, in terms of the operating and management costs of power lines, \nthey were deemed high due to a number of factors such as transformers,", "metadata": {"page": 176, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "defective or rotten poles which needed replacement in the shortest of time after \nthe commissioning of these lines. For instance, according to UEDCL data for \nKabale \u2013 Kisoro \u2013 Bunagana Scheme, the annual maintenance cost was at \nUGX.34.7 billion against UGX.518 billion generated revenues. This translates \n6.8% of revenue which is above the 5% threshold requirement. \n \niv. \nThere are several occupation and safety hazards noted during implementation \nof the GRID power projects. 33kV power lines were constructed to span across \nroofs of residential houses in Ibanda-Kazo-Rushere power scheme, Mpanga-\nKamwenge-Kahungye-Nkingo. \n \nv. \nThere were some inadequacies in design and construction of GRID power \nprojects noted; Although normal service conditions and or best practice requires \nthat 33KV extensions should originate from substations (service bays/Bus Bars)", "metadata": {"page": 176, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "audit noted that for most of the projects implemented by REA, MV extensions \nwere tapped from existing feeders implying that the newly implemented MV \nextension automatically inherits the challenges of the backbone and vice versa. \nExamples were noted in Kabale-Kisoro, Gulu-Acholibur, Masindi- Waki- Buliisa, \nOpuyo-Moroto, Ibanda- Kazo- Rushere, Gulu-Adjumani-Moyo. \nvi. \nVoltage drops were also witnessed during field inspections for all extensions \nbeyond 100km that did not originate from the substation. High voltage drops, \nbelow the permissible level can result in increased system maintenance costs, a", "metadata": {"page": 176, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "161 \n \ndecrease in the safety and performance of the network as well as reduced \nexpected lifetime of the equipment. \n \nvii. \nIn line with contractual requirements, wooden poles are expected to last up to \n20years. Document review and field inspections noted that poles supplied on \nsome projects as; Masindi- Waki-Buliisa, Ibanda-Kazo-Rushere, Gulu-Acholibur, \nKitgum-Palabek, Ayer-Kamdini among others, failed due to rotting, insect \nInfestation, pole burning and breaking. No document was availed to ascertain \nthat quality control procedures were followed. Furthermore, no effort was \nrecognized from REA that the defective wooden poles are claimed back from the \nrespective pole suppliers. \n \nI have made the following recommendations to the Accounting Officer of Ministry of \nEnergy and Mineral Development (MEMD) which has now inherited the functions of", "metadata": {"page": 177, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the Rural Electrification Agency (REA) under which the GRID power projects were \nimplemented and recommended that; \n \na. \nThe outstanding amounts owed to contractor\u2019s firms are paid for works that \nare completed and verified to avoid incurring penalties on delayed payments. \n \nb. \nTo continuously address Environmental and social issues in contracts and their \nimplementation and ensure that all contracts for implementation of GRID power \nprojects make it mandatory for the implementation firms to prepare \nenvironmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) reports in addition to \nresultant Environmental Management Plans (EMP) and Resettlement Action \nManagement Plans (RAMPs). \n \nc. \nExpedite the process of compensating all PAPs taking into consideration the \ntime lag for the delayed payment (9 years since existing assessment was \nconducted) accordingly, Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) studies should be \nconducted based on the final designs, where changes are deemed inevitable in", "metadata": {"page": 177, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the optimal design, such changes should be communicated such that \nrevaluations of new PAPs are conducted. \n \nd. \nEstablish causes of failing wooden poles even after quality tests have been \nundertaken. The option to use Concrete Poles can also be considered especially \ngiven that the quality control during manufacture for concrete poles can easily \nbe monitored and controlled unlike wooden poles whose quality is determined \nby many factors from the time they are planted, harvested, treated at the \nfactory, and eventually transported to site. \n \ne. \nMEMD strengthens project management, monitoring and supervision \narrangements for GRID power projects to ensure that all GRID projects are \nimplemented within project time lines, indicated in the approved activity work \nprograms and contracts. \n \nf. \nFor Power schemes implemented through concession operators, MEMD ensures \nthat \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe licensed firms operating under concession agreements undertake \nThe licensed firms operating under concession agreements undertake \neffective operation and maintenance activities in respect of replacing all", "metadata": {"page": 177, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "162 \n \nnon-function GRID equipment as blown fuses, surge arrestors, replacing \nbroken poles, faulty transformers to keep the power lines functional \n \n\uf0b7 \nMEMD closely monitors and supervises the licensees to establish that \nthey comply with the license terms and conditions and fulfil the objective \nof increasing access to electricity. \n \nA) Technical Engineering Audit of 39 Selected UNRA Road Development and \nRehabilitation Projects implemented during financial year 2021/2022 \n \nDuring the financial year 2021/22, a total of 39 projects (Development, rehabilitation \nand bridge projects) with a total contract sum/value of UGX.8.49Tn were under \nimplementation by UNRA. A sample of nine (9) projects (development and \nrehabilitation projects) with a contract sum/value of UGX. 1.86Tn (21.87%) were \nselected for audit and the following observations made;", "metadata": {"page": 178, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "i. Delayed provision of access to project sites resulting in a Loss of \nUGX.5.64Bn \n \nA loss of UGX. 5.64Bn was incurred as a result of failure to access land for road \nproject sites in 6 road projects, this arose from delayed compensation of Project \naffected Persons (PAPs) for acquisition of land for right of way resulting in the \ncontractors charging UNRA for time related obligations due to failure to access project \nsite and charging UNRA for idle time. \n \nIn 6 of the 9 UNRA road projects, access to sites was not achieved as required by the \ndifferent contract arrangements. This was the case especially where the contracts \nrequired the employer to handover a minimum of 30% of the land required for \npermanent works within 3 months of the commencement and the balance within 12 \nmonths. There was no timely access to sites, which resulted in multiple extensions of \ntime and in some instances costs relating to the time obligations. The delays were", "metadata": {"page": 178, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "noted on the following projects; \n \na. \nTirinyi \u2013Pallisa-Kumi where delays led to payment of UGX. 4.56Bn for time \nrelated obligations \nb. \nPallisa - Kamonkoli where access delays led to payment of UGX. 1.08Bn for \ntime related obligations \nc. \nFor Kapchorwa - Suam project where the access to site delayed from 21 days \nto 441 days from Km 42 to Km 73. \nd. \nRukungiri-Kihihi/Ishasha where a delay of 70 days was initially experienced \nand later increased due to non-compensation of project affected persons. \ne. \nKampala Northern By-pass where access was achieved 5 years into \nimplementation \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to ensure sites are accessible before issuing \ncommencement orders. \n \nii. Delays in completion of design reviews", "metadata": {"page": 178, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ii. Delays in completion of design reviews \n \nI noted delays in completion of design reviews which delayed timely issuance of \ninstructions to contractors with the maximum time taken of 24 months. Such delays \nwere observed on the following projects as shown in the table below;", "metadata": {"page": 178, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "163 \n \nTable 68: Projects with delays in design review \nSn Project \nNo. of months delayed \n1 \nKapchorwa-Suam project \n31 months \n2 \nKigumba-Bulima \n24 months \n3 \nRukungiri-Kihihi-Ishasha/Kanungu \n16 months. \n4 \nKampala Northern Bypass \n6 months \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to ensure that the consultant submits required \ndeliverables within contractual timelines. The UNRA project management team should \nbe held responsible for delays without appropriate justification. \n \niii. Interest charges of UGX.1.82Bn on delayed payment of Interim Payment \nCertificates (IPCs) to the Contractors \n \nI established that payments of interim payment certificates to the contractors for eight", "metadata": {"page": 179, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "projects were not on time. Delays in payments of IPCs may lead to interest payments \nand affect the contractor\u2019s cash flows in project execution. The following delays were \nnoted on projects and determination of certificates; \n \na. \nFor Kapchorwa - Suam project, delays on all IPCs up to IPC No. 7 resulting in \nan interest payment of UGX.1.08Bn. \nb. \nFor Tirinyi \u2013 Pallisa - Kumi, IPCs 1 to 6 were delayed resulting in a certified \ninterest of UGX.0.45Bn. \nc. \nPallisa - Kamonkoli, delays were observed on IPCs 1 to 7 resulting in a \ncertified interest of UGX.0.28Bn. \nd. \nMpigi town roads, all payments to the contractor were delayed between 28 \nand 242 days \ne.", "metadata": {"page": 179, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "e. \nNamunsi \u2013 Sironko \u2013 Muyembe - Kapchorwa (Phase II), delays on IPCs 5 to 9 \nranging from 4 days and over 7 months. \nf. \nKitala - Gerenge project, delays in payments to suppliers in June 2021 \ng. \nRukungiri \u2013 Kihihi - Ishasha/Kanungu, delays in payments on IPCs 1-15 \nranging from 8 to 142 days. \nh. \nFor Kampala Northern Bypass, payments were delayed and interest paid in \nAddendum No.3 for all payments up to June 2020. \n \nThe Accounting Officer attributed delays to reductions in MTEF allocations resulting in \nfunding shortages. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to institute mechanisms to ensure timely delivery of \nprojects and engage PS/ST and relevant stakeholders to ensure adequate funding. \n \niv. \nQuantity verification", "metadata": {"page": 179, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Quantity verification \n \nI undertook measurements on some selected items to establish the consistency with \nwhich the supervision team accurately measures the quantities before payments. I \nestablished overpayments relating to different projects totaling to UGX.231.87Mn & \nEUR 47,469.01. The table below refers;", "metadata": {"page": 179, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "164 \n \nTable 69: Project overpayments \nS/No \nContract/Project name \nOverpayment (UGX) \n1 \nKapchorwa-Suam \n20,594,809.19 \n2 \nTirinyi-Pallisa-Kumi \n0 \n3 \nPallisa-Kamonkoli \n0 \n4 \nMpigi Town Roads (20km \n126,896,449.94 \n5 \nKigumba-Bulima \n49,129,125 \n6 \nNamunsi \u2013 Sironko \u2013 Muyembe Kasalem \n(PHASE II) \n6,168,276 \n7 \nKitala-Gerenge (in-house construction) \n0 \n8", "metadata": {"page": 180, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n8 \nRukungiri-Kihihi-Ishasha/Kanungu \n29,081,818 \nTOTAL (UGX) \n231,870,478.13 \n9 \nKampala \nNorthern \nBypass \nII \n(Capacity \nImprovement) \nEUR 47,469.01 \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to recover all the overpayments and institute \nmeasures to prevent overpayments. \n \nv. \nUnjustified application of foreign currency correction factor \n \nI observed unjustified application of foreign currency correction factor which can lead \nto overpayments if unaddressed. This was established on the following projects; \n \na. \nKapchorwa - Suam project where the foreign currency exchange rates were", "metadata": {"page": 180, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "being applied without justification which might lead to computation errors in \nprice adjustment certificates. \nb. \nTirinyi \u2013 Pallisa - Kumi where use of an erroneous exchange rate of 31st May \n2016 (of UGX 3369.52) instead of 30th May 2016 (of UGX 3370.52) resulted \ninto an overpayment of UGX.54.84Mn. \nc. \nPallisa - Kamonkoli where use of an erroneous exchange rate of 31st May 2016 \n(of UGX 3369.52) instead of 30th May 2016 (of UGX 3370.52) resulted into an \noverpayment of UGX.40.05Mn. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to ensure payments are made as per contract terms \nand the right rates are adopted for payments to prevent any financial loss. \n \nvi.", "metadata": {"page": 180, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "vi. \nAdoption of a split currency (USD-UGX) in payments for the GoU funded \ncontract leading to a loss of approximately UGX.15.45Bn in foreign \nexchange \n \nI established that for Mpigi town roads project, the contractor was paid in part foreign \ncurrency despite a PS/ST directive against the practice for solely GoU funded projects. \nUSD.11.15Mn was paid to the Contractor at an exchange rate of 1USD at UGX. \n2,282.1, which meant that Government incurred an extra cost of over UGX.15.45Bn \nto acquire this amount of dollars considering the average USD exchange rate was UGX \n3,667.16 during the contract execution period in 2022. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to seek an exemption from the PS/ST before using a \nsplit currency in payments for GoU funded projects in view of the PS/ST guidelines \nagainst the practice. \nagainst the practice.", "metadata": {"page": 180, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "165 \n \nvii. \nIrregular advancement of UGX.2.32Bn to the Contractor relating to \nmaterials on site \n \nUGX.2.32Bn was advanced to the contractor in payment certificates (01 to 07) \nrelating to materials on site for the Mpigi town roads project without any contractual \nbasis. \n \nThe Accounting Officer responded that the materials-on-site value was paid in split \ncurrency as per the main road contract. \nI indicated to the Accounting Officer that the contract signed for the works in 2019 did \nnot have any provision for payments of materials-on-site. The main contract being \nreferenced did not form any part of the contract documents as listed in the contract \nagreement. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to ensure that the funds are recovered from the \nsubsequent payments. \n \nB) \nValue for Money Technical/Engineering Audit of Twenty Infrastructure", "metadata": {"page": 181, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Projects Implemented by Ministry Of Education And Sports Under The \nUganda Skills Development Program (USDP) \n \nThe Uganda Skills Development Project (USDP) is a five-year World Bank funded \nproject with a development objective of enhancing the capacity of institutions to deliver \nhigh quality demand-driven training courses in three priority sectors (agriculture, \nconstruction and manufacturing). In line with the objectives of the project, the Ministry \nof Education is undertaking building infrastructural works in twenty (20) technical \ninstitutes. \n \nDuring the financial year 2021/22, I under took a Value for Money Technical-\nEngineering audit of Twenty (20) infrastructure projects of the Uganda Skills \nDevelopment Programme (USDP) worth UGX. 108.47Bn implemented by Ministry of \nEducation and Sports (MOES). \n \ni. \nProcurement of the USDP Infrastructure Projects \nI reviewed procurement documentation for the 20 USDP Projects and noted the \nfollowing;", "metadata": {"page": 181, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "following; \n \na. \nThe Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the procurement of the design and \nsupervising consultant were ambiguous in that they did not detail the particular \naspects of project similarity yet five (5) of the eighteen (18) bidders were \ndisqualified on the basis of similarity of their projects. \nb. \nAdditionally, five (5) other firms were disqualified based on incompleteness of \ntheir similar projects yet this was not a requirement under the ToRs. \nc. \nMultiple design and supervision contracts were awarded to one consultancy \nfirm without assessing its capacity to handle all the contracts within the \ncontractual framework. This resulted in challenges during the design hence \nrefusal by the Ministry to effect the supervision contracts.", "metadata": {"page": 181, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "166 \n \nd. \nThe contracts for the works contractors in Kalango and Ora, and Kitgum \nTechnical Institutes, were awarded to the second and the fifth best evaluated \nbidders respectively without justification. \nI advised the Accounting Officer of MoES to ensure strict compliance with PPDA rules \nand regulations and World Bank Guidelines on procurement of World Bank funded \nprojects. \n \nii. \nDesign Omissions \nI reviewed the design reports and drawings of eighteen (18) contracts that were \nprepared by the design consultant and noted a number of omissions some of which \nwere later on introduced as variations during implementation of the construction \nworks. \n \nThe omissions included; anti-sag rods and wind bracing members in the steel roof \ntrusses, considerations for rain water harvesting options, retaining walls, generator \nhouses, tank drawings, internal floor drains and storm water designs.", "metadata": {"page": 182, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I advised the Accounting Officer to always ensure that designs prepared by consultants \nare thoroughly reviewed to ensure that they adequately consider all aspects required. \n \niii. \nDelayed Completion of Works \nI noted delays in completion of the works on ten (10) contracts ranging from 15 to \n330 days. Resulting from these delays were liquidated damages totalling UGX.3.77Bn \nthat were not charged from the contractors as per contract terms. The table below \nrefers; \n \nTable 70: Unclaimed liquidated damages \nS/No Contract \nDelays \n(days) \n Uncharged \nLiquidated Damages \n(UGX) \n1 \nBukalasa Agricultural College Lot 1 \n90 \n748,388,026 \n2 \nKaberamaido Technical Institute \n110 \n540,383,514 \n3", "metadata": {"page": 182, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \nKalongo Technical Institute \n15 \n41,378,333 \n4 \nOra Technical Institute \n44 \n104,234,819 \n5 \nKitgum Technical Institute \n100 \n293,682,207 \n6 \nUTC Bushenyi Lot 1 \n76 \n746,294,824 \n7 \nUTC Bushenyi Lot 2 \n330 \n762,408,141 \n8 \nNyamitanga Technical Institute \n226 \n228,585,432 \n9 \nKarera Technical Institute \n125 \n225,437,823 \n10 \nLake Katwe Technical Institute \n30 \n84,004,849 \n \nTOTAL", "metadata": {"page": 182, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "TOTAL \n \n3,774,797,968 \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to review the above contracts and recover the \npenalties due. \n \niv. \nExpiry of Advance Payment Guarantees Prior to Full Recovery of Advance \nI observed that on eight (8) of the contracts, the advance payment guarantees expired \nprior to full recovery of the advances. By the time the advance payment guarantees \nexpired, the unrecovered advances totaled UGX.4.55Bn as shown in the table below;", "metadata": {"page": 182, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "167 \n \nTable 71: Unrecovered advances from expired guarantees \nSN \nContract \nUnrecovered Advance at Expiry of \nGuarantee (UGX) \n1 \nSsesse Farm Institute \n509,617,393 \n2 \nUTC Lira Lot 2 \n43,061,091 \n3 \nKalongo Technical Institute \n387,890,177 \n4 \nOra Technical Institute \n254,620,642 \n5 \nKitgum Technical Institute \n440,639,594 \n6 \nUTC Bushenyi Lot 2 \n1,938,309,766 \n7 \nNyamitanga Technical Institute \n581,149,404 \n8 \nButalejja Technical Institute", "metadata": {"page": 183, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Butalejja Technical Institute \n394,579,955 \n \nTOTAL \n4,549,868,022 \n \nNon-renewal of the guarantees may lead to failure to recover the advances paid in the \nevent the contractors fail to complete execution of the construction works. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage contractors and secure additional advance \nguarantees and recover the advances otherwise, the advances should be fully \nrecovered on the subsequent payments. \n \nv. \nIrregular Payments \nI noted that various payments across the 20 contracts were irregular due to the \nabsence of documents supporting these payments, duplicate payments and payments \nfor unexecuted works totaling UGX. 1.95Bn. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to conduct further review of these payments and take \nappropriate action. \n \nvi. \nQuantity Verifications", "metadata": {"page": 183, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Quantity Verifications \nI undertook an analysis of the drawings in the contract documents availed and also \nundertook measurements on some of the executed work items to establish the \nconsistency with which the supervision team accurately measured the quantities before \npayments. I noted inconsistencies in some of the quantities certified across all the 20 \ncontracts resulting in overpayments equivalent to UGX.1.71Bn from the different \nprojects as shown in the table below; \n \nTable 72: Overpayments in different projects \nS/No \nContract \nOverpayment (UGX) \n1 \nBukalasa Agricultural College Lot 1 \n195,571,075 \n2 \nBukalasa Agricultural College Lot 2 \n93,966,832 \n3 \nKaberamaido Technical Institute \n37,030,169 \n4 \nSsesse Farm Institute", "metadata": {"page": 183, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ssesse Farm Institute \n103,786,000 \n5 \nUTC Lira Lot 1 \n129,914,950 \n6 \nUTC Lira Lot 2 \n113,394,178 \n7 \nKalongo Technical Institute \n179,818,690 \n8 \nOra Technical Institute \n62,686,000 \n9 \nKitgum Technical Institute \n123,656,204 \n10 \nUTC Bushenyi Lot 1 \n99,470,240 \n11 \nUTC Bushenyi Lot 2 \n159,959,100 \n12 \nNyamitanga Technical Institute \n14,367,666 \n13 \nKarera Technical Institute \n53,059,096 \n14 \nLake Katwe Technical Institute \nLake Katwe Technical Institute \n60,394,667", "metadata": {"page": 183, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "168 \n \nS/No \nContract \nOverpayment (UGX) \n15 \nUTC Elgon Lot 1 \n23,112,847 \n16 \nUTC Elgon Lot 2 \n21,469,465 \n17 \nKaliro Technical Institute \n8,114,020 \n18 \nButalejja Technical Institute \n70,875,186 \n19 \nKasodo Technical Institute \n125,683,060 \n20 \nRwentanga Technical Institute \n33,199,300 \nTOTAL \n1,709,528,745 \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to undertake further re-measurement of all the works \nand ensure recovery of the overpaid amounts before preparation of Final Accounts and \nclosure of the aforementioned projects.", "metadata": {"page": 184, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "vii. \nSupervision of the Works \nI noted that the Ministry did not use supervision firms procured and opted to supervise \nall the twenty (20) sites in-house. Whereas the supervising firm was expected to have \nfour (4) Senior Civil Engineers/Architects, 4 Architects, 4 Quantity Surveyors, 4 \nEnvironmentalists and 4 Structural Engineers for all the 20 sites, I noted that at the \ntime of audit, the Ministry only had 2 Senior Civil Engineers, 1 architect, 1 Quantity \nSurveyor, 1 Environmentalist and 1 structural Engineer for all the 20 sites. \n \nHowever, the supervisions were undertaken by the ministry yet they had limited \ncapacity to undertake effective supervision. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to ensure that future projects are adequately \nsupervised with appropriate specialist. \n \n4.2. \nREDACTED INFORMATION SYSTEMS AUDIT REPORTS \n \nIn accordance with Sections 13 and 22 of the National Audit Act (NAA) 2008, I am", "metadata": {"page": 184, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "mandated to audit all the government investments and carry out special audit \nengagements that include information technology (IT) Audits. Accordingly, I planned \nand executed my audits following ISSAI 200: Fundamental Principles of Public-Sector \nAuditing and INTOSAI 5100 guidance. \n \nI conducted four (4) audits namely; National Security Information System (NSIS) at \nNIRA; Programme Budgeting System (PBS) at MOFPED, and Uganda Driver Licensing \nSystem (UDLS) at (MoWT). Below are redacted versions of my key findings. \n \n4.2.1. Information Systems Audit of the National Security Information System at \nNIRA \n \nThe National Security Information System (NSIS) was first implemented by the \nDirectorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control (DCIC) in the Ministry of Internal \nAffairs at a contract price of Euros 64,231,371.49. After the establishment of the \nNational Identification and Registration Authority (NIRA) the Registration of Persons", "metadata": {"page": 184, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Act, of 2015, the registration of the person project was transferred to the authority. \nThe Authority commenced the registration of births, deaths and adoptions events on \n1st January 2016, a function that was undertaken previously by Uganda Registration \nServices Bureau (URSB).", "metadata": {"page": 184, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "169 \n \nThe system provides centralized approval and citizenship verification to the point of \nsecure personalization and issuance of biometric and machine-readable National \nIdentification Documents. The major functionality of the NSIS is to reliably identify \nUgandan citizens and alien residents. \n \nI undertook an information systems audit of NSIS to establish whether the necessary \ngeneral, application and specific controls were implemented and consistently applied. \nBelow are the redacted findings which exclude sensitive application and database \ncontrol weaknesses; \ni. \nAbsence of active interfaces between NSIS and other systems \nThe NSIS did not have active interfaces with other Government key systems such as \nURA\u2019s E-Tax systems that process data relating to Government Non-Tax Revenue \n(NTR) generated from services offered by NIRA, IFMS and IPPS/HCMS which process \nGovernment critical information related to civil servants and other Government \nsuppliers, including the banking sector.", "metadata": {"page": 185, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Furthermore, the sharing of information among NIRA internal systems was not \nautomated. For example, in registering childbirth for the birth certificate, the \nregistration officer re-keys the child and parent\u2019s information into the BDAR system \nyet the same information is resident in NSIS. \n \nLack of proper interfaces with the other critical systems hinders Government \neffectiveness and efficiency in providing services and may lead to multiple inconsistent \ninformation in different systems and delayed delivery of services since procedures are \nrepetitive. \n \nManagement explained that interfaces were not done because the system (NSIS) was \nvendor locked. \n \nNIRA should engage NITA-U and the Ministry of Information and Communication \nTechnology (MoICT) to ensure that all other MDAs and the private sector which rely \non its information design strategies to enable interfaces or appropriate integrations \nwith requisite protocols to mitigate misuse of data. \nii.", "metadata": {"page": 185, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ii. \nUnimplemented National ID project deliverables \nI reviewed the contract and implementation documents and noted the following: \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe integration with the various systems was not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Intellectual Property Rights (SCC 15) were not mentioned in the contract \ndocuments, creating challenges in the transfer of the system ownership, or transfer \nof source code. \n\uf0b7 \nGenerally, there were delays in the contract implementation as per the project \nimplementation reports, as result, contract deliverables worth EUROS 421,934.80 \nwere NOT implemented as summarized in the table below;", "metadata": {"page": 185, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "170 \n \nTable 73: Status of implementation \nSN \nItem Description \nItem Total \ncost \nPer cent \ndelivery (%) \nOutstanding \n(EUROS) \n1 \nSoftware installation and \nIntegration \n1,262,748 \n90 \n126,275 \n2 \nTechnical Project \nmanagement \n1,510,000 \n90 \n151,000 \n3 \nTraining and capacity building \n343,100 \n90 \n34,310 \n4 \nMCES programmer training \n10,350 \n0 \n10,350 \n5 \nVideo Surveillance system \n100,000 \n0 \n100,000 \n Total \n421,935", "metadata": {"page": 186, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "421,935 \nSource: Management status report as of 22nd June 2020 \n \nI further noted that the implementation contract had expired in 2012. Subsequently, \na Support and Maintenance contract was signed had also been terminated and the \nvendor had left the site by the time of the audit. \n \nThis may be attributed to the lack of a contract manager/management team as \nrequired by Section 52 (1) of the PPDA (contracts) Regulations 2014. \n \nManagement explained that the contract was signed between the Ministry of Internal \nAffairs and Muehlbauer ID services GmbH in 2010, but implemented in 2014 following \nthe Cabinet approval of the project team consisting of a policy committee comprising \nof Ministers chaired by the Prime Minister, a Steering Committee chaired by the \nMinister of Internal Affairs/Projector Coordinator, and Project Implementation Team \nchaired by a Project Manager. \n \nThe system was built and was able to deliver the objectives of the project i.e.,", "metadata": {"page": 186, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "registration of citizens (16+ years) and achieved over 90% of the targets. This led to \nthe enactment of ROPA 2015 and the establishment of NIRA to consolidate the \nachievements of the project. \n \nSubsequently, with the establishment of NIRA, all contracts were assigned, Contract \nManagers. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to always streamline the management of the projects, \nby timely appointing the contract management team in accordance with PPDA \nregulations and industry best practices to facilitate effective project management. In \naddition, the Accounting Officer should explore ways of recovering costs relating to \nunimplemented deliverables. \niii. \nWeak IT governance structure \nI reviewed the IT governance structures of NIRA in line with industry standards and \nnoted the following: \n\uf0b7 \nThere was no alignment of key ICT business functions/units in the authority. For \ninstance, the birth and death systems were not integrated with the registration", "metadata": {"page": 186, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "systems, leading to inconsistencies and inefficiency in the utilisation of data. \n \n\uf0b7 \nA number of IT policies were still in draft form for about three years due to the \nlack of an IT steering committee.", "metadata": {"page": 186, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "171 \n \nThe above was attributed to a lack of appropriate IT governance structures in the \nAuthority. \n \nManagement indicated that it had concluded policy drafting, awaiting Board approval \nand shall make sure they are in place before the end of FY 2022/23. The IT \nsteering/strategy committee shall as well be constituted by the end of the first quarter \nof FY 2022/23. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to engage all stakeholders and institute appropriate \nGovernance structures to foster the management of IT to effectively deliver its \nmandate. \niv. \nAbsence of IT governance policies and strategy \nNIRA did not have IT governance policies and guides such as; \n \n\uf0b7 \nIT Strategic Plan \n\uf0b7 \nIT risk assessment/management policy \n\uf0b7 \nIT security policy \n \nAs a result, IT planning is performed on a reactionary ad-hoc basis and no IT Risk", "metadata": {"page": 187, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Assessment is carried out. Furthermore, the NIRA Board had not approved a security \npolicy. \n \nGiven the dynamic nature of the IT environment, risks emerge continuously, and some \nmay culminate into disastrous outcomes if left unchecked. \n \nManagement explained that NIRA IT-related policies were awaiting Board approval \nand shall ensure all are in place by the end of FY 2022/23. \n \nI advised Management to fast-track the approval of the policies and strategy, as well \nas institute mechanisms to timely update and implement them. \nv. \nIT continuity plans/disaster recovery plan \nNIRA undertakes regular backup of data on backup tapes but comprehensive testing \nof the procedures for backed-up data recovery had not been conducted to establish \nthe effectiveness of data recovery. In addition, the Authority did not have a Disaster \nRecovery Plan in place as required by industry practice.", "metadata": {"page": 187, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Considering the degree of the country\u2019s reliance on data from NIRA, any disaster may \nlead to major disruptions in the economy, including loss of data and revenue. \nManagement explained that they have a Disaster Recovery Plan that is being \nimplemented in phases. However, an updated draft was waiting for Board\u2019s approval \nand shall ensure it will be in place by the end of FY 2022/23. They further noted that \nActivities in this plan, like, the acquisition of Disaster Recovery Centre equipment had \nbeen embarked on and a contract awarded to USPC. In spite of Management's \nassertion, a disaster recovery plan was not provided for review. \n \nI advised Management to expedite the development and maintain a robust disaster \nrecovery plan to ensure continuity of business in case disaster strikes.", "metadata": {"page": 187, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "172 \n \nvi. \nOverlapping/conflicting roles on NIRA systems \nA review of the system user roles and responsibilities revealed that some system users \nat NIRA hold conflicting roles. I noted one user having responsibilities for Application \nand Database Administration. In addition, Assistant Registration Officers at districts \nwere performing IT Officer roles on the system. \n \nThere is a high likelihood of data fraud and theft without being detected by \nManagement, arising out of misuse of conflicting/overlapping user responsibilities. \nManagement explained that due to insufficient staffing numbers, officers were doing \nmore roles and activities. Structure changes can only be expected after the Ministry of \nPublic Service RAPEX exercise. \n \nI advised Management to ensure that the roles of users are adequately segregated \nand documented to ensure that no single user starts and completes a transaction on \ntheir own. \nvii. \nLack of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between NIRA and various system", "metadata": {"page": 188, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "vendors \nThere were no SLAs between NIRA with the various providers of the critical systems \nused within the organization such as; the National Security and Identification System \n(NSIS), the Mobile Vital Records System (MVRS) and the Birth Death Adoption and \nRegistration system (BDAR) system. \n \nWithout the SLAs, it is hard to measure and verify vendor performance in providing \nservices, such as; service availability, defect rates, technical quality, security and \nbusiness results, among others. In addition, it should specify the remedies in case of \nnon-compliance with service-level standards. \n \nManagement explained that at the time of the Audit, NIRA did not have SLAs in place \nbut had since entered into contracts for software support and maintenance for the \nNSIS and MVRS systems. \n \nI advised Management to negotiate and monitor SLAs with the respective vendors to \nensure reliability and uninterrupted service delivery. \nviii.", "metadata": {"page": 188, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "viii. \nTransition and migration from Muehlbauer ID Services Gmbh NSIS to the \nUSPC NSIS \n \nOn 19th March 2010, the Government of Uganda and M/S Muehlbauer ID Services \nGmbH entered into a contract for the establishment of the National Security \nInformation Systems (NSIS) Project and related services. Subsequently, in 2017, GoU \nentered into a Joint Venture Agreement resulting in the formulation of Uganda Security \nPrinting Company (USPC) for the exclusive production and supply of all security \ndocuments for you, including national identity cards and birth and death certificates. \nAccordingly, NIRA signed the JVA in which the production of national identity cards \nand certificates of birth and death were to commence in the financial year 2020/2021. \nI reviewed the transition documentation and noted the following;", "metadata": {"page": 188, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "173 \n \na) Lack of a strategy for transition from M/S Muehlbauer ID Services Gmbh \nNSIS to the USPC NSIS \n \nThere was no formal strategy or transition plans from Muehlbauer ID Services \nGmbH to Uganda Security Printing Company in particular regard to; scope, \nmigration design, data migration (process flow data and processed and stored data, \nbiometric data) testing design, recruitment of new staff, organizational support, \nassessment of existing equipment/technologies and compatibility. \n \nManagement explained that a transition strategy including a data migration plan \nwas being finalized with USPC. \n \nb) Departure from the provisions of the Joint venture Agreement \n \nI reviewed the Joint Venture Agreement between Uganda Printing & Publishing \nCorporation, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Office of the \nPresident and the consortium of Veridos GmbH and Giesecke & Devrient GmbH", "metadata": {"page": 189, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "stipulates the obligations of the Uganda Security Printing Company that includes: \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe establishment of modern paper-based security printing and card \nproduction lines, \n \n\uf0b7 \nDemolishing and constructing new buildings at Uganda Printing and Publishing \nCorporation (UPPC) suitable to house machinery for printing and support quality \nsecurity printing works, \n \n\uf0b7 \nInstallation of modern machines/equipment to run and manage high-quality \nsecurity print services for the documents that were previously printed by UUPPC \nand other security documents as shall be agreed, \n \n\uf0b7 \nEnsure that consumables needed for the manufacture are available at the best \nprices, \n \n\uf0b7 \nEstablishment of an efficient and appropriate IT infrastructure and equipment \nthat can enable effective delivery and usage of security documents in Uganda. \n \n\uf0b7 \nSupporting systems, the e-passport system, including IT systems and", "metadata": {"page": 189, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "equipment that can enable effective and efficient delivery and application of \nsecurity documents in the country. This also includes service and maintenance \nof the systems. \n \n\uf0b7 \nEnsure compatibility of technologies \n\uf0b7 \nThe consortium shall ensure that technologies supplied to the company are \ncapable of integration with other third-party systems and in every way support \nthe delivery of services or products under this agreement. \n \n\uf0b7 \nIn case technologies are incapable of integration, the parties shall provide the \nnecessary means of acquiring data /information from existing systems. \n \nExamination of the NSIS architecture, the joint venture agreement and respective \ninformation revealed the following;", "metadata": {"page": 189, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "174 \n \nThe National Security Information system is made up of two major interfacing \nsystems; \n \n\uf0d8 SDMS (Secure Document Management System)- \n \nThis system is responsible for enrolment and registration and contains \nmanages the database and the life cycle of all applicants and monitors any \nchanges, additions and death of a citizen. SDMS has four sub-modules; \n \n\uf0b7 \nGET ID -This is the enrolment solution responsible for enrolment, card \nissuance, replacement and change of particulars \n\uf0b7 \nDEOS \n(District \nEnrolment \nOffline/Online \nsystem)-this \nsystem/module of the NSIS has two instances; \n\uf0b7 \nDEOS Site-This aggregates different kits attached to a particular \ndistrict/station \n\uf0b7 \nDEOS Central-this aggregates data from different stations/districts on", "metadata": {"page": 190, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the central server \n\uf0b7 \nFRS (Fingerprint recognition system) \n\uf0b7 \nAFIS (automatic Face Recognition system) \n \n\uf0d8 INCAPE (Integrated Card Personalization) \n \nThis is the system/software responsible for the printing and production of the \nnational identity cards \n \nContrary to the provisions of the Joint Venture, USPC has been expanded to \ninclude; \n \n\uf0b7 \nSupply both the enrolment registration system to replace the Secure \nDocument Management system (SDMS) that is responsible for \nenrolment, Registration, Fingerprint capture, Face recognition and card \nissuance. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe system responsible for national identity card production -INCAPE, \nrather than the supply of only the system that supports printing and \nproduction of National identity cards (INCAPE) as provided for in the \nJoint Venture.", "metadata": {"page": 190, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Joint Venture. \n \nExpansion of the scope outside the joint venture agreement exposes the Authority to \nthe risk of losses in case of disagreement in the implementation. In addition, \nprocurement using MoUs for a company which is single-sourced contravenes PPDA \nregulations. \nThere was no Management response on this matter. \n \nI advised Management to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Joint Venture \nAgreement. \n \nc) Monopolistic agreement \nA review of the joint venture agreement between Uganda Printing & Publishing \nCorporation, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Office of the \nPresident and the consortium of Veridos GmbH and Giesecke & Devrient GmbH \nrevealed the following;", "metadata": {"page": 190, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "175 \n \n\uf0b7 \nClause 18.1 states that the territory of the company is the national territory \nof Uganda unless otherwise mutually agreed by shareholders. The company \nshall have exclusive rights to provide products and services under the Joint \nVenture Agreement. \n \n\uf0b7 \nClause 20.2 states that except for the e-passport system and National ID \ncard project, the company shall be given first priority to locally manufactured \ngoods and locally provided services which meet the technical specifications, \nquality standards and economic viability defined by the company. \n \nFor the e-passport and National ID card project and where goods manufactured or \nservices provided in Uganda do not meet technical specifications, including quality, \nquantity, the timeline for delivery and economic viability required by the company, \nthe company shall procure such goods through the consortium as a supplier. \nSpecifically, the consortium shall; \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 191, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nBe the exclusive supplier to the company of raw materials and semi-finished \nproducts manufactured by the consortium. \n\uf0b7 \nBe the preferred supplier to the company of materials not manufactured by the \ncompany. \n\uf0b7 \nThe consortium shall for the duration of this agreement. \n\uf0b7 \nBe the exclusive supplier to the company of machinery manufactured by the \nconsortium. \n\uf0b7 \nBe the preferred supplier of machinery for the factory not manufactured by the \nconsortium. \n \nIn light of the above, the Consortium shall be the sole supplier for 15 years \u2013 which \nexposes the country to the risk of contract locking and manipulation arising from \nmonopoly. \n \nIn addition, the Government of Uganda represented by Uganda Printing and \nPublishing Corporation, Office of the President and Ministry of Finance, Planning \nand Economic Development shall have no input in the supply of raw materials and \nmachinery which annuls the provisions of the Public Procurement and Disposal of", "metadata": {"page": 191, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "assets. \n \n \n \n \nd) Acquisition of a Vendor locked system \n \nVendor lock-in, also called proprietary lock-in or customer lock-in, is a technique \nused by some technology vendors to make their customers dependent on them for \nproducts and services by making it hard to switch to a competitor without \nsubstantial costs or difficulty. This is done by developing solutions that are platform-\ndependent and that only run with limited, third-party partners. The dependency is \nusually created using standards that are controlled by the vendor and which grant \nthem a level of monopoly power that becomes increasingly profitable because of \nthe dependencies they have created. The vendor product will be incompatible with \nother hardware, operating systems, or file formats, which forces the customers to \ncontinually purchase more products from the vendor and their small group of \npartners.", "metadata": {"page": 191, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "176 \n \n \nThe transition from Muelhbauer to Uganda Security Printing Company is hinged on \nthe joint agreement between the Government of Uganda and the consortium simply \nimplies a change from one vendor locked-in system to another, together with the \ncorresponding disadvantages amongst which are the following; \n \na) Loss of the ability to negotiate prices \nb) Vulnerability to unsolicited/forced upgrades \nc) Significant costs of conversion of data to a format useable by USPC systems \nd) Significant costs in migration of data to the new systems and ultimately \ncorruption and loss of critical data during conversion. \ne) Complete decommissioning of Muehlbauer software and hardware that was \nacquired at hefty prices. These include enrolment kits, computers, \npersonalization machines, quality control scanners, blank polycarbonate \nnational identity cards, servers etc.", "metadata": {"page": 192, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "national identity cards, servers etc. \nf) The transfer of system ownership and handover of source code after 15 years \nwas not clear. \n \nI advised Management to consider engaging the Attorney General to review the \nJoint Venture Agreement and address the aforementioned risks in line with industry \nstandards. \nix. \nBasis/Justification for the transition from the M/S Muehlbauer to Uganda \nSecurities Printing Company \nProject initiation is a key stage of system development during which the initial concept \nis prepared, and the business case is developed. It entails the user department \njustifying the need for a new system and its intended benefits to the organization, \ndefining the scope of the project, establishing available options, rating the criticality of \nthe need, highlighting the project team and preparation of a budget for the project \namong other related issues. \n \nA review of the ongoing transition between the NSIS supplied by Muehlbauer to the", "metadata": {"page": 192, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "National Identity Card system supplied by the Uganda security Information system \nrevealed that the required standard processes were not adequately followed. For \ninstance, no formal and well-documented business case to justify the need for \ndecommissioning of the NSIS was conducted. \n \nIn the absence of a clear transition strategy plan and weakness in the joint venture \nidentified may lead to business interruptions, loss of data during migration, cost \noverruns, scope creep, late delivery of outputs and failure to meet the business \nobjectives for which the systems were set up and ultimately wasteful expenditure. \n \nI advised Management to review the system acquisition process and the Joint Venture \nAgreement to address the weaknesses identified to ensure data security and \npreservation, as well as effective and efficient implementation of the project.", "metadata": {"page": 192, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "177 \n \nx. \nGaps in the ID registration process \nDespite heavy investments in ICT solutions, the ID registration process is still manual, \nwhere application or registration cannot take place without a manual file. There are \nunnecessary delays in the transfer of information from the registration kit to the server; \nthe filled data is uploaded onto the server at the end of the day if not week depending \non the availability of the Information Technology Officer (ITO) /District Registration \nOfficer (DRO); sometimes, it will require for an ITO from the neighbouring district to \ndo the upload before getting to the central server for processing. \n \nThe upload of a filled application to the central server is done using a flash disk, which \nis prone to theft and errors at the enrolment and processing/ decoding using the \nmanual server upload. Over 10,806,384 IDs had not been processed, especially the", "metadata": {"page": 193, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "IDs that require verification by the committee and over 13,650,427 million IDs had \nnot been picked/issued by clients, some date as far back as 2014. \nIt should be noted that all the IDs are due to expire in 2025. \n \nThe stated gaps have led to extended delays in processing NIDs, which are likely to \nprevent the Authority from delivering its mandate. In addition, undelivered cards may \nexpire before issuance. \n \nManagement acknowledged that it was true that the current system was offline \nbetween the kit and the district server, and it was because at the time of acquisition \nof the current NSIS system connectivity infrastructure in Uganda had a limitation. \n \nI advised Management to consider automating citizen registration processes during \nthe implementation of the new system and fast-track issuance of the cards. \nxi. \nLack of a proper inventory management system \nI reviewed the National ID inventory system and noted the following;", "metadata": {"page": 193, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nNo formal documented process of tracking the movement of stock/ blank cards \n\uf0b7 \nNon-existent validation of incoming inventory from the storage to establish \naccurate stock counts as blank cards are replenished. \n\uf0b7 \nFailure to streamline the put-away, picking, packing, and shipping to prevent \nmisplacements and lost stock. \n\uf0b7 \nLack of a physical verifiable record of the cards designated for destruction. \n \nThe above issues; unplanned stock-outs, dispatch delays, and misplaced cards within \nthe warehouse may severely impact service delivery. \nI advised Management to automate the inventory management processes at the \nwarehouse. \nxii. \nGaps in the management of the provision of access and use of information \nservices to any department \nSec 67 of the Registration of Personal Act (ROPA) 2015 provides that the Authority \nshall provide access to the use of the information in the NIRA to a Ministry, Department \nor Agency of the Government. I reviewed the implementation of this provision along \nwith NIRA services and observed the following;", "metadata": {"page": 193, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "178 \n \na) Ad hoc Access and Use of Information \n \nThere were no approved guidelines by the Board for Access and Use of \nInformation NIRA as required by Regulations 3(7) and Regulation 6(2) of the \nRegistration of Persons (Access and Use of Information) Regulations, 2015 setting \nout the access protocols and levels for persons, Ministries, Departments or \nAgencies of Government \n \nb) Irregular access and use of NIRA Information service without a valid Memorandum \nof Understanding (MoU) \n \nOut of the sixty-seven entities that are connected and share citizenry NSIS data, \nonly twenty-six agencies had MoUs with NIRA while forty-one did not have \nany. \n \nc) Revenue loss due to Laxity in the enforcement of third-party obligations relating \nto the usage of data", "metadata": {"page": 194, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I noted a significant variance of UGX.5,350,144,980 between the amount that \nwas due to NIRA and actual collections from those agencies using NIRA NSIS data \nFailure to develop guidelines for information access hinders appraisal of the \nprocess and procedures for compliance purposes. In addition, in the absence of \nan MoU signed with these agencies, the National Register is at great risk of \nunauthorized access and breach of confidentiality and may also result in loss of \nNTR. \n \nManagement noted that the usage of data by all the agencies referred to had been \nexempted from paying fees by the Minister in accordance with the Registration of \nPersons Act, 2015. Management added that guidelines for access levels have been \ndeveloped and submitted to Solicitor General for review. \n \nI advised Management to ensure that all agencies with access to and using NIRA \ndata have valid MoUs. In addition, Management should develop guidelines to", "metadata": {"page": 194, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ensure work complies with the requirements of the Regulations. \nxiii. \nFailure by NIRA to execute its mandate on the registration of resident aliens \nNIRA was not executing its mandate of registering the resident Aliens in the country. \nAs a result, the information presented for the audit revealed that the authority failed \nto collect USD.14,780,000 that was budgeted NTR in that regard. \nFailure to utilise Alien registration NSIS functionality makes the system underutilised \nand could lead to loss of revenue. \n \nThe Alien registration functionality was not fully completed by the previous vendor, it \nwas stopping at data processing and assigning Alien Identification Number. The new \nsystem will cater for it. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to ensure that the functionality is implemented as \nplanned in the new system.", "metadata": {"page": 194, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "179 \n \n4.2.2. Information systems audit of the Programme Budgeting System (PBS) at \nthe Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development (MOFPED) \n \nThe Government of Uganda has been implementing reforms in the national budgeting \nsystem spearheaded by the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development \n(MOFPED). The budget system has evolved from the input budgeting approach, Output \nOriented Budgeting (OOB) model and to outcome budgeting model to enhance \neffectiveness, accountability and transparency in Government. The OOB was first \nimplemented using a standalone Output Budgeting Tool (OBT) system based on a \nMicrosoft Access platform. The Ministry is currently implementing the Outcome \nBudgeting System based on NDP III outcomes. \n \nThe Standalone OBT Microsoft Access-based Platform had challenges, such as; Manual \nbudget consolidation; Inability to perform comparability; inadequate automation of", "metadata": {"page": 195, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "updates and upgrades; decentralised database management and absence of interfaces \nand integration with other systems. \n \nIn FY 2018/19, the Government implemented the Programme Based Budgeting System \n(PBB) to overcome the above challenges and strengthen the link between Government \nStrategic Objectives stated in the National Development Plan (NDP) II. The Programme \nBudgeting System (PBS) with a centralised database and application to perform budget \npreparations and reporting functions with effect FY 2017/18 to address the challenges \npaused by the OBT is being implemented. The PBS was rolled out to all MDAs including \nMissions and later, the Local Governments starting FY 2018/19. \n \nThe Specific objectives of the PBS include; \n \na) Ease and automate the consolidation of budget frameworks papers, estimates, \nand budget execution reports across MDAs; \nb) Automate exchange of data with other systems such as IFMS and IPPS; \nc)", "metadata": {"page": 195, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "c) \nProvide access to historical budget data by users within MDAs and LGs; \nd) Enable central management and maintenance of the application; \ne) Improve security management by restricting user access appropriately and \ndelineating roles and responsibilities on the system among users; \nf) \nAccess from any point with an internet connection. \n \nIn addition, the PBS was enhanced to accommodate the changes to the new chart of \naccounts to facilitate the implementation of the National Development Plan (NDP) III. \nAs a result, by the time of the audit, the system was undergoing enhancement of its \nfeatures. \n \nI undertook the review of the system to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the \napplication, database, operating system and storage controls, and physical computing \nenvironment. Below are the redacted findings which exclude sensitive application and \ndatabase control weaknesses; \n \ni. \nAbsence of an IT Strategic Plan", "metadata": {"page": 195, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Absence of an IT Strategic Plan \nMoFPED relies heavily on ICT to deliver services through the management and \nallocation of public resources, monitoring the utilization and accountability of public \nfunds. However, despite its reliance on ICT, it does not have a specific ICT strategic \nplan to guide the ICT investment.", "metadata": {"page": 195, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "180 \n \nConsequently, the absence of a strategic plan for MoFPED ICT services led to; \na) \nAdhoc IT investment decisions \nb) \nCreating misalignment between IT initiatives and the Ministry's business strategy \nand priorities \nc) \nFrustrating monitoring of service levels and service improvement. \nd) \nIncreased costs of ICT management. \ne) \nDuplication of systems and hiring similar Human Resources. \n \nManagement explained that the management of IT systems is based on individual \ndepartmental ICT plans. The Ministry is in the process of consolidating all ICT systems. \nThereafter, will develop the IT Strategic Plan by the end of the first half of this Financial \nYear. \n \nI advised Management to develop, adopt and implement a comprehensive \nstrategy/strategic plan with the involvement of all stakeholders. \n \nii.", "metadata": {"page": 196, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ii. \nInappropriate Reporting Line for IT Contract Staff \n \nThe ICT structures of any organisation define employee hierarchy to ease coordination \nand decision-making in achieving the overall organisation objectives. \nManagement through Resource Enhancement and Accountability Programme (REAP), \nrecruited seven (7) IT, staff, with two-year renewable contracts to manage the PBS. \nThe IT staff are categorised as IT Specialists, System Administrators and Systems \nOfficers. A review of the structure and employee responsibilities revealed the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe PBS IT staffs were limited to only supporting the Budget Directorate, rather \nthan the entire Ministry. \n\uf0b7 \nSome of the staff had specialised skills and expertise like application \ndevelopment and business process analysis that could be applied to support the \nPBS and other systems owned by the Ministry, however, updates of PBS are still \noutsourced. \n\uf0b7 \nThe said staff report to the Director Budget and Commissioner Budget Policy and", "metadata": {"page": 196, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Department Evaluation, contrary to the macro human resource structure of \nMoFPED which categorises them under Management of Information Systems. \n \nI further noted that the IFMS IT staff also report to the Accountant General instead of \nreporting to the centralised ICT Structure Director MIS. \n \nThis implies that the ICT investments are not centralised and are implemented at a \ndepartmental level exposing the Ministry to the risk of duplication and wastage of \nresources. In addition, there is a misalignment of ICT development with Ministry \nbusiness functions. \n \nManagement explained that the Ministry in consultation with the Ministry of Public \nService and the Ministry of ICT will streamline the ICT staffing structure, as \nrecommended. \n \nI advised Management to consider the integration of ICT development into one \ndepartment to rationalise investment and human resources. This will further enhance \nsystem integration and efficient support and maintenance of systems.", "metadata": {"page": 196, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "181 \n \niii. \nNon-performance of IT risk assessment and management \nPerformance of IT risk assessment and management on a recurrent basis is critical for \nthe successful implementation of IT solutions. The practice determines the likelihood \nand impact of identified risks and then designs responses to the risks identified, \nincluding the performance of a cost-benefit analysis and assigning responsibility for \nexecution. \n \nDuring the audit, I observed that risk assessment with regard to the implementation \nand utilization of PBS had not been performed. PBS shares information across other \nsystems such as IFMS, and IPPS with different risk exposure and there are \ndependencies among critical business processes, applications and other integral \ninformation systems and IT infrastructure components that are subject to risk and \nvulnerabilities. \n \nIn addition, the IT environment is very dynamic and susceptible to vulnerabilities like \ncyber-attacks and disruptions which may lead to disaster and unavailability of services", "metadata": {"page": 197, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "if the risks are not managed adequately in a proactive rather than reactive approach. \nThis was attributed to the lack of a risk management strategy/policy that would be \nbased on undertaking assessments. \n \nManagement explained that the PBS system is hosted on the IFMS infrastructure and \nits benefits from the IT security policy of the IFMS data centre. Equally, the \nGovernment of Uganda (G.O.U) Risk Management Strategy (2018) outlines \nTechnological Risks as one of the categories of risks to address. Further, the PBS relies \non support from NITA-U and Uganda Police Force which conduct periodic security and \nrisk assessments. \n \nIn addition, the Ministry explained that it is in the process of implementing Enterprise \nRisk Management and it is expected that this will improve the way risks are identified \nand managed throughout the different departments of the Ministry. \n \nI advised Management to review its current risk management strategy or develop a \nseparate IT Risk Assessment/Management framework that will guide the proactive", "metadata": {"page": 197, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "management of risk. \n \n \n \niv. \nInadequate capacity of Internal Audit to review the operations of the PBS \n \nSection 48(b) of the Public Finance Management Act 2015 requires Internal Audit to \nevaluate the effectiveness and contribute to the improvement of risk management \nprocesses of a vote. \n \nIn line with the above, MoFPED has an Information Technology and Performance Audit \nDepartment which is tasked with reviewing IT systems that are used in the preparation \nof financial statements and assessment of the control environment of IT systems used \nacross Government entities. \n \nHowever, I noted that the internal audit function lacks the capacity to review the PBS \noperations. I further noted that the PBS does not have an internal audit module to \nfacilitate regular internal audit reviews.", "metadata": {"page": 197, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "182 \n \n \nThe lack of active participation in the internal audit function implies that there is no \ntimely detection of errors and identification of risks. \n \nManagement indicated that the Ministry has a Forensics, & Risk advisory department, \nwhich is in the process of developing the Enterprise Risk Management Frame Work, \nfor the entire government, the IT systems inclusive. \n \nFurthermore, management explained that the IT & Performance Department has a \ncore team that was trained in IT audit and rolled out a plan to audit all systems in \ngovernment including the PBS. Internal audit staff will be made users on the PBS, as \nrecommended. \n \nI await the outcome of the Accounting Officer\u2019s actions. \n \nv. \nNon-testing of the Data Backup \n \nBackup tests are conducted to verify the completeness and precision of the backup, \nappraise and evaluate the staff's capability to restore the backup and coordinate the", "metadata": {"page": 198, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "recovery response process. \n \nWhereas PBS backups were being undertaken at MoFPED, the backups were not being \ntested and documented to confirm the completeness and ability of staff to undertake \nrecovery procedures should an adverse disruptive event occur. \n \nIt may result in loss of data and uncoordinated disaster response in the event of \ndisruptions. \n \nManagement explained that regular backup tests are carried out and they are now \ndocumented. \n \nI advised Management to design procedures to undertake periodic recovery tests from \nbackups and address any outcome of non-recovery of backed-up data. \n \nvi. \nInadequate internal capacity to operate the system \n \nSection 12.1.14 and 12.1.15 of the proposal page 112 require the vendor to provide \nyou with 1 month of onsite support after go-live implementation at the head office as", "metadata": {"page": 198, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "well as one resource for 6 months to provide support to MoFPED. This was aimed at \nbuilding the capacity of the in-house PBS team as well as facilitating knowledge \ntransfer. \n \nHowever, I established that by May 2022, the project was still dependent on project \nconsultants, contrary to the provisions of the contract. \n \nIn the circumstances, the intended capacity-building targets had not been achieved. \nManagement indicated that; \n \n\uf0b7 \nDuring support, when a complaint is raised by a system user, it is handled by \nthe first level of support which is the Business and functional team in the Budget \nPolicy and Evaluation Department (BPED).", "metadata": {"page": 198, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "183 \n \n\uf0b7 \nOn ascertaining that the issue is not user-related or due to data entry mistakes, \nit is referred to the PBS in-house IT team for assessment. \n\uf0b7 \nIt is only issues that cannot be resolved at that level that is forwarded to the PBS \nconsultants for further action. Minor issues are resolved within two (2) hours \nwhile major issues are fixed within 24 hours. \n\uf0b7 \nTraining of the in-house team is an ongoing process despite the continuous \nupgrades. The Ministry is currently rolling out capacity-building programmes. \n\uf0b7 \nWith the stabilization of the system, the Internal IT team will be in a position to \nfully take over maintenance and development activities with minimal support \nfrom the consultants. \n \nI advised Management to enhance internal capacity through knowledge transfer to \nlocal staff to ensure self-reliance and reduce the costs of system maintenance. \n \nvii.", "metadata": {"page": 199, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "vii. \nFailure to comprehensively utilize Quality Assurance Services \n \nQuality Assurance services review results and deliverables within the different phases \nof the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) and confirm compliance with the system \nrequirements, advise on deviations and recommend process improvements. \n \nI noted that the Ministry did not engage independent quality assurance services during \nthe implementation of the system. The review of the contract management file for the \nEPBS revealed that the vendor would present to management the status of the project \nand the Annual Technical Support without the Ministry's independent verification of \nthe quality of the deliverables. \n \nI was not availed with reports covering quality assurance for key deliverables of the \nproject such as data migration, system integration, stress and functional testing, user \nacceptance testing, and detailed go-live, among others. \n \nThe absence of independent quality assurance exposes the entity to risks of multiple", "metadata": {"page": 199, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "escalations of support, delayed project completion and the system may not meet its \nfunctional and systems requirements. \n \nManagement indicated that the Ministry works in consultation with the Ministry of ICT, \nNITA (U), the Uganda Police ICT Directorate, and other MDAs to conduct the user \nacceptance exercise, upon which the reports are approved. However, that \nnotwithstanding, Management shall implement the Auditor General\u2019s recommendation \nof acquiring quality assurance services in future projects. \nI advised management to ensure that a comprehensive quality assurance process is \nundertaken during project implementation to enhance compliance with system \ndevelopment. \n \nviii. \nFailure to operationalize interfaces for systems integration \n \nThe PBS enhancement technical requirements provided for a review and support of \nthe existing interfaces with the PBS and the development of interfaces using open \napplication programming (Open API) for the Enhanced PBS for the existing interfaces \nIntegrated Financial Management Systems (IFMS), Inter Personnel Payroll System \n(IPPS), Aid Management Platform (AMP), Human Capital Management (HCM), Online \nTransfer Information Management System (OTIMS) and any other identified external", "metadata": {"page": 199, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "184 \n \nsystems incidental to PBS such as the IBP among others. The interfaces support \ntransactions using data exchange and integration with Government systems. \n \nGoU through NITA-U implemented a data integration platform, the Ug-Hub, to \nautomatically and securely exchange data and services within Government and its \nstrategic partners, improve e-services, reduce development costs, promote data reuse \nand prevent information redundancy. \n \nManagement had explained that the PBS interfaces were planned to be operationalized \nafter the budget planning and preparation activities for the year 2022-2023 are \ncompleted and before the budget approval. \n \nNon-development and updating of interfaces may lead to errors in the budgeting \ndata and inaccuracy of information between systems. It also compromises the \nefficiency of the system as created to deliver. \n \nManagement further explained that the EPBS interfaces ride on the NITA-U Platform", "metadata": {"page": 200, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(UG-Hub), which is restricted to PBS, IFMS and HCM. Whereas the HCM interface has \nbeen implemented on the platform, the interface with IFMS is currently ongoing and \nthe delay has been attributed to the time lag in upgrading both systems. \n \nI advised Management to engage the different stakeholders to ensure the information-\nsharing interfaces are developed, tested and implemented to support the PBS global \nrole. \n \nix. \nFailure to update changes in the budget figures after supplementary and \nvirements \n \nAn approved supplementary budget allocates additional funding to Ministries, \nDepartments and Agencies (MDAs) whereas virements reallocate resources to different \nbudget items in a financial year. Supplementary and virements, therefore, change the \nbudgetary figures for the year. \n \nA review of the old PBS revealed that changes in the budget (supplementary and \nvirements) after appropriation, preparation and submission of approved budget", "metadata": {"page": 200, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "estimates were not reflected in the final performance reports. Only the original \nappropriation is uploaded to the system. \n \nWhereas the PBS was configured to support the preparation and approval of \nsupplementary virements, the adjustments are not reflected on the overall budget \nceilings of the MDA. Consequently, performance in areas where supplementary \n/virements have been applied is not accurately disclosed in performance reports. \n \nThere is a risk of inaccurate reporting as the baseline budget figures for some entities \nthat get additional funding through supplementary budgets. \n \nManagement explained that once appropriated, the initial approved budget is not \naltered on the PBS. However, the system captures all budget adjustments, including \nvirements and supplementary budgets. Additionally, the proposal to modify the \nQuarterly performance reports to display the Revised Budget column in addition to the \nApproved Budget will be explored, as recommended.", "metadata": {"page": 200, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "185 \n \nI advised Management to improve PBS reporting templates and ensure the inclusion \nof supplementary budgets and revised budgets to enhance the accountability and \nusability of reports. \n \nx. \nAbsence of a basis for allocation of funds for the PIAPs in the current \nbudgeting cycle \n \nThe NDP III Programmes Implementation Action Plan (PIAP) outlines the key \nprogramme elements which are; the Programmes themselves, Sub-programmes, \nObjectives, Interventions, Outputs, Actions, the Lead implementer and other \nimplementing MDAs for the activities. \n \nThe PIAP provides annual estimates of financial resources to be invested by the \nGovernment to realise the goal of the NDP III. It also consolidates the financial \nresources required to implement the actions of all the 20 Programme Implementation \nAction Plans (PIAPs). The resources are disaggregated by Programme and by the MDAs \nand LGs responsible for their implementation.", "metadata": {"page": 201, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "However, I noted that the budget ceilings/MTEFs set for the several programmes, sub-\nprogrammes, objectives and interventions do not match with the annual set figures in \nthe PIAP. The MTEFs are not set based on the PIAP estimates set, yet the MDAs are \nrequired to report deliverables and perform using the PIAP outputs/indicators. \n \nA sample of PIAPs and appropriated figures for FY 22/23 shown in the table below \nindicate variances in budget figures for several programmes with some such as Human \nCapital Development having allocations exceeding the PIAP allocation by \nUGX.2,711.43 Bn and an overall deviation of UGX.8,633.12 Bn less than the PIAP \nprojected figures for the same FY. \n \nTable 74: NDP III Public sector Budget Allocations against Approved Budget \nestimates FY 22/23 for selected programmes \nProgramme \nNDP III Public sector \nBudget Allocations", "metadata": {"page": 201, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Budget Allocations \n(Ugx Bn.) FY2022/23 \nRevised Annual \nBudget \nEstimates (UGX \nBn.) \nFY2022/23 \nThe variance \nbetween annual \nBudget Estimates & \nNDP III (UGX Bn.) \nPercentage \nVariances \nIntergraded \ntransport \ninfrastructure and services \n5385.00 \n4171.65 \n-1,213.35 \n-22.53% \n \nRegional Development \n4228.00 \n1190.18 \n-3,037.82 \n-71.85% \nClimate \nChange, \nNatural \nResource, Env't & Water Mgt \n2088.00 \n617.40", "metadata": {"page": 201, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "617.40 \n-1,470.60 \n-70.43% \n \nPublic Sector Transformation \n3847.00 \n206.28 \n-3,640.72 \n-94.64% \nDeviation from the PIAP targets may lead to failure to achieve the NDP III planned \ntargets as indicated above. \nManagement indicated that whereas the MTEF ceilings are projected based on the \nresource envelope, the PIAPS allocations are based on the NDP III strategy. This may \nnot affect the NDP III targets over the medium term as the economy recovers from \nthe impact of COVID-19 and the Global Economic challenges. Nonetheless, MoFPED, \nNPA and all stakeholders are undertaking a medium-term review, to ensure that the \nMTEF and the NDP III are in tandem. \nI advised Management to embrace Program based budgeting to ensure alignment of \nNDP III PIAPS and facilitate the attainment of the national development goals and \nobjectives.", "metadata": {"page": 201, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "186 \n \nxi. \nReporting NPD III objectives indicators as percentages \nAt the strategic/macro level, tracking progress made during the implementation of the \nNDP III is done through a set of NDP III strategic level objectives indicators. The five \nstrategic objectives are; \n\uf0b7 \nEnhance value addition in Key Growth Opportunities \n\uf0b7 \nStrengthen private sector capacity to drive growth and create jobs \n\uf0b7 \nConsolidate & increase stock and quality of Productive Infrastructure \n\uf0b7 \nEnhance the productivity and social well-being of the population and \n\uf0b7 \nStrengthen the role of the State in development. \n \nThe measurement basis of the indicators in PBS is fixed in percentage even for \nindicators which can be measured in other forms such as days, currency among others, \nas indicated in table below; \n \nTable 75: PIAP indicators and their measurement \nIndicator \nMeasurement in PIAPs \nMeasurement", "metadata": {"page": 202, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Measurement \nbasis in PBS \nAverage monthly nominal \nhousehold Income \nUGX \nPercentage \nNet annual no. of jobs created \nNumber of Jobs \nPercentage \nEnergy generation capacity \nMegawatts \nPercentage \nWater usage \nM3 per capita \nPercentage \nLife expectancy at birth \nYears \nPercentage \nMaternal Mortality Ratio/100,000, \nNo per 100,000 \nPercentage \nTravel Time with GKMA \nMin/Km \nPercentage \nTravel Time on Railway Network \nDays \nPercentage \nFreight Cargo Traffic \nTones \nPercentage \nThe unit cost of Internet \nUSD \nPercentage \n \nFailure to link the NDP III objectives\u2019 indicators to the reporting output indicators leads \nto misleading reporting of the achievements.", "metadata": {"page": 202, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Management explained that data on PIAPs was loaded on the PBS based on a \nsubmission from NPA. Nonetheless, the Ministry reconciled the indicators with NPA as \npart of the ongoing review of the NDP III. \n \nI advised Management to continuously engage NPA and other stakeholders to develop \npractical performance indicators to facilitate performance assessments. \n \nxii. \nFailure to Promote the Independence of Internal Audit in the Budgeting \nprocess \nI noted that the PBS system allows budget ownership of cost centres (departments) \nat the entity level. \n \nWhereas this is a good way to enable budgeting, it has suffocated the independence \nof the internal audit function in MDAs as most internal audits are units and not \ndepartments. As a result, their budgets are included under the finance and \nadministration departments which limit the internal audit independence.", "metadata": {"page": 202, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "187 \n \nWithout the ability to plan and budget for their activities and having to depend on the \napproval of the finance and administration department for the allocation and releases, \nthe work of the internal audit function will be grossly affected hence leading to a \nconflict of interest. \n \nFailure to have an independent internal audit unit weakens the internal controls in an \norganisation since it will have to seek approval and release its resources from \nManagement. \n \nManagement explained that the creation of Departments on the PBS is premised on \nthe approved structure by the Ministry of Public Service. \n \nIn the spirit of good governance, management should configure the PBS system to \nenable the internal audit units and/or departments to independently budget for their \nactivities. \n \n4.2.3. Information systems audit of the Uganda Driver Licensing System (UDLS) \nat Ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT)", "metadata": {"page": 203, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Uganda Driver Licensing System (UDLS) is a project by the Ministry of Works and \nTransport to license drivers and improve safety on the country\u2019s roads. It is run by the \nUganda Security Printing Company (USPC), which is a joint venture between the state-\nowned Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation (UPPC) and M/S Veridos GmbH, a \nGerman firm. \n \nUDLS is a System used in production and issuance of computerised driving licenses by \nUSPC on behalf of Government. UDLS Development project commenced in 2020 and \nbecame operational in March 2021. USPC replaced M/S Face Technologies whose \ncontract had expired on 28th February 2021. \n \nThe major processes of UDLS include; Application for the Driver License (Reception-\nFront Desk), Client enrolment/Biometric data capture/Live Scan, Approval/Validation \nof the client data captured, Payments for the Driver\u2019s Permit, Driver\u2019s Permit-Card", "metadata": {"page": 203, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Production and Driver\u2019s Permit Issuance to the clients who can access services from \nthe Kampala office and the six (6) regional offices i.e., Mbarara, Fort Portal, Jinja, \nMbale, Gulu and Arua. \n \nI undertook the review of the system to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of \napplication, database, operating system and storage controls, and physical computing \nenvironment. Below are the redacted findings which exclude sensitive application and \ndatabase control weaknesses; \n \ni. \nIncomplete Records for Capital and Operational expenditure \n \nAccording to the contract price schedule, I noted that USPC is expected to invest \nEUR.13,777,814 between the 1st and 7th year of operations in Capital expenses while \nEUR.3,132,958 in annual operational costs. \n \nI was not provided with all the expenditures (Capital and Operational) to substantiate \nthe investments USPC had made by the time of the audit.", "metadata": {"page": 203, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "188 \n \nIn the absence of complete expenditure records for both Capital and Operational costs, \nI could not assess the extent of investment made by USPC at the time of the audit. \n \nManagement had requested in their letter dated 25th March 2022 for an extension of \nthe audit period in which they had hoped to provide the outstanding documents. \nHowever, the documents remained outstanding despite the extension of the audit \nperiod. \n \nI implored Management to ensure that investment records are properly kept to track \nthe USPC investment. \n \nii. \nManagement of UDLS Project Assets \n \nI noted the following inconsistencies in the Management of UDLS Assets; \n \na) Sub-contract of UDLS Asset Acquisition to Technology Associates (TA) and Integrated \nTransport Solutions Limited (ITSL \n \nI established that Ms Technology Associates (TA) was outsourced by M/S Veridos", "metadata": {"page": 204, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "GmbH and Veridos Uganda to manage capital acquisitions contrary to the Joint Venture \nagreement. In addition, I noted that the Integrated Transport Solutions Limited (ITSL) \nwas contracted to manage Human Resource Management, Project Management and \nstrategic communication support however, it was also involved in the acquisition of \ncapital assets such as computers, furniture etc. for the project, which was outside their \ncontractual scope. \n \nContracting a third party outside the Joint Venture casts doubt on the capacity of M/S \nVeridos and could result in a contractual breach, affecting the project's intended \nobjectives. This also impedes proper contract management. \n \nb) Gaps in Asset Management \n \nI noted the that; \n \n\uf0b7 \nOf the 807 items recorded in the USPC/UDLS asset register,165 items did not have \ntheir unit prices and acquisition dates captured despite the items being in existence. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 204, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nPhysical inspection and verification established that the enrolment van valued at \nUGX.529,073,801 could not be accessed since it was purportedly still with M/S \nTechnology Associates which was contracted outside the Joint Venture. \n \n\uf0b7 \n Four enrollment kits (Laxlon mobile case with enrolment) valued at UGX.144 Mn are \nstill housed at URC UDLS headquarters due to delayed operationalisation of the \nenrollment van. \n \n\uf0b7 \n A number of assets were obsolete and unfit for use by the time they were handed \nover. \n \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough three project motor vehicles had been passed over to the MoWT, with \nregistration numbers UAT 377W, UAT 829P and UAU 921T in the makes of Prado \nGolden, Premio grey and Premio silver white, I noted that the transfer process of \nthese vehicles to the Ministry had not been completed by the time of the audit.", "metadata": {"page": 204, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "189 \n \nIn light of the above, I could not confirm the accuracy of the asset register, assets \ninherited from Face Technologies and those procured by the Joint Venture reported in \nthe asset register. \n \nManagement indicated that it was committed by 31st August 2022 to transfer all the \nproject assets to the names of USPC and mainstream all subcontracts in relation to the \nmain Contract between USPC and MoWT. \n \nI await the outcome of management\u2019s efforts towards streamlining their asset \nmanagement. \n \niii. \nLack of interface with critical systems \n \nUDLS lacked automated interfaces with key systems such as the Police Verification \nSystem (PVS) used to issue and verify certificates of competence (CoC) and the \nRefugees Management Information System (RIMS) operated by the Office of the Prime \n(OPM) for Refugee biodata verification to enable refugees to possess Driving Licenses.", "metadata": {"page": 205, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "As a result, I established that CoC from the Inspector of Vehicles is manually captured. \nThis exposed the entity to risk of errors in critical government data and irregularities \nassociated with human interventions and incomplete information. \n \nManagement acknowledged that it is true that UDLS is not yet linked to the Police \nsystem and the Refugees Management Information System (RIMS) of OPM, however, \nit was a work in progress. \n \nI advised Management to ensure that the UDLS is integrated with appropriate key \nGovernment systems after consultation with key stakeholders. \n \niv. \nIT risk management framework. \n \nI reviewed the UDLS risk management practices in line with the best practices and I \nnoted that the entity had no IT risk management framework and as a result, there \nwas no proactive management of IT Risk. \n \nGiven the dynamic nature of the IT environment, risks emerge continuously, and some", "metadata": {"page": 205, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "may culminate into disastrous outcomes if left unchecked. \n \nManagement indicated that UDLS had no risk assessment management framework. \nThe Ministry will engage USPC to develop the RISK Management Plan for the project. \n \nI advised Management to consider establishing a robust IT Risk Management \nframework to form the basis for continuous risk assessment and risk response. \n \nv. \nLack of Internal Audit Reviews \n \nI examined the project control environment and noted that the entity did not have an \nInternal Audit unit in its organogram. In the absence of an Internal Audit, internal \nsystems audits were not conducted. This may hinder timely detection and correction \nof errors and identification of risks.", "metadata": {"page": 205, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "190 \n \nManagement explained that USPC had no internal audit function; the Ministry would \nengage USPC to establish the internal audit function in order to minimise the risks. \nI advised Management to work with those charged with governance at MoWT to ensure \nthat an internal audit function is established and that it is properly equipped with the \nnecessary tools to enable it get fully involved in the review of the information systems. \nvi. \nIT Continuity Plans/Disaster Recovery Plan \n \nBest practice requires and ICT project to have a BCP/DRP. At the time of the audit, \nUSPC had not developed an IT continuity plan to reduce the impact of a significant \ndisruption on key business functions and processes in case of disaster. This could lead \nto major disruptions in the business, including loss of revenue in an event that risks \nmaterialise. \n \nManagement acknowledged that there was no documented IT Disaster Recovery Plan.", "metadata": {"page": 206, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "However, there was a Data Recovery Centre installed with a fireproof door, fire \ndetection & suppression system with real time duplication of the UDLS database with \na Recovery Point Objective of 5 minutes. \n \nManagement committed to engage USPC to document the measures in place into an \nIT Disaster Recovery Plan. \nI advised Management to implement a formal IT continuity and disaster recovery \nstrategy to ensure that IT continues to serve the business in whatever circumstances. \n \nvii. \nOverlapping/conflicting roles \n \nA review of the system user roles and responsibilities revealed that some system users \nat UDLS hold conflicting roles for instance: some users had administrative access to \nboth application and databases; programmers had access to system production \nenvironments, and some support staff had privileges to print learners\u2019 permits. \n \nAll these violations put the entity at a high risk of undetected misuse of user rights \nand potential loss of revenue.", "metadata": {"page": 206, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Management committed to engage USPC to implement the recommended actions. \n \nI advised Management to ensure that the roles of administrators, programmers, and \nusers are adequately segregated as recommended by best practice. \n \nviii. Absence of IT Security Policy/Plan \n \nA review of the IT governance practices at UDLS revealed that the entity did not have \nan approved Information Security Policy contrary to the industry best practice. \n \nThis implies that management has not streamlined their security management \nrequirements and practices and hence the potential impact of IT security incidents is \nvery high. \n \nManagement committed to engage USPC to develop an IT Security Plan for the project \nin line with the Ministry\u2019s IT Policy that is currently being developed.", "metadata": {"page": 206, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "191 \n \nI advised Management to develop an IT security policy/plan in consultation with other \nstakeholders and in compliance with the industry standards. \nix. \nSystem unavailability on Saturdays \n \nWhereas the UDLS is expected to provide services from Monday to Saturday, I noted \ninstances of system downtime, especially on Saturdays thus denying services to clients. \nSystem downtime affects service delivery to clients and hampers the envisaged \nbenefits of the system availability. \nManagement acknowledged the concern and stated that the occurrences were as a \nresult of unstable internet bandwidth. Further, management indicated that the Ministry \nwas engaging NIRA to provide a redundant data line for backup in case of service \nbreakdown. \nI advised Management to ensure system availability in a bid to extend services to \ncitizens as envisaged. \n \n4.3. \nHIGHLIGHTS OF VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT RESULTS", "metadata": {"page": 207, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4.3.1. Government of Uganda\u2019s Efforts to Eliminate Intimate Partner Violence \nAgainst Women in Line with the Nationally Agreed Target Linked to SDG 5.2 \n \nIn September 2015, the Government of Uganda committed to the 2030 Agenda for \nSustainable Development, one of whose targets (Target 5.2.1) aims at eliminating all \nforms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, \nincluding Intimate Partner Violence against Women (EIPVW). \n \nUganda recorded a decrease in intimate partner violanece between from 60% to \n56% in the years between 2011 and 2016. This is however higher than the global \naverage of 35%. There was a reported 30% increase in violence aganainst women \nand girls since the outbreak of COVID-19. The police crime report 2019/20 indicated \na 29% rise in domestic violence cases from 13,693 to 17,664 between 2019 to 2020.", "metadata": {"page": 207, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "It is from the above background that I conducted an audit whose overall objective \nwas to assess Government of Uganda\u2019s efforts to eliminate Intimate Partner Violence \nagainst women in line with the nationally agreed target linked to SDG 5.2. \n \nThe following observations were made: \n \n\uf0b7 \nA general increase in Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in 2021 compared to 2016 \nregardless of the level of education attained, age group, or sub region. Sexual \nand psychological violence rose by 11% and 7% respectively, while physical \nviolence reduced by 1% over the same period. The rise was linked to the COVID-\n19 restrictions that increased exposure of victims and limited access to \nprevention and response services for GBV. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe higher the level of education of women and girls, the lower the level of IPV \nexperienced/reported, in both 2016 and 2020. For instance, in 2020, only 19.4%", "metadata": {"page": 207, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of women who studied beyond secondary school level reported physical or sexual \nviolence perpetrated by an intimate partner in the previous 12 months, compared \nto 38.3% of the women and girls who never obtained formal education.", "metadata": {"page": 207, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "192 \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nAcholi sub-region had the highest prevalence of IPVW (64.9%), followed by \nBukedi (60.3%) and Karamoja (49.9%) sub regions. Five sub-regions in the \nCentral, western and south western (Ankole, Tooro, Bunyoro, Busoga and South \nCentral) registered a decline in cases of physical and /or sexual violence against \nwomen and girls between 2016 and 2020, while the other ten sub-regions \nregistered increased incidents. South Central sub-region recorded the highest \ndecline in reported IPVW cases- from 24.2% in 2016 to 15% in 2020, a reduction \nof 9.2 percentage points. \n \n\uf0b7 \nUganda generally has in place a coherent legal, policy and institutional \nframework at national level (and partially at local government level) to combat", "metadata": {"page": 208, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "GBV/ IPV, although some critical legislation addressing aspects of IPVW are not \nyet complete. These include the Sexual Offences Bill, Legal Aid Bill and Policy \nand the review of the Domestic Violence Act and Regulations, 2010. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThat whereas the National Action Plan for Elimination of GBV (2016 - 2021) \nsought a budget of UGX 89.67 billion to facilitate implementation of all identified \ninterventions for eliminating all forms of GBV over the five-year period, only UGX \n10 billion was mobilised. 90% (UGX 9 billion) of this financing came through \ndonor financing thereby raising a sustainability challenge. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThat staffing for officers responsible for GBV interventions in local governments \nstood at an average of 40% for the twelve districts visited. The low number of \nstaff involved in GBV interventions in the districts is aggravated by the fact that \nthese few officers are also central to coordination, development, implementation", "metadata": {"page": 208, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of culture and community-based services, programmes and projects in the \ndistrict and urban councils thus limiting the time allocated to GBV issues in the \ndistricts. \n\uf0b7 \nOnly 18 (with 20 shelters) of the 135 districts countrywide had shelters with a \ncombined capacity of 280 GBV victims. However, MoGLSD did not have a budget \nprovision for the day to day running of these shelters and at the time of audit, \nthey were all run by NGOs financed by development partners. This deprives GBV \nvictims in the remaining 117 districts of shelter services or makes it costly for \nthem to access the shelters. For instance, some sub-regions that recorded a high \nprevalence of IPV cases amongst women and girls in 2020- such as Kigezi \n(38.8%) and Lango (34.6%) - did not have any shelters. \n \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough UBOS, in collaboration with MoGLSD, developed and localized the", "metadata": {"page": 208, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "indicators for measuring progress on intimate partner violence, and included \nthem in the National Statistical Indicator Framework (NSI) update of 2018, the \nframework does not provide periodic targets against which progress can be \nmeasured prior to 2030. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere was limited enrolment of districts onto the National GBV database (only \n94 out of 135), and limited utilisation of the database by the districts enrolled \n(20% in 2019, and 57% in 2021). There is also no interface between Police \nrecords and the HMIS. This leads to shortcomings in data sharing between \ndifferent actors to whom IPV cases are reported. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer of Ministry of Gender Labour and Social development \n(MOGLSD) to;", "metadata": {"page": 208, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "193 \n \n \n\uf0fc Investigate the major causes of the IPV prevalence rates in the different \nregions of the country to ensure targeted and specific interventions are made \nto address the vice. \n \n\uf0fc Prioritise the review, development and/or update of the pending legal, policy \nand institutional frameworks aimed at EIPVW and more actively engage key \nstakeholders in the development of EIPVW policies and legislation including \nvictims of IPV, local governments and religious/ cultural institutions to ensure \nthat all views are considered and the needs of those most vulnerable to IPV \nare addressed. \n \n\uf0fc Collaborate with MoFPED to mobilise funds necessary to operationalise the \ninstitutional arrangements stipulated in the National Action Plan for Elimination \nof GBV for effective coordination and implementation of IPV interventions. \n \n\uf0fc Liaise with MoFPED and NPA to provide a specified budget code for GBV", "metadata": {"page": 209, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "interventions in the budget framework papers for all responsible MDAs and \nLGs. This forms a basis of lobbying for GBV interventions in the budgeting \nprocess and also facilitates identification of groups vulnerable to GBV for special \nconsideration. \n \n\uf0fc Engage all IPV/GBV partner agencies and LGs to recruit or appoint and train \nIPV/GBV responsible persons and in collaboration with relevant partners lay out \ndetailed strategies for protection and rehabilitation of the victims of IPV \nthrough establishment of shelters providing resources for their routine \noperations. \n \nConclusion \n \nAlthough the Government of Uganda committed to eliminate Intimate Partner Violence \nagainst women and girls by 2030 (SDG Target 5.2.1), the audit noted an increase in \nincidences of IPVW in 2020 as compared to 2016, presenting a risk that Uganda will \nnot meet the aforementioned SDG target unless deliberate interventions are \nimplemented to address the gaps noted in this report. Achievement of tangible", "metadata": {"page": 209, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "progress towards elimination of IPVW by 2030 will require multi-stakeholder \nengagement and adoption of a whole-of-government approach to ensure no one is left \nbehind. \n \n4.3.2. Audit on the Management of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in Uganda \nby Ministry of Health (MOH) \n \nAn Emergency Medical Service (EMS) system organizes all aspects of urgent care \nprovided to patients in the pre-hospital or out-of-hospital environment. EMS is critical \nto the improvement of outcomes in patients with obstetric and medical emergencies \nand severe injuries and other serious time sensitive illnesses. \n \nThe Ministry of Health set up a department of Emergency Medical Services to manage \nthe provision of emergency services through a system of out of hospital (On scene \nacute medical care and during transportation of patients) and care on arrival at the \nhealth facility.", "metadata": {"page": 209, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "194 \n \nThis audit was instituted following public outcry arising from delayed/ inadequate \nresponse to emergencies in the country, a high proportion of seriously injured \ncausalities in need of emergency services. This was informed by the Uganda police \nannual crime reports and the COVID-19 epidemic cases that tested the health services\u2019 \npreparedness to handle medical emergencies. I noted that the sector faced challenges \nin responding to emergencies across the country. \n \nThe objective of the audit was to assess the efforts of the Ministry of Health in ensuring \nprovision of quality emergency care services in the country. \n \nAlthough there are notable achievements, for instance: development of the EMS Policy \n2021; EMS Strategy 2020/21-2024/25 and EMS norms and standards for ambulances \nas key legislations; and development of 12 indicators to track EMS delivery in the \ncountry which are existent in the DHIS 2 platform and setting up and operationalization", "metadata": {"page": 210, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of two regional call and dispatch centres at Naguru and Masaka Regional Referral \nHospitals (RRHs) audit noted the following areas for improvement. \n \nInspite of the above achievement, the following were observed; \n \n\uf0b7 \nMoH had not developed 75% (15 out of 20) of key legislations as stipulated in \nthe WHO framework at different EMS levels, at the time of the audit. The \nundeveloped legislation include; the Bystander protection legislation and the EMS \nAct to enable the government to enforce desirable EMS practices among others. \nI also noted that the EMS Policy, Strategy, norms and standards of ambulances \nwere not widely disseminated to the people in communities and staff in the EMS \nunits who are the implementers and providers of EMS services. \n \n\uf0b7 \nTwelve (12) out of the fourteen (14) regional call and dispatch centres \nrepresenting 86% supposed to be set up and operationalized by MoH had not", "metadata": {"page": 210, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "been set up by the time of the report. The ministry had not operationalized the \nuniversal medical access or toll free number/ three (3) digit code for access of \nemergency medical services by patients and health facilities. \n \n\uf0b7 \nMoH had no comprehensive database for existing ambulances. Mismatches were \nobserved in the actual numbers of ambulances attached to some of the facilities \ncompared with those of the ambulance census report. \n \n\uf0b7 \nthe undesirable 178 type A government ambulances had not been phased out \nby the intended deadline of end of the FY 2020/2021. Procurement of \nambulances was neither planned nor included in the EMS departmental budgets \nfor the period under review. \n \n\uf0b7 \nNone of the procured 12 boat ambulances were allocated or deployed to any of \nthe island districts as planned but left idle at the Entebbe marine base for over \na year, defeating the objective of securing these ambulances and undermining", "metadata": {"page": 210, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the value for money of USD1,870,714 and UGX 1,347,480,000 spent on \nprocurement of these boat ambulances. \n \n\uf0b7 \nSeventy-Five per cent (75%) of the ambulances, subjected to the checklist tool \nto assess the minimum equipment and supplies stipulated in the National \noperating guidelines and standards for ambulances, lacked all the required", "metadata": {"page": 210, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "195 \n \nminimum basic life support equipment and supplies. In effect they only act as \ntransport vehicles. \n \n\uf0b7 \nSixteen (16) out of eighteen (18), representing 89% of the visited health facilities \nhad no fully dedicated personnel in their emergency units to manage emergency \ncases yet visited Health Centres IVS, on average, receive 2-5 emergency cases \na day while general hospitals receive 10-30 emergency cases a day on average. \n \n\uf0b7 \nMoH had not reviewed the Uganda National Minimum Health Care package to \nprioritize emergency care at Health facility level and in the pre-hospital phase. \nNone of the visited health facilities/hospitals across all levels were aware of the \nstandard essential emergency medicine and supplies list to guide the planning \nand placing emergency medicine orders to NMS. Facilities/hospitals instead \nutilised the general Essential medicines and health supplies list to place orders \nto the NMS.", "metadata": {"page": 211, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I advised the Accounting Officer to address the identified challenges through; \n \n\uf0fc Prioritise, plan and budget for development of the relevant legislations and laws \nfor management of EMS in its annual operational plans \n \n\uf0fc Develop, disseminate and institutionalise standard emergency medical \nequipment lists for basic life support equipment necessary at the different levels \nof health care and prioritise their procurement for the emergency units across \nthe different health facilities. \n \n\uf0fc Prioritise the development and specification of an emergency medicines and \nsupplies list and incorporate it into the Uganda Essential medicines and Health \nsupplies list. \n \n\uf0fc Engage Uganda Communication Commission and Telecom companies to \nprioritise the operationalization of the standard national three-digit toll free \nnumber for the management of EMS cases. Set up and operationalize the \nnational and all regional call centres \n \n\uf0fc Government through MoH should prioritise procurement of Type B and Type C", "metadata": {"page": 211, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ambulances in its annual budgets and operational plans in order to increase their \naccessibility to the public as well as fostering delivery of quality EMS care during \ntransportation of patients \n \n\uf0fc MoH should maintain an up-to-date database of ambulances in the country to \nease their monitoring and maintenance. \n \n\uf0fc MoH, in consultation with the different role players specified in the MoU, should \nexpedite the allocation delivery and deployment of Boat Ambulances to the \nenvisaged districts \n \n\uf0fc The Ministry of Health in liaison with the Ministry of Public Service and Health \nService Commission should prioritise the approval of a designated EMS staff \nstructure to allow recruitment and filling of the HR existing gaps at all levels of \nhealth care.", "metadata": {"page": 211, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "196 \n \n\uf0fc Fast track the establishment of the multi-stakeholder coordination committee \nand implement the Public Private Partnership Health strategies to ease provision \nof quality EMS across the country. \n \nConclusion \n \nIn order to facilitate the efficient delivery of emergency medical services in the country, \nthe Ministry of Health through the EMS department was meant to develop appropriate \nlegislations for EMS, institute desirable stakeholder coordination arrangements, ensure \navailability of emergency medical equipment, medicines and supplies in established \nemergency units across the country, establish and operationalize national and regional \ncall and dispatch centres, train health care providers in EMS practices, procure \ndesirable ambulances and undertake monitoring and evaluation of EMS delivery in the \ncountry. The findings reveal weaknesses at every level of what should be a critical \ncomponent in the health care system. The desirable strategies are still hampered by \nweak EMS M&E systems and inadequate coordination and institutional arrangements \nfor delivery of EMS in the country.", "metadata": {"page": 212, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4.3.3. Implementation of Small-Mini-Independent Power Producers Under the \nGetfit Scheme in Uganda \n \nThe Energy sector was liberalized following cabinet approval of the Power Sector \nReforms and Privatization Strategy (PSRPS) in 1999. The Electricity Regulatory \nAuthority (ERA) was established to regulate the Electricity sub-sector while the Ministry \nof Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) is charged with Policy Formulation. In an \nattempt to stimulate private investment in small-scale renewable energy projects, ERA \nadopted a Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff (REFiT) phase II scheme in 2012. \nHowever, the scheme did not attract the needed investment as the proposed tariff \nlevels were widely viewed by investors as insufficient for new projects and high \nfinancing and project development costs made small-scale power projects unviable, \neven as the demand for power kept growing. \n \nTo respond to the challenges for the small-scale projects, ERA and the German", "metadata": {"page": 212, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Development Bank (KfW), developed and implemented the Global Energy Transfer \n(GET FiT) Program in 2012. \n \nThe main objective of the GET FiT Program was to assist African nations in pursuing a \nclimate resilient. Low carbon development path resulting in growth, poverty reduction \nand climate change mitigation. Roll-out of the program started in 2013 in Uganda. The \nprogram, was jointly developed by the Government of Uganda, the Uganda Electricity \nRegulatory Authority (ERA) and the German Development Bank, Kreditanstalt f\u00fcr \nWiederaufbau (KfW), was designed to leverage private investment into renewable \nenergy generation projects in Uganda. \n \nGET FiT was being supported by the Governments of Norway, the United Kingdom, \nand Germany and the European Union (EU) through the EU Africa Infrastructure Fund, \nas well as the World Bank through their IDA Partial Risk Guarantee (PRG) instrument. \nBy 2020, 17 small power plants had been developed under the scheme, with over \nUGX100m in grants.", "metadata": {"page": 212, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "197 \n \nIn light of the foregoing justification, I instituted this audit with the overall objective \nof the to evaluate the performance of small/mini IPPs and examine mechanisms \ninstituted by ERA to ensure that they generate affordable, accessible, reliable and \nenvironmentally friendly electricity in Uganda. \n \nThe audit made the following observations; \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere was lack of competition during procurement of IPPs to the extent that 15 \nout of the 17 sampled small/mini hydro power plants, which commenced \nconstruction and were commissioned after the enactment of the PPP Act 2015 \nand PPP regulations 2016, were not subjected to any competition before securing \nthe sites. Only the two (2) sampled solar plants (Tororo and Soroti) were secured \nthrough a competitive process. Audit could not confirm whether value for money \nhad been achieved by the selected firms. \n \n\uf0b7 \nIn 2018, 20% of the planned energy generation from GET FiT projects was not", "metadata": {"page": 213, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "delivered to the grid due to missing or inadequate grid infrastructure. Similarly, \nin 2019 and 2020; 23% and 25% of the energy generation from GET FiT power \nplants respectively failed to reach the national grid due to grid availability issues. \nThis resulted into deemed (unutilised) energy claims amounting to \nUSD10,955,149 as of June 2020. So far Government of Uganda has paid US$ \n3,605,267 on deemed energy comprising US$ 668,186 and US$ 2,937,081 for \nthe FYs 2018/2019 & 2019/2020 respectively due to pay or take contractual \nclauses in the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). Deemed energy charged \nthrough the tariff negatively impacts on consumers prices, which is a hindrance \nto electricity demand, thus slowing economic growth. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Government of Uganda undertook both GET FiT and REFiT II program \ninterventions in the electricity sub-sector; However, different small/mini plants", "metadata": {"page": 213, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were offered different tariffs and plants with low planned installed capacity \nattracted a high tariff compared to those with relatively high installed capacity. \nThere were no uniform criteria used for the tariff offers, this can lead to \nsubjectivity and hence collusion. \n \n\uf0b7 \nSeven (7) out of the fourteen (14) operational GET FIT small/mini power plants \ndelayed signing Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) ranging between 3 months \nto 4 years. Accordingly, of the 17 GETFIT small/mini power plants, 14 had been \ncommissioned and were operational by the year 2020, while the 3 were still \nunder construction as they faced challenges. Also, only 5 out of the 14 \noperational power plants namely; Kakira Muvumbe SHP, Nkusi SHP, Rwimi SHP \nand Tororo solar power plant achieved their annual planned generation in the \nyear 2020. Three (3) plants namely; Rwimi SHP, Lubilia SHP, and Nkusi SHP", "metadata": {"page": 213, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were below the required plant availability that is 92%, 86% and 92% in 2020. \nThis delays the intended benefits of the scheme. \n \n\uf0b7 \nAn MOU signed between ERA and NEMA, dated 21st July 2016, required ERA \nand NEMA to undertake joint inspections of projects and activities to ensure \ncompliance with applicable laws and regulations. For all the inspections \nundertaken by ERA for the last 3 years, there was no evidence of NEMA \ninvolvement. Whereas ERA identified and reported a number of environmental \nconcerns during their annual compliance audits, there was no evidence of sharing \nsuch findings with NEMA for appropriate action as provided for by the MOU.", "metadata": {"page": 213, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "198 \n \nI advised the Chief Executive Officer of ERA to: \n \n\uf0fc Ensure for future projects, sites for the small/mini power plant are competitively \nsecured by potential developers to enhance economic and social-economic \nbenefits from these projects. \n \n\uf0fc Engage key stakeholders as MEMD, UEDCL, and UETCL to improve network \navailability and efficiency through establishment of dedicated evacuation lines as \na way of mitigating grid failure. The upgrades of substations and evacuation lines \nshould be timely undertaken and maintained to avoid unnecessary deemed \nenergy claims. \n \n\uf0fc Ensure that the licensing procedures for IPPs are streamlined to ensure equitable \nlicensing periods offered to all license applicants. In addition, full \noperationalization of the coordination with sister agencies that have MoUs with \nERA like NEMA and DWRM should be prioritized to facilitate timely licensing \nprocesses, monitoring and followup.", "metadata": {"page": 214, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0fc Consider subsidizing the final consumer tariffs so as to grow the electricity \nconnectivity specifically in rural areas if the GET FiT program is to realize its \nintended objectives of securing energy supply at relatively affordable cost. \n \nConclusion \n \nSince the inception of the GeTFiT programme in 2013, an amount of 122MW of power \nhad been added to the generation mix by the beneficiaries of the scheme by 2020 with \n14 out of 17 plants commissioned. Despite the availability of such capacity, a significant \namount of that production was lost due to lack of transmission and distribution lines \nto evacuate the power. There were also noted lower plant availability rates due to \ninternal outages and low fuel availability. As such government continues to pay \ndeemed costs for such unevaluated power. \n \nAs such the tariff charged is not cost reflective and is still high compared to the region. \nBecause of the above, the envisaged increase in number of rural electricity accessibility", "metadata": {"page": 214, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "has not been achieved. The objective of low carbon development, poverty reduction \nand climate change mitigation may not be achieved in the planned period. \n \nThe timely implementation of new power evacuation infrastructure and upgrading of \nthe existing grid will go a long way in ensure the objectives of the Scheme are \nachieved.", "metadata": {"page": 214, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "199 \n \n4.3.4. Promotion of Safe and Sustainable Management of Electronic Waste in \nUganda by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology and \nNational Guidance \n \nUganda, just like the rest of the world, is contending with the increased demand for \nElectronic and Electric Equipment (EEE) products and high technology replacement \nrates which together, have contributed to the emergence of e-waste as the fastest \ngrowing waste stream on earth. Whereas the Government of Uganda has expressed \ncommitment to promoting, among other things, sound management of hazardous \nchemicals and e-waste, through enactment of an E-waste Policy (2012) and E-waste \nStrategy (2013), there is scanty up-to-date information on the quantities and types of \nwaste generated in Uganda, and this limits the effectiveness of any planned \ninterventions. \n \nIn light of the foregoing justification, I instituted this audit with the overall objective", "metadata": {"page": 215, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of establishing the quantities of e-waste in Uganda and assess the measures put in \nplace by the Ministry of Information, Communications Technology and National \nGuidance to promote safe and sustainable management of electronic waste in Uganda. \n \na) The quantities of electronic waste in Uganda have been increasing exponentially over \nthe last 20 years, and this trend is likely to continue if appropriate interventions are \nnot undertaken. From 2001 to 2020, about 1.3 million tonnes of e-waste were \ngenerated in Uganda, with only three (3) dominant categories, namely: screens, \nmonitors and equipment containing screens; large equipment (excluding photovoltaic \npanels); and temperature exchange equipment accounting for nearly 83% of this \nwaste. However, the most dominant categories of e-waste have kept changing over \nthe years. \n \nb) I noted that the strategy for implementation of E-Waste 2013-2018 had 8 strategic \nobjectives with a total of 84 performance indicators. Out of the 84 indicators, only 3", "metadata": {"page": 215, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "indicators were fully implemented (4%), 7 indicators were partially implemented \n(8%) and 74 were not implemented (88%). I further examined the implementation \nof the strategy and noted the following; \n \n\uf0a7 \nAlthough NEMA had incorporated e-waste related issues into the National \nEnvironment Act, 2019 and the National Waste Management Regulations, 2020, \nreview of the E-waste Policy by MoICT&NG was still on-going, over five years \nafter its expected completion date (2016).This has delayed alignment of \ngovernment interventions to keep abreast with the rapid changes in \ntechnological innovation, evolution of the nature and patterns of e-waste, and \nbest practices in e-waste management. \n \n\uf0a7 \nMoICT&NG did not conduct comprehensive baseline surveys, mainly due to a \nfailure by the e-waste management strategy to clearly define the purpose and \nscope of a baseline study. Absence of detailed baseline studies resulted in", "metadata": {"page": 215, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "inadequate interventions and lack of coherence in management and reporting \non e-waste, evidenced by acutely inadequate targets for e-waste collection and \nmanagement, absence of any clear basis or strategy for e-waste prioritisation \nand contradictions in values of e-waste computed by various MDAs. \n \n\uf0a7 \nFor most of the audit period, no company or individual had been licensed to \nhandle electronic waste. As such, most government entities kept their waste", "metadata": {"page": 215, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "200 \n \non site, while others used unlicensed handlers to dispose of it. In November \n2021, however, three firms were licenced by NEMA to transport e-waste and \nan e-waste collection and management facility set up by the National Enterprise \nCorporation in Bugolobi. Nonetheless, most entities and stakeholders remained \nunaware that licensed e-waste handlers/facilities were now available for use. \n \nc) \nI noted that, apart from the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) and Uganda Communication \nCommission which made efforts to guide their stakeholders on disposal mechanisms \nfor radiation-emitting equipment and telecommunication towers/masts, like take-\nback or extraction and storage of radioactive component(s) of broken-down \nequipment, there was no indication of what other Ministries, Departments and \nAgencies (MDAs) and local governments did to guide on- or enforce compliance with- \nproper e-waste management practices for equipment under their dockets.", "metadata": {"page": 216, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "d) UNBS had not developed adequate standards and testing capacity for all Electronic \nand Electric Equipment entering the country yet imports contribute almost 99% of \nEEE Put on the Uganda Market. Various potentially hazardous electronic and \nelectronic equipment had thus been imported in the country without testing and could \nultimately affect people\u2019s health \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer of the Ministry of Information and Communication \nTechnology and National Guidance (MoICT& NG) to; \n \n\uf0fc In collaboration with key stakeholders develop mechanisms to project and \nestablish quantities and composition of e-waste and categories of e-waste \nhandlers to aid medium and long-term planning for proper management. \n \n\uf0fc During the anticipated review/ revision of the e-waste strategy, consult and/or \ninvolve all key stakeholders to ensure ownership of its implementation. In the \ninterim, MoICT&NG should engage MoFPED, MoES and other stakeholders to \nensure funding of e-waste activities and mainstreaming of e-waste", "metadata": {"page": 216, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "management in curricula during the next curriculum reviews. \n \n\uf0fc Engage NEMA to expedite licensing of e-waste handlers and formulation of e-\nwaste management procedures to enhance regulation, identify and engage \nprivate actors to set up other waste management centres (PPPs) as envisioned \nin the National e-waste Strategy. \n \n\uf0fc Engage UNBS to ensure development of adequate standards and testing \ncapacity for all Electronic and Electric Equipment entering the country \n \nConclusion \n \nThe quantity of E-waste in Uganda has increased exponentially over the last 20 years, \nwith the dominant categories of this waste evolving during the same period. In spite \nof this reality, the E-waste Management Policy and Strategy, developed over 9 years \nago to ensure safe and sustainable management of E-waste, remain largely \nunimplemented, and neither have they been revised to adequately deal with the \ncurrent scale of this challenge.", "metadata": {"page": 216, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "201 \n \nThe budget for implementation of the e-waste strategy was only financed to a tune of \n14%; there was limited enforcement of e-waste management practices, recourse to \nunlicensed e-waste management companies and handlers, and inadequate testing of \nEEE at importation. \n \nLimited implementation of the E-waste strategy was mostly attributed to failure by \nMoICT&NG to take the lead in its implementation by prioritising funding for the \nactivities assigned to the Ministry, lack of coordination and engagement of all other \nkey players to fulfil their roles. These deficiencies expose people and ecosystems to \nthe potential health and contamination risks associated with e-waste. It is hoped that \nimplementation of the proposed audit recommendations will contribute significantly to \nimproved management of e-waste in Uganda. \n \n4.3.5. Effectiveness of Mechanisms Established for Management of Road \nEquipment by the Ministry of Works and Transport", "metadata": {"page": 217, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The maintenance of roads in Uganda is currently implemented through the force \naccount mechanism. This requires government agencies to make use of their available \nman power and equipment in the maintenance of the road network, instead of the \nlengthy and usually expensive contracting to private firms. To operationalize this \nmechanism, the Government of Uganda spent a sum of UGX.887Bn between 2012 \nand 2020 on the acquisition, distribution, training, maintenance and monitoring of its \nroad maintenance fleet. This equipment was distributed to local governments across \nthe country. \n \nThe initiative has faced challenges in its implementation such as complaints of obsolete \nequipment with high breakdown rates, delays in repair of equipment at the mechanical \nworkshops and inadequate inventory of equipment to cover the various road \nmaintenance interventions. There are increasing complaints and evidence of \ndeteriorating road conditions in the country. \n \nThe Overall objective of the audit was to assess the mechanisms established by the", "metadata": {"page": 217, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT) for management and utilisation of road \nequipment. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that in the period of assessment, from 2017/18 to 2019/20, the road \nmaintenance backlog had increased from 42,248KMs at the start for the period \nto 69,016KMs at the end of the period representing an increase of 37.6% in spite \nof the government interventions in form of road equipment and funds through \nUganda Road Fund. \n \n\uf0b7 \n From 2012 to 2020 Government of Uganda acquired a total of 1,843 pieces of \nroad maintenance equipment which were all distributed to the intended \nbeneficiaries. I however noted that, of this only 1,151 (62%) pieces were in \nworking condition, 645 (35%) pieces grounded though in serviceable state and \n47 (3%) broken down and due for disposal. This further explains the increased \nbacklogs in maintenance and deteriorating road conditions", "metadata": {"page": 217, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nIn regard to shared zonal equipment, audit established that out of the 1,843 \nequipment, fifty seven (57) specialised heavy equipment were distributed to 4 \nMoWT Zonal Centres which serve 135 districts and MDAs directly carrying out \nroad maintenance works. This was insufficient in quantity. In addition, MoWT", "metadata": {"page": 217, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "202 \n \nonly acquired 9 low beds to aid the movement of heavy equipment between \ndifferent sites. This number was not sufficient to serve the LGs who equally did \nnot have low beds of their own. This led to long lead times (average of one year) \nfor mobilisation of equipment and subsequently resulting in delays for road \nmaintenance activities \n \n\uf0b7 \nIn regard to repair of road equipment, for a sample of 30 LGs, I established that \nequipment that underwent major repairs at the regional workshops on average \nspent a period of 3.25 months in the workshops, additionally two (2) (Gulu and \nMbarara) of the four Regional mechanical workshops lacked sheltered work floor \nspace and work tools to efficiently repair and service the equipment under their \ncare. That further explains the delays to repair and service the equipment. This \nleads to delays in provision of the needed maintenance services. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer of Ministry of Works and Transport to;", "metadata": {"page": 218, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0fc Ensure that a needs assessment is undertaken prior to implementing such \ncountrywide programs. In the event of limited funding, management should also \nexplore the option of piloting such programs in fewer districts for effectiveness. \n \n\uf0fc Expedite the development of the MIS systems such that information relating to \nthe distribution of shared equipment can be seamlessly captured to streamline \nthe scheduling, distribution, operation and movement of equipment. The \nInformation system will also ensure that all repair requests are well documented \nand communicated and strict pre repair inspection carried out so that the defects \nhave been promptly reported. \n \n\uf0fc Continue to negotiate with MoFPED to ensure that the necessary funding is \navailed to facilitate the retooling process and ensure availability of safe sheltered \nworking areas for the Regional Mechanical Workshops (RMWs) staff. \n \nConclusion \n \nThe increase in the road maintenance backlog was attributed to ineffective \nimplementation of the equipment management mechanisms by both the MoWT and", "metadata": {"page": 218, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the respective agencies in the Works sector. There were noted incidences of lack of \nneeds assessment hence inadequate equipment, rampant breakdowns, lack of training \nof operators, delays in repairs and lack of monitoring by MoWT. \n \nIf the overall objective of management of road equipment is to be achieved, the MoWT \nwill have to ensure that the mechanisms relating to distribution, training, maintenance, \nutilization and monitoring of the equipment usage are fully implemented.", "metadata": {"page": 218, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "203 \n \n4.3.6. A Value for Money Audit Report on the Regulation and Promotion of Safe \nand Reliable Public Road Transport System by The Ministry of Works and \nTransport \n \nThe Dominance of road transport as a mode of transportation in Uganda accounts for \nmore than 90 percent of passenger transit and cargo freight. Even though public road \ntransport is the most popular method of transportation, the Public Transport Industry \nhas a number of obstacles: only buses are fully regulated, Public Service Vehicles \n(PSVs) services are not timetabled or integrated, and PSVs are typically in Dangerous \nMechanical Conditions (DMCs). . The situation is made worse by the usage of \nuncontrolled commercial motorcycles (Boda bodas) that breach traffic regulations the \nabsence of implementation of institutional and regulatory procedures for enhancing \npublic transportation. \n \nTaxis, Minibuses, and Commercial Motorcycles operate off-route and will stop wherever", "metadata": {"page": 219, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "a passenger desires to board or exit. According to Uganda's yearly crime statistics \n(2017-2021), there were a total of 74,977 victims of traffic accidents, the bulk of which \nwere caused by Careless or Reckless Driving and Dangerous Mechanical Conditions. \n \nIn light of the above, the Office of the Auditor General conducted a Value for Money \naudit to assess Government of Uganda\u2019s efforts in Regulation and Promotion of a Safe \nand Reliable Public road transport system in Uganda through the Ministry of Works \nand Transport (MoWT). Below is a summary of the Key findings which details are in \nChapter Four of this report. \n \nAlthough the Department of Transport Regulation and Safety, of the Ministry of Works \nand Transport, has been recognized for notable accomplishments in the promotion of \na reliable and safe public transport system, such as the significant improvement (from \n5 working days in 1990 to 20 Minutes in 2022) in the time between applying for and", "metadata": {"page": 219, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "receiving a driver's license, the following key areas of improvement were identified: \n\uf0b7 \nField inspections established that majority of Public Service Vehicles (PSV) were \nin operation but not registered in the Ministry\u2019s database. Although the data \nrecords at the Ministry show that they have licensed, on average, 28,000 PSVs \nper annum during the last 5 years, data obtained from the PSV owners\u2019 \nassociations indicate that, as of November 2022, the registered member PSVs \nwere 749,600. Furthermore, the Ministry's register lacked information such as \nLicensed Stages, Licensed Routes of Operation, and Time Schedules, which may \nhave contributed to the efficient operation of public transportation. \n \n\uf0b7 \n139 (70%) out of the randomly sampled 200 PSVs did not possess Valid PSV \nlicenses that would allow them to operate Public transport business. The largest \nnumbers without licences are the boda bodas (95%). As a result, vehicles are", "metadata": {"page": 219, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "used for public transport without validation checks for their road worthiness. In \naddition Government of Uganda loses UGX29.5 Billion annually in Non-Tax \nrevenue due to non-licensed PSVs operating in the country. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that only 5.73% (140,577 out of the required 2,455,363) PSV inspections \nwere undertaken by the Ministry of Works and Transport during the period under \nreview. The lack of PSV inspections was more prevalent in the Commercial Motor \nCycle category and Taxis. This was caused by lack of personnel and the required \nequipment to conduct PSV inspections across the country and the delayed \nimplementation of the SGS Automotive Services Uganda contract. The Public is \nthus exposed to risks of vehicles in poor mechanical conditions.", "metadata": {"page": 219, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "204 \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted for the few inspections that were carried out by the Ministry, these were \nconducted with the use of observation. MoWT lacks the facilities, key equipment \nsuch as; Screen Type headlight tester/ Light intensity tester, Speedometer tester, \nBreak speed combination Tester, Digital Tyre tread depth gauge among others. \nThe absence of quality inspections does not guarantee the roadworthiness of \nPSVs examined. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 34% (77 out of 226) of the inspected driving schools were operating \nwithout valid operating licenses issued by the Ministry of Works and Transport. \nAs a result, the Ministry doesn't have a complete list of all driving schools in the \ncountry both Licensed and unlicensed. The public is thus undertaking lessons in \nschools without guaranteed quality and standards. In addition, from the sample, \nthe Government of Uganda loses UGX 35.4 million shillings every year due to", "metadata": {"page": 220, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "unlicensed driving schools operating in the country. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Majority driving school owners did not poses and were not using the \napproved driver learner training materials issued by the Ministry. Many used self-\ndeveloped materials while others used class B training materials to train drivers \nfor other classes like CI, DI, CE and others. As a result, driving schools in Uganda \ncontinue to utilize non-standardized training materials, resulting in non-\nstandardized competence of drivers on the road, which is one of the contributors \nto the country's high rate of road accidents. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Inspector of Vehicle (IOV) centres are not monitored by the \nMinistry as is required by the regulations. There was no proof of evidence of \nreceipt of IOV's monthly learner driver test reports during the past five years and \nno documentation proof of formal correspondence between the MoWT and IOV \ndemanding the same. This has led to a lack of certainty regarding whether the", "metadata": {"page": 220, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "IOV tests students who have genuinely received training in driving schools and \nwhether these student drivers have received training from licensed driving \nschools. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI conducted a System walk through at the Uganda Driver Licensing System \n(UDLS) railway station offices in Kampala and reviewed that, out of the 6 \nrequired documents, 4 documents (competency certificate, medical form, \ncertificate of completion, and proof of enrolment) are not verified before issuance \nof a driving license. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 70% of the sampled applicants, had received training from a non-\nlicensed driving school, while 28 out of 94 applicants, (29.8%), had received \ntraining from a licensed driving school. 30% (30 out of 100) had serial numbers \nof Certificates of Competence that did not match with serial numbers issued at \nIoV, while 50% (50 out of 100) of applicants had serial numbers that were \ninitially given to someone else, hence fraudulent.", "metadata": {"page": 220, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \n71% (67 out of 95) of the 95 applications with attached medical forms were \nissued by unlicensed medical professionals, while 5% (5 out of 95) were issued \nby forgers (those using someone else medical registration number). 15% of the \nparticipants (14 out of 95) had not written their names and registration numbers \nlegibly. The MoWT has failed to ensure that the issue of driver's licenses adheres", "metadata": {"page": 220, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "205 \n \nto the procedures outlined in all applicable rules. This leads to issuance of \nlicenses to incompetent drivers. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Ministry of Works and Transport sensitization plans lacked specific \nactions in regard to purpose, media type, roles and responsibilities of officials, \nparticular activity budgets, timetables, and operational technique. Audit further \nestablished that while the ministry reported in its yearly performance reports to \nhave carried out all planned campaigns, evidence was only provided for six (6) \nof twelve (12) planned campaigns of the planned campaigns. Failure to sensitize \nthe public contributes to low compliance with PSV licensing terms and conditions. \n \nThere is also lack of coordination with the enforcement Agencies like the traffic police \nto enforce licensing and standards. According to the Police, they stated that they lacked \nthe database of licensed PSV from the Ministry from which they would crosscheck to \nenforce compliance.", "metadata": {"page": 221, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "enforce compliance. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer of Ministry of Works and Transport to; \n \n\uf0fc Develop mechanisms to capture licensed and unlicensed PSVs in Uganda with all \nof their attributes, process the data, and use it to generate route charts, stages, \nand timetables. \n \n\uf0fc Develop and distribute monthly updated lists of licensed PSVs to enforcement \nagencies including urban authorities and Uganda Police. MoWT could explore the \nuse of Mobile App to share data with the various Agencies \n \n\uf0fc Raise public awareness of the annual PSV requirement. \n \n\uf0fc In the short run liaise with the Uganda Police Inspector of Vehicles staff to \nconduct PSV inspections where it lacks capacity. \n \n\uf0fc Expedite discussions and negotiations with SGS to bridge the quality gaps in \ninspections of PSVs across the country. \n\uf0fc Undertake a baseline to obtain data and records of all existing driving schools \nand confirm they have operating licenses, and work with law enforcement to", "metadata": {"page": 221, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "close and prosecute violators. \n \n\uf0fc Ensure that all driving schools have approved learner training curricula and \ncontinuously review it to ensure its continued relevance. \n \n\uf0fc Develop an information management system to record data on all learners who \nhave completed training and are due for examinations to help monitor and \nsupervise IoV centres. \n \n\uf0fc Collaborate with enforcement agencies and develop a thorough vetting process \nand ensure that all PSV drivers are vetted before being licensed to operate a \npassenger service vehicle. \n \n\uf0fc Collaborate with Uganda Medical Council, Uganda Police, and others to verify all \ndrivers\u2019 license application documents.", "metadata": {"page": 221, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "206 \n \n\uf0fc Develop internal controls in the UDLS system to verify the validity of all submitted \ndocumentation before issuance of driver\u2019s license. \n \n\uf0fc Appropriately plan and prioritize actions in road safety advocacy and awareness \nfor different players in the Public Service Transport sub-sector so that the sector \nis better regulated. \n \nConclusion \n \nAlthough the Ugandan government has made significant efforts to regulate and \npromote a safe and reliable public road transportation system by improving the \nefficiency at which driver's licenses are issued among others, there were numerous \ngaps noted including unlicensed driving schools PSVs and motor cycles, limited and \ninadequate annual inspections and lack of enforcement as most drivers drive without \npermits. These challenges have an effect of contributing towards the increased road \naccidents in Uganda. To ensure completeness, the Ministry of Works and Transport \nshould ensure that PSV registration, licensing, and inspection are automated and", "metadata": {"page": 222, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "integrated with the various other government databases of URA and Uganda Police. \nSimilarly, the training provided by various driving schools should be consistent and \nmonitored to ensure that standards are met. To ensure compliance with regulations \nand laws, sensitization and enforcement should be strengthened and coordinated with \nother agencies and local governments. \n \n4.3.7. Value for Money audit of GRID Extension Projects implemented by the Rural \nElectrification Agency Currently under the Ministry of Energy and Mineral \nDevelopment for the period 2009 \u2013 2017 \n \nBetween 2009 and 2017, REA secured USD.80Mn from SIDA, JICA, World Bank, \nNORAD and the Government of Uganda to implement priority Rural Electrification \nProjects most of which were part of the sample of projects under review. \n \nThe Scope of the audit covered the GRID extension power line projects implemented \nin the 13 service territories under the various funding programs between the financial \nyears 2013/14 to 2017/18. The GRID Extension power-line projects assessment", "metadata": {"page": 222, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "covered the following; \n \n\uf0b7 \nCompleted Grid Projects Implemented by REA since Financial Year 2013/2014 \nto 2016/17 when RESP II was being implemented \n \n\uf0b7 \nCompleted UMEME Cost Shared Lines since 2013/2014 and 2014/15. \n \n\uf0b7 \nSchemes Implemented through Concession Operators \n \no \nKilembe Mines Ltd \no \nFerdsult Engineering Servcies Ltd \no \nWenrenco \no \nUEDCL \n \n\uf0b7 \nOngoing Grid Projects under Implementation by REA \n \n\uf0b7 \nCompleted Grid Projects Implemented by REA from (2009-2017) Prioritized by \nRural Electrification Agency.", "metadata": {"page": 222, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "207 \n \n \nIn light of the foregoing, I undertook this Value for Money audit to assess whether \nconstruction of Grid extension power lines and associated installations implemented \nby the Rural Electrification Agency (REA) was undertaken in accordance with \nrecommended technical standards, designs and specifications; assess the quality and \nfunctionality of the completed power-lines and associated installations and its impact \non the user communities. I made the following observations; \n \nThere have been Positive Economic Impacts realized from constructed GRID Lines, for \ninstance; \n \nUrbanization of several trading centres along the power lines constructed, many \nincome-generating activities were initiated by the locals such as maize milling, \nwielding, salons, juice production thus improving their incomes and way of life and \ncreation of employment opportunities; promoting value addition to the local \nagricultural products and dairy products; reduction in greenhouse emissions. \n \nImproved investment climate in targeted communities; and increase in government", "metadata": {"page": 223, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "revenue. \n \nHowever, there are still some performance gaps in operation of rural electrification \nprojects that need to be addressed as summarised below; \n \n\uf0b7 \nI circularized contractors and noted that, REA owed nine (9) firms for works \nalready completed worth USD.28,080,776.53 and UGX.3,350,908,860. \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the commissioned lines, UMEME attracted and obtained O&M rights for \nabout 25% for township lines. UEDCL obtained about 60% of the O&M rights \nleaving the 15% to the other operators. \n \n\uf0b7 \nAudit did not get evidence of any deliberate O&M policies or practices \nspecifically on the preventative maintenance. I was not provided with \npreventative maintenance plans, nor was there proof of a structured and \nconsistence implementation of basic prudent maintenance practices on the \nlines.", "metadata": {"page": 223, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "lines. \n \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough ERA is mandated to issue license to the operators, review and approve \nthe O&M Budgets as well as regulate the operations of these licensee, audit \nnoted minimal supervision by ERA in line with oversight monitoring and \nEvaluation. \n \n\uf0b7 \nAdditionally, in terms of the operating and management costs of power lines, \nthey were deemed high due to a number of factors such as transformers, \ndefective or rotten poles which needed replacement in the shortest of time after \nthe commissioning of these lines. For instance, according to UEDCL data for \nKabale \u2013 Kisoro \u2013 Bunagana Scheme, the annual maintenance cost was at 34.7 \nbillion against 518 billion generated revenues. This translates 6.8% of revenue \nwhich is above the 5% threshold requirement. \n \n\uf0b7 \nSeveral occupation and safety hazards noted during implementation of the \nGRID power projects. 33kV power lines were constructed to span across roofs", "metadata": {"page": 223, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "208 \n \nof residential houses in Ibanda-Kazo-Rushere power scheme, Mpanga-\nKamwenge-Kahungye-Nkingo. \n \n\uf0b7 \nAudit noted inadequacies in design and construction of GRID power projects; \nAlthough normal service conditions and or best practice requires that 33KV \nextensions should originate from substations (service bays/Bus Bars) audit \nnoted that for most of the projects implemented by REA, MV extensions were \ntapped from existing feeders implying that the newly implemented MV \nextension automatically inherits the challenges of the backbone and vice versa. \nExamples were noted in Kabale-Kisoro, Gulu-Acholibur, Masindi- Waki- Buliisa, \nOpuyo-Moroto, Ibanda- Kazo- Rushere, Gulu-Adjumani-Moyo. \n \n\uf0b7 \nVoltage drops were also witnessed during field inspections for all extensions", "metadata": {"page": 224, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "beyond 100km that did not originate from the substation. High voltage drops, \nbelow the permissible level can result in increased system maintenance costs, \na decrease in the safety and performance of the network as well as reduced \nexpected lifetime of the equipment. \n \n\uf0b7 \nIn line with contractual requirements, wooden poles are expected to last up to \n20years. Document review and field inspections noted that poles supplied on \nsome projects as; Masindi- Waki-Buliisa, Ibanda-Kazo-Rushere, Gulu-Acholibur, \nKitgum-Palabek, Ayer-Kamdini among others, failed due to rotting, insect \nInfestation, pole burning and breaking. No document was availed to ascertain \nthat quality control procedures were followed. Furthermore, no effort was \nrecognized from REA that the defective wooden poles are claimed back from \nthe respective pole suppliers. \n \nI have made the following recommendations to the Accounting Officer of Ministry of", "metadata": {"page": 224, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) which has now inherited the functions of \nthe Rural Electrification Agency (REA) under which the GRID power projects were \nimplemented and recommended that; \n \n\uf0fc The outstanding amounts owed to contractor\u2019s firms are paid for works that \nare completed and verified to avoid incurring penalties on delayed payments \n \n\uf0fc To continuously address Environmental and social issues in contracts and their \nimplementation and ensure that all contracts for implementation of GRID power \nprojects make it mandatory for the implementation firms to prepare \nenvironmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) reports in addition to \nresultant Environmental Management Plans (EMP) and Resettlement Action \nManagement Plans (RAMPs). \n \n\uf0fc Expedite the process of compensating all PAPs taking into consideration the \ntime lag for the delayed payment (9 years since existing assessment was \nconducted) accordingly, Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) studies should be \nconducted based on the final designs, where changes are deemed inevitable in", "metadata": {"page": 224, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the optimal design, such changes should be communicated such that \nrevaluations of new PAPs are conducted. \n \n\uf0fc Establish causes of failing wooden poles even after quality tests have been \nundertaken. The option to use Concrete Poles can also be considered especially \ngiven that the quality control during manufacture for concrete poles can easily", "metadata": {"page": 224, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "209 \n \nbe monitored and controlled unlike wooden poles whose quality is determined \nby many factors from the time they are planted, harvested, treated at the \nfactory, and eventually transported to site. \n \n\uf0fc MEMD strengthens project management, monitoring and supervision \narrangements for GRID power projects to ensure that all GRID projects are \nimplemented within project time lines, indicated in the approved activity work \nprograms and contracts. \n \n\uf0fc For Power schemes implemented through concession operators, MEMD ensures \nthat: \n \no \nThe licensed firms operating under concession agreements undertake \neffective operation and maintenance activities in respect of replacing all \nnon-function GRID equipment as blown fuses, surge arrestors, replacing \nbroken poles, faulty transformers to keep the power lines functional \no \nMEMD closely monitors and supervises the licensees to establish that they \ncomply with the license terms and conditions and fulfil the objective of", "metadata": {"page": 225, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "increasing access to electricity. \n \n4.3.8. A value for money audit report on management of senior citizens grant by \nthe expanding social protection programme under the Ministry of Gender, \nLabour and Social Development \n \nThe Government of Uganda through the Ministry of Gender Labour and Social \nDevelopment (MoGLSD) in partnership with the British Department for International \nDevelopment (DFID) and Irish Aid is implementing the Expanding Social Protection \nProgramme (ESPP) whose aim is to provide cash transfers to the poorest and most \nvulnerable people in Uganda. \nSocial Protection is recognized world over as a critical element of national development \nstrategies. The Uganda Vision 2040 envisages a social protection system that includes \na universal pension for older persons. In addition, the National Development Plan \n2020/21 \u2013 2024/25 highlights social protection as a key strategy for transforming \nUganda to a modern and prosperous middle-income country.", "metadata": {"page": 225, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "In 2021, Uganda\u2019s projected total population was 42,885,900 persons out of which, \nthe proportion of older persons (>60yrs) was 1,715,436 (4%). About 32% (548,940) \nof all older persons are reported not working and not looking for work. \nOver the 4-year period from financial year 2018/2019 to 2021/22, Government with \nthe support from Developing Partners spent UGX.423.68Bn (Government; \nUGX.274.64Bn and support from Development Partners; UGX.148.68Bn) on the \nimplementation of the senior citizen\u2019s grant. \nDespite the significant amount spent on the SAGE programme, a number of challenges \ncontinue to affect the delivery of the programme objectives. These include: low \nnumbers of participation by the elderly, delayed payment of grants to the elderly, \ndelayed verification and registration of the elderly and delayed enrolment of the older \npersons, among others.", "metadata": {"page": 225, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "210 \n \nIt is against this background that the I undertook a Performance audit on the \nmanagement of the Social Assistance Grant for Empowerment (SAGE). The following \nkey findings and recommendations were noted; \n\uf0b7 \nThe programme achieved key success in some areas, whereby all 146 districts \nin the country were brought on board in the financial year 2019/2020, resulting \nfrom the government commitment made in November, 2018. \n \n\uf0b7 \nBy 20th December 2022, 439,131 older persons (262,448 females and 176,673 \nmale) had been paid, of which 128,016 were registered in the national rollout \nprogramme. \n \n\uf0b7 \nFurthermore, the Grant had helped beneficiaries to sustain their livelihoods and \naccess basic needs of life. The bulk of the beneficiaries indicated that they used \nthe Grant to buy food (88.9%), medical care (57.8%), hygiene and livestock,", "metadata": {"page": 226, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "both at (27%). \n \n\uf0b7 \nFor the period under review, out of the 285,778 targeted beneficiaries only \n226,195 beneficiaries were verified by PMU, leaving 59,583 beneficiaries \nunverified due to lack of national IDs and having errors in their birth dates. \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 226,195 beneficiaries verified in the three years under review only \n159,282 were registered by PMU leaving 66,913 unregistered. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 212,711 verified and registered beneficiaries, 4,623 eligible persons of \n80 years and above had neither been enrolled nor issued account numbers by \nthe payment service provider. Whereas the PSP was required to communicate \nto MoGLSD reasons for delays in enrolment of the registered beneficiaries, this \nwas not done, contrary to the service level agreement. \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 226, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \n9,799 beneficiaries (2,297 persons without National Identity Cards, 2,836 \npersons with NINs and 4,666 infirm beneficiaries) who were originally with Post \nBank Uganda Limited had not been enrolled with CERUDEB \n \n\uf0b7 \nComparison of SAGE MIS data with CERUDEB beneficiary data revealed that \nseven thousand three hundred eighty-four (7,384) out of thirty-two thousand \none hundred thirty four (32,134) alternative recipients were registered in SAGE \nMIS but missing in the CERUDEB data. Similarly, inspection of pay points \nrevealed that the PSP\u2019s payment system/software used in the field to make \npayments does not recognize alternative recipients. \n \n\uf0b7 \nBeneficiaries were paid quarterly while some would receive their grants after \nsix months contrary to the bi-monthly payments provided for in the \nimplementation guidelines. \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 226, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of 10 RTSUs, Mbarara RTSU had 4,904 beneficiaries who were issued bank \naccounts in the period between November 2021 and March 2022 but had not \nreceived cash on their accounts at the time of audit in October, 2022. \n \n\uf0b7 \nIn all the 10 districts visited, it was noted that payrolls were not used for roll \ncalling during payment contrary to SCG implementation guidelines, 2019 which \nrequire payrolls to be used for confirming beneficiaries due for payment,", "metadata": {"page": 226, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "211 \n \namounts credited on their accounts for a given payment cycle and as calling \nlists at the pay point. \n \n\uf0b7 \nInformation of both active and inactive bank accounts provided by the PSP \nrevealed 3,344 inactive bank accounts as at October 2022 with bank balances \ntotalling to UGX.740Mn \n \nI have made the following recommendations: \n \n\uf0fc MoGLSD should liaise with NIRA to ensure that all potential beneficiaries get \nNational IDs which is a requirement for them to be targeted. \n \n\uf0fc PMU through RTSUs should ensure that verification plans are availed to the \n \ndistricts timely for proper organisation of the verification exercise. \n \n\uf0fc PMU should ensure adequate training of district local government stakeholders \nis carried out to enable proper mobilisation during verification. \n \n\uf0fc PMU should develop guidelines on verification of relocated beneficiaries.", "metadata": {"page": 227, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0fc The PMU is advised to prioritize stakeholder trainings and sensitization so as \nto impact knowledge and skills on how to mobilize potential beneficiaries. \n \n\uf0fc PMU should consider adjusting the 10Km radius by identifying the accessible \nservice centres/points within the reach of the beneficiaries in consultation with \nthe Payment Service Provider, respective Local Governments and the older \nperson\u2019s councils. \n \n\uf0fc The PMU should enforce the penalty provided in the service level agreement \nfor delays in beneficiary account opening. \n \n\uf0fc The PMU should ensure that the PSP uses proper electronic gadgets for \ncapturing the beneficiary bio-data including capture of photos and \nsynchronization of the data. \n \n\uf0fc PMU should liaise with NIRA to ensure that all previous Post Bank beneficiaries \nwho are not enrolled with CERUDEB due to lack of national IDs are supported \nto obtain them.", "metadata": {"page": 227, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "to obtain them. \n \n\uf0fc Management should consider amending the implementation guidelines to \nprovide for quarterly payments so that it\u2019s in tandem with what is currently \nbeing done. \n \n\uf0fc PMU should always ensure that the PSP shares updated new accounts for all \nthe beneficiaries for incorporation into the payroll to ensure that they do not \nmiss payments in the subsequent payment cycle. \n \n\uf0fc PMU should consider reconciliation of its data with the bank to ascertain the \nbank accounts which have been opened to guide the generation of payrolls. \n \n\uf0fc PMU should ensure that focal points at the pay points access the payrolls on \ntime in order to guide the beneficiaries about their expected benefits.", "metadata": {"page": 227, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "212 \n \n \n\uf0fc PMU through the local structures should ensure that all deaths that occur \nbefore the payments cycles are reported and updated. \n \n\uf0fc PMU through the local government structures should ensure that in case of \nreported death, the next of kin is supported to claim the funds in a timely \nmanner \n \nConclusion \n \nThe program did not target all the eligible elderly persons above 80 years due to \namong others lack of national IDs or errors in the National IDs resulting in so many \nSenior citizens missing out from the benefits of the program. The program to a large \nextent verified and registered most of the targeted beneficiaries; however, more \nstrategies need to be put in place to ensure 100% verification and registration of the \ntargeted groups. There were notable challenges with the enrolment of the beneficiaries \ndue to lack of national IDs and inefficiencies with the bank electronic gadgets that", "metadata": {"page": 228, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were impeding the registration of some beneficiaries. There were also challenges of \ndata migration from Post bank to CERUDEB and lack of national IDs by alternative \nrecipients and delays in sharing of bank accounts by the PSP with PMU among others \naffecting payment of the beneficiaries. \n \nDespite the strategies Government has put in place to ensure sustainability of the SCG \nprogram, there is need for Government to demonstrate its commitment by clearing \nthe accumulated arrears owed to the senior citizens. The government also needs to \nstrengthen its systems in terms of creating awareness and building capacity of the \nLocal governments so that they can take ownership of the program. \n4.3.9. A value for money audit draft report on the management of electricity \nconnections under rural electrification programme (MEMD) \n \nThe Government of Uganda established the Electricity Connections Policy (ECP) 2018 \n\u20102027 with the primary objective of increasing electricity access and providing clean", "metadata": {"page": 228, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "energy for Ugandans. The ECP is implemented under government\u2019s Rural Electrification \nProgramme (REP) in line with the Rural Electrification Strategy and Plan (RESP II) \n2013-2022. The goal of the programme is to achieve 26% rural access target by 2022 \nand 60% level of access to electricity for Uganda by 2027. \nThe UN\u2019s Sustainable Development Goal number 7 has a target to ensure universal \naccess to affordable, reliable and modern energy services by 2030. Uganda\u2019s National \nDevelopment Plan III also requires achievement of electricity national coverage rate \nof 35% by 2022 and 60% by 2027 in line with the SDGs. \nThe Government of Uganda has committed significant funding over the past 3 years \nto the Rural Electrification Programme amounting to UGX.61billion to remedy the \nelectricity access challenges. In addition, development partners have extended \nUSD.34.5million and Euros 27.9million to the programme. \nThe Programme has faced a number of challenges which include; delays in distribution \nof ready boards, connections outside the ECP eligibility criteria, low consumer \nconnections compared to planned targets, among others.", "metadata": {"page": 228, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "213 \n \nIt\u2019s against this background that I conducted a Value for Money Audit on the \nmanagement of the connections under the REP as these are instrumental in improving \nthe electricity access and the attainment of social-economic transformation of the \ncountry. \nThe following key findings and recommendations were noted; \n\uf0b7 \nAnalysis of UMEME\u2019s connections under the ECP programme revealed that the \naverage connections made during the years under review had improved \nsignificantly from 825 per day in 2018 to 1,200 per day in 2020 (just before \nCOVID Period) representing an increment of 45%. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe verification exercise revealed that approximately 40% of the households \nvisited were using power for commercial purposes such as welding, salons, \nretail shops; grinding maize, among others while, 60% of the households used \npower for domestic consumption such as lighting, viewing television, among", "metadata": {"page": 229, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "others. This has improved the socio-economic status of the society. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThrough interview and document review of the work plans submitted to Rural \nElectrification Programme (REP), Service Providers (SPs) projected to connect \nonly 567,121 households in the target years whereas the Rural Electrification \nProgramme under the ECP had a planned target of 900,000 connections. This \nimplies that the submitted plans were below the programme target by 332,879, \nwhich is 37% short of the ECP targets indicated above. \n\uf0b7 \nFurther analysis of the achievements of target connections using the ECP \ndatabase revealed that the service providers made a total of only 252,491 \n(includes unverified figures by IVA) connections in the three years under \nreview, representing 45% of the projected total targets of 567,121 by SPs. This \nwould, however, represent 28% of the Programme target over the 3 years \nunder review. \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 229, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nIn the period under review, Government planned to spend a sum of \nUGX.123.3Bn, but it only released UGX.61.0Bn, thus representing a budget \nperformance of only 49%. This affected the attainment of the Programme \ntargeted connections. Further analysis indicated under absorption of the \nreleased funds whereby only UGX.51.5 billion was utilized indicating utilization \nlevel of only 84% of government funds. \n \n\uf0b7 \nUtilization of donor funding was equally very low whereby out of total available \nfunds of USD.34.5Mn from WB-IDA and AfDB, only USD.22.9Mn (66%) was \nutilized. Similarly, out of EUR.20.7Mn available from KfW, GIZ, AFD, and AfDB, \nonly EUR.19.2Mn (69%) was utilized. This constitutes an average utilization to \n67.5% over the period under review.", "metadata": {"page": 229, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted challenges in procurement management whereby instances of delivery \nof incomplete sets of connection materials were noted; delayed procurements \nwith an average delay of; excessive procurement of certain connection \nmaterials; stock outs on some materials; and unutilized materials in the stores. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted instances of uncoordinated consumer awareness activities by \nstakeholders in an effort to market and mobilize for increased consumer \nconnections. Service Providers solely carried out consumer awareness through \noutreach programs, radio and TV talk shows without the involvement of", "metadata": {"page": 229, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "214 \n \nProgramme management. As a result, the envisaged awareness objective of \nthe ECP was not achieved and consumers fell victim of unscrupulous wiremen \nwho ended up charging them for connections which were supposed to be free \nor overpaying on some subsidized services of the programme. \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of a sample of 19 (30%) out of 61 verification reports submitted by \nthe connections department relating to 5 SPs revealed that none were \nsubmitted on time. There was a delay in verifications by an average of 5.75 \nmonths (23 weeks) contrary to the minimum requirement of 3 months. The \nlongest average delay of 9.75 months (39 weeks) was noted in verifying \nWENRECO\u2019s connections. \n \nI have made the following recommendations \n\uf0fc Programme management should review the Programme requirements to \nascertain whether the envisaged programme resources can still meet the", "metadata": {"page": 230, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "programme objectives and engage relevant stakeholder to ensure that the \nrequired resources are provided. \n\uf0fc MEMD should ensure that the Service Providers that undertake Programme \nimplementation submit all the required plans which should be reviewed and \napproved by the Programme management; this will further facilitate \nprogramme monitoring and enable development of corrective measures in a \ntimely manner. \n\uf0fc Programme management should review the SPs connection targets to ensure \nthat they are aligned to the Programme targets, and strategies should be \ndeveloped for the attainment of those targets. \n\uf0fc Government should prioritize funding of the Programme as planned and \nenvisaged in the Electricity Connections Policy. The Government commitment \nshould be followed through in the annual budgets of the Ministry of Energy and \nMinerals development. \n\uf0fc MEMD and Programme management should ensure donors funds are utilized \nin accordance with the agreed covenants in the funds agreements, and should \niron out all bottlenecks that lead to low absorption of donor funding. \n\uf0fc Programme Management is advised to design detailed material specification", "metadata": {"page": 230, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "requirements during the initiation stage and engage to a sufficient level the \nutility companies/ Service Providers as they are the final users of the procured \nmaterials to reduce the procurement lead time and rejections. \n\uf0fc Programme Management should consider retooling contract managers to \nensure that critical procurement phases are adequately managed to avoid \nunnecessary procurement bottlenecks. \n\uf0fc Programme management should take a comprehensive review of all connection \nmaterials in the stores to ascertain their usability and take corrective actions. \n\uf0fc Programme Management should have developed and implement strategies that \nwill ensure coordination, implementation and Monitoring of activities for the \ncoordinated Marketing and Mobilisation of connections to create public", "metadata": {"page": 230, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "215 \n \nawareness, for the achievement of the objectives of the Programme as \nenvisaged in the ECP. \nConclusion \n \nThe status of progress under the ECP programme indicated significant improvements \nin average connections made during the years 2018 to 2020, with a number of \nhouseholds using electricity for commercial purposes and domestic consumption. That \nnotwithstanding, the ECP has been faced with a number challenges in the \nimplementation of key activities fundamental to the achievement of Programme \nobjectives. Notably, there was failure to meet the target electricity connections due to \ninadequate planning for connections, non-submission of work plans and inadequate \nfunding. Additionally, there were inadequacies in the procurement and contract \nmanagement processes, inadequate marketing and consumer awareness, delays in \nthe verification and subsidy re-imbursements and inadequate reporting. \nThe Government has secured World Bank funding under the Electricity Access Scale \nUp Project which is expected to bridge the financing gap experienced under the ECP,", "metadata": {"page": 231, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and result into more electricity connections. \n \n4.3.10. Value for Money Audit on Preparedness by OPM to respond to disasters \n \nDisaster risk is increasingly of global concern and its impact and actions in one region \ncan have an impact on another with Uganda being no exception. The entity mandated \nto handle disasters in Uganda is Office or the Prime Minister and the Local \nGovernments. \nArising from this background, I conducted a performance study to assess whether the \nOffice of the Prime Minister was adequately prepared to respond to disasters. \nThe following observations were noted from the study; \n\uf0b7 \nOPM had challenges in early detection and response to disaster warnings. Some of \nthe disasters were detected early but very little was done to adequately prepare \nfor them. In other cases, disasters happened without early detection. It was \nobserved that comprehensive and routine risk profiling and mapping of the \ndisaster-prone areas was still a challenge and this was worsened by the absence", "metadata": {"page": 231, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of functional and reliable early warning systems. \n\uf0b7 \nThe immediate response to disasters by OPM was not timely and usually \nuncoordinated. This was because the Disaster Management Committees were not \nfully functional at the districts, sub county and village level which were the closest \nstructures for response. In addition, it was observed that there were weaknesses \nin the existing coordination arrangements between OPM and other players. \n\uf0b7 \nOPM faced challenges in search and rescue in the event of the occurrence of \ndisaster incidents. Property and sometimes lives were lost or remained un-\nrecovered after incidents of disasters. This was attributed to the lack of rescue \nequipment and inadequately trained response teams. \n\uf0b7 \nOPM had challenges in post disaster handling and resettlement due to inadequate \nplanning for post disaster resettlement. In addition, the procurement of land for", "metadata": {"page": 231, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "216 \n \nresettlement of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) remained one of the unfunded \npriorities in the Department\u2019s work plan. \n\uf0b7 \nGaps were noted in the existing legal framework as evidenced by absence of the \nNational Disaster Preparedness and Management Act and Standard Operating \nProcedures for management of disasters. This activity was not prioritized by \nmanagement. \nConclusion \nIn order to address the challenges identified, OPM should prioritize risk profiling and \nmapping, operationalize the Disaster Risk Management plan which provides for funding \nfor disaster management, recruitment of personnel, develop strategies on ensuring \nthat there are functional early warning systems especially in the disaster-prone \ndistricts, develop a maintenance plan for the existing equipment as well as enhance \ncoordination with other stakeholders. \n4.3.11. Value for Money Audit on Management of Revenue by KCCA \n \nArticle 152 of the Constitution mandates Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) to levy,", "metadata": {"page": 232, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "charge, collect and appropriate fees and taxes. \nI undertook an audit to assess the performance of the Authority in regard to revenue \nmanagement and below are a summary of my observations; \n\uf0b7 \nThe revenue targets used by the Authority were not reflective of the actual capacity \nof the Authority to mobilise revenue. The Authority uses revenue budgets set by \nMoFPED which are usually lower than the Authority\u2019s internally generated targets. \nThis hinders the authority from achieving its revenue collection potential. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority performed below the set revenue targets for all the sampled revenue \nsources. Performance of the various sources was below the set targets with \nshortfalls ranging between 4% and 17% of the target. The underperformance was \nattributed to understaffing at the revenue directorate, insufficient transport \nresources for revenue mobilization, and gaps within the existing legal framework. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority\u2019s revenue arrears have continued to increase over the years. The", "metadata": {"page": 232, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "arrears increased by 86% in the Financial Years 2018/2019 and 82% between FY \n2019/2020 to FY 2021/2022. I noted that the annual recovery targets set by the \nAuthority were low compared to the receivables and even the low targets were not \nmet. \n \nI advised the Accounting Officer to ensure that realistic revenue targets are set to \nrealise the Authority\u2019s potential to collect revenue. In addition, the Directorate of \nrevenue collection should be facilitated to enhance its capacity to mobilise and collect \nthe planned revenue. The Authority should develop a comprehensive strategy to \nrecover all receivables. \n4.3.12. Value for Money Audit on Implementation of development Plans by MDAs \nand LGs \n \nPlanning is a decentralized function meaning it is undertaken by either the MDA or the \nLG with guidance from the National Planning Authority. Planning units are part of the \nstructures in MDAs and LGs and they manage the planning process i.e. preparation of", "metadata": {"page": 232, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "217 \n \nplans, monitoring of activities and conducting of performance evaluations of \nimplemented activities in respective entities. \nThis study assessed whether Planning Units had prepared and monitored the \nimplementation of approved development plans. \nBelow are some of the highlights of the study; \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 111 MDAs out of the 145 MDAs representing 77% had their \ndevelopment plans approved as aligned to NDP III. A total of 83 out of the 176 \nLGs representing 47% had their development plans approved as aligned to NDP \nIII. The failure to have development plans that are aligned to the NDP III was \nattributed to late approval of the NDP-III and late trainings for planners on how to \nprepare well aligned plans. Failure to have well aligned plans will affect the \nachievement of the NDP-III objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nPlanning units do not undertake consultations with stakeholders during the process \nof preparing development plans. The only engagements that are close to the", "metadata": {"page": 233, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "consultations envisioned in the regulations are the budget conferences that are \nconducted in the year preceding the preparation of the development plans. In the \ncase of MDAs, investments priorities were determined based on aspirations of top \nmanagement. This was attributed to lack of clarity by the planners on the \nrequirement to undertake detailed consultations at the time of preparing \ndevelopment plans. This resulted into failure to prioritize citizen needs. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were challenges in aligning entity annual plans to the approved development \nplans. A sample of ninety (90) activities randomly selected from the annual plans \nof the sampled entities were traced to the approved development plans and it was \nobserved that only thirty-three (33) activities representing 37% of the total \npopulation sampled could be traced back to the approved development plans. The \nmisalignment of the annual budgets and development plans negates the purpose \nof preparing development budgets since annual priorities are not set from these \ndevelopment plans. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 233, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "development plans. \n\uf0b7 \nThe study noted that the current monitoring undertaken by the planning entities \nwas un-satisfactory. The monitoring focuses usually on a few capital projects being \nimplemented by the entities and is not regularly and consistently undertaken. In \naddition, none of the entities had clearly defined monitoring plans and none had \nundertaken performance evaluations of prior and current development plans. This \nwas attributed to; \no Lack of M&E officers \no Failure to train Planners well for M&E activities \no Lack of comprehensive baseline and performance data to support M& E \nfunctions \no Lack of clear performance indicators and service delivery standards \n \nIn order to address the gaps identified, NPA should ensure that the NDPs are approved \nin time, undertake training and capacity building of planners to prepare well aligned \nplans. NPA should engage MoFPED to ensure that annual plans are aligned to the \napproved development plans.", "metadata": {"page": 233, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "approved development plans. \nFurthermore, Accounting Officers should strengthen the M&E function. There is a need \nto put in place comprehensive systems to establish baselines, data collection and \nperformance.", "metadata": {"page": 233, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "218 \n \n4.3.13. Value for Money Audit on Production of Agricultural Statistics by Ministry of \nAgriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) \n \nAgriculture is a key driver of Uganda\u2019s economy accounting for over 80% of \nemployment, half (50%) of all exports, and one-quarter (25%) of Gross Domestic \nProduct (GDP). The sector, therefore, requires timely, reliable, and good statistics to \nenable effective planning, monitoring and evaluation as well as investment, and \nreporting of business activities. To achieve this, the Ministry of Agriculture Animal \nIndustry and Fisheries (MAAIF) launched the Agricultural Sector Data Centre and \nNational Food and Agricultural Statistics System (NFASS) in 2015 to harmonise the \nproduction of agricultural statistics in Uganda. The System aimed to ensure that data \nrelated to the agricultural sector is accurate, timely, consistent, disaggregated and \naccessible to facilitate planning and decision-making in MAAIF, other Ministries,", "metadata": {"page": 234, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Departments and Agencies, and Local Governments as well as facilitating private sector \ninvestment decisions. \nThis audit sought to assess whether Agricultural Statistics produced by MAAIF through \nthe National Food and Agricultural Statistics System (NFASS) are Relevant, Accurate, \nReliable, Timely and Accessible for proper planning, decision making and policy \nformulation. Below are key findings and conclusions. \n \ni. \nStatus of Implementation of the National Food and Agricultural Statistics \nSystem (NFASS) Project \n \na) \nComponent 1: National Agricultural Data Centre \n \nUnderutilized data Centre: It was noted that the data centre was not being \nutilized in the processing and analysis of data from MDAs, LGs, and MAAIF \ndepartments on a day-to-day basis as envisaged at project inception despite \nbeing fully equipped. The Ministry, therefore, did not produce any monthly or \nseasonal statistical products for the duration of operation of the data centre,", "metadata": {"page": 234, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "that is, 2015/16 to 2021/22. \n \nNon-functional TEEAL library: The TEEAL Library was not functional and \ncould not be accessed by potential users. This was attributed to the expiry of \nthe software license which the Ministry had not renewed following its initial \npurchase. Whereas the TEEAL library which was run by Cornell University was \ndiscontinued in 2018, MAAIF did not seek alternative agricultural libraries to \nsupport agricultural research and access to statistical resources. This deprives \nusers of vital information that could be utilized for research, planning, and \ndecision-making. \n \nDigital linkages not established to the Data Sources: Interviews with \nstaff from the departments of Fisheries, Crop and Livestock revealed that most \nof the administrative data collected is still paper-based and not digitized into \ncomprehensive data sources. \n \nb) \nComponent 2: Institutional Data Module", "metadata": {"page": 234, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Communication linkages between staff at the data centre and MDA\u2019s: \nI noted that, following the closure of the project in FY 2019/20, and the expiry \nof NFASS Project staff contracts, MAAIF had not designated specific staff", "metadata": {"page": 234, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "219 \n \nmembers to the data centre and as such the data centre had remained idle \nover the period 2020/21-2021/22. \n \nData and information transfer protocols: Through system inspection and \ninterviews, it was noted that the Agricultural Statistics Division failed to \nestablish data and information transfer protocols which limited the flow of data \nbetween the various institutions and the data centre. It was attributed to the \ninadequate coordination between MAAIF and the respective MDA\u2019s. \n \nc) \nComponent 3: Routine Agricultural Administrative Data Reporting System \n(RAADRS) \n \nIt was noted that the Division had conducted training of agricultural extension \nworkers in 24 out of the 112 districts in the country as of FY 2017/18 citing \nlimited funding. However, the audit observed that UGX 1.95Bn of NFASS funds \nthat would have otherwise been used to train extension staff in all the districts", "metadata": {"page": 235, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were diverted to the Joint Agricultural Sector Annual Review (JASAR) between \n2016/17-2019/20. \nd) \nNFASS Pilot study \n \nData collection from the Sampled Farmers: A pilot study was undertaken \nwithout pre-testing the enterprise data collection tools. Additionally, it was \nnoted that, data collected with the enterprise tools in 2019/20 was uploaded to \nthe system (back end) however, at the time of the audit, the data was still in \nits raw form, not validated, and therefore not analysed. As a result, the Routine \ndata collection from farmers has not taken off. \n \nData quality on NFASS: It was noted that the data presented on the NFASS \nwebsite in form of graphs and figures lack attributes of good statistics \npresentation such as completeness, comprehensiveness, interpretability, \ncoherence and comparability. \n \nii.", "metadata": {"page": 235, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ii. \nAccuracy and Reliability of Agricultural Statistics Produced by the NFASS \n \na) \nValidation of source data, intermediate results and statistical \noutputs: The Audit noted that the statisticians at the Ministry had not \nmaintained an audit trail of any changes that were made to the data during the \ndata processing. Interviews with the DPOs further revealed that they were not \ninvolved in the validation of data because it was collected using CAPI and \nsubmitted directly to MAAIF. \n \nb) \nMeasure and systematically document sampling and non-sampling \nerrors: The Ministry piloted the enterprise tools in 5 districts; however, it did \nnot produce a report for the pilot highlighting the challenges identified and the \nsampling and non-sampling errors identified to guide in the rollout to other \ndistricts. Lack of quality control practices risks the credibility of the data \nproduced by the entire system. \n \niii.", "metadata": {"page": 235, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "iii. \nTimeliness of Agricultural Statistics Produced by the NFASS \n \nThe audit noted that, the statistics available on the NFASS website relate to data \ncollected during the farmer\u2019s registration exercise conducted in 2018. Although, MAAIF", "metadata": {"page": 235, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "220 \n \nsubsequently piloted the data collection tools in 5 districts in 2019, the results of this \nexercise had not been published by the time of the audit. \n \nThe audit noted that the Agricultural Sector Statistics Committee (ASSC) held two (2) \ncoordination meetings, out of a possible Twelve (12). It was also noted that in FY \n2018/19, only three (3) of the seven (7) semi-autonomous agencies attended the \nmeetings, while in FY 2020/21, four (4) of the Seven (7) semi-autonomous agencies \nattended the meeting. \n \niv. \nTo ascertain whether the statistics produced and disseminated by the \nNFASS meet the current and/or emerging needs of stakeholders and users \nof agricultural statistics. \n \na) Stakeholder Consultation. The audit noted that key stakeholders like the \nfarmers under the Uganda National Farmers\u2019 Federation, Uganda Meteorological", "metadata": {"page": 236, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Authority, Uganda Revenue Authority, Bank of Uganda among others were not \nconsulted. \nb) Emerging needs of Stakeholders. Audit observed that the Ministry generated \nonly production data for 17 key commodities but excluded market and weather \ndata and analysis which is considered key information to support farm production \nand marketing. \n \nc) Dissemination of Agricultural Statistics \n \n\uf0b7 \nLack of an Agricultural Statistics Dissemination Strategy. The \nMAAIF MPS for FY 2015/16, stated as part of prior year achievements \n(2014/15), that a draft statistics dissemination strategy had been \ndeveloped. However, MAAIF did not avail the draft and/or the approved \nstatistics dissemination strategy for audit. As a result, there is no guidance \nprovided by the ministry to agencies producing agricultural statistics. \n \n\uf0b7 \nLimited dissemination mechanisms. I noted that MAAIF and sector \nagencies disseminate statistics through the MAAIF statistical abstract and", "metadata": {"page": 236, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "also through their respective websites for access by the different \nstakeholders. However, only 5 % of the people in rural areas and 21% of \nthe people in urban areas have access to the internet. In addition, only \n13% of persons aged 15 years and above were aware of any or some \nGovernment online services available irrespective of whether they had used \nthe internet or not. \n \nThe Audit recommended that MAAIF should; \n \n\uf0fc Expedite the linkages between institutional and departmental systems with the \ndata centre so as to ensure regular flow of data and consistent use of the data \ncentre. \n \n\uf0fc For future projects, management is advised to ensure comprehensive and \nextensive feasibility prior to project commencement, to ensure that all key \nstakeholders are on board. \n \n\uf0fc Spearhead the coordination activities within the established coordination \nmechanisms to ensure that the Ministry's agenda is prioritized at these fora. The", "metadata": {"page": 236, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "221 \n \nMinistry Should further prioritise committee meetings and ensure the attendance \nof all committee members. \n\uf0fc Develop data and information transfer protocol between databases of the key \nstakeholder institutions such as CDO, DDA, UCDA, NAGRI/DB, and NARO to the \nNFASS system \n \n\uf0fc Ensure that funds are allocated to activities that are aligned with their respective \noutcomes. \n \n\uf0fc Streamline the process of validation to allow for data validation at the districts by \nExtension workers and DPOs so that errors in the data can be identified and \naddressed as and when they arise. Prioritise assessments of data demand from \nfarmers and other key stakeholders to ensure that statistical products produced \nby MAAIF meet the existing and emerging demands of users. \n \n\uf0fc Finalise the statistics dissemination strategy so as to provide regularised and \nharmonised channels through which agricultural information is delivered to all key \nusers of agricultural statistics.", "metadata": {"page": 237, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "users of agricultural statistics. \n \nConclusion \n \nThe project which was established to set up the NFASS system did not meet all its \nobjectives. This is because the data centre which was established to enable the \nAgricultural Planning Department to become a central resource for quality and timely \nagricultural information had not been fully utilised since it was set up in 2015. \nFurthermore, the system had not been linked to other agricultural data-producing \nMDAs such as UCDA, CDO, DDA, NARO, and District Local Governments. As a result, \nMAAIF had not produced monthly, seasonal and annual agricultural statistical products \nsuch as Production data, Market data, weather/climate data, and soil quality maps in \ndifferent regions for the different commodities. MAAIF currently produces only one \nannual product, that is, the Statistical Abstract. The lack of timely, accurate and \nrelevant agricultural statistics deprives stakeholders of the information they need for \nproper planning and decision-making.", "metadata": {"page": 237, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4.3.14. Follow \nUp \nReport \non \nthe \nStatus \nof \nimplementation \nof \nAudit \nRecommendations on the Value for Money Audit on the Regulation of Labour \nExternalization by the Ministry of Gender Labour and Social Development \n \nIn December 2017, the Office of the Auditor General issued a report on the Regulation \nof Labour Externalization by the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development \n(MoGLSD) and submitted the report to Parliament. Key issues noted and \nrecommendations made in the said report related to sensitization and awareness on \nlabour externalization program, licensing of recruitment agencies, accreditation of \nForeign Principals, monitoring and supervision of recruitment agency activities, \ngrievance and complaints handling. \n \nThe Office of the Auditor General (OAG) decided to undertake a follow-up of the 2017", "metadata": {"page": 237, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "audit given that the extent to which the Ministry addressed the issues raised would \nhave a bearing on improvements in regulation of labour externalization in Uganda. \nFollowing that, recommendations were made with the goal of addressing any \noutstanding issues that had been identified.", "metadata": {"page": 237, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "222 \n \nThe previous audit covered three (3) financial years (FY) starting from 2014/15 to \n2016/17. The follow-up thus evaluated progress made by the Ministry of Gender, \nLabour and Social Development (MoGLSD) and roles played by other stakeholders such \nas the Ministry of Internal Affairs, parliamentary committee on Gender, Labour and \nSocial Development, Uganda Mission in United Arab Emirates, Criminal Investigation \nDepartment (CID), Interpol, Joint Intelligence Committee, Workers representatives, \nmigrant workers, Local Governments and the Labour recruitment companies/ \nagencies, in implementing audit recommendations from 2017 to-date. \n \n \n \n \nSummary \nof \nstatus \nof \nimplementation \nof \nAuditor \nGeneral\u2019s \nRecommendations of the Previous Audit Report and actions taken by \nMoGLSD", "metadata": {"page": 238, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "MoGLSD \n \nIt was noted that MoGLSD had made efforts to implement the Auditor General\u2019s \nrecommendations, resulting in improvements in oversight and regulation of Labour \nExternalization in Uganda. Out of the 15 key audit recommendations made in the AG\u2019s \nreport of 2017, \n \n\uf0b7 \n6 (40%) were fully implemented; \n\uf0b7 \n7 (47%) were partially implemented; and \n\uf0b7 \n2 (13%) of the recommendations were not implemented \n \nA summary of the status is presented in the Figure 1 below; \n \nFigure 4: Summarised status of implementation of audit recommendations \n \nSource: OAG analysis of MoGLSD responses and supporting documentation \nSpecifically, it was noted that following the 2017 audit that although MoGLSD \nmanagement had not implemented 2 audit recommendations; good progress had been \nregistered by MoGLSD in in oversight and regulation of Labour Externalization in", "metadata": {"page": 238, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda with 6 recommendations fully implemented and 7 partially implemented, the \nnoted key progress included the following; \nFully \nImplemented\n40%\nPartially \nImplmented\n47%\nNot Implemented\n13%", "metadata": {"page": 238, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "223 \n \n\uf0b7 \nRevised the Employment (Recruitment of Ugandan Migrant Workers Abroad) \nRegulations to make noncompliance penalties more severe; \n\uf0b7 \nAutomated processes for regulating labour externalisation to improve tracking and \ncompliance; and \n\uf0b7 \nBegun accreditation of foreign recruitment agencies that recruit Ugandan migrant \nworkers in order to protect the workers\u2019 welfare. \nThe table below presents the status of implementation of the recommendations of the \n2017 audit by MoGLSD: \nTable 76: Detailed status of implementation of OAG recommendations \nS/N \nAudit Recommendation \nStatus \nof \nImplementation \nAudit Comment on Resolving \nPrevious Condition/Problem \nby Actions of Management \nSensitisation and awareness on the externalization of labour program \n1 \nThe Ministry should make \na \ndeliberate \neffort \nto", "metadata": {"page": 239, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "effort \nto \nensure that planned and \nbudgeted awareness and \nsensitization activities for \nFY \n2017/18 \nare \nundertaken. This should \nbe done in the various \nlocal languages in the \ndifferent regions. \nPartially \nimplemented \nThere \nremain \ngaps \nin \nsensitisation \nand \nawareness. The current \nactivities are limited in \nfrequency and coverage. \n2 \nMoGLSD should train and \nsensitize the district labour \nofficers and use them as \nchannels \nfor \ncreating \npublic awareness in their \nlocalities through the free \nairtime \ngiven \nfor \ngovernment programmes \nat the local media stations. \nPartially", "metadata": {"page": 239, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Partially \nimplemented/on-\ngoing \nMore than half of the \ncountry's labour officers \nhave not received training \non labour externalisation. \n3 \nMoGLSD should fast track \nthe finalization of the \nreview process for The \nEmployment (Recruitment \nof \nUgandan \nMigrant \nWorkers \nAbroad) \nRegulations and also put in \nplace \nmechanisms \nfor \ndissemination \nof \nall \nstatutory \ninstruments \nrelating to Externalization \nof Labour. \nImplemented \nIt is now necessary to step \nup efforts to disseminate \nthe revised regulations. \nLicensing of recruitment agencies and accreditation of foreign principals \nLicensing of recruitment agencies \n \n4 \nMinistry should develop an \nMinistry should develop an \nefficient system to track \nImplemented \nThe External Employment \nManagement Information", "metadata": {"page": 239, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "224 \n \nS/N \nAudit Recommendation \nStatus \nof \nImplementation \nAudit Comment on Resolving \nPrevious Condition/Problem \nby Actions of Management \ncompliance with licensing \nrequirements \nand \nalso \nvalidity of licenses and \nbank \nguarantees. \nDevelopment of the online \ndocument \nprocessing \nsystem is a step in the \nright direction. \nSystem \nhas \nimproved \ntracking for compliance in \nlabour \nexternalisation \nprocesses. \n5 \nAs the guideline requires, \nthe Ministry should plan \nand budget for training of \napplicants \nfor \nlicensing \nwith the aim of enhancing \ntheir \ncapacity \nand", "metadata": {"page": 240, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "capacity \nand \nknowledge in managing \nthe operations of private \nrecruitment agencies. \nNot Implemented \nNo record for training of \napplicants prior to licencing \nprovided to the audit team. \n6 \nThe Ministry should revise \nthe \nexisting \nlaws \ngoverning \nLabour \nExternalization and make \nit more punitive to deter \nillegal \nrecruitment \nof \nUgandan migrant workers \nImplemented \nThe penalties for non-\ncompliance \nwere \nmade \nmore severe in the revised \nRegulations. \nAccreditation of foreign principals \n \n7 \nThe Ministry should only \napprove \nmanpower \nrequest from accredited \nforeign principals and also \nwork closely with the \nMinistry of Foreign Affairs", "metadata": {"page": 240, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ministry of Foreign Affairs \nand Uganda missions to \nverify, validate information \nprovided \nby \nforeign \nprincipals, and accredit the \nforeign principals in all \nlabour receiving countries \nfor all job categories \nImplemented \nManpower \nrequests \nby \nforeign \nrecruitment \nagencies \nare \ninitiated \nonline \nby \nregistered/ \naccredited \ncompanies. \nAlthough verifications by \nthe mission staff takes long \nto due non-availability of \nresources. \n Monitoring and supervision of recruitment agency activities \n8 \nReview \nthe \nstaff \nestablishment \nof \nthe \nExternal \nEmployment \nServices Unit and allocate \nadditional manpower and", "metadata": {"page": 240, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "additional manpower and \nother resources to enable \nit effectively \nundertake \nplanned activities. \nPartially \nImplemented \nCurrently \nthe \nUnit \nis \nsupported by contract staff \n(one year) under projects. \nThis is not sustainable. \n9 \nFast \ntrack \nthe \ndevelopment \nof \nthe \nImplemented \nThe \nmanagement \ninformation system in in", "metadata": {"page": 240, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "225 \n \nS/N \nAudit Recommendation \nStatus \nof \nImplementation \nAudit Comment on Resolving \nPrevious Condition/Problem \nby Actions of Management \nIntegrated \nManagement \nInformation \nSystem \nto \nfacilitate \nproper \nmonitoring. The system \nshould \nease \nthe \ncoordination and sharing \ninformation on migrant \nworkers \nwith \nforeign \nmissions \nto \nfacilitate \nmonitoring \nof \nworkers\u2019 \nwelfare. \nplace. However, there is \nneed \nto \nintegrate \nthis \nsystem \nwith \nother \nmigration \nsystems \nboth \nlocally and at the missions", "metadata": {"page": 241, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "locally and at the missions \nto strengthen monitoring. \n10 \nLiaise with Ministry of \nForeign \nAffairs \nand \nstrengthen the capacity of \nrespective \nmissions \nabroad \nin \nterms \nof \nmanpower \n(labour \nattaches) \nand \nfinancial \nresources \nto \nfacilitate \nmonitoring \nof \nworkers\u2019 \nwelfare. \nNot Implemented \nDeployment \nof \nlabour \nattach\u00e9s remains pending. \n11 \nEnsure that negotiations \ntake place for all labour \nreceiving countries and \nbilateral agreements for \nmigrant labour are signed \nand \nalso \nstart \naccreditation of foreign \nemployers to get their", "metadata": {"page": 241, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "employers to get their \ngoodwill in safeguarding \nwelfare \nof \nUgandan \nmigrant workers. \nPartially \nImplemented \nMoU \nsigned \nwith \nthe \ngovernment of UAE but the \nagreement \nto \noperationalise the MoU is \nyet to be signed (As at 30th \nNovember, 2022). \n12 \nEnforce penalties for non-\nadherence to the terms of \nlicensing. \nImplemented \nThere is evidence that the \nministry now takes action \non non-compliance. \n13 \nEmphasize and undertake \nroutine \nand \nspot \ninspections as required. \nPartially \nImplemented \nThe \nfrequency \nand \ncoverage of spot/ routine \ninspections remains low.", "metadata": {"page": 241, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "inspections remains low. \nGrievance and complaints handling \n14 \nFast \ntrack \nthe \nestablishment of officers \nresponsible for handling \ncomplaints both at the \nMinistry and in all labour \nreceiving countries. \nPartially \nImplemented \nThe \nministry \nhas \ndesignated \nofficers \n(though some temporary) \nto handle complaints, this \nneeds to be reciprocated in \nlabour receiving countries. \n15 \nSet up a tracking system \nthat \nmonitors \nthe \nrecording, \ncoding, \ninvestigation \nand \nPartially \nImplemented \nThe module for complaints \nmanagement is yet to be \nactivated on the External \nEmployment Management", "metadata": {"page": 241, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "226 \n \nS/N \nAudit Recommendation \nStatus \nof \nImplementation \nAudit Comment on Resolving \nPrevious Condition/Problem \nby Actions of Management \nresolution of all complaints \nraised by migrant workers. \nInformation \nSystem \n(EEMIS). \nSource: OAG analysis of MOGLSD responses and supporting documentation \n4.3.15. Follow-up Audit Report on the Status of Implementation of Audit \nRecommendations on the Value for Money Audit on the Management of \nWildlife Conservation by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) \n \nIn March 2011, the Office of the Auditor General issued a report on the Management \nof Wildlife Conservation by the Uganda Wildlife Authority and submitted the report to \nParliament. Key issues noted and recommendations made related to Research and \nMonitoring in Conservation Management, Conservation and Natural Resource \nManagement, Staff welfare and Re-introduction and introduction of extinct species", "metadata": {"page": 242, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "among others. \nThe Office of the Auditor General (OAG) decided to undertake a follow-up of the 2011 \naudit, aware that the extent to which the Authority addressed the identified \nperformance gaps would lead to better Management of Wildlife Conservation in \nUganda. \nThe previous audit covered three (3) financial years (FY) starting from 2008/2009 to \n2010/2011. This included selected conservation areas and focused on the \nmanagement of wildlife conservation by Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) with the aim \nof ascertaining whether UWA was managing conservation in protected areas, \nmaintaining park infrastructure and collaborating with other stakeholders in the \nconservation of wildlife for the benefit of the people of Uganda. The follow-up thus \nevaluated progress made in implementing audit recommendations from 2011 to-date. \nSummary of Status of Implementation of Auditor General\u2019s Findings and \nRecommendations of the Previous Audit Report and Actions taken by UWA \nIt was noted that UWA had made efforts to implement the Auditor General\u2019s", "metadata": {"page": 242, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "recommendations, resulting in improved Management of Wildlife Conservation in \nUganda. Out of the 24 key audit recommendations made in the Auditor General\u2019s \nreport of 2011, \n\uf0b7 \n13 (54%) were fully implemented; \n\uf0b7 \n8 (33%) were partially implemented while ; \n\uf0b7 \n3 (13%) were not implemented by UWA. \n \nA summary of the status is presented the Figure 1 below.", "metadata": {"page": 242, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "227 \n \nFigure 1: Summarised status of implementation of audit recommendations \n \nSource: OAG analysis of UWA responses and supporting documentation. \nSpecifically, it was noted that following the 2011 audit, although UWA management had \nnot implemented 3 (13%) audit recommendations; good progress had been registered \nby UWA in Management of Wildlife Conservation in Uganda with 13 (54%) \nrecommendations fully implemented and 8 (33%) partially implemented, the noted key \nprogress included the following; \n\uf0b7 \nThe Wildlife Policy 2014 has been reviewed and approved with the Wildlife Act \n2019 enacted and the Wildlife Research and Training Institute is now operational. \n\uf0b7 \nIntegration of IT systems such as Earth Ranger and SMART in Wildlife \nConservation Management \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ranger force is now well equipped with more than I set of complete uniforms. \n\uf0b7 \nUWA staff medical scheme has been reviewed and now All UWA staff have medical \ninsurance cover.", "metadata": {"page": 243, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "insurance cover. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Procurement process for goods, services and works have greatly imporved \nwith better compliance with the PPDA rules and regulations. \n\uf0b7 \nThe UWA Policy for Animal Translocation has been developed. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Rhino Specific strategy for reintroduction and management of Rhinos in \nUganda has been developed and is under implementation. \n\uf0b7 \nUWA has developed and is implementing strategies aimed at securing Protected \nAreas (PAs) through use of electric fences, collars to tag wildlife and ICT solutions \namong others and these have yielded positive results. \n\uf0b7 \nThe recruitment of key technical staff and strengthening of the capacity of Rangers \nin UWA Protected Areas (PAs) is a continuous activity \nTable below presents the status of implementation of the recommendations of the 2011 \naudit by UWA; \nFully \nImplemented\n54%\nPartially \nImplmented\n33%\nNot Implemented \n33%\nNot Implemented\n13%", "metadata": {"page": 243, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "228 \n \nTable 77: Detailed status of implementation of OAG recommendations \nSN \nAudit recommendation \nStatus \nof \nimplementation \nAudit comment on resolving \nprevious condition/problem by \nthe actions of uwa management \nResearch and monitoring \n \nData \nfor \nwildlife \nresources \nand \nbiodiversity \nmanagement \n \n1 \nUWA should prioritize her \npopulation \nsurvey \nand \necological \nmonitoring \nactivities through improved \nbudgeting \nand \nresource \nallocation mechanism. \nPartially \nImplemented \nUWA has undertaken many \nsurveys \nover \nthe \nyears \ndespite their limitations, thus", "metadata": {"page": 244, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "despite their limitations, thus \nhaving limited coverage. \n2 \nUWA should mobilize and \nencourage volunteers and \nstudents who are willing to \nconduct surveys into the \nactivities \nof \nwildlife \nmanagement. \nImplemented \nMany students are conducting \nresearch in the various PA \ndespite \ntheir \nlimited \nsupervision and incorporation \nof UWA research priorities in \ntheir research. \nWildlife Research for Conservation Management \n3 \nUWA should strengthen the \ncapacity of the Research \nand Monitoring unit so as to \nenable \nit \nadequately \nmonitor and promote its \nplanned research activities. \nPartially \nImplemented \nUWA \ndesignated \nresearch \nofficers in the various PA\u2019s \ndespite their lack of specific", "metadata": {"page": 244, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "despite their lack of specific \nPA \nresearch \nplans \nand \nmonitoring of various UWA \ninterventions. \n4 \nThe process of reviewing \nthe Wildlife Policy should be \nexpedited to enable the \ncreation \nof \nthe \nwildlife \nResearch \nand \nTraining \nInstitute. \n \nImplemented \nThe \nWildlife \npolicy \nwas \nreviewed and the Research \nInstitute is operational and \nsending research students to \nthe PA\u2019s. \nConservation and natural resource management \n5 \nUWA \nshould \nequip \nthe \nplanning unit to enable it to \ndevelop fire management \nplans and empower PAs for \ntheir implementation. \nPartially", "metadata": {"page": 244, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "their implementation. \nPartially \nImplemented \nPlanning Units have been \nequipped, fire management \nplans are prepared but are yet \nto be reviewed for their \neffectiveness \nand \norganizational learning. \n6 \nUWA should develop and \ndocument \nstandard \noperational procedures for \nstaffing, \ndeployment, \naccommodation, and food \nrations for law enforcement \nrangers. \nPartially \nImplemented \nStaff welfare has greatly \nimproved over the years \ndespite the challenges of fully \nimplementation across all the \nPA\u2019s. \n7 \nThe \nUWA \nmanagement \nshould provide a complete \nset of uniforms to its entire \nstaff in time. \nImplemented \nUniforms \nsituation \nhas", "metadata": {"page": 244, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "situation \nhas \nimproved since most rangers \nat least have 2 sets of \ncomplete uniforms. \n8 \nUWA should effectively plan \nfor \nits \nprocurement \nactivities, which should be \naccordingly implemented to \navoid \ndelays \nin \nthe \nprocurement process. \nImplemented \nProcurement process have \nimproved over the years.", "metadata": {"page": 244, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "229 \n \nSN \nAudit recommendation \nStatus \nof \nimplementation \nAudit comment on resolving \nprevious condition/problem by \nthe actions of uwa management \n9 \nUWA should review its staff \nmedical \nscheme \nand \nstrategies to ensure that all \nstaff \nbenefit, \nincluding \nrangers. \nImplemented \nMedical insurance is now \nbeing provided to all UWA \nstaff across all levels. \nRe-introduction of Extinct Species \n \n10 \nUWA should follow policies \nand guidelines for wildlife \nshipment, translocation and \nreintroduction and should \nbe actively involved in the \nimplementation of these \npolicies. \nImplemented \nPolices \nfor \nanimal", "metadata": {"page": 245, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "for \nanimal \ntranslocation \nhave \nbeen \ndeveloped and implemented \nacross the PA\u2019s and these \nhave proved to be very \neffective over the years. \n11 \nUWA should actively involve \nitself in the management of \nthe Rhino Fund Uganda as \nrequired by the signed \nmemorandum \nof \nunderstanding. \nPartially \nImplemented \nUWA is fully involved in the \nmanagement of ZZiwa rhino \nsanctuary despite the delays \nin signing a new MoU with the \nland owner. \n12 \nUWA should develop a \nRhino specific strategy for \nthe \nreintroduction \nand \nmanagement of the Rhinos \nin the country. \nImplemented \nRhino specific strategy was \ndeveloped \nand", "metadata": {"page": 245, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "developed \nand \nis \nbeing \nimplemented \nwith \nvery \npromising results for the \nnumbers of rhinos in Uganda. \nCommunity conservation revenue sharing scheme \n13 \nThe \nCommunity \nconservation unit of UWA \nshould \nguide \nthe \ncommunities neighbouring \nthe PAs on how to access \nand utilize their share of \nrevenue. \nPartially \nImplemented/Con\ntinuous \nRevenue sharing has greatly \nimproved despite Covid 19 \nchallenges. \n14 \nUWA should ensure prompt \ndisbursement of the share \nof revenue to communities. \nNot Implemented \nRevenues are not promptly \ndisbursed \nand \nthus \nthe \nproblem continues to exist", "metadata": {"page": 245, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "problem continues to exist \ndue to covid 19 challenges. \n15 \nUWA should expedite the \nprocess of the review of the \nrevenue sharing guidelines \nand \nthe \napproved \nguidelines \nshould \nbe \ncommunicated \nto \nbeneficiaries. \nPartially \nImplemented \nRevenue sharing guidelines \nhave been developed but are \nyet to be disseminated to the \nbeneficiary communities. \nMonitoring and Control of Problem Animals \n \n16 \nUWA \nshould \nconsider \nstrategies that will enable it \nto \nprotect \nall \nits \nPAs \nboundaries to curtail the \nmovement problem animals \noutside \ntheir \ngazetted \nareas.", "metadata": {"page": 245, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "gazetted \nareas. \nImplemented \nUWA continues to implement \nvarious strategies such as the \nelectric fence, use of collars \nand other ICT strategies and \nthese \nhave \nhad \npositive \nresults. \n17 \nUWA, in consultation with \nGovernment, \nshould \nNot Implemented \nUWA has not shown evidence \nfor \nengagement \nof", "metadata": {"page": 245, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "230 \n \nSN \nAudit recommendation \nStatus \nof \nimplementation \nAudit comment on resolving \nprevious condition/problem by \nthe actions of uwa management \nconsider \nstrategies \nfor \nfreeing the buffer zones of \nthe \ncommunities \nsurrounding the PA. \ngovernment to create buffer \nzones. \nChallenges \nwith \ncommunities continue exist. \n18 \nUWA should strengthen the \ncapacity \nof \nrangers \nto \nenable them to effectively \nmonitor and control the \nmovement \nof \nproblem \nanimals. \nImplemented/Con\ntinuous \nUWA rangers have received \ntraining in the management \nof problem animals. The Use", "metadata": {"page": 246, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of problem animals. The Use \nof ICT will greatly reduce the \nproblem animal incidences. \nMaintenance and rehabilitation of infrastructure within the PAs \n19 \nUWA should develop and \nimplement a maintenance \nplan for its infrastructure. \nThis will help in planning \nand \nscheduling \nits \nmaintenance activities. \n \nNot Implemented \nThe \nStrategic \nlong \nterm \nmaintainace plan has not \nbeen \ndeveloped \nthus \nmaninatance of infrastructure \ncontinues to be undertaken as \nfunds are available. \n20 \nThe management of UWA \nshould identify appropriate \nstaff \nto \nmanage \nits \ninfrastructure needs. \nImplemented \nUWA \nhas \nrecruited \nand", "metadata": {"page": 246, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "recruited \nand \ntrained personnel to manage \ninfrastructure in the PAs. \n21 \nUWA should prioritize the \nmaintenance of its road and \nwater equipment to enable \nit increase to its capacity \nto rehabilitate and maintain \nroads, trails, tracks and \nferries in the PAs. \n \nImplemented/cont\ninuous \nRoads in the National Parks \nhave improved over the years \ndue to the road equipment\u2019s \nand the recruited staff across \nthe PA\u2019s. \nProsecution of offenders \n22 \nUWA \nshould \nidentify, \nrecruit, train and gazette \nprosecutors for every CA as \nspecified in its strategic \nplan. \nPartially \nImplemented \nUWA \nidentified, \nrecruited, \ntrained,", "metadata": {"page": 246, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "recruited, \ntrained, \nand \ndesignated \nprosecutors for each PA, but \nthe number of offenders is \nrising due to the absence of a \nsystem to track down the \noffenders' financiers. \n23 \nThe legal unit should be \nstaffed \nadequately \nto \nmanage all UWA\u2019s legal \nmatters, \nincluding \nthe \nreview \nof \nthe \nexisting \nWildlife Act and drafting of \nthe \nregulations \nto \noperationalize the Act. \n \nImplemented \nNumerous cases have been \nprosecuted, and laws and \nother regulations have on \noccasion been reviewed. \n24 \nThe \nUWA \nManagement \nshould \nensure", "metadata": {"page": 246, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "should \nensure \nthat \nregulations \nto \noperationalize the Act are \ndeveloped and approved by \nthe relevant authorities. \n \nImplemented/Con\ntinuous \nThe regulations have been \noperationalized", "metadata": {"page": 246, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "231 \n \nSource: OAG analysis of UWA responses and supporting evidence \n4.3.16. Follow-Up \nReport \non \nthe \nStatus \nof \nImplementation \nof \nAudit \nRecommendations on the Value for Money Audit on the Regulation of the \nConstruction Sector by the Ministry of Works and Transport \n \nIn December 2015, the Office of the Auditor General issued a report on the Regulation \nof the Construction Sector by the Ministry of Works and Transport and submitted the \nreport to Parliament. Key issues noted and recommendations made in the said report \nrelated to Development of policies, laws and standards, Strengthening and Support to \nRegulatory and Professional Bodies, Dissemination of policies, laws and standards, \nResearch on Construction Materials, Monitoring of Compliance to Construction \nstandards and coordination of stakeholders among others. \nThe Office of the Auditor General (OAG) decided to undertake a follow-up of the 2015", "metadata": {"page": 247, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "audit given that the extent to which the Ministry addressed the issues raised would \nhave a bearing on improvements in enforcement of best practices in the construction \nindustry. Further, recommendations were then made with the aim of addressing \noutstanding issues noted. \nScope of the follow-up \nThe previous audit covered three (3) financial years (FY) starting from 2012/13 to \n2014/15. The follow-up thus evaluated progress made by Ministry of Works and \nTransport coordination with Key stakeholders in implementing audit recommendations \nfrom 2015 to-date. \nSummary of Auditor General\u2019s findings and recommendations of previous \naudit report and actions taken by Ministry of Works and Transport (MOWT) \nThe Ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT) had made efforts to implement the \nAuditor General\u2019s recommendations, resulting in improvements in oversight of the \nConstruction Sector in Uganda. Out of the 10 key audit recommendations made in the \nAG\u2019s report of 2015, \n\uf0b7 \n3 (30%) were fully implemented;", "metadata": {"page": 247, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \n4 (40%) were partially implemented and \n\uf0b7 \n3 (30%) of the recommendations were not implemented \n \nA summary of the status is presented in the Figure 1 below.", "metadata": {"page": 247, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "232 \n \nFigure V: Summary of status of implementation of audit recommendations \n \nSource: OAG analysis of MoWT responses and supporting documentation \nSpecifically noted was following the 2015 audit, although MoWT management had not \nimplemented 3 audit recommendations, good progress had been made by MOWT \ntowards Regulation of the Construction Sector by MoWT, with 3 recommendations fully \nimplemented and 4 partially implemented. The noted progress included the following; \n\uf0b7 \nThe Building Codes and Regulations were developed and have been \noperationalised since 2nd October 2018. \n\uf0b7 \nThe National Building Review Board was inaugurated on 2nd October, 2018 and \nthe Secretariat was established in March 2019. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry updated and developed policies, manuals, specifications and \nguidelines such as the Road Tolling Policy of 2017, Non-Motorised Transport \n(NMT) Design, Construction, and Operation Manual, Low Volume Sealed Roads", "metadata": {"page": 248, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Manual (2018) and Specifications, Roads Act (2019). The specifications for Roads \n& Bridges Works and Urban Roads Manual are under review. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry increased budgetary support to regulatory and professional bodies \nassociated with regulation of the Construction sector. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry filled regulatory gaps like the establishment of Construction Industry \nDevelopment Committee which has representation from all professional bodies. \n \nThe Table below presents, in detail, the recommendations of the 2015 audit, and the \nextent to which they have been implemented: \nTable 78: Recommendations of the 2015 audit \nS/N \nAudit recommendation \nStatus \nof \nimplementation \nas reported by \nmowt \nAudit \ncomment \non \nresolving \nprevious \ncondition/problem \nby \nactions of management \nMandate and Regulatory Framework for the construction industry \n1", "metadata": {"page": 248, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1 \nThe Ministry should refocus on its \ncore mandate to enable effective \nprovision of oversight in the \nConstruction Sector. \nNot \nImplemented \n \nNo \nFully Implemented\n30%\nPartially \nImplmented\n40%\nNot Implemented\n30%", "metadata": {"page": 248, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "233 \n \nS/N \nAudit recommendation \nStatus \nof \nimplementation \nas reported by \nmowt \nAudit \ncomment \non \nresolving \nprevious \ncondition/problem \nby \nactions of management \n2 \nThe \nMinistry \nshould \nprioritize \nfinalization of the UCICO bill. \nPartially \nImplemented \n No \n3 \nThe Ministry should endeavour to \nfinalize the development of the \nRegulations and the Building code \nas planned. \nImplemented \n \nWhereas, the building \nregulations and code \nwere developed, They \nwere \nnot \nwidely \ndisseminated. \n4", "metadata": {"page": 249, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4 \nIn addition, funding earmarked for \nsuch activities should be put to the \nintended purpose to enable the \nrealization of the planned outputs. \nNot \nimplemented \nNo \n5 \nThe Ministry should also prioritize \nthe review of the roads manuals, \nstandards and guidelines to take \ninto account the current road \ntraffic in the country. \nPartially \nImplemented \nWhereas \nsome \nmanuals have been \nreviewed, they have \nnot \nbeen \ndisseminated \n6 \nThe Ministry should ensure that \nstrengthening and support to the \nregulatory and professional bodies \nis prioritized as envisaged under \nthe policy. \n \n \n \n \nPartially \nImplemented \n No", "metadata": {"page": 249, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Implemented \n No \nDissemination of policies , laws, guidelines and standards \n7 \nThe \nMinistry \nshould \nalways \nprioritize the dissemination of the \nstandards \nand \ntraining \nof \nstakeholders and also ensure that \nfunds are utilized as intended to \ncreate \nawareness \non \nquality \naspects in the industry. \nBesides holding workshops and \nseminars, the Ministry should also \nstrive to strengthen its resource \ncentre so that relevant information \ncan be easily accessed. \n \nNot \nImplemented \n No \nResearch on Construction Materials \n8 \nThe \nMinistry \nshould \nalways \nendeavour to carry out research \nactivities as planned so as to \npromote use of new and improved", "metadata": {"page": 249, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "promote use of new and improved \ntechnologies such as usage of local \nconstruction materials. \n \nPartially \nImplemented \nPartially \nMonitoring of compliance to construction standards \n9 \nThe Ministry should always ensure \nthat funds received for monitoring \nactivities are utilized as planned. \nPartially \nImplemented \n Partially", "metadata": {"page": 249, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "234 \n \nS/N \nAudit recommendation \nStatus \nof \nimplementation \nas reported by \nmowt \nAudit \ncomment \non \nresolving \nprevious \ncondition/problem \nby \nactions of management \nThe Ministry should ensure that \nAnnual Performance Agreements \nare signed with UNRA and MoUs \nentered into with other Agencies \nlike KCCA, MoLG, Local and Urban \nCouncils \nto \nstreamline \ntheir \nrespective monitoring roles. \nA \nmechanism \nshould \nbe \nestablished to enable follow-up of \nrecommendations made in the \ntechnical compliance audit reports \n \nCoordination of stakeholders \n10 \nThe Ministry should put in place a", "metadata": {"page": 250, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Ministry should put in place a \nproper coordination mechanism \namong \ngovernment \nentities \nimplementing public works in order \nto \nharmonize \ntheir \ndifferent \nactivities and avoid duplication and \nresource wastage. In addition the \nMinistry \nshould \nexpedite \nthe \nenactment of the UCICO bill to \nenhance coordination amongst the \nkey government institutions and \nother stakeholders in the sector. \nNot \nImplemented \n No \nThe outstanding recommendations should also be addressed to enhance the regulation \nof the construction sector. \n4.3.17. Value for money audit report on management of piped water systems in \nrural areas of uganda by Ministry of Water and Environment \n \nAccess to safe drinking-water is essential to health, a basic human right, and is an", "metadata": {"page": 250, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "important health and development aspect at global, national, regional and local levels. \nAccess to water is described as availability of at least 20 liters of water per person per \nday within a radius of one kilometer of the user\u2019s dwelling. One of the strategic \nobjectives of the Ministry of Water and Environment (MoWE) is to increase water \nsupply coverage in the rural areas while ensuring equity by providing at least each \nvillage with one safe and clean water source, and where it is technically feasible with \npiped water options. \n \nThe Ministry of Water and Environment has implemented a number of piped water \nschemes targeting 70% of the people in rural areas to have access to safe water within \none kilometer (1000-meter) by the end of the financial year 2021/2022. However, \nactual access achieved was an average of 68.3% over the four years under review. \nOver the years, the Ministry noted several challenges affecting performance of rural \nwater piped water schemes including; delays in land acquisition, budget cuts, delayed", "metadata": {"page": 250, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "release of funds, vandalism of the water infrastructure, and the effects of Covid19 \nlockdown, among others. \n \nThe overall objective of the audit was to assess whether the Ministry of Water and \nEnvironment planned, implemented and undertook operations and maintenance of the", "metadata": {"page": 250, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "235 \n \nselected piped water schemes in rural areas in a timely and effective manner. The \naudit covered four financial years from 2018/19 to 2021/22 whereby 3 projects \ncovering 18 water schemes out 6 projects with 23 water schemes were assessed. \n \nBelow is a summary of key findings and recommendations. \n \nDuring the period under review of 2018/19 to 2021/2022, the Ministry of Water and \nEnvironment implemented a total of six projects with 23 piped water schemes. Of \nthese 23 schemes, 11 were completed while 12 were still ongoing. In addition, The \nMinistry\u2019s access to safe rural water stagnated at 68% for three out of the four years \nunder review ended 30th June 2022. The stagnation was attributed to the growing \npopulation and the inability to provide infrastructure to meet the growing water \ndemand. The following were noted; \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere was no evidence of review of the plans and feasibility studies before", "metadata": {"page": 251, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "commencement of construction works. Planning documents relating to the three \n(3) projects with eighteen (18) water schemes selected for audit were not availed \nto the audit team for review. \n \n\uf0b7 \nDespite the absence of the planning documents, indications of inadequate planning \nwere revealed through the review of implementation documentation. The \nsignificant variances in the actual and targeted number of beneficiaries, occasioned \nby the delayed plan approvals before actual implementation of the schemes, were \nnoted. This further indicated that there was no project re-appraisal undertaken by \nmanagement to validate the targets. As a result, there were variations in contract \nworks and contract prices amounting to UGX 14.358 billion. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere were delays in implementation of water supply schemes. Fourteen (77.7%) \nof the eighteen schemes were delayed and had extensions of up to four years. The \ndelay in implementation was attributed to the delays in commencement of", "metadata": {"page": 251, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "construction works by contractors of up to 5 months, delayed payment to \ncontractors for certified works by over four months, affecting their cash flows; \ninternal borrowing of project funds of up to UGX5.7 Billion to implement activities \noutside the approved work plans; and delays resulting from the restrictions under \nthe Covid19 Pandemic. Furthermore, the delays were a result of the delays in \nacquisition of project land, among others. The overall project delays have since \nresulted into increased interest costs charged by supervisors and contractors of up \nto UGX 3.2 billion. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere were inadequacies in regard to the monitoring and evaluation undertaken \nby the monitoring and evaluation unit at the Ministry of Water and Environment. \nThe M&E activities were not frequently undertaken, actual monitoring visits were \nnot undertaken as planned, and absence of contract management reports for \nmanagement decision making purposes. Consequently, the use of substandard \nmaterials/equipment to implement the piped water schemes by contractors were", "metadata": {"page": 251, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "not timely identified; and delays by the contractors to implement monitoring \nrecommendations and supervisory instructions were not followed. These affected \nthe overall quality of service delivered to the citizens and are likely hinder overall \nproject sustainability. \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe annual national average of the functionality of water supply systems averaged \nat 83.5% over the four years. Whereas this was a good measure of performance,", "metadata": {"page": 251, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "236 \n \nthe incidents of limited functionality on some water schemes were noted which \nresulted from inadequacies in the maintenance and repairs of the schemes, \noccasioned by limitations in revenue collection, inadequate actual water \nconnections in relation to the planned targets, vandalism of water system \ninfrastructure, and affordability of the water services by the communities, among \nothers. These challenges if not addressed are likely to hinder the sustainability of \nthe schemes and the overall failure by Government to attain the desired levels of \nquality water accessibility to the citizens in the rural areas. \n \nThe Ministry of Water and Environment should; \n \n\uf0fc Ensure that filing of planning and other related records is properly managed by \nconsidering going digital to enable easy accessibility to those records to foster \nassessment or project appraisals at any level when required. \n \n\uf0fc Ensure adequate reviews of projects plans or project re-appraisals are undertaken", "metadata": {"page": 252, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "before commencement of projects which take longer to commence following long \nlead times before accessing funding. In addition, payments to contractors should \nbe synchronized with planned cash flow releases for the schemes implementation. \n \n\uf0fc Assess the viability of the initial feasibility studies and project designs and make \ntimely revisions where necessary. This would reduce on the increased project costs \nresulting from delays and variations taking place during project implementation. \n \n\uf0fc Undertake adequate monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the water \nsupply schemes. In addition, preliminary project activities, such as; identification \nof sites, water quality and quantity of sources, compensation of project Affected \nPersons (PAPs), and acquisition of land, among others, should be undertaken prior \nto handover of construction sites to contractors. Furthermore, Accounting Officer \nshould ensure timely payment of contractors; implement activities according to \napproved budgets, and frequent discussion of monitoring and supervision reports \nto ensure snags are rectified in a timely manner.", "metadata": {"page": 252, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0fc Liaise with Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development to source for \nsufficient funds to monitor and supervise activities for increased functionality and \nsustainability of the water supply schemes. \n \n\uf0fc Routine and timely maintenance of piped water systems. In addition, security over \nthe water infrastructure should be enhanced to cub vandalism of the \ninfrastructure. \n \n\uf0fc Adequate staffing and facilitation of the Area Service Providers to support routine \nchecks to stop illegal connections, and conduct sensitization of communities. In \naddition, operational expenses of these organizations should be reviewed so as to \nreduce the cost of delivery of service to the public. \n \nConclusion \n \nWhereas the Ministry of Water and Environment has undertaken specific interventions \nto increase access to safe water by the rural population, through the Rural Water \nSupply and Sanitation department by up to 68%, inadequate planning, delays in \nconstruction and completion of schemes, inadequate monitoring and evaluation of", "metadata": {"page": 252, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "237 \n \nactivities, as well as inefficiencies in operations and maintenance of the rural water \nsupply schemes, have stagnated the performance of the programme. These have been \noccasioned by delays in land acquisition, vandalism of the water system infrastructure, \nlimitations in affordability of the service, inadequate monitoring and contract \nmanagement, among others. \n \nIt is hoped that with the appropriate stakeholder engagement, closer monitoring and \npolicy review, among others, the inadequacies in the rural water sub-sector will be \nreduced to enable the country benefit from effective and timely access to safe water.", "metadata": {"page": 253, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "238 \n \n5. PART 5: HIGHLIGHTS FROM TREASURY MEMORANDA AUDIT \n \nIn accordance with Section 13(f) of the National Audit Act 2008, I am required to undertake \naudit of the Treasury Memoranda. During the financial year, I undertook twenty-seven (27) \naudits of Treasury Memoranda. These included thirteen (13) MDAs for the financial year \n2019/2020, and Value for Money reports on audit of USMID in fourteen (14) Municipal \nCouncils for the Financial Year 2015/2016. \nOverall a total of 557 recommendations were made in the twenty-seven (27) Treasury \nMemoranda. I observed that, thirty-two percent (32%) of the recommendations were fully \nimplemented, fifteen percent (15%) partially implemented and fifty three percent (53%) not \nimplemented at all as summarized in the table and chart below; \nTable 79: Summary of treasury memoranda implementation status \nNo. of \nEntities", "metadata": {"page": 254, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "No. of \nEntities \nNo. of \nrecommendations \nissued in all \nTreasury \nMemoranda audits \nNo. and % of \nrecommendations \nimplemented \nNo. and % of \nrecommendations \npartially \nimplemented \nNo. and % of \nrecommendations \nnot implemented \n27 \n557 \n177 \n32% \n86 \n15% \n294 \n53% \n \n1.0 \n \n \nThe following is a summary of the results of the Treasury Memoranda audits; \n \na) \nReport of the Auditor General on the audit of the Treasury Memorandum \npresented to Parliament by the Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic \nDevelopment on various MDAs", "metadata": {"page": 254, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Thirteen (13) Treasury Memoranda reports for the financial year 2019/20 for various entities \nwere presented for audit. The table below provides a summary of the status of \nimplementation of the audit recommendations in various entities including; Ministry of \n% of \nrecommendations \nimplemented \n32%\n% of \nrecommendations \npartially \nimplemented \n15%\n% of \nrecommendations \nnot implemented \n53%\nChart showing implementation of\nTreasury Memoranda recommendations", "metadata": {"page": 254, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "239 \n \nDefense and Veteran Affairs, State House, the Judiciary, Uganda Police, Ministry of Internal \nAffairs, Ministry of Works and Transport, Ministry of Local Government, Prisons service, \nMinistry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Ministry of Energy and Mineral \nDevelopment, Ministry of Water and Environment, Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban \nDevelopment and Office of the President. \nOut of 145 recommendations given, 62 (43%) were fully implemented, 56 (37%) partialy \nimplemented and 27 (19%) recommendations were not implemented. The table below \nrefers; \n Table 80: Summary of implementation of Audit recommendations in the 2019/2020 \nTreasury Memoranda \nNo. \nTreasury memorandum/ \nEntity \nNo. of \nRecommendat\nions issued \nNo. and % of \nrecommendati\nons \nimplemented \nNo. and % of \nrecommendatio", "metadata": {"page": 255, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "recommendatio\nns partially \nimplemented \nNo. and % of \nrecommendatio\nns not \nimplemented \n1 \nMinistry of Defence and \nVeteran Affairs \n12 \n8 \n66.7% \n4 \n33.3% \n0 \n0% \n2 \nState House \n9 \n7 \n77.8% \n1 \n11.1% \n1 \n11.1% \n3 \nThe Judiciary \n10 \n3 \n30% \n6 \n60% \n1 \n10% \n4 \nUganda Police Force \n16 \n7 \n43.8% \n1 \n6.2% \n8", "metadata": {"page": 255, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8 \n50% \n5 \nMinistry \nof \nInternal \nAffairs \n8 \n5 \n62.5% \n3 \n37.5% \n0 \n0% \n6 \nMinistry of Works and \nTransport \n7 \n2 \n28.6% \n1 \n14.3% \n4 \n57.1% \n7 \nMinistry \nof \nLocal \nGovernment \n7 \n2 \n28.6% \n1 \n14.3% \n4 \n57.1% \n8 \nUganda Prison Services \n13 \n4 \n30.8% \n9 \n69.2% \n0", "metadata": {"page": 255, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0% \n9 \nMinistry of Agriculture, \nAnimal Industry and \nFisheries \n10 \n3 \n30% \n4 \n40% \n3 \n30% \n10 \nMinistry of Energy and \nMineral Development \n22 \n7 \n31.8% \n12 \n54.6% \n3 \n13.6% \n11 \nMinistry of Water and \nEnvironment \n10 \n2 \n20% \n7 \n70% \n1 \n10% \n12 \nMinistry \nof \nLands \nHousing \nand \nUrban \nDevelopment \n9 \n6 \n66.7% \n2", "metadata": {"page": 255, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n22.2% \n1 \n11.1% \n13 \nOffice of the President \n12 \n6 \n50% \n5 \n41.7% \n1 \n8.3 \n \nTotal \n145 \n62 \n(43%) \n56 \n(37%) \n27 \n \n(19%) \n \nb) \nTreasury Memorandum report on the Value for Money audit of the Uganda \nSupport to Municipal Infrastructure Development (USMID) Program for 2015/16 \n \nA total of fourteen (14) treasury memoranda audits on Value for Money reports of the \nUganda Support to the Municipal Infrastructure Development (USMID) Program \nimplemented in the financial year 2015/16 by 14 Local Government Municipal Councils (MC)", "metadata": {"page": 255, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "namely; Arua, Gulu, Lira, Soroti, Moroto, Mbale, Tororo, Jinja, Entebbe, Masaka, Mbarara, \nKabale, Fortportal and Hoima, were undertaken. \nOut of 412 recommendations issued on audit of USMID and Non USMID projects, 115 \n(27.9%) recommendations were fully implemented by the Municipal Councils (MCs), while \n30 (7.3%) recommendations were partially implemented and 267 (64.8%) recommendations \nwere not implemented at all, as illustrated in the table below;", "metadata": {"page": 255, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "240 \n \nTable 81: Summary of implementation of consolidated USMID & Non-USMID Projects \naudit recommendations \nSN \nEntity \nNo. of \nrecommendati\nons issued \n(USMID & Non \nUSMID) \nNo. and % of \nrecommendations \nfully implemented \nNo. and % of \nrecommendations \npartially \nimplemented \nNo. and % of \nrecommendations \nnot implemented \n1 \nArua Municipal \nCouncil \n40 \n1 \n2.5\n% \n0 \n0% \n39 \n97.5\n% \n2 \nEntebbe Municipal \nCouncil \n37 \n13 \n35.1", "metadata": {"page": 256, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "13 \n35.1\n% \n4 \n10.8\n% \n20 \n54.1\n% \n3 \nFort portal Municipal \nCouncil \n32 \n18 \n56.3\n% \n5 \n15.6\n% \n9 \n28.1\n% \n4 \nGulu Municipal \nCouncil \n21 \n1 \n4.8\n% \n0 \n0% \n20 \n95.2\n% \n5 \nHoima Municipal \nCouncil \n30 \n13 \n43.3\n% \n0 \n0% \n17 \n56.7\n%", "metadata": {"page": 256, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "56.7\n% \n6 \nJinja Municipal \nCouncil \n30 \n13 \n43.3\n% \n4 \n13.3\n% \n13 \n43.3\n% \n7 \nKabale Municipal \nCouncil \n23 \n12 \n52.2\n% \n2 \n8.7% \n9 \n39.1\n% \n8 \nLira Municipal Council \n20 \n4 \n17.4\n% \n3 \n13.0\n% \n13 \n56.5\n% \n9 \nMasaka Municipal \nCouncil \n36 \n10 \n27.8", "metadata": {"page": 256, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "10 \n27.8\n% \n4 \n11.1\n% \n22 \n61.1\n% \n10 \nMbale Municipal \nCouncil \n30 \n5 \n16.7\n% \n0 \n0% \n25 \n83.3\n% \n11 \nMbarara Municipal \nCouncil \n20 \n6 \n30% \n3 \n15% \n11 \n55% \n12 \nMoroto Municipal \nCouncil \n31 \n6 \n19.4\n% \n0 \n0% \n25 \n80.6\n% \n13 \nSoroti Municipal", "metadata": {"page": 256, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Soroti Municipal \nCouncil \n28 \n10 \n35.7\n% \n1 \n3.6% \n17 \n60.7\n% \n14 \nTororo Municipal \nCouncil \n34 \n3 \n8.8\n% \n4 \n11.8\n% \n27 \n79.4\n% \n \nTotal \n412 \n115 \n27.9\n% \n30 \n7.3\n% \n267 \n64.\n8% \n \nFort Portal Municipal Council (at the time of audit) implemented the most recommendations \n(56.3%) compared the others, while four (4) Municipal Councils implemented none or", "metadata": {"page": 256, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "insignificant number of recommendations for USMID projects. These include; \ni) \nArua MC - 0/34 recommendations, \nii) \nGulu MC - 0/17 recommendations, \niii) \nMbale MC - 4/20 recommendations and \niv) \nMoroto MC - 1/21 recommendations \n \nThe low rate of implementation of recommendations undermines efforts to strengthen \naccountability and service delivery. \nI advised the PS/ST to institute mechanisms to ensure that Parliamentary recommendations \narising from audit reports are followed up to ensure full implementation.", "metadata": {"page": 256, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "241 \n \nc) \nTreasury Memoranda Audits in Progress \n \nI received the Treasury Memoranda on missions abroad and Local Governments for different \nfinancial years. By the time of reporting, the audits were in progress. The results will be \nincluded in my subsequent report. These were; \n\uf0b7 \nTreasury memoranda on missions abroad from the Public Accounts Committee-Central \nGovernment, on the report of the Auditor General for the Financial Years 2013/2014, \n2014/2015, 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 on the Uganda Missions Abroad. \n \n\uf0b7 \nTreasury memoranda on Local Governments for the financial year 2016/2017 which \ncovers 219 Local Governments; 115 districts, 41 municipal councils and 63 town \ncouncils.", "metadata": {"page": 257, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "242 \n \nAPPENDICES \nAPPENDICES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 30 JUNE 2022 \n \nAppendix 1 a: Wage funding and absorption \nSN \n Entity Name \nApproved budget (UGX) \nRelease (UGX) \n% funding \nExpenditure (UGX) \nUnspent balance \n% absorption \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n21,275,985,774 \n21,275,985,770 \n100% \n20,628,693,548 \n647,292,222 \n97% \n2 \nAgago DLG \n23,720,090,630 \n23,720,090,626 \n100% \n18,119,725,462", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5,600,365,164 \n76% \n3 \nAlebtong DLG \n16,372,975,211 \n15,530,457,213 \n95% \n14,606,498,985 \n923,958,228 \n94% \n4 \nAmolatar DLG \n13,410,143,033 \n13,410,143,032 \n100% \n12,630,925,144 \n779,217,888 \n94% \n5 \nAmudat DLG \n5,277,225,121 \n5,288,394,151 \n100% \n5,121,393,539 \n167,000,612 \n97% \n6 \nAmuria DLG", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Amuria DLG \n14,757,617,095 \n14,384,377,171 \n97% \n14,373,721,775 \n10,655,396 \n100% \n7 \nAmuru DLG \n15,808,535,680 \n15,808,535,679 \n100% \n13,968,101,814 \n1,840,433,865 \n88% \n8 \nApac DLG \n18,866,246,967 \n18,866,246,965 \n100% \n16,539,304,013 \n2,326,942,952 \n88% \n9 \nArua DLG \n17,244,231,533", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17,244,231,533 \n17,244,231,530 \n100% \n15,677,186,595 \n1,567,044,935 \n91% \n10 \nBudaka DLG \n17,490,877,446 \n17,490,877,448 \n100% \n16,062,248,469 \n1,428,628,979 \n92% \n11 \nBududa DLG \n19,359,133,543 \n18,759,133,541 \n97% \n18,674,420,255 \n84,713,286 \n100% \n12 \nBugiri DLG \n29,053,929,346 \n29,053,929,346", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "100% \n25,818,069,854 \n3,235,859,492 \n89% \n13 \nBugweri DLG \n12,737,248,494 \n12,737,248,494 \n100% \n11,681,216,046 \n1,056,032,448 \n92% \n14 \nBUHWEJU DLG \n9,716,893,839 \n9,716,893,839 \n100% \n9,716,893,839 \n0 \n100% \n15 \nBuikwe DLG \n15,050,741,512 \n15,050,741,510 \n100% \n14,645,675,456", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "405,066,054 \n97% \n16 \nBUKEDEA DLG \n19,281,732,995 \n19,281,732,995 \n100% \n19,253,000,000 \n24,994,502 \n100% \n17 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n14,119,104,701 \n14,119,104,700 \n100% \n12,687,928,606 \n1,431,176,094 \n90% \n18 \nBukwo DLG \n15,078,896,089 \n15,078,896,088 \n100% \n14,225,727,227 \n853,168,861 \n94% \n19", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "94% \n19 \nBulambuli DLG \n15,914,684,784 \n15,914,684,784 \n100% \n14,903,283,804 \n1,011,400,980 \n94% \n20 \nBuliisa DLG \n9,585,889,206 \n9,585,889,204 \n100% \n8,479,115,922 \n1,106,773,282 \n88% \n21 \nBundibugyo DLG \n24,037,015,266 \n24,036,984,522 \n100% \n23,486,072,685 \n550,911,837 \n98% \n22 \nBunyangabu DLG", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Bunyangabu DLG \n14,555,406,953 \n14,555,406,950 \n100% \n12,485,873,507 \n2,069,533,443 \n86% \n23 \nBushenyi DLG \n25,324,509,221 \n25,147,957,829 \n99% \n24,471,900,421 \n676,057,408 \n97% \n24 \nBusia DLG \n26,272,745,135 \n26,202,822,541 \n100% \n23,798,496,651 \n2,404,325,890 \n91% \n25 \nButaleja DLG \n24,647,473,789", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "24,619,413,787 \n100% \n23,119,345,643 \n1,500,068,144 \n94% \n26 \nButambala DLG \n18,285,313,750 \n18,285,313,749 \n100% \n16,064,692,206 \n2,220,621,543 \n88% \n27 \nButebo DLG \n11,414,167,444 \n11,414,167,441 \n100% \n11,000,157,979 \n414,009,462 \n96% \n28 \nBuvuma DLG \n7,786,452,209 \n7,786,235,982 \n100%", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "100% \n7,342,251,582 \n443,984,400 \n94% \n29 \nBuyende DLG \n14,175,712,705 \n14,175,712,705 \n100% \n13,326,607,003 \n849,105,702 \n94% \n30 \nDokolo DLG \n14,856,047,801 \n14,856,047,801 \n100% \n14,856,047,801 \n0 \n100% \n31 \nGomba DLG \n13,834,517,245 \n13,834,517,242 \n100% \n12,786,005,430 \n1,048,511,812", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "92% \n32 \nGulu DLG \n22,043,000,902 \n22,043,000,902 \n100% \n16,788,060,472 \n5,254,940,430 \n76% \n33 \nHoima DLG \n14,549,869,548 \n14,549,869,545 \n100% \n14,057,752,153 \n492,117,392 \n97% \n34 \nIbanda DLG \n16,841,659,135 \n16,841,659,135 \n100% \n15,730,972,917 \n1,110,686,218 \n93%", "metadata": {"page": 258, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "243 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nApproved budget (UGX) \nRelease (UGX) \n% funding \nExpenditure (UGX) \nUnspent balance \n% absorption \n35 \nIganga DLG \n29,074,379,781 \n29,074,379,781 \n100% \n28,220,513,692 \n853,866,089 \n97% \n36 \nIsingiro DLG \n30,141,159,255 \n30,141,159,255 \n100% \n29,804,333,607 \n336,825,648 \n99% \n37 \nJinja DLG \n28,513,734,076", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "28,513,734,073 \n100% \n25,169,850,578 \n3,343,883,495 \n88% \n38 \nKABALE DLG \n30,824,816,708 \n30,824,816,550 \n100% \n28,879,109,541 \n1,945,707,009 \n94% \n39 \nKabarole DLG \n16,157,894,627 \n16,157,894,625 \n100% \n13,712,299,802 \n2,445,594,823 \n85% \n40 \nKaberamaido DLG \n11,955,658,381 \n11,955,658,381 \n100%", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "100% \n10,762,277,491 \n1,193,380,890 \n90% \n41 \nKagadi DLG \n24,343,694,650 \n24,343,694,647 \n100% \n19,683,167,007 \n4,660,527,640 \n81% \n42 \nKakumiro DLG \n15,813,256,152 \n15,813,256,148 \n100% \n11,717,577,177 \n4,095,678,971 \n74% \n43 \nKalaki DLG \n9,566,417,081 \n9,225,181,440 \n96% \n7,213,309,119 \n2,011,872,321", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "78% \n44 \nKalangala DLG \n10,643,092,809 \n10,643,092,806 \n100% \n10,207,542,193 \n435,550,613 \n96% \n45 \nKaliro DLG \n21,956,704,847 \n21,956,704,843 \n100% \n21,328,362,003 \n628,342,840 \n97% \n46 \nKalungu DLG \n18,720,704,896 \n18,720,704,895 \n100% \n17,540,574,068 \n1,180,130,827 \n94% \n47 \nKamuli DLG", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kamuli DLG \n38,397,491,398 \n38,397,491,396 \n100% \n35,669,455,320 \n2,728,036,076 \n93% \n48 \nKamwenge DLG \n19,311,417,326 \n19,311,417,322 \n100% \n17,311,868,791 \n1,999,548,531 \n90% \n49 \nKANUNGU DLG \n29,070,210,548 \n29,070,209,852 \n100% \n29,420,808,169 \n-350,598,317 \n101% \n50 \nKapchorwa DLG \n14,390,736,339", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "14,390,736,339 \n13,880,262,907 \n96% \n13,278,215,143 \n602,047,764 \n96% \n51 \nKapelebyong DLG \n8,139,318,283 \n8,139,318,281 \n100% \n6,182,866,152 \n1,956,452,129 \n76% \n52 \nKasanda DLG \n15,057,562,119 \n15,057,562,117 \n100% \n14,558,853,148 \n498,708,969 \n97% \n53 \nKasese DLG \n54,343,466,569 \n54,343,466,567 \n100%", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "100% \n54,343,466,567 \n0 \n100% \n54 \nKatakwi DLG \n17,623,605,265 \n17,623,605,264 \n100% \n17,422,018,731 \n201,586,533 \n99% \n55 \nKayunga DLG \n29,274,333,651 \n29,274,333,651 \n100% \n27,513,528,135 \n1,760,805,516 \n94% \n56 \nKazo DLG \n11,471,775,103 \n11,471,775,103 \n100% \n9,783,228,038 \n1,688,547,065", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "85% \n57 \nKibaale DLG \n13,019,324,232 \n13,016,922,431 \n100% \n11,883,756,754 \n1,133,165,677 \n91% \n58 \nKiboga DLG \n17,469,067,253 \n17,469,067,252 \n100% \n16,682,180,817 \n786,886,435 \n95% \n59 \nKibuku DLG \n15,948,680,423 \n15,948,680,418 \n100% \n15,437,732,169 \n510,948,249 \n97% \n60 \nKikuube DLG", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kikuube DLG \n13,140,576,822 \n13,140,576,822 \n100% \n10,819,867,416 \n2,320,709,406 \n82% \n61 \nKiruhura DLG \n11,796,051,122 \n11,796,051,119 \n100% \n11,654,778,829 \n141,272,290 \n99% \n62 \nKiryandongo DLG \n18,440,086,055 \n18,407,950,051 \n100% \n15,811,997,552 \n2,595,952,499 \n86% \n63 \nKISORO DLG \n31,179,977,457", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "31,179,977,455 \n100% \n30,425,337,300 \n754,640,155 \n98% \n64 \nKitagwenda DLG \n10,575,233,318 \n10,575,233,318 \n100% \n10,575,233,318 \n0 \n100% \n65 \nKitgum DLG \n22,530,731,282 \n22,530,731,275 \n100% \n21,938,662,396 \n592,068,879 \n97% \n66 \nKoboko DLG \n13,879,570,999 \n13,879,570,999 \n100% \n13,099,661,264 \n779,909,735", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "779,909,735 \n94% \n67 \nKole DLG \n18,103,911,681 \n18,103,911,681 \n100% \n17,681,260,227 \n422,651,454 \n98% \n68 \nKumi DLG \n19,762,519,218 \n19,762,519,218 \n100% \n19,473,527,194 \n288,992,024 \n99% \n69 \nKwania DLG \n16,533,169,230 \n16,533,169,229 \n100% \n12,094,634,648 \n4,438,534,581 \n73% \n70 \nKween DLG", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kween DLG \n12,704,718,745 \n12,704,718,742 \n100% \n12,287,976,346 \n416,742,396 \n97% \n71 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n16,704,783,737 \n16,704,783,736 \n100% \n15,699,227,921 \n1,005,555,815 \n94% \n72 \nKyegegwa DLG \n16,292,734,365 \n16,292,734,364 \n100% \n12,247,224,766 \n4,045,509,598 \n75%", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "244 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nApproved budget (UGX) \nRelease (UGX) \n% funding \nExpenditure (UGX) \nUnspent balance \n% absorption \n73 \nKyenjojo DLG \n23,970,046,591 \n23,970,046,591 \n100% \n23,007,362,204 \n962,684,387 \n96% \n74 \nKyotera DLG \n24,174,866,868 \n24,174,866,867 \n100% \n23,356,748,155 \n818,118,712 \n97% \n75 \nLamwo DLG \n11,984,323,910", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,984,323,910 \n11,984,323,907 \n100% \n10,492,318,855 \n1,492,005,052 \n88% \n76 \nLira DLG \n26,522,903,923 \n26,522,903,919 \n100% \n21,683,419,464 \n4,839,484,455 \n82% \n77 \nLuuka DLG \n18,401,484,263 \n18,401,484,263 \n100% \n17,761,693,639 \n639,790,624 \n97% \n78 \nLuwero DLG \n46,331,161,230 \n46,331,161,229", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "46,331,161,229 \n100% \n45,710,524,143 \n620,637,086 \n99% \n79 \nLwengo DLG \n19,333,094,646 \n19,333,094,645 \n100% \n18,562,007,203 \n771,087,442 \n96% \n80 \nLyantonde DLG \n11,184,524,017 \n11,184,524,016 \n100% \n10,816,081,122 \n368,442,894 \n97% \n81 \nMadi-Okollo DLG \n11,376,849,365 \n11,376,849,365 \n100%", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "100% \n9,896,924,970 \n1,479,924,395 \n87% \n82 \nManafwa DLG \n18,203,387,289 \n18,203,387,289 \n100% \n17,988,140,081 \n215,247,208 \n99% \n83 \nMaracha DLG \n18,842,106,883 \n18,578,070,217 \n99% \n15,856,531,167 \n2,721,539,050 \n85% \n84 \nMasaka DLG \n13,933,029,085 \n13,933,029,084 \n100% \n12,830,800,908", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,102,228,176 \n92% \n85 \nMasindi DLG \n18,647,303,219 \n18,647,303,213 \n100% \n16,785,798,709 \n1,861,504,504 \n90% \n86 \nMayuge DLG \n27,490,915,125 \n27,490,915,123 \n100% \n27,354,911,792 \n136,003,331 \n100% \n87 \nMbale DLG \n28,632,307,089 \n28,438,231,917 \n99% \n27,324,583,982 \n1,113,647,935 \n96% \n88 \nMbarara DLG", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Mbarara DLG \n20,977,512,841 \n20,977,512,841 \n100% \n19,932,050,137 \n1,045,462,704 \n95% \n89 \nMitooma DLG \n19,600,888,251 \n19,554,840,494 \n100% \n18,649,823,932 \n905,016,562 \n95% \n90 \nMityana DLG \n22,321,206,446 \n22,321,206,442 \n100% \n21,938,232,369 \n382,974,073 \n98% \n91 \nMoroto DLG \n9,794,417,292", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "9,794,417,292 \n9,794,417,288 \n100% \n7,979,169,707 \n1,815,247,581 \n81% \n92 \nMoyo DLG \n15,629,773,798 \n15,629,773,798 \n100% \n15,535,223,243 \n94,550,555 \n99% \n93 \nMpigi DLG \n23,097,325,180 \n23,097,325,179 \n100% \n21,998,315,683 \n1,099,009,496 \n95% \n94 \nMubende DLG \n19,251,853,116 \n19,251,853,116 \n100%", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "100% \n17,886,713,055 \n1,365,140,061 \n93% \n95 \nMukono DLG \n37,042,074,065 \n37,042,074,063 \n100% \n35,762,862,411 \n1,279,211,652 \n97% \n96 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n8,015,431,352 \n7,946,716,446 \n99% \n6,737,651,892 \n1,209,064,554 \n85% \n97 \nNakaseke DLG \n21,041,974,136 \n21,041,974,134 \n100% \n21,090,108,900", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "21,090,108,900 \n-48,134,766 \n100% \n98 \nNakasongola DLG \n20,337,859,061 \n20,324,459,060 \n100% \n20,206,732,974 \n117,726,086 \n99% \n99 \nNamayingo DLG \n17,354,543,860 \n17,291,909,473 \n100% \n15,544,560,031 \n1,747,349,442 \n90% \n100 \nNamisindwa DLG \n17,181,214,818 \n17,181,214,818 \n100% \n16,646,642,549 \n460,470,348", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "460,470,348 \n97% \n101 \nNamutumba DLG \n20,495,416,909 \n20,495,416,909 \n100% \n19,132,547,587 \n1,362,869,322 \n93% \n102 \nNapak DLG \n9,537,111,166 \n9,537,245,300 \n100% \n8,751,352,032 \n785,893,268 \n92% \n103 \nNebbi DLG \n22,727,411,267 \n22,727,411,263 \n100% \n21,245,113,420 \n1,482,297,843 \n93% \n104 \nNgora DLG", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ngora DLG \n12,991,399,015 \n12,991,399,014 \n100% \n12,803,000,000 \n188,399,014 \n99% \n105 \nNtoroko DLG \n14,305,648,823 \n14,305,648,823 \n100% \n11,238,623,906 \n3,067,024,917 \n79% \n106 \nNtungamo DLG \n38,932,143,477 \n38,932,143,477 \n100% \n37,762,453,879 \n1,169,689,598 \n97% \n107 \nNwoya DLG \n13,120,716,805", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "13,120,716,801 \n100% \n11,441,968,812 \n1,678,747,989 \n87% \n108 \nObongi DLG \n7,783,955,441 \n7,783,955,441 \n100% \n5,870,473,221 \n1,913,482,220 \n75% \n109 \nOmoro DLG \n17,832,400,482 \n17,832,400,480 \n100% \n16,596,098,934 \n1,236,301,546 \n93% \n110 \nOtuke DLG \n11,029,204,450 \n11,029,204,449 \n100% \n100% \n10,970,229,597 \n58,974,852 \n99%", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "245 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nApproved budget (UGX) \nRelease (UGX) \n% funding \nExpenditure (UGX) \nUnspent balance \n% absorption \n111 \nOyam DLG \n28,362,194,271 \n28,362,194,269 \n100% \n26,395,664,569 \n1,966,529,700 \n93% \n112 \nPader DLG \n21,201,482,940 \n21,201,482,935 \n100% \n19,918,810,401 \n1,282,672,534 \n94% \n113 \nPakwach DLG \n13,565,531,254", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "13,565,531,254 \n100% \n11,023,025,200 \n2,542,506,054 \n81% \n114 \nPallisa DLG \n26,644,278,619 \n25,281,617,494 \n95% \n24,812,457,725 \n469,159,769 \n98% \n115 \nRakai DLG \n28,465,494,541 \n28,465,110,406 \n100% \n28,461,505,553 \n3,604,853 \n100% \n116 \nRubanda DLG \n20,962,602,894 \n20,956,595,340 \n100%", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "100% \n20,955,595,340 \n1,000,000 \n100% \n117 \nRUBIRIZI DLG \n12,005,850,956 \n11,946,770,836 \n100% \n11,656,902,395 \n289,868,441 \n98% \n118 \nRukiga DLG \n18,060,510,068 \n18,057,376,828 \n100% \n15,787,174,089 \n2,270,202,739 \n87% \n119 \nRUKUNGIRI DLG \n34,985,836,675 \n34,985,836,675 \n100% \n34,027,825,621", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "958,011,054 \n97% \n120 \nRWAMPARA DLG \n16,187,299,689 \n16,187,299,689 \n100% \n12,621,237,429 \n3,566,062,260 \n78% \n121 \nSembabule DLG \n21,119,962,052 \n21,119,950,222 \n100% \n20,771,717,621 \n348,232,601 \n98% \n122 \nSerere DLG \n21,880,221,759 \n21,880,221,757 \n100% \n20,701,324,032 \n1,178,897,725 \n95% \n123", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "95% \n123 \nSheema DLG \n19,948,054,140 \n19,948,054,140 \n100% \n17,873,167,111 \n2,074,887,029 \n90% \n124 \nSironko DLG \n22,888,775,100 \n22,888,775,100 \n100% \n22,881,244,332 \n7,530,768 \n100% \n125 \nSoroti DLG \n20,648,302,625 \n20,648,302,625 \n100% \n18,996,422,961 \n1,651,879,664 \n92% \n126 \nTerego DLG", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Terego DLG \n17,538,401,731 \n17,538,401,731 \n100% \n11,006,267,990 \n6,532,133,741 \n63% \n127 \nTororo DLG \n42,378,183,779 \n40,541,864,234 \n96% \n37,241,404,538 \n3,300,459,696 \n92% \n128 \nWakiso DLG \n43,297,839,517 \n43,297,839,354 \n100% \n42,505,215,247 \n792,624,107 \n98% \n129 \nYumbe DLG \n26,589,448,687", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "26,589,448,687 \n100% \n24,095,881,046 \n2,493,567,641 \n91% \n130 \nZombo DLG \n18,033,649,862 \n18,033,649,862 \n100% \n15,031,054,357 \n3,002,595,505 \n83% \n \n \n2,539,812,346,618 \n2,532,930,356,423 \n100% \n2,356,575,342,414 \n176,355,014,007 \n93% \n \nAppendix 1 b: Ineligible staff \nSN\n. \nVote Name \nNo. \nof", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "No. \nof \nstaf\nf \nGross \nAmount \n \nSN\n. \nVote Name \nNo. \nof \nstaf\nf \nGross \nAmount \n \nSN\n. \nVote Name \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nGross \nAmount \n1 \nAbim DLG \n3 \n63,473,760 \n \n44 \nKagadi DLG \n1 \n24,001,280 \n \n87 \nMadi-Okolo \n1 \n41,098,360 \n2 \nAgago DLG \n8 \n160,997,644", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "45 \nKakumiro DLG \n12 \n315,455,31\n8 \n \n88 \nManafwa DLG \n2 \n68,063,022 \n3 \nAlebtong DLG \n1 \n36,854,776 \n \n46 \nKalangalaDLG \n7 \n337,628,32\n7 \n \n89 \nMasaka DLG \n5 \n161,333,036 \n4 \nAmolatar DLG \n29 \n1,162,044,694 \n \n47 \nKaliro DLG \n2 \n50,196,866 \n \n90 \nMayuge DLG", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Mayuge DLG \n3 \n101,087,705 \n5 \nAmuria DLG \n8 \n135,317,483 \n \n48 \nKalungu DLG \n2 \n72,964,818 \n \n91 \nMbale DLG \n16 \n522,257,654 \n6 \nAmuru DLG \n4 \n123,939,231 \n \n49 \nKamuli MC \n2 \n167,792,42\n0 \n \n92 \nMbarara City \n1 \n8,580,576 \n7 \nApac DLG \n2 \n15,816,992 \n \n50 \n50 \nKanungu DLG \n20 \n572,263,88\n3 \n \n93 \nMitooma DLG \n1 \n9,157,676", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "246 \n \n8 \nApac MC \n4 \n72,508,691 \n \n51 \nKapchorwa \n1 \n43,463,017 \n \n94 \nMityana DLG \n2 \n80,820,392 \n9 \nArua City \n2 \n62,817,339 \n \n52 \nKapchorwaDLG \n1 \n12,125,971 \n \n95 \nMoroto \n1 \n94,312,080 \n10 \nArua DLG \n8 \n180,124,087 \n \n53 \nKapchorwa MC \n4 \n190,104,98", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "190,104,98\n6 \n \n96 \nMoyo DLG \n2 \n55,247,825 \n11 \nBudaka DLG \n1 \n40,620,256 \n \n54 \nKapelebyongDL\nG \n8 \n103,116,78\n1 \n \n97 \nMpigi DLG \n23 \n1,071,320,831 \n12 \nBududa DLG \n4 \n174,251,122 \n \n55 \nKasese DLG \n9 \n226,994,72\n9 \n \n98 \nMubende \nMunicipa\nl \n1", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "l \n1 \n2,452,632 \n13 \nBugiri DLG \n2 \n66,332,339 \n \n56 \nKasese MC \n4 \n110,117,58\n7 \n \n99 \nMukono DLG \n2 \n95,369,082 \n14 \nBugiri MC \n5 \n89,963,174 \n \n57 \nKassanda DLG \n5 \n196,849,90\n8 \n \n100 \nNakapiripiriti DLG \n11 \n249,079,055 \n15 \nBugweri DLG \n3 \n119,012,668", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "58 \nKatakwi DLG \n33 \n537,829,66\n6 \n \n101 \nNakaseke DLG \n5 \n148,568,347 \n16 \nBuhweju DLG \n2 \n113,980,979 \n \n59 \nKayunga DLG \n11 \n310,909,94\n8 \n \n102 \nNakasongola DLG \n7 \n183,397,062 \n17 \nBuikwe DLG \n2 \n87,770,347 \n \n60 \nKazo DLG \n2 \n49,564,798 \n \n103 \nNamisindwa DLG", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Namisindwa DLG \n1 \n24,691,998 \n18 \nBukedea DLG \n9 \n252,299,333 \n \n61 \nKibaale DLG \n1 \n33,874,924 \n \n104 \nNamutumba DLG \n2 \n14,421,931 \n19 \nBukomansimbi \nDLG \n3 \n131,498,679 \n \n62 \nKiboga DLG \n16 \n691,792,38\n2 \n \n105 \nNansana Mc \n1 \n53,681,015 \n20 \nBukwo DLG \n2", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n73,236,828 \n \n63 \nKibuku DLG \n4 \n115,103,02\n8 \n \n106 \nNapak DLG \n1 \n20,081,640 \n21 \nBulambuli DLG \n1 \n41,070,267 \n \n64 \nKiira Mc \n1 \n37,304,444 \n \n107 \nNgora DLG \n2 \n77,347,671 \n22 \nBundibugyo DLG \n1 \n63,229,436 \n \n65 \nKiruhura DLG \n2 \n79,651,751 \n \n108", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "108 \nNjeru MC \n1 \n48,916,164 \n23 \nBunyangabu DLG \n2 \n19,317,012 \n \n66 \nKiryandongo \n1 \n36,466,122 \n \n109 \nNtoroko DLG \n1 \n21,155,736 \n24 \nBusia DLG \n2 \n61,685,502 \n \n67 \nKisoro DLG \n3 \n118,349,38\n3 \n \n110 \nNtungamo DLG \n3 \n150,663,621 \n25 \nButaleja DLG \n2 \n65,958,331", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "65,958,331 \n \n68 \nKitagwenda DLG \n4 \n93,688,764 \n \n111 \nNwoya DLG \n1 \n58,179,255 \n26 \nButambala DLG \n9 \n354,619,186 \n \n69 \nKitgum DLG \n4 \n43,977,685 \n \n112 \nOtuke DLG \n3 \n100,007,444 \n27 \nButebo DLG \n14 \n347,336,209 \n \n70 \nKitgum MC \n6 \n102,540,00\n9 \n \n113 \nOyam DLG \n2", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n144,554,705 \n28 \nBuvuma DLG \n8 \n123,807,518 \n \n71 \nKole DLG \n1 \n9,810,528 \n \n114 \nPakwach DLG \n13 \n132,612,423 \n29 \nDokolo DLG \n3 \n124,697,144 \n \n72 \nKumi DLG \n2 \n36,082,550 \n \n115 \nPallisa DLG \n12 \n291,198,152 \n30 \nEntebbe MC \n16 \n859,954,841 \n \n73 \nKumi MC \n5", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kumi MC \n5 \n117,682,72\n8 \n \n116 \nRakai DLG \n11 \n444,695,084 \n31 \nFort Portal City \n2 \n63,945,860 \n \n74 \nKwania DLG \n2 \n47,978,797 \n \n117 \nRubanda DLG \n2 \n55,871,035 \n32 \nGomba DLG \n18 \n537,564,524 \n \n75 \nKween DLG \n5 \n192,613,79\n0 \n \n118 \nRukungiri DLG \n1 \n37,709,817 \n37,709,817", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "247 \n \n33 \nGulu City \n2 \n98,416,284 \n \n76 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n12 \n510,599,05\n6 \n \n119 \nSembabule DLG \n1 \n3,600,000 \n34 \nHoima DLG \n1 \n10,563,168 \n \n77 \nKyegegwa DLG \n4 \n65,020,108 \n \n120 \nSerere DLG \n3 \n123,071,820 \n35 \nIbanda DLG \n1 \n37,695,953 \n \n78 \nKyenjojo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 263, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kyenjojo DLG \n5 \n121,934,63\n6 \n \n121 \nSheema MC \n1 \n48,579,405 \n36 \nIganga DLG \n2 \n77,997,424 \n \n79 \nKyotera DLG \n9 \n409,104,80\n0 \n \n122 \nSironko DLG \n2 \n78,101,419 \n37 \nIganga MC \n3 \n62,514,514 \n \n80 \nLamwo DLG \n1 \n10,482,346 \n \n123 \nSoroti City \n4 \n83,235,068", "metadata": {"page": 263, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "83,235,068 \n38 \nIsingiro DLG \n1 \n54,128,401 \n \n81 \nLira City \n4 \n138,901,76\n3 \n \n124 \nSoroti DLG \n7 \n223,858,840 \n39 \nJinja City \n3 \n35,345,286 \n \n82 \nLira DLG \n6 \n130,107,42\n2 \n \n125 \nTororo DLG \n2 \n82,893,177 \n40 \nJinja DLG \n3 \n83,733,164 \n \n83 \nLugazi MC \n2", "metadata": {"page": 263, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n88,732,373 \n \n126 \nTororo MC \n1 \n50,746,626 \n41 \nKaabong DLG \n6 \n53,599,604 \n \n84 \nLuuka DLG \n1 \n36,512,261 \n \n127 \nWakiso DLG \n4 \n195,386,238 \n42 \nKabale DLG \n4 \n111,011,684 \n \n85 \nLuwero DLG \n7 \n348,086,63\n8 \n \n128 \nZombo DLG \n1 \n31,921,061 \n43 \nKabale MC", "metadata": {"page": 263, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kabale MC \n2 \n67,185,245 \n \n86 \nLyantonde DLG \n2 \n57,265,549 \n \n129 \nMbarara DLG \n1 \n23,939,149 \n \nTotal \n 609 \n19,026,546,94\n8 \n \nAppendix 1 c: Overpayment of Salaries, pension and gratuity \nSN \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \noverpaid \nOver payment of \nsalaries - UGX \nNo. of \npensioners \noverpaid \nOver payment \nof pension - \nUGX \nNo. of \npensioners \noverpaid", "metadata": {"page": 263, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "overpaid \ngratuity \nOver payment \nof gratuity - \nUGX \nTotal No. \nof staff/ \npensioners \nTotal over \npayment - UGX \n1 \nAgago DLG \n267 \n191,196,327 \n15 \n306,013,490 \n10 \n35,293,917 \n292 \n532,503,734 \n2 \nAmolatar DLG \n2 \n6,141,407 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n2 \n6,141,407 \n3 \nAmudat DLG \n12 \n9,172,042 \n- \n- \n- \n-", "metadata": {"page": 263, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n- \n12 \n9,172,042 \n4 \nAmuria DLG \n- \n- \n \n6,118,452 \n- \n- \n- \n6,118,452 \n5 \nAmuru DLG \n316 \n240,956,760 \n- \n- \n4 \n20,960,445 \n320 \n261,917,205 \n6 \nApac DLG \n305 \n289,606,752 \n21 \n63,719,643 \n13 \n114,019,350 \n339 \n467,345,745 \n7 \nBududa DLG \n76", "metadata": {"page": 263, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "76 \n4,201,863 \n12 \n3,814,906 \n- \n- \n88 \n8,016,769 \n8 \nBugweri DLG \n4 \n12,218,934 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n4 \n12,218,934 \n9 \nBuhweju DLG \n3 \n11,632,768 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n3 \n11,632,768 \n10 \nBukedea DLG \n2 \n2,079,000 \n- \n- \n2 \n4,886,650 \n4 \n6,965,650", "metadata": {"page": 263, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6,965,650 \n11 \nBukwo DLG \n6 \n5,014,787 \n \n \n \n \n6 \n5,014,787 \n12 \nBuliisa DLG \n3 \n185,952 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n3 \n185,952 \n13 \nBundibugyo DLG \n4 \n2,596,174 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n4 \n2,596,174 \n14 \nBunyangabu DLG \n- \n- \n1 \n1,254,669 \n- \n- \n1 \n- \n1 \n1,254,669", "metadata": {"page": 263, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "248 \n \n15 \nBusia DLG \n- \n- \n6 \n6,106,392 \n- \n- \n6 \n6,106,392 \n16 \nButaleja DLG \n4 \n3,586,208 \n4 \n2,804,668 \n \n \n8 \n6,390,876 \n17 \nButambala DLG \n6 \n2,557,693 \n2 \n91,466 \n- \n- \n8 \n2,649,159 \n18 \nButebo DLG \n47 \n87,266,942 \n1 \n4,877,817", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4,877,817 \n \n \n48 \n92,144,759 \n19 \nDokolo DLG \n5 \n3,056,043 \n3 \n3,264,438 \n- \n- \n8 \n6,320,481 \n20 \nGomba DLG \n1 \n956,585 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n1 \n956,585 \n21 \nGulu DLG \n- \n- \n1 \n5,146,400 \n- \n- \n1 \n5,146,400 \n22 \nHoima DLG \n13 \n6,111,973", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6,111,973 \n4 \n915,759 \n- \n- \n17 \n7,027,732 \n23 \nJinja DLG \n4 \n2,129,357 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n4 \n2,129,357 \n24 \nKaberamaido DLG \n18 \n23,958,485 \n3 \n669,814 \n- \n- \n21 \n24,628,299 \n25 \nKaliro DLG \n135 \n285,976,606 \n32 \n777,616,336 \n- \n- \n167 \n1,063,592,942", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "26 \nKamuli DLG \n- \n- \n3 \n17,418,396 \n- \n- \n3 \n17,418,396 \n27 \nKanungu DLG \n4 \n5,717,905 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n4 \n5,717,905 \n28 \nKapelebyong DLG \n3 \n1,765,908 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n3 \n1,765,908 \n29 \nKasanda DLG \n27 \n15,293,916 \n \n \n \n \n27", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "27 \n15,293,916 \n30 \nKasese DLG \n4 \n698,659 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n4 \n698,659 \n31 \nKatakwi DLG \n12 \n6,937,546 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n12 \n6,937,546 \n32 \nKayunga DLG \n \n723,674 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n723,674 \n33 \nKazo DLG \n6 \n1,799,529 \n1 \n684,126 \n1", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1 \n26,824 \n8 \n2,510,479 \n34 \nKibaale DLG \n3 \n1,259,797 \n- \n- \n1 \n4,387,638 \n4 \n5,647,435 \n35 \nKiboga DLG \n5 \n2,950,495 \n3 \n740,633 \n- \n- \n8 \n3,691,128 \n36 \nKikuube DLG \n- \n- \n- \n- \n4 \n24,438,089 \n4 \n24,438,089 \n37 \nKiryandongo DLG \n32", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "32 \n23,496,128 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n32 \n23,496,128 \n38 \nKitagwenda DLG \n14 \n9,703,322 \n- \n- \n3 \n6,526,823 \n17 \n16,230,145 \n39 \nKoboko DLG \n16 \n9,725,864 \n2 \n617,388 \n- \n- \n18 \n10,343,252 \n40 \nKole DLG \n9 \n10,355,488 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n9 \n10,355,488 \n41", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "41 \nKwania DLG \n31 \n10,998,352 \n11 \n5,999,040 \n- \n- \n42 \n16,997,392 \n42 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n7 \n5,380,630 \n1 \n1,061,078 \n- \n- \n8 \n6,441,708 \n43 \nKyegegwa DLG \n18 \n4,113,500 \n- \n- \n3 \n7,073,127 \n21 \n11,186,627 \n44 \nKyenjojo DLG \n5 \n2,915,122 \n1 \n1,441,878", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,441,878 \n- \n- \n6 \n4,357,000 \n45 \nLamwo DLG \n46 \n10,356,930 \n6 \n593,404 \n- \n- \n52 \n10,950,334 \n46 \nLwengo DLG \n2 \n1,203,776 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n2 \n1,203,776 \n47 \nLyantonde DLG \n14 \n29,361,140 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n14 \n29,361,140 \n48 \nMasindi DLG \n10 \n5,049,517", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5,049,517 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n10 \n5,049,517 \n49 \nMbale DLG \n- \n- \n1 \n7,004,740 \n4 \n18,675,277 \n5 \n25,680,017 \n50 \nMbarara DLG \n4 \n931,611 \n \n \n \n \n4 \n931,611 \n51 \nMoroto DLG \n3 \n10,907,516 \n44 \n20,346,066 \n- \n- \n47 \n31,253,582 \n52 \nMukono DLG", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Mukono DLG \n16 \n18,258,007 \n4 \n5,596,903 \n1 \n1,960,420 \n21 \n25,815,330 \n53 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n18 \n6,143,716 \n- \n- \n3 \n1,492,448 \n21 \n7,636,164", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "249 \n \n54 \nNakaseke DLG \n4 \n6,978,540 \n4 \n2,117,167 \n- \n- \n8 \n9,095,707 \n55 \nNakasongola DLG \n14 \n18,794,400 \n- \n- \n1 \n355,048 \n15 \n19,149,448 \n56 \nNamayingo DLG \n9 \n2,253,878 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n9 \n2,253,878 \n57 \nNamisindwa DLG \n22 \n23,079,544 \n2", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n8,090,403 \n2 \n9,557,304 \n26 \n40,727,251 \n58 \nNapak DLG \n- \n58,510,166 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n58,510,166 \n59 \nNgora DLG \n29 \n76,499,843 \n \n \n \n \n29 \n76,499,843 \n60 \nNtoroko DLG \n155 \n208,305,344 \n4 \n4,532,888 \n- \n- \n159 \n212,838,232 \n61 \nNtungamo DLG \n-", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n4,598,279 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n4,598,279 \n62 \nOmoro DLG \n32 \n19,781,169 \n1 \n27,945,196 \n \n \n33 \n47,726,365 \n63 \nOtuke DLG \n8 \n5,713,368 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n8 \n5,713,368 \n64 \nOyam DLG \n1 \n3,774,067 \n \n \n \n \n1 \n3,774,067 \n65 \nPader DLG", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Pader DLG \n8 \n51,073,867 \n- \n- \n1 \n7,023,295 \n9 \n58,097,162 \n66 \nPakwach DLG \n12 \n7,458,530 \n1 \n202,510 \n- \n- \n13 \n7,661,040 \n67 \nPallisa DLG \n40 \n6,800,938 \n9 \n3,627,432 \n- \n- \n49 \n10,428,370 \n68 \nRubirizi DLG \n1 \n298,134 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n1", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n1 \n298,134 \n69 \nRwampara DLG \n11 \n2,312,108 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n11 \n2,312,108 \n70 \nSerere DLG \n171 \n335,083,437 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n171 \n335,083,437 \n71 \nSironko DLG \n14 \n3,490,982 \n2 \n842,597 \n- \n- \n16 \n4,333,579 \n72 \nSoroti DLG \n5 \n3,928,822 \n- \n- \n-", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n- \n- \n5 \n3,928,822 \n73 \nTerego DLG \n- \n26,393,927 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n26,393,927 \n74 \nTororo DLG \n7 \n9,466,335 \n3 \n2,606,557 \n- \n- \n10 \n12,072,892 \n75 \nYumbe DLG \n- \n- \n- \n- \n9 \n25,364,789 \n9 \n25,364,789 \n \n \n2,085", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2,085 \n2,261,246,384 \n208 \n1,293,882,652 \n62 \n282,041,444 \n2,355 \n3,837,170,480 \n \nAppendix 1 d: Under payment of Salaries, pension and gratuity \nSN \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff who \nwere \nunderpai\nd \nUnder \npayment of \nsalaries \nNo. of \npensioner\ns who \nwere \nunderpaid \nUnder \npayment of \npension \nNo. of \npensioner\ns who \nwere \nunderpaid \nUnder payment \nof gratuity \nTotal No. of", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Total No. of \nstaff/pensioner\ns who were \nunderpaid \nUnder payment \nof salaries \npension and \ngratuity \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n289 \n338,144,717 \n7 \n31,251,071 \n2 \n107,682,956 \n298 \n477,078,744 \n2 \nAgago DLG \n196 \n213,927,108 \n161 \n416,373,103 \n19 \n232,511,286 \n376 \n862,811,497 \n3 \nAmolatar DLG \n5 \n12,754,770 \n59 \n88,318,430 \n16", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "16 \n79,248,632 \n80 \n180,321,832 \n4 \nAmudat DLG \n7 \n12,933,634 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n7 \n12,933,634 \n5 \nAmuria DLG \n4 \n5,914,978 \n248 \n93,068,807 \n5 \n176,603,659 \n257 \n275,587,444 \n6 \nAmuru DLG \n81 \n138,033,946 \n5 \n18,120,573 \n8 \n213,327,409 \n94 \n369,481,928 \n7", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7 \nApac DLG \n197 \n256,043,359 \n49 \n102,149,811 \n9 \n98,852,490 \n255 \n457,045,660 \n8 \nArua DLG \n73 \n90,817,463 \n- \n- \n2 \n60,092,237 \n75 \n150,909,700 \n9 \nBudaka DLG \n8 \n2,805,893 \n \n \n \n \n8 \n2,805,893", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "250 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff who \nwere \nunderpai\nd \nUnder \npayment of \nsalaries \nNo. of \npensioner\ns who \nwere \nunderpaid \nUnder \npayment of \npension \nNo. of \npensioner\ns who \nwere \nunderpaid \nUnder payment \nof gratuity \nTotal No. of \nstaff/pensioner\ns who were \nunderpaid \nUnder payment \nof salaries \npension and \ngratuity \n10 \nBududa DLG \n94 \n8,982,815 \n5", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5 \n3,316,086 \n6 \n203,674,935 \n105 \n215,973,836 \n11 \nBugiri DLG \n- \n- \n10 \n21,022,685 \n3 \n121,501,539 \n13 \n142,524,224 \n12 \nBugweri DLG \n3 \n5,125,601 \n5 \n12,842,774 \n9 \n137,397,413 \n17 \n155,365,788 \n13 \nBuikwe DLG \n- \n- \n15 \n26,058,557 \n5 \n177,892,183 \n20", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "20 \n203,950,740 \n14 \nBukedea DLG \n7 \n5,313,652 \n2 \n34,969,922 \n7 \n209,591,259 \n16 \n249,874,833 \n15 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n12 \n9,047,876 \n90 \n38,756,917 \n- \n- \n102 \n47,804,793 \n16 \nBukwo DLG \n23 \n35,669,357 \n \n \n \n \n23 \n35,669,357 \n17 \nBulambuli DLG \n- \n- \n187", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n187 \n71,610,435 \n1 \n23,566,380 \n188 \n95,176,815 \n18 \nBuliisa DLG \n3 \n2,708,435 \n47 \n30,073,266 \n2 \n5,425,611 \n52 \n38,207,312 \n19 \nBundibugyo DLG \n16 \n9,178,494 \n4 \n6,026,349 \n- \n- \n20 \n15,204,843 \n20 \nBunyangabu DLG \n2 \n2,530,857 \n1 \n569,320 \n- \n- \n3", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n3 \n3,100,177 \n21 \nBushenyi DLG \n- \n- \n30 \n12,376,617 \n8 \n305,004,490 \n38 \n317,381,107 \n22 \nBusia DLG \n- \n- \n2 \n1,577,517 \n \n \n2 \n1,577,517 \n23 \nButaleja DLG \n68 \n24,180,690 \n3 \n3,555,982 \n \n \n71 \n27,736,672 \n24 \nButambala DLG \n3 \n6,481,445 \n2", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n2,705,527 \n6 \n192,512,007 \n11 \n201,698,979 \n25 \nButebo DLG \n50 \n34,887,626 \n1 \n25,466,082 \n64 \n95,318,676 \n115 \n155,672,384 \n26 \nBuvuma DLG \n4 \n2,230,712 \n14 \n14,964,616 \n- \n- \n18 \n17,195,328 \n27 \nDokolo DLG \n46 \n15,742,029 \n162 \n110,730,395 \n23 \n424,425,296 \n231", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "231 \n550,897,720 \n28 \nGomba DLG \n3 \n2,284,615 \n1 \n2,358,948 \n- \n- \n4 \n4,643,563 \n29 \nGulu DLG \n5 \n4,002,323 \n49 \n65,798,802 \n1 \n20,453,988 \n55 \n90,255,113 \n30 \nHoima DLG \n7 \n4,712,242 \n6 \n1,870,184 \n3 \n3,484,671 \n16 \n10,067,097 \n31 \nIbanda DLG \n- \n-", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n- \n- \n- \n1 \n28,231,704 \n1 \n28,231,704 \n32 \nIganga DLG \n4 \n3,935,595 \n4 \n2,431,370 \n- \n- \n8 \n6,366,965 \n33 \nJinja DLG \n- \n- \n27 \n8,998,580 \n13 \n101,566,787 \n40 \n110,565,367 \n34 \nKabarole DLG \n- \n- \n76 \n101,124,563 \n- \n- \n76 \n101,124,563", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "101,124,563 \n35 \nKaberamaido DLG \n- \n- \n18 \n29,363,296 \n- \n- \n18 \n29,363,296 \n36 \nKagadi DLG \n22 \n42,058,162 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n22 \n42,058,162 \n37 \nKakumiro DLG \n3 \n1,421,228 \n4 \n5,136,250 \n3 \n113,235,820 \n10 \n119,793,298 \n38 \nKalaki DLG \n- \n- \n- \n- \n8 \n326,315,306", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "326,315,306 \n8 \n326,315,306 \n39 \nKalangala DLG \n- \n- \n3 \n17,200,004 \n1 \n92,516,779 \n4 \n109,716,783 \n40 \nKaliro DLG \n78 \n113,866,976 \n126 \n402,997,247 \n \n \n204 \n516,864,223 \n41 \nKalungu DLG \n- \n- \n15 \n7,589,987 \n- \n- \n15 \n7,589,987 \n42 \nKamuli DLG \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n5 \n149,741,260 \n5 \n149,741,260 \n43 \nKamwenge DLG \n3 \n187,280 \n- \n- \n6 \n5,293,037 \n9 \n5,480,317", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "251 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff who \nwere \nunderpai\nd \nUnder \npayment of \nsalaries \nNo. of \npensioner\ns who \nwere \nunderpaid \nUnder \npayment of \npension \nNo. of \npensioner\ns who \nwere \nunderpaid \nUnder payment \nof gratuity \nTotal No. of \nstaff/pensioner\ns who were \nunderpaid \nUnder payment \nof salaries \npension and \ngratuity \n44 \nKanungu DLG \n- \n- \n- \n- \n4", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n4 \n263,704,899 \n4 \n263,704,899 \n45 \nKapchorwa DLG \n \n \n10 \n14,969,562 \n7 \n195,621,317 \n17 \n210,590,879 \n46 \nKapelebyong DLG \n2 \n2,307,928 \n- \n- \n5 \n174,436,001 \n7 \n176,743,929 \n47 \nKasanda DLG \n1 \n1,753,636 \n1 \n10,120,082 \n1 \n17,794,970 \n3 \n29,668,688", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "29,668,688 \n48 \nKasese DLG \n3 \n1,390,657 \n14 \n4,406,935 \n- \n- \n17 \n5,797,592 \n49 \nKatakwi DLG \n54 \n40,907,518 \n48 \n76,443,176 \n15 \n421,214,313 \n117 \n538,565,007 \n50 \nKayunga DLG \n15 \n18,498,602 \n15 \n16,884,967 \n25 \n773,212,876 \n55 \n808,596,445 \n51 \nKazo DLG \n12", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "12 \n6,788,897 \n4 \n10,002,470 \n1 \n29,141,798 \n17 \n45,933,165 \n52 \nKibaale DLG \n- \n- \n258 \n81,164,138 \n10 \n365,675,621 \n268 \n446,839,759 \n53 \nKiboga DLG \n26 \n25,149,343 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n26 \n25,149,343 \n54 \nKibuku DLG \n4 \n3,067,412 \n \n \n \n \n4 \n3,067,412", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3,067,412 \n55 \nKikuube DLG \n1 \n494,805 \n1 \n308,282 \n2 \n43,703,577 \n4 \n44,506,664 \n56 \nKiruhura DLG \n- \n- \n1 \n2,383,476 \n- \n- \n1 \n2,383,476 \n57 \nKiryandongo DLG \n9 \n4,647,021 \n14 \n15,148,551 \n1 \n74,145,857 \n24 \n93,941,429 \n58 \nKisoro DLG \n4 \n11,439,927", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,439,927 \n- \n- \n3 \n71,723,587 \n7 \n83,163,514 \n59 \nKitagwenda DLG \n8 \n6,168,285 \n54 \n56,498,685 \n- \n- \n62 \n62,666,970 \n60 \nKitgum DLG \n29 \n6,021,536 \n42 \n9,412,673 \n2 \n62,240,795 \n73 \n77,675,004 \n61 \nKoboko DLG \n54 \n32,378,510 \n7 \n3,463,836 \n4 \n104,185,813", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "104,185,813 \n65 \n140,028,159 \n62 \nKole DLG \n- \n- \n15 \n8,887,640 \n19 \n690,555,744 \n34 \n699,443,384 \n63 \nKumi DLG \n4 \n3,354,732 \n39 \n28,610,769 \n \n \n43 \n31,965,501 \n64 \nKwania DLG \n36 \n13,882,408 \n38 \n32,191,016 \n5 \n96,640,142 \n79 \n142,713,566 \n65 \nKween DLG \n- \n-", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n- \n4 \n539,295 \n1 \n7,608,376 \n5 \n8,147,671 \n66 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n16 \n12,601,201 \n9 \n2,551,977 \n8 \n199,565,944 \n33 \n214,719,122 \n67 \nKyegegwa DLG \n9 \n2,871,067 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n9 \n2,871,067 \n68 \nKyenjojo DLG \n493 \n483,068,356 \n1 \n5,219,498 \n- \n-", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n- \n494 \n488,287,854 \n69 \nKyotera DLG \n16 \n9,078,536 \n19 \n56,263,454 \n12 \n524,778,525 \n47 \n590,120,515 \n70 \nLamwo DLG \n199 \n72,385,357 \n65 \n172,870,554 \n5 \n218,812,963 \n269 \n464,068,874 \n71 \nLira DLG \n54 \n87,787,056 \n309 \n474,851,062 \n- \n- \n363 \n562,638,118 \n72", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "72 \nLuuka DLG \n- \n- \n- \n- \n1 \n28,119,444 \n1 \n28,119,444 \n73 \nLwengo DLG \n11 \n15,516,433 \n3 \n1,839,683 \n11 \n254,289,430 \n25 \n271,645,546 \n74 \nLyantonde DLG \n16 \n3,581,341 \n2 \n8,183,991 \n26 \n565,278,652 \n44 \n577,043,984 \n75 \nMadi-Okollo DLG \n68 \n96,909,820 \n-", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n- \n- \n- \n68 \n96,909,820 \n76 \nManafwa DLG \n13 \n47,240,560 \n18 \n519,091,647 \n \n \n31 \n566,332,207 \n77 \nMasindi DLG \n3 \n1,403,523 \n1 \n2,910,457 \n5 \n98,907,353 \n9 \n103,221,333", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "252 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff who \nwere \nunderpai\nd \nUnder \npayment of \nsalaries \nNo. of \npensioner\ns who \nwere \nunderpaid \nUnder \npayment of \npension \nNo. of \npensioner\ns who \nwere \nunderpaid \nUnder payment \nof gratuity \nTotal No. of \nstaff/pensioner\ns who were \nunderpaid \nUnder payment \nof salaries \npension and \ngratuity \n78 \nMayuge DLG \n9 \n5,117,190 \n35", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "35 \n549,849,727 \n- \n- \n44 \n554,966,917 \n79 \nMbarara DLG \n11 \n3,905,284 \n9 \n10,596,690 \n- \n- \n20 \n14,501,974 \n80 \nMitooma DLG \n- \n- \n- \n98,613,476 \n- \n- \n- \n98,613,476 \n81 \nMityana DLG \n- \n- \n13 \n10,042,822 \n- \n- \n13 \n10,042,822 \n82 \nMoroto DLG", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Moroto DLG \n22 \n19,477,973 \n8 \n125,233,020 \n- \n- \n30 \n144,710,993 \n83 \nMoyo DLG \n8 \n5,309,700 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n8 \n5,309,700 \n84 \nMpigi DLG \n- \n- \n43 \n117,041,487 \n13 \n348,339,516 \n56 \n465,381,003 \n85 \nMukono DLG \n25 \n37,704,450 \n22 \n42,056,195 \n7 \n48,523,554", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "48,523,554 \n54 \n128,284,199 \n86 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n32 \n29,234,183 \n4 \n2,243,958 \n- \n- \n36 \n31,478,141 \n87 \nNakaseke DLG \n362 \n157,188,123 \n22 \n35,843,396 \n11 \n581,662,571 \n395 \n774,694,090 \n88 \nNakasongola DLG \n10 \n28,977,489 \n20 \n34,617,273 \n5 \n94,366,350 \n35 \n157,961,112 \n89", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "89 \nNamayingo DLG \n11 \n1,472,229 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n11 \n1,472,229 \n90 \nNamisindwa DLG \n8 \n18,968,499 \n6 \n15,100,565 \n13 \n248,323,808 \n27 \n282,392,872 \n91 \nNamutumba DLG \n6 \n6,196,198 \n10 \n40,730,382 \n4 \n239,392,283 \n20 \n286,318,863 \n92 \nNapak DLG \n50 \n94,263,918 \n32", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "32 \n416,640,546 \n2 \n47,056,178 \n84 \n557,960,642 \n93 \nNgora DLG \n70 \n121,306,601 \n145 \n549,800,981 \n145 \n549,800,981 \n360 \n1,220,908,563 \n94 \nNtoroko DLG \n230 \n318,281,939 \n5 \n2,854,253 \n- \n- \n235 \n321,136,192 \n95 \nNtungamo DLG \n \n \n2 \n6,463,912 \n4 \n184,789,280 \n6", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6 \n191,253,192 \n96 \nNwoya DLG \n- \n- \n2 \n29,890,706 \n1 \n9,910,534 \n3 \n39,801,240 \n97 \nOmoro DLG \n7 \n6,134,159 \n2 \n3,301,822 \n26 \n1,194,067,882 \n35 \n1,203,503,863 \n98 \nOtuke DLG \n37 \n24,183,765 \n22 \n42,146,396 \n- \n- \n59 \n66,330,161 \n99 \nOyam DLG \n37 \n21,196,691", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "21,196,691 \n27 \n19,724,462 \n22 \n906,177,763 \n86 \n947,098,916 \n100 \nPader DLG \n- \n- \n1 \n290,625 \n1 \n9,979,858 \n2 \n10,270,483 \n101 \nPakwach DLG \n61 \n59,456,395 \n1 \n10,875,544 \n- \n- \n62 \n70,331,939 \n102 \nPallisa DLG \n29 \n3,611,512 \n16 \n2,657,568 \n- \n- \n45", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n45 \n6,269,080 \n103 \nRakai DLG \n- \n- \n- \n- \n1 \n9,673,288 \n1 \n9,673,288 \n104 \nRubanda DLG \n5 \n1,552,173 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n5 \n1,552,173 \n105 \nRubirizi DLG \n- \n- \n1 \n192,419 \n1 \n14,692,860 \n2 \n14,885,279 \n106 \nRukiga DLG \n14 \n20,505,827 \n59 \n36,139,199", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "36,139,199 \n- \n- \n73 \n56,645,026 \n107 \nRukungiri DLG \n20 \n11,415,980 \n72 \n63,457,909 \n- \n- \n92 \n74,873,889 \n108 \nRwampara DLG \n- \n- \n12 \n3,200,265 \n7 \n12,072,957 \n19 \n15,273,222 \n109 \nSembabule DLG \n- \n- \n153 \n129,347,924 \n2 \n80,197,985 \n155 \n209,545,909 \n110", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "110 \nSerere DLG \n117 \n34,040,580 \n12 \n121,121,672 \n219 \n177,623,830 \n348 \n332,786,082 \n111 \nSironko DLG \n9 \n3,872,313 \n36 \n2,867,938 \n2 \n714,996 \n47 \n7,455,247", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "253 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff who \nwere \nunderpai\nd \nUnder \npayment of \nsalaries \nNo. of \npensioner\ns who \nwere \nunderpaid \nUnder \npayment of \npension \nNo. of \npensioner\ns who \nwere \nunderpaid \nUnder payment \nof gratuity \nTotal No. of \nstaff/pensioner\ns who were \nunderpaid \nUnder payment \nof salaries \npension and \ngratuity \n112 \nSoroti DLG \n21 \n15,324,596 \n188", "metadata": {"page": 269, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "188 \n140,522,267 \n6 \n23,802,065 \n215 \n179,648,928 \n113 \nTerego DLG \n96 \n130,798,898 \n11 \n13,187,310 \n3 \n3,850,503 \n110 \n147,836,711 \n114 \nTororo DLG \n10 \n7,972,574 \n43 \n63,172,825 \n- \n- \n53 \n71,145,399 \n115 \nWakiso DLG \n- \n- \n- \n- \n15 \n577,145,734 \n15 \n577,145,734", "metadata": {"page": 269, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "577,145,734 \n116 \nYumbe DLG \n- \n- \n37 \n27,601,152 \n18 \n427,362,122 \n55 \n454,963,274 \n117 \nZombo DLG \n9 \n4,844,677 \n99 \n134,221,254 \n8 \n221,218,434 \n116 \n360,284,365 \n \n \n3,802 \n3,608,932,26\n1 \n3,600 \n6,327,639,88\n9 \n945 \n14,997,571,13\n9 \n8,347 \n24,934,143,28", "metadata": {"page": 269, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "24,934,143,28\n9 \n \nAppendix 1 e: Payment of salary using wrong salary scales and salary steps/ levels/notches \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of staff paid \nusing wrong \nscales \nUnder \npayment \narising from \nwrong scales \nOver \npayment \narising from \nwrong scales \nNo. of staff paid \nusing wrong \nlevel/notches \nUnder payment arising \nfrom wrong \nlevel/notches \nOver payment arising \nfrom wrong \nlevel/notches \n1 \nAgago DLG \n7 \n253,333 \n17,436,731 \n863 \n169,595,207 \n61,164,847 \n2", "metadata": {"page": 269, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \nAlebtong DLG \n \n \n \n489 \n42,848,922 \n96,681,173 \n3 \nAmolatar DLG \n \n5 \n2,114,363 \n- \n- \n- \n4 \nAmudat DLG \n- \n- \n- \n131 \n8,821,147 \n5,465,374 \n5 \nAmuria DLG \n42 \n3,310,908 \n- \n- \n- \n- \n6 \nAmuru DLG \n4 \n- \n7,438,884 \n536 \n94,590,275", "metadata": {"page": 269, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "94,590,275 \n24,633,475 \n7 \nApac DLG \n6 \n \n12,833,073 \n389 \n22,860,451 \n198,379,825 \n8 \nArua DLG \n- \n- \n- \n140 \n31,728,599 \n- \n9 \nBudaka DLG \n \n \n \n209 \n8,973,673 \n3,088,257 \n10 \nBududa DLG \n- \n- \n- \n460 \n13,060,926 \n5,487,101 \n11 \nBugiri DLG \n27", "metadata": {"page": 269, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "27 \n \n71,427,978 \n42 \n35,951,507 \n \n12 \nBuikwe DLG \n- \n- \n- \n138 \n18,082,106 \n- \n13 \nBukedea DLG \n \n \n \n362 \n35,722,692 \n40,742,603 \n14 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n- \n- \n- \n163 \n2,543,387 \n7,883,236 \n15 \nBukwo DLG \n \n \n \n \n \n \n16 \nBulambuli DLG", "metadata": {"page": 269, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "261 \n47,362,610 \n10,434,972 \n17 \nBuliisa DLG \n- \n- \n- \n56 \n2,290,202 \n220,492 \n18 \nBundibugyo DLG \n- \n- \n- \n880 \n27,345,851 \n4,937,210 \n19 \nBunyangabu DLG \n- \n- \n- \n230 \n5,386,346 \n377,164 \n20 \nBushenyi DLG \n \n \n \n187 \n8,777,441 \n20,013,665", "metadata": {"page": 269, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "254 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of staff paid \nusing wrong \nscales \nUnder \npayment \narising from \nwrong scales \nOver \npayment \narising from \nwrong scales \nNo. of staff paid \nusing wrong \nlevel/notches \nUnder payment arising \nfrom wrong \nlevel/notches \nOver payment arising \nfrom wrong \nlevel/notches \n21 \nBusia DLG \n526 \n114,540,178 \n \n367 \n \n104,363,281 \n22 \nButaleja DLG \n \n \n \n49 \n600,770 \n1,496,834", "metadata": {"page": 270, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,496,834 \n23 \nButambala DLG \n- \n- \n- \n330 \n8,631,522 \n8,305,699 \n24 \nButebo DLG \n \n \n \n \n \n \n25 \nBuvuma DLG \n \n \n \n82 \n8,899,760 \n \n26 \nBuyende DLG \n \n \n \n \n \n \n27 \nDokolo DLG \n205 \n- \n8,307,936 \n- \n- \n- \n28 \nGomba DLG \n-", "metadata": {"page": 270, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n- \n- \n151 \n9,041,655 \n435,105 \n29 \nGulu DLG \n \n \n \n391 \n2,598,635 \n15,872,018 \n30 \nHoima DLG \n1 \n1,353,483 \n- \n258 \n22,996,795 \n- \n31 \nIbanda DLG \n- \n- \n- \n357 \n40,083,283 \n- \n32 \nIganga DLG \n- \n- \n- \n47 \n4,299,277 \n- \n33 \nJinja DLG", "metadata": {"page": 270, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Jinja DLG \n- \n- \n- \n84 \n6,960,776 \n9,343,440 \n34 \nKabarole DLG \n- \n- \n- \n179 \n5,093,655 \n- \n35 \nKaberamaido DLG \n- \n- \n- \n17 \n1,401,733 \n864,048 \n36 \nKagadi DLG \n1 \n- \n1,210,200 \n780 \n71,130,186 \n203,395,477 \n37 \nKakumiro DLG \n- \n- \n- \n273 \n49,631,274", "metadata": {"page": 270, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "49,631,274 \n26,569,115 \n38 \nKalaki DLG \n- \n- \n- \n263 \n41,653,446 \n23,948,209 \n39 \nKalangala DLG \n- \n- \n- \n106 \n1,717,422 \n4,327,751 \n40 \nKaliro DLG \n- \n- \n- \n70 \n1,403,312 \n40,233,766 \n41 \nKalungu DLG \n2 \n1,534,598 \n- \n20 \n5,499,498 \n- \n42 \nKamuli DLG \n78", "metadata": {"page": 270, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "78 \n32,076,919 \n \n103 \n31,056,654 \n \n43 \nKanungu DLG \n- \n- \n- \n61 \n19,905,739 \n- \n44 \nKapchorwa DLG \n \n \n \n19 \n3,890,327 \n198,410 \n45 \nKapelebyong DLG \n5 \n4,136,458 \n3,288,552 \n- \n- \n- \n46 \nKasanda DLG \n \n \n \n561 \n11,780,802 \n7,665,567 \n47", "metadata": {"page": 270, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "47 \nKatakwi DLG \n5 \n3,685,562 \n1,284,374 \n25 \n12,662,460 \n4,339,693 \n48 \nKayunga DLG \n- \n- \n- \n1,274 \n37,654,341 \n14,039,665 \n49 \nKazo DLG \n- \n- \n- \n465 \n5,518,263 \n6,545,454 \n50 \nKibaale DLG \n- \n- \n- \n362 \n20,451,084 \n77,187,636 \n51 \nKiboga DLG \n16", "metadata": {"page": 270, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "16 \n3,117,933 \n898,152 \n169 \n86,200,355 \n935,967 \n52 \nKibuku DLG \n \n \n \n254 \n56,363,333 \n27,254,2 \n53 \nKikuube DLG \n4 \n1,607,592 \n190,704 \n67 \n650,211 \n1,758,260 \n54 \nKiryandongo DLG \n- \n- \n- \n470 \n4,378,478 \n10,968,244 \n55 \nKitagwenda DLG \n- \n- \n- \n413 \n- \n413 \n8,829,370 \n6,374,332", "metadata": {"page": 270, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "255 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of staff paid \nusing wrong \nscales \nUnder \npayment \narising from \nwrong scales \nOver \npayment \narising from \nwrong scales \nNo. of staff paid \nusing wrong \nlevel/notches \nUnder payment arising \nfrom wrong \nlevel/notches \nOver payment arising \nfrom wrong \nlevel/notches \n56 \nKitgum DLG \n- \n- \n- \n391 \n763,096 \n606,107 \n57 \nKoboko DLG \n- \n- \n- \n18 \n2,660,905 \n111,924", "metadata": {"page": 271, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "111,924 \n58 \nKole DLG \n- \n- \n- \n38 \n496,625 \n1,179,765 \n59 \nKumi DLG \n \n \n \n46 \n \n3,071,498 \n60 \nKwania DLG \n4 \n \n6,495,660 \n386 \n33,811,755 \n98,064,057 \n61 \nKween DLG \n- \n- \n- \n40 \n2,471,699 \n1,942,501 \n62 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n1 \n36,934 \n \n692", "metadata": {"page": 271, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "692 \n13,241,598 \n1,371,444 \n63 \nLamwo DLG \n \n \n \n \n \n \n64 \nLira DLG \n41 \n61,153,105 \n2,309,916 \n54 \n6,721,709 \n21,187,494 \n65 \nLuuka DLG \n- \n- \n- \n533 \n78,856,224 \n- \n66 \nLuwero DLG \n84 \n1,192,717 \n58,795,487 \n1,021 \n159,782,804 \n37,639,077 \n67", "metadata": {"page": 271, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "67 \nLwengo DLG \n- \n- \n- \n161 \n- \n1,746,555 \n68 \nLyantonde DLG \n- \n- \n- \n240 \n36,810,142 \n27,421,239 \n69 \nMadi-Okollo DLG \n3 \n- \n13,028,412 \n364 \n44,922,682 \n45,822,211 \n70 \nManafwa DLG \n49 \n2,999,221 \n3,992,491 \n39 \n2,326,483 \n17,700 \n71 \nMaracha DLG \n- \n- \n-", "metadata": {"page": 271, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n- \n456 \n73,736,882 \n30,404,695 \n72 \nMasaka DLG \n- \n- \n- \n146 \n19,477,354 \n- \n73 \nMasindi DLG \n4 \n5,229,989 \n3,909,912 \n518 \n37,616,384 \n102,025,875 \n74 \nMayuge DLG \n- \n- \n- \n212 \n34,170,782 \n1,954,848 \n75 \nMbale DLG \n- \n- \n- \n32 \n3,304,547", "metadata": {"page": 271, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3,304,547 \n16,095,368 \n76 \nMitooma DLG \n- \n- \n- \n82 \n28,040,621 \n- \n77 \nMoroto DLG \n- \n- \n- \n362 \n36,171,133 \n11,516,460 \n78 \nMoyo DLG \n- \n- \n- \n258 \n15,445,842 \n21,578,973 \n79 \nMpigi DLG \n- \n- \n- \n51 \n28,003,018 \n- \n80 \nMubende DLG \n- \n- \n-", "metadata": {"page": 271, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n- \n212 \n4,885,857 \n6,158,210 \n81 \nMukono DLG \n28 \n607,972,506 \n19,830,096 \n506 \n144,933,326 \n- \n82 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n- \n- \n- \n177 \n2,319,250 \n2,421,098 \n83 \nNakaseke DLG \n- \n- \n- \n93 \n5,177,017 \n1,278,305 \n84 \nNakasongola DLG \n- \n- \n- \n504 \n7,403,212", "metadata": {"page": 271, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7,403,212 \n525,752 \n85 \nNamayingo DLG \n- \n- \n- \n261 \n45,716,806 \n3,392,736 \n86 \nNamisindwa DLG \n- \n- \n- \n511 \n9,882,656 \n27,680,666 \n87 \nNamutumba DLG \n- \n- \n- \n40 \n26,837,268 \n1,229,349 \n88 \nNapak DLG \n- \n- \n- \n212 \n28,658,716 \n45,396,242 \n89 \nNebbi DLG \nNebbi DLG \n- \n- \n- \n362 \n46,976,448 \n101,224,523 \n90 \nNtoroko DLG \n- \n- \n- \n293 \n1,831,126 \n12,231,749", "metadata": {"page": 271, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "256 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of staff paid \nusing wrong \nscales \nUnder \npayment \narising from \nwrong scales \nOver \npayment \narising from \nwrong scales \nNo. of staff paid \nusing wrong \nlevel/notches \nUnder payment arising \nfrom wrong \nlevel/notches \nOver payment arising \nfrom wrong \nlevel/notches \n91 \nNtungamo DLG \n \n \n \n38 \n77,373,232 \n57,891,803 \n92 \nNwoya DLG \n \n \n \n88 \n39,414,847 \n85,363,741", "metadata": {"page": 272, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "85,363,741 \n93 \nObongi DLG \n4 \n7,265,792 \n- \n199 \n70,737,767 \n3,798,637 \n94 \nOmoro DLG \n- \n- \n- \n315 \n24,376,694 \n52,233,032 \n95 \nOtuke DLG \n17 \n1,814,595 \n177,032,782 \n- \n- \n- \n96 \nOyam DLG \n38 \n13,951,723 \n70,258,148 \n790 \n39,126,815 \n154,466,990 \n97 \nPader DLG", "metadata": {"page": 272, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Pader DLG \n- \n- \n- \n391 \n2,317,452 \n191,600 \n98 \nPakwach DLG \n2 \n- \n18,607,482 \n- \n- \n- \n99 \nPallisa DLG \n4 \n584,148 \n3,711,420 \n273 \n6,434,068 \n62,905,178 \n100 \nRukiga DLG \n10 \n191,531 \n194,053 \n- \n- \n- \n101 \nRwampara DLG \n- \n- \n- \n443 \n6,307,817", "metadata": {"page": 272, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6,307,817 \n5,880,119 \n102 \nSheema DLG \n \n \n \n74 \n7,495,398 \n14,067,459 \n103 \nSironko DLG \n10 \n119,920 \n1,980,710 \n453 \n43,856,129 \n58,378,657 \n104 \nSoroti DLG \n7 \n4,261,245 \n3,744,507 \n42 \n16,978,770 \n- \n105 \nTororo DLG \n22 \n12,150,421 \n22,627,236 \n588 \n73,940,429 \n199,769,615", "metadata": {"page": 272, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "199,769,615 \n106 \nWakiso DLG \n- \n- \n- \n86 \n6,285,305 \n- \n107 \nYumbe DLG \n7 \n2,265,548 \n14,018,628 \n1,115 \n21,182,667 \n17,762,314 \n108 \nZombo DLG \n- \n- \n- \n363 \n76,580,061 \n- \n \n \n1,264 \n886,806,364 \n532,949,259 \n28,172 \n2,652,787,176 \n2,386,682,931", "metadata": {"page": 272, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "257 \n \nAppendix 1 f: Payment of deductions (LST, PAYE, UNATU, UCLA) \nSN \nEntity Name \nOver \nremittance of \nPAYE \nUnder-\nremittance of \nPAYE \nOver \nremittance of \nLST \nUnder-\nremittance \nof LST \nOver \nremittance \nof loans \nUnder-\nremittance of \nloans \nOver \nremittance \nof other \npayroll \ndeductions \n(union and \nassociation \ncontributio\nns, etc) \nUnder-\nremittance \nof other \npayroll \ndeductions", "metadata": {"page": 273, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "payroll \ndeductions \n(union and \nassociation \ncontribution\ns, etc) \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n0 \n204,206,903 \n0 \n3,846,250 \n0 \n13,156,758 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nAgago DLG \n0 \n3,772,687 \n0 \n31,521,778 \n0 \n9,547,276 \n0 \n0 \n3 \nAmolatar DLG \n160,111,278 \n0 \n0 \n6,966,432 \n0 \n715,428 \n0 \n1,510,025 \n4", "metadata": {"page": 273, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4 \nApac DLG \n0 \n525,659,888 \n0 \n39,245,725 \n0 \n124,165,139 \n0 \n0 \n5 \nBudaka DLG \n41,893,449 \n0 \n3,825,000 \n0 \n17,086,910 \n0 \n674,386 \n0 \n6 \nBududa DLG \n20,767,556 \n0 \n0 \n5,389,000 \n6,170,615 \n0 \n0 \n220,684 \n7 \nBugiri DLG \n0 \n567,722 \n0 \n552,500", "metadata": {"page": 273, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "552,500 \n2,411,911 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n8 \nBukedea DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26,395,654 \n0 \n0 \n9 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n43,797,626 \n0 \n0 \n5,735,149 \n169,091,765 \n0 \n0 \n11,278,906 \n10 \nBukwo DLG \n0 \n90,269,334 \n7,698,520 \n0 \n2,569,674 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11 \nBulambuli DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 273, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n5,476,922 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12 \nBundibugyo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,104,012 \n13 \nBunyangabu DLG \n0 \n6,400,315 \n0 \n0 \n1,760,337 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \nButambala DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3,974,011 \n2,256,030 \n0 \n15 \nButebo DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 273, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n164,624,486 \n0 \n121,494,672 \n22,054,301 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n16 \nBuvuma DLG \n5,868,914 \n0 \n0 \n4,158,192 \n0 \n978,192 \n0 \n0 \n17 \nBuyende DLG \n0 \n152,849,891 \n0 \n102,791 \n0 \n26,888,463 \n0 \n0 \n18 \nGomba DLG \n190,320,830 \n0 \n4,387,500 \n0 \n0 \n8,301,783 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 273, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n6,575,433 \n19 \nGulu DLG \n0 \n823,501 \n0 \n2,532,500 \n0 \n15,558,712 \n0 \n10,107,854 \n20 \nIbanda DLG \n13,223,527 \n0 \n5,221,010 \n0 \n0 \n17,255,317 \n0 \n858,140 \n21 \nIganga DLG \n21,398,075 \n0 \n2,952,750 \n0 \n0 \n55,467,638 \n0 \n0 \n22 \nKabarole DLG \n0 \n41,280,379", "metadata": {"page": 273, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "41,280,379 \n0 \n9,188,750 \n0 \n43,056,522 \n0 \n2,492,103 \n23 \nKaberamaido DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,669,891 \n24 \nKalaki DLG \n0 \n646,070,920 \n0 \n33,333,750 \n0 \n308,716,572 \n0 \n15,098,511 \n25 \nKaliro DLG \n0 \n3,430,866 \n2,127,411,711 \n0 \n43,133,746 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 273, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \nKamuli DLG \n0 \n366,965,426 \n6,349,338 \n0 \n0 \n94,946,039 \n0 \n0 \n27 \nKamwenge DLG \n0 \n4,349,917 \n0 \n110,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n28 \nKanungu DLG \n0 \n210,430,753 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n29 \nKapelebyong DLG \n0 \n40,899,302 \n0 \n722,500 \n0 \n0 \n3,219,386 \n0 \n557,851", "metadata": {"page": 273, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "258 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nOver \nremittance of \nPAYE \nUnder-\nremittance of \nPAYE \nOver \nremittance of \nLST \nUnder-\nremittance \nof LST \nOver \nremittance \nof loans \nUnder-\nremittance of \nloans \nOver \nremittance \nof other \npayroll \ndeductions \n(union and \nassociation \ncontributio\nns, etc) \nUnder-\nremittance \nof other \npayroll \ndeductions \n(union and \nassociation \ncontribution\ns, etc)", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "s, etc) \n30 \nKasanda DLG \n34,238,685 \n0 \n24,351,111 \n0 \n7,421,158 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n31 \nKasese DLG \n50,323,268 \n0 \n1,100,000 \n0 \n1,098,637 \n0 \n0 \n1,569,845 \n32 \nKatakwi DLG \n12,837,742 \n0 \n603,750 \n0 \n16,341,645 \n0 \n0 \n1,926,596 \n33 \nKazo DLG \n0 \n32,152,613", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "32,152,613 \n3,586,951 \n0 \n0 \n10,076,515 \n0 \n2,009,830 \n34 \nKibuku DLG \n0 \n0 \n8,708,757 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n35 \nKiruhura DLG \n298,848 \n0 \n0 \n554,772 \n1,713,506 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n36 \nKisoro DLG \n0 \n9,369,790 \n0 \n37,851,490 \n222,787,561 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n2,943,417 \n37 \nKitagwenda DLG \n0 \n119,729,596 \n0 \n31,437,519 \n0 \n51,441,866 \n0 \n1,003,508 \n38 \nKole DLG \n0 \n47,270,021 \n5,545,380 \n0 \n95,900,089 \n0 \n0 \n2,353,456 \n39 \nKumi DLG \n0 \n60,076,895 \n0 \n6,921,689 \n10,031,234 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n40 \nKwania DLG", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kwania DLG \n0 \n461,309,217 \n84,417,328 \n0 \n0 \n63,862,249 \n0 \n0 \n41 \nKween DLG \n0 \n19,361,360 \n2,265,000 \n0 \n0 \n394,808 \n0 \n0 \n42 \nKyegegwa DLG \n19,368,937 \n0 \n0 \n4,441,178 \n5,835,407 \n0 \n0 \n12,150 \n43 \nKyenjojo DLG \n0 \n222,972,734 \n2,929,248 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n15,040,370 \n0 \n0 \n44 \nKyotera DLG \n11,183,105 \n0 \n16,878,159 \n0 \n911,228 \n0 \n0 \n21,233,357 \n45 \nLamwo DLG \n0 \n202,897,742 \n3,912,446 \n0 \n0 \n39,783,714 \n0 \n2,977,389 \n46 \nLira DLG \n4,740,375 \n0 \n0 \n9,979,802 \n0 \n35,838,133 \n0 \n0 \n47 \nLwengo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Lwengo DLG \n0 \n3,897,903 \n2,257,219 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,814,311 \n48 \nLyantonde DLG \n9,114,066 \n0 \n17,038,700 \n0 \n2,200,933 \n0 \n0 \n16,910,573 \n49 \nMasaka DLG \n0 \n111,063,599 \n5,856,750 \n0 \n0 \n67,372,131 \n0 \n11,822,336 \n50 \nMayuge DLG \n0 \n13,674,418 \n1,412,418 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n1,572,530 \n0 \n0 \n51 \nMitooma DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n4,606,474 \n52 \nMityana DLG \n0 \n58,348,383 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n53 \nMoroto DLG \n128,227,013 \n0 \n3,631,020 \n0 \n4,811,416 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n54 \nMukono DLG \n0 \n274,009,652 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n8,126,880 \n0 \n12,562,585 \n0 \n1,317,586 \n55 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n0 \n3,299,655 \n0 \n155,296 \n0 \n18,234,095 \n0 \n134,514 \n56 \nNakaseke DLG \n0 \n428,478,570 \n0 \n22,952,500 \n0 \n453,160,665 \n0 \n1,729,595 \n57 \nNakasongola DLG \n0 \n199,410,841 \n1,058,032 \n0 \n0 \n80,805,484", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "80,805,484 \n0 \n549,352 \n58 \nNamayingo DLG \n0 \n6,818,328 \n0 \n2,732,500 \n0 \n7,018,008 \n0 \n0 \n59 \nNamutumba DLG \n0 \n11,184,353 \n675,656 \n0 \n0 \n940,502 \n0 \n0 \n60 \nNapak DLG \n0 \n35,976,122 \n0 \n10,703,165 \n0 \n11,705,036 \n9,169,174 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "259 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nOver \nremittance of \nPAYE \nUnder-\nremittance of \nPAYE \nOver \nremittance of \nLST \nUnder-\nremittance \nof LST \nOver \nremittance \nof loans \nUnder-\nremittance of \nloans \nOver \nremittance \nof other \npayroll \ndeductions \n(union and \nassociation \ncontributio\nns, etc) \nUnder-\nremittance \nof other \npayroll \ndeductions \n(union and \nassociation \ncontribution\ns, etc)", "metadata": {"page": 275, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "s, etc) \n61 \nNtoroko DLG \n0 \n611,258,653 \n0 \n17,196,250 \n984,148 \n0 \n0 \n2,901,697 \n62 \nOyam DLG \n0 \n7,341,501 \n1,897,741 \n0 \n0 \n658,667 \n0 \n179,356 \n63 \nPader DLG \n213,984,251 \n0 \n217,100,724 \n0 \n19,552,928 \n0 \n0 \n15,257,249 \n64 \nRakai DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 275, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n2,536,235 \n0 \n0 \n1,608,550 \n65 \nRubanda DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n17,861,661 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n66 \nRukiga DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2,257,887 \n0 \n0 \n294,312 \n67 \nRukungiri DLG \n0 \n3,124,470 \n1,688,711 \n0 \n35,109,885 \n0 \n2,670,980 \n0 \n68 \nRwampara DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 275, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n6,915,972 \n0 \n1,923,750 \n0 \n226,769 \n0 \n17,655,816 \n69 \nSerere DLG \n101,394,233 \n0 \n0 \n5,322,470 \n47,580,981 \n0 \n2,467,232 \n0 \n70 \nSheema DLG \n0 \n224,393,404 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n71 \nSironko DLG \n0 \n692,077 \n0 \n411,656 \n119,713 \n0 \n0 \n133,946", "metadata": {"page": 275, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "133,946 \n72 \nSoroti DLG \n206,660,833 \n0 \n0 \n1,309,602 \n0 \n1,638,969 \n76,565 \n0 \n73 \nTerego DLG \n0 \n36,952,586 \n0 \n10,662,940 \n29,011,783 \n0 \n296,047 \n0 \n74 \nZombo DLG \n212,128,102 \n0 \n24,464,077 \n0 \n132,200,831 \n0 \n7,960,021 \n0 \n \nTotal \n1,501,880,713", "metadata": {"page": 275, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,501,880,713 \n5,470,375,842 \n2,583,748,085 \n451,598,859 \n902,686,464 \n1,611,519,228 \n25,570,435 \n164,418,625 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAppendix 1 g: Non deduction of PAYE from Political leaders\u2019 and Commissioners\u2019 gratuity", "metadata": {"page": 275, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "260 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of political \nleaders and \ncommissioners \nnot subjected to \nPAYE \n Amount of DPOL \nand DSC gratuity \nnot subject to \nPAYE \n PAYE not \ndeducted \nNo. of political \nleaders and \ncommissioners \nnot subjected to \nPAYE on IPPS but \ndeducted and \nremitted off the \npayroll \nAmount of \nDPOL and DSC \ngratuity not \nsubject to PAYE \non IPPS but \ndeducted and \nremitted off the \npayroll \nPAYE deducted \nand remitted off \nthe payroll \n1 \nAlebtong DLG", "metadata": {"page": 276, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Alebtong DLG \n19 \n40,687,200 \n13,300,960 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nAmolatar DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n38,469,600 \n10,917,729 \n3 \nAmudat DLG \n0 \n21,710,400 \n7,772,520 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n4 \nAmuria DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12,723,997 \n12,723,997 \n5 \nAmuru DLG \n0 \n42,540,000 \n11,911,080 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 276, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n6 \nArua DLG \n0 \n6,178,846 \n1,853,653 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n7 \nBudaka DLG \n0 \n \n \n19 \n3,845,140 \n3,583,813 \n8 \nBududa DLG \n0 \n45,511,200 \n13,562,160 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n9 \nBukedea DLG \n23 \n44,402,400 \n13,709,520 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 276, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n15 \n39,268,846 \n11,196,171 \n11 \nBuliisa DLG \n0 \n35,503,200 \n10,745,760 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12 \nButebo DLG \n12 \n37,808,861 \n10,819,458 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n13 \nDokolo DLG \n0 \n27,409,800 \n7,815,060 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \nHoima DLG \n0 \n37,758,046 \n11,329,114 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n15", "metadata": {"page": 276, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n15 \nKagadi DLG \n0 \n71,100,000 \n20,757,360 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n16 \nKakumiro DLG \n0 \n63,930,046 \n19,273,814 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n17 \nKalaki DLG \n17 \n41,105,630 \n12,540,089 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n18 \nKalangala DLG \n0 \n38,715,646 \n11,264,534 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n19 \nKaliro DLG \n13 \n33,682,846", "metadata": {"page": 276, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "33,682,846 \n10,205,854 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n20 \nKanungu DLG \n1 \n5,603,200 \n899,550 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n21 \nKapelebyong DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n42,784,800 \n14,350,840 \n22 \nKasese DLG \n1 \n1,837,200 \n106,200 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n23 \nKatakwi DLG \n26 \n55,030,846 \n16,604,054 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n24", "metadata": {"page": 276, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n24 \nKibaale DLG \n4 \n36,656,860 \n2,471,538 \n2 \n10,000,000 \n560,000 \n25 \nKiboga DLG \n0 \n36,656,860 \n2,471,538 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \nKibuku DLG \n0 \n51,157,661 \n15,442,098 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n27 \nKiruhura DLG \n0 \n40,775,260 \n14,181,682 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n28 \nKween DLG \n1", "metadata": {"page": 276, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1 \n4,119,230 \n1,235,769 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n29 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n24 \n53,959,646 \n7,884,694 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n30 \nKyegegwa DLG \n0 \n51,157,661 \n15,344,098 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n31 \nKyenjojo DLG \n2 \n3,715,200 \n1,114,560 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 276, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "261 \n \n32 \nLyantonde DLG \n7 \n13,018,800 \n1,383,330 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n33 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \n35,914,846 \n3,465,801 \n34 \nMaracha DLG \n0 \n74,312,446 \n2,233,558 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n35 \nMayuge DLG \n0 \n35,503,200 \n6,674,560 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n36 \nMbarara DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 277, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n13,429,246 \n3,583,813 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n37 \nMityana DLG \n7 \n11,505,600 \n1,546,800 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n38 \nMoroto DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n46,708,060 \n14,107,218 \n39 \nMpigi DLG \n0 \n45,037,245 \n20,555,147 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n40 \nMukono DLG \n23 \n36,656,860 \n2,471,538 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 277, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n41 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n0 \n4,119,230 \n1,652,673 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n42 \nNakaseke DLG \n0 \n0 \n14,903,640 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n43 \nNamutumba DLG \n1 \n6,178,846 \n1,951,654 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n44 \nNgora DLG \n1 \n6,178,846 \n1,436,749 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n45 \nObongi DLG \n0 \n37,918,984", "metadata": {"page": 277, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "37,918,984 \n11,271,395 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n46 \nPallisa DLG \n0 \n30,701,600 \n7,763,210 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n47 \nRubirizi DLG \n17 \n39,476,400 \n11,808,720 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n48 \nSerere DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n209,789,813 \n41,534,545 \n49 \nSheema DLG \n1 \n3,330,400 \n901,120 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n50", "metadata": {"page": 277, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n50 \nSoroti DLG \n19 \n46,131,646 \n12,082,340 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n51 \nYumbe DLG \n0 \n20,560,702 \n6,262,010 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n Total \n219 \n1,352,773,796 \n363,098,974 \n50 \n439,505,102 \n112,440,114 \n \nAppendix 1 h: Inaccurate computation of pension and gratuity \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \npensioners \nwith \ninaccurate \ncomputation \nof gratuity \nUnder payment \narising from", "metadata": {"page": 277, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Under payment \narising from \ninaccurate \ncomputation of \ngratuity \n Over payment \narising from \ninaccurate \ncomputation of \ngratuity \nNo. of \npensioners \nwith \ninaccurate \ncomputation \nof pension \nUnder payment arising \nfrom inaccurate \ncomputation of pension \n Over payment \narising from \ninaccurate \ncomputation of \npension \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n2 \n1,257,342 \n3,528,740 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nApac DLG \n1 \n0 \n31,990,188 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \nArua DLG", "metadata": {"page": 277, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Arua DLG \n7 \n13,712,209 \n19,986,825 \n12 \n2,228,079 \n3,186,751 \n4 \nBududa DLG \n7 \n2,893,388 \n0 \n16 \n189,197 \n1,102,663 \n5 \nBugiri DLG \n5 \n66,275,774 \n32,300,364 \n3 \n797,536 \n5,891,178 \n6 \nBugweri DLG \n5 \n21,597,796 \n288,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n7 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n1", "metadata": {"page": 277, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1 \n2,073,619 \n3,769,815 \n1 \n23,040 \n41,887 \n8 \nBukwo DLG \n1 \n0 \n876,008 \n1 \n0 \n537,813 \n9 \nBuliisa DLG \n2 \n5,807,914 \n0 \n2 \n45,477 \n0 \n10 \nGulu DLG \n3 \n2,325,648 \n1,411,474 \n2 \n0 \n8,172,877", "metadata": {"page": 277, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "262 \n \n11 \nKatakwi DLG \n7 \n22,571,164 \n20,949,565 \n7 \n2,175,600 \n0 \n12 \nKiboga DLG \n4 \n1,893,498 \n0 \n4 \n326,173 \n0 \n13 \nKikuube DLG \n5 \n7,908,859 \n24,438,088 \n6 \n88,634 \n256,233 \n14 \nKiryandongo DLG \n12 \n37,442,310 \n5,990,065 \n1 \n269,741 \n0 \n15 \nKitgum DLG", "metadata": {"page": 278, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kitgum DLG \n6 \n2,976,777 \n0 \n3 \n167,283 \n0 \n16 \nKoboko DLG \n6 \n4,509,870 \n1,189,700 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n17 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n5 \n0 \n472,181 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n18 \nKyotera DLG \n14 \n4,796,691 \n631,238 \n20 \n26,431,230 \n3,361,191 \n19 \nLamwo DLG \n2 \n4,550,166 \n1,302,142 \n2", "metadata": {"page": 278, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n1,245,660 \n0 \n20 \nLwengo DLG \n8 \n776,331 \n2,430,141 \n8 \n105,051 \n512,757 \n21 \nLyantonde DLG \n1 \n2,262,466 \n0 \n1 \n50,278 \n0 \n22 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n3 \n0 \n1,729,513 \n2 \n0 \n2,269,386 \n23 \nMasindi DLG \n20 \n55,896,349 \n23,011,404 \n21 \n628,379 \n255,682 \n24", "metadata": {"page": 278, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "24 \nMubende DLG \n4 \n59,371,898 \n0 \n5 \n24,832,927 \n0 \n25 \nMukono DLG \n17 \n54,884,324 \n49,065,820 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \nNamisindwa DLG \n28 \n13,563,515 \n2,319,952 \n28 \n395,935 \n420,120 \n27 \nNamutumba DLG \n3 \n0 \n14,892,594 \n2 \n0 \n157,645 \n28 \nNapak DLG \n2 \n349,287", "metadata": {"page": 278, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "349,287 \n8,902,518 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n29 \nOmoro DLG \n11 \n9,599,685 \n2,008,334 \n11 \n106,664 \n22,315 \n30 \nPakwach DLG \n3 \n7,664,267 \n5,567,181 \n3 \n84,252 \n4,024,152 \n31 \nPallisa DLG \n5 \n1,062,400 \n1,486,749 \n5 \n613,916 \n11,804 \n32 \nRubirizi DLG \n1 \n21,904,611 \n0 \n4", "metadata": {"page": 278, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n4 \n875,070 \n0 \n33 \nSironko DLG \n8 \n2,781,855 \n632,440 \n9 \n182,918 \n2,180,651 \n34 \nTerego DLG \n3 \n3,850,502 \n0 \n3 \n79,460 \n0 \n35 \nTororo DLG \n2 \n0 \n9,346,921 \n19 \n0 \n21,257,937 \n36 \nWakiso DLG \n1 \n53,862 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n37 \nYumbe DLG \n7 \n7 \n6,056,595 \n5,945,586 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \nTotal \n222 \n442,670,972 \n276,463,546 \n201 \n61,942,500 \n53,663,042", "metadata": {"page": 278, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "263 \n \nAppendix 1 i: Delayed access and removal \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. \nof \nstaf\nf \nwho \ndela\nyed \nto \nacce\nss \npayr\noll \nAver\nage \ndelay\ns to \nacce\nss \nthe \nwage \npayr\noll \n(mon\nths) \nNo. of \nstaff with \noutstandi\nng \npayments \nby end of \nFY arising \nfrom \ndelayed \naccess by \nnewly \nrecruited/\ntransferre\nd staff", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "transferre\nd staff \n Amount \noutstanding \narising from \ndelayed \naccess by \nnewly \nrecruited/tr\nansferred \nstaff \nNo. of \npensioners\n/beneficiari\nes who \ndelayed to \naccess \npayroll \nAverage \ndelays \nto \naccess \nthe \npension \npayroll \n(month\ns) \nNo. of \npensioner\ns/benefic\niaries \nwith \noutstandi\nng \npayments \nby end of \nFY \n Amount \noutstanding \narising from \ndelayed \naccess by \npensioners/b", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "pensioners/b\neneficiaries \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwho \ndela\nyed \nto be \nremo\nved \nfrom \nthe \npayr\noll \nAver\nage \ndelay\ns to \nleave \nthe \nwage \npayr\noll \n(mon\nths) \n Amount paid \nto employees \nafter \nexpected \ndate of \nremoval \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n75 \n \n11 \n41,825,767 \n5 \n0 \n5 \n191,552,907 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nAgago DLG \n29 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n9 \n51 \n1 \n6,535,930 \n8 \n7 \n14,470,403 \n3 \nAlebtong DLG \n17 \n4 \n14 \n13,229,127 \n2 \n5 \n2 \n2,705,671 \n1 \n3 \n2,823,002 \n4 \nAmolatar DLG \n9 \n1 \n9 \n15,213,034 \n6 \n1 \n6 \n17,112,541 \n8 \n4", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8 \n4 \n7,063,729 \n5 \nAmudat DLG \n10 \n2 \n3 \n919,776 \n1 \n24 \n1 \n2,266,678 \n9 \n11 \n6,123,981 \n6 \nAmuria DLG \n54 \n12 \n0 \n0 \n7 \n3 \n7 \n7,014,100 \n4 \n7 \n17,539,906 \n7 \nAmuru DLG \n11 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n39 \n6 \n34 \n \n15 \n24 \n36,600,909", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "36,600,909 \n8 \nApac DLG \n66 \n4 \n8 \n35,473,604 \n10 \n5 \n10 \n19,479,285 \n12 \n8 \n30,004,274 \n9 \nArua DLG \n4 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n15 \n110 \n21 \n133,398,427 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \nBudaka DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n1 \n8 \n9,144,554 \n4 \n \n3,606,481 \n11", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11 \nBududa DLG \n40 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n39 \n25 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12 \nBugiri DLG \n28 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n24 \n2 \n6 \n15,006,365 \n16 \n2 \n16,746,826 \n13 \nBugweri DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \n3 \n10 \n3,293,092 \n20 \n3 \n20,180,820 \n14 \nBuikwe DLG \n4 \n4 \n2", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4 \n2 \n811,412 \n9 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n4 \n3 \n3,108,770 \n15 \nBukedea DLG \n88 \n2 \n7 \n1,056,509 \n14 \n10 \n7 \n26,002,978 \n4 \n4 \n6,249,830 \n16 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n0 \n0 \n11 \n6,341,595 \n9 \n8 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n1 \n328,631 \n17 \nBulambuli DLG \n23 \n2 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n17 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n2 \n1,890,278 \n18 \nBuliisa DLG \n5 \n0 \n5 \n2,571,831 \n4 \n3 \n5 \n9,344,438 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n19 \nBundibugyo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n4 \n14 \n0 \n0 \n7 \n3 \n5,807,914 \n20 \nBunyangabu DLG \n4 \n3 \n1 \n384,294 \n8 \n1", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n1 \n350,258 \n21 \nBushenyi DLG \n10 \n2 \n6 \n10,499,223 \n3 \n2 \n3 \n3,463,621 \n5 \n3 \n4,899,863 \n22 \nBusia DLG \n65 \n10 \n0 \n0 \n28 \n10 \n20 \n16,939,486 \n19 \n12 \n25,074,073 \n23 \nButaleja DLG \n25 \n1 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n3", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \n6 \n1,856,100 \n24 \nButambala DLG \n7 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n6 \n2,247,315 \n25 \nButebo DLG \n27 \n7 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n15 \n2 \n15,180,497", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "264 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. \nof \nstaf\nf \nwho \ndela\nyed \nto \nacce\nss \npayr\noll \nAver\nage \ndelay\ns to \nacce\nss \nthe \nwage \npayr\noll \n(mon\nths) \nNo. of \nstaff with \noutstandi\nng \npayments \nby end of \nFY arising \nfrom \ndelayed \naccess by \nnewly \nrecruited/\ntransferre\nd staff \n Amount \noutstanding", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Amount \noutstanding \narising from \ndelayed \naccess by \nnewly \nrecruited/tr\nansferred \nstaff \nNo. of \npensioners\n/beneficiari\nes who \ndelayed to \naccess \npayroll \nAverage \ndelays \nto \naccess \nthe \npension \npayroll \n(month\ns) \nNo. of \npensioner\ns/benefic\niaries \nwith \noutstandi\nng \npayments \nby end of \nFY \n Amount \noutstanding \narising from \ndelayed \naccess by \npensioners/b\neneficiaries \nNo.", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "No. \nof \nstaff \nwho \ndela\nyed \nto be \nremo\nved \nfrom \nthe \npayr\noll \nAver\nage \ndelay\ns to \nleave \nthe \nwage \npayr\noll \n(mon\nths) \n Amount paid \nto employees \nafter \nexpected \ndate of \nremoval \n26 \nBuvuma DLG \n28 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n2 \n2,108,118 \n27 \nBuyende DLG", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Buyende DLG \n9 \n3 \n8 \n15,530,331 \n16 \n4 \n16 \n12,408,972 \n \n \n \n28 \nDokolo DLG \n2 \n9 \n0 \n0 \n9 \n8 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n2 \n4,038,474 \n29 \nGomba DLG \n28 \n2 \n11 \n16,039,658 \n4 \n16 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n5 \n4,191,898 \n30 \nGulu DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n5 \n8,073,588 \n31 \nHoima DLG \n12 \n4 \n8 \n4,353,766 \n18 \n65 \n12 \n16,610,474 \n9 \n1 \n5,407,462 \n32 \nIbanda DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n7 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n2 \n2,667,772 \n33 \nIganga DLG \n47 \n2 \n46 \n29,675,874 \n6", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6 \n3 \n6 \n8,900,893 \n4 \n2 \n1,828,155 \n34 \nJinja DLG \n29 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n24 \n5 \n \n \n4 \n1 \n2,207,975 \n35 \nKabale DLG \n124 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n7 \n1 \n1 \n2,297,466 \n4 \n4 \n9,871,509 \n36 \nKabarole DLG \n10 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n3", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n3 \n1 \n702,856 \n37 \nKaberamaido DLG \n172 \n3 \n12 \n52,473,454 \n10 \n10 \n10 \n297,871 \n2 \n1 \n2,773,761 \n38 \nKagadi DLG \n105 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \n4 \n3 \n942,137 \n20 \n5 \n34,895,609 \n39 \nKakumiro DLG \n12 \n3 \n66 \n74,033,793 \n4 \n3 \n5 \n3,443,014", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3,443,014 \n12 \n10 \n15,518,066 \n40 \nKalaki DLG \n20 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n17 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n11 \n1,199,736 \n41 \nKalangala DLG \n16 \n1 \n16 \n30,122,334 \n3 \n13 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n42 \nKaliro DLG \n43 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n11 \n5 \n0 \n0 \n6 \n3 \n11,466,319 \n43", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "43 \nKalungu DLG \n15 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n26 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n44 \nKamuli DLG \n28 \n4 \n8 \n5,352,558 \n22 \n1 \n22 \n4,159,714 \n \n \n \n45 \nKamwenge DLG \n72 \n1 \n3 \n2,732,041 \n6 \n2 \n6 \n5,744,846 \n5 \n2 \n6,125,172 \n46 \nKanungu DLG \n12 \n3 \n12", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \n12 \n5,430,339 \n8 \n5 \n0 \n0 \n4 \n3 \n4,936,460 \n47 \nKapchorwa DLG \n \n \n \n \n17 \n \n17 \n25,082,986 \n5 \n \n2,578,750 \n48 \nKapelebyong DLG \n2 \n5 \n2 \n3,155,787 \n6 \n2 \n3 \n15,984,791 \n3 \n1 \n1,814,999 \n49 \nKasanda DLG \n9 \n1 \n \n \n9", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "9 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n3 \n10,652,062 \n50 \nKasese DLG \n10 \n2 \n10 \n11,596,763 \n7 \n2 \n3 \n2,658,026 \n4 \n2 \n6,663,973 \n51 \nKatakwi DLG \n9 \n7 \n4 \n42,998,527 \n12 \n5 \n8 \n6,381,807 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "265 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. \nof \nstaf\nf \nwho \ndela\nyed \nto \nacce\nss \npayr\noll \nAver\nage \ndelay\ns to \nacce\nss \nthe \nwage \npayr\noll \n(mon\nths) \nNo. of \nstaff with \noutstandi\nng \npayments \nby end of \nFY arising \nfrom \ndelayed \naccess by \nnewly \nrecruited/\ntransferre\nd staff \n Amount \noutstanding", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Amount \noutstanding \narising from \ndelayed \naccess by \nnewly \nrecruited/tr\nansferred \nstaff \nNo. of \npensioners\n/beneficiari\nes who \ndelayed to \naccess \npayroll \nAverage \ndelays \nto \naccess \nthe \npension \npayroll \n(month\ns) \nNo. of \npensioner\ns/benefic\niaries \nwith \noutstandi\nng \npayments \nby end of \nFY \n Amount \noutstanding \narising from \ndelayed \naccess by \npensioners/b\neneficiaries \nNo.", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "No. \nof \nstaff \nwho \ndela\nyed \nto be \nremo\nved \nfrom \nthe \npayr\noll \nAver\nage \ndelay\ns to \nleave \nthe \nwage \npayr\noll \n(mon\nths) \n Amount paid \nto employees \nafter \nexpected \ndate of \nremoval \n52 \nKayunga DLG \n72 \n2 \n66 \n76,089,749 \n7 \n2 \n5 \n17,946,110 \n7 \n4 \n11,937,661", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,937,661 \n53 \nKazo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n5 \n5 \n16,277,128 \n15 \n14 \n10,007,528 \n54 \nKibaale DLG \n80 \n2 \n11 \n11,596,763 \n8 \n2 \n8 \n9,249,075 \n8 \n4 \n6,123,981 \n55 \nKiboga DLG \n12 \n7 \n8 \n17,227,243 \n5 \n5 \n2 \n1,544,932 \n5 \n2 \n5,318,049", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5,318,049 \n56 \nKibuku DLG \n17 \n4 \n \n \n4 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n4 \n9,783,264 \n57 \nKikuube DLG \n24 \n9 \n25 \n55,489,300 \n10 \n6 \n6 \n4,109,070 \n17 \n6 \n16,421,978 \n58 \nKiruhura DLG \n44 \n3 \n9 \n12,186,896 \n5 \n14 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n59 \nKiryandongo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kiryandongo DLG \n5 \n0 \n5 \n6,716,685 \n17 \n1 \n10 \n65,703,667 \n9 \n3 \n13,937,711 \n60 \nKisoro DLG \n19 \n5 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n5 \n6,101,105 \n61 \nKitagwenda DLG \n4 \n2 \n3 \n11,369,295 \n5 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n62 \nKitgum DLG \n34 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "34 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n1 \n0 \n2,460,449 \n2 \n1 \n1,054,211 \n63 \nKoboko DLG \n44 \n2 \n35 \n49,045,202 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n3 \n5,976,116 \n64 \nKole DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n7 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n12 \n1,954,864 \n65 \nKumi DLG \n451 \n10 \n0 \n0 \n3", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n3 \n10 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n12 \n15,715,785 \n66 \nKwania DLG \n27 \n1 \n26 \n34,431,052 \n8 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n5 \n7,305,327 \n67 \nKween DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n4 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n2 \n359,225 \n68 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n144 \n3 \n121 \n255,016,293 \n8 \n2 \n16", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n16 \n6,007,295 \n20 \n4 \n25,623,734 \n69 \nKyegegwa DLG \n150 \n1 \n150 \n74,952,600 \n6 \n2 \n2 \n2,341,518 \n5 \n2 \n5,417,265 \n70 \nKyenjojo DLG \n1 \n6 \n1 \n4,545,328 \n7 \n3 \n7 \n4,114,211 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n71 \nKyotera DLG \n8 \n3 \n1 \n4,621,212 \n2 \n1 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n72 \nLamwo DLG \n15 \n1 \n11 \n6,716,685 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n3 \n3,573,149 \n73 \nLira DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n1 \n8 \n26,444,576 \n10 \n4 \n16,067,592 \n74 \nLuuka DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n1 \n0 \n2,342,700 \n5 \n3", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5 \n3 \n6,852,439 \n75 \nLuwero DLG \n80 \n2 \n15 \n71,933,587 \n8 \n3 \n10 \n12,959,364 \n7 \n5 \n12,799,031 \n76 \nLwengo DLG \n85 \n3 \n13 \n27,770,510 \n8 \n5 \n8 \n9,389,047 \n4 \n3 \n3,036,979 \n77 \nLyantonde DLG \n8 \n3 \n7 \n7,228,968 \n21 \n36 \n21 \n36 \n21 \n144,602,074 \n22 \n16 \n42,805,698", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "266 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. \nof \nstaf\nf \nwho \ndela\nyed \nto \nacce\nss \npayr\noll \nAver\nage \ndelay\ns to \nacce\nss \nthe \nwage \npayr\noll \n(mon\nths) \nNo. of \nstaff with \noutstandi\nng \npayments \nby end of \nFY arising \nfrom \ndelayed \naccess by \nnewly \nrecruited/\ntransferre\nd staff \n Amount \noutstanding", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Amount \noutstanding \narising from \ndelayed \naccess by \nnewly \nrecruited/tr\nansferred \nstaff \nNo. of \npensioners\n/beneficiari\nes who \ndelayed to \naccess \npayroll \nAverage \ndelays \nto \naccess \nthe \npension \npayroll \n(month\ns) \nNo. of \npensioner\ns/benefic\niaries \nwith \noutstandi\nng \npayments \nby end of \nFY \n Amount \noutstanding \narising from \ndelayed \naccess by \npensioners/b\neneficiaries \nNo.", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "No. \nof \nstaff \nwho \ndela\nyed \nto be \nremo\nved \nfrom \nthe \npayr\noll \nAver\nage \ndelay\ns to \nleave \nthe \nwage \npayr\noll \n(mon\nths) \n Amount paid \nto employees \nafter \nexpected \ndate of \nremoval \n78 \nMadi-Okollo DLG \n45 \n1 \n11 \n12,702,348 \n8 \n31 \n11 \n21,597,119 \n16 \n16 \n6,109,572", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6,109,572 \n79 \nManafwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n19 \n0 \n19 \n76,387,354 \n4 \n0 \n6,670,233 \n80 \nMaracha DLG \n77 \n3 \n67 \n57,832,046 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n81 \nMasaka DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n82 \nMasindi DLG \n17 \n10", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17 \n10 \n12 \n18,537,950 \n19 \n55 \n4 \n26,034,565 \n12 \n2 \n1,260,420 \n83 \nMayuge DLG \n56 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n15 \n10 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n1 \n2,996,268 \n84 \nMbale DLG \n19 \n4 \n19 \n43,972,694 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n18 \n4 \n24,881,192 \n85 \nMbarara DLG \n35 \n4 \n28", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4 \n28 \n35,938,827 \n3 \n4 \n3 \n31,485,033 \n3 \n0 \n3,560,705 \n86 \nMitooma DLG \n11 \n3 \n13 \n52,189,312 \n8 \n2 \n6 \n14,518,516 \n6 \n2 \n2,282,431 \n87 \nMityana DLG \n91 \n4 \n2 \n7,005,762 \n8 \n4 \n \n15,588,842 \n8 \n12 \n18,426,582 \n88 \nMoroto DLG \n6", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12 \n7 \n5,757,367 \n89 \nMoyo DLG \n21 \n4 \n13 \n28,938,420 \n5 \n3 \n8 \n5,504,882 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n90 \nMpigi DLG \n21 \n2 \n4 \n4,306,754 \n16 \n1 \n9 \n4,812,599 \n2 \n1 \n938,781 \n91 \nMubende DLG \n20 \n3 \n8", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \n8 \n13,428,190 \n22 \n25 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n92 \nMukono DLG \n16 \n3 \n15 \n37,002,744 \n8 \n2 \n8 \n28,274,618 \n12 \n6 \n24,466,376 \n93 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n7 \n6 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n94 \nNakaseke DLG \n16 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n9 \n9 \n32,768,000 \n95 \nNakasongola DLG \n13 \n1 \n13 \n3,272,106 \n3 \n15 \n3 \n5,179,639 \n3 \n1 \n2,025,509 \n96 \nNamayingo DLG \n65 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n12 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n4 \n4 \n2,239,481 \n97 \nNamisindwa DLG \n49 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n7 \n6 \n9,616,642 \n98 \nNamutumba DLG \n133 \n4 \n103 \n149,303,319 \n11 \n10 \n0 \n0 \n9 \n5 \n8,093,192 \n99 \nNapak DLG \n29 \n5 \n46 \n99,440,472 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n2 \n4,065,777 \n100 \nNebbi DLG \n4 \n3 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n21 \n14", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "21 \n14 \n17,348,048 \n101 \nNgora DLG \n44 \n3 \n58 \n367,171,329 \n8 \n4 \n12 \n21,907,261 \n13 \n5 \n15,468,299 \n102 \nNtoroko DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n2 \n4,571,292 \n103 \nNtungamo DLG \n14 \n2 \n3 \n0 \n1 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n7 \n10 \n11,455,693", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "267 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. \nof \nstaf\nf \nwho \ndela\nyed \nto \nacce\nss \npayr\noll \nAver\nage \ndelay\ns to \nacce\nss \nthe \nwage \npayr\noll \n(mon\nths) \nNo. of \nstaff with \noutstandi\nng \npayments \nby end of \nFY arising \nfrom \ndelayed \naccess by \nnewly \nrecruited/\ntransferre\nd staff \n Amount \noutstanding", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Amount \noutstanding \narising from \ndelayed \naccess by \nnewly \nrecruited/tr\nansferred \nstaff \nNo. of \npensioners\n/beneficiari\nes who \ndelayed to \naccess \npayroll \nAverage \ndelays \nto \naccess \nthe \npension \npayroll \n(month\ns) \nNo. of \npensioner\ns/benefic\niaries \nwith \noutstandi\nng \npayments \nby end of \nFY \n Amount \noutstanding \narising from \ndelayed \naccess by \npensioners/b\neneficiaries \nNo.", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "No. \nof \nstaff \nwho \ndela\nyed \nto be \nremo\nved \nfrom \nthe \npayr\noll \nAver\nage \ndelay\ns to \nleave \nthe \nwage \npayr\noll \n(mon\nths) \n Amount paid \nto employees \nafter \nexpected \ndate of \nremoval \n104 \nObongi DLG \n46 \n7 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n6 \n11 \n18,684,675 \n105 \nOmoro DLG", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Omoro DLG \n56 \n3 \n7 \n12,126,304 \n7 \n4 \n7 \n6,243,922 \n18 \n \n54,558,940 \n106 \nOtuke DLG \n13 \n4 \n1 \n1,507,337 \n4 \n27 \n4 \n34,075,924 \n13 \n4 \n31,399,188 \n107 \nOyam DLG \n46 \n1 \n21 \n59,225,548 \n38 \n0 \n0 \n14,521,285 \n40 \n6 \n64,329,568 \n108 \nPader DLG", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Pader DLG \n9 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n109 \nPakwach DLG \n115 \n4 \n71 \n131,591,923 \n9 \n24 \n9 \n48,149,403 \n3 \n8 \n6,605,233 \n110 \nPallisa DLG \n4 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n111 \nRakai DLG \n3 \n3 \n3 \n2,178,361", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2,178,361 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n112 \nRubanda DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \n2 \n5,618,632 \n113 \nRubirizi DLG \n31 \n3 \n30 \n51,450,614 \n2 \n4 \n3 \n2,059,373 \n8 \n4 \n5,479,020 \n114 \nRukiga DLG \n129 \n5 \n129 \n43,590,726 \n15 \n5", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "15 \n5 \n2 \n3,032,050 \n11 \n4 \n25,295,745 \n115 \nRukungiri DLG \n7 \n2 \n7 \n10,733,102 \n6 \n5 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n6 \n11,112,276 \n116 \nRwampara DLG \n2 \n3 \n3 \n6,082,931 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n2 \n3,911,449 \n117 \nSerere DLG \n147 \n5 \n147 \n74,269,549 \n29 \n8 \n29", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8 \n29 \n67,196,981 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n118 \nSheema DLG \n2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n20 \n5 \n11 \n4,792,068 \n11 \n2 \n7,386,095 \n119 \nSironko DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n12 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n1 \n8,058,192 \n120 \nSoroti DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11 \n12 \n11 \n25,842,175 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n121 \nTerego DLG \n5 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n11 \n4 \n11 \n13,187,310 \n10 \n \n16,208,269 \n122 \nTororo DLG \n30 \n2 \n \n34,148,408 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n18 \n6 \n6,193,537 \n123 \nWakiso DLG \n15 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n7 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n2 \n3,075,280 \n124 \nYumbe DLG", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Yumbe DLG \n123 \n3 \n112 \n203,440,332 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n125 \nZombo DLG \n10 \n2 \n10 \n92,374,336 \n13 \n1 \n13 \n16,684,152 \n12 \n4 \n8,511,386 \n \nTotal \n4,34\n1 \n \n1,746 \n2,802,520,5\n09 \n1,019 \n \n549 \n1,380,739,35\n7 \n795 \n795 \n \n1,071,478,61\n1", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "268 \n \nAppendix 1 j: Inconsistency between IPPS and interface files, and payments of salaries, pension & gratuity off the IPPS \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff with \ninconsisten\ncy \nbetween \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \nVariance \narising from \nwith \ninconsistency \nbetween \nInterface files \nand payroll \nNo. of \npensioner\ns with \ninconsist\nency \nbetween \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \nVariance \narising \nfrom \ninconsisten\ncy between \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \n Total \nNo. of", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Total \nNo. of \nstaff \npaid \nsalaries \noff the \nIPPS \npayroll \nAmount of \nsalary paid Off \nIPPS payroll \nNo. of \npensione\nrs paid \noff the \nIPPS \npayroll \nAmount of \npension paid \noff the IPPS \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n0 \n48,868,938 \n0 \n0 \n48,868,938 \n15 \n64,220,789 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nAgago DLG \n0 \n315,536,779 \n0 \n0 \n315,536,779 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \nAlebtong DLG \n741 \n106,765,184 \n0 \n0 \n106,765,184 \n54 \n82,027,053 \n5 \n7,859,528 \n4 \nAmolatar DLG \n287 \n279,764,741 \n3 \n18,104,073 \n297,868,814 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5 \nAmudat DLG \n0 \n23,329,234 \n0 \n0 \n23,329,234 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n6 \nAmuria DLG", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Amuria DLG \n0 \n17,584,950 \n0 \n0 \n17,584,950 \n2 \n3,881,202 \n0 \n0 \n7 \nAmuru DLG \n0 \n492,005,340 \n0 \n0 \n492,005,340 \n2 \n2,818,660 \n0 \n0 \n8 \nApac DLG \n0 \n5,910,650,619 \n0 \n0 \n5,910,650,619 \n21 \n21,042,185 \n87 \n1,383,917,393 \n9 \nArua DLG \n0 \n405,643,886", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "405,643,886 \n0 \n0 \n405,643,886 \n11 \n6,563,331 \n0 \n0 \n10 \nBudaka DLG \n74 \n156,961,189 \n0 \n0 \n156,961,189 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11 \nBududa DLG \n915 \n40,176,917 \n0 \n0 \n40,176,917 \n5 \n15,316,264 \n4 \n69,580,342 \n12 \nBugiri DLG \n0 \n8,829,021 \n0 \n0 \n8,829,021 \n28", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "28 \n28,158,449 \n124 \n2,400,610,261 \n13 \nBugweri DLG \n0 \n61,084,198 \n0 \n0 \n61,084,198 \n20 \n75,192,815 \n0 \n0 \n14 \nBuhweju DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n15 \nBuikwe DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n16 \nBukedea DLG \n52 \n19,611,204 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n19,611,204 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n17 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n24 \n22,275,218 \n0 \n0 \n22,275,218 \n11 \n8,866,160 \n0 \n0 \n18 \nBukwo DLG \n27 \n877,935,066 \n0 \n0 \n877,935,066 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n19 \nBulambuli DLG \n87 \n69,831,190 \n0 \n0 \n69,831,190 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n20 \nBuliisa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n21 \nBundibugyo DLG \n2 \n1,496,152 \n0 \n0 \n1,496,152 \n2 \n13,060,168 \n0 \n0 \n22 \nBunyangabu DLG \n45 \n28,750,721 \n0 \n0 \n28,750,721 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n37,640,083 \n23 \nBushenyi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n24 \nBusia DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n25 \nButaleja DLG \n0 \n77,519,017 \n0 \n0 \n77,519,017 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \nButambala DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n21 \n30,580,297 \n0 \n0 \n27 \nButebo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n140,209,245 \n28 \nBuvuma DLG \n0 \n4,095,171 \n0 \n0 \n4,095,171 \n5 \n11,209,358 \n0 \n0 \n29 \nBuyende DLG \n0 \n900,284,210 \n0 \n0 \n900,284,210 \n12 \n4,784,979 \n4 \n86,680,635", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "269 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff with \ninconsisten\ncy \nbetween \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \nVariance \narising from \nwith \ninconsistency \nbetween \nInterface files \nand payroll \nNo. of \npensioner\ns with \ninconsist\nency \nbetween \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \nVariance \narising \nfrom \ninconsisten\ncy between \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \n Total \nNo. of \nstaff \npaid \nsalaries \noff the \nIPPS \npayroll", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "IPPS \npayroll \nAmount of \nsalary paid Off \nIPPS payroll \nNo. of \npensione\nrs paid \noff the \nIPPS \npayroll \nAmount of \npension paid \noff the IPPS \n30 \nDokolo DLG \n0 \n33,538,246 \n0 \n0 \n33,538,246 \n0 \n39,743,888 \n0 \n0 \n31 \nGomba DLG \n113 \n67,116,273 \n0 \n0 \n67,116,273 \n19 \n16,402,119 \n0 \n0 \n32 \nGulu DLG \n90", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "90 \n46,184,245 \n0 \n0 \n46,184,245 \n2 \n9,672,498 \n2 \n4,235,861 \n33 \nHoima DLG \n0 \n5,871,166 \n0 \n0 \n5,871,166 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n12,769,046 \n34 \nIbanda DLG \n637 \n209,039,360 \n0 \n0 \n209,039,360 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n35 \nIganga DLG \n0 \n310,497,898 \n0 \n0 \n310,497,898", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "310,497,898 \n9 \n34,131,042 \n0 \n0 \n36 \nIsingiro DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n37 \nJinja DLG \n0 \n26,188,297 \n0 \n0 \n26,188,297 \n124 \n97,179,676 \n19 \n622,311,870 \n38 \nKabale DLG \n755 \n361,856,390 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n224 \n64,062,664 \n39 \nKabarole DLG", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kabarole DLG \n649 \n307,979,582 \n0 \n0 \n307,979,582 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n170,678,575 \n40 \nKaberamaido DLG \n166 \n104,547,107 \n0 \n0 \n104,547,107 \n51 \n352,199,949 \n6 \n79,689,822 \n41 \nKagadi DLG \n0 \n43,887,232 \n0 \n0 \n43,887,232 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n42 \nKakumiro DLG \n0 \n195,408,985", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "195,408,985 \n0 \n0 \n195,408,985 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n43 \nKalaki DLG \n799 \n419,178,424 \n0 \n0 \n419,178,424 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n44 \nKalangala DLG \n192 \n58,921,568 \n0 \n0 \n58,921,568 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n45 \nKaliro DLG \n0 \n250,589,367 \n0 \n0 \n250,589,367 \n22", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "22 \n25,525,942 \n75 \n409,572,786 \n46 \nKalungu DLG \n65 \n43,889,453 \n0 \n0 \n43,889,453 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n47 \nKamuli DLG \n0 \n928,799,558 \n0 \n0 \n928,799,558 \n732 \n328,067,291 \n18 \n506,311,340 \n48 \nKamwenge DLG \n37 \n48,750,503 \n0 \n0 \n48,750,503 \n4 \n13,441,925 \n8", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8 \n7,114,189 \n49 \nKanungu DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n50 \nKapchorwa DLG \n0 \n128,437,788 \n0 \n0 \n128,437,788 \n1 \n1,255,448 \n0 \n0 \n51 \nKapelebyong DLG \n0 \n58,144,603 \n0 \n7,011,601 \n65,156,204 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n52 \nKasanda DLG \n0 \n78,579,617", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "78,579,617 \n0 \n0 \n78,579,617 \n0 \n0 \n39 \n45,710,683 \n53 \nKasese DLG \n15 \n9,102,793 \n0 \n0 \n9,102,793 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n54 \nKatakwi DLG \n20 \n11,117,891 \n22 \n450,074,788 \n461,192,679 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n55 \nKayunga DLG \n70 \n159,095,193 \n0 \n0 \n159,095,193 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n56 \nKazo DLG \n396 \n163,608,641 \n0 \n0 \n163,608,641 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n57 \nKibaale DLG \n0 \n67,860,433 \n0 \n0 \n67,860,433 \n198 \n267,905,954 \n7 \n7,638,423 \n58 \nKiboga DLG \n0 \n25,595,288 \n0 \n0 \n25,595,288 \n13 \n50,256,431 \n4 \n9,339,434 \n59", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "59 \nKibuku DLG \n0 \n614,892,218 \n0 \n0 \n614,892,218 \n8 \n7,215,805 \n3 \n75,135,778 \n60 \nKikuube DLG \n0 \n218,959,929 \n0 \n0 \n218,959,929 \n2 \n889,929 \n16 \n340,013,264", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "270 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff with \ninconsisten\ncy \nbetween \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \nVariance \narising from \nwith \ninconsistency \nbetween \nInterface files \nand payroll \nNo. of \npensioner\ns with \ninconsist\nency \nbetween \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \nVariance \narising \nfrom \ninconsisten\ncy between \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \n Total \nNo. of \nstaff \npaid \nsalaries \noff the \nIPPS \npayroll", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "IPPS \npayroll \nAmount of \nsalary paid Off \nIPPS payroll \nNo. of \npensione\nrs paid \noff the \nIPPS \npayroll \nAmount of \npension paid \noff the IPPS \n61 \nKiruhura DLG \n210 \n90,796,758 \n0 \n0 \n90,796,758 \n6 \n12,385,198 \n0 \n0 \n62 \nKiryandongo DLG \n0 \n21,184,352 \n0 \n0 \n21,184,352 \n21 \n24,991,785 \n3 \n14,805,596 \n63 \nKisoro DLG", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kisoro DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n64 \nKitagwenda DLG \n135 \n33,547,633 \n0 \n0 \n33,547,633 \n10 \n71,145,067 \n0 \n0 \n65 \nKitgum DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n9 \n6,137,612 \n66 \nKoboko DLG \n0 \n1,518,252,806 \n0 \n0 \n1,518,252,806 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n67 \nKole DLG \n0 \n10,355,488 \n0 \n0 \n10,355,488 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n68 \nKumi DLG \n0 \n359,718,520 \n0 \n0 \n359,718,520 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n69 \nKwania DLG \n0 \n154,871,882 \n0 \n0 \n154,871,882 \n6 \n32,886,550 \n0 \n0 \n70 \nKween DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n55,599,052 \n0 \n0 \n55,599,052 \n10 \n28,300,684 \n0 \n0 \n71 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n0 \n13,939,308 \n0 \n0 \n13,939,308 \n2 \n1,438,316 \n0 \n0 \n72 \nKyegegwa DLG \n14 \n2,402,866 \n0 \n0 \n2,402,866 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n73 \nKyenjojo DLG \n4 \n4,927,544 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n4,927,544 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n74 \nKyotera DLG \n505 \n297,936,427 \n0 \n0 \n297,936,427 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n75 \nLamwo DLG \n232 \n19,238,569 \n0 \n0 \n19,238,569 \n12 \n67,609,678 \n0 \n0 \n76 \nLira DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n476 \n1,247,047,602 \n71 \n184,126,452", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "184,126,452 \n77 \nLuuka DLG \n0 \n320,651,077 \n0 \n0 \n320,651,077 \n7 \n8,899,399 \n0 \n0 \n78 \nLuwero DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n79 \nLwengo DLG \n49 \n33,988,738 \n0 \n0 \n33,988,738 \n14 \n14,829,645 \n0 \n0 \n80 \nLyantonde DLG \n52 \n11,380,969 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n11,380,969 \n33 \n158,742,468 \n1 \n40,537,322 \n81 \nMadi-Okollo DLG \n0 \n607,565,504 \n0 \n0 \n607,565,504 \n21 \n38,477,728 \n0 \n0 \n82 \nManafwa DLG \n0 \n237,407,527 \n0 \n0 \n237,407,527 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n83 \nMaracha DLG \n0 \n49,015,193 \n0 \n0 \n49,015,193 \n67", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "67 \n62,244,541 \n0 \n0 \n84 \nMasaka DLG \n219 \n47,056,562 \n0 \n0 \n47,056,562 \n2 \n8,321,464 \n0 \n0 \n85 \nMasindi DLG \n0 \n1,899,055,822 \n0 \n0 \n1,899,055,822 \n1 \n7,644,944 \n0 \n0 \n86 \nMayuge DLG \n0 \n233,491,206 \n0 \n0 \n233,491,206 \n319 \n147,961,186 \n48", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "48 \n33,074,030 \n87 \nMbale DLG \n0 \n227,212,724 \n0 \n0 \n227,212,724 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n88 \nMbarara DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n89 \nMitooma DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n90 \nMityana DLG \n139 \n128,671,074 \n0 \n0 \n128,671,074 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n91 \nMoroto DLG \n0 \n42,890,728 \n0 \n0 \n42,890,728 \n198 \n13,816,711 \n7 \n4,415,528", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "271 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff with \ninconsisten\ncy \nbetween \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \nVariance \narising from \nwith \ninconsistency \nbetween \nInterface files \nand payroll \nNo. of \npensioner\ns with \ninconsist\nency \nbetween \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \nVariance \narising \nfrom \ninconsisten\ncy between \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \n Total \nNo. of \nstaff \npaid \nsalaries \noff the \nIPPS \npayroll", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "IPPS \npayroll \nAmount of \nsalary paid Off \nIPPS payroll \nNo. of \npensione\nrs paid \noff the \nIPPS \npayroll \nAmount of \npension paid \noff the IPPS \n92 \nMoyo DLG \n0 \n88,948,906 \n0 \n0 \n88,948,906 \n23 \n13,299,698 \n0 \n0 \n93 \nMpigi DLG \n0 \n5,757,669 \n0 \n0 \n5,757,669 \n6 \n13,626,100 \n4 \n5,651,821 \n94 \nMubende DLG", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Mubende DLG \n41 \n19,396,416 \n0 \n0 \n19,396,416 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n95 \nMukono DLG \n448 \n45,950,261 \n0 \n0 \n45,950,261 \n198 \n19,049,044 \n0 \n0 \n96 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n0 \n5,724,300 \n0 \n0 \n5,724,300 \n7 \n11,503,325 \n0 \n0 \n97 \nNakaseke DLG \n768 \n573,807,535 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n573,807,535 \n7 \n38,340,350 \n1 \n17,007,117 \n98 \nNakasongola DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n99 \nNamayingo DLG \n0 \n159,978,512 \n0 \n0 \n159,978,512 \n9 \n7,942,617 \n0 \n0 \n100 \nNamisindwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n101", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n101 \nNamutumba DLG \n0 \n144,042,459 \n0 \n0 \n144,042,459 \n75 \n22,852,650 \n0 \n0 \n102 \nNapak DLG \n0 \n836,272,862 \n0 \n0 \n836,272,862 \n1 \n24,785,247 \n0 \n0 \n103 \nNebbi DLG \n0 \n82,756,771 \n0 \n0 \n82,756,771 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n104 \nNgora DLG \n0 \n118,987,825", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "118,987,825 \n0 \n0 \n118,987,825 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n105 \nNtoroko DLG \n363 \n25,473,624 \n0 \n0 \n25,473,624 \n95 \n328,785,473 \n0 \n0 \n106 \nNtungamo DLG \n0 \n118,406,599 \n0 \n0 \n118,406,599 \n371 \n231,305,222 \n0 \n0 \n107 \nNwoya DLG \n0 \n7,255,056 \n0 \n0 \n7,255,056 \n5", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5 \n18,516,767 \n0 \n0 \n108 \nObongi DLG \n0 \n82,330,884 \n0 \n0 \n82,330,884 \n14 \n11,689,566 \n0 \n0 \n109 \nOmoro DLG \n0 \n252,167,876 \n0 \n0 \n252,167,876 \n27 \n49,073,404 \n0 \n0 \n110 \nOtuke DLG \n0 \n3,881,700 \n0 \n0 \n3,881,700 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n111 \nOyam DLG", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Oyam DLG \n588 \n292,821,008 \n0 \n0 \n292,821,008 \n6 \n16,173,327 \n16 \n392,448,794 \n112 \nPader DLG \n0 \n563,991,673 \n0 \n0 \n563,991,673 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n113 \nPakwach DLG \n0 \n6,477,528 \n0 \n0 \n6,477,528 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n114 \nPallisa DLG \n0 \n3,472,218 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n3,472,218 \n2 \n3,030,116 \n0 \n0 \n115 \nRakai DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n116 \nRubanda DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n124,003,227 \n117 \nRubirizi DLG \n166 \n77,601,377 \n0 \n0 \n77,601,377 \n22 \n17,412,562 \n1 \n20,453,988 \n118", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "118 \nRukiga DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n119 \nRukungiri DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n120 \nRwampara DLG \n45 \n8,338,721 \n0 \n0 \n8,338,721 \n2 \n12,387,222 \n0 \n0 \n121 \nSembabule DLG \n214 \n348,680,895 \n0 \n0 \n348,680,895 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n122 \nSerere DLG \n0 \n1,167,724,155 \n0 \n0 \n1,167,724,155 \n135 \n118,915,137 \n4 \n226,712,109", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "272 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff with \ninconsisten\ncy \nbetween \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \nVariance \narising from \nwith \ninconsistency \nbetween \nInterface files \nand payroll \nNo. of \npensioner\ns with \ninconsist\nency \nbetween \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \nVariance \narising \nfrom \ninconsisten\ncy between \nInterface \nfiles and \npayroll \n Total \nNo. of \nstaff \npaid \nsalaries \noff the \nIPPS \npayroll", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "IPPS \npayroll \nAmount of \nsalary paid Off \nIPPS payroll \nNo. of \npensione\nrs paid \noff the \nIPPS \npayroll \nAmount of \npension paid \noff the IPPS \n123 \nSheema DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n124 \nSironko DLG \n54 \n15,544,879 \n0 \n0 \n15,544,879 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n6,237,150 \n125 \nSoroti DLG \n0 \n45,051,613 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n327,169,650 \n372,221,263 \n0 \n0 \n17 \n384,263,746 \n126 \nTerego DLG \n0 \n37,919,839 \n0 \n0 \n37,919,839 \n318 \n366,553,984 \n3 \n194,516,367 \n127 \nTororo DLG \n0 \n771,749,550 \n0 \n0 \n771,749,550 \n1 \n3,532,865 \n15 \n468,511,233 \n128 \nWakiso DLG \n0 \n63,789,727 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n63,789,727 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n129 \nYumbe DLG \n0 \n91,433,441 \n0 \n0 \n91,433,441 \n3 \n11,833,867 \n0 \n0 \n130 \nZombo DLG \n0 \n191,587,740 \n0 \n0 \n191,587,740 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \nTotal \n10,504 \n27,545,118,94\n1 \n25 \n802,360,11\n2 \n27,985,622,6\n63", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "63 \n3,926 \n4,898,961,116 \n870 \n8,603,983,31\n4 \n \nAppendix 1 k: Management of deductions by UCLA/UBA \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nwitho\nut \nletters \nof \nunder\ntaking \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwithout \nletters of \nundertaking \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nloan\ns \nded\nucti\nons \npast \nend \ndate\ns \nAmount \ndeducted \npast end \ndate \nNo. \nof", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "No. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nunre\nalist\nic \nend \ndate\ns \nAverage \nlength of \nabnormal \ndates \n(years \nranging \nfrom to) \nAmount \ndeducted from \nstaff with \nabnormal end \ndates \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nun-\nappr\noved \nloans \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwith un-\napproved \nloans \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nLoan \ndeduc\ntions \nwere \nover \nand", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "over \nand \nabove \nthe \nappro\nved \namou\nnts \nAmount \ndeducted \nover and \nabove the \napproved \namounts \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nvaria\nnce \nbetw\neen \nMy \nappro\nvals \nand \nactive \ndeduc\ntions \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nMy \napprovals \nand active \ndeductions \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nVariance \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeductio\nn \namounts", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "n \namounts \nin active \ndeductio\nns report \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeduction \namounts in \nactive \ndeductions \nreport \nAdjumani DLG \n \n \n2 \n1,651,893 \n23 \n9 to 40 \n29,901,383 \n121 \n91,960,229 \n8 \n1,795,781 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nAgago DLG \n732 \n1,263,291,271 \n \n \n28 \n11 to 5642 \n36,916,817 \n \n \n24", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "24 \n8,399,587 \n \n \n \n \nAlebtong DLG \n \n \n5 \n783,687 \n44 \n13 to 2575 \n22,850,556 \n46 \n41,833,912 \n31 \n21,676 \n13 \n639,030 \n126 \n347,545 \nAmolatar DLG \n0 \n0 \n47 \n2,350,252 \n8 \n9 to 257 \n16,377,769 \n93 \n121,782,489 \n18 \n3,306,509 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "273 \n \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nwitho\nut \nletters \nof \nunder\ntaking \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwithout \nletters of \nundertaking \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nloan\ns \nded\nucti\nons \npast \nend \ndate\ns \nAmount \ndeducted \npast end \ndate \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nunre\nalist\nic \nend \ndate\ns \nAverage \nlength of \nabnormal", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "length of \nabnormal \ndates \n(years \nranging \nfrom to) \nAmount \ndeducted from \nstaff with \nabnormal end \ndates \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nun-\nappr\noved \nloans \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwith un-\napproved \nloans \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nLoan \ndeduc\ntions \nwere \nover \nand \nabove \nthe \nappro\nved \namou\nnts \nAmount \ndeducted \nover and \nabove the", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "over and \nabove the \napproved \namounts \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nvaria\nnce \nbetw\neen \nMy \nappro\nvals \nand \nactive \ndeduc\ntions \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nMy \napprovals \nand active \ndeductions \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nVariance \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeductio\nn \namounts \nin active \ndeductio\nns report \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeduction \namounts in \nactive", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "amounts in \nactive \ndeductions \nreport \nAmudat DLG \n92 \n119,813,541 \n4 \n2,057,917 \n0 \n \n0 \n4 \n3,527,541 \n21 \n1,257,778 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nAmuria DLG \n272 \n28,882,820 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n110 \n10,345,961 \n116 \n45,240,985 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nAmuru DLG \n417 \n647,330,578 \n2", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n4,858,988 \n29 \n11 to 590 \n34,210,170 \n64 \n2,467,844 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nApac DLG \n478 \n742,438,306 \n5 \n1,585,074 \n3 \n69 to 1499 \n3,120,636 \n60 \n71,051,264 \n84 \n73,965,427 \n \n \n \n \nArua DLG \n0 \n0 \n5 \n670,980 \n16 \n9 to 51 \n15,860,074 \n82", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "82 \n22,253,294 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nBudaka DLG \n96 \n175,852,054 \n \n \n \n \n \n12 \n2,438,471 \n6 \n196,286 \n50 \n9,145,250 \n \n \nBududa DLG \n0 \n0 \n3 \n610,176 \n4 \n9 to 1412 \n61,029 \n6 \n843,965 \n11 \n828,063 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nBugiri DLG \n281", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "281 \n808,378,322 \n218 \n215,166,058 \n171 \n \n226,628,417 \n131 \n183,071,422 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nBugweri DLG \n299 \n568,486,881 \n \n \n13 \n12 to 63 \n24,245,070 \n23 \n15,975,791 \n67 \n3,323,576 \n \n \n \n \nBuhweju DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n496 \n67,760,094 \n496 \n67,760,094 \nBuikwe DLG \n453 \n714,056,547 \n36 \n6,972,020 \n50 \n9 to 84 \n0 \n59 \n58,096,948 \n94 \n8,000,281 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nBukedea DLG \n27 \n32,256,931 \n42 \n28,288,094 \n0 \n \n0 \n19 \n25,470,036 \n0 \n0 \n24 \n1,302,198 \n300", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "300 \n20,339,052 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n20 \n9 to 43 \n23,813,207 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n6 \n0 \n122 \n7,136,646 \nBukwo DLG \n \n \n \n \n7 \n13 to 35 \n13,656,161 \n57 \n9,873,428 \n106 \n7,960,954 \n \n \n \n \nBulambuli DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n33", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n33 \n5,911,187 \n0 \n0 \n24 \n7,080,085 \n \n \nBuliisa DLG \n138 \n256,656,828 \n5 \n6,006,712 \n0 \n \n0 \n2 \n4,270,800 \n16 \n11,970,780 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nBundibugyo DLG \n0 \n0 \n14 \n7,200,896 \n69 \n9 to 381 \n154,102,203 \n27 \n17,523,457 \n23 \n35,581,481 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nBunyangabu DLG \n0 \n0 \n9 \n2,029,155 \n24 \n9 to 149 \n52,362,610 \n70 \n91,149,019 \n104 \n219,224,727 \n64 \n4,041,609 \n111 \n2,827,028 \nBushenyi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n \n \n \nBusia DLG \n75 \n16,527,300 \n44 \n6,522,948", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6,522,948 \n1 \n \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n \n \n \nButaleja DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nButambala DLG \n0 \n0 \n4 \n639,250 \n6 \n \n15,227,927 \n19 \n22,011,876 \n145 \n13,740,152 \n140 \n13,771,032 \n36 \n3,174,711", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3,174,711 \nButebo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n \n80 \n145,413,728 \n121 \n513,854 \n \n \n \n \nBuvuma DLG \n0 \n0 \n4 \n771,823 \n20 \n9 to 12 \n32,424,902 \n8 \n4,317,648 \n0 \n0 \n \n \n \n \nBuyende DLG \n562 \n1,016,683,423 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n577", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n577 \n1,019,461,431 \n6 \n578,629 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nDokolo DLG \n39 \n32,199,959 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n90 \n14,602,075 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nGomba DLG \n0 \n0 \n23 \n15,641,080 \n0 \n \n0 \n11 \n8,251,701 \n33 \n1,214,804 \n108 \n1,051,704 \n108 \n108 \n1,237,069 \nGulu DLG \n \n \n6 \n10,251,751 \n45 \n9 to 232 \n74,553,000 \n8 \n1,468,850 \n27 \n3,483,930 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "274 \n \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nwitho\nut \nletters \nof \nunder\ntaking \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwithout \nletters of \nundertaking \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nloan\ns \nded\nucti\nons \npast \nend \ndate\ns \nAmount \ndeducted \npast end \ndate \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nunre\nalist\nic \nend \ndate\ns \nAverage \nlength of \nabnormal", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "length of \nabnormal \ndates \n(years \nranging \nfrom to) \nAmount \ndeducted from \nstaff with \nabnormal end \ndates \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nun-\nappr\noved \nloans \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwith un-\napproved \nloans \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nLoan \ndeduc\ntions \nwere \nover \nand \nabove \nthe \nappro\nved \namou\nnts \nAmount \ndeducted \nover and \nabove the", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "over and \nabove the \napproved \namounts \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nvaria\nnce \nbetw\neen \nMy \nappro\nvals \nand \nactive \ndeduc\ntions \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nMy \napprovals \nand active \ndeductions \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nVariance \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeductio\nn \namounts \nin active \ndeductio\nns report \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeduction \namounts in \nactive", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "amounts in \nactive \ndeductions \nreport \nHoima DLG \n \n \n33 \n27,367,073 \n17 \n9 to 18 \n24,740,797 \n8 \n450,965 \n64 \n5,864,972 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nIbanda DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n35 \n42,576,583 \n96 \n2,391,812 \n14 \n113,938 \n162 \n27,117,958 \nIganga DLG \n927 \n168,552,545", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "168,552,545 \n34 \n20,335,569 \n \n \n \n73 \n90,057,326 \n28 \n2,768,907 \n \n \n \n \nIsingiro DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11 \n11 to 106 \n1,622,788 \n14 \n2,619,177 \n0 \n0 \n \n \n \n \nJinja DLG \n \n \n36 \n23,742,370 \n76 \n9 to 202 \n60,277,692 \n82 \n58,498,171 \n65", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "65 \n4,953,403 \n \n \n \n \nKabale DLG \n0 \n0 \n5 \n3,408,639 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n143 \n3,842,433 \n657 \n47,227,638 \nKabarole DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n444 \n619,946,407 \n29 \n1,824,784 \n18 \n2,057,441 \n37 \n1,550,651 \nKaberamaido DLG \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n7 \n10,017,669 \n0 \n \n0 \n11 \n12,754,733 \n55 \n3,475,301 \n14 \n1,878,489 \n55 \n3,475,301 \nKagadi DLG \n845 \n1,681,647,581 \n2 \n664,600 \n63 \n9 to 252 \n126,923,539 \n150 \n233,479,947 \n16 \n7,262,432 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKakumiro DLG \n275 \n515,960,731 \n0 \n0 \n23", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n23 \n9 to 145 \n38,565,990 \n29 \n62,083,492 \n20 \n1,065,390 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKalaki DLG \n0 \n0 \n13 \n11,820,457 \n0 \n \n0 \n272 \n302,340,063 \n0 \n0 \n41 \n1,552,219 \n182 \n4,718,799 \nKalangala DLG \n45 \n42,843,106 \n16 \n3,161,180 \n9 \n9 to 129 \n9,042,408 \n34", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "34 \n40,572,513 \n0 \n0 \n \n \n \n \nKaliro DLG \n \n \n40 \n39,870,979 \n71 \n9 to 965 \n123,390,571 \n62 \n95,675,157 \n76 \n4,264,771 \n \n \n \n \nKalungu DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n19 to 252 \n12,981,766 \n23 \n6,299,952 \n28 \n1,447,526 \n80 \n2,759,126 \n17 \n0 \nKamuli DLG", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kamuli DLG \n1,346 \n2,136,372,466 \n14 \n5,649,245 \n87 \n8 to 222 \n141,966,827 \n935 \n1,352,661,144 \n100 \n11,176,978 \n \n \n \n \nKamwenge DLG \n0 \n0 \n25 \n10,372,584 \n10 \n3 to 59 \n18,169,810 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n1,107,607 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKanungu DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n27 \n10 to 20", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "27 \n10 to 20 \n16,970,368 \n67 \n60,634,863 \n41 \n3,509,122 \n26 \n2,803,229 \n75 \n3,860,983 \nKapchorwa DLG \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n10 \n1,825,092 \n165 \n12,230,438 \n \n \n \n \nKapelebyong DLG \n0 \n0 \n14 \n7,060,981 \n0 \n \n0 \n22 \n9,049,782 \n25 \n1,360,663 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKasanda DLG \n50 \n101,191,408 \n4 \n1,474,152 \n \n \n \n113 \n125,902,600 \n61 \n3,505,979 \n \n \n \n \nKasese DLG \n0 \n0 \n146 \n151,923,363 \n3 \n010 to 010 \n566,750 \n44 \n44,119,766 \n64 \n5,641,196 \n92 \n \n200 \n \nKatakwi DLG \n9 \n0 \n2 \n1,939,178", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,939,178 \n0 \n \n0 \n22 \n3,147,144 \n27 \n3,551,731 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKayunga DLG \n24 \n229,718,762 \n0 \n0 \n50 \n \n83,412,229 \n114 \n128,141,518 \n643 \n66,341,549 \nN/A \nN/A \nN/A \nN/A \nKazo DLG \n0 \n0 \n2 \n363,534 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n129 \n5,188,037 \nKibaale DLG \n335 \n685,049,938 \n1 \n336,000 \n27 \n9 to 1412 \n47,153,523 \n64 \n86,100,423 \n28 \n1,447,526 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKiboga DLG \n0 \n0 \n11 \n9,389,274 \n0 \n \n0 \n16 \n2,251,003 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKibuku DLG \n15 \n2,416,343 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nKikuube DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n48 \n39,071,360 \n54 \n7,023,679 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "275 \n \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nwitho\nut \nletters \nof \nunder\ntaking \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwithout \nletters of \nundertaking \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nloan\ns \nded\nucti\nons \npast \nend \ndate\ns \nAmount \ndeducted \npast end \ndate \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nunre\nalist\nic \nend \ndate\ns \nAverage \nlength of \nabnormal", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "length of \nabnormal \ndates \n(years \nranging \nfrom to) \nAmount \ndeducted from \nstaff with \nabnormal end \ndates \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nun-\nappr\noved \nloans \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwith un-\napproved \nloans \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nLoan \ndeduc\ntions \nwere \nover \nand \nabove \nthe \nappro\nved \namou\nnts \nAmount \ndeducted \nover and \nabove the", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "over and \nabove the \napproved \namounts \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nvaria\nnce \nbetw\neen \nMy \nappro\nvals \nand \nactive \ndeduc\ntions \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nMy \napprovals \nand active \ndeductions \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nVariance \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeductio\nn \namounts \nin active \ndeductio\nns report \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeduction \namounts in \nactive", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "amounts in \nactive \ndeductions \nreport \nKiruhura DLG \n0 \n0 \n12 \n4,272,887 \n0 \n \n0 \n34 \n41,845,063 \n114 \n114,624,153 \n16 \n162,858 \n100 \n11,345,545 \nKiryandongo DLG \n316 \n452,483,491 \n20 \n1,298,454 \n2 \n112 to 864 \n2,967,888 \n \n \n16 \n2,132,833 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKisoro DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n37 \n21,075,104 \n57 \n9 to 1412 \n911,065,027 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKitagwenda DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n23 \n9 to 381 \n27,025,144 \n129 \n296,591,449 \n284 \n20,704,464 \n21 \n781,834 \n0 \n0 \nKitgum DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n29 \n1,614,671", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,614,671 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKoboko DLG \n0 \n0 \n36 \n19,825,094 \n0 \n \n0 \n \n \n \n \n56 \n4,262,404 \n12 \n1,753,638 \nKole DLG \n \n \n \n \n1 \n1 to 110 \n3,171,924 \n \n \n \n \n15 \n285,972 \n15 \n61,510 \nKumi DLG \n0 \n0 \n32 \n7,880,110", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7,880,110 \n49 \n9 to 1412 \n96,238,006 \n17 \n12,996,532 \n41 \n5,330,490 \n \n \n \n \nKwania DLG \n198 \n414,929,083 \n \n \n32 \n9 to 48 \n59,741,926 \n137 \n171,792,320 \n80 \n8,803,583 \n \n \n \n \nKween DLG \n0 \n0 \n27 \n27,473,090 \n \n \n \n10 \n1,814,684 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n \n \n \n \nKyankwanzi DLG \n634 \n1,173,594,581 \n45 \n27,622,355 \n \n \n \n6 \n7,604,761 \n16 \n14,632,129 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nKyegegwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n12 \n6,019,096 \n0 \n \n0 \n7 \n5,426,662 \n58 \n3,161,051 \n15 \n1,592,995 \n122 \n9,945,590 \nKyenjojo DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n72 \n80,792,810 \n19 \n9 to 52 \n26,582,154 \n75 \n77,858,388 \n174 \n8,367,152 \n112 \n6,695,073 \n232 \n9,665,444 \nKyotera DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n86 \n5,045,779 \n130 \n3,206,545 \nLamwo DLG \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n8 \n6,995,325", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6,995,325 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nLira DLG \n0 \n0 \n6 \n5,787,997 \n5 \n \n10,293,377 \n22 \n3,502,585 \n70 \n2,344,802 \n \n \n \n \nLuuka DLG \n833 \n151,052,362 \n58 \n48,093,072 \n \n \n \n676 \n73,545,618 \n20 \n2,614,734 \n \n \n \n \nLuwero DLG \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n19 \n7,710,040 \n196 \n9 to 98 \n318,878,701 \n419 \n362,326,533 \n550 \n20,483,256 \n \n \n \n \nLwengo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n84 \n2,336,259 \n216 \n25,808,005 \nLyantonde DLG \n70 \n69,046,902 \n1 \n184,303 \n0 \n \n0 \n110 \n144,360,275", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "144,360,275 \n42 \n3,774,678 \n34 \n5,485,359 \n92 \n662,780 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n0 \n0 \n13 \n2,509,346 \n0 \n \n0 \n2 \n2,358,510 \n0 \n0 \n177 \n21,268,304 \n107 \n17,256,610 \nManafwa DLG \n225 \n421,246,166 \n \n \n \n \n \n10 \n1,614,447 \n848 \n156,970,488 \n \n \n \n \nMaracha DLG", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Maracha DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n22 to 89 \n15,547,450 \n16 \n12,920,916 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nMasaka DLG \n0 \n0 \n18 \n5,146,832 \n12 \n10 to 101 \n13,082,389 \n86 \n60,979,404 \n0 \n0 \n522 \n2,529,692 \n686 \n116,243,688 \nMasindi DLG \n0 \n0 \n33 \n27,367,073 \n17", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17 \n9 to 18 \n24,740,797 \n0 \n0 \n \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nMayuge DLG \n \n \n35 \n27,064,037 \n64 \n9 to 251 \n126,280,911 \n420 \n767,021,671 \n125 \n13,064,527 \n \n \n \n \nMbale DLG \n1,245 \n196,544,619 \n92 \n35,297,096 \n106 \n9 to 1541 \n155,194,966 \n146 \n25,033,869 \n848", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "848 \n156,970,488 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nMbarara DLG \n14 \n26,470,745 \n6 \n31,265,414 \n8 \n9 to 139 \n13,679,431 \n18 \n17,160,490 \n311 \n7,299,179 \n272 \n2,118,408", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "276 \n \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nwitho\nut \nletters \nof \nunder\ntaking \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwithout \nletters of \nundertaking \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nloan\ns \nded\nucti\nons \npast \nend \ndate\ns \nAmount \ndeducted \npast end \ndate \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nunre\nalist\nic \nend \ndate\ns \nAverage \nlength of \nabnormal", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "length of \nabnormal \ndates \n(years \nranging \nfrom to) \nAmount \ndeducted from \nstaff with \nabnormal end \ndates \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nun-\nappr\noved \nloans \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwith un-\napproved \nloans \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nLoan \ndeduc\ntions \nwere \nover \nand \nabove \nthe \nappro\nved \namou\nnts \nAmount \ndeducted \nover and \nabove the", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "over and \nabove the \napproved \namounts \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nvaria\nnce \nbetw\neen \nMy \nappro\nvals \nand \nactive \ndeduc\ntions \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nMy \napprovals \nand active \ndeductions \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nVariance \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeductio\nn \namounts \nin active \ndeductio\nns report \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeduction \namounts in \nactive", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "amounts in \nactive \ndeductions \nreport \nMitooma DLG \n0 \n0 \n62 \n45,719,768 \n0 \n \n0 \n9 \n5,866,793 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n69 \n6,387,294 \nMityana DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n24 \n24,188,99 \n35 \n29,090,341 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nMoroto DLG \n212 \n357,727,173 \n10 \n2,481,650 \n10", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "10 \n13 to 25 \n14,033,751 \n6 \n5,743,878 \n129 \n11,601,271 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nMoyo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12 \n9 to 12 \n7,597,719 \n8 \n3,648,417 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nMpigi DLG \n0 \n0 \n18 \n7,414,431 \n39 \n9 to 81 \n63,569,216 \n10 \n3,459,488 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nMubende DLG \n91 \n166,168,759 \n43 \n9,193,080 \n99 \n \n133,369,505 \n21 \n17,460,348 \n371 \n109,384,825 \n353 \n8,077,282 \n182 \n2,314,639 \nMukono DLG \n0 \n0 \n42 \n14,032,804 \n106 \n9 to 278 \n201,435,493 \n41 \n34,824,302 \n59 \n2,560,644 \n421 \n52,890,921 \n118", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "118 \n4,807,795 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n0 \n0 \n3 \n569,402 \n0 \n \n0 \n8 \n8,682,765 \n7 \n509,132 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNakaseke DLG \n0 \n0 \n8 \n444,605 \n19 \n \n1,645,478 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n200 \n10,489,146 \n410 \n26,269,050 \nNakasongola DLG \n19 \n12,442,322 \n49 \n26,899,425", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "26,899,425 \n18 \n9 to 11 \n14,657,798 \n19 \n12,442,322 \n158 \n148,945,206 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNamayingo DLG \n \n \n2 \n66,500 \n15 \n9 to 19 \n18,528,565 \n514 \n869,660,204 \n41 \n3,464,013 \n \n \n \n \nNamisindwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n \n471", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "471 \n13,576,059 \n24 \n3,696,376 \nNamutumba DLG \n654 \n1,214,036,533 \n40 \n26,531,379 \n \n \n \n15 \n10,620,729 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nNebbi DLG \n190 \n13,150,776 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNgora DLG \n475 \n884,789,375 \n14 \n4,069,392 \n14", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "14 \n9 to 92 \n17,487,458 \n \n \n \n \n59 \n72,920,215 \n1,633 \n104,639,842 \nNtoroko DLG \n0 \n0 \n7 \n3,115,781 \n56 \n9 to 244 \n131,695,726 \n12 \n10,959,733 \n24 \n1,089,314 \n90 \n16,776,254 \n145 \n12,113,782 \nNtungamo DLG \n8 \n10,239,883 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNwoya DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n221 \n27,349,594 \n0 \n0 \n170 \n6,580,562 \n0 \n0 \nObongi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n17 \n2,689,650 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nOmoro DLG \n655 \n1,039,249,388 \n21", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "21 \n4,091,933 \n105 \n9 to 152 \n176,511,469 \n13 \n7,673,618 \n42 \n1,560,767 \n41 \n1,021,155 \n95 \n3,979,156 \nOtuke DLG \n29 \n52,814,803 \n6 \n12,850,650 \n24 \n50 to 92 \n74,068,773 \n39 \n50,030,968 \n118 \n14,103,707 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nOyam DLG \n969 \n1,722,117,890 \n50 \n32,570,873", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "32,570,873 \n1 \n1 to 1900 \n2,158,998 \n29 \n30,968,478 \n131 \n25,115,090 \n39 \n1,430,224 \n414 \n24,092,261 \nPakwach DLG \n0 \n0 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n65 \n34,271,206 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nPallisa DLG \n0 \n0 \n36 \n8,792,289 \n18 \n37 to 125 \n179,954 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nRakai DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n16 \n3,525,756 \n0 \n0 \n26 \n323,973 \n136 \n3,979,256 \nRubanda DLG \n0 \n0 \n53 \n73,790,422 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n76 \n679,054 \n344 \n15,940,122 \nRubirizi DLG \n0 \n0 \n1 \n103,594 \n13 \n9 to 16", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "13 \n9 to 16 \n24,116,580 \n312 \n53,725,444 \n0 \n0 \n13 \n1,399,075 \n312 \n53,725,444 \nRukiga DLG \n0 \n0 \n30 \n64,812,489 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "277 \n \nEntity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nwitho\nut \nletters \nof \nunder\ntaking \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwithout \nletters of \nundertaking \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nloan\ns \nded\nucti\nons \npast \nend \ndate\ns \nAmount \ndeducted \npast end \ndate \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nunre\nalist\nic \nend \ndate\ns \nAverage \nlength of \nabnormal", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "length of \nabnormal \ndates \n(years \nranging \nfrom to) \nAmount \ndeducted from \nstaff with \nabnormal end \ndates \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nun-\nappr\noved \nloans \nAmount \ndeducted \nfrom staff \nwith un-\napproved \nloans \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nLoan \ndeduc\ntions \nwere \nover \nand \nabove \nthe \nappro\nved \namou\nnts \nAmount \ndeducted \nover and \nabove the", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "over and \nabove the \napproved \namounts \nNo. \nof \nstaff \nwith \nvaria\nnce \nbetw\neen \nMy \nappro\nvals \nand \nactive \ndeduc\ntions \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nMy \napprovals \nand active \ndeductions \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich \nVariance \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeductio\nn \namounts \nin active \ndeductio\nns report \nVariance \nAmount \nbetween \nmonthly \ndeduction \namounts in \nactive", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "amounts in \nactive \ndeductions \nreport \nRukungiri DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n178 \n9 to 1412 \n210,026,136 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,77\n8 \n193,174,533 \n0 \n0 \nRwampara DLG \n0 \n0 \n6 \n1,007,054 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n156 \n12,087,434 \nSembabule DLG \n135 \n126,779,039 \n12", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "12 \n15,679,825 \n4 \n10 to 11 \n1,974,554 \n41 \n45,636,611 \n770 \n97,302,172 \n258 \n6,784,450 \n372 \n5,229,322 \nSerere DLG \n83 \n277,143,706 \n7 \n8,589,388 \n39 \n9 to 80 \n6,435,030 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nSheema DLG \n0 \n0 \n68 \n26,414,353 \n85 \n9 to 172 \n72,160,119", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "72,160,119 \n33 \n18,938,753 \n35 \n3,672,225 \n \n \n \n \nSironko DLG \n0 \n0 \n31 \n21,301,821 \n4 \n47 to 96 \n677,270 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nSoroti DLG \n0 \n0 \n13 \n2,828,410 \n60 \n9 to 333 \n77,144,222 \n63 \n32,737,209 \n92 \n2,521,018 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \nTerego DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n122 \n149,576,412 \n93 \n8,488,586 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nTororo DLG \n130 \n26,488,136 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n9 \n722,535 \n \n33,633,069 \n \n23,710,317 \nWakiso DLG \n0 \n0 \n49 \n10,023,976 \n143 \n \n204,453,730", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "204,453,730 \n24 \n16,442,942 \n136 \n4,042,000 \n117 \n5,657,588 \n0 \n0 \nYumbe DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n15 \n2,595,697 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nZombo DLG \n0 \n0 \n5 \n5,370,075 \n5 \n0 to 4 \n5,370,075 \n30 \n22,465,074 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \nTotal \n15,00\n2 \n20,792,707,0\n30 \n2,14\n3 \n1,458,405,\n180 \n2,72\n9 \n \n4,745,884,699 \n8,46\n8 \n8,885,902,3\n11 \n8,756 \n1,643,636,\n038 \n6,8\n75 \n597,776,37\n4 \n8,935 \n694,882,95\n7 \n \nAppendix 1 l: Use of wrong formula to compute statutory deductions \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "No. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich no \nLST was \ndeducte\nd \nAmount of \nLST un \ndeducted \nNumber \nof staff \nwith \nwrong \nLST \ndeductio\nn \nOverdeductio\nn of LST \n Under \ndeduction \nof LST \nNumber \nof staff \nfrom \nwhich no \nPAYE \nwas \ndeducte\nd \n Amount of \nPAYE un \ndeducted \nNumber of \nstaff with \nwrong \nPAYE \ndeduction\ns \n Over \ndeduction of \nPAYE", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "PAYE \n Under \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n0 \n0 \n400 \n0 \n8,322,500 \n12 \n22,474,874 \n16 \n1,276,425 \n3,752,198 \n2 \nAgago DLG \n335 \n16,867,500 \n340 \n1,907,500 \n2,765,000 \n154 \n19,109,952 \n1,693 \n80,914,933 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "278 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich no \nLST was \ndeducte\nd \nAmount of \nLST un \ndeducted \nNumber \nof staff \nwith \nwrong \nLST \ndeductio\nn \nOverdeductio\nn of LST \n Under \ndeduction \nof LST \nNumber \nof staff \nfrom \nwhich no \nPAYE \nwas \ndeducte\nd \n Amount of \nPAYE un \ndeducted \nNumber of \nstaff with \nwrong \nPAYE \ndeduction", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "PAYE \ndeduction\ns \n Over \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n Under \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n3 \nAlebtong DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n964 \n0 \n11,308,678 \n4 \nAmolatar DLG \n272 \n140,500,00\n0 \n303 \n3,777,500 \n355,000 \n0 \n0 \n232 \n57,452,362 \n18,451,893 \n5 \nAmudat DLG \n0 \n0 \n154 \n581,250 \n590,000", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "590,000 \n0 \n0 \n7 \n0 \n5,976,211 \n6 \nAmuria DLG \n237 \n5,350,000 \n940 \n11,562,500 \n1,511,250 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n7 \nAmuru DLG \n448 \n22,095,000 \n171 \n1,928,750 \n495,000 \n33 \n571,647 \n1,248 \n16,533,764 \n0 \n8 \nApac DLG \n0 \n0 \n265 \n0 \n16,300,000 \n424", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "424 \n22,369,629 \n802 \n0 \n42,323,166 \n9 \nArua DLG \n683 \n13,592,500 \n620 \n8,720,000 \n2,357,500 \n0 \n0 \n106 \n0 \n35,428,296 \n10 \nBudaka DLG \n0 \n0 \n236 \n2,707,500 \n1,721,250 \n0 \n0 \n393 \n0 \n6,824,089 \n11 \nBududa DLG \n80 \n1,360,000 \n175 \n0 \n1,313,750 \n3 \n2,266,344", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2,266,344 \n9 \n518,779 \n0 \n12 \nBugiri DLG \n0 \n0 \n2,002 \n21,002,500 \n10,113,750 \n0 \n0 \n2,251 \n0 \n7,326,484 \n13 \nBugweri DLG \n58 \n3,107,500 \n79 \n2,010,000 \n373,750 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \nBuikwe DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,017 \n10,695,000 \n3,393,750 \n0 \n0 \n1,263", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n1,263 \n0 \n41,521,135 \n15 \nBukedea DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,502 \n18,152,500 \n5,157,500 \n29 \n1,387,074 \n1,347 \n0 \n38,262,904 \n16 \nBukomansimbi \nDLG \n0 \n0 \n1,007 \n3,222,000 \n14,655,000 \n5 \n2,918,072 \n1,073 \n38,801,620 \n0 \n17 \nBukwo DLG \n0 \n0 \n751 \n1,220,000", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,220,000 \n16,027,500 \n54 \n6,552,892 \n76 \n0 \n24,709,686 \n18 \nBulambuli DLG \n0 \n0 \n273 \n0 \n7,207,500 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n31 \n8,093,572 \n19 \nBuliisa DLG \n2 \n591,250 \n783 \n0 \n77,194,200 \n0 \n0 \n765 \n0 \n26,927,100 \n20 \nBundibugyo DLG \n0 \n0 \n695 \n4,122,500", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4,122,500 \n6,587,500 \n19 \n45,556,921 \n21 \n0 \n5,071,143 \n21 \nBunyangabu DLG \n0 \n0 \n881 \n10,617,500 \n561,250 \n11 \n20,772,705 \n1,265 \n81,407 \n21,398,032 \n22 \nBushenyi DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,430 \n19,042,500 \n31,250 \n3 \n768,685 \n21 \n0 \n4,287,265 \n23 \nBusia DLG \n107 \n7,785,000", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7,785,000 \n629 \n8,882,500 \n5,595,000 \n5 \n947,415 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n24 \nButambala DLG \n0 \n0 \n54 \n1,465,000 \n0 \n1 \n773,527 \n196 \n29,764,012 \n0 \n25 \nButebo DLG \n0 \n0 \n489 \n6,925,000 \n2,841,250 \n6 \n3,144,819 \n35 \n0 \n22,481,423 \n26 \nBuvuma DLG \n132 \n7,515,000", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7,515,000 \n114 \n60,000 \n1,255,000 \n0 \n0 \n461 \n0 \n8,603,438 \n27 \nBuyende DLG \n43 \n3,220,000 \n65 \n3,960,000 \n275,000 \n14 \n6,718,292 \n82 \n0 \n24,873,729 \n28 \nDokolo DLG \n331 \n9,036,250 \n1,021 \n12,660,000 \n1,511,250 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n29 \nGomba DLG \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n1,110 \n11,146,108 \n5,483,750 \n0 \n0 \n1,340 \n195,453 \n33,523,521 \n30 \nGulu DLG \n0 \n0 \n592 \n85,000 \n2,615,000 \n1 \n2,796,827 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n31 \nHoima DLG \n156 \n11,240,000 \n902 \n10,140,000 \n1,567,500 \n0 \n0 \n1,219 \n0 \n71,608,660 \n32 \nIbanda DLG \n2 \n30,000 \n2 \n30,000 \n1,229 \n15,552,500 \n3,832,500 \n0 \n0 \n1,209 \n555,387,743 \n60,018,802", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "279 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich no \nLST was \ndeducte\nd \nAmount of \nLST un \ndeducted \nNumber \nof staff \nwith \nwrong \nLST \ndeductio\nn \nOverdeductio\nn of LST \n Under \ndeduction \nof LST \nNumber \nof staff \nfrom \nwhich no \nPAYE \nwas \ndeducte\nd \n Amount of \nPAYE un \ndeducted \nNumber of \nstaff with \nwrong \nPAYE \ndeduction", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "PAYE \ndeduction\ns \n Over \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n Under \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n33 \nIganga DLG \n447 \n26,207,500 \n1,785 \n21,357,500 \n638,750 \n0 \n0 \n7 \n0 \n2,156,000 \n34 \nJinja DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,387 \n18,490,000 \n2,165,000 \n0 \n0 \n1,032 \n0 \n33,372,739 \n35 \nKabale DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,032", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,032 \n18,696,212 \n6,235,000 \n0 \n0 \n2,434 \n0 \n75,037,594 \n36 \nKabarole DLG \n0 \n0 \n902 \n12,807,500 \n2,566,250 \n0 \n0 \n31 \n0 \n6,681,901 \n37 \nKaberamaido DLG \n24 \n1,000,000 \n149 \n1,980,000 \n176,250 \n0 \n0 \n101 \n10,368,921 \n2,643,040 \n38 \nKagadi DLG \n2 \n135,000", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n135,000 \n1,806 \n25,415,000 \n7,175,000 \n18 \n3,262,442 \n1,881 \n0 \n56,338,325 \n39 \nKakumiro DLG \n6 \n220,000 \n924 \n12,015,000 \n3,960,000 \n0 \n0 \n1,070 \n0 \n45,361,333 \n40 \nKalaki DLG \n0 \n0 \n149 \n2,995,000 \n0 \n16 \n14,608,233 \n24 \n0 \n8,975,341 \n41 \nKalangala DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n588 \n187,500 \n23,663,750 \n0 \n0 \n359 \n735,254 \n6,067,532 \n42 \nKaliro DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,258 \n15,392,500 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,754 \n0 \n62,609,187 \n43 \nKalungu DLG \n14 \n730,000 \n30 \n442,500 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n35 \n0 \n743,264 \n44 \nKamuli DLG \n49 \n4,100,000 \n3,077", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3,077 \n32,448,750 \n26,820,000 \n38 \n30,518,433 \n0 \n3,216 \n73,404,073 \n45 \nKanungu DLG \n0 \n0 \n95 \n1,017,500 \n997,500 \n0 \n0 \n98 \n0 \n3,730,538 \n46 \nKapchorwa DLG \n362 \n24,185,000 \n496 \n5,405,000 \n960,000 \n1 \n270,732 \n945 \n0 \n14,670,573 \n47 \nKapelebyong DLG \n145", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "145 \n7,545,000 \n130 \n2,160,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n208 \n5,035,322 \n0 \n48 \nKasanda DLG \n4 \n115,000 \n1,255 \n8,855,000 \n12,045,000 \n4 \n762,054 \n1,426 \n0 \n29,666,070 \n49 \nKasese DLG \n130 \n7,137,500 \n2,437 \n57,560,000 \n5,630,000 \n10 \n21,030,138 \n115 \n39,696,559 \n0 \n50", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n50 \nKatakwi DLG \n801 \n18,141,250 \n304 \n2,787,500 \n297,500 \n0 \n0 \n406 \n0 \n9,399,080 \n51 \nKayunga DLG \n0 \n0 \n2,266 \n25,990,000 \n4,142,500 \n4 \n1,192,536 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n52 \nKazo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n32 \n1,587,408 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n53 \nKibaale DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n870 \n15,682,500 \n2,405,000 \n28 \n3,087,693 \n938 \n0 \n24,395,489 \n54 \nKiboga DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,395 \n13,572,500 \n2,517,500 \n0 \n0 \n1,406 \n0 \n63,533,478 \n55 \nKibuku DLG \n0 \n0 \n519 \n9,757,500 \n5,471,250 \n0 \n0 \n62 \n0 \n23,609,181 \n56 \nKikuube DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n766 \n1,757,500 \n8,647,500 \n0 \n0 \n1,184 \n133,652 \n35,683,435 \n57 \nKiruhura DLG \n0 \n0 \n959 \n8,862,500 \n5,282,500 \n0 \n0 \n1,142 \n0 \n55,698,773 \n58 \nKiryandongo DLG \n433 \n24,206,250 \n1,395 \n16,347,500 \n6,953,750 \n1 \n201,811 \n1,406 \n0 \n24,588,301 \n59", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "59 \nKitagwenda DLG \n129 \n9,155,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n76 \n0 \n24,197,560 \n60 \nKitgum DLG \n0 \n0 \n27 \n207,500 \n50,000 \n9 \n6,626,901 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n61 \nKoboko DLG \n4 \n62,500 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n62 \nKole DLG \n0 \n0 \n393 \n0 \n12,010,000", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "12,010,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n63 \nKumi DLG \n26 \n470,000 \n1,031 \n1,365,000 \n0 \n6 \n1,066,721 \n441 \n173,759,405 \n0 \n64 \nKwania DLG \n165 \n10,717,500 \n1,095 \n11,876,250 \n857,500 \n4 \n2,464,652 \n0 \n1,242 \n34,470,604", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "280 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich no \nLST was \ndeducte\nd \nAmount of \nLST un \ndeducted \nNumber \nof staff \nwith \nwrong \nLST \ndeductio\nn \nOverdeductio\nn of LST \n Under \ndeduction \nof LST \nNumber \nof staff \nfrom \nwhich no \nPAYE \nwas \ndeducte\nd \n Amount of \nPAYE un \ndeducted \nNumber of \nstaff with \nwrong \nPAYE \ndeduction", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "PAYE \ndeduction\ns \n Over \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n Under \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n65 \nKween DLG \n212 \n3,545,000 \n686 \n7,050,000 \n1,803,750 \n1 \n2,521,679 \n1,172 \n0 \n29,828,983 \n66 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,575 \n21,985,000 \n6,603,750 \n0 \n0 \n1,831 \n0 \n68,707,401 \n67 \nKyegegwa DLG \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n62 \n0 \n10,818,190 \n68 \nKyenjojo DLG \n0 \n0 \n249 \n3,498,750 \n212,500 \n1 \n869,398 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n69 \nKyotera DLG \n0 \n0 \n2,184 \n18,095,000 \n18,478,750 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n70 \nLamwo DLG \n186 \n11,365,000 \n354 \n1,525,000 \n3,943,750", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3,943,750 \n1 \n1,042,200 \n171 \n0 \n4,061,945 \n71 \nLira DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,048 \n15,918,750 \n688,750 \n0 \n0 \n1,346 \n300,684,271 \n22,213,126 \n72 \nLuuka DLG \n3 \n125,000 \n1,659 \n17,412,500 \n1,882,500 \n0 \n0 \n304 \n0 \n3,659,218 \n73 \nLuwero DLG \n6 \n275,000 \n3,831", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3,831 \n35,846,595 \n22,908,750 \n51 \n26,730,470 \n4,024 \n0 \n96,436,260 \n74 \nLwengo DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,659 \n17,056,250 \n4,483,750 \n3 \n2,651,225 \n110 \n0 \n29,166,343 \n75 \nLyantonde DLG \n0 \n0 \n885 \n6,855,000 \n8,801,250 \n11 \n1,486,254 \n1,036 \n0 \n32,930,876 \n76 \nMadi0Okollo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Madi0Okollo DLG \n4 \n135,000 \n957 \n9,876,250 \n6,732,500 \n15 \n1,805,024 \n67 \n21,427,046 \n34,687 \n77 \nManafwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n78 \n12,357,500 \n2,728,750 \n0 \n0 \n57 \n0 \n13,544,11 \n78 \nMaracha DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,486 \n39,192,500 \n160,000 \n0 \n0 \n938 \n13,051,508 \n0 \n79", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n79 \nMasaka DLG \n82 \n8,672,500 \n818 \n6,923,750 \n198,750 \n14 \n9,682,458 \n881 \n10,618,912 \n0 \n80 \nMasindi DLG \n356 \n4,100,000 \n1,239 \n11,872,500 \n2,440,000 \n1 \n2,810,000 \n1,406 \n509,315,123 \n16,075,037 \n81 \nMayuge DLG \n0 \n0 \n75 \n30,181,902 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2,373 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n41,504,234 \n82 \nMbale DLG \n0 \n0 \n2,904 \n9,185,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3,929 \n41,213 \n40,339,994 \n83 \nMbarara DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,158 \n14,520,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,284 \n200,906,092 \n31,593,639 \n84 \nMitooma DLG \n72 \n3,937,500 \n95 \n1,170,000 \n310,000 \n0 \n0 \n44 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "44 \n0 \n12,076,258 \n85 \nMityana DLG \n0 \n0 \n458 \n13,475,000 \n7,751,250 \n3 \n7,286,400 \n18 \n0 \n14,107,218 \n86 \nMoroto DLG \n144 \n8,118,750 \n121 \n255,000 \n1,638,750 \n21 \n8,124,515 \n745 \n0 \n11,304,400 \n87 \nMoyo DLG \n0 \n0 \n55 \n2,512,500 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n88", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n88 \nMpigi DLG \n55 \n2,285,000 \n1,214 \n15,293,750 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,509 \n0 \n28,446,228 \n89 \nMubende DLG \n0 \n0 \n935 \n9,195,000 \n3,856,250 \n0 \n0 \n394 \n0 \n13,240,180 \n90 \nMukono DLG \n0 \n0 \n2,927 \n39,461,250 \n8,527,500 \n3 \n2,287,752 \n938 \n0 \n78,724,807", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "78,724,807 \n91 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n0 \n0 \n252 \n1,172,500 \n2,051,250 \n24 \n12,834,100 \n563 \n0 \n18,815,283 \n92 \nNakaseke DLG \n0 \n0 \n2 \n0 \n45,000 \n0 \n0 \n451 \n87,026,351 \n1,177,602 \n93 \nNakasongola DLG \n0 \n0 \n2,095 \n3,527,500 \n36,420,000 \n2 \n1,657,713 \n2,090 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n42,107,750 \n94 \nNamayingo DLG \n0 \n0 \n492 \n1,277,500 \n7,017,500 \n0 \n0 \n1,292 \n0 \n13,481,286 \n95 \nNamutumba DLG \n6 \n170,000 \n1,765 \n15,740,000 \n10,946,250 \n0 \n0 \n979 \n24,685,599 \n0 \n96 \nNapak DLG \n447 \n12,957,500 \n154 \n1,497,500 \n775,000 \n0 \n0 \n7 \n0 \n7 \n0 \n5,976,211", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "281 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich no \nLST was \ndeducte\nd \nAmount of \nLST un \ndeducted \nNumber \nof staff \nwith \nwrong \nLST \ndeductio\nn \nOverdeductio\nn of LST \n Under \ndeduction \nof LST \nNumber \nof staff \nfrom \nwhich no \nPAYE \nwas \ndeducte\nd \n Amount of \nPAYE un \ndeducted \nNumber of \nstaff with \nwrong \nPAYE \ndeduction", "metadata": {"page": 297, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "PAYE \ndeduction\ns \n Over \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n Under \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n97 \nNgora DLG \n24 \n1,072,500 \n969 \n10,962,500 \n2,153,750 \n10 \n16,181,769 \n41 \n0 \n20,678,468 \n98 \nNtoroko DLG \n181 \n11,997,500 \n284 \n1,790,000 \n2,423,750 \n2 \n401,986 \n693 \n0 \n27,134,849 \n99 \nNtungamo DLG \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 297, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n22 \n270,000 \n0 \n28 \n37,988,956 \n151 \n0 \n20,715,092 \n10\n0 \nOmoro DLG \n3 \n102,500 \n652 \n4,042,500 \n8,515,000 \n1 \n2,872,542 \n1,590 \n0 \n46,533,621 \n10\n1 \nOtuke DLG \n1,141 \n138,475,00\n0 \n906 \n11,400,000 \n1,741,250 \n0 \n0 \n1,166 \n797,403,729", "metadata": {"page": 297, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "797,403,729 \n14,214,586 \n10\n2 \nOyam DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,619 \n41,170,147 \n141,880,930 \n10\n3 \nPakwach DLG \n5 \n292,500 \n1,001 \n7,365,000 \n10,443,750 \n1 \n72,595 \n69 \n0 \n18,267,544 \n10\n4 \nPallisa DLG \n0 \n0 \n435 \n0 \n9,817,500 \n91 \n18,821 \n369", "metadata": {"page": 297, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "369 \n18,594,399 \n20,523 \n10\n5 \nRakai DLG \n517 \n30,325,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10\n6 \nRubanda DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,032 \n4,252,500 \n4,020,000 \n0 \n0 \n211 \n332,396 \n43,911,214 \n10\n7 \nRubirizi DLG \n179 \n9,622,500 \n1,003 \n17,500 \n89,535,098 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 297, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n1,003 \n0 \n62,465,174 \n10\n8 \nRukiga DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,109 \n15,682,500 \n251,250 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10\n9 \nRukungiri DLG \n421 \n10,676,250 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11\n0 \nRwampara DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,038 \n8,280,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 297, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n11\n1 \nSembabule DLG \n4 \n75,000 \n2,267 \n21,877,500 \n12,106,250 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11\n2 \nSerere DLG \n300 \n20,122,500 \n240 \n4,840,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n53 \n0 \n19,022,013 \n11\n3 \nSheema DLG \n0 \n0 \n97 \n1,175,000 \n387,500 \n0 \n0 \n14 \n0 \n14 \n0 \n1,322,995 \n11\n4 \nSironko DLG \n256 \n3,427,500 \n66 \n2,205,000 \n5,262,500 \n50 \n10,345 \n383 \n4,303,618 \n1,054,718", "metadata": {"page": 297, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "282 \n \nSN \n Entity Name \nNo. of \nstaff \nfrom \nwhich no \nLST was \ndeducte\nd \nAmount of \nLST un \ndeducted \nNumber \nof staff \nwith \nwrong \nLST \ndeductio\nn \nOverdeductio\nn of LST \n Under \ndeduction \nof LST \nNumber \nof staff \nfrom \nwhich no \nPAYE \nwas \ndeducte\nd \n Amount of \nPAYE un \ndeducted \nNumber of \nstaff with \nwrong \nPAYE \ndeduction", "metadata": {"page": 298, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "PAYE \ndeduction\ns \n Over \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n Under \ndeduction of \nPAYE \n11\n5 \nSoroti DLG \n801 \n25,455,000 \n104 \n1,230,000 \n297,500 \n0 \n0 \n535 \n0 \n24,395,489 \n11\n6 \nTororo DLG \n318 \n10,062,500 \n78 \n17,272,500 \n13,663,750 \n337 \n57,933,014 \n57 \n0 \n10,309,201 \n11\n7 \nWakiso DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 298, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n76 \n2,522,500 \n3,213,750 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11\n8 \nZombo DLG \n295 \n6,325,000 \n1,354 \n6,762,500 \n13,291,250 \n5 \n4,697,181 \n444 \n0 \n28,685,210 \n \nTotal \n11,645 \n700,135,00\n0 \n94,892 \n1,043,454,067 \n682,208,04\n8 \n1,621 \n447,775,82\n6 \n75,094", "metadata": {"page": 298, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "75,094 \n3,040,220,50\n4 \n2,387,243,61\n9 \n \nAppendix 2 a: Planning, Budgeting & Funding For Land Acquisition \nNo \nEntity \nPlanned \nBudgeted \nActual \nRelease/wa\nrrant Ugx \nAmount \nspent \non \nLand Ugx \nDiversion of \nLand Funds \nUgx \nSize \n(hecta\nres) \nAmount Ugx Piec\nes \nSize \n(hectares) \nAmount \nUgx \nSize \n(hectares) \nAmount Ugx Amount \nUgx \nAmount \nUgx \n \n1", "metadata": {"page": 298, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1 \nWakiso DLG \n0 \n0 \n4 \nNot specified \n131,574,000 \nNot specified \n131,574,000 \n131,500,000 \n57,400,000 \n0 \n2 \nMbale DLG \n0 \n0 \n3 \nNot specified \n195,000,000 \nNot specified \n195,000,000 \n193,034,360 \n193,034,360 \n0 \n3 \nOyam DLG \n40.47 \n300,000,000 \n1 \n40.47 \n300,000,000 \n40.47 \n300,000,000 \n300,000,000 \n20,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 298, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "20,000,000 \n280,000,000 \n4 \nSironko DLG \n0 \n0 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n1 \n0 \n25,134,266 \n25,134,266 \n \nTotal \n40.47 \n300,000,000 \n10 \n40.47 \n626,574,00\n0 \n42.47 \n626,574,001 \n624,534,36\n0 \n295,568,62\n6 \n305,134,26\n6 \n \nAppendix 2 b: Titling and Transfer \nNo \nEntity \nTotal Land \nUn0Titled Land \nCauses", "metadata": {"page": 298, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Causes \n \nPieces \nSize (hectares) \nPieces \nSize (hectares) \n1 \nWakiso DLG \n45 \n47 \n32 \n20 \nLand was donated by people who passed on without \ntransferring title to the entity \n2 \nJinja DLG \n28 \n149.8 \n3 \n10.747 \nNot stated \n3 \nMbale DLG \n26 \n281.1 \n6 \nNot specified \nNot stated \n4 \nGulu DLG \n92 \nNot defined \n76 \nNot specified \nLack of funding to transfer titles", "metadata": {"page": 298, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "283 \n \n5 \nOyam DLG \n20 \n290.35 \n10 \n58.45 \nLack of funding to transfer titles \n6 \nMbarara DLG \n78 \n235.65 \n68 \n113.94 \nLack of funding to transfer titles \n7 \nBuduuda DLG \n50 \n101.29 \n24 \n19.25 \nExpired Land Board to effect titling of Land \n8 \nButaleja DLG \n0 \n0 \n14 \n112 \nExpired Land Board to effect titling of Land \n9 \nSironko DLG \n37 \n759.59 \n21 \n317.09 \nLack of funding to transfer titles", "metadata": {"page": 299, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Lack of funding to transfer titles \n10 \nSoroti DLG \n138 \nNot defined \n91 \nNot specifed \nLack of funding to transfer titles \n11 \nKumi DLG \n64 \n520 \n51 \nNot specifed \nNot stated \n \nTotal \n578 \n2384.78 \n396 \n651.477 \n \n \nAppendix 2 c: Failure to transfer Land into the Custody of ULC \nNo \nEntity \nLand not in the names of ULC \nCauses \nPieces \nSize (hectares) \nAmount Ugx \n \n1 \nWakiso DLG \n32 \n20 \nNot defined", "metadata": {"page": 299, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "20 \nNot defined \nCorporate body hence has a right to own land in their own right \n2 \nMbale DLG \n26 \n281.1 \nNot defined \nIgnorance of the Law/Lack of awareness \n3 \nGulu DLG \n15 \n47.063 \nNot defined \nCorporate body hence has a right to own land in their own right \n4 \nOyam DLG \n15 \n173.38 \nNot defined \nCorporate body hence has a right to own land in their own right \n5 \nMbarara DLG \n14 \n151.71 \nNot defined \nCorporate body hence has a right to own land in their own right \n6 \nBuduuda DLG \n0 \n3 \nNot defined \nNot stated", "metadata": {"page": 299, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Not stated \n \nTOTAL \n102 \n676.253 \n \n \n \nAppendix 2 d: Maintenance of land Register \nNo \nEntity \nTotal Land \nLand not recorded in the Land \nRegister \nCauses \nPieces \nSize (hectares) \nNo of Pieces \nSize (hectares) \n1 \nWakiso DLG \n45 \n47 \n1 \n1.51 \nAbsence of a reconciled position between land \nacquired by the LLGs and the district. \n2 \nMbale DLG \n26 \n281.1 \n29 \n282.11 \nNot disclosed \n3 \nGulu DLG \n92 \nNot defined \n3 \n4.495", "metadata": {"page": 299, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \n4.495 \nNot disclosed \n4 \nMbarara DLG \n78 \n235.65 \n78 \n235.65 \nNot disclosed \n5 \nFort portal City \n53 \nNot defined \n0 \n0 \nNot disclosed \n6 \nBuduuda DLG \n50 \n101.29 \n0 \n0 \nLack of District Land Board \n7 \nButaleja DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n112 \nNot disclosed \n8 \nSironko DLG \n37 \n759.59 \n0 \n0 \nNot disclosed \n9 \nSoroti DLG \n138 \nNot defined", "metadata": {"page": 299, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "138 \nNot defined \n0 \n0 \nNot disclosed \n10 \nKumi DLG \n64 \n520 \n64 \n520 \nNot disclosed \n \nTotal \n583 \n1944.6 \n175 \n1155.8", "metadata": {"page": 299, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "284 \n \nAppendix 2 e: Recording in GFMIS \nNo \nEntity \nDirectorate \nTotal Land \nLand not recorded in GFMIS \nCauses \n \nPieces \nSize (hectares) \nNo \nof \nPieces \nSize (hectares) \n1 \nWakiso DLG \nLA \n45 \n47 \n27 \n23 \nAbsence of Land Values to update GFMIS \n2 \nMbale DLG \nLA \n26 \n281.1 \n23 \n281.1 \nNon Functionality of the GFMIS0Asset module \n3 \nGulu DLG \nLA \n92 \nNot defined \n36 \n112.2", "metadata": {"page": 300, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "36 \n112.2 \nNot disclosed \n4 \nOyam DLG \nLA \n20 \n290.35 \n1 \n3.85 \nNon Functionality of the GFMIS0Asset module \n5 \nMbarara DLG \nLA \n78 \n235.65 \n0 \n0 \nNot disclosed \n6 \nFort portal City \nLA \n53 \nNot defined \n0 \n0 \nNot disclosed \n7 \nBuduuda DLG \nLA \n50 \n101.29 \n50 \n101.129 \nNot disclosed \n8 \nButaleja DLG \nLA \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 300, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \nNon Functionality of the GFMIS0Asset module \n9 \nSironko DLG \nLA \n37 \n759.59 \n37 \n759.59 \nNot disclosed \n10 \nSoroti DLG \nLA \n138 \nNot defined \n0 \n0 \nNot disclosed \n11 \nKumi DLG \nLA \n64 \n520 \n64 \n520 \nNon Functionality of the GFMIS0Asset module \n \nTotal \n \n603 \n2234.98 \n238 \n1800.869 \n \n \nAppendix 2 f: Use of Land in accordance with approved purpose in the entity Strategic \nNo \nEntity \nDirectorate", "metadata": {"page": 300, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Entity \nDirectorate \nLand not utilized in accordance with approved purpose \nNo of Pieces \nSize (hectares) \n1 \nGulu DLG \nLA \n3 \n11.767 \n \nTotal \n \n3 \n11.767 \n \nAppendix 2 g: Unutilized Land \nNo \nEntity \nTotal Land \nUnutilized Land \nCauses \n \nPieces \nSize (hectares) \nNo of \nPieces \nSize (hectares) \nAmount Ugx \n1 \nWakiso DLG \n45 \n47 \n1 \n0.202 \nNot defined \nInadequate Funding \n2 \nJinja DLG \n28 \n149.8", "metadata": {"page": 300, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "28 \n149.8 \n \n \n0 \n \n3 \nMbale DLG \n26 \n281.1 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n4 \nGulu DLG \n92 \nNot defined \n3 \n11.767 \nNot defined \nInadequate Funding \n5 \nOyam DLG \n20 \n290.35 \n1 \n3.853 \nNot defined \nInadequate Funding \n6 \nMbarara DLG \n78 \n235.65 \n6 \n3.264 \nNot defined \nInadequate Funding \n7 \nFort portal City \n53 \nNot defined \n6 \nNot defined", "metadata": {"page": 300, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6 \nNot defined \nNot defined \nInadequate Funding \n8 \nBuduuda DLG \n50 \n101.29 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n9 \nButaleja DLG \n0 \n0 \n2 \n1.7 \nNot defined \nInadequate Funding \n10 \nSironko DLG \n37 \n759.59 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 300, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "285 \n \n11 \nSoroti DLG \n138 \nNot defined \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n12 \nKumi DLG \n64 \n520 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n \nTotal \n631 \n2384.78 \n19 \n20.786 \n \n \n \nAppendix 2 h: Encumbered Land \nNo \nEntity \nTotal Land \nEncumbered Land \nCauses \n \nPieces \nSize \n(hectares) \nNo of \nPieces \nSize \n(hectares) \nAmount Ugx \n1 \nWakiso DLG", "metadata": {"page": 301, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Wakiso DLG \n45 \n47 \n3 \n1.641 \nNot defined \nLack of title and supporting documentation of \nownership, prolonged non utilization of land \nattracting encroachers \n2 \nMbale DLG \n26 \n281.1 \n9 \n42.2 \nNot defined \nNot stated \n3 \nGulu DLG \n92 \nNot defined \n2 \n5.946 \nNot defined \nNot stated \n4 \nMbarara DLG \n78 \n235.65 \n3 \n32.59 \nNot defined \nNot stated \n5 \nBuduuda DLG \n50 \n101.29 \n3 \n28.88", "metadata": {"page": 301, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \n28.88 \nNot defined \nNot stated \n6 \nSironko DLG \n37 \n759.59 \n1 \n10 \nNot defined \nNot stated \n7 \nSoroti DLG \n138 \nNot defined \n16 \nNot defined \nNot defined \nNot stated \n \nTotal \n466 \n1424.63 \n37 \n121.257 \n \n \n \nAppendix 2 i: Irregularities in Management of leased land \nN\no \nEntity \nLand Leased \nUndeveloped \nLeases \nUncollected \nLease \nrentals \nLeases \nrenewed \nwithout \npayment", "metadata": {"page": 301, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "without \npayment \nof Ground rent \nCauses \nNo \nof \nPieces \nSize \n(hectare\ns) \nNo \nof \nPieces \nSize \n(hectar\nes) \nNo \nof \nPieces \nAmount \nUGX \nNo \nof \nPieces \nAmount \nUGX \n1 \nWakiso DLG \n1 \n4.07 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nNot \nstated \nLeases were granted by former controlling \nAuthorities and no inventory or lease records \nwere ever passed on to the Boards, Leases fall \nunder lower urban Authorities that manage and", "metadata": {"page": 301, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "under lower urban Authorities that manage and \ncollect lease rentals forming part of NTR for \nLower Units \n2 \nGulu DLG \n5 \n10 \n2 \n5.821 \n5 \n30,300,000 \n1 \n0 \nNot stated \n3 \nBuduuda DLG \n30 \nNot \ndefined \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNot stated \n4 \nSironko DLG \n123 \nNot \ndefined \nNot defined \n0 \n77 \n66,690,000 \n0 \n0 \nPoor internal controls in management fo leased \nland \n \nTotal \n159 \nTotal \n159 \n14.07 \n2 \n5.821 \n82 \n96,990,00\n0 \n3 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 301, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "286 \n \n \n \nAppendix 2 j: Irregular allocation of Land by District Land Boards (DLB) \nNo \nEntity \nDirectorate \nIrregular Land Allocation by DLB \n2.1.1 \nCauses \nNo of \nPieces \nSize (hectares) \n1 \nWakiso DLG \nLA \n2 \nNot stated \nLack of comprehensive database for Public Land by the DLB \n2 \nGulu DLG \nLA \n2 \nNot stated \nLack of comprehensive database for Public Land by the DLB \n \nAppendix 3 a: Management of YLP in Local Governments \nSN \nLocal Government \nCummulative Amount Disbursed \nCummulative \nAmount \nRecovered \nAmount Due as at", "metadata": {"page": 302, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Amount Due as at \n30/June/2022 \n%recovery \n1 \n ABIM \n558,430,320 \n29,764,500 \n528,665,820 \n5% \n2 \n ADJUMANI \n913,964,058 \n168,376,513 \n745,587,545 \n18% \n3 \n AGAGO \n1,060,342,500 \n289,800,000 \n770,542,500 \n27% \n4 \n ALEBTONG \n1,404,686,000 \n149,400,000 \n1,255,286,000 \n11% \n5 \n AMOLATAR \n1,258,384,200 \n199,630,000", "metadata": {"page": 302, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "199,630,000 \n1,058,754,200 \n16% \n6 \n AMUDAT \n1,136,319,670 \n58,450,000 \n1,077,869,670 \n5% \n7 \n AMURIA \n900,534,348 \n175,023,695 \n725,510,653 \n19% \n8 \n AMURU \n1,100,620,900 \n126,537,000 \n974,083,900 \n11% \n9 \n APAC \n485,983,900 \n69,562,880 \n416,421,020 \n14% \n10 \n APAC MC \n473,829,000", "metadata": {"page": 302, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "473,829,000 \n64,062,000 \n409,767,000 \n14% \n11 \n ARUA \n1,543,031,750 \n298,948,867 \n1,244,082,883 \n19% \n12 \n ARUA MC \n690,596,336 \n118,046,400 \n572,549,936 \n17% \n13 \n BUDAKA \n1,198,338,672 \n162,069,210 \n1,036,269,462 \n14% \n14 \n BUDUDA \n758,216,074 \n244,252,000 \n513,964,074 \n32% \n15 \n BUGIRI", "metadata": {"page": 302, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "15 \n BUGIRI \n1,375,916,000 \n209,830,000 \n1,166,086,000 \n15% \n16 \n BUGIRI MC \n494,230,000 \n55,141,000 \n439,089,000 \n11% \n17 \n BUGWERI \n1,042,092,000 \n17,150,000 \n1,024,942,000 \n2% \n18 \n BUHWEJU \n984,435,400 \n202,906,000 \n781,529,400 \n21% \n19 \n BUIKWE \n529,541,000 \n173,057,121 \n356,483,879 \n33% \n20", "metadata": {"page": 302, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "33% \n20 \n BUKEDEA \n1,122,960,965 \n255,684,930 \n867,276,035 \n23% \n21 \n BUKOMANSIMBI \n804,758,000 \n160,756,500 \n644,001,500 \n20% \n22 \n BUKWO \n847,214,821 \n122,860,200 \n724,354,621 \n15% \n23 \n BULAMBULI \n1,037,707,856 \n338,122,562 \n699,585,294 \n33% \n24 \n BULIISA \n589,661,000 \n162,558,000 \n427,103,000 \n427,103,000 \n28% \n25 \n BUNDIBUGYO \n1,278,129,000 \n271,961,050 \n1,006,167,950 \n21% \n26 \n BUNYANGABU \n934,453,500 \n282,150,622 \n652,302,878 \n30% \n27 \n BUSHENYI \n1,216,325,590 \n517,576,630 \n698,748,960 \n43%", "metadata": {"page": 302, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "287 \n \nSN \nLocal Government \nCummulative Amount Disbursed \nCummulative \nAmount \nRecovered \nAmount Due as at \n30/June/2022 \n%recovery \n28 \n BUSHENYI0ISHAKA \n333,627,400 \n105,817,000 \n227,810,400 \n32% \n29 \n BUSIA \n1,117,921,963 \n123,051,733 \n994,870,230 \n11% \n30 \n BUSIA MC \n292,691,874 \n31,713,178 \n260,978,696 \n11% \n31 \n BUTALEJA \n768,440,957", "metadata": {"page": 303, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "768,440,957 \n120,280,000 \n648,160,957 \n16% \n32 \n BUTAMBALA \n630,640,978 \n80,890,321 \n549,750,657 \n13% \n33 \n BUTEBO \n641,022,700 \n34,277,000 \n606,745,700 \n5% \n34 \n BUVUMA \n746,271,980 \n112,575,000 \n633,696,980 \n15% \n35 \n BUYENDE \n2,043,535,000 \n255,547,200 \n1,787,987,800 \n13% \n36 \n DOKOLO", "metadata": {"page": 303, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "36 \n DOKOLO \n1,307,323,000 \n324,721,750 \n982,601,250 \n25% \n37 \n ENTEBBE MC \n348,956,324 \n59,000,000 \n289,956,324 \n17% \n38 \n FORT PORTAL MC \n387,642,470 \n119,037,800 \n268,604,670 \n31% \n39 \n GOMBA \n838,593,022 \n173,900,093 \n664,692,929 \n21% \n40 \n GULU \n687,415,300 \n158,871,700 \n528,543,600 \n23% \n41", "metadata": {"page": 303, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "23% \n41 \n GULU MC \n526,738,000 \n139,545,384 \n387,192,616 \n26% \n42 \n HOIMA \n1,362,810,000 \n362,991,129 \n999,818,871 \n27% \n43 \n HOIMA MC \n417,807,612 \n133,007,900 \n284,799,712 \n32% \n44 \n IBANDA \n1,207,486,639 \n568,625,465 \n638,861,174 \n47% \n45 \n IBANDA MC \n509,101,000 \n278,628,000 \n230,473,000", "metadata": {"page": 303, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "230,473,000 \n55% \n46 \n IGANGA \n1,445,453,000 \n393,136,000 \n1,052,317,000 \n27% \n47 \n IGANGA MC \n737,703,281 \n61,220,842 \n676,482,439 \n8% \n48 \n ISINGIRO \n1,590,959,519 \n390,210,000 \n1,200,749,519 \n25% \n49 \n JINJA \n1,158,623,707 \n218,052,579 \n940,571,128 \n19% \n50 \n JINJA MC \n503,230,000 \n93,874,700", "metadata": {"page": 303, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "93,874,700 \n409,355,300 \n19% \n51 \n KAABONG \n1,363,036,915 \n430,667,771 \n932,369,144 \n32% \n52 \n KABALE \n965,256,145 \n341,558,100 \n623,698,045 \n35% \n53 \n KABALE MC \n215,500,500 \n55,303,000 \n160,197,500 \n26% \n54 \n KABAROLE \n1,550,962,456 \n604,631,533 \n946,330,923 \n39% \n55 \n KABERAMAIDO \n514,569,525", "metadata": {"page": 303, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "514,569,525 \n151,625,245 \n362,944,280 \n29% \n56 \n KAGADI \n1,575,484,122 \n467,322,640 \n1,108,161,482 \n30% \n57 \n KAKUMIRO \n743,270,500 \n178,212,000 \n565,058,500 \n24% \n58 \n KALAKI \n415,709,634 \n82,042,600 \n333,667,034 \n20% \n59 \n KALANGALA \n747,503,500 \n163,233,492 \n584,270,008 \n22% \n60 \n KALIRO", "metadata": {"page": 303, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "60 \n KALIRO \n1,128,449,600 \n161,710,000 \n966,739,600 \n14% \n61 \n KALUNGU \n877,348,800 \n255,160,200 \n622,188,600 \n29% \n62 \n KAMULI \n1,694,700,236 \n281,628,963 \n1,413,071,273 \n17% \n63 \n KAMULI MC \n194,730,747 \n33,725,200 \n161,005,547 \n17% \n64 \n KAMWENGE \n1,246,093,000 \n377,745,750 \n868,347,250 \n30%", "metadata": {"page": 303, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "288 \n \nSN \nLocal Government \nCummulative Amount Disbursed \nCummulative \nAmount \nRecovered \nAmount Due as at \n30/June/2022 \n%recovery \n65 \n KANUNGU \n1,393,173,400 \n272,560,000 \n1,120,613,400 \n20% \n66 \n KAPCHORWA \n469,971,751 \n69,495,000 \n400,476,751 \n15% \n67 \n KAPCHORWA MC \n508,972,000 \n56,621,196 \n452,350,804 \n11% \n68 \n KAPELEBYONG \n360,889,106", "metadata": {"page": 304, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "360,889,106 \n62,402,005 \n298,487,101 \n17% \n69 \n KARENGA \n364,008,064 \n84,604,000 \n279,404,064 \n23% \n70 \n KASESE \n2,986,384,150 \n1,015,351,135 \n1,971,033,015 \n34% \n71 \n KASESE MC \n674,304,680 \n197,189,556 \n477,115,124 \n29% \n72 \n KASSANDA \n964,655,000 \n84,891,000 \n879,764,000 \n9% \n73 \n KATAKWI", "metadata": {"page": 304, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "73 \n KATAKWI \n991,688,017 \n120,580,040 \n871,107,977 \n12% \n74 \n KAYUNGA \n1,655,566,238 \n413,718,382 \n1,241,847,856 \n25% \n75 \n KAZO \n464,052,000 \n301,624,350 \n162,427,650 \n65% \n76 \n KIBAALE \n1,122,930,800 \n326,141,833 \n796,788,967 \n29% \n77 \n KIBOGA \n809,194,000 \n149,989,800 \n659,204,200 \n19%", "metadata": {"page": 304, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "19% \n78 \n KIBUKU \n962,687,076 \n120,600,000 \n842,087,076 \n13% \n79 \n KIKUUBE \n1,077,008,125 \n285,373,626 \n791,634,499 \n26% \n80 \n KIRA MC \n686,970,000 \n140,053,067 \n546,916,933 \n20% \n81 \n KIRUHURA \n1,112,725,500 \n375,657,030 \n737,068,470 \n34% \n82 \n KIRYANDONGO \n1,176,794,226 \n203,594,715", "metadata": {"page": 304, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "203,594,715 \n973,199,511 \n17% \n83 \n KISORO \n1,374,493,000 \n517,000,000 \n857,493,000 \n38% \n84 \n KISORO MC \n459,066,000 \n90,156,150 \n368,909,850 \n20% \n85 \n KITAGWENDA \n641,411,200 \n166,004,250 \n475,406,950 \n26% \n86 \n KITGUM \n1,388,055,300 \n197,450,000 \n1,190,605,300 \n14% \n87 \n KITGUM MC \n450,846,000", "metadata": {"page": 304, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "450,846,000 \n31,162,335 \n419,683,665 \n7% \n88 \n KOBOKO \n887,932,898 \n213,074,409 \n674,858,489 \n24% \n89 \n KOBOKO MC \n455,052,960 \n113,350,000 \n341,702,960 \n25% \n90 \n KOLE \n997,144,700 \n167,464,965 \n829,679,735 \n17% \n91 \n KOTIDO \n1,049,044,396 \n701,350,000 \n347,694,396 \n67% \n92 \n KOTIDO MC", "metadata": {"page": 304, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "KOTIDO MC \n1,193,020,136 \n360,890,000 \n832,130,136 \n30% \n93 \n KUMI \n801,804,654 \n184,000,000 \n617,804,654 \n23% \n94 \n KUMI MC \n409,137,000 \n134,127,605 \n275,009,395 \n33% \n95 \n KWANIA \n774,268,000 \n89,949,400 \n684,318,600 \n12% \n96 \n KWEEN \n986,832,727 \n195,179,150 \n791,653,577 \n20% \n97 \n KYANKWANZI", "metadata": {"page": 304, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "KYANKWANZI \n583,793,000 \n365,794,200 \n217,998,800 \n63% \n98 \n KYEGEGWA \n1,164,039,300 \n652,734,400 \n511,304,900 \n56% \n99 \n KYENJOJO \n2,391,590,500 \n544,607,490 \n1,846,983,010 \n23% \n100 \n KYOTERA \n930,522,250 \n135,899,400 \n794,622,850 \n15% \n101 \n LAMWO \n1,597,171,000 \n71,578,000 \n1,525,593,000 \n4%", "metadata": {"page": 304, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "289 \n \nSN \nLocal Government \nCummulative Amount Disbursed \nCummulative \nAmount \nRecovered \nAmount Due as at \n30/June/2022 \n%recovery \n102 \n LIRA \n998,287,500 \n181,346,483 \n816,941,017 \n18% \n103 \n LIRA MC \n719,400,500 \n271,442,000 \n447,958,500 \n38% \n104 \n LUGAZI MC \n186,268,000 \n27,200,000 \n159,068,000 \n15% \n105 \n LUUKA \n1,270,470,500 \n127,477,000", "metadata": {"page": 305, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "127,477,000 \n1,142,993,500 \n10% \n106 \n LUWERO \n1,486,290,291 \n346,274,380 \n1,140,015,911 \n23% \n107 \n LWENGO \n890,277,450 \n214,146,958 \n676,130,492 \n24% \n108 \n LYANTONDE \n1,053,720,798 \n475,823,000 \n577,897,798 \n45% \n109 \n MADI0OKOLO \n699,387,900 \n63,368,198 \n636,019,702 \n9% \n110 \n MAKINDYE SABAGABO MC", "metadata": {"page": 305, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "MAKINDYE SABAGABO MC \n612,306,000 \n165,286,000 \n447,020,000 \n27% \n111 \n MANAFWA \n1,065,145,114 \n126,394,000 \n938,751,114 \n12% \n112 \n MARACHA \n925,734,700 \n304,167,452 \n621,567,248 \n33% \n113 \n MASAKA \n1,053,743,995 \n93,776,563 \n959,967,432 \n9% \n114 \n MASAKA MC \n870,343,056 \n60,007,820 \n810,335,236 \n7% \n115", "metadata": {"page": 305, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7% \n115 \n MASINDI \n1,029,932,000 \n213,329,681 \n816,602,319 \n21% \n116 \n MASINDI MC \n534,611,172 \n136,375,259 \n398,235,913 \n26% \n117 \n MAYUGE \n2,223,544,045 \n323,612,803 \n1,899,931,242 \n15% \n118 \n MBALE \n1,136,326,112 \n217,000,000 \n919,326,112 \n19% \n119 \n MBALE MC \n423,934,681 \n51,259,000 \n372,675,681", "metadata": {"page": 305, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "372,675,681 \n12% \n120 \n MBARARA \n1,006,072,228 \n427,670,974 \n578,401,254 \n43% \n121 \n MBARARA MC \n556,021,100 \n132,217,546 \n423,803,554 \n24% \n122 \n MITOOMA \n1,208,180,500 \n368,442,050 \n839,738,450 \n30% \n123 \n MITYANA \n734,975,457 \n230,668,500 \n504,306,957 \n31% \n124 \n MITYANA MC \n189,623,350 \n62,403,396", "metadata": {"page": 305, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "62,403,396 \n127,219,954 \n33% \n125 \n MOROTO \n880,550,243 \n441,686,000 \n438,864,243 \n50% \n126 \n MOROTO MC \n268,738,681 \n99,734,835 \n169,003,846 \n37% \n127 \n MOYO \n894,175,800 \n102,499,600 \n791,676,200 \n11% \n128 \n MPIGI \n834,778,000 \n67,165,600 \n767,612,400 \n8% \n129 \n MUBENDE \n1,056,277,303 \n163,147,300", "metadata": {"page": 305, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "163,147,300 \n893,130,003 \n15% \n130 \n MUBENDE MC \n362,453,000 \n86,659,100 \n275,793,900 \n24% \n131 \n MUKONO \n972,755,500 \n188,775,000 \n783,980,500 \n19% \n132 \n MUKONO MC \n667,682,500 \n84,570,000 \n583,112,500 \n13% \n133 \n NABILATUK \n525,077,899 \n126,662,157 \n398,415,742 \n24% \n134 \n NAKAPIRIPIRIT \n1,038,485,500", "metadata": {"page": 305, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "75,788,418 \n962,697,082 \n7% \n135 \n NAKASEKE \n1,212,652,080 \n312,910,611 \n899,741,469 \n26% \n136 \n NAKASONGOLA \n739,457,000 \n220,953,000 \n518,504,000 \n30% \n137 \n NAMAYINGO \n1,166,593,750 \n222,680,000 \n943,913,750 \n19% \n138 \n NAMISINDWA \n626,045,000 \n86,300,000 \n539,745,000 \n14%", "metadata": {"page": 305, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "290 \n \nSN \nLocal Government \nCummulative Amount Disbursed \nCummulative \nAmount \nRecovered \nAmount Due as at \n30/June/2022 \n%recovery \n139 \n NAMUTUMBA \n1,376,411,000 \n166,904,000 \n1,209,507,000 \n12% \n140 \n NANSANA MC \n717,524,000 \n98,178,735 \n619,345,265 \n14% \n141 \n NAPAK \n1,392,853,326 \n249,371,430 \n1,143,481,896 \n18% \n142 \n NEBBI \n994,193,550", "metadata": {"page": 306, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "994,193,550 \n234,182,260 \n760,011,290 \n24% \n143 \n NEBBI MC \n254,455,000 \n36,107,650 \n218,347,350 \n14% \n144 \n NGORA \n1,089,212,532 \n137,623,841 \n951,588,691 \n13% \n145 \n NJERU MC \n321,075,400 \n186,040,690 \n135,034,710 \n58% \n146 \n NTOROKO \n1,020,711,500 \n346,147,706 \n674,563,794 \n34% \n147 \n NTUNGAMO", "metadata": {"page": 306, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "147 \n NTUNGAMO \n1,265,443,350 \n290,764,025 \n974,679,325 \n23% \n148 \n NTUNGAMO MC \n549,417,000 \n315,379,503 \n234,037,497 \n57% \n149 \n NWOYA \n1,057,363,400 \n276,319,000 \n781,044,400 \n26% \n150 \n OBONG \n330,774,000 \n65,000,000 \n265,774,000 \n20% \n151 \n OMORO \n909,296,000 \n158,780,000 \n750,516,000 \n17% \n152 \n OTUKE", "metadata": {"page": 306, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "152 \n OTUKE \n1,241,198,900 \n349,577,750 \n891,621,150 \n28% \n153 \n OYAM \n1,420,240,000 \n298,812,370 \n1,121,427,630 \n21% \n154 \n PADER \n952,397,900 \n119,700,000 \n832,697,900 \n13% \n155 \n PAKWACH \n753,860,879 \n179,750,250 \n574,110,629 \n24% \n156 \n PALLISA \n1,784,396,870 \n191,719,400 \n1,592,677,470 \n11% \n157", "metadata": {"page": 306, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11% \n157 \n RAKAI \n1,182,338,800 \n143,746,520 \n1,038,592,280 \n12% \n158 \n RUBANDA \n801,574,643 \n139,330,000 \n662,244,643 \n17% \n159 \n RUBIRIZI \n931,377,539 \n216,652,759 \n714,724,780 \n23% \n160 \n RUKIGA \n453,712,452 \n53,113,600 \n400,598,852 \n12% \n161 \n RUKUNGIRI \n1,369,976,400 \n230,000,000 \n1,139,976,400", "metadata": {"page": 306, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,139,976,400 \n17% \n162 \n RUKUNGIRI MC \n331,253,700 \n84,410,000 \n246,843,700 \n25% \n163 \n RWAMPARA \n687,828,688 \n241,863,060 \n445,965,628 \n35% \n164 \n SEMBABULE \n1,082,220,900 \n282,370,600 \n799,850,300 \n26% \n165 \n SERERE \n1,311,694,064 \n287,661,585 \n1,024,032,479 \n22% \n166 \n SHEEMA \n880,894,000 \n501,383,000", "metadata": {"page": 306, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "501,383,000 \n379,511,000 \n57% \n167 \n SHEEMA MC \n519,381,000 \n282,230,025 \n237,150,975 \n54% \n168 \n SIRONKO \n1,266,268,000 \n307,100,000 \n959,168,000 \n24% \n169 \n SOROTI \n990,736,418 \n251,777,690 \n738,958,728 \n25% \n170 \n SOROTI MC \n727,002,670 \n54,302,850 \n672,699,820 \n7% \n171 \nTEREGO \n711,898,000 \n132,942,955", "metadata": {"page": 306, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "132,942,955 \n578,955,045 \n19% \n172 \n TORORO \n1,426,247,993 \n339,218,047 \n1,087,029,946 \n24% \n173 \n TORORO MC \n841,180,000 \n40,800,000 \n800,380,000 \n5% \n174 \n WAKISO \n1,743,164,150 \n266,080,207 \n1,477,083,943 \n15% \n175 \n YUMBE \n2,315,784,900 \n296,269,650 \n2,019,515,250 \n13%", "metadata": {"page": 306, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "291 \n \nSN \nLocal Government \nCummulative Amount Disbursed \nCummulative \nAmount \nRecovered \nAmount Due as at \n30/June/2022 \n%recovery \n176 \n ZOMBO \n972,606,000 \n394,410,000 \n578,196,000 \n41% \n \nUNTAGGED TRANSFERS BY LGs \n0 \n813,686,936 \n0 \n \n \nTOTAL \n164,992,797,049 \n38,018,366,215 \n127,788,117,770 \n \n \nAppendix 3 b: Management of UWEP in Local Governments \nsn \nLOCAL GOVERNMENT", "metadata": {"page": 307, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "sn \nLOCAL GOVERNMENT \nCUMM. \nAMOUNT \nDISBURSED \n(UGX) \nCUMM0AMOUNT \nDUE \n(UGX) \nCUMMULATIVE \nRECOVERIES AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \nCUMMULATIVE \nAMOUNT DUE AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \n% recovery \n1 \nABIM DISTRICT LG \n381,779,585 \n128,621,963 \n21,923,000 \n106,698,963 \n17% \n2 \nADJUMANI DISTRICT LG \n626,871,079 \n112,369,200 \n49,408,000 \n62,961,200", "metadata": {"page": 307, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "62,961,200 \n44% \n3 \nAGAGO DISTRICT LG \n833,187,600 \n130,334,523 \n119,000,000 \n11,334,523 \n91% \n4 \nALEBTONG DISTRICT LG \n696,069,000 \n145,614,326 \n21,130,000 \n124,484,326 \n15% \n5 \nAMOLATAR DISTRICT LG \n738,072,500 \n110,676,115 \n82,624,934 \n28,051,181 \n75% \n6 \nAMUDAT DISTRICT LG \n513,728,500 \n62,652,523 \n26,360,000 \n36,292,523", "metadata": {"page": 307, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "36,292,523 \n42% \n7 \nAMURIA DISTRICT LG \n528,271,800 \n94,064,647 \n78,221,650 \n15,842,997 \n83% \n8 \nAMURU DISTRICT LG \n852,765,200 \n97,313,643 \n78,242,278 \n19,071,365 \n80% \n9 \nAPAC DISTRICT LG \n614,758,800 \n165,958,623 \n83,000,000 \n82,958,623 \n50% \n10 \nAPAC MUNICIPALITY \n521,809,269 \n145,705,365 \n100,737,000 \n44,968,365 \n69%", "metadata": {"page": 307, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "69% \n11 \nARUA CITY \n92,840,000 \n174,826,081 \n33,145,470 \n141,680,611 \n19% \n12 \nARUA DISTRICT LG \n528,770,436 \n204,560,403 \n155,258,000 \n49,302,403 \n76% \n13 \nBUDAKA DISTRICT LG \n558,670,094 \n87,516,193 \n58,203,549 \n29,312,644 \n67% \n14 \nBUDUDA DISTRICT LG \n511,293,000 \n196,224,307 \n138,700,000 \n57,524,307 \n71% \n15 \nBUGIRI DISTRICT LG", "metadata": {"page": 307, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "BUGIRI DISTRICT LG \n770,457,300 \n239,303,523 \n92,615,000 \n146,688,523 \n39% \n16 \nBUGIRI MUNICIPALITY \n326,712,000 \n102,649,282 \n82,053,000 \n20,596,282 \n80% \n17 \nBUGWERI DISTRICT LG \n442,946,000 \n41,665,025 \n17,550,000 \n24,115,025 \n42% \n18 \nBUHWEJU DISTRICT LG \n510,480,500 \n123,247,523 \n84,300,000 \n38,947,523 \n68% \n19 \nBUIKWE DISTRICT LG", "metadata": {"page": 307, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "BUIKWE DISTRICT LG \n501,423,000 \n121,566,422 \n91,682,595 \n29,883,827 \n75% \n20 \nBUKEDEA DISTRICT LG \n946,184,104 \n558,736,363 \n407,000,000 \n151,736,363 \n73% \n21 \nBUKOMANSIMBI DISTRICT LG \n518,603,500 \n127,840,981 \n80,228,650 \n47,612,331 \n63% \n22 \nBUKWO DISTRICT LG \n508,995,000 \n137,959,123 \n72,519,000 \n65,440,123 \n53% \n23", "metadata": {"page": 307, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "53% \n23 \nBULAMBULI DISTRICT LG \n775,382,900 \n323,973,429 \n284,068,282 \n39,905,147 \n88% \n24 \nBULIISA DISTRICT LG \n618,802,800 \n95,211,943 \n69,950,000 \n25,261,943 \n73% \n25 \nBUNDIBUGYO DISTRICT LG \n794,588,000 \n131,271,074 \n110,971,738 \n20,299,336 \n85% \n26 \nBUNYANGABU DISTRICT LG \n637,018,148 \n234,530,081 \n210,916,000 \n23,614,081 \n90% \n90% \n27 \nBUSHENYI DISTRICT LG \n653,147,964 \n188,483,831 \n199,251,440 \n010,767,609 \n106% \n28 \nBUSHENYI ISHAKA MUNICIPALITY \n240,765,500 \n115,860,435 \n67,690,000 \n48,170,435 \n58%", "metadata": {"page": 307, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "292 \n \nsn \nLOCAL GOVERNMENT \nCUMM. \nAMOUNT \nDISBURSED \n(UGX) \nCUMM0AMOUNT \nDUE \n(UGX) \nCUMMULATIVE \nRECOVERIES AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \nCUMMULATIVE \nAMOUNT DUE AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \n% recovery \n29 \nBUSIA DISTRICT LG \n877,436,200 \n130,470,017 \n45,710,000 \n84,760,017 \n35% \n30 \nBUSIA MUNICIPALITY \n255,040,500 \n82,873,381 \n22,660,000 \n60,213,381", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "60,213,381 \n27% \n31 \nBUTALEJJA DISTRICT LG \n589,399,981 \n108,645,044 \n60,410,000 \n48,235,044 \n56% \n32 \nBUTAMBALA DISTRICT LG \n222,005,000 \n83,791,608 \n24,460,000 \n59,331,608 \n29% \n33 \nBUTEBO DISTRICT LG \n413,556,983 \n71,834,523 \n15,695,000 \n56,139,523 \n22% \n34 \nBUVUMA DISTRICT LG \n324,932,876 \n56,295,691 \n24,294,000", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "24,294,000 \n32,001,691 \n43% \n35 \nBUYENDE DISTRICT LG \n742,856,800 \n130,571,476 \n81,880,000 \n48,691,476 \n63% \n36 \nDOKOLO DISTRICT LG \n483,795,552 \n212,248,095 \n140,750,000 \n71,498,095 \n66% \n37 \nENTEBBE MUNICIPALITY \n524,609,760 \n53,858,481 \n44,300,000 \n9,558,481 \n82% \n38 \nFORT PORTAL CITY \n283,810,712 \n101,118,930 \n86,002,776", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "86,002,776 \n15,116,154 \n85% \n39 \nGOMBA DISTRICT LG \n609,138,000 \n120,927,647 \n90,410,000 \n30,517,647 \n75% \n40 \nGULU CITY \n279,191,000 \n93,359,170 \n39,739,000 \n53,620,170 \n43% \n41 \nGULU DISTRICT LG \n720,577,500 \n219,063,099 \n159,545,858 \n59,517,241 \n73% \n42 \nHOIMA CITY \n571,448,295 \n116,823,184 \n88,100,000 \n28,723,184", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "28,723,184 \n75% \n43 \nHOIMA DISTRICT LG \n823,518,800 \n145,047,542 \n131,700,000 \n13,347,542 \n91% \n44 \nIBANDA DISTRICT LG \n769,091,476 \n428,829,644 \n403,144,800 \n25,684,844 \n94% \n45 \nIBANDA MUNICIPALITY \n521,719,270 \n239,823,474 \n186,530,000 \n53,293,474 \n78% \n46 \nIGANGA DISTRICT LG \n639,396,000 \n132,957,043 \n60,685,000 \n72,272,043", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "72,272,043 \n46% \n47 \nIGANGA MUNICIPALITY \n371,019,547 \n88,323,643 \n55,250,000 \n33,073,643 \n63% \n48 \nISINGIRO DISTRICT LG \n936,815,000 \n290,695,242 \n274,860,000 \n15,835,242 \n95% \n49 \nJINJA CITY \n412,187,200 \n237,855,722 \n49,156,360 \n188,699,362 \n21% \n50 \nJINJA DISTRICT LG \n891,665,000 \n295,490,454 \n242,523,009 \n52,967,445", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "52,967,445 \n82% \n51 \nKAABONG DISTRICT LG \n374,851,000 \n88,179,025 \n81,413,656 \n6,765,369 \n92% \n52 \nKABALE DISTRICT LG \n791,496,495 \n257,503,130 \n246,307,063 \n11,196,067 \n96% \n53 \nKABALE MUNICIPALITY \n277,961,224 \n103,351,523 \n78,380,000 \n24,971,523 \n76% \n54 \nKABAROLE DISTRICT LG \n841,227,642 \n291,572,229 \n273,759,000 \n17,813,229", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17,813,229 \n94% \n55 \nKABERAMAIDO DISTRICT LG \n422,315,694 \n102,280,963 \n57,987,600 \n44,293,363 \n57% \n56 \nKAGADI DISTRICT LG \n1,127,690,096 \n373,226,132 \n259,232,430 \n113,993,702 \n69% \n57 \nKAKUMIRO DISTRICT LG \n689,973,693 \n243,007,573 \n218,250,000 \n24,757,573 \n90% \n58 \nKALAKI DISTRICT LG \n344,948,035 \n97,873,200 \n36,262,850", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "36,262,850 \n61,610,350 \n37% \n59 \nKALANGALA DISTRICT LG \n447,073,300 \n76,826,081 \n43,554,900 \n33,271,181 \n57% \n60 \nKALIRO DISTRICT LG \n794,576,000 \n128,217,134 \n116,493,754 \n11,723,380 \n91% \n61 \nKALUNGU DISTRICT LG \n585,465,000 \n196,827,230 \n167,160,000 \n29,667,230 \n85% \n62 \nKAMULI DISTRICT LG \n1,021,431,000 \n162,739,407 \n153,828,186 \n153,828,186 \n8,911,221 \n95% \n63 \nKAMULI MUNICIPALITY \n405,575,000 \n107,533,241 \n31,540,000 \n75,993,241 \n29%", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "293 \n \nsn \nLOCAL GOVERNMENT \nCUMM. \nAMOUNT \nDISBURSED \n(UGX) \nCUMM0AMOUNT \nDUE \n(UGX) \nCUMMULATIVE \nRECOVERIES AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \nCUMMULATIVE \nAMOUNT DUE AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \n% recovery \n64 \nKAMWENGE DISTRICT LG \n809,623,000 \n418,104,523 \n350,957,000 \n67,147,523 \n84% \n65 \nKANUNGU DISTRICT LG \n859,570,180 \n225,479,662 \n197,030,000", "metadata": {"page": 309, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "197,030,000 \n28,449,662 \n87% \n66 \nKAPCHORWA DISTRICT LG \n669,008,191 \n145,223,523 \n105,356,700 \n39,866,823 \n73% \n67 \nKAPCHORWA MUNICIPALITY \n464,121,450 \n90,606,619 \n56,000,000 \n34,606,619 \n62% \n68 \nKAPELEBYONG DISTRICT LG \n382,835,500 \n98,062,200 \n33,570,000 \n64,492,200 \n34% \n69 \nKARENGA DISTRICT LG \n471,310,000 \n89,298,343 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 309, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n89,298,343 \n0% \n70 \nKASESE DISTRICT LG \n1,750,446,800 \n411,264,520 \n323,125,000 \n88,139,520 \n79% \n71 \nKASESE MUNICIPALITY \n415,580,300 \n212,191,923 \n139,550,000 \n72,641,923 \n66% \n72 \nKASSANDA DISTRICT LG \n361,456,000 \n172,335,423 \n11,279,400 \n161,056,023 \n7% \n73 \nKATAKWI DISTRICT LG \n676,070,200 \n175,271,863 \n145,126,385 \n30,145,478", "metadata": {"page": 309, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "30,145,478 \n83% \n74 \nKAYUNGA DISTRICT LG \n797,528,118 \n211,726,673 \n186,147,950 \n25,578,723 \n88% \n75 \nKAZO DISTRICT LG \n523,586,352 \n255,338,343 \n64,100,000 \n191,238,343 \n25% \n76 \nKIBAALE DISTRICT LG \n914,082,011 \n331,341,810 \n285,920,850 \n45,420,960 \n86% \n77 \nKIBOGA DISTRICT LG \n646,062,144 \n163,003,660 \n136,382,417 \n26,621,243", "metadata": {"page": 309, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "26,621,243 \n84% \n78 \nKIBUKU DISTRICT LG \n738,161,981 \n153,937,325 \n47,239,150 \n106,698,175 \n31% \n79 \nKIKUUBE DISTRICT LG \n618,079,000 \n154,804,527 \n136,751,923 \n18,052,604 \n88% \n80 \nKIRA MUNICIPALITY \n1,423,212,000 \n368,034,875 \n213,027,392 \n155,007,483 \n58% \n81 \nKIRUHURA DISTRICT LG \n828,932,000 \n581,956,000 \n457,599,050", "metadata": {"page": 309, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "457,599,050 \n124,356,950 \n79% \n82 \nKIRYANDONGO DISTRICT LG \n474,679,500 \n128,795,990 \n25,650,000 \n103,145,990 \n20% \n83 \nKISORO DISTRICT LG \n929,341,500 \n475,430,790 \n414,103,000 \n61,327,790 \n87% \n84 \nKISORO MUNICIPALITY \n479,761,230 \n145,415,323 \n95,050,000 \n50,365,323 \n65% \n85 \nKITAGWENDA DISTRICT LG \n496,544,700 \n116,454,543 \n94,554,100", "metadata": {"page": 309, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "94,554,100 \n21,900,443 \n81% \n86 \nKITGUM DISTRICT LG \n935,545,500 \n122,684,648 \n80,000,000 \n42,684,648 \n65% \n87 \nKITGUM MUNICIPALITY \n652,082,205 \n233,316,741 \n69,084,614 \n164,232,127 \n30% \n88 \nKOBOKO DISTRICT LG \n812,129,800 \n350,573,560 \n292,281,488 \n58,292,072 \n83% \n89 \nKOBOKO MUNICIPALITY \n423,780,004 \n214,725,623 \n125,634,000", "metadata": {"page": 309, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "125,634,000 \n89,091,623 \n59% \n90 \nKOLE DISTRICT LG \n770,191,493 \n438,873,000 \n348,000,000 \n90,873,000 \n79% \n91 \nKOTIDO DISTRICT LG \n740,758,556 \n122,860,621 \n67,200,000 \n55,660,621 \n55% \n92 \nKOTIDO MUNICIPALITY \n641,199,237 \n188,479,200 \n129,929,000 \n58,550,200 \n69% \n93 \nKUMI DISTRICT LG \n657,498,500 \n290,541,125 \n246,044,500", "metadata": {"page": 309, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "246,044,500 \n44,496,625 \n85% \n94 \nKUMI MUNICIPALITY \n412,001,000 \n211,033,123 \n153,734,700 \n57,298,423 \n73% \n95 \nKWANIA DISTRICT LG \n357,876,500 \n81,419,385 \n65,330,000 \n16,089,385 \n80% \n96 \nKWEEN DISTRICT LG \n624,522,226 \n190,160,074 \n161,907,150 \n28,252,924 \n85% \n97 \nKYANKWANZI DISTRICT LG \n580,235,550 \n249,957,134 \n261,129,500 \n261,129,500 \n011,172,366 \n104% \n98 \nKYEGEGWA DISTRICT LG \n865,954,000 \n389,581,439 \n362,150,000 \n27,431,439 \n93%", "metadata": {"page": 309, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "294 \n \nsn \nLOCAL GOVERNMENT \nCUMM. \nAMOUNT \nDISBURSED \n(UGX) \nCUMM0AMOUNT \nDUE \n(UGX) \nCUMMULATIVE \nRECOVERIES AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \nCUMMULATIVE \nAMOUNT DUE AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \n% recovery \n99 \nKYENJOJO DISTRICT LG \n1,046,072,500 \n291,995,597 \n306,101,300 \n014,105,703 \n105% \n100 \nKYOTERA DISTRICT LG \n613,911,204 \n213,233,773 \n124,728,610", "metadata": {"page": 310, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "124,728,610 \n88,505,163 \n58% \n101 \nLAMWO DISTRICT LG \n596,943,500 \n111,150,523 \n76,561,000 \n34,589,523 \n69% \n102 \nLIRA CITY \n678,511,406 \n128,345,423 \n45,200,000 \n83,145,423 \n35% \n103 \nLIRA DISTRICT LG \n816,929,261 \n212,305,871 \n218,297,000 \n05,991,129 \n103% \n104 \nLUGAZI MUNICIPALITY \n316,341,670 \n90,430,081 \n71,800,000 \n18,630,081", "metadata": {"page": 310, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "18,630,081 \n79% \n105 \nLUUKA DISTRICT LG \n562,966,000 \n80,932,325 \n27,392,000 \n53,540,325 \n34% \n106 \nLUWERO DISTRICT LG \n848,820,716 \n185,323,965 \n233,047,450 \n047,723,485 \n126% \n107 \nLWENGO DISTRICT LG \n747,362,069 \n154,941,223 \n120,467,200 \n34,474,023 \n78% \n108 \nLYANTONDE DISTRICT LG \n586,866,500 \n214,359,912 \n204,652,177", "metadata": {"page": 310, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "204,652,177 \n9,707,735 \n95% \n109 \nMADI0OKOLLO DISTRICT LG \n259,376,700 \n62,298,343 \n8,430,000 \n53,868,343 \n14% \n110 \nMAKINDYE SSABAGABO MUNICIPALITY \n1,011,071,614 \n134,980,903 \n113,300,000 \n21,680,903 \n84% \n111 \nMANAFWA DISTRICT LG \n606,972,155 \n121,215,223 \n77,000,000 \n44,215,223 \n64% \n112 \nMARACHA DISTRICT LG \n622,960,050 \n145,222,523 \n105,900,000", "metadata": {"page": 310, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "105,900,000 \n39,322,523 \n73% \n113 \nMASAKA CITY \n217,266,207 \n160,030,150 \n14,514,786 \n145,515,364 \n9% \n114 \nMASAKA DISTRICT LG \n637,743,929 \n245,651,906 \n152,400,000 \n93,251,906 \n62% \n115 \nMASINDI DISTRICT LG \n615,674,000 \n222,475,523 \n203,049,600 \n19,425,923 \n91% \n116 \nMASINDI MUNICIPALITY \n242,561,224 \n68,963,525 \n57,400,000", "metadata": {"page": 310, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "57,400,000 \n11,563,525 \n83% \n117 \nMAYUGE DISTRICT LG \n1,052,114,000 \n212,887,340 \n124,941,950 \n87,945,390 \n59% \n118 \nMBALE CITY \n531,844,100 \n277,248,075 \n43,810,000 \n233,438,075 \n16% \n119 \nMBALE DISTRICT LG \n873,059,400 \n216,808,343 \n198,369,000 \n18,439,343 \n91% \n120 \nMBARARA CITY \n217,917,000 \n209,215,423 \n93,900,000", "metadata": {"page": 310, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "93,900,000 \n115,315,423 \n45% \n121 \nMBARARA DISTRICT LG \n828,110,125 \n198,423,643 \n187,247,800 \n11,175,843 \n94% \n122 \nMITOMA DISTRICT LG \n496,942,565 \n136,235,200 \n120,554,960 \n15,680,240 \n88% \n123 \nMITYANA DISTRICT LG \n888,815,328 \n315,412,538 \n287,950,000 \n27,462,538 \n91% \n124 \nMITYANA MUNICIPALITY \n357,822,947 \n165,470,698 \n98,869,300", "metadata": {"page": 310, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "98,869,300 \n66,601,398 \n60% \n125 \nMOROTO DISTRICT LG \n648,066,000 \n144,435,077 \n81,189,350 \n63,245,727 \n56% \n126 \nMOROTO MUNICIPALITY \n126,884,500 \n74,332,147 \n36,388,225 \n37,943,922 \n49% \n127 \nMOYO DISTRICT LG \n332,674,086 \n154,641,923 \n86,194,600 \n68,447,323 \n56% \n128 \nMPIGI DISTRICT LG \n280,530,000 \n77,185,148 \n51,200,000 \n25,985,148", "metadata": {"page": 310, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "25,985,148 \n66% \n129 \nMUBENDE DISTRICT LG \n542,425,000 \n127,623,843 \n104,900,000 \n22,723,843 \n82% \n130 \nMUBENDE MUNICIPALITY \n326,890,800 \n62,294,914 \n61,497,925 \n796,989 \n99% \n131 \nMUKONO DISTRICT LG \n1,362,525,050 \n172,564,533 \n144,396,000 \n28,168,533 \n84% \n132 \nMUKONO MUNICIPALITY \n1,106,525,000 \n160,091,081 \n121,197,460 \n38,893,621 \n38,893,621 \n76% \n133 \nNABILATUK DISTRICT LG \n276,452,379 \n66,125,906 \n37,547,000 \n28,578,906 \n57%", "metadata": {"page": 310, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "295 \n \nsn \nLOCAL GOVERNMENT \nCUMM. \nAMOUNT \nDISBURSED \n(UGX) \nCUMM0AMOUNT \nDUE \n(UGX) \nCUMMULATIVE \nRECOVERIES AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \nCUMMULATIVE \nAMOUNT DUE AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \n% recovery \n134 \nNAKAPIRIPIRIT DISTRICT LG \n633,660,996 \n106,243,140 \n63,712,000 \n42,531,140 \n60% \n135 \nNAKASEKE DISTRICT LG \n688,221,700 \n108,911,452 \n104,729,844", "metadata": {"page": 311, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "104,729,844 \n4,181,608 \n96% \n136 \nNAKASONGOLA DISTRICT LG \n381,872,100 \n140,922,474 \n110,922,600 \n29,999,874 \n79% \n137 \nNAMAYINGO DISTRICT LG \n600,527,200 \n144,409,191 \n71,217,600 \n73,191,591 \n49% \n138 \nNAMISINDWA DLG \n295,365,000 \n149,773,944 \n33,450,000 \n116,323,944 \n22% \n139 \nNAMUTUMBA DISTRICT LG \n752,775,500 \n64,321,699 \n31,070,978", "metadata": {"page": 311, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "31,070,978 \n33,250,721 \n48% \n140 \nNANSANA MUNICIPALITY \n676,032,215 \n451,645,643 \n360,515,341 \n91,130,302 \n80% \n141 \nNAPAK DISTRICT LG \n877,618,852 \n213,349,978 \n169,600,000 \n43,749,978 \n79% \n142 \nNEBBI DISTRICT LG \n704,433,441 \n172,495,729 \n193,942,800 \n021,447,071 \n112% \n143 \nNEBBI MUNICIPALITY \n383,845,000 \n104,638,831 \n86,516,370", "metadata": {"page": 311, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "86,516,370 \n18,122,461 \n83% \n144 \nNGORA DISTRICT LG \n622,722,000 \n169,998,648 \n78,873,375 \n91,125,273 \n46% \n145 \nNJERU MUNICIPALITY \n347,310,000 \n220,919,639 \n173,377,180 \n47,542,459 \n78% \n146 \nNTOROKO DISTRICT LG \n477,156,000 \n145,001,331 \n133,700,000 \n11,301,331 \n92% \n147 \nNTUNGAMO DISTRICT LG \n1,362,744,817 \n331,111,858 \n282,845,950", "metadata": {"page": 311, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "282,845,950 \n48,265,908 \n85% \n148 \nNTUNGAMO MUNICIPALITY \n408,983,001 \n386,709,914 \n161,103,950 \n225,605,964 \n42% \n149 \nNWOYA DISTRICT LG \n650,250,700 \n148,672,081 \n70,650,000 \n78,022,081 \n48% \n150 \nOBONGI DISTRICT LG \n359,960,000 \n103,379,300 \n0 \n103,379,300 \n0% \n151 \nOMORO DISTRICT LG \n581,518,500 \n220,864,533 \n103,070,000", "metadata": {"page": 311, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "103,070,000 \n117,794,533 \n47% \n152 \nOTUKE DISTRICT LG \n966,201,100 \n330,552,144 \n249,300,000 \n81,252,144 \n75% \n153 \nOYAM DISTRICT LG \n946,368,000 \n373,643,523 \n324,189,000 \n49,454,523 \n87% \n154 \nPADER DISTRICT LG \n740,634,600 \n61,930,340 \n41,500,000 \n20,430,340 \n67% \n155 \nPAKWACH DISTRICT LG \n676,689,000 \n143,557,223 \n119,400,000", "metadata": {"page": 311, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "119,400,000 \n24,157,223 \n83% \n156 \nPALLISA DISTRICT LG \n933,063,375 \n176,023,010 \n65,962,224 \n110,060,786 \n37% \n157 \nRAKAI DISTRICT LG \n705,036,098 \n143,852,446 \n54,871,090 \n88,981,356 \n38% \n158 \nRUBANDA DISTRICT LG \n607,189,720 \n156,612,523 \n127,760,000 \n28,852,523 \n82% \n159 \nRUBIRIZI DISTRICT LG \n509,568,345 \n115,930,081", "metadata": {"page": 311, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "115,930,081 \n101,541,634 \n14,388,447 \n88% \n160 \nRUKIGA DISTRICT LG \n573,200,033 \n220,184,719 \n162,190,000 \n57,994,719 \n74% \n161 \nRUKUNGIRI DISTRICT LG \n1,080,960,669 \n387,044,723 \n335,129,818 \n51,914,905 \n87% \n162 \nRUKUNGIRI MUNICIPALITY \n341,872,900 \n119,220,728 \n83,150,000 \n36,070,728 \n70% \n163 \nRWAMPARA DISTRICT LG \n243,901,000", "metadata": {"page": 311, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "243,901,000 \n150,873,780 \n50,215,832 \n100,657,948 \n33% \n164 \nSEMBABULE DISTRICT LG \n1,090,036,601 \n306,022,229 \n241,570,000 \n64,452,229 \n79% \n165 \nSERERE DISTRICT LG \n864,545,000 \n150,802,885 \n109,272,900 \n41,529,985 \n72% \n166 \nSHEEMA DISTRICT LG \n621,815,538 \n375,133,695 \n310,663,966 \n64,469,729 \n83% \n167 \nSHEEMA MUNICIPALITY \n510,300,400 \n510,300,400 \n137,688,747 \n141,751,674 \n04,062,927 \n103% \n168 \nSIRONKO DISTRICT LG \n736,228,086 \n144,214,523 \n147,800,000 \n03,585,477 \n102%", "metadata": {"page": 311, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "296 \n \nsn \nLOCAL GOVERNMENT \nCUMM. \nAMOUNT \nDISBURSED \n(UGX) \nCUMM0AMOUNT \nDUE \n(UGX) \nCUMMULATIVE \nRECOVERIES AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \nCUMMULATIVE \nAMOUNT DUE AS \nAT \n30TH \nJUNE02022 \n% recovery \n169 \nSOROTI DISTRICT LG \n662,148,400 \n198,726,221 \n164,203,110 \n34,523,111 \n83% \n170 \nSOROTI MUNICIPALITY \n197,112,500 \n77,016,648 \n31,595,320", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "31,595,320 \n45,421,328 \n41% \n171 \nTEREGO DISTRICT LG \n360,712,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0% \n172 \nTORORO DISTRICT LG \n1,256,906,633 \n273,422,460 \n218,163,925 \n55,258,535 \n80% \n173 \nTORORO MUNICIPALITY \n317,920,000 \n100,395,162 \n52,320,000 \n48,075,162 \n52% \n174 \nWAKISO DISTRICT LG \n2,403,828,950 \n250,030,081 \n280,390,000 \n030,359,919 \n112% \n175", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "112% \n175 \nYUMBE DISTRICT LG \n681,745,199 \n122,122,423 \n77,328,950 \n44,793,473 \n63% \n176 \nZOMBO DISTRICT LG \n529,125,000 \n247,771,355 \n218,050,000 \n29,721,355 \n88% \n \nGrand Total \n111,476,011,092 \n32,038,054,728 \n22,867,682,221 \n9,170,372,507 \n71% \n \n \n \nUntagged \n1,193,646,295 \n \n \n \n \n \nTotal Amount Recovered", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Total Amount Recovered \n24,061,328,516 \n \n \n \nAppendix 4 a: Performance of local revenue and overall revenue performance \nSN \nEntity Name \nStrategic \nplan \n Local Revenue \n Overall budget performance \n \n \n \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Uncollected % \ncollecte\nd \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Variance \n%fu\nndin\ng \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \nApproved \n2,043,341,193 \n1,095,593,562 \n947,747,631 \n54% \n74,564,243,269", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "74,564,243,269 \n65,081,762,868 \n9,482,480,401 \n87% \n2 \nAgago DLG \nApproved \n400,000,000 \n151,174,116 \n248,825,884 \n38% \n43,399,707,209 \n40,792,823,824 \n2,606,883,385 \n94% \n3 \nAlebetong DLG \nApproved \n362,131,668 \n241,864,561 \n120,267,107 \n67% \n32,553,663,224 \n28,571,101,935 \n3,982,561,289 \n88% \n4 \nAmolatar DLG", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Amolatar DLG \nNot approved \n676,169,000 \n199,455,600 \n476,713,400 \n29% \n27,359,836,125 \n25,384,435,037 \n1,975,401,088 \n93% \n5 \nAmudat DLG \nNot approved \n46,873,389 \n49,352,875 \n-2,479,486 \n105% \n14,855,634,258 \n12,678,870,958 \n2,176,763,300 \n85% \n6 \nAmuria DLG \nNot approved \n418,898,685 \n220,374,599 \n198,524,086 \n53%", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "53% \n32,688,127,068 \n25,871,491,395 \n6,816,635,673 \n79% \n7 \nAmuru DLG \nApproved \n1,380,535,524 \n1,314,226,405 \n66,309,119 \n95% \n34,112,080,588 \n27,941,096,092 \n6,170,984,496 \n82% \n8 \nApac DLG \nNot approved \n528,543,081 \n171,236,241 \n357,306,840 \n32% \n33,226,695,265 \n30,551,450,807 \n2,675,244,458 \n92%", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "92% \n9 \nArua DLG \nApproved \n426,145,850 \n334,609,880 \n91,535,970 \n79% \n41,911,273,158 \n36,447,355,523 \n5,463,917,635 \n87% \n10 \nArua City \nNot approved \n3,025,192,686 \n3,000,909,098 \n24,283,588 \n99% \n45,846,863,296 \n43,619,346,734 \n2,227,516,562 \n95% \n11 \nBudaka DLG \nApproved \n254,770,000 \n172,631,000 \n82,139,000", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "82,139,000 \n68% \n34,352,643,835 \n28,161,355,946 \n6,191,287,889 \n82% \n12 \nBugiri DLG \nApproved \n294,107,000 \n155,733,750 \n138,373,250 \n53% \n49,425,746,135 \n46,894,446,208 \n2,531,299,927 \n95% \n13 \nBugiri MC \nNot approved \n547,118,000 \n114,341,325 \n432,776,675 \n21% \n5,291,047,387 \n4,848,252,669 \n442,794,718 \n92%", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "92% \n14 \nBugweri DLG \nNot approved \n215,222,571 \n205,508,938 \n9,713,633 \n95% \n21,572,470,875 \n20,871,655,883 \n700,814,992 \n97% \n15 \nBuhweju DLG \nNot approved \n155,201,000 \n109,982,114 \n45,218,886 \n71% \n23,015,986,480 \n17,672,156,781 \n5,343,829,699 \n77% \n16 \nBuikwe DLG \nApproved \n1,335,227,000 \n620,532,502 \n620,532,502 \n714,694,498 \n46% \n44,233,191,603 \n29,338,056,822 \n14,895,134,781 \n66% \n17 \nBukedea DLG \nNot approved \n85,662,000 \n182,417,686 \n-96,755,686 \n213% \n34,675,345,324 \n34,279,615,346 \n395,729,978 \n99%", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "297 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nStrategic \nplan \n Local Revenue \n Overall budget performance \n \n \n \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Uncollected % \ncollecte\nd \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Variance \n%fu\nndin\ng \n18 \nBukomansimbi DLG \nApproved \n151,000,000 \n111,811,370 \n39,188,630 \n74% \n24,105,731,733 \n22,422,186,701 \n1,683,545,032 \n93% \n19 \nBukwo DLG \nNot approved", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Not approved \n374,939,000 \n157,463,974 \n217,475,026 \n42% \n30,297,321,491 \n29,549,392,248 \n747,929,243 \n98% \n20 \nBulambuli DLG \nNot approved \n228,801,500 \n147,321,464 \n81,480,036 \n64% \n32,147,524,085 \n30,753,299,409 \n1,394,224,676 \n96% \n21 \nBuliisa DLG \nApproved \n1,087,180,080 \n262,035,121 \n825,144,959 \n24%", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "24% \n20,645,789,080 \n18,294,791,160 \n2,350,997,920 \n89% \n22 \nBundibugyo DLG \nNot approved \n756,222,000 \n221,612,526 \n534,609,474 \n29% \n42,313,697,300 \n39,707,332,412 \n2,606,364,888 \n94% \n23 \nBunyangabu DLG \nNot approved \n487,597,963 \n211,601,973 \n275,995,990 \n43% \n26,641,666,138 \n24,862,898,691 \n1,778,767,447", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "93% \n24 \nBushenyi DLG \nNot approved \n679,805,428 \n319,574,800 \n360,230,628 \n47% \n38,112,899,845 \n36,980,426,746 \n1,132,473,099 \n97% \n25 \nBushenyi- Ishaka MC \nApproved \n1,110,440,813 \n682,780,216 \n427,660,597 \n61% \n11,707,367,527 \n11,684,719,691 \n22,647,836 \n100% \n26 \nBusia MC \nApproved \n1,599,880,000 \n1,074,690,000", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,074,690,000 \n525,190,000 \n67% \n18,974,445,278 \n18,211,535,213 \n762,910,065 \n96% \n27 \nBusia DLG \nApproved \n870,694,980 \n214,699,540 \n655,995,440 \n25% \n41,389,214,176 \n40,095,305,823 \n1,293,908,353 \n97% \n28 \nButaleja DLG \nApproved \n590,270,351 \n590,270,351 \n0 \n100% \n39,255,221,440 \n38,809,387,923 \n445,833,517", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "445,833,517 \n99% \n29 \nButambala DLG \nNot approved \n171,168,775 \n117,605,961 \n53,562,814 \n69% \n27,157,962,115 \n24,985,442,499 \n2,172,519,616 \n92% \n30 \nButebo DLG \nNot approved \n236,462,411 \n223,894,411 \n12,568,000 \n95% \n22,921,655,117 \n22,909,087,117 \n12,568,000 \n100% \n31 \nBuvuma DLG \nNot approved \n190,468,832", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "190,468,832 \n190,468,674 \n158 \n100% \n19,575,623,876 \n17,877,060,899 \n1,698,562,977 \n91% \n32 \nBuyende DLG \nNot approved \n384,306,000 \n240,714,750 \n143,591,250 \n63% \n28,178,460,604 \n26,829,931,702 \n1,348,528,902 \n95% \n33 \nDokolo DLG \nApproved \n418,898,884 \n163,985,184 \n254,913,700 \n39% \n32,291,055,177", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "32,291,055,177 \n23,524,159,956 \n8,766,895,221 \n73% \n34 \nEntebbe MC \nApproved \n12,658,554,000 \n3,125,844,597 \n9,532,709,40\n3 \n25% \n38,109,359,602 \n26,888,683,105 \n11,220,676,497 \n71% \n35 \nFort Portal City \nNot approved \n2,770,000,000 \n2,082,902,071 \n687,097,929 \n75% \n32,686,993,162 \n31,666,904,298 \n1,020,088,864", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "97% \n36 \nGomba DLG \nNot approved \n617,540,000 \n285,670,009 \n331,869,991 \n46% \n24,748,555,674 \n23,233,954,395 \n1,514,601,279 \n94% \n37 \nGulu City \nApproved \n3,884,884,200 \n2,063,169,856 \n1,821,714,34\n4 \n53% \n51,960,870,117 \n49,386,722,617 \n2,574,147,500 \n95% \n38 \nGulu DLG \nApproved \n491,220,977 \n497,004,131", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "497,004,131 \n-5,783,154 \n101% \n34,313,773,463 \n30,936,957,369 \n3,376,816,094 \n90% \n39 \nHoima City \nNot approved \n2,134,232,000 \n1,367,566,622 \n766,665,378 \n64% \n33,529,655,343 \n32,440,208,365 \n1,089,446,978 \n97% \n40 \nHoima DLG \nApproved \n1,345,235,000 \n731,588,383 \n613,646,617 \n54% \n37,842,767,262", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "31,749,623,696 \n6,093,143,566 \n84% \n41 \nIbanda DLG \nApproved \n818,369,250 \n894,184,277 \n-75,815,027 \n109% \n28,725,984,832 \n27,336,202,032 \n1,389,782,800 \n95% \n42 \nIbanda MC \nApproved \n1,210,100,000 \n548,450,672 \n661,649,328 \n45% \n14,399,870,002 \n13,531,822,207 \n868,047,795 \n94% \n43 \nIganga DLG \nApproved", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Approved \n630,290,000 \n286,871,529 \n343,418,471 \n46% \n44,564,346,054 \n42,585,220,806 \n1,979,125,248 \n96% \n44 \nIganga MC \nNot approved \n1,173,904,000 \n143,170,750 \n1,030,733,25\n0 \n12% \n7,688,860,754 \n5,967,310,815 \n1,721,549,939 \n78% \n45 \nIsingiro DLG \nApproved \n1,959,976,958 \n1,795,744,864 \n164,232,094", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "164,232,094 \n92% \n119,645,003,524 \n84,123,856,039 \n35,521,147,485 \n70% \n46 \nJinja City \nApproved \n10,528,738,497 \n3,688,588,746 \n6,840,149,75\n1 \n35% \n58,090,748,734 \n50,969,290,015 \n7,121,458,719 \n88% \n47 \nJinja DLG \nApproved \n2,039,503,772 \n1,526,910,994 \n512,592,778 \n75% \n44,031,449,723 \n42,976,051,843 \n1,055,397,880 \n98%", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "298 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nStrategic \nplan \n Local Revenue \n Overall budget performance \n \n \n \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Uncollected % \ncollecte\nd \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Variance \n%fu\nndin\ng \n48 \nKabale DLG \nNot approved \n481,087,998 \n306,504,190 \n174,583,808 \n64% \n45,945,517,499 \n45,921,136,512 \n24,380,987 \n100% \n49 \nKabale MC \nNot approved", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Not approved \n2,935,576,075 \n1,563,631,571 \n1,371,944,50\n4 \n53% \n26,030,445,891 \n24,259,900,946 \n1,770,544,945 \n93% \n50 \nKabarole DLG \nNot approved \n829,853,000 \n745,522,932 \n84,330,068 \n90% \n33,074,418,736 \n31,780,524,335 \n1,293,894,401 \n96% \n51 \nKaberamaido DLG \nNot approved \n173,943,938 \n154,901,305", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "154,901,305 \n19,042,633 \n89% \n18,526,562,106 \n17,634,284,742 \n892,277,364 \n95% \n52 \nKagadi DLG \nApproved \n897,200,000 \n211,183,558 \n686,016,442 \n24% \n55,379,398,541 \n43,753,100,858 \n11,626,297,683 \n79% \n53 \nKakumiro DLG \nApproved \n461,508,846 \n124,740,567 \n336,768,279 \n27% \n37,535,412,241 \n34,040,505,106", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "34,040,505,106 \n3,494,907,135 \n91% \n54 \nKalaki DLG \nNot approved \n349,744,290 \n100,907,318 \n248,836,972 \n29% \n17,667,299,431 \n17,103,891,637 \n563,407,794 \n97% \n55 \nKalangala DLG \nNot approved \n624,837,273 \n515,843,345 \n108,993,928 \n83% \n22,894,657,653 \n19,255,578,562 \n3,639,079,091 \n84% \n56 \nKaliro DLG \nApproved", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Approved \n187,672,253 \n172,120,402 \n15,551,851 \n92% \n38,169,054,973 \n35,901,144,843 \n2,267,910,130 \n94% \n57 \nKalungu DLG \nNot approved \n676,169,000 \n230,523,533 \n445,645,467 \n34% \n31,130,305,682 \n28,795,921,074 \n2,334,384,608 \n93% \n58 \nKamuli DLG \nApproved \n545,891,000 \n472,672,928 \n73,218,072 \n87% \n63,730,997,208", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "63,730,997,208 \n61,487,285,797 \n2,243,711,411 \n96% \n59 \nKamuli MC \nNot approved \n418,713,267 \n170,599,249 \n248,114,018 \n41% \n21,906,393,040 \n21,130,778,694 \n775,614,346 \n96% \n60 \nKamwenge DLG \nNot approved \n918,544,000 \n288,790,481 \n629,753,519 \n31% \n57,025,692,404 \n54,827,697,933 \n2,197,994,471 \n96% \n61", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "96% \n61 \nKanungu DLG \nNot approved \n1,766,840,753 \n568,305,566 \n1,198,535,18\n7 \n32% \n48,137,689,731 \n44,030,676,812 \n4,107,012,919 \n91% \n62 \nKapchorwa DLG \nNot approved \n266,229,452 \n266,229,452 \n0 \n100% \n21,667,317,765 \n22,517,959,276 \n-850,641,511 \n104% \n63 \nKapchorwa MC \nApproved \n301,000,000 \n173,046,718", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "173,046,718 \n127,953,282 \n57% \n8,646,096,869 \n8,395,473,308 \n250,623,561 \n97% \n64 \nKapelebyong DLG \nApproved \n287,353,782 \n201,344,966 \n86,008,816 \n70% \n16,088,411,706 \n15,569,721,601 \n518,690,105 \n97% \n65 \nKasese MC \nNot approved \n1,238,901,021 \n911,251,895 \n327,649,126 \n74% \n32,139,734,547 \n30,900,924,929", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,238,809,618 \n96% \n66 \nKasese DLG \nApproved \n3,955,789,049 \n907,750,076 \n3,048,038,97\n3 \n23% \n93,976,496,887 \n81,918,725,603 \n12,057,771,284 \n87% \n67 \nKassanda DLG \nNot approved \n568,555,000 \n433,426,577 \n135,128,423 \n76% \n34,316,145,156 \n32,378,212,359 \n1,937,932,797 \n94% \n68 \nKatakwi DLG \nApproved", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Approved \n939,561,060 \n281,674,292 \n657,886,768 \n30% \n34,728,149,610 \n32,045,504,801 \n2,682,644,809 \n92% \n69 \nKayunga DLG \nApproved \n991,923,000 \n834,518,119 \n157,404,881 \n84% \n51,936,096,040 \n48,613,572,001 \n3,322,524,039 \n94% \n70 \nKazo DLG \nApproved \n824,355,800 \n543,403,991 \n280,951,809 \n66%", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "66% \n20,680,903,925 \n20,798,136,942 \n-117,233,017 \n101% \n71 \nKibaale DLG \nApproved \n209,023,387 \n370,896,191 \n-161,872,804 \n177% \n31,638,859,347 \n30,224,714,785 \n1,414,144,562 \n96% \n72 \nKiboga DLG \nNot approved \n791,913,000 \n637,280,783 \n154,632,217 \n80% \n29,731,819,001 \n27,790,363,854 \n1,941,455,147 \n93%", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "93% \n73 \nKibuku DLG \nNot approved \n306,708,460 \n306,708,460 \n0 \n100% \n31,508,971,145 \n28,753,665,289 \n2,755,305,856 \n91% \n74 \nKikuube DLG \nNot approved \n1,132,183,000 \n738,344,107 \n393,838,893 \n65% \n41,730,688,194 \n39,760,285,943 \n1,970,402,251 \n95% \n75 \nKira MC \nApproved \n11,495,000,000 \n8,951,100,810 \n2,543,899,19", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n78% \n30,980,655,310 \n27,879,646,471 \n3,101,008,839 \n90% \n76 \nKiruhura DLG \nNot approved \n1,151,833,000 \n699,746,048 \n452,086,952 \n61% \n27,386,019,207 \n24,387,600,876 \n2,998,418,331 \n89% \n77 \nKiryandongo DLG \nApproved \n471,559,000 \n403,536,554 \n68,022,446 \n86% \n52,766,670,170 \n47,174,781,543 \n5,591,888,627 \n89%", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "299 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nStrategic \nplan \n Local Revenue \n Overall budget performance \n \n \n \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Uncollected % \ncollecte\nd \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Variance \n%fu\nndin\ng \n78 \nKisoro DLG \nNot approved \n656,867,000 \n415,540,074 \n241,326,926 \n63% \n46,884,681,674 \n42,882,291,400 \n4,002,390,274 \n91% \n79 \nKisoro MC \nApproved", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Approved \n847,953,750 \n437,549,299 \n410,404,451 \n52% \n4,847,827,515 \n4,326,154,385 \n521,673,130 \n89% \n80 \nKitagwenda DLG \nNot approved \n718,658,000 \n485,329,996 \n233,328,004 \n68% \n22,409,396,887 \n20,145,817,767 \n2,263,579,120 \n90% \n81 \nKitgum DLG \nNot approved \n246,456,410 \n209,159,099 \n37,297,311 \n85% \n39,622,382,728", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "33,271,306,168 \n6,351,076,560 \n84% \n82 \nKoboko MC \nNot approved \n470,811,429 \n262,191,435 \n208,619,994 \n56% \n18,282,220,808 \n13,888,053,208 \n4,394,167,600 \n76% \n83 \nKoboko DLG \nApproved \n600,020,900 \n458,581,155 \n141,439,745 \n76% \n40,917,533,218 \n35,409,866,711 \n5,507,666,507 \n87% \n84 \nKole DLG \nNot approved", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Not approved \n470,000,000 \n327,984,617 \n142,015,383 \n70% \n30,655,352,096 \n28,474,192,096 \n2,181,160,000 \n93% \n85 \nKumi DLG \nNot approved \n595,722,000 \n242,114,867 \n353,607,133 \n41% \n35,434,388,879 \n33,007,726,183 \n2,426,662,696 \n93% \n86 \nKumi MC \nApproved \n289,028,880 \n262,191,435 \n26,837,445 \n91% \n8,650,048,032", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8,126,023,961 \n524,024,071 \n94% \n87 \nKwania DLG \nNot approved \n516,876,000 \n230,389,887 \n286,486,113 \n45% \n26,320,680,937 \n23,635,325,330 \n2,685,355,607 \n90% \n88 \nKween DLG \nNot approved \n245,249,248 \n245,249,248 \n0 \n100% \n25,314,638,065 \n24,080,850,750 \n1,233,787,315 \n95% \n89 \nKyankwanzi DLG \nNot approved \n550,906,000", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "550,906,000 \n486,333,433 \n64,572,567 \n88% \n33,524,306,692 \n29,961,018,886 \n3,563,287,806 \n89% \n90 \nKyegegwa DLG \nNot approved \n6,536,925,813 \n1,029,060,000 \n5,507,865,81\n3 \n16% \n57,194,657,129 \n51,906,962,379 \n5,287,694,750 \n91% \n91 \nkyenjojo DLG \nNot approved \n775,927,315 \n1,063,101,145 \n-287,173,830", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "-287,173,830 \n137% \n51,421,138,436 \n48,783,757,564 \n2,637,380,872 \n95% \n92 \nKyotera DLG \nApproved \n1,027,745,000 \n549,110,338 \n478,634,662 \n53% \n40,074,208,794 \n39,193,598,994 \n880,609,800 \n98% \n93 \nLamwo DLG \nNot approved \n657,100,000 \n481,152,000 \n175,948,000 \n73% \n59,156,122,224 \n48,320,085,318 \n10,836,036,906", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "82% \n94 \nLira City \nApproved \n2,182,903,000 \n2,293,751,035 \n-110,848,035 \n105% \n54,602,635,918 \n42,012,644,858 \n12,589,991,060 \n77% \n95 \nLira DLG \nNot approved \n549,082,499 \n411,203,136 \n137,879,363 \n75% \n40,601,721,497 \n39,485,569,918 \n1,116,151,579 \n97% \n96 \nLugazi MC \nApproved \n1,379,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,379,000,000 \n1,026,641,138 \n352,358,862 \n74% \n27,466,324,729 \n27,142,890,168 \n323,434,561 \n99% \n97 \nLuuka DLG \nNot approved \n152,792,782 \n131,992,675 \n20,800,107 \n86% \n31,893,366,224 \n30,651,591,016 \n1,241,775,208 \n96% \n98 \nLuwero DLG \nApproved \n3,730,453,815 \n3,445,895,462 \n284,558,353 \n92%", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "92% \n72,575,437,151 \n70,065,278,636 \n2,510,158,515 \n97% \n99 \nLwengo DLG \nApproved \n701,952,305 \n324,712,132 \n377,240,173 \n46% \n34,871,379,840 \n32,148,893,519 \n2,722,486,321 \n92% \n100 \nLyantonde DLG \nNot approved \n190,414,000 \n163,022,974 \n27,391,026 \n86% \n20,615,225,777 \n18,928,350,342 \n1,686,875,435 \n92%", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "92% \n101 \nMadi Okollo DLG \nNot approved \n400,000,000 \n399,950,000 \n50,000 \n100% \n43,238,262,670 \n30,882,287,746 \n12,355,974,924 \n71% \n102 \nMakindye- Ssabagabo MC \nNot approved \n9,340,000,000 \n4,055,328,959 \n5,284,671,04\n1 \n43% \n27,649,607,473 \n21,970,955,485 \n5,678,651,988 \n79% \n103 \nManafwa DLG \nApproved \n895,377,756", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "895,377,756 \n217,345,846 \n678,031,910 \n24% \n35,400,422,667 \n32,314,022,238 \n3,086,400,429 \n91% \n104 \nMaracha DLG \nApproved \n183,194,659 \n231,876,627 \n-48,681,968 \n127% \n32,902,368,842 \n30,589,523,882 \n2,312,844,960 \n93% \n105 \nMasaka DLG \nApproved \n355,402,791 \n199,538,323 \n155,864,468 \n56% \n21,234,476,329", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "21,234,476,329 \n19,984,292,997 \n1,250,183,332 \n94% \n106 \nMasaka City \nApproved \n4,625,254,101 \n2,077,839,249 \n2,547,414,85\n2 \n45% \n42,593,236,710 \n39,377,424,934 \n3,215,811,776 \n92% \n107 \nMasindi MC \nNot approved \n1,200,000,000 \n830,374,049 \n369,625,951 \n69% \n13,419,719,498 \n13,208,468,876 \n211,250,622 \n98% \n98% \n108 \nMasindi DLG \nNot approved \n243,760,982 \n943,457,214 \n-699,696,232 \n387% \n35,752,366,348 \n31,043,870,003 \n4,708,496,345 \n87%", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "300 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nStrategic \nplan \n Local Revenue \n Overall budget performance \n \n \n \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Uncollected % \ncollecte\nd \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Variance \n%fu\nndin\ng \n109 \nMayuge DLG \nApproved \n724,322,519 \n456,810,854 \n267,511,665 \n63% \n53,568,618,370 \n50,196,940,048 \n3,371,678,322 \n94% \n110 \nMbale DLG \nNot approved", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Not approved \n800,000,000 \n686,232,207 \n113,767,793 \n86% \n46,450,291,143 \n44,800,253,897 \n1,650,037,246 \n96% \n111 \nMbale City City \nNot approved \n1,568,910,374 \n1,568,910,374 \n0 \n100% \n54,509,554,490 \n54,509,554,490 \n0 \n100% \n112 \nMbarara City \nNot approved \n8,566,518,000 \n3,398,240,515 \n5,168,277,48\n5 \n40% \n62,491,147,300", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "62,491,147,300 \n56,163,575,756 \n6,327,571,544 \n90% \n113 \nMbarara DLG \nApproved \n1,007,858,860 \n954,417,054 \n53,441,806 \n95% \n33,082,716,235 \n31,389,570,562 \n1,693,145,673 \n95% \n114 \nMitooma DLG \nNot approved \n272,401,746 \n269,679,336 \n2,722,410 \n99% \n32,983,982,695 \n31,033,824,747 \n1,950,157,948 \n94% \n115", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "94% \n115 \nMityana MC \nNot approved \n995,000,000 \n779,374,454 \n215,625,546 \n78% \n10,826,159,234 \n10,286,862,838 \n539,296,396 \n95% \n116 \nMityana DLG \nApproved \n747,345,912 \n625,146,266 \n122,199,646 \n84% \n35,784,709,307 \n34,739,884,076 \n1,044,825,231 \n97% \n117 \nMoroto DLG DLG \nNot approved \n243,760,982 \n342,226,155 \n-98,465,173", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "-98,465,173 \n140% \n20,613,541,507 \n17,127,913,866 \n3,485,627,641 \n83% \n118 \nMoroto MC MC \nNot approved \n618,500,000 \n260,196,220 \n358,303,780 \n42% \n11,024,543,654 \n7,880,859,977 \n3,143,683,677 \n71% \n119 \nMoyo DLG \nApproved \n829,500,000 \n411,237,981 \n418,262,019 \n50% \n44,584,616,735 \n29,195,416,011", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "15,389,200,724 \n65% \n120 \nMpigi DLG \nApproved \n957,989,671 \n865,631,127 \n92,358,544 \n90% \n37,272,189,134 \n34,682,719,605 \n2,589,469,529 \n93% \n121 \nMubende DLG \nApproved \n897,123,586 \n788,963,995 \n108,159,591 \n88% \n41,878,459,183 \n39,647,152,652 \n2,231,306,531 \n95% \n122 \nMubende MC \nApproved \n1,258,773,000", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,258,773,000 \n1,159,993,876 \n98,779,124 \n92% \n31,893,250,334 \n31,308,367,407 \n584,882,927 \n98% \n123 \nMukono DLG \nNot approved \n3,250,400,000 \n1,868,063,243 \n1,382,336,75\n7 \n57% \n67,010,957,541 \n57,834,245,531 \n9,176,712,010 \n86% \n124 \nMukono MC \nNot approved \n4,651,046,000 \n4,018,792,123 \n632,253,877 \n86%", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "86% \n25,270,241,648 \n22,502,726,784 \n2,767,514,864 \n89% \n125 \nNakapiripit DLG \nNot approved \n148,005,600 \n129,336,434 \n18,669,166 \n87% \n17,779,167,160 \n13,792,230,712 \n3,986,936,448 \n78% \n126 \nNakaseke DLG \nNot approved \n1,516,272,349 \n1,325,697,252 \n190,575,097 \n87% \n37,474,541,645 \n35,726,792,690 \n1,747,748,955", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "95% \n127 \nNakasongola DLG \nApproved \n1,100,421,788 \n1,155,000,000 \n-54,578,212 \n105% \n32,965,788,169 \n31,387,140,337 \n1,578,647,832 \n95% \n128 \nNamayingo DLG \nNot approved \n202,098,818 \n235,642,000 \n-33,543,182 \n117% \n46,944,170,455 \n30,764,093,834 \n16,180,076,621 \n66% \n129 \nNamisindwa DLG \nNot approved \n350,000,000 \n268,677,925", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "268,677,925 \n81,322,075 \n77% \n32,873,774,708 \n30,276,933,318 \n2,596,841,390 \n92% \n130 \nNamutumba DLG \nNot approved \n294,000,000 \n165,355,470 \n128,644,530 \n56% \n35,419,977,308 \n33,545,828,238 \n1,874,149,070 \n95% \n131 \nNansana MC \nApproved \n6,444,898,000 \n5,366,264,000 \n1,078,634,00\n0 \n83% \n30,743,976,884", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "28,771,493,569 \n1,972,483,315 \n94% \n132 \nNapal DLG DLG \nApproved \n180,000,000 \n108,077,220 \n71,922,780 \n60% \n21,809,898,127 \n17,502,475,644 \n4,307,422,483 \n80% \n133 \nNebbi DLG \nApproved \n784,439,352 \n483,164,250 \n301,275,102 \n62% \n37,287,079,756 \n32,975,573,035 \n4,311,506,721 \n88% \n134 \nNebbi MC \nNot approved", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Not approved \n598,670,000 \n512,596,367 \n86,073,633 \n86% \n7,451,912,548 \n5,315,320,126 \n2,136,592,422 \n71% \n135 \nNgora DLG \nApproved \n647,768,999 \n110,233,463 \n537,535,536 \n17% \n26,819,375,753 \n22,984,373,307 \n3,835,002,446 \n86% \n136 \nNjeru MC \nNot approved \n3,132,174,000 \n1,896,542,360 \n1,235,631,64\n0 \n61%", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n61% \n14,109,935,127 \n12,513,270,328 \n1,596,664,799 \n89% \n137 \nNtoroko DLG \nNot approved \n779,720,000 \n670,444,400 \n109,275,600 \n86% \n25,698,930,531 \n23,319,020,690 \n2,379,909,841 \n91% \n138 \nNtugamo MC \nApproved \n728,285,983 \n455,038,837 \n273,247,146 \n62% \n10,392,027,149 \n10,006,372,814 \n385,654,335 \n96%", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "301 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nStrategic \nplan \n Local Revenue \n Overall budget performance \n \n \n \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Uncollected % \ncollecte\nd \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Variance \n%fu\nndin\ng \n139 \nNtungamo DLG \nNot approved \n841,044,993 \n781,601,039 \n59,443,954 \n93% \n67,695,637,954 \n65,955,356,867 \n1,740,281,087 \n97% \n140 \nNwoya DLG", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Nwoya DLG \nNot approved \n616,930,800 \n415,250,194 \n201,680,606 \n67% \n32,485,058,559 \n26,906,362,637 \n5,578,695,922 \n83% \n141 \nObongi DLG \nApproved \n700,000,000 \n597,490,077 \n102,509,923 \n85% \n41,986,862,000 \n36,016,551,508 \n5,970,310,492 \n86% \n142 \nOtuke DLG \nApproved \n228,092,000 \n160,173,671 \n67,918,329 \n70%", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "70% \n20,201,376,294 \n19,045,497,065 \n1,155,879,229 \n94% \n143 \nOyam DLG \nNot approved \n537,202,262 \n488,195,784 \n49,006,478 \n91% \n53,103,660,483 \n48,266,804,257 \n4,836,856,226 \n91% \n144 \nPader DLG \nNot approved \n680,000,000 \n578,854,267 \n101,145,733 \n85% \n35,994,962,265 \n32,381,009,380 \n3,613,952,885 \n90% \n145", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "90% \n145 \nPakwach DLG \nApproved \n1,200,000,000 \n614,926,770 \n585,073,230 \n51% \n25,731,940,711 \n23,874,245,553 \n1,857,695,158 \n93% \n146 \nPallisa DLG \nNot approved \n350,775,739 \n261,119,990 \n89,655,749 \n74% \n41,643,758,913 \n40,668,548,479 \n975,210,434 \n98% \n147 \nRakai DLG \nApproved \n603,561,000 \n333,191,190", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "333,191,190 \n270,369,810 \n55% \n46,186,954,555 \n43,948,336,253 \n2,238,618,302 \n95% \n148 \nRubanda DLG \nApproved \n626,742,225 \n281,418,195 \n345,324,030 \n45% \n35,214,425,831 \n32,450,904,042 \n2,763,521,789 \n92% \n149 \nRubirizi DLG \nNot approved \n380,678,744 \n739,400,228 \n-358,721,484 \n194% \n24,006,401,278 \n23,166,794,758", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "839,606,520 \n97% \n150 \nRukiga DLG \nApproved \n285,067,000 \n163,908,112 \n121,158,888 \n57% \n24,314,101,132 \n23,721,798,107 \n592,303,025 \n98% \n151 \nRukungiri DLG \nApproved \n810,772,129 \n849,092,600 \n-38,320,471 \n105% \n51,355,266,602 \n47,948,154,494 \n3,407,112,108 \n93% \n152 \nRukungiri MC \nNot approved \n1,335,227,000 \n668,893,017", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "668,893,017 \n666,333,983 \n50% \n10,272,380,835 \n9,588,610,221 \n683,770,614 \n93% \n153 \nRwampara DLG \nApproved \n745,234,192 \n533,385,539 \n211,848,653 \n72% \n24,175,275,736 \n23,245,993,216 \n929,282,520 \n96% \n154 \nSembabule DLG \nApproved \n627,023,378 \n340,394,556 \n286,628,822 \n54% \n37,545,800,141 \n34,093,818,966", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3,451,981,175 \n91% \n155 \nSerere DLG \nApproved \n1,025,011,000 \n546,946,847 \n478,064,153 \n53% \n38,607,615,248 \n36,425,484,861 \n2,182,130,387 \n94% \n156 \nSheema DLG \nNot approved \n420,769,091 \n353,075,957 \n67,693,134 \n84% \n31,452,986,897 \n30,512,174,022 \n940,812,875 \n97% \n157 \nSheema MC \nApproved \n619,400,000", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "619,400,000 \n546,913,248 \n72,486,752 \n88% \n15,355,009,702 \n14,776,377,415 \n578,632,287 \n96% \n158 \nSironko DLG \nNot approved \n591,585,500 \n465,233,872 \n126,351,628 \n79% \n43,715,442,166 \n40,673,330,239 \n3,042,111,927 \n93% \n159 \nSoroti City \nNot approved \n1,649,003,857 \n358,525,368 \n1,290,478,48\n9 \n22%", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "9 \n22% \n32,245,918,630 \n27,191,436,469 \n5,054,482,161 \n84% \n160 \nSoroti DLG \nNot approved \n540,790,750 \n310,871,016 \n229,919,734 \n57% \n34,283,509,969 \n32,154,680,153 \n2,128,829,816 \n94% \n161 \nTerego DLG \nApproved \n297,285,815 \n246,155,248 \n51,130,567 \n83% \n53,145,429,300 \n51,009,048,929 \n2,136,380,371 \n96% \n162", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "96% \n162 \nTororo MC \nNot approved \n1,252,552,400 \n681,308,108 \n571,244,292 \n54% \n21,090,022,092 \n20,366,168,079 \n723,854,013 \n97% \n163 \nTororo DLG \nApproved \n1,956,905,259 \n990,626,970 \n966,278,289 \n51% \n75,686,836,586 \n71,852,450,728 \n3,834,385,858 \n95% \n164 \nWakiso DLG \nNot approved \n15,623,633,000 \n7,028,521,352", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7,028,521,352 \n8,595,111,64\n8 \n45% \n102,023,553,805 \n86,711,358,646 \n15,312,195,159 \n85% \n165 \nYumbe DLG \nApproved \n403,949,980 \n555,422,781 \n-151,472,801 \n137% \n101,060,085,683 \n87,975,942,483 \n13,084,143,200 \n87% \n166 \nZombo DLG \nApproved \n1,123,200,000 \n1,123,200,000 \n0 \n100% \n30,237,259,913 \n30,237,259,913", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "30,237,259,913 \n0 \n100% \n167 \nOmoro DLG \nApproved \n518,437,999 \n186,431,384 \n332,006,615 \n36% \n30,896,907,475 \n26,863,805,127 \n4,033,102,348 \n87% \n168 \nKitgum MC \nNot approved \n1,035,307,000 \n166,223,778 \n869,083,222 \n16% \n18,339,777,183 \n17,240,456,470 \n1,099,320,713 \n94% \n169 \nBududa DLG \nApproved \n265,253,000 \n265,253,000 \n114,537,000 \n150,716,000 \n43% \n36,499,141,640 \n34,905,387,096 \n1,593,754,544 \n96%", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "302 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nStrategic \nplan \n Local Revenue \n Overall budget performance \n \n \n \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Uncollected % \ncollecte\nd \n Approved \nBudget \n warrants \n Variance \n%fu\nndin\ng \n \nTotal \n \n223,518,772,\n109 \n131,349,888\n,815 \n92,168,883,\n294 \n71% \n5,995,310,337,\n537 \n5,426,900,787\n,092 \n568,409,550,4", "metadata": {"page": 318, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "45 \n91% \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAppendix 4 b: Absorption of funds, excess release of wage, transfer to LLGs and off budget \nSN \nEntity Name \n Absorption \nExcess release of \nwage \nTransfer \nto \nLLGs \n Off \nBudget \nFinancing/Receipts \n \n \n warrants \n Expenditure \n Unspent \n% \nAbsorbed \n \n \n \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n65,081,762,868 \n55,863,018,510 \n9,218,744,358 \n86% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nAgago DLG", "metadata": {"page": 318, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Agago DLG \n40,792,823,824 \n31,559,613,577 \n9,233,210,247 \n77% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \nAlebetong DLG \n28,571,101,935 \n25,297,831,543 \n3,273,270,392 \n89% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n4 \nAmolatar DLG \n25,384,435,037 \n21,691,339,510 \n3,693,095,527 \n85% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5 \nAmudat DLG \n12,678,870,958 \n11,785,826,432", "metadata": {"page": 318, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "893,044,526 \n93% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n6 \nAmuria DLG \n25,871,491,395 \n24,993,962,356 \n877,529,039 \n97% \n0 \n20,000,000 \n0 \n7 \nAmuru DLG \n27,941,096,092 \n25,663,369,367 \n2,277,726,725 \n92% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n8 \nApac DLG \n30,551,450,807 \n24,775,547,183 \n5,775,903,624 \n81% \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 318, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n9 \nArua DLG \n36,447,355,523 \n31,687,629,736 \n4,759,725,787 \n87% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \nArua City \n43,619,346,734 \n42,964,622,565 \n654,724,169 \n98% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11 \nBudaka DLG \n28,161,355,946 \n27,882,061,613 \n279,294,333 \n99% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12 \nBugiri DLG \n46,894,446,208", "metadata": {"page": 318, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "42,395,130,251 \n4,499,315,957 \n90% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n13 \nBugiri MC \n4,848,252,669 \n4,479,742,910 \n368,509,759 \n92% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \nBugweri DLG \n20,871,655,883 \n18,506,249,124 \n2,365,406,759 \n89% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n15 \nBuhweju DLG \n17,672,156,781 \n17,382,765,587 \n289,391,194 \n98% \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 318, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n16 \nBuikwe DLG \n29,338,056,822 \n26,667,236,368 \n2,670,820,454 \n91% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n17 \nBukedea DLG \n34,279,615,346 \n34,278,449,788 \n1,165,558 \n100% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n18 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n22,422,186,701 \n20,735,843,588 \n1,686,343,113 \n92% \n0 \n41,557,219 \n0 \n19 \nBukwo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 318, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Bukwo DLG \n29,549,392,248 \n23,245,791,632 \n6,303,600,616 \n79% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n20 \nBulambuli DLG \n30,753,299,409 \n26,959,482,154 \n3,793,817,255 \n88% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n21 \nBuliisa DLG \n18,294,791,160 \n16,419,229,225 \n1,875,561,935 \n90% \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 318, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "303 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \n Absorption \nExcess release of \nwage \nTransfer \nto \nLLGs \n Off \nBudget \nFinancing/Receipts \n \n \n warrants \n Expenditure \n Unspent \n% \nAbsorbed \n \n \n \n22 \nBundibugyo DLG \n39,707,332,412 \n36,643,497,580 \n3,063,834,832 \n92% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n23 \nBunyangabu DLG \n24,862,898,691 \n20,561,778,975 \n4,301,119,716", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4,301,119,716 \n83% \n2,052,937,854 \n0 \n0 \n24 \nBushenyi DLG \n36,980,426,746 \n34,439,580,522 \n2,540,846,224 \n93% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n25 \nBushenyi- Ishaka MC \n11,684,719,691 \n11,292,130,344 \n392,589,347 \n97% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \nBusia MC \n18,211,535,213 \n17,637,648,532 \n573,886,681 \n97% \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n27 \nBusia DLG \n40,095,305,823 \n19,196,790,749 \n20,898,515,07\n4 \n48% \n0 \n20,078,498 \n0 \n28 \nButaleja DLG \n38,809,387,923 \n34,243,631,347 \n4,565,756,576 \n88% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n29 \nButambala DLG \n24,985,442,499 \n22,376,845,377 \n2,608,597,122 \n90% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n30", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n30 \nButebo DLG \n22,909,087,117 \n22,478,362,026 \n430,725,091 \n98% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n31 \nBuvuma DLG \n17,877,060,899 \n14,138,521,798 \n3,738,539,101 \n79% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n32 \nBuyende DLG \n26,829,931,702 \n26,468,947,497 \n360,984,205 \n99% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n33 \nDokolo DLG \n23,524,159,956", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "23,288,388,774 \n235,771,182 \n99% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n34 \nEntebbe MC \n26,888,683,105 \n22,048,720,146 \n4,839,962,959 \n82% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n35 \nFort Portal City \n31,666,904,298 \n24,431,286,453 \n7,235,617,845 \n77% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n36 \nGomba DLG \n23,233,954,395 \n20,882,997,994 \n2,350,956,401 \n90% \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n37 \nGulu City \n49,386,722,617 \n45,917,881,177 \n3,468,841,440 \n93% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n38 \nGulu DLG \n30,936,957,369 \n23,679,289,662 \n7,257,667,707 \n77% \n4,001,598,220 \n0 \n0 \n39 \nHoima City \n32,440,208,365 \n25,077,585,804 \n7,362,622,561 \n77% \n2,101,550,903 \n0 \n0 \n40", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n40 \nHoima DLG \n31,749,623,696 \n30,024,039,766 \n1,725,583,930 \n95% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n41 \nIbanda DLG \n27,336,202,032 \n26,127,146,420 \n1,209,055,612 \n96% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n42 \nIbanda MC \n13,531,822,207 \n12,752,370,415 \n779,451,792 \n94% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n43 \nIganga DLG \n42,585,220,806", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "40,633,136,852 \n1,952,083,954 \n95% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n44 \nIganga MC \n5,967,310,815 \n5,957,338,084 \n9,972,731 \n100% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n45 \nIsingiro DLG \n84,123,856,039 \n73,305,756,498 \n10,818,099,54\n1 \n87% \n0 \n524,019,290 \n0 \n46 \nJinja City \n50,969,290,015 \n45,789,531,939 \n5,179,758,076", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "90% \n0 \n124,937,495 \n0 \n47 \nJinja DLG \n42,976,051,843 \n37,876,440,343 \n5,099,611,500 \n88% \n2,971,814,746 \n0 \n0 \n48 \nKabale DLG \n45,921,136,512 \n42,840,442,007 \n3,080,694,505 \n93% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n49 \nKabale MC \n24,259,900,946 \n18,754,562,405 \n5,505,338,541 \n77% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n50", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n50 \nKabarole DLG \n31,780,524,335 \n25,404,608,862 \n6,375,915,473 \n80% \n2,397,749,672 \n0 \n0 \n51 \nKaberamaido DLG \n17,634,284,742 \n16,893,157,922 \n741,126,820 \n96% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n52 \nKagadi DLG \n43,753,100,858 \n34,264,467,846 \n9,488,633,012 \n78% \n4,587,724,191 \n585,148,825 \n0 \n53", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n53 \nKakumiro DLG \n34,040,505,106 \n28,100,149,304 \n5,940,355,802 \n83% \n4,022,406,792 \n0 \n0 \n54 \nKalaki DLG \n17,103,891,637 \n13,429,786,442 \n3,674,105,195 \n79% \n2,011,872,321 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "304 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \n Absorption \nExcess release of \nwage \nTransfer \nto \nLLGs \n Off \nBudget \nFinancing/Receipts \n \n \n warrants \n Expenditure \n Unspent \n% \nAbsorbed \n \n \n \n55 \nKalangala DLG \n19,255,578,562 \n17,414,057,912 \n1,841,520,650 \n90% \n0 \n176,510,000 \n0 \n56 \nKaliro DLG \n35,901,144,843 \n34,021,715,732 \n1,879,429,111", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "95% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n57 \nKalungu DLG \n28,795,921,074 \n27,148,879,609 \n1,647,041,465 \n94% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n58 \nKamuli DLG \n61,487,285,797 \n54,146,395,385 \n7,340,890,412 \n88% \n2,379,521,144 \n64,362,709 \n0 \n59 \nKamuli MC \n21,130,778,694 \n14,046,495,603 \n7,084,283,091 \n66% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n60", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n60 \nKamwenge DLG \n54,827,697,933 \n43,687,085,450 \n11,140,612,48\n3 \n80% \n0 \n209,067,094 \n0 \n61 \nKanungu DLG \n44,030,676,812 \n42,369,401,889 \n1,661,274,923 \n96% \n0 \n38,504,645 \n0 \n62 \nKapchorwa DLG \n22,517,959,276 \n19,748,553,077 \n2,769,406,199 \n88% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n63", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n63 \nKapchorwa MC \n8,395,473,308 \n7,997,225,401 \n398,247,907 \n95% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n64 \nKapelebyong DLG \n15,569,721,601 \n12,235,337,606 \n3,334,383,995 \n79% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n65 \nKasese MC \n30,900,924,929 \n28,458,875,148 \n2,442,049,781 \n92% \n0 \n64,733,154 \n0 \n66 \nKasese DLG \n81,918,725,603", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "78,576,105,971 \n3,342,619,632 \n96% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n67 \nKassanda DLG \n32,378,212,359 \n30,930,307,115 \n1,447,905,244 \n96% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n68 \nKatakwi DLG \n32,045,504,801 \n30,127,091,367 \n1,918,413,434 \n94% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n69 \nKayunga DLG \n48,613,572,001 \n46,099,338,233 \n2,514,233,768 \n95%", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "95% \n0 \n0 \n773,412,069 \n70 \nKazo DLG \n20,798,136,942 \n18,199,280,618 \n2,598,856,324 \n88% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n71 \nKibaale DLG \n30,224,714,785 \n25,820,356,610 \n4,404,358,175 \n85% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n72 \nKiboga DLG \n27,790,363,854 \n26,318,651,550 \n1,471,712,304 \n95% \n0 \n52,265,069 \n0 \n73", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n73 \nKibuku DLG \n28,753,665,289 \n25,972,461,234 \n2,781,204,055 \n90% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n74 \nKikuube DLG \n39,760,285,943 \n36,404,274,857 \n3,356,011,086 \n92% \n2,089,356,961 \n0 \n0 \n75 \nKira MC \n27,879,646,471 \n26,368,296,040 \n1,511,350,431 \n95% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n76 \nKiruhura DLG", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kiruhura DLG \n24,387,600,876 \n23,043,919,729 \n1,343,681,147 \n94% \n0 \n1,140,291,802 \n0 \n77 \nKiryandongo DLG \n47,174,781,543 \n38,282,883,956 \n8,891,897,587 \n81% \n2,595,952,499 \n0 \n0 \n78 \nKisoro DLG \n42,882,291,400 \n42,455,392,088 \n426,899,312 \n99% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n79 \nKisoro MC \n4,326,154,385", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4,326,154,385 \n3,887,968,240 \n438,186,145 \n90% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n80 \nKitagwenda DLG \n20,145,817,767 \n18,803,315,637 \n1,342,502,130 \n93% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n81 \nKitgum DLG \n33,271,306,168 \n32,504,037,997 \n767,268,171 \n98% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n82 \nKoboko MC \n13,888,053,208 \n10,699,321,135 \n3,188,732,073 \n77%", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "77% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n83 \nKoboko DLG \n35,409,866,711 \n33,272,440,212 \n2,137,426,499 \n94% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n84 \nKole DLG \n28,474,192,096 \n26,922,628,239 \n1,551,563,857 \n95% \n0 \n53,722,664 \n0 \n85 \nKumi DLG \n33,007,726,183 \n31,841,309,685 \n1,166,416,498 \n96% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n86", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n86 \nKumi MC \n8,126,023,961 \n7,548,239,062 \n577,784,899 \n93% \n0 \n185,139,760 \n0 \n87 \nKwania DLG \n23,635,325,330 \n19,196,790,749 \n4,438,534,581 \n81% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n88 \nKween DLG \n24,080,850,750 \n20,536,831,697 \n3,544,019,053 \n85% \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "305 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \n Absorption \nExcess release of \nwage \nTransfer \nto \nLLGs \n Off \nBudget \nFinancing/Receipts \n \n \n warrants \n Expenditure \n Unspent \n% \nAbsorbed \n \n \n \n89 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n29,961,018,886 \n27,044,826,001 \n2,916,192,885 \n90% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n90 \nKyegegwa DLG \n51,906,962,379 \n42,010,275,479 \n9,896,686,900", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "81% \n0 \n169,906,666 \n0 \n91 \nkyenjojo DLG \n48,783,757,564 \n42,013,520,258 \n6,770,237,306 \n86% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n92 \nKyotera DLG \n39,193,598,994 \n35,926,005,558 \n3,267,593,436 \n92% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n93 \nLamwo DLG \n48,320,085,318 \n41,646,778,955 \n6,673,306,363 \n86% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n94", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n94 \nLira City \n42,012,644,858 \n35,186,882,702 \n6,825,762,156 \n84% \n2,012,273,042 \n0 \n0 \n95 \nLira DLG \n39,485,569,918 \n32,066,592,440 \n7,418,977,478 \n81% \n0 \n300,110,546 \n0 \n96 \nLugazi MC \n27,142,890,168 \n19,986,329,853 \n7,156,560,315 \n74% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n97 \nLuuka DLG", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Luuka DLG \n30,651,591,016 \n27,645,019,299 \n3,006,571,717 \n90% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n98 \nLuwero DLG \n70,065,278,636 \n0 \n70,065,278,63\n6 \n0% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n99 \nLwengo DLG \n32,148,893,519 \n28,622,557,089 \n3,526,336,430 \n89% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n100 \nLyantonde DLG \n18,928,350,342 \n17,315,185,791", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17,315,185,791 \n1,613,164,551 \n91% \n0 \n23,137,182 \n0 \n101 \nMadi Okollo DLG \n30,882,287,746 \n27,937,245,343 \n2,945,042,403 \n90% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n102 \nMakindye- Ssabagabo MC \n21,970,955,485 \n0 \n21,970,955,48\n5 \n0% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n103 \nManafwa DLG \n32,314,022,238 \n28,143,462,499 \n4,170,559,739", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "87% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n104 \nMaracha DLG \n30,589,523,882 \n26,104,276,925 \n4,485,246,957 \n85% \n2,540,902,310 \n0 \n0 \n105 \nMasaka DLG \n19,984,292,997 \n18,413,164,851 \n1,571,128,146 \n92% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n106 \nMasaka City \n39,377,424,934 \n35,434,227,386 \n3,943,197,548 \n90% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n107", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n107 \nMasindi MC \n13,208,468,876 \n12,410,985,990 \n797,482,886 \n94% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n108 \nMasindi DLG \n31,043,870,003 \n28,286,651,936 \n2,757,218,067 \n91% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n109 \nMayuge DLG \n50,196,940,048 \n45,670,547,383 \n4,526,392,665 \n91% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n110 \nMbale DLG \n44,800,253,897", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "44,800,253,897 \n43,021,470,498 \n1,778,783,399 \n96% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n111 \nMbale City City \n54,509,554,490 \n52,440,655,447 \n2,068,899,043 \n96% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n112 \nMbarara City \n56,163,575,756 \n37,529,896,173 \n18,633,679,58\n3 \n67% \n2,497,489,578 \n0 \n0 \n113 \nMbarara DLG \n31,389,570,562", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "29,057,935,457 \n2,331,635,105 \n93% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n114 \nMitooma DLG \n31,033,824,747 \n28,534,656,313 \n2,499,168,434 \n92% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n115 \nMityana MC \n10,286,862,838 \n10,120,930,540 \n165,932,298 \n98% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n116 \nMityana DLG \n34,739,884,076 \n34,060,294,580 \n679,589,496 \n98% \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n117 \nMoroto DLG DLG \n17,127,913,866 \n14,133,470,694 \n2,994,443,172 \n83% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n118 \nMoroto MC MC \n7,880,859,977 \n7,433,003,905 \n447,856,072 \n94% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n119 \nMoyo DLG \n29,195,416,011 \n27,516,553,465 \n1,678,862,546 \n94% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n120 \nMpigi DLG \nMpigi DLG \n34,682,719,605 \n32,974,065,081 \n1,708,654,524 \n95% \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "306 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \n Absorption \nExcess release of \nwage \nTransfer \nto \nLLGs \n Off \nBudget \nFinancing/Receipts \n \n \n warrants \n Expenditure \n Unspent \n% \nAbsorbed \n \n \n \n121 \nMubende DLG \n39,647,152,652 \n34,923,221,857 \n4,723,930,795 \n88% \n0 \n1,138,791,914 \n0 \n122 \nMubende MC \n31,308,367,407 \n26,727,376,138 \n4,580,991,269", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4,580,991,269 \n85% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n123 \nMukono DLG \n57,834,245,531 \n55,901,318,197 \n1,932,927,334 \n97% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n124 \nMukono MC \n22,502,726,784 \n18,587,918,237 \n3,914,808,547 \n83% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n125 \nNakapiripit DLG \n13,792,230,712 \n12,945,450,637 \n846,780,075 \n94% \n0 \n148,785,780", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "148,785,780 \n0 \n126 \nNakaseke DLG \n35,726,792,690 \n33,314,456,534 \n2,412,336,156 \n93% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n127 \nNakasongola DLG \n31,387,140,337 \n30,027,827,577 \n1,359,312,760 \n96% \n0 \n0 \n400,000,000 \n128 \nNamayingo DLG \n30,764,093,834 \n26,542,664,138 \n4,221,429,696 \n86% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n129 \nNamisindwa DLG", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Namisindwa DLG \n30,276,933,318 \n28,725,738,658 \n1,551,194,660 \n95% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n130 \nNamutumba DLG \n33,545,828,238 \n31,116,858,743 \n2,428,969,495 \n93% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n131 \nNansana MC \n28,771,493,569 \n26,482,840,811 \n2,288,652,758 \n92% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n132 \nNapal DLG DLG \n17,502,475,644 \n16,530,012,194", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "16,530,012,194 \n972,463,450 \n94% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n133 \nNebbi DLG \n32,975,573,035 \n31,506,692,387 \n1,468,880,648 \n96% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n134 \nNebbi MC \n5,315,320,126 \n4,846,497,885 \n468,822,241 \n91% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n135 \nNgora DLG \n22,984,373,307 \n22,162,388,727 \n821,984,580 \n96% \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n136 \nNjeru MC \n12,513,270,328 \n12,507,550,990 \n5,719,338 \n100% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n137 \nNtoroko DLG \n23,319,020,690 \n17,838,045,388 \n5,480,975,302 \n76% \n2,448,236,990 \n0 \n0 \n138 \nNtugamo MC \n10,006,372,814 \n6,421,172,764 \n3,585,200,050 \n64% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n139 \nNtungamo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ntungamo DLG \n65,955,356,867 \n59,053,809,204 \n6,901,547,663 \n90% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n140 \nNwoya DLG \n26,906,362,637 \n23,984,644,132 \n2,921,718,505 \n89% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n141 \nObongi DLG \n36,016,551,508 \n31,128,601,256 \n4,887,950,252 \n86% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n142 \nOtuke DLG \n19,045,497,065 \n17,609,180,705", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,436,316,360 \n92% \n0 \n0 \n342,888,374 \n143 \nOyam DLG \n48,266,804,257 \n42,073,370,843 \n6,193,433,414 \n87% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n144 \nPader DLG \n32,381,009,380 \n31,488,029,130 \n892,980,250 \n97% \n0 \n172,984,126 \n0 \n145 \nPakwach DLG \n23,874,245,553 \n20,530,628,195 \n3,343,617,358 \n86% \n2,457,707,239", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "29,000,000 \n0 \n146 \nPallisa DLG \n40,668,548,479 \n37,753,661,347 \n2,914,887,132 \n93% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n147 \nRakai DLG \n43,948,336,253 \n42,336,787,704 \n1,611,548,549 \n96% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n148 \nRubanda DLG \n32,450,904,042 \n30,989,097,975 \n1,461,806,067 \n95% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n149 \nRubirizi DLG", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Rubirizi DLG \n23,166,794,758 \n20,530,176,600 \n2,636,618,158 \n89% \n0 \n0 \n350,890,654 \n150 \nRukiga DLG \n23,721,798,107 \n20,362,927,389 \n3,358,870,718 \n86% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n151 \nRukungiri DLG \n47,948,154,494 \n46,890,746,619 \n1,057,407,875 \n98% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n152 \nRukungiri MC \n9,588,610,221", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "9,588,610,221 \n8,847,154,258 \n741,455,963 \n92% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n153 \nRwampara DLG \n23,245,993,216 \n19,456,469,037 \n3,789,524,179 \n84% \n2,542,813,461 \n0 \n0 \n154 \nSembabule DLG \n34,093,818,966 \n32,559,068,877 \n1,534,750,089 \n95% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n155 \nSerere DLG \n36,425,484,861 \n34,358,443,242 \n2,067,041,619 \n94% \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "307 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \n Absorption \nExcess release of \nwage \nTransfer \nto \nLLGs \n Off \nBudget \nFinancing/Receipts \n \n \n warrants \n Expenditure \n Unspent \n% \nAbsorbed \n \n \n \n156 \nSheema DLG \n30,512,174,022 \n27,211,027,636 \n3,301,146,386 \n89% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n157 \nSheema MC \n14,776,377,415 \n13,914,040,913 \n862,336,502 \n94% \n0", "metadata": {"page": 323, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "94% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n158 \nSironko DLG \n40,673,330,239 \n38,374,226,581 \n2,299,103,658 \n94% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n159 \nSoroti City \n27,191,436,469 \n26,510,579,363 \n680,857,106 \n97% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n160 \nSoroti DLG \n32,154,680,153 \n29,546,319,610 \n2,608,360,543 \n92% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n161 \nTerego DLG", "metadata": {"page": 323, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Terego DLG \n51,009,048,929 \n0 \n51,009,048,92\n9 \n0% \n6,426,650,108 \n0 \n0 \n162 \nTororo MC \n20,366,168,079 \n19,681,780,810 \n684,387,269 \n97% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n163 \nTororo DLG \n71,852,450,728 \n61,209,067,941 \n10,643,382,78\n7 \n85% \n0 \n1,210,847,439 \n0 \n164 \nWakiso DLG \n86,711,358,646", "metadata": {"page": 323, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "79,119,713,715 \n7,591,644,931 \n91% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n165 \nYumbe DLG \n87,975,942,483 \n74,669,888,209 \n13,306,054,27\n4 \n85% \n2,447,372,714 \n0 \n1,803,548,082 \n166 \nZombo DLG \n30,237,259,913 \n26,476,136,554 \n3,761,123,359 \n88% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n167 \nOmoro DLG \n26,863,805,127 \n25,046,339,947", "metadata": {"page": 323, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,817,465,180 \n93% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n168 \nKitgum MC \n17,240,456,470 \n16,734,894,910 \n505,561,560 \n97% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n169 \nBududa DLG \n34,905,387,096 \n31,716,472,984 \n3,188,914,112 \n91% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \nTotal \n5,426,900,787,\n092 \n4,723,235,613,\n153 \n703,665,173,\n939 \n87% \n939 \n87% \n54,585,930,745 \n6,493,901,8\n77 \n3,670,739,179", "metadata": {"page": 323, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "308 \n \nAppendix 4 b: Misclassification and unaccounted for funds \n \n \n Misclassification \n Unaccounted for funds \nSN \nEntity Name \nSalary, \npension and \ngratuity \n Irrigation \n Exgratia \n Other \nexpenditure \nlines \n Total \nAdministrative \nexpenses \n PDM \n Support to \nOrganized \nGroups for \nimprovement \nof people\u2019s \nlivelihood \n Total \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n283,297,027 \n0 \n0 \n429,130,982 \n712,428,009 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n2 \nAgago DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n56,193,109 \n0 \n56,193,109 \n3 \nAlebetong DLG \n7,952,644 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n7,952,644 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n4 \nAmolatar DLG \n70,075,090 \n0 \n0 \n67,447,800 \n137,522,890 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5 \nAmudat DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n6 \nAmuria DLG \n17,066,509 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n17,066,509 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n7 \nAmuru DLG \n0 \n963,852,269 \n0 \n0 \n963,852,269 \n114,673,100 \n0 \n0 \n114,673,100 \n8 \nApac DLG \n67,495,851 \n0 \n0 \n287,520,571 \n355,016,422 \n109,792,094 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n109,792,094 \n9 \nArua DLG \n794,958,743 \n0 \n0 \n167,286,000 \n962,244,743 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \nArua City \n0 \n0 \n0 \n187,258,150 \n187,258,150 \n47,314,916 \n0 \n0 \n47,314,916 \n11 \nBudaka DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12 \nBugiri DLG \n280,574,190 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n227,015,000 \n103,525,024 \n611,114,214 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n13 \nBugiri MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \nBugweri DLG \n41,833,700 \n0 \n12,939,800 \n41,833,700 \n96,607,200 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n15 \nBuhweju DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n16", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n16 \nBuikwe DLG \n0 \n600,773,617 \n0 \n0 \n600,773,617 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n17 \nBukedea DLG \n19,917,472 \n0 \n144,169,020 \n0 \n164,086,492 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n18 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n0 \n320,084,565 \n58,800,000 \n0 \n378,884,565 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n19 \nBukwo DLG \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n27,449,000 \n0 \n0 \n27,449,000 \n20 \nBulambuli DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n21 \nBuliisa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n321,458,342 \n321,458,342 \n240,409,967 \n12,260,000 \n8,000,000 \n260,669,967 \n22 \nBundibugyo DLG \n0 \n0 \n1,755,000 \n0 \n1,755,000", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,755,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n23 \nBunyangabu DLG \n15,870,937 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n15,870,937 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n24 \nBushenyi DLG \n0 \n78,378,605 \n0 \n0 \n78,378,605 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n25 \nBushenyi- Ishaka MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \nBusia MC \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n14,201,118 \n14,201,118 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n27 \nBusia DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n264,035,358 \n264,035,358 \n54,448,772 \n0 \n0 \n54,448,772 \n28 \nButaleja DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n29 \nButambala DLG \n0 \n221,610,994 \n0 \n0 \n221,610,994 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n30 \nButebo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n38,526,000 \n0 \n0 \n38,526,000 \n31 \nBuvuma DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "309 \n \n \n \n Misclassification \n Unaccounted for funds \nSN \nEntity Name \nSalary, \npension and \ngratuity \n Irrigation \n Exgratia \n Other \nexpenditure \nlines \n Total \nAdministrative \nexpenses \n PDM \n Support to \nOrganized \nGroups for \nimprovement \nof people\u2019s \nlivelihood \n Total \n32 \nBuyende DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n33 \nDokolo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n34 \nEntebbe MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n35 \nFort Portal City \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n36 \nGomba DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n37 \nGulu City \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n464,967,732", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "464,967,732 \n11,233,000 \n0 \n476,200,732 \n38 \nGulu DLG \n41,648,614 \n0 \n0 \n146,888,000 \n188,536,614 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n39 \nHoima City \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n40 \nHoima DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5,782,116,807 \n5,782,116,807 \n0 \n0 \n53,000,000 \n53,000,000 \n41", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "41 \nIbanda DLG \n42,269,313 \n562,258,360 \n0 \n0 \n604,527,673 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n42 \nIbanda MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n43 \nIganga DLG \n0 \n293,479,474 \n0 \n0 \n293,479,474 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n44 \nIganga MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n45 \nIsingiro DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n46 \nJinja City \n0 \n0 \n0 \n116,271,108 \n116,271,108 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n47 \nJinja DLG \n0 \n265,244,129 \n0 \n0 \n265,244,129 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n48 \nKabale DLG \n240,859,233 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n240,859,233", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "240,859,233 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n49 \nKabale MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n50 \nKabarole DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n51 \nKaberamaido DLG \n301,075,279 \n0 \n0 \n433,609,995 \n734,685,274 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n52 \nKagadi DLG \n26,145,379 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n425,128,812 \n451,274,191 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n53 \nKakumiro DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n54 \nKalaki DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n19,191,575 \n19,191,575 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n55 \nKalangala DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n120,800,452 \n0 \n120,800,452 \n56", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "56 \nKaliro DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n57 \nKalungu DLG \n0 \n245,494,700 \n0 \n0 \n245,494,700 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n58 \nKamuli DLG \n0 \n277,743,610 \n0 \n0 \n277,743,610 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n59 \nKamuli MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n60", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n60 \nKamwenge DLG \n113,533,667 \n422,241,549 \n0 \n0 \n535,775,216 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n61 \nKanungu DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n62 \nKapchorwa DLG \n96,353,925 \n41,395,400 \n0 \n0 \n137,749,325 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n63 \nKapchorwa MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "310 \n \n \n \n Misclassification \n Unaccounted for funds \nSN \nEntity Name \nSalary, \npension and \ngratuity \n Irrigation \n Exgratia \n Other \nexpenditure \nlines \n Total \nAdministrative \nexpenses \n PDM \n Support to \nOrganized \nGroups for \nimprovement \nof people\u2019s \nlivelihood \n Total \n64 \nKapelebyong DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n39,863,133 \n39,863,133 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n65 \nKasese MC \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n66 \nKasese DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n67 \nKassanda DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n68 \nKatakwi DLG \n132,328,151 \n0 \n0 \n50,959,223 \n183,287,374 \n341,474,505 \n0 \n0 \n341,474,505 \n69 \nKayunga DLG", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kayunga DLG \n0 \n789,024,134 \n0 \n0 \n789,024,134 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n70 \nKazo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n71 \nKibaale DLG \n243,808,456 \n343,540,164 \n0 \n248,884,954 \n836,233,574 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n72 \nKiboga DLG \n70,074,082 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n70,074,082", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "70,074,082 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n73 \nKibuku DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n74 \nKikuube DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n75 \nKira MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n76 \nKiruhura DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n77 \nKiryandongo DLG \n44,741,863 \n0 \n0 \n89,110,097 \n133,851,960 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n78 \nKisoro DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n79 \nKisoro MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n80 \nKitagwenda DLG \n0 \n240,883,874 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n143,211,756 \n384,095,630 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n81 \nKitgum DLG \n0 \n0 \n334,000 \n91,922,468 \n92,256,468 \n0 \n241,516,100 \n0 \n241,516,100 \n82 \nKoboko MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n83 \nKoboko DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11,300,040 \n0 \n11,300,040", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,300,040 \n84 \nKole DLG \n138,070,066 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n138,070,066 \n59,029,970 \n0 \n0 \n59,029,970 \n85 \nKumi DLG \n210,121,994 \n0 \n0 \n139,189,753 \n349,311,747 \n21,161,426 \n0 \n0 \n21,161,426 \n86 \nKumi MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n31,406,925 \n31,406,925 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n87 \nKwania DLG", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kwania DLG \n46,649,913 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n46,649,913 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n88 \nKween DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n89 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n5,461,304 \n0 \n0 \n152,595,184 \n158,056,488 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n90 \nKyegegwa DLG \n3,330,693 \n921,616,030 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n924,946,723 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n91 \nkyenjojo DLG \n0 \n816,122,258 \n0 \n0 \n816,122,258 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n92 \nKyotera DLG \n0 \n206,116,680 \n0 \n0 \n206,116,680 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n93 \nLamwo DLG \n106,680,222 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n106,680,222 \n31,862,000 \n0 \n0 \n31,862,000", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "31,862,000 \n94 \nLira City \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n95 \nLira DLG \n98,046,752 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n98,046,752 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "311 \n \n \n \n Misclassification \n Unaccounted for funds \nSN \nEntity Name \nSalary, \npension and \ngratuity \n Irrigation \n Exgratia \n Other \nexpenditure \nlines \n Total \nAdministrative \nexpenses \n PDM \n Support to \nOrganized \nGroups for \nimprovement \nof people\u2019s \nlivelihood \n Total \n96 \nLugazi MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n97 \nLuuka DLG \n0 \n185,288,340 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n185,288,340 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n98 \nLuwero DLG \n0 \n496,853,038 \n0 \n0 \n496,853,038 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n99 \nLwengo DLG \n0 \n349,181,500 \n0 \n0 \n349,181,500 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n100 \nLyantonde DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n101 \nMadi Okollo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Madi Okollo DLG \n152,818,453 \n0 \n64,347,624 \n0 \n217,166,077 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n102 \nMakindye- Ssabagabo \nMC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n103 \nManafwa DLG \n0 \n178,080,000 \n0 \n0 \n178,080,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n104 \nMaracha DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n105 \nMasaka DLG \n0 \n191,012,556 \n0 \n0 \n191,012,556 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n106 \nMasaka City \n0 \n0 \n1,050,000 \n0 \n1,050,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n107 \nMasindi MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n724,089,374 \n724,089,374 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n108 \nMasindi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n274,546,863 \n274,546,863 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n109 \nMayuge DLG \n0 \n691,749,954 \n0 \n0 \n691,749,954 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n110 \nMbale DLG \n0 \n978,155,227 \n0 \n0 \n978,155,227 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n111 \nMbale City City \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n112", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n112 \nMbarara City \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n113 \nMbarara DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n114 \nMitooma DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n115 \nMityana MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n212,684,427 \n212,684,427 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n116", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n116 \nMityana DLG \n13,354,277 \n959,359,474 \n0 \n0 \n972,713,751 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n117 \nMoroto DLG DLG \n61,218,062 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n61,218,062 \n32,121,000 \n0 \n0 \n32,121,000 \n118 \nMoroto MC MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n93,678,751 \n93,678,751 \n43,885,966 \n0 \n0 \n43,885,966 \n119 \nMoyo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Moyo DLG \n0 \n0 \n6,700,766 \n90,047,094 \n96,747,860 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n120 \nMpigi DLG \n0 \n682,186,048 \n0 \n0 \n682,186,048 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n121 \nMubende DLG \n0 \n360,241,350 \n0 \n0 \n360,241,350 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n122 \nMubende MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n123 \nMukono DLG \n0 \n1,192,689,171 \n0 \n0 \n1,192,689,171 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n124 \nMukono MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n123,531,970 \n123,531,970 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n125 \nNakapiripit DLG \n206,356,796 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n206,356,796 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n126 \nNakaseke DLG \n1,689,071 \n1,689,071 \n687,041,722 \n0 \n0 \n688,730,793 \n18,579,130 \n0 \n0 \n18,579,130", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "312 \n \n \n \n Misclassification \n Unaccounted for funds \nSN \nEntity Name \nSalary, \npension and \ngratuity \n Irrigation \n Exgratia \n Other \nexpenditure \nlines \n Total \nAdministrative \nexpenses \n PDM \n Support to \nOrganized \nGroups for \nimprovement \nof people\u2019s \nlivelihood \n Total \n127 \nNakasongola DLG \n41,613,733 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n41,613,733 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n128 \nNamayingo DLG \n36,843,688", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "36,843,688 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n36,843,688 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n129 \nNamisindwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n130 \nNamutumba DLG \n271,169,442 \n0 \n0 \n153,019,013 \n424,188,455 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n131 \nNansana MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n132", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n132 \nNapal DLG DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n255,002,000 \n0 \n0 \n255,002,000 \n133 \nNebbi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n134 \nNebbi MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n135 \nNgora DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n23,641,000 \n23,641,000 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n136 \nNjeru MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n36,732,050 \n36,732,050 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n137 \nNtoroko DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n138 \nNtugamo MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n139 \nNtungamo DLG \n15,020,229 \n229,477,125 \n0 \n0 \n244,497,354", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "244,497,354 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n140 \nNwoya DLG \n0 \n1,282,287,149 \n0 \n120,040,211 \n1,402,327,360 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n141 \nObongi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n142 \nOtuke DLG \n109,944,652 \n0 \n0 \n99,132,476 \n209,077,128 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n143 \nOyam DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n388,608,220 \n388,608,220 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n144 \nPader DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n157,329,446 \n157,329,446 \n65,770,718 \n0 \n0 \n65,770,718 \n145 \nPakwach DLG \n0 \n0 \n5,500,000 \n0 \n5,500,000 \n14,670,200 \n0 \n0 \n14,670,200 \n146 \nPallisa DLG \n0 \n0 \n2,427,469 \n115,027,538", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "115,027,538 \n117,455,007 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n147 \nRakai DLG \n0 \n450,270,049 \n0 \n0 \n450,270,049 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n148 \nRubanda DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n149 \nRubirizi DLG \n76,714,874 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n76,714,874 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n150 \nRukiga DLG", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Rukiga DLG \n2,673,536 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2,673,536 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n151 \nRukungiri DLG \n0 \n1,182,235,981 \n0 \n0 \n1,182,235,981 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n152 \nRukungiri MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n153 \nRwampara DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n154 \nSembabule DLG \n0 \n381,925,415 \n0 \n0 \n381,925,415 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n155 \nSerere DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n275,490,964 \n275,490,964 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n156 \nSheema DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n157 \nSheema MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n158 \nSironko DLG \n0 \n244,992,927 \n0 \n0 \n244,992,927 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "313 \n \n \n \n Misclassification \n Unaccounted for funds \nSN \nEntity Name \nSalary, \npension and \ngratuity \n Irrigation \n Exgratia \n Other \nexpenditure \nlines \n Total \nAdministrative \nexpenses \n PDM \n Support to \nOrganized \nGroups for \nimprovement \nof people\u2019s \nlivelihood \n Total \n159 \nSoroti City \n151,786,440 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n151,786,440 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n160 \nSoroti DLG \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 329, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n62,521,446 \n62,521,446 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n161 \nTerego DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n107,769,500 \n107,769,500 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n162 \nTororo MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n163 \nTororo DLG \n241,169,147 \n421,412,670 \n0 \n0 \n662,581,817 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n164", "metadata": {"page": 329, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n164 \nWakiso DLG \n0 \n970,978,292 \n0 \n0 \n970,978,292 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n165 \nYumbe DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n166 \nZombo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n167 \nOmoro DLG \n519,003,445 \n753,058,716 \n0 \n207,187,886 \n1,479,250,047", "metadata": {"page": 329, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n168 \nKitgum MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n169 \nBududa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \nTotal \n5,461,616,914 20,478,337,116 \n525,038,679 \n13,059,125,064 \n39,524,117,773 \n1,981,138,496 \n453,302,701 \n61,000,000 \n2,495,441,197", "metadata": {"page": 329, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Appendix 4 c: Ex-gratia payments \nSN \nEntity Name \n Funding of Ex-gratia for Councillors \nUnderpayment of Councillors \n \n \n Approved Estimate \n(UGX.) \n Release \n(UGX.) \n Under funding \n(UGX.) \n% Variance \nNo. of councillors \nunder/not paid \n Amount not/underpaid \n1 \nAgago DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n1,245,500 \n2 \nAmudat DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n8 \n24,000,000 \n3 \nAmuria DLG \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 329, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n32 \n57,000,000 \n4 \nApac DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n23 \n56,227,000 \n5 \nBugiri DLG \n104,400,000 \n- \n104,400,000 \n100% \n14 \n10,675,000 \n6 \nBugweri DLG \n116,400,000 \n109,160,000 \n7,240,000 \n6% \n13 \n9,750,000 \n7 \nBuhweju DLG \n79,800,000 \n59,850,000 \n19,950,000 \n25% \n26", "metadata": {"page": 329, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "25% \n26 \n13,965,000 \n8 \nBukedea DLG \n144,169,020 \n \n144,169,020 \n100% \n380 \n28,500,000 \n9 \nBukwo DLG \n105,900,000 \n88,436,274 \n17,463,726 \n16% \n56 \n6,720,000 \n10 \nBunyangabu DLG \n212,160,000 \n179,744,319 \n32,415,681 \n15% \n \n \n11 \nButambala DLG \n119,220,000 \n97,169,071 \n22,050,929 \n18% \n289", "metadata": {"page": 329, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "18% \n289 \n43,250,000 \n12 \nBuyende DLG \n229,020,000 \n199,783,352 \n29,236,648 \n13% \n \n \n13 \nGomba DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n18 \n13,950,000 \n14 \nJinja City \n269,040,000 \n97,074,000 \n171,966,000 \n64% \n \n \n15 \nKaliro DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n6 \n5,794,800", "metadata": {"page": 329, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "314 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \n Funding of Ex-gratia for Councillors \nUnderpayment of Councillors \n \n \n Approved Estimate \n(UGX.) \n Release \n(UGX.) \n Under funding \n(UGX.) \n% Variance \nNo. of councillors \nunder/not paid \n Amount not/underpaid \n16 \nKamuli DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n387 \n63,876,000 \n17 \nKapelebyong DLG \n333,584,420 \n300,509,420 \n33,075,000 \n10% \n105 \n33,075,000 \n18", "metadata": {"page": 330, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "18 \nKasese MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n1,575,000 \n19 \nKatakwi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n218 \n22,890,000 \n20 \nKiboga DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n500,000 \n21 \nKibuku DLG \n175,440,000 \n118,080,000 \n57,360,000 \n33% \n \n \n22 \nKisoro DLG \n124,800,000 \n85,440,000 \n39,360,000 \n32% \n39", "metadata": {"page": 330, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "32% \n39 \n4,680,000 \n23 \nKitagwenda DLG \n194,100,000 \n121,000,000 \n73,100,000 \n38% \n25 \n6,250,000 \n24 \nKitgum DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n38 \n155,904,507 \n25 \nKyegegwa DLG \n310,380,000 \n476,381,887 \n-166,001,887 \n-53% \n \n \n26 \nLamwo DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n174 \n79,779,000 \n27 \nLira City", "metadata": {"page": 330, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "27 \nLira City \n360,480,000 \n118,320,000 \n242,160,000 \n67% \n \n \n28 \nLuuka DLG \n187,680,000 \n144,416,000 \n43,264,000 \n23% \n \n \n29 \nLuwero DLG \n361,291,540 \n358,410,200 \n2,881,340 \n1% \n0 \n- \n30 \nMaracha DLG \n321,960,000 \n200,000,000 \n121,960,000 \n38% \n507 \n158,100,000 \n31 \nMbarara City \n258,480,000", "metadata": {"page": 330, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "258,480,000 \n219,413,000 \n39,067,000 \n15% \n65 \n66,600,000 \n32 \nMoyo DLG \n12,320,000 \n0 \n12,320,000 \n100% \n31 \n4,340,000 \n33 \nMubende MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n525,000 \n34 \nNakaseke DLG \n147,120,000 \n132,840,000 \n14,280,000 \n10% \n102 \n12,240,000 \n35 \nNakasongola DLG \n234,780,000 \n196,157,000 \n38,623,000", "metadata": {"page": 330, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "38,623,000 \n16% \n28 \n7,429,800 \n36 \nNamutumba DLG \n250,260,000 \n124,697,919 \n125,562,081 \n50% \n \n61,800,000 \n37 \nNapal DLG DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n95 \n53,200,000 \n38 \nNebbi MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n20 \n10,000,000 \n39 \nNgora DLG \n170,940,000 \n124,167,039 \n46,772,961 \n27% \n0 \n12,132,055", "metadata": {"page": 330, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "12,132,055 \n40 \nNtoroko DLG \n174,660,000 \n147,793,407 \n26,866,593 \n15% \n5 \n5,890,000 \n41 \nObongi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n84 \n10,080,000 \n42 \nPakwach DLG \n65,400,000 \n30,740,000 \n34,660,000 \n53% \n0 \n0 \n43 \nPallisa DLG \n338,460,000 \n224,124,030 \n114,335,970 \n34% \n0 \n0 \n44 \nSerere DLG", "metadata": {"page": 330, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Serere DLG \n230,700,000 \n199,719,486 \n30,980,514 \n13% \n0 \n0 \n45 \nSironko DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \n60,000,000 \n46 \nSoroti City \n64,680,000 \n55,080,000 \n9,600,000 \n15% \n169 \n20,280,000 \n47 \nYumbe DLG \n534,060,000 \n276,000,000 \n258,060,000 \n48% \n0 \n0 \n48 \nOmoro DLG \n58,800,000 \n58,800,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n28 \n46,600,000 \n \n Total \n6,290,484,980 \n4,543,306,404 \n1,747,178,576 \n28% \n3,002 \n1,168,823,662", "metadata": {"page": 330, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "315 \n \nAppendix 5 a: Parish Development Model \u2013 funding \nsn \nEntity name \nNo. of \ngazetted \nparishes \nNo. of \nSACCOs \nfunded \nSACCO\ns not \nfunded \nSACCOs \nfunded in \nun-\ngazetted \nparishes \nApproved \nbudget \n(UGX) \nRelease (UGX) \nVariance \n(UGX) \nPlanned \nfunding per \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nActual \nfunding \nper \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nFunding \ngap per \nPDM \nSACCO \n(UGX) \n1", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1 \nKagadi DLG \n151 \n0 \n151 \n0 \n2,625,752,313 \n1,638,280,159 \n987,472,154 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n2 \nKibaale DLG \n57 \n57 \n0 \n0 \n991,178,025 \n618,781,601 \n372,396,424 \n11,946,385 \n7,833,456 \n4,112,929 \n3 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n119 \n117 \n2 \n0 \n2,069,301,492 \n1,241,761,074", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "827,540,418 \n11,946,385 \n9,584,569 \n2,361,816 \n4 \nBuliisa DLG \n37 \n37 \n0 \n0 \n643,396,262 \n378,223,568 \n265,172,694 \n11,946,385 \n6,097,127 \n5,849,258 \n5 \nKiboga DLG \n58 \n58 \n0 \n0 \n1,008,567,113 \n793,049,020 \n215,518,093 \n11,946,385 \n11,614,600 \n331,785 \n6 \nKiryandongo DLG \n43", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "43 \n43 \n0 \n0 \n777,773,770 \n475,060,913 \n302,712,857 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,909 \n4,840,476 \n7 \nKayunga DLG \n57 \n71 \n0 \n0 \n1,234,625,259 \n703,992,280 \n530,632,979 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n8 \nKira MC \n6 \n3 \n3 \n0 \n104,334,529 \n76,793,676 \n27,540,853 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n9 \nMukono DLG \n88 \n88 \n0 \n0 \n1,530,239,758 \n1,007,444,869 \n522,794,889 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,000 \n4,841,385 \n10 \nNakaseke DLG \n72 \n72 \n0 \n0 \n1,234,625,259 \n681,238,785 \n553,386,474 \n11,946,385 \n8,628,335 \n3,318,050 \n11 \nNansana MC \n29 \n13 \n16 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "16 \n0 \n507,132,026 \n286,736,255 \n220,395,771 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n12 \nWakiso DLG \n100 \n98 \n2 \n0 \n1,738,908,817 \n1,139,324,157 \n599,584,660 \n11,946,385 \n10,428,988 \n1,517,397 \n13 \nBuhweju DLG \n68 \n68 \n0 \n0 \n1,182,458,000 \n737,768,551 \n444,689,449 \n11,946,385", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,946,385 \n7,531,680 \n4,414,705 \n14 \nKabale DLG \n67 \n67 \n0 \n0 \n1,165,068,887 \n702,794,039 \n462,274,848 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n15 \nKanungu DLG \n98 \n36 \n62 \n0 \n1,704,130,640 \n881,051,146 \n823,079,494 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n16 \nKisoro DLG \n58 \n58 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "58 \n0 \n0 \n1,000,332,478 \n652,450,147 \n347,882,331 \n11,946,385 \n7,600,000 \n4,346,385 \n17 \nMbarara City \n23 \n23 \n0 \n0 \n399,949,028 \n249,539,361 \n150,409,667 \n11,946,385 \n6,609,316 \n5,337,069 \n18 \nRubirizi DLG \n53 \n52 \n1 \n0 \n921,621,673 \n584,421,623 \n337,200,050 \n11,946,385", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,946,385 \n8,171,435 \n3,774,950 \n19 \nRukungiri DLG \n57 \n39 \n18 \n0 \n1,304,181,582 \n853,987,586 \n450,193,996 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n20 \nRwampara DLG \n29 \n29 \n0 \n0 \n504,283,557 \n314,636,582 \n189,646,975 \n11,946,385 \n7,115,692 \n4,830,693 \n21 \nBugiri DLG \n98 \n37 \n61 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "61 \n0 \n1,704,130,640 \n974,895,667 \n729,234,973 \n11,946,385 \n17,459,459 \n05,513,074 \n22 \nBugiri MC \n4 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n69,556,352 \n48,212,048 \n21,344,304 \n11,946,385 \n7,672,300 \n4,274,085 \n23 \nBugweri DLG \n36 \n18 \n18 \n0 \n626,007,174 \n410,972,260 \n215,034,914 \n11,946,385 \n17,812,103", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17,812,103 \n05,865,718 \n24 \nIganga DLG \n42 \n21 \n21 \n0 \n730,341,703 \n436,031,002 \n294,310,701 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n25 \nIganga MC \n11 \n11 \n0 \n0 \n191,279,969 \n117,785,902 \n73,494,067 \n11,946,385 \n7,272,727 \n4,673,658 \n26 \nJinja City \n26 \n26 \n0 \n0 \n452,116,292", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "452,116,292 \n288,106,284 \n164,010,008 \n11,946,385 \n7,530,677 \n4,415,708 \n27 \nJinja DLG \n34 \n30 \n4 \n0 \n591,228,997 \n371,671,768 \n219,557,229 \n11,946,385 \n7,187,894 \n4,758,491 \n28 \nKamuli MC \n10 \n10 \n0 \n0 \n219,456,294 \n89,860,982 \n129,595,312 \n11,946,385 \n8,505,497 \n3,440,888 \n29", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "29 \nLuuka DLG \n64 \n30 \n34 \n0 \n1,112,901,643 \n694,385,933 \n418,515,710 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n30 \nMayuge DLG \n84 \n45 \n39 \n0 \n1,460,683,406 \n855,900,681 \n604,782,725 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n31 \nNamayingo DLG \n50 \n22 \n28 \n0 \n869,454,408 \n532,276,091", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "532,276,091 \n337,178,317 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n32 \nNebbi MC \n9 \n9 \n0 \n0 \n156,501,794 \n98,726,810 \n57,774,984 \n11,946,385 \n9,518,650 \n2,427,735 \n33 \nButaleja DLG \n76 \n33 \n43 \n0 \n1,321,570,700 \n681,306,967 \n640,263,733 \n11,946,385 \n13,756,443 \n01,810,058", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "316 \n \nsn \nEntity name \nNo. of \ngazetted \nparishes \nNo. of \nSACCOs \nfunded \nSACCO\ns not \nfunded \nSACCOs \nfunded in \nun-\ngazetted \nparishes \nApproved \nbudget \n(UGX) \nRelease (UGX) \nVariance \n(UGX) \nPlanned \nfunding per \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nActual \nfunding \nper \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nFunding \ngap per \nPDM \nSACCO \n(UGX) \n34 \nTororo DLG \n172", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "172 \n155 \n17 \n0 \n2,695,308,665 \n1,764,595,230 \n930,713,435 \n11,946,385 \n11,843,328 \n103,057 \n35 \nKazo DLG \n28 \n28 \n0 \n0 \n962,600,000 \n533,000,000 \n429,600,000 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n36 \nKiruhura DLG \n56 \n30 \n26 \n0 \n973,788,937 \n608,122,913 \n365,666,024 \n11,946,385", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n37 \nMbale DLG \n90 \n67 \n23 \n0 \n1,558,108,934 \n966,351,955 \n591,756,979 \n11,946,385 \n9,766,538 \n2,179,847 \n38 \nBududa DLG \n159 \n159 \n0 \n0 \n2,764,865,000 \n1,725,014,000 1,039,851,000 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,908 \n4,840,477 \n39 \nMityana DLG \n75 \n72 \n3 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \n0 \n1,304,181,612 \n801,359,558 \n502,822,054 \n11,946,385 \n7,398,362 \n4,548,023 \n40 \nNakasongola DLG \n68 \n64 \n4 \n0 \n1,182,458,062 \n723,455,289 \n459,002,773 \n11,946,385 \n7,856,479 \n4,089,906 \n41 \nMitooma DLG \n77 \n73 \n4 \n0 \n1,338,959,789 \n835,414,386 \n503,545,403", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "503,545,403 \n11,946,385 \n8,464,000 \n3,482,385 \n42 \nRubanda DLG \n69 \n69 \n0 \n0 \n1,255,229,083 \n804,000,086 \n451,228,997 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n43 \nRukiga DLG \n30 \n13 \n17 \n0 \n510,000,000 \n213,177,269 \n296,822,731 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n44 \nSheema MC \n23 \n \n23 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "23 \n0 \n399,949,028 \n246,994,197 \n152,954,831 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n45 \nBukedea DLG \n152 \n152 \n0 \n0 \n2,642,641,400 \n1,649,129,760 \n993,511,640 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,909 \n4,840,476 \n46 \nKatakwi DLG \n109 \n109 \n0 \n0 \n1,895,410,610 \n1,182,599,585 \n712,811,025 \n11,946,385", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,946,385 \n7,766,696 \n4,179,689 \n47 \nSoroti DLG \n54 \n54 \n0 \n0 \n939,010,765 \n591,913,215 \n347,097,550 \n11,946,385 \n7,217,727 \n4,728,658 \n48 \nMoroto DLG \n37 \n37 \n0 \n0 \n660,785,350 \n639,263,734 \n21,521,616 \n11,946,385 \n13,456,173 \n01,509,788 \n49 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n35 \n0 \n35", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n35 \n0 \n608,618,080 \n382,504,853 \n226,113,227 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n50 \nMbale City \n58 \n47 \n11 \n0 \n915,367,114 \n503,124,372 \n412,242,742 \n11,946,385 \n8,178,944 \n3,767,441 \n51 \nSironko DLG \n224 \n224 \n0 \n0 \n3,514,562,960 \n2,175,786,452 1,338,776,508 \n11,946,385 \n8,001,789", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8,001,789 \n3,944,596 \n52 \nButebo DLG \n61 \n61 \n0 \n0 \n1,060,734,379 \n637,888,975 \n422,845,404 \n11,946,385 \n4,446,599 \n7,499,786 \n53 \nNamisindwa DLG \n163 \n163 \n0 \n0 \n2,734,422,000 \n1,768,474,747 \n965,947,253 \n11,946,385 \n7,703,031 \n4,243,354 \n54 \nMakindye Ssabagabo MC \n11 \n8 \n3", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8 \n3 \n0 \n134,520,000 \n78,296,547 \n56,223,453 \n11,946,385 \n9,233,905 \n2,712,480 \n55 \nMityana MC \n15 \n5 \n10 \n0 \n260,836,322 \n162,743,063 \n98,093,259 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n56 \nMpigi DLG \n56 \n54 \n2 \n0 \n973,788,937 \n607,574,098 \n366,214,839 \n11,946,385 \n5,037,591", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5,037,591 \n6,908,794 \n57 \nIbanda DLG \n40 \n40 \n0 \n0 \n695,293,530 \n437,551,080 \n257,742,450 \n11,946,385 \n9,903,080 \n2,043,305 \n58 \nMbarara DLG \n57 \n57 \n0 \n0 \n799,878,055 \n499,196,841 \n300,681,214 \n11,946,385 \n7,833,456 \n4,112,929 \n59 \nSheema DLG \n51 \n51 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n817,287,144 \n504,972,175 \n312,314,969 \n11,946,385 \n6,548,582 \n5,397,803 \n60 \nNjeru MC \n16 \n16 \n0 \n0 \n278,225,411 \n161,665,675 \n116,559,736 \n11,946,385 \n9,050,000 \n2,896,385 \n61 \nNamutumba DLG \n111 \n53 \n58 \n0 \n1,930,188,786 \n1,204,298,661 \n725,890,125 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n62 \nLugazi MC \n20 \n19 \n1 \n0 \n347,781,763 \n216,024,740 \n131,757,023 \n11,946,385 \n7,057,608 \n4,888,777 \n63 \nKamuli DLG \n80 \n77 \n3 \n0 \n1,391,127,054 \n858,276,431 \n532,850,623 \n11,946,385 \n9,780,894 \n2,165,491 \n64 \nKaliro DLG \n86 \n86 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n1,512,850,670 \n968,119,291 \n544,731,379 \n11,946,385 \n7,759,998 \n4,186,387 \n65 \nBuyende DLG \n73 \n67 \n6 \n0 \n1,269,404,964 \n792,017,235 \n477,387,729 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,909 \n4,840,476 \n66 \nBushenyi DLG \n56 \n56 \n0 \n0 \n991,178,025 \n618,423,636 \n372,754,389 \n11,946,385 \n11,946,385 \n8,928,596 \n3,017,789 \n67 \nIshaka0 Bushenyi MC \n16 \n16 \n0 \n0 \n278,225,411 \n151,659,103 \n126,566,308 \n11,946,385 \n8,605,036 \n3,341,349", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "317 \n \nsn \nEntity name \nNo. of \ngazetted \nparishes \nNo. of \nSACCOs \nfunded \nSACCO\ns not \nfunded \nSACCOs \nfunded in \nun-\ngazetted \nparishes \nApproved \nbudget \n(UGX) \nRelease (UGX) \nVariance \n(UGX) \nPlanned \nfunding per \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nActual \nfunding \nper \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nFunding \ngap per \nPDM \nSACCO \n(UGX) \n68 \nIsingiro DLG \n131", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "131 \n131 \n0 \n0 \n2,277,970,559 \n1,421,290,075 \n856,680,484 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,914 \n4,840,471 \n69 \nKabale MC \n \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n70 \nKisoro MC \n7 \n7 \n0 \n0 \n121,723,618 \n71,710,564 \n50,013,054 \n11,946,385 \n7,129,561 \n4,816,824 \n71", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "71 \nNtungamo DLG \n129 \n126 \n3 \n0 \n2,243,192,372 \n1,401,258,493 \n841,933,879 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n72 \nNtungamo MC \n6 \n0 \n6 \n0 \n187,559,595 \n50,468,190 \n137,091,405 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n73 \nRukungiri MC \n12 \n12 \n0 \n0 \n208,669,055 \n130,504,374 \n78,164,681", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "78,164,681 \n11,946,385 \n9,554,365 \n2,392,020 \n74 \nHoima City \n16 \n16 \n0 \n0 \n \n \n \n11,946,385 \n5,973,192 \n5,973,193 \n75 \nMasindi DLG \n46 \n45 \n1 \n0 \n \n \n \n11,946,385 \n6,500,998 \n5,445,387 \n76 \nMasindi MC \n11 \n11 \n0 \n0 \n191,279,970 \n126,113,007 \n65,166,963", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "65,166,963 \n11,946,385 \n7,656,031 \n4,290,354 \n77 \nKikuube DLG \n57 \n57 \n0 \n0 \n504,283,556 \n314,636,586 \n189,646,970 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,909 \n4,840,476 \n78 \nHoima DLG \n55 \n51 \n4 \n0 \n956,399,849 \n630,266,756 \n326,133,093 \n11,946,385 \n7,217,678 \n4,728,707 \n79 \nKakumiro DLG \n105", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "105 \n100 \n5 \n0 \n1,825,854,258 \n1,174,545,966 \n651,308,292 \n11,946,385 \n7,911,596 \n4,034,789 \n80 \nKween DLG \n101 \n101 \n0 \n0 \n1,756,298,000 \n1,096,823,403 \n659,474,597 \n11,946,385 \n9,063,935 \n2,882,450 \n81 \nBulambuli DLG \n122 \n121 \n1 \n0 \n2,121,468,756 \n1,262,609,025", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "858,859,731 \n11,946,385 \n9,656,027 \n2,290,358 \n82 \nBusia MC \n8 \n8 \n0 \n0 \n139,113,706 \n85,712,532 \n53,401,174 \n11,946,385 \n7,100,000 \n4,846,385 \n83 \nKibuku DLG \n92 \n89 \n3 \n0 \n1,599,796,111 \n893,947,550 \n705,848,561 \n11,946,385 \n7,737,278 \n4,209,107 \n84 \nManafwa DLG \n156 \n156", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "156 \n156 \n0 \n0 \n2,695,308,665 \n1,687,160,853 1,008,147,812 \n11,946,385 \n8,627,577 \n3,318,808 \n85 \nBudaka DLG \n76 \n76 \n0 \n0 \n1,320,670,500 \n827,661,650 \n493,008,850 \n11,946,385 \n8,400,000 \n3,546,385 \n86 \nPallisa DLG \n80 \n45 \n35 \n0 \n1,412,724,851 \n951,539,734 \n461,185,117", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "461,185,117 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n87 \nKapchorwa DLG \n58 \n58 \n0 \n0 \n1,008,567,113 \n520,707,944 \n487,859,169 \n11,946,385 \n8,865,042 \n3,081,343 \n88 \nKapchorwa MC \n27 \n27 \n0 \n0 \n469,505,000 \n292,933,042 \n176,571,958 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,850 \n4,840,535 \n89 \nTororo MC \n8 \n8", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8 \n8 \n0 \n0 \n139,112,706 \n110,307,847 \n28,804,859 \n11,946,385 \n9,250,000 \n2,696,385 \n90 \nTerego DLG \n42 \n42 \n0 \n0 \n730,341,703 \n398,064,374 \n332,277,329 \n11,946,385 \n7,977,723 \n3,968,662 \n91 \nZombo DLG \n61 \n61 \n0 \n0 \n1,060,735,000 \n678,222,789 \n382,512,211 \n11,946,385", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,946,385 \n7,669,000 \n4,277,385 \n92 \nMoyo DLG \n47 \n45 \n2 \n0 \n706,051,014 \n439,531,469 \n266,519,545 \n11,946,385 \n6,380,000 \n5,566,385 \n93 \nNebbi DLG \n60 \n60 \n0 \n0 \n1,043,345,290 \n651,559,810 \n391,785,480 \n11,946,385 \n10,124,343 \n1,822,042 \n94 \nYumbe DLG \n196 \n90 \n106 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "106 \n0 \n3,425,652,368 \n2,137,360,883 1,288,291,485 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n95 \nPader DLG \n97 \n97 \n0 \n0 \n1,651,963,486 \n993,298,598 \n658,664,888 \n11,946,385 \n8,050,493 \n3,895,892 \n96 \nKoboko MC \n10 \n10 \n0 \n0 \n173,890,881 \n168,249,260 \n5,641,621 \n11,946,385 \n11,946,385", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,946,385 \n0 \n97 \nMaracha DLG \n91 \n91 \n0 \n0 \n1,582,407,023 \n986,511,015 \n595,896,008 \n11,946,385 \n7,106,112 \n4,840,273 \n98 \nPakwach DLG \n48 \n22 \n26 \n0 \n834,676,232 \n482,129,505 \n352,546,727 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n99 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n46 \n46 \n0 \n0 \n815,936,730", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "815,936,730 \n473,905,000 \n342,031,730 \n11,946,385 \n8,913,000 \n3,033,385 \n100 \nKoboko DLG \n49 \n49 \n0 \n0 \n852,065,320 \n527,025,427 \n325,039,893 \n11,946,385 \n8,347,641 \n3,598,744 \n101 \nAdjumani DLG \n56 \n56 \n0 \n0 \n973,788,936 \n973,788,936 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n14,000,000 \n02,053,615 \n02,053,615", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "318 \n \nsn \nEntity name \nNo. of \ngazetted \nparishes \nNo. of \nSACCOs \nfunded \nSACCO\ns not \nfunded \nSACCOs \nfunded in \nun-\ngazetted \nparishes \nApproved \nbudget \n(UGX) \nRelease (UGX) \nVariance \n(UGX) \nPlanned \nfunding per \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nActual \nfunding \nper \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nFunding \ngap per \nPDM \nSACCO \n(UGX) \n102 \nArua City \n54", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Arua City \n54 \n33 \n21 \n0 \n918,000,000 \n564,939,853 \n353,060,147 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n103 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n39 \n18 \n21 \n0 \n678,174,664 \n441,366,099 \n236,808,565 \n11,946,385 \n7,833,456 \n4,112,929 \n104 \nRakai DLG \n73 \n73 \n0 \n0 \n1,269,403,436 \n849,807,364", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "849,807,364 \n419,596,072 \n11,946,385 \n8,937,000 \n3,009,385 \n105 \nKalungu DLG \n37 \n37 \n0 \n0 \n642,899,262 \n353,131,018 \n289,768,244 \n11,946,385 \n7,692,038 \n4,254,347 \n106 \nSembabule DLG \n65 \n65 \n0 \n0 \n1,216,761,518 \n737,217,307 \n479,544,211 \n11,946,385 \n7,365,870 \n4,580,515 \n107", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "107 \nGomba DLG \n49 \n49 \n0 \n0 \n856,385,339 \n552,674,675 \n303,710,664 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,908 \n4,840,477 \n108 \nKyotera DLG \n66 \n66 \n0 \n0 \n1,147,679,819 \n715,961,473 \n431,718,346 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,909 \n4,840,476 \n109 \nLwengo DLG \n45 \n45 \n0 \n0 \n782,508,968 \n378,511,421", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "378,511,421 \n403,997,547 \n11,946,385 \n6,042,800 \n5,903,585 \n110 \nLyantonde DLG \n30 \n30 \n0 \n0 \n521,672,644 \n335,000,749 \n186,671,895 \n11,946,385 \n7,126,865 \n4,819,520 \n111 \nMubende MC \n18 \n18 \n0 \n0 \n313,273,586 \n195,291,675 \n117,981,911 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,908 \n4,840,477 \n112", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "112 \nBundibugyo DLG \n130 \n127 \n3 \n0 \n2,260,581,461 \n1,156,908,350 1,103,673,111 \n11,946,385 \n7,388,667 \n4,557,718 \n113 \nKyegegwa DLG \n81 \n33 \n48 \n0 \n1,408,516,141 \n878,812,536 \n529,703,605 \n11,946,385 \n14,578,630 \n02,632,245 \n114 \nKamwenge DLG \n62 \n62 \n0 \n0 \n1,078,123,466", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "681,449,903 \n396,673,563 \n11,946,385 \n7,247,499 \n4,698,886 \n115 \nKasese DLG \n197 \n196 \n1 \n0 \n3,425,650,569 \n2,234,298,995 1,191,351,574 \n11,946,385 \n9,173,111 \n2,773,274 \n116 \nKyenjojo DLG \n167 \n88 \n79 \n0 \n2,912,100,722 \n1,915,727,290 \n996,373,432 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n117", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "117 \nBunyangabu DLG \n49 \n48 \n1 \n0 \n852,065,320 \n559,378,893 \n292,686,427 \n11,946,385 \n7,975,809 \n3,970,576 \n118 \nKabarole DLG \n52 \n52 \n0 \n0 \n904,232,592 \n510,884,500 \n393,348,092 \n11,946,385 \n9,215,895 \n2,730,490 \n119 \nAlebtong DLG \n69 \n36 \n33 \n0 \n1,199,847,083 \n753,177,270", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "753,177,270 \n446,669,813 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n120 \nGulu DLG \n47 \n46 \n1 \n0 \n817,287,145 \n509,928,262 \n307,358,883 \n11,946,385 \n7,051,875 \n4,894,510 \n121 \nOyam DLG \n74 \n31 \n43 \n0 \n1,286,792,524 \n802,865,773 \n483,926,751 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n122 \nFort Portal City \n25", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Fort Portal City \n25 \n21 \n4 \n0 \n434,727,205 \n271,238,386 \n163,488,819 \n11,946,385 \n12,176,407 \n0230,022 \n123 \nKole DLG \n54 \n54 \n0 \n0 \n904,232,585 \n492,856,334 \n411,376,251 \n11,946,385 \n6,842,727 \n5,103,658 \n124 \nMasaka DLG \n18 \n6 \n12 \n0 \n313,003,586 \n195,291,674 \n117,711,912 \n11,946,385", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n125 \nMubende DLG \n79 \n79 \n0 \n0 \n1,373,737,963 \n709,240,137 \n664,497,826 \n11,946,385 \n7,565,422 \n4,380,963 \n126 \nMasaka City \n25 \n11 \n14 \n0 \n434,727,204 \n271,238,436 \n163,488,768 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n127 \nLamwo DLG \n86 \n41 \n45 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "45 \n0 \n1,495,461,583 \n973,176,329 \n522,285,254 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n128 \nLira City \n49 \n46 \n3 \n0 \n852,065,320 \n824,313,762 \n27,751,558 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n129 \nKalaki DLG \n34 \n34 \n0 \n0 \n591,228,997 \n368,884,274 \n222,344,723 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,909 \n4,840,476", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4,840,476 \n130 \nAmuria DLG \n98 \n97 \n1 \n0 \n1,721,519,728 \n1,080,551,952 \n640,967,776 \n11,946,385 \n6,443,889 \n5,502,496 \n131 \nAmolatar DLG \n85 \n85 \n0 \n0 \n1,473,171,913 \n932,085,746 \n541,086,167 \n11,946,385 \n6,147,023 \n5,799,362 \n132 \nSoroti City \n25 \n25 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n434,727,185 \n236,951,161 \n197,776,024 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,732 \n4,840,653 \n133 \nKumi DLG \n140 \n140 \n0 \n0 \n2,434,472,342 \n1,518,935,245 \n915,537,097 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,909 \n4,840,476 \n134 \nNgora DLG \n73 \n73 \n0 \n0 \n1,269,102,956 \n791,716,071 \n477,386,885 \n11,946,385 \n11,946,385 \n7,100,068 \n4,846,317 \n135 \nDokolo DLG \n71 \n34 \n37 \n0 \n1,234,625,269 \n672,938,455 \n561,686,814 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "319 \n \nsn \nEntity name \nNo. of \ngazetted \nparishes \nNo. of \nSACCOs \nfunded \nSACCO\ns not \nfunded \nSACCOs \nfunded in \nun-\ngazetted \nparishes \nApproved \nbudget \n(UGX) \nRelease (UGX) \nVariance \n(UGX) \nPlanned \nfunding per \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nActual \nfunding \nper \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nFunding \ngap per \nPDM \nSACCO \n(UGX) \n136 \nOtuke DLG \n54", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "54 \n27 \n27 \n0 \n921,621,673 \n571,754,473 \n349,867,200 \n11,946,385 \n16,917,979 \n04,971,594 \n137 \nKapelebyong DLG \n55 \n55 \n0 \n0 \n974,388,937 \n608,198,589 \n366,190,348 \n11,946,385 \n9,023,349 \n2,923,036 \n138 \nKumi MC \n14 \n14 \n0 \n0 \n243,446,691 \n120,417,747 \n123,028,944", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "123,028,944 \n11,946,385 \n6,067,894 \n5,878,491 \n139 \nSerere DLG \n70 \n70 \n0 \n0 \n1,217,236,171 \n682,281,990 \n534,954,181 \n11,946,385 \n8,123,331 \n3,823,054 \n140 \nNapak DLG \n57 \n57 \n0 \n0 \n1,095,419,354 \n858,991,663 \n236,427,691 \n11,946,385 \n13,448,637 \n01,502,252 \n141 \nMoroto MC \n4", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Moroto MC \n4 \n3 \n1 \n0 \n69,556,352 \n61,907,248 \n7,649,104 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n142 \nBukwo DLG \n109 \n98 \n11 \n0 \n1,895,410,609 \n1,033,082,696 \n862,327,913 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,909 \n4,840,476 \n143 \nArua DLG \n32 \n32 \n0 \n0 \n556,450,820 \n347,185,198 \n209,265,622", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "209,265,622 \n11,946,385 \n7,106,587 \n4,839,798 \n144 \nGulu City \n32 \n32 \n0 \n0 \n556,450,823 \n313,381,643 \n243,069,180 \n11,946,385 \n4,917,440 \n7,028,945 \n145 \nKaberamaido DLG \n29 \n29 \n0 \n0 \n504,283,556 \n290,995,752 \n213,287,804 \n11,946,385 \n7,672,267 \n4,274,118 \n146 \nKitgum DLG \n72 \n10", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "72 \n10 \n62 \n0 \n1,252,014,348 \n682,239,439 \n569,774,909 \n11,946,385 \n5,256,000 \n6,690,385 \n147 \nNwoya DLG \n44 \n44 \n0 \n0 \n765,119,880 \n477,379,649 \n287,740,231 \n11,946,385 \n2,365,097 \n9,581,288 \n148 \nObongi DLG \n28 \n28 \n0 \n0 \n486,984,469 \n303,651,310 \n183,333,159 \n11,946,385", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,946,385 \n7,629,837 \n4,316,548 \n149 \nAgago DLG \n117 \n117 \n0 \n0 \n2,034,523,315 \n1,269,395,885 \n765,127,430 \n11,946,385 \n6,682,994 \n5,263,391 \n150 \nApac DLG \n34 \n34 \n0 \n0 \n618,965,872 \n435,259,514 \n183,706,358 \n11,946,385 \n10,287,969 \n1,658,416 \n151 \nBusia DLG \n62 \n62 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "62 \n0 \n0 \n1,078,123,466 \n669,189,290 \n408,934,176 \n11,946,385 \n9,100,000 \n2,846,385 \n152 \nBuvuma DLG \n38 \n38 \n0 \n0 \n660,786,000 \n412,282,426 \n248,503,574 \n11,946,385 \n7,105,909 \n4,840,476 \n153 \nKalangala DLG \n17 \n7 \n10 \n0 \n295,614,499 \n164,145,696 \n131,468,803 \n11,946,385 \n17,257,207", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17,257,207 \n05,310,822 \n154 \nKitagwenda DLG \n55 \n55 \n0 \n0 \n956,399,849 \n596,724,562 \n359,675,287 \n11,946,385 \n6,226,492 \n5,719,893 \n155 \nKitgum MC \n11 \n11 \n0 \n0 \n191,279,869 \n120,055,510 \n71,224,359 \n11,946,385 \n5,074,250 \n6,872,135 \n156 \nMukono MC \n9 \n9 \n0 \n0 \n156,501,794", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "156,501,794 \n89,661,841 \n66,839,953 \n11,946,385 \n4,000,000 \n7,946,385 \n157 \nEntebbe MC \n4 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n69,556,352 \n43,398,149 \n26,158,203 \n11,946,385 \n7,833,456 \n4,112,929 \n158 \nAmuru DLG \n58 \n57 \n1 \n0 \n1,008,567,113 \n629,273,174 \n379,293,939 \n11,946,385 \n5,138,441 \n6,807,944 \n159", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "159 \nKwania DLG \n49 \n49 \n0 \n0 \n852,065,320 \n476,124,221 \n375,941,099 \n11,946,385 \n7,106,101 \n4,840,283 \n160 \nLira DLG \n58 \n58 \n0 \n0 \n1,008,567,305 \n741,506,271 \n267,061,034 \n11,946,385 \n11,784,032 \n162,353 \n161 \nBuikwe DLG \n52 \n31 \n21 \n0 \n539,061,733 \n336,335,896 \n202,725,837", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "202,725,837 \n11,946,385 \n0 \n11,946,385 \n162 \nIbanda MC \n21 \n21 \n0 \n0 \n365,170,852 \n225,303,469 \n139,867,383 \n11,946,385 \n7,534,478 \n4,411,907 \n163 \nButambala DLG \n25 \n25 \n0 \n0 \n434,727,205 \n210,284,125 \n224,443,080 \n11,946,385 \n8,274,000 \n3,672,385 \n164 \nAmudat DLG \n44 \n44 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n765,119,880 \n476,971,254 \n288,148,626 \n11,946,385 \n7,094,582 \n4,851,803 \n165 \nNtoroko DLG \n47 \n47 \n0 \n0 \n817,287,144 \n535,605,345 \n281,681,799 \n11,946,385 \n7,652,220 \n4,294,165 \n166 \nKasese MC \n18 \n18 \n0 \n0 \n313,003,586 \n161,295,519 \n151,708,067 \n11,946,385 \n7,037,782", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7,037,782 \n4,908,603 \n167 \nKassanda DLG \n92 \n32 \n60 \n0 \n1,599,796,111 \n998,157,448 \n601,638,663 \n11,946,385 \n17,000,000 \n05,053,615 \n168 \nOmoro DLG \n65 \n65 \n0 \n0 \n1,130,290,730 \n705,219,936 \n425,070,794 \n11,946,385 \n7,313,254 \n4,633,131 \n169 \nLuwero DLG \n101 \n100 \n1 \n0 \n1 \n0 \n1,756,297,905 \n1,153,005,475 \n603,292,430 \n11,946,385 \n7,997,000 \n3,949,385", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "320 \n \nsn \nEntity name \nNo. of \ngazetted \nparishes \nNo. of \nSACCOs \nfunded \nSACCO\ns not \nfunded \nSACCOs \nfunded in \nun-\ngazetted \nparishes \nApproved \nbudget \n(UGX) \nRelease (UGX) \nVariance \n(UGX) \nPlanned \nfunding per \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nActual \nfunding \nper \nSACCO \n(UGX) \nFunding \ngap per \nPDM \nSACCO \n(UGX) \n \nTotal \n10,191", "metadata": {"page": 336, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Total \n10,191 \n8,703 \n1,502 \n0 \n175,429,879,\n581 \n108,857,715,3\n67 \n66,572,164,\n214 \n \n \n \n \nAppendix 5 b: Parish Development Model \nSN \nEntity name \nFunds \nrepurposed to \nthe revolving \nfund \nFunds diverted \nfrom the \nrevolving fund \nFailure to send funds \ndirectly to the PDM \nSACCO Amount \nNumber of \nunregistered \nSACCOs \n Amount sent to \nunregistered SACCOS \nAmount \nunaccounted for \n1 \nKagadi DLG", "metadata": {"page": 336, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kagadi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nKibaale DLG \n139,623,956 \n0 \n446,506,992 \n57 \n446,506,992 \n0 \n3 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n602,411,574 \n0 \n1,121,394,573 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n4 \nBuliisa DLG \n4,585,581 \n0 \n225,593,699 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5 \nKiboga DLG \n194,863,213 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 336, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n673,117,066 \n58 \n673,117,066 \n0 \n6 \nKiryandongo DLG \n11,035,537 \n0 \n305,554,087 \n43 \n305,554,087 \n0 \n7 \nKayunga DLG \n0 \n53,213,435 \n430,432,548 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n8 \nKira MC \n25,355,296 \n0 \n51,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n9 \nMukono DLG \n110,557,437 \n0 \n639,044,406 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 336, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \nNakaseke DLG \n188,059,087 \n0 \n612,155,745 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11 \nNansana MC \n19,648,782 \n0 \n217,536,255 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12 \nWakiso DLG \n422,411,449 \n0 \n1,083,778,521 \n98 \n1,083,778,521 \n0 \n13 \nBuhweju DLG \n105,977,134 \n0 \n512,154,216 \n68 \n512,154,216 \n0 \n14", "metadata": {"page": 336, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n14 \nKabale DLG \n75,892,014 \n0 \n476,095,903 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n15 \nKanungu DLG \n0 \n0 \n649,232,325 \n36 \n649,232,325 \n0 \n16 \nKisoro DLG \n76,476,259 \n0 \n444,561,910 \n58 \n444,561,910 \n0 \n17 \nMbarara City \n14,630,844 \n0 \n152,014,268 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n18 \nRubirizi DLG \n116,507,539", "metadata": {"page": 336, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "116,507,539 \n0 \n485,643,852 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n19 \nRukungiri DLG \n178,162,896 \n0 \n660,785,344 \n39 \n660,785,344 \n0 \n20 \nRwampara DLG \n32,848,782 \n0 \n206,528,709 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n21 \nBugiri DLG \n148,986,153 \n0 \n646,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n22 \nBugiri MC \n6,796,300 \n0 \n34,290,630 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 336, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n23 \nBugweri DLG \n105,582,934 \n0 \n320,617,860 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n24 \nIganga DLG \n186,569,757 \n0 \n354,135,967 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n25 \nIganga MC \n14,294,884 \n0 \n80,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \nJinja City \n40,494,619 \n0 \n195,797,611 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 336, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "321 \n \nSN \nEntity name \nFunds \nrepurposed to \nthe revolving \nfund \nFunds diverted \nfrom the \nrevolving fund \nFailure to send funds \ndirectly to the PDM \nSACCO Amount \nNumber of \nunregistered \nSACCOs \n Amount sent to \nunregistered SACCOS \nAmount \nunaccounted for \n27 \nJinja DLG \n38,512,366 \n0 \n244,388,400 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n28 \nKamuli MC \n0 \n0 \n85,054,970 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n29 \nLuuka DLG", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Luuka DLG \n127,715,688 \n0 \n510,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n30 \nMayuge DLG \n270,104,947 \n0 \n771,911,058 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n31 \nNamayingo DLG \n56,635,832 \n0 \n359,176,351 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n32 \nNebbi MC \n31,902,007 \n0 \n85,667,800 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n33 \nButaleja DLG \n108,982,819 \n0 \n453,962,621", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "453,962,621 \n76 \n562,945,440 \n0 \n34 \nTororo DLG \n258,488,000 \n0 \n1,184,332,817 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n35 \nKazo DLG \n76,000,000 \n0 \n476,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n36 \nKiruhura DLG \n185,754,545 \n0 \n520,802,132 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n37 \nMbale DLG \n102,005,164 \n0 \n756,363,187 \n67 \n756,363,187 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n38 \nBududa DLG \n180,102,000 \n0 \n1,129,839,000 \n159 \n1,129,839,000 \n0 \n39 \nMityana DLG \n208,132,547 \n0 \n594,967,852 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n40 \nNakasongola DLG \n77,024,730 \n0 \n534,240,626 \n6 \n47,138,879 \n0 \n41 \nMitooma DLG \n191,792,187 \n0 \n651,728,000 \n73 \n651,728,000 \n0 \n42 \nRubanda DLG", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Rubanda DLG \n78,157,447 \n0 \n490,307,721 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n43 \nRukiga DLG \n33,918,498 \n0 \n213,177,269 \n13 \n213,918,498 \n0 \n44 \nSheema MC \n26,052,482 \n0 \n163,435,906 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n45 \nBukedea DLG \n172,172,948 \n0 \n1,080,098,233 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n46 \nKatakwi DLG \n195,491,952 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n846,569,922 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n47 \nSoroti DLG \n67,204,885 \n0 \n389,757,273 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n48 \nMoroto DLG \n57,371,962 \n0 \n511,334,582 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n49 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n50 \nMbale City \n68,465,226 \n0 \n375,062,679 \n47 \n375,062,679 \n0 \n51", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n51 \nSironko DLG \n765,170,964 \n0 \n1,792,400,736 \n224 \n1,792,400,736 \n0 \n52 \nButebo DLG \n0 \n129,639,841 \n348,905,563 \n61 \n348,905,563 \n0 \n53 \nNamisindwa DLG \n281,963,611 \n0 \n1,255,594,106 \n163 \n1,255,594,106 \n0 \n54 \nMakindye0Ssabagabo MC \n8,863,749 \n0 \n74,294,282 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n55 \nMityana MC \n16,990,750 \n0 \n106,588,636 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n56 \nMpigi DLG \n6,786,926 \n0 \n341,285,699 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n57 \nIbanda DLG \n153,625,148 \n0 \n396,122,422 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n58 \nMbarara DLG \n52,104,966 \n0 \n326,989,932 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n59 \nSheema DLG \n52,705,304 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n333,977,728 \n51 \n333,977,728 \n0 \n60 \nNjeru MC \n0 \n0 \n144,800,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n61 \nNamutumba DLG \n237,976,652 \n0 \n901,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "322 \n \nSN \nEntity name \nFunds \nrepurposed to \nthe revolving \nfund \nFunds diverted \nfrom the \nrevolving fund \nFailure to send funds \ndirectly to the PDM \nSACCO Amount \nNumber of \nunregistered \nSACCOs \n Amount sent to \nunregistered SACCOS \nAmount \nunaccounted for \n62 \nLugazi MC \n14,630,714 \n0 \n134,094,562 \n0 \n0 \n7,057,609 \n63 \nKamuli DLG \n282,492,532 \n0 \n760,347,922 \n77 \n760,347,922", "metadata": {"page": 338, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "760,347,922 \n0 \n64 \nKaliro DLG \n98,546,346 \n0 \n669,415,608 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n65 \nBuyende DLG \n82,688,314 \n0 \n436,043,043 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n66 \nBushenyi DLG \n159,529,388 \n0 \n500,001,354 \n56 \n500,001,354 \n0 \n67 \nIshaka0 Bushenyi MC \n18,134,466 \n0 \n135,560,041 \n16 \n135,650,041 \n0 \n68", "metadata": {"page": 338, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n68 \nIsingiro DLG \n507,727,681 \n0 \n1,290,215,882 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n69 \nKabale MC \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n70 \nKisoro MC \n11,893,525 \n0 \n49,906,927 \n7 \n49,906,927 \n0 \n71 \nNtungamo DLG \n177,397,292 \n0 \n1,401,258,493 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n72 \nNtungamo MC \n0 \n0 N/A \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 338, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n73 \nRukungiri MC \n13,592,600 \n0 \n114,652,374 \n12 \n114,652,374 \n0 \n74 \nHoima City \n0 \n0 \n95,571,078 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n75 \nMasindi DLG \n52,104,965 \n0 \n326,871,814 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n76 \nMasindi MC \n18,511,222 \n0 \n84,216,532 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n77 \nKikuube DLG \n32,848,782", "metadata": {"page": 338, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "32,848,782 \n0 \n206,071,361 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n78 \nHoima DLG \n33,428,795 \n0 \n368,101,668 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n79 \nKakumiro DLG \n214,674,248 \n0 \n841,859,446 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n80 \nKween DLG \n312,165,004 \n0 \n915,457,434 \n101 \n915,457,434 \n0 \n81 \nBulambuli DLG \n449,305,824 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 338, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n1,178,035,294 \n121 \n1,168,379,267 \n0 \n82 \nBusia MC \n9,061,734 \n0 \n56,800,000 \n8 \n56,800,000 \n0 \n83 \nKibuku DLG \n139,084,068 \n0 \n688,617,766 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n84 \nManafwa DLG \n414,574,586 \n0 \n1,345,901,947 \n156 \n1,345,901,947 \n0 \n85 \nBudaka DLG \n0 \n0 \n696,395,770 \n73", "metadata": {"page": 338, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "73 \n696,395,770 \n0 \n86 \nPallisa DLG \n0 \n0 \n765,000,000 \n45 \n765,000,000 \n0 \n87 \nKapchorwa DLG \n167,727,288 \n0 \n514,172,444 \n58 \n514,172,444 \n0 \n88 \nKapchorwa MC \n30,583,000 \n0 \n191,860,042 \n27 \n191,860,042 \n0 \n89 \nTororo MC \n0 \n0 \n74,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n90 \nTerego DLG", "metadata": {"page": 338, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Terego DLG \n85,190,295 \n0 \n336,064,374 \n42 \n336,064,374 \n0 \n91 \nZombo DLG \n467,809,017 \n0 \n467,809,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n92 \nMoyo DLG \n0 \n0 \n287,100,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n93 \nNebbi DLG \n185,436,733 \n0 \n607,460,580 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n94 \nYumbe DLG \n313,042,456 \n0 \n1,526,761,354", "metadata": {"page": 338, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n95 \nPader DLG \n53,804,040 \n0 \n780,897,821 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n96 \nKoboko MC \n0 \n0 \n119,463,847 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 338, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "323 \n \nSN \nEntity name \nFunds \nrepurposed to \nthe revolving \nfund \nFunds diverted \nfrom the \nrevolving fund \nFailure to send funds \ndirectly to the PDM \nSACCO Amount \nNumber of \nunregistered \nSACCOs \n Amount sent to \nunregistered SACCOS \nAmount \nunaccounted for \n97 \nMaracha DLG \n103,095,772 \n0 \n646,656,278 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n98 \nPakwach DLG \n81,555,598 \n0 \n368,268,830 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n99", "metadata": {"page": 339, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n99 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n0 \n0 \n409,998,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n100 \nKoboko DLG \n146,087,826 \n0 \n438,774,252 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n101 \nAdjumani DLG \n115,002,455 \n0 \n784,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n102 \nArua City \n0 \n0 \n564,939,853 \n15 \n255,000,000 \n0 \n103 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n0 \n0 \n305,995,370", "metadata": {"page": 339, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "305,995,370 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n104 \nRakai DLG \n124,032,471 \n0 \n652,429,223 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n105 \nKalungu DLG \n64,289,926 \n0 \n284,605,389 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n106 \nSembabule DLG \n128,462,780 \n0 \n478,781,550 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n107 \nGomba DLG \n35,529,540 \n0 \n348,215,767 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n108", "metadata": {"page": 339, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n108 \nKyotera DLG \n74,759,298 \n0 \n468,989,994 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n109 \nLwengo DLG \n3,132,343 \n0 \n271,926,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n110 \nLyantonde DLG \n34,564,119 \n0 \n213,759,890 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n111 \nMubende MC \n20,388,900 \n0 \n127,906,363 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n112 \nBundibugyo DLG \n298,410,307 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 339, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n960,057,188 \n127 \n960,115,919 \n0 \n113 \nKyegegwa DLG \n91,750,048 \n0 \n575,578,630 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n114 \nKamwenge DLG \n79,007,003 \n0 \n449,344,938 \n62 \n449,344,938 \n0 \n115 \nKasese DLG \n571,631,558 \n0 \n1,733,717,779 \n196 \n1,733,717,979 \n0 \n116 \nKyenjojo DLG \n275,641,516 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 339, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n1,484,926,831 \n88 \n1,484,926,831 \n0 \n117 \nBunyangabu DLG \n90,152,406 \n0 \n382,838,832 \n48 \n382,838,832 \n0 \n118 \nKabarole DLG \n168,620,537 \n0 \n479,226,540 \n52 \n479,226,540 \n0 \n119 \nAlebtong DLG \n193,804,280 \n0 \n605,954,554 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n120 \nGulu DLG \n6,211,063 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 339, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n286,951,103 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n121 \nOyam DLG \n83,821,030 \n0 \n525,837,266 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n122 \nFort Portal City \n108,026,667 \n0 \n255,704,547 \n21 \n255,704,547 \n0 \n123 \nKole DLG \n58,901,264 \n0 \n369,507,268 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n124 \nMasaka DLG \n20,388,899 \n0 \n99,600,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n125", "metadata": {"page": 339, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n125 \nMubende DLG \n89,484,617 \n0 \n561,366,823 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n126 \nMasaka City \n28,317,916 \n0 \n177,647,725 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n127 \nLamwo DLG \n183,305,456 \n0 \n697,000,000 \n41 \n697,000,000 \n0 \n128 \nLira City \n196,098,471 \n0 \n781,471,322 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n129 \nKalaki DLG \n51,739,782 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 339, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n254,828,322 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n130 \nAmuria DLG \n43,657,420 \n0 \n635,003,465 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n131 \nAmolatar DLG \n137,475,698 \n0 \n659,972,691 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 339, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "324 \n \nSN \nEntity name \nFunds \nrepurposed to \nthe revolving \nfund \nFunds diverted \nfrom the \nrevolving fund \nFailure to send funds \ndirectly to the PDM \nSACCO Amount \nNumber of \nunregistered \nSACCOs \n Amount sent to \nunregistered SACCOS \nAmount \nunaccounted for \n132 \nSoroti City \n28,317,916 \n0 \n177,647,728 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n133 \nKumi DLG \n158,580,328 \n0 \n994,827,260 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n134", "metadata": {"page": 340, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n134 \nNgora DLG \n241,999,964 \n0 \n518,304,964 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n135 \nDokolo DLG \n153,903,341 \n0 \n578,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n136 \nOtuke DLG \n140,206,260 \n0 \n456,785,456 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n137 \nKapelebyong DLG \n161,760,977 \n0 \n496,284,240 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n138 \nKumi MC \n18,880,705 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 340, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n84,950,521 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n139 \nSerere DLG \n67,859,764 \n0 \n568,633,170 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n140 \nNapak DLG \n0 \n0 \n766,572,309 \n57 \n766,572,309 \n0 \n141 \nMoroto MC \n6,000,000 \n0 \n46,136,435 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n142 \nBukwo DLG \n168,747,224 \n0 \n651,077,968 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n143 \nArua DLG", "metadata": {"page": 340, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Arua DLG \n36,246,932 \n0 \n227,389,088 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n144 \nGulu City \n0 \n93,782,026 \n157,358,080 \n0 \n0 \n11,233,000 \n145 \nKaberamaido DLG \n49,273,173 \n0 \n222,495,752 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n146 \nKitgum DLG \n81,555,596 \n0 \n52,560,000 \n0 \n0 \n241,516,100 \n147 \nNwoya DLG \n49,839,532 \n0 \n104,064,268", "metadata": {"page": 340, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "104,064,268 \n0 \n0 \n276,158,113 \n148 \nObongi DLG \n16,723,001 \n0 \n213,635,452 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n149 \nAgago DLG \n90,038,926 \n0 \n788,902,434 \n117 \n788,902,434 \n0 \n150 \nApac DLG \n0 \n0 \n349,790,966 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n151 \nBusia DLG \n165,624,265 \n0 \n564,200,000 \n62 \n564,200,000 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 340, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n152 \nBuvuma DLG \n43,043,234 \n0 \n270,024,544 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n153 \nKalangala DLG \n19,256,182 \n0 \n120,800,452 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n154 \nKitagwenda DLG \n13,931,479 \n0 \n342,457,060 \n55 \n342,457,060 \n0 \n155 \nKitgum MC \n33,690,512 \n0 \n59,883,750 \n11 \n59,883,750 \n0 \n156 \nMukono MC \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 340, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n44,919,841 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n157 \nEntebbe MC \n4,530,867 \n0 \n28,423,636 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n158 \nAmuru DLG \n0 \n48,415,580 \n298,029,578 \n0 \n0 \n58,827,429 \n159 \nKwania DLG \n111,010,105 \n0 \n348,198,967 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n160 \nLira DLG \n232,449,790 \n0 \n683,489,847 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 340, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n161 \nBuikwe DLG \n20,279,133 \n0 \n220,290,991 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n162 \nIbanda MC \n32,787,050 \n0 \n158,224,038 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n163 \nButambala DLG \n60,953,556 \n0 \n210,284,125 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n164 \nAmudat DLG \n0 \n33,018,689 \n312,161,601 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n165 \nNtoroko DLG \n76,300,139 \n0 \n0 \n359,654,807 \n48 \n382,838,832 \n0 \n166 \nKasese MC \n53,158,768 \n0 \n128,680,076 \n18 \n126,680,076 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 340, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "325 \n \nSN \nEntity name \nFunds \nrepurposed to \nthe revolving \nfund \nFunds diverted \nfrom the \nrevolving fund \nFailure to send funds \ndirectly to the PDM \nSACCO Amount \nNumber of \nunregistered \nSACCOs \n Amount sent to \nunregistered SACCOS \nAmount \nunaccounted for \n167 \nKassanda DLG \n104,209,930 \n0 \n544,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n168 \nOmoro DLG \n87,104,006 \n0 \n475,361,510 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n169", "metadata": {"page": 341, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n169 \nLuwero DLG \n300,181,433 \n0 \n807,697,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \nTotal \n17,891,724,298 \n358,069,571 \n79,214,076,265 \n3,214 \n29,523,564,220 \n594,792,251 \n \nAppendix 6 a: Funding for DRDIP subprojects \nSN \nEntity Name \nApproved budget \n(UGX) \nWarrants/ Release \n(UGX) \nUnder funding \n(UGX) \nTransfers/ \nExpenditure (UGX) \nFailure to fund subprojects", "metadata": {"page": 341, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unutilised warrants \nNumber of \nsubprojects \nnot funded \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n26,629,455,734 \n20,112,227,243 \n6,517,228,491 \n 20,112,227,243 \n 0 \n0 \n2 \nArua DLG \n12,211,720,404 \n7,703,246,463 \n4,508,473,941 \n 7,596,050,122 \n 107,196,341 \n0 \n3 \nHoima DLG \n11,402,789,340", "metadata": {"page": 341, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11,402,789,340 \n7,886,733,487 \n3,516,055,853 \n 7,886,733,487 \n 0 \n0 \n4 \nIsingiro DLG \n36,952,472,146 \n20,645,657,738 \n16,306,814,408 \n 20,645,657,738 \n 0 \n0 \n5 \nKamwenge DLG \n16,096,871,843 \n15,526,567,396 \n570,304,447 \n 13,642,495,005 \n 1,884,072,391 \n1 \n6 \nKikuube DLG \n14,763,545,466", "metadata": {"page": 341, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "14,763,545,466 \n0 \n 14,763,545,466 \n 0 \n0 \n7 \nKiryandongo DLG \n13,147,932,451 \n11,153,517,611 \n1,994,414,840 \n 11,153,517,611 \n 0 \n0 \n8 \nKoboko DLG \n12,972,115,413 \n10,398,654,382 \n2,573,461,031 \n 10,397,654,382 \n 1,000,000 \n0 \n9 \nKyegegwa DLG \n13,158,909,516 \n12,952,563,516 \n206,346,000", "metadata": {"page": 341, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "206,346,000 \n 1,519,174,433 \n 11,433,389,083 \n45 \n10 \nLamwo DLG \n24,133,897,361 \n20,214,341,243 \n3,919,556,118 \n 20,214,341,243 \n 0 \n0 \n11 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n18,612,180,000 \n8,727,243,898 \n9,884,936,102 \n 8,727,243,898 \n 0 \n0 \n12 \nMoyo DLG \n12,353,082,000 \n4,377,696,778 \n7,975,385,222 \n 4,377,684,416", "metadata": {"page": 341, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "12,362 \n0 \n13 \nObongi DLG \n30,708,745,913 \n17,640,110,305 \n13,068,635,608 \n 17,639,083,305 \n 1,027,000 \n0 \n14 \nTerego DLG \n19,147,604,808 \n19,147,604,808 \n0 \n 19,147,298,822 \n 305,986 \n0 \n15 \nYumbe DLG \n22,849,046,751 \n20,733,598,950 \n2,115,447,801 \n 20,733,598,950 \n 0 \n0 \n \n Total \nTotal \n285,140,369,146 \n211,983,309,284 \n73,157,059,862 \n198,556,306,121 \n13,427,003,163 \n46", "metadata": {"page": 341, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "326 \n \nAppendix 6 b: DRDIP \u2013 Implementation of Infrastructure subprojects funded in FY2021/22 \n \n \nInfrastructure subprojects funded in FY2021/22 \nSN \nEntity Name \n Total funds \ndisbursed \n \nNumber \nof \nprojects \nfunded \n \nFully Implemented \nPartially implemented \nNot implemented \nNumber \nSubproject \nValue \nNumber \n Subproject \nValue \nNumber \n Subproject value \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n17,327,580,369 \n33 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n33 \n17,327,580,369 \n2", "metadata": {"page": 342, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \nArua DLG \n7,420,864,349 \n13 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n410,864,349 \n10 \n7,010,000,000 \n3 \nHoima DLG \n5,108,839,519 \n11 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11 \n5,108,839,519 \n4 \nIsingiro DLG \n14,696,882,245 \n13 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n13 \n14,696,882,245 \n5 \nKamwenge DLG \n8,281,650,800 \n9 \n4", "metadata": {"page": 342, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "9 \n4 \n5,347,500,000 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n2,934,150,800 \n6 \nKikuube DLG \n10,772,200,000 \n13 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n13 \n10,772,200,000 \n7 \nKiryandongo DLG \n8,334,384,709 \n11 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11 \n8,334,384,709 \n8 \nKoboko DLG \n5,881,538,969 \n10 \n2 \n707,000,000 \n1 \n989,800,000 \n7", "metadata": {"page": 342, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7 \n4,184,738,969 \n9 \nKyegegwa DLG \n1,005,487,006 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n1,005,487,006 \n10 \nLamwo DLG \n12,880,500,000 \n12 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12 \n12,880,500,000 \n11 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n7,516,671,712 \n9 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n9 \n7,516,671,712 \n12 \nMoyo DLG \n2,292,750,000", "metadata": {"page": 342, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2,292,750,000 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n2,292,750,000 \n13 \nObongi DLG \n11,191,012,386 \n14 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \n11,191,012,386 \n14 \nTerego DLG \n13,421,816,827 \n14 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \n13,421,816,827 \n15 \nYumbe DLG \n16,734,700,000 \n25 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n25 \n16,734,700,000", "metadata": {"page": 342, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "16,734,700,000 \n \n Total \n142,866,878,891 \n192 \n6 \n6,054,500,000 \n4 \n1,400,664,349 \n182 \n135,411,714,542 \n \nAppendix 6 c: DRDIP \u2013 Implementation of Livelihoods Program FY2021/22 \n \n \nLivelihoods Program FY2021/22 \nSN \nEntity Name \nTotal funds \ndisbursed \n \nNumber \nof \nprojects \nfunded \nFully Implemented \nPartially implemented \nNot implemented \nNumber \nSubproject Value Number \nSubproject Value Number \n Subproject Value \n1 \nAdjumani DLG", "metadata": {"page": 342, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Adjumani DLG \n1,665,000,000 \n30 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n30 \n1,665,000,000 \n2 \nArua DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \nHoima DLG \n999,000,000 \n54 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n54 \n999,000,000 \n4 \nIsingiro DLG \n3,567,700,000 \n11 \n11 \n3,567,700,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5", "metadata": {"page": 342, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n5 \nKamwenge DLG \n3,424,850,000 \n170 \n165 \n3,147,350,000 \n5 \n277,500,000 \n0 \n0 \n6 \nKikuube DLG \n1,409,200,000 \n35 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n35 \n1,409,200,000 \n7 \nKiryandongo DLG \n1,965,649,500 \n49 \n0 \n \n24 \n786,149,500 \n25 \n1,179,500,000 \n8 \nKoboko DLG \n2,014,500,000 \n43 \n0 \n43 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n43 \n2,014,500,000 \n9 \nKyegegwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 342, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "327 \n \n10 \nLamwo DLG \n4,803,163,682 \n106 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n106 \n4,803,163,682 \n11 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n610,500,000 \n11 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11 \n610,500,000 \n12 \nMoyo DLG \n1,604,500,000 \n29 \n0 \n0 \n29 \n1,604,500,000 \n0 \n0 \n13 \nObongi DLG \n1,998,000,000 \n36 \n36", "metadata": {"page": 343, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "36 \n36 \n1,998,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \nTerego DLG \n2,301,831,152 \n38 \n0 \n0 \n35 \n2,135,331,152 \n3 \n166,500,000 \n15 \nYumbe DLG \n3,420,300,000 \n56 \n0 \n0 \n56 \n3,420,300,000 \n0 \n0 \n \n Total \n29,784,194,334 \n668 \n212 \n8,713,050,000 \n149 \n8,223,780,652 \n307 \n12,847,363,682", "metadata": {"page": 343, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Appendix 6 d: DRDIP \u2013 Implementation of Sustainable Environmental Management FY2021/22 \n \n \nSustainable Environmental Management FY2021/22 \nSN \nEntity Name \nTotal funds \ndisbursed \nNumber \nof \nprojects \nfunded \nFully Implemented \nPartially implemented \nNot implemented \nNumber \nSubproject \nValue \nNumber \nSubproject \nValue \nNumber \n Subproject Value \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n509,043,120 \n10 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \n509,043,120 \n2 \nArua DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 343, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \nHoima DLG \n1,412,387,418 \n26 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \n1,412,387,418 \n4 \nIsingiro DLG \n1,859,059,593 \n26 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \n1,859,059,593 \n5 \nKamwenge DLG \n1,406,893,658 \n \n \n \n \n \n0 \n1,406,893,658 \n6 \nKikuube DLG", "metadata": {"page": 343, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kikuube DLG \n1,935,293,956 \n26 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \n1,935,293,956 \n7 \nKiryandongo DLG \n283,464,452 \n5 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n283,464,452 \n8 \nKoboko DLG \n1,985,681,487 \n33 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n33 \n1,985,681,487 \n9 \nKyegegwa DLG \n1,322,186,276 \n5 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 343, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n5 \n1,322,186,276 \n10 \nLamwo DLG \n1,960,570,627 \n87 \n0 \n0 \n \n0 \n87 \n1,960,570,627 \n11 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n125,046,186 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n125,046,186 \n12 \nMoyo DLG \n58,628,518 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n58,628,518 \n13 \nObongi DLG \n4,180,957,919 \n56", "metadata": {"page": 343, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "56 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n56 \n4,180,957,919 \n14 \nTerego DLG \n2,664,680,803 \n33 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n33 \n2,664,680,803 \n15 \nYumbe DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n Total \n19,703,894,013 \n309 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n309 \n19,703,894,013", "metadata": {"page": 343, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "328 \n \nAppendix 6 e: DRDIP \u2013 Procurement and other issues \nSN \nEntity Name \nNo of \nsubpro\njects \nwithou\nt ESN \nplans \nAmount \ntransferred to \nSACCOs without \nESN plans \nProcurements not cleared \nby the CPMCs \nFailure to appoint \ncontract managers from \nsector specialists or \nuser groups \nIdle Subprojects/not put \nto use \nClosed subprojects with \nbank balances \nNumber \nof files \nfor \nprocurem\nents not \nun \ncleared \nValue of \nprocurements \nnot un cleared \nNum\nber \nAmount", "metadata": {"page": 344, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ber \nAmount \nNumbe\nr \n Subproject \nValue \nNumber \nof \ncomplet\ned \nsubproj\nects \n Bank balance \n1 \nArua DLG \n0 \n0 \n13 \n491,001,312 \n \n \n1 \n510,000,000 \n17 \n613,102,573 \n2 \nHoima DLG \n26 \n1,407,387,418 \n \n \n26 \n1,412,387,418 \n1 \n688,297,523 \n0 \n0 \n3 \nKamwenge DLG \n16", "metadata": {"page": 344, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "16 \n835,731,105 \n \n \n \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n4 \nKiryandongo DLG \n11 \n7,327,345,726 \n \n \n5 \n283,464,450 \n14 \n1,070,510,393 \n0 \n0 \n5 \nKyegegwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n346,005,089 \n0 \n0 \n6 \nLamwo DLG \n1 \n1,010,000,000 \n \n \n \n \n0", "metadata": {"page": 344, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n7 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n0 \n0 \n \n \n \n \n1 \n511,378,045 \n0 \n0 \n8 \nMoyo DLG \n3 \n1,705,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n1,540,000,000 \n24 \n656,944,873 \n9 \nObongi DLG \n0 \n0 \n49 \n1,392,416,899 \n36 \n20,164,999,998 \n3 \n2,577,000,000 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 344, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n10 \nTerego DLG \n0 \n0 \n37 \n2,763,016,118 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n11 \nYumbe DLG \n0 \n0 \n \n \n \n \n8 \n4,203,990,984 \n25 \n1,481,757,510 \n \n Total \n57 \n12,285,464,249 \n99 \n4,646,434,329 \n67 \n21,860,851,866 \n32 \n11,447,182,034 \n66 \n2,751,804,956", "metadata": {"page": 344, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Appendix 6 f: DRDIP - Inspections of service delivery activities funded in 2019/20 and 2020/21 \n \n \nInspections of service delivery activities funded in 2019/20 and 2020/21 \nSN \nEntity Name \nInfrastructure subprojects \nLivelihood Subgroups \nSustainable \nEnvironmental \nManagement \nFully implemented \nStalled Infrastructure \nsubprojects \nFully implemented \nPartially implemented \nStalled SENRM \nsubprojects \n \n \nNumber \nSubproject \nValue \nNumber \nSubproject \nValue \nNumber \nSubproject \nValue \nNumber \nSubproject \nValue \nNumber \nSubproject \nValue \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n4", "metadata": {"page": 344, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4 \n4,203,784,747 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n70,100,000 \n10 \n542,077,962 \n2 \nArua DLG \n4 \n1,847,159,741 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n112,541,568 \n3 \nHoima DLG \n3 \n \n \n \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n \n4 \nIsingiro DLG \n6 \n \n1 \n1,921,428,820 \n3,567,700,000 \n \n \n5 \nKamwenge DLG \n3 \n \n \n \n3 \n \n0 \n \n10 \n646,977,898", "metadata": {"page": 344, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "329 \n \n6 \nKikuube DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n7 \nKiryandongo DLG \n3 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n8 \nKoboko DLG \n3 \n1,578,500,000 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n18,500,000 \n \n \n6 \n277,286,100 \n9 \nKyegegwa DLG \n12 \n8,614,602,139 \n1", "metadata": {"page": 345, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1 \n1,800,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \nLamwo DLG \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n11 \nMadi0Okollo DLG \n2 \n \n0 \n0 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n12 \nMoyo DLG \n1 \n580,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n55,500,000 \n3 \n55,500,000 \n1 \n54,285,664 \n13 \nObongi DLG", "metadata": {"page": 345, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Obongi DLG \n2 \n1,300,000,000 \n1 \n419,597,795 \n3 \n59,500,000 \n \n \n88 \n4,836,949,177 \n14 \nTerego DLG \n \n \n \n \n2 \n \n0 \n \n32 \n2,174,274,965 \n15 \nYumbe DLG \n23 \n12,862,999,998 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n19 \n1,572,500,000 \n30 \n1,304,714,817 \n \n Total \n66 \n30,987,046,625", "metadata": {"page": 345, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \n4,141,026,615 \n14 \n133,500,000 \n25 \n5,265,800,000 \n179 \n9,949,108,151 \n \n \n \nAppendix 7 a: Budget allocation of the micro scale irrigation program \nsn \nEntity \nCapital Development (micro scale irrigation equipment) \n(75%) \nComplementary services (25%) \n \n \nRevised budget \n% \nAllocation \nof the total \nbudget \nIdeal allocation \nVariance \n(%) \nRevised budget \n% Allocation \nof the total \nbudget \nIdeal allocation \nVariance (%) \n1 \nMpigi DLG \n734,989,017 \n71%", "metadata": {"page": 345, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "71% \n780,482,882 \n4% \n305,654,825 \n29% \n260,160,961 \n04% \n2 \nKibaale DLG \n577,722,783 \n71% \n613,342,078 \n4% \n240,066,654 \n29% \n204,447,359 \n04% \n3 \nRakai DLG \n878,113,973 \n71% \n932,467,475 \n4% \n365,175,993 \n29% \n310,822,492 \n04% \n4 \nKitagwenda DLG \n514,158,151 \n70%", "metadata": {"page": 345, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "70% \n548,259,404 \n5% \n216,854,388 \n30% \n182,753,135 \n05% \n5 \nKapchorwa DLG \n200,000,000 \n71% \n212,649,000 \n4% \n83,532,000 \n29% \n70,883,000 \n04% \n6 \nManafwa DLG \n472,853,078 \n71% \n502,121,624 \n4% \n196,642,420 \n29% \n167,373,875 \n04% \n7 \nOmoro DLG \n546,269,790 \n71% \n580,080,380", "metadata": {"page": 345, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "580,080,380 \n4% \n227,170,716 \n29% \n193,360,127 \n04% \n8 \nAmuru DLG \n916,444,429 \n74% \n933,446,948 \n1% \n328,151,502 \n26% \n311,148,983 \n01% \n \n Total \n4,840,551,221 \n71% \n5,102,849,789 \n4% \n1,963,248,498 \n29% \n1,700,949,930 \n04%", "metadata": {"page": 345, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "330 \n \nAppendix 7 b: Slow implementation of the micro scale irrigation program \nsn \nEntity name \n% \nperform\nance of \nthe \nbudget \nBudget \nWarrants/ \nRelease \nTotal \nexpenditure \nUnspent \n% \ntotal \nabsor\nption \n% \nabsorp\ntion of \nirrigati\non \nequip\nment \nfunds \nFarme\nrs \nwho \nexpre\nssed \nintere\nst and \npasse\nd the \nselecti\non \ncriteri\na \nNum", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "a \nNum\nber \nof \nfarm\ners \nwho \nco0f\nunde\nd \nNumb\ner of \nfarme\nrs \nwho \nreceiv\ned \nequip\nment \nCo0fu\nnded \nbut \ndidn't \nreceiv\ne \nequip\nment \nRecei\nved \nequip\nment \nbut \ndid \nnot \nco0fu\nnd \n1 \nAmuru DLG \n100% \n1,244,595,931 \n1,244,595,931", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "963,852,269 \n280,743,662 \n77% \n66% \n145 \n57 \n57 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nBududa DLG \n100% \n1,261,452,695 \n1,261,452,695 \n244,992,927 \n1,016,459,768 \n19% \n0% \n108 \n2 \n0 \n2 \n0 \n3 \nBuikwe DLG \n100% \n600,773,619 \n600,773,617 \n600,773,617 \n0 \n100% \n100% \n123 \n15 \n0 \n15", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n15 \n0 \n4 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n100% \n576,697,948 \n576,697,948 \n320,084,565 \n256,613,383 \n56% \n41% \n65 \n8 \n8 \n0 \n0 \n5 \nBushenyi DLG \n100% \n714,525,040 \n714,525,040 \n78,378,605 \n636,146,435 \n11% \n2% \n55 \n7 \n1 \n6 \n0 \n6 \nButambala DLG \n100% \n387,484,208", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "387,484,208 \n387,484,208 \n221,610,994 \n165,873,214 \n57% \n47% \n180 \n8 \n8 \n0 \n0 \n7 \nIbanda DLG \n92% \n627,600,529 \n574,758,360 \n562,258,360 \n12,500,000 \n98% \n97% \n115 \n21 \n21 \n0 \n0 \n8 \nIganga DLG \n100% \n1,329,616,690 \n1,329,616,690 \n293,479,474 \n1,036,137,216 \n22% \n13%", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "22% \n13% \n133 \n15 \n7 \n8 \n0 \n9 \nJinja DLG \n100% \n903,060,636 \n903,060,636 \n265,244,129 \n637,816,507 \n29% \n6% \n507 \n7 \n0 \n7 \n0 \n10 \nKalungu DLG \n100% \n664,507,456 \n664,507,456 \n245,494,700 \n419,012,756 \n37% \n16% \n68 \n14 \n6 \n8 \n0 \n11 \nKamuli DLG", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kamuli DLG \n82% \n2,516,077,965 \n2,070,086,405 \n277,743,610 \n1,792,342,795 \n13% \n0% \n447 \n10 \n0 \n10 \n0 \n12 \nKamwenge DLG \n100% \n1,233,481,824 \n1,233,481,824 \n422,241,549 \n811,240,275 \n34% \n14% \n380 \n26 \n19 \n7 \n0 \n13 \nKapchorwa DLG \n100% \n283,532,000 \n283,532,004 \n41,395,400", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "41,395,400 \n242,136,604 \n15% \n0 \n51 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14 \nKayunga DLG \n100% \n1,586,903,581 \n1,587,307,162 \n789,024,134 \n798,283,028 \n50% \n33% \n194 \n19 \n19 \n0 \n0 \n15 \nKibaale DLG \n97% \n817,789,437 \n793,504,089 \n343,540,164 \n449,963,925 \n43% \n100% \n275 \n7 \n6 \n1", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6 \n1 \n0 \n16 \nKitagwenda DLG \n96% \n731,012,539 \n701,940,707 \n240,883,874 \n461,056,833 \n34% \n7% \n43 \n6 \n0 \n6 \n0 \n17 \nKyegegwa DLG \n100% \n1,668,838,687 \n1,668,838,687 \n921,616,030 \n747,222,657 \n55% \n42% \n120 \n32 \n32 \n0 \n0 \n18 \nKyenjojo DLG \n95%", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "95% \n1,968,068,801 \n1,873,486,962 \n816,122,258 \n1,057,364,704 \n44% \n27% \n257 \n16 \n16 \n0 \n0 \n19 \nKyotera DLG \n100% \n1,000,840,870 \n1,000,840,870 \n206,116,680 \n794,724,190 \n21% \n0% \n624 \n16 \n5 \n11 \n0 \n20 \nLuuka DLG \n100% \n1,098,808,508 \n1,098,808,508 \n185,288,340", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "185,288,340 \n913,520,168 \n17% \n0% \n103 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n21 \nLuwero DLG \n97% \n1,884,516,915 \n1,827,314,725 \n496,853,038 \n1,330,461,687 \n27% \n3% \n222 \n6 \n2 \n4 \n0 \n22 \nLwengo DLG \n97% \n1,008,665,475 \n983,179,605 \n349,181,500 \n633,998,105 \n36% \n10% \n40 \n7 \n5", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7 \n5 \n2 \n0 \n23 \nManafwa DLG \n100% \n669,495,498 \n669,495,598 \n178,080,000 \n491,415,598 \n27% \n0% \n119 \n1 \n0 \n1 \n0 \n24 \nMasaka DLG \n100% \n460,800,276 \n460,800,276 \n191,012,556 \n269,787,720 \n41% \n22% \n123 \n6 \n5 \n1 \n0 \n25 \nMayuge DLG \n100% \n2,406,225,383 \n2,406,225,383", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2,406,225,383 \n691,749,954 \n1,714,475,429 \n29% \n6% \n657 \n6 \n0 \n6 \n0 \n26 \nMbale DLG \n100% \n978,155,227 \n978,155,227 \n978,155,227 \n0 \n100% \n100% \n250 \n9 \n29 \n0 \n20", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "331 \n \n27 \nMityana DLG \n100% \n982,194,028 \n982,194,028 \n959,359,474 \n22,834,554 \n98% \n98% \n197 \n52 \n52 \n0 \n0 \n28 \nMpigi DLG \n97% \n1,040,643,842 \n1,008,928,121 \n682,186,048 \n326,742,073 \n68% \n53% \n82 \n12 \n19 \n0 \n7 \n29 \nMubende DLG \n101% \n1,785,183,070", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,805,183,070 \n360,241,350 \n1,444,941,720 \n20% \n0% \n113 \n30 \n13 \n17 \n0 \n30 \nMukono DLG \n97% \n1,860,330,289 \n1,810,490,757 \n1,192,689,171 \n617,801,586 \n66% \n56% \n603 \n84 \n56 \n28 \n0 \n31 \nNakaseke DLG \n100% \n1,104,507,315 \n1,104,507,315 \n687,041,722 \n417,465,593 \n62% \n50%", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "62% \n50% \n877 \n20 \n20 \n0 \n0 \n32 \nNtungamo DLG \n94% \n1,848,548,683 \n1,740,797,344 \n229,477,125 \n1,511,320,219 \n13% \n0% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n33 \nNwoya DLG \n100% \n1,506,270,774 \n1,506,270,774 \n1,282,287,149 \n223,983,625 \n85% \n80% \n120 \n6 \n4 \n2 \n0 \n34", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n34 \nOmoro DLG \n100% \n773,440,506 \n773,440,506 \n753,058,716 \n20,381,790 \n97% \n98% \n55 \n13 \n13 \n0 \n0 \n35 \nRakai DLG \n98% \n1,243,289,966 \n1,212,437,391 \n450,270,049 \n762,167,342 \n37% \n10% \n170 \n16 \n3 \n13 \n0 \n36 \nRukungiri DLG \n97% \n1,222,690,787 \n1,182,235,981", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,182,235,981 \n1,182,235,981 \n0 \n100% \n100% \n554 \n42 \n42 \n0 \n0 \n37 \nSembabule DLG \n99% \n1,321,944,507 \n1,312,934,328 \n381,925,415 \n931,008,913 \n29% \n4% \n143 \n18 \n3 \n15 \n0 \n38 \nSironko DLG \n100% \n960,526,097 \n960,526,097 \n244,992,927 \n715,533,170 \n26% \n0% \n224 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "224 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n39 \nTororo DLG \n97% \n2,146,943,614 \n2,082,453,632 \n421,412,670 \n1,661,040,962 \n20% \n0% \n17 \n17 \n0 \n17 \n0 \n40 \nWakiso DLG \n100% \n3,661,748,235 \n3,661,748,235 \n970,978,292 \n2,690,769,943 \n27% \n2% \n222 \n11 \n8 \n3 \n0 \n \n \n98%", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "98% \n50,081,789,4\n51 \n49,038,618,1\n92 \n20,723,330,0\n43 \n28,315,288,1\n49 \n42% \n \n8,781 \n642 \n479 \n190 \n27 \n \n \n \n \nAppendix 7 c: Slow implementation of the micro scale irrigation program \nsn \nEntity name \nTotal value \nof the \nequipment \nco-funded \nRequired co-\nfunding \nTotal \nAmount co-\nfunded \nPartial \nco-\nfunding \nCo-funded \nbut didn\u2019t \nreceive \namount", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "receive \namount \nNu\nmbe\nr \ninsp\necte\nd \nNumb\ner \ninstal\nled \nand \nfuncti\nonal \nNum\nber \ninsta\nlled \nand \nnot \nfunct\nional \nNu\nmb\ner \nnot \ninst\nalle\nd \n Co-\nfunding \namount \nfor \ninspected \nprojects \nPlanne\nd \nNumb\ner of \nirrigati\non \nequip\nment \nNumbe\nr", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Numbe\nr \nSensitiz\ned \n1 \nAmuru DLG \n605,071,628 \n151,267,907 \n151,267,907 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n140 \nNS \n2 \nBududa DLG \n0 \n0 \n4,349,650 \n0 \n4,349,650 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNP \n108 \nNS \n3 \nBuikwe DLG \n224,115,393 \n56,028,848 \n58,804,360 \n0 \n58,804,360", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "58,804,360 \n1 \n0 \n1 \n0 \n5,414,418 \n123 \n1508 \n4 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n175,340,064 \n43,835,016 \n43,835,016 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n3 \n0 \n0 \nNP \n23 \n1436 \n5 \nBushenyi DLG \n13,911,600 \n3,477,900 \n3,477,175 \n0 \n2,980,436 \n1 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n3,477,900 \n55 \n4291 \n6", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4291 \n6 \nButambala DLG \n124,801,000 \n31,200,250 \n30,989,750 \n210,500 \n0 \n5 \n5 \n0 \n0 \n21,389,250 \n30 \n920 \n7 \nIbanda DLG \n451,851,264 \n112,962,816 \n120,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n16,535,172 \n34 \n356 \n8 \nIganga DLG \n131,101,400 \n32,775,350 \n32,775,350 \n0 \n17,480,187 \n4", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4 \n0 \n0 \n4 \n20,972,725 \n133 \nNS \n9 \nJinja DLG \n72,400,500 \n18,100,125 \n20,000,875 \n0 \n20,000,875 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n60 \n1708 \n10 \nKalungu DLG \n79,449,700 \n19,862,425 \n19,862,425 \n0 \n11,349,957 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \nNP \n68 \n212", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "332 \n \n11 \nKamuli DLG \n159,154,380 \n39,788,595 \n39,788,595 \n0 \n39,788,595 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNP \n88 \nNS \n12 \nKamwenge DLG \n257,199,816 \n64,299,954 \n78,447,943 \n0 \n21,120,600 \n5 \n5 \n0 \n0 \n18,639,250 \n45 \n800 \n13 \nKapchorwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n51 \n500 \n14 \nKayunga DLG \n235,175,004 \n58,793,751 \n35,988,804 22,804,947 \n0 \n19 \n5 \n0 \n14 \n26,503,400 \n194 \n1450 \n15 \nKibaale DLG \n103,473,510 \n25,868,378 \n25,868,375 \n0 \n3,695,482 \n4 \n2 \n0 \n2 \n4,418,350 \n60 \nNS \n16 \nKitagwenda DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n30,555,000 \n0 \n30,555,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNP \n43 \nNS \n17 \nKyegegwa DLG \n621,067,534 \n155,266,884 \n164,315,300 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n5 \n0 \n0 \n20,906,578 \n85 \n200 \n18 \nKyenjojo DLG \n398,210,612 \n99,552,653 \n99,552,653 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n11,303,350 \n78", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "78 \n2034 \n19 \nKyotera DLG \n71,550,500 \n17,887,625 \n17,887,625 \n0 \n12,297,742 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n8,821,750 \n60 \n2054 \n20 \nLuuka DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n60 \nNS \n21 \nLuwero DLG \n37,458,628 \n9,364,657 \n7,936,150 \n1,428,507 \n0 \n2 \n2", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n17,673,400 \n100 \nNS \n22 \nLwengo DLG \n74,389,000 \n18,597,250 \n18,597,250 \n0 \n5,313,500 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n11,175,000 \n40 \n1478 \n23 \nManafwa DLG \n472,853,178 \n118,213,295 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNP \n67 \nNS \n24 \nMasaka DLG \n75,808,490 \n18,952,123", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "18,952,123 \n24,661,850 \n0 \n4,110,308 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n9,312,194 \n50 \n450 \n25 \nMayuge DLG \n93,296,396 \n23,324,099 \n23,324,401 \n0 \n23,324,401 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n259 \n1795 \n26 \nMbale DLG \n731,116,421 \n182,779,105 \n123,475,656 59,303,449 (274,390,347) \n2 \n0 \n2 \n0 \nNP \n29 \nNS", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "29 \nNS \n27 \nMityana DLG \n736,645,518 \n184,161,380 \n189,710,836 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n2 \n1 \n0 \nNP \n52 \nNS \n28 \nMpigi DLG \n242,976,116 \n60,744,029 \n29,967,904 30,776,125 \n(17,481,277) \n12 \n8 \n0 \n4 \n21,552,821 \n56 \nNS \n29 \nMubende DLG \n549,606,541 \n137,401,635 \n132,383,729", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "132,383,729 \n5,017,906 \n75,017,446 \n5 \n5 \n0 \n0 \nNP \n113 \n783 \n30 \nMukono DLG \n842,077,809 \n210,519,452 \n122,920,051 87,599,401 \n40,973,350 \n4 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n25,040,290 \n171 \nNS \n31 \nNakaseke DLG \n412,390,242 \n103,097,561 \n110,919,223 \n0 \n0 \n4 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n21,340,750", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "21,340,750 \n60 \n3498 \n32 \nNwoya DLG \n37,636,769 \n9,409,192 \n18,662,500 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n120 \nNS \n33 \nOmoro DLG \n133,915,000 \n33,478,750 \n36,983,750 \n0 \n0 \n6 \n6 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n55 \n480 \n34 \nRakai DLG \n85,094,056 \n21,273,514 \n21,273,514 \n0 \n17,284,730", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17,284,730 \n3 \n \n0 \n3 \n \n127 \n549 \n35 \nRukungiri DLG \n874,541,222 \n218,635,306 \n254,095,279 \n0 \n0 \n45 \n42 \n0 \n3 \nNP \n60 \n44 \n36 \nSembabule DLG \n38,966,500 \n9,741,625 \n9,741,625 \n0 \n8,118,021 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n6,299,125 \n145 \n652 \n37 \nSironko DLG \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNP \n224 \nNS \n38 \nTororo DLG \n200,411,950 \n50,102,988 \n45,964,915 \n4,138,073 \n45,964,915 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \nNP \n215 \nNS \n39 \nWakiso DLG \n30,695,563 \n7,673,891 \n64,219,332 \n0 \n17,514,363 \n5 \n3 \n0 \n2 \n17,929,213 \n200", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "200 \n4289 \n \n \n9,393,753,30\n4 \n2,348,438,32\n7 \n2,212,604,76\n8 \n211,278,9\n08 \n168,172,295 \n153 \n117 \n4 \n32 \n288,704,9\n36 \n3,681 \n31,487 \nNP \u2013 Co-funding not provided, NS \u2013 Farmers not sensitised", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "333 \n \nAppendix 8 a: Support to organised groups for improvement of people\u2019s livelihood - Funding \nSN \nEntity Name \nBudget performance \nDelayed disbursement of \nfunds \nUnaccounted \nfunds disbursed \nto groups \n \n \nApproved \nbudget \nWarrant/ \nRelease \n%age \nperforman\nce \n Transfer to \ngroups \n% \nAbsorptio\nn \nNumber of \ngroups that \ndelayed to \nreceive funds \nAverage \ndelay \n(Months) \n \n1 \nBukedea DLG \n250,000,000 \n64,200,000 \n26% \n60,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 349, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "60,000,000 \n93% \n9 \n2.5 \n0 \n2 \nBuliisa DLG \n36,750,000 \n30,700,000 \n84% \n 30,000,000 \n98% \n11 \n5.5 \n8,000,000 \n3 \nButambala DLG \n225,750,000 \n95,900,000 \n42% \n 90,500,000 \n94% \n3 \n9 \n0 \n4 \nHoima City \n42,000,000 \n39,590,000 \n94% \n27,590,000 \n70% \n8 \n2.3 \n0 \n5 \nHoima DLG", "metadata": {"page": 349, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Hoima DLG \n56,710,000 \n56,710,000 \n100% \n53,000,000 \n93% \n20 \n2 \n53,000,000 \n6 \nKabarole DLG \n288,180,385 \n21,000,000 \n7% \n 20,000,000 \n95% \n1 \n5 \n0 \n7 \nKakumiro DLG \n70,620,000 \n70,620,000 \n100% \n65,980,000 \n93% \n24 \n3.9 \n0 \n8 \nKaladi DLG \n120,000,000 \n120,000,000 \n100% \n61,000,000 \n51%", "metadata": {"page": 349, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "51% \n13 \n3 \n0 \n9 \nKapelebyong DLG \n128,400,000 \n128,400,000 \n100% \n128,400,000 \n100% \n16 \n1.5 \n0 \n10 \nKasese DLG \n350,000,000 \n21,000,000 \n6% \n 20,000,000 \n95% \n4 \n5 \n0 \n11 \nKayunga DLG \n400,000,000 \n111,720,000 \n28% \n 95,000,000 \n85% \n7 \n5.7 \n95,000,000 \n12 \nKibaale DLG \n100,500,000", "metadata": {"page": 349, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "100,500,000 \n22,470,000 \n22% \n 21,000,000 \n93% \n9 \n7 \n21,000,000 \n13 \nKikuube DLG \n36,750,000 \n23,540,000 \n64% \n22,000,000 \n93% \n8 \n2 \n0 \n14 \nKyenjojo DLG \n526,228,220 \n10,500,000 \n2% \n 10,500,000 \n100% \n1 \n3 \n10,500,000 \n15 \nLuwero DLG \n175,000,000 \n175,000,000 \n100% \n175,000,000 \n100%", "metadata": {"page": 349, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "100% \n11 \n3 \n0 \n16 \nMasindi DLG \n191,904,000 \n23,540,000 \n12% \n22,000,000 \n93% \n7 \n3.5 \n13,000,000 \n17 \nMasindi MC \n344,123,000 \n300,707,293 \n87% \n277,000,000 \n92% \n8 \n2 \n0 \n18 \nMityana DLG \n0 \n52,500,000 \n \n 0 \n0% \n0 \n1.5 \n0 \n19 \nMukono DLG \n72,450,000 \n47,200,000", "metadata": {"page": 349, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "47,200,000 \n65% \n 45,000,000 \n95% \n4 \n1 \n0 \n20 \nNakaseke DLG \n270,000,000 \n124,575,000 \n46% \n122,742,000 \n99% \n2 \n2.5 \n48,010,000 \n21 \nNakasongola DLG \n63,000,000 \n71,000,000 \n113% \n71,000,000 \n100% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n22 \nNgora DLG \n270,000,000 \n0 \n0% \n 0 \n0% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n23", "metadata": {"page": 349, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n23 \nSoroti DLG \n124,200,000 \n118,200,000 \n95% \n118,200,000 \n100% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n24 \nWakiso DLG \n1,287,000,000 \n742,190,000 \n58% \n 733,800,000 \n99% \n2 \n5 \n0 \n \nTotal \n5,429,565,605 \n2,471,262,293 \n46% \n2,269,712,000 \n92% \n168 \n \n248,510,000", "metadata": {"page": 349, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "334 \n \nAppendix 8 b: Support to organised groups for improvement of people\u2019s livelihood \u2013 Inspection of micro projects \nSN \nEntity Name \nFunding of groups above the \nmaximum threshold \nPhysical Inspection of supported micro projects \n \n \nNumber of \ngroups funded \nabove threshold \n Amount of \nexcess \ndisbursement \nNumber of \ngroups \ninspected \n Amount of \nfunds disbursed \nto projects \ninspected \nNumber of \nprojects that \nwere in \nexistence \nNumber of groups \nthat implemented \nthe approved \nproject \nNumber of \ngroups that \nimplemented \nun-approved \nprojects \n1 \nBukedea DLG \n0", "metadata": {"page": 350, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n5 \n24,300,000 \n5 \n3 \n2 \n2 \nBuliisa DLG \n0 \n0 \n4 \n8,000,000 \n4 \n1 \n3 \n3 \nButambala DLG \n2 \n1,000,000 \n4 \n40,000,000 \n4 \n4 \n0 \n4 \nHoima City \n0 \n0 \n2 \n6,000,000 \n2 \n1 \n1 \n5 \nHoima DLG \n0 \n0 \n4 \n26,000,000 \n4 \n3 \n1 \n6", "metadata": {"page": 350, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1 \n6 \nKabarole DLG \n0 \n0 \n2 \n20,000,000 \n2 \n1 \n1 \n7 \nKakumiro DLG \n0 \n0 \n8 \n22,000,000 \n8 \n6 \n2 \n8 \nKaladi DLG \n0 \n0 \n3 \n14,000,000 \n3 \n3 \n0 \n9 \nKapelebyong DLG \n0 \n0 \n3 \n18,500,000 \n3 \n3 \n0 \n10 \nKasese DLG \n0 \n0 \n2 \n10,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 350, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "10,000,000 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n11 \nKayunga DLG \n2 \n25,000,000 \n2 \n20,000,000 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n12 \nKibaale DLG \n0 \n0 \n3 \n8,500,000 \n3 \n3 \n0 \n13 \nKikuube DLG \n0 \n0 \n2 \n5,000,000 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n14 \nKyenjojo DLG \n0 \n0 \n1 \n10,000,000 \n1 \n1 \n0 \n15 \nLuwero DLG", "metadata": {"page": 350, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Luwero DLG \n0 \n0 \n7 \n0 \n7 \n6 \n1 \n16 \nMasindi DLG \n0 \n0 \n5 \n16,000,000 \n5 \n3 \n2 \n17 \nMasindi MC \n0 \n0 \n5 \n12,000,000 \n5 \n2 \n3 \n18 \nMityana DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n19 \nMukono DLG \n1 \n5,000,000 \n3 \n45,000,000 \n3 \n3 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 350, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \n0 \n20 \nNakaseke DLG \n1 \n8,000,000 \n6 \n59,500,000 \n6 \n6 \n0 \n21 \nNakasongola DLG \n0 \n0 \n4 \n50,000,000 \n2 \n2 \n2 \n22 \nNgora DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n23 \nSoroti DLG \n0 \n0 \n2 \n8,000,000 \n2 \n2 \n0 \n24 \nWakiso DLG \n27 \n182,000,000 \n7 \n7 \n80,000,000 \n7 \n7 \n0 \n \nTotal \n33 \n221,000,000 \n84 \n502,800,000 \n82 \n66 \n18", "metadata": {"page": 350, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "335 \n \nAppendix 9: Operationalisation of new cities \nSN \nEntity \nName \nBudget Performance \nLocal revenue sharing \nApproved budget \nActual \ncollections \nShortfall \n%age \nshortfall \nExpected \nremittance to \nDivision \n Actual \nremittance to \nDivisions \nUnder-\nremittance \n%age \nUnder-\nremitted \n1 \nJinja \n58,090,748,734 \n50,969,290,015 \n7,121,458,719 \n12% \n1,844,294,373 \n1,593,317,055 \n250,977,318 \n14%", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "14% \n2 \nMbarara \n62,491,147,300 \n56,163,575,756 \n6,327,571,544 \n10% \n1,699,120,258 \n1,583,212,950 \n115,907,308 \n7% \n3 \nMbale \n54,509,554,490 \n54,509,554,490 \n0 \n0% \n784,455,187 \n594,895,194 \n189,559,993 \n24% \n4 \nHoima \n33,529,655,343 \n32,440,208,365 \n1,089,446,978 \n3% \n875,092,462", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "875,092,462 \n654,869,681 \n220,222,781 \n25% \n5 \nSoroti \n32,245,918,630 \n27,191,436,469 \n5,054,482,161 \n16% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0% \n6 \nFort portal \n32,686,993,162 \n31,666,904,298 \n1,020,088,864 \n3% \n1,041,451,036 \n1,041,451,036 \n0 \n0% \n7 \nLira \n54,602,635,918 \n42,012,644,858", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "12,589,991,060 \n23% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0% \n8 \nMasaka \n42,593,236,710 \n39,377,424,934 \n3,215,811,776 \n8% \n1,038,919,625 \n1,079,682,076 \n(40,762,452) \n04% \n9 \nArua \n45,846,863,296 \n43,619,346,734 \n2,227,516,562 \n5% \n1,500,454,549 \n1,454,515,574 \n45,938,975 \n3% \n10 \nGulu", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "10 \nGulu \n51,960,870,117 \n49,386,722,617 \n2,574,147,500 \n5% \n1,246,807,408 \n1,619,093,938 \n(372,286,531) \n030% \n \nTotal \n468,557,623,700 \n427,337,108,536 \n41,220,515,164 \n9% \n10,030,594,896 \n9,621,037,504 \n409,557,393 \n4% \n \nAppendix 10 a: Funding and absorption of UGIFT \nSN. \nEntity Name \n Approved budget (UGX) \n Warrants/ Release (UGX)", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Expenditure (UGX) \n Unspent balance \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n5,042,542,567 \n3,431,050,296 \n1,555,597,275 \n1,875,453,021 \n2 \nAmolatar DLG \n3,225,212,064 \n3,225,212,064 \n779,510,361 \n2,445,701,703 \n3 \nAmuria DLG \n1,230,500,000 \n1,230,500,000 \n123,050,000 \n1,107,450,000 \n4 \nArua DLG \n1,159,389,000 \n1,159,389,000 \n- \n \n5", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n2,105,522,000 \n2,105,522,000 \n2,105,522,000 \n- \n6 \nBundibugyo DLG \n1,658,409,128 \n1,658,409,128 \n291,525,179 \n1,366,883,949 \n7 \nBunyangabu DLG \n679,204,564 \n679,204,564 \n \n679,204,564 \n8 \nBushenyi DLG \n1,166,331,649 \n1,166,331,649 \n- \n1,166,331,649 \n9 \nDokolo DLG \n295,105,891", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "295,105,891 \n295,105,891 \n110,919,587 \n184,186,304 \n10 \nGomba DLG \n1,155,460,496 \n1,155,460,496 \n220,859,367 \n934,601,129 \n11 \nIbanda DLG \n649,939,000 \n649,939,000 \n396,510,597 \n253,428,403 \n12 \nJinja City \n900,000,000 \n900,000,000 \n520,510,899 \n379,489,101 \n13 \nKabale DLG \n1,185,000,000 \n1,185,000,000 \n272,474,121", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "272,474,121 \n912,525,879 \n14 \nKabale MC \n1,163,014,383 \n1,163,014,383 \n- \n1,163,014,383 \n15 \nKabarole DLG \n3,681,530,094 \n3,681,530,094 \n1,972,555,923 \n1,708,974,171 \n16 \nKagadi DLG \n613,326,018 \n613,326,018 \n552,095,741 \n61,230,277 \n17 \nKakumiro DLG \n3,740,035,424 \n3,740,035,424 \n3,035,355,266", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3,035,355,266 \n704,680,158 \n18 \nKalaki DLG \n1,360,330,000 \n1,360,330,000 \n- \n1,360,330,000 \n19 \nKanungu DLG \n1,823,747,325 \n1,823,747,325 \n832,671,749 \n991,075,576 \n20 \nKasese DLG \n2,162,414,030 \n2,129,103,023 \n1,792,954,268 \n590,609,829", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "336 \n \n21 \nKatakwi DLG \n2,136,162,000 \n2,136,162,000 \n553,271,620 \n1,582,890,380 \n22 \nKazo DLG \n1,234,328,086 \n1,234,328,086 \n370,298,425 \n864,029,661 \n23 \nKiruhura DLG \n3,626,296,934 \n3,626,296,934 \n883,171,494 \n2,743,125,440 \n24 \nKitagwenda DLG \n1,004,760,793 \n1,004,760,793 \n63,609,236 \n941,151,557", "metadata": {"page": 352, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "941,151,557 \n25 \nKoboko \n617,500,000 \n617,500,000 \n185,250,000 \n432,250,000 \n26 \nKoboko DLG \n1,339,266,988 \n1,339,266,988 \n- \n1,339,266,988 \n27 \nKole DLG \n1,124,587,408 \n1,124,587,408 \n- \n1,124,587,408 \n28 \nKumi DLG \n1,209,407,573 \n1,209,407,573 \n- \n1,209,407,573 \n29 \nKyenjojo DLG \n5,645,295,808", "metadata": {"page": 352, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5,645,295,808 \n2,687,505,537 \n2,957,790,271 \n30 \nLwengo DLG \n1,920,374,181 \n1,572,093,781 \n- \n1,572,093,781 \n31 \nMaracha DLG \n5,081,827,353 \n3,616,146,706 \n3,068,469,875 \n547,676,831 \n32 \nMitooma DLG \n1,968,827,575 \n1,968,827,575 \n504,649,000 \n1,464,178,575 \n33 \nMoyo DLG \n606,966,721", "metadata": {"page": 352, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "606,966,721 \n606,966,721 \n299,368,912 \n307,597,809 \n34 \nNakaseke DLG \n1,331,654,302 \n1,331,654,302 \n552,634,095 \n779,020,207 \n35 \nNebbi DLG \n4,903,975,634 \n4,903,975,634 \n2,343,750,153 \n2,560,225,481 \n36 \nPakwach DLG \n2,880,993,432 \n2,880,993,432 \n2,079,770,185 \n801,223,247 \n37 \nRubanda DLG", "metadata": {"page": 352, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Rubanda DLG \n2,685,000,000 \n2,550,461,621 \n1,107,668,839 \n1,442,792,782 \n38 \nRubirizi DLG \n2,078,380,811 \n2,078,380,811 \n8,800,000 \n2,069,580,811 \n39 \nRukungiri DLG \n2,090,390,500 \n2,090,390,500 \n1,505,081,159 \n585,309,341 \n40 \nSheema DLG \n2,165,067,757 \n2,165,067,757 \n972,196,519 \n1,192,871,238 \n41", "metadata": {"page": 352, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "41 \nSironko DLG \n1,658,859,727 \n1,658,859,727 \n500,642,362 \n1,158,217,365 \n42 \nWakiso DLG \n1,373,169,216 \n1,373,169,216 \n314,651,999 \n1,058,517,217 \n43 \nZombo DLG \n1,553,346,819 \n1,553,346,819 \n481,192,683 \n1,072,154,136 \n \nTotal \n85,233,453,251 \n81,640,150,547 \n33,044,094,426 \n47,691,128,195", "metadata": {"page": 352, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "337 \n \nAppendix 10 b: Delayed progress of works/constructions of UGIFT projects \nSN \nEntity Name \nSector \nNum\nber \nof \nproje\ncts \n Contract price \nStart date \nEnd date \n Amount paid \nProjec\nt \nstatus \n(Base\nd on \npayme\nnt) \nProject \nstatus \n(Based \non audit \ninspecti\non, \nproject \nmanage\nr\u2019s \nreport \nand \npaymen\nt \ncertifica\ntes) \nTotal \ncontr\nact \nperio\nd", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "perio\nd \nCont\nract \nperio\nd at \nend \nof FY \nDelay \nin \ncontr\nact \nimple\nment\nation \nin \nmont\nhs \n1 \nNakaseke DLG \nHealth \n1 \n657,828,203 \n23/04/2021 \n23/01/2022 \n141,753,982 \n22% \n \n9 \n14 \n5 \n2 \nGomba DLG \nHealth \n2 \n147,425,167 \n07/02/2022 \n07/06/2022 \n132,682,650", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "132,682,650 \n90% \n \n4 \n5 \n1 \n3 \nGomba DLG \nHealth \n2 \n147,241,887 \n07/02/2022 \n07/06/2022 \n71,390,952 \n48% \n \n4 \n5 \n1 \n4 \nSironko DLG \nHealth \n1 \n641,353,154 \n17/12/2019 \n30/06/2020 \n500,642,362 \n78% \n \n7 \n31 \n24 \n5 \nBududa DLG \nHealth \n3 \n641,353,154 \n17/12/2019", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "17/12/2019 \n30/06/2020 \n \n0% \n \n7 \n31 \n24 \n6 \nDokolo DLG \nHealth \n2 \n145,114,777 \n28/11/2021 \n30/05/2022 \n- \n0% \n35% \n6 \n7 \n1 \n7 \nKanungu DLG \nHealth \n1 \n795,282,480 \n06/04/2021 \n24/05/2022 \n561,273,723 \n71% \n90% \n14 \n15 \n1 \n8 \nKasese DLG \nHealth \n1 \n518,372,154", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "518,372,154 \n13/03/2021 \n13/09/2021 \n469,315,435 \n91% \n90% \n6 \n16 \n10 \n9 \nKasese DLG \nHealth \n1 \n654,136,098 \n04/03/2021 \n30/05/2022 \n383,929,312 \n59% \n75% \n15 \n16 \n1 \n10 \nKiruhura DLG \nHealth \n1 \n1,229,877,542 \n30/03/2021 \n30/11/2021 \n642,116,001 \n52% \n70% \n8 \n15 \n7 \n11", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7 \n11 \nKiruhura DLG \nHealth \n1 \n299,935,634 \n16/04/2021 \n16/11/2021 \n250,154,636 \n83% \n70% \n7 \n15 \n8 \n12 \nBunyangabu DLG \nHealth \n1 \n679,204,564 \n19/05/2021 \n14/10/2021 \n- \n0% \n70% \n5 \n14 \n9 \n13 \nKabale DLG \nHealth \n1 \n150,000,000 \n15/03/2022 \n15/06/2022 \n50,982,711 \n34% \n33%", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "34% \n33% \n3 \n4 \n1 \n14 \nSheema DLG \nHealth \n1 \n159,730,098 \n07/04/2022 \n07/06/2022 \n34,216,971 \n21% \n \n2 \n3 \n1 \n15 \nNakaseke DLG \nEducation \n1 \n657,828,203 \n23/04/2021 \n23/01/2022 \n- \n0% \n0% \n9 \n14 \n5 \n16 \nKanungu DLG \nEducation \n1 \n2,081,740,500 \n09/01/2019 \n15/10/2021", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "15/10/2021 \n1,494,594,766 \n72% \n87% \n34 \n42 \n9 \n17 \nRukungiri DLG \nEducation \n1 \n2,090,390,500 \n29/09/2019 \n05/06/2021 \n1,505,081,159 \n72% \n90% \n21 \n34 \n13 \n18 \nKyenjojo DLG \nEducation \n1 \n2,150,170,030 \n28/03/2019 \n30/08/2020 \n2,000,047,945 \n93% \n78% \n17 \n40 \n22 \n19 \nBunyangabu DLG", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Bunyangabu DLG \nEducation \n1 \n1,949,557,600 \n30/04/2019 \n30/04/2021 \n1,730,754,431 \n89% \n85% \n24 \n39 \n14 \n20 \nAdjumani DLG \nEducation \n1 \n721,236,662 \n14/05/2019 \n14/11/2021 \n648,243,471 \n90% \n90% \n31 \n38 \n8 \n21 \nAdjumani DLG \nEducation \n1 \n820,105,237 \n23/12/2019 \n23/06/2020 \n705,843,593 \n86% \n85%", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "86% \n85% \n6 \n31 \n25 \n22 \nAdjumani DLG \nEducation \n1 \n252,938,204 \n26/04/2021 \n25/06/2021 \n201,510,211 \n80% \n77% \n2 \n14 \n12 \n23 \nNebbi DLG \nEducation \n1 \n2,101,789,485 \n22/05/2019 \n22/05/2022 \n1,879,791,406 \n89% \n89% \n37 \n38 \n1 \n24 \nMaracha DLG \nEducation \n1 \n1,924,805,491 \n29/04/2020 \n29/04/2020 \n30/04/2022 \n1,910,739,849 \n99% \n85% \n24 \n26 \n2", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "338 \n \n \n Total \n \n29 \n21,617,416,824 \n \n \n15,315,065,566 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAppendix 10 c: Engineering Brigade: STATUS REPORT ON MOLG PROJECTS BEING IMPLEMENTED BY THE UPDF ENGINEERS \nBRIGADE AS AT 30 NOVEMBER 2022 \n S/N \n PROJECT NAME \nPROJECT \nLOCATION \n PROJECT \nCOST \n(UGX) \n AMOUNT \nRECEIVED \nBY ENGRS \nBDE (UGX) \n AMOUNT \nRELEASED \nTO THE \nPROJECT \n(UGX) \n \nAVAILABLE \nBALANCE \n(UGX) \nFINANCIAL", "metadata": {"page": 354, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "FINANCIAL \nPERFORMANC\nE \nPHYSICAL \nPERFORMAN\nCE \n \nREMAR\nKS \n 1 \nFunctionalisation of Butebo HC IV \nButebo \nDistrict \n 1,431,451,245 \n \n1,431,451,24\n5 \n 715,725,623 715,725,622 \n50% \n30% \nWIP \n 2 \nConstrn of General Ward & 4 stance \nVIP Latrine \n 280,553,154 280,553,154 140,276,577 140,276,577 \n 3 \nConstrtn Works Of Medical Store with \n02 Office Rooms at District HQs \nKiruhura \nDistrict", "metadata": {"page": 354, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "District \n 133,722,679 133,722,679 \n 66,861,340 \n 66,861,340 \n50% \n68% \nWIP \n 4 \nConstrn Works at Bufumbo HC IV \nMbale \nDistrict \n 247,555,361 219,670,404 109,835,202 109,835,202 \n44% \n62% \nWIP \n 5 \nMaternity Ward At Kinoni Health \nCentre III in Kinoni Sub-county \nNakaseke \nDistrict \n 450,166,992 292,870,556 146,435,278 146,435,278 \n33% \n52% \nWIP \n 6 \nConstruction Of Maternity Ward At \nMifunya Health CentreIII in \nNakaseke Sub-County", "metadata": {"page": 354, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Nakaseke Sub-County \n 7 \nConstruction of an incinerator at \nNtara Health Centre IV \nKitagwenda \nDistrict \n 107,928,535 107,928,535 \n 53,964,268 \n 53,964,268 \n50% \n60% \nWIP \n 8 \n Construction of a laboratory at \nKikyenkye Health Centre III \n 9 \nRefurbishment of Medicine Stores at \nPallisa Gen Hospital \nPallisa \nDistrict \n 318,788,531 318,788,531 \n 97,095,755 221,692,776 \n30% \n40% \nWIP \n 10 \nConstruction of a new Maternity \nWard at Kazo HC IV \nKazo", "metadata": {"page": 354, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kazo \n437,298,176 \n 796,323,012 469,601,865 326,721,147 \n59% \n67% \nWIP \n 11 \nCompletion of a maternity ward \nPhase II for Kazo HC IV \n119,848,338 \n 12 \nConstruction of 2 in 1 Staff Houses \nat Kijuma HC II \n71,951,187 \n 13 \nConstruction of 2 in 1 Staff Houses \nat Rwigi HC II \n71,951,187 \n 14 \nRenovation of OPD at Kaicumu HC II \n21,716,102", "metadata": {"page": 354, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "339 \n \n 15 \nExtra works Kazo DLG \n73,558,022 \n 16 \nLabour suit remodelling at Budaka \nHC IV \nBudaka \nDistrict \n42,495,075 \n 52,300,000 \n 48,639,000 \n 3,661,000 \n38% \n52% \nWIP \n 17 \nConstruction of Pit Latrine at Lyama \nHC III \n18,014,500 \n 18 \nConstruction of a Placenta Pit at \nNaboa HC III \n15,430,275 \n 19 \nRepair of House at Kameruka HC III \n18,726,225 \n 20 \nFencing Facility at Kerekerene HC III \n15,372,000", "metadata": {"page": 355, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "15,372,000 \n 21 \nFencing at Mugiti HC III \n17,350,000 \n 22 \nConstruction Of A General Maternity \nWard At Ossi Health Centre- Phase-I \nNebbi \nDistrict \n 305,941,656 305,941,656 284,525,740 \n 21,415,916 \n93% \n60% \nWIP \n 23 \nRenovation Of Kikobe Health Centre \nII OPD \n 24 \nRenovation Of Jupangira Health \nCentre II OPD \n 25 \nConstruction Of 2 Stance Washroom \nAt Jupangira Health Centre II OPD \n 26 \nConstruction Of 4stance VIP Latrine \nIn Erussi Health Centre II \n 27 \nFencing Of Nyaravur Health Centre \nIII \n 28", "metadata": {"page": 355, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "III \n 28 \nConstruction of Staff house at \nMulehe HC \nKisoro \nDistrict \n 507,616,737 507,616,737 253,808,369 253,808,369 \n50% \n58% \nWIP \n 29 \nConstruction of Bunagana Gen Ward \n 30 \nConstruction of Bukuya HC IV \nKasanda \nDistrict \n 1,358,143,675 950,000,000 703,635,255 246,364,745 \n52% \n40% \nWIP \n 31 \nExpnsion and remodelling of the OPD \nat Buwama HC III \nMpigi \nDistrict \n59,228,805 \n 319,709,326 228,592,168", "metadata": {"page": 355, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "91,117,158 \n68% \n60% \nWIP \n 32 \nGeneral repairs, remodelling, \npartitioning, re-roofing & electrical \ninstallation of the olf staff hous at \nKampiringisa HC III \n88,005,475 \n 33 \nGeneral Renovation of Kafumu HC II \n17,376,108 \n 34 \nGeneral Renovation of MCH Block at \nBunjanko HC III \n19,882,233 \n 35 \nInstallation of 10,000 litre tank at \nGgolo HC III \n5,217,250", "metadata": {"page": 355, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "340 \n \n 36 \nSecond phase of renovation of health \ndepartment Block (Tiling of DHO \nBlock) \n41,686,750 \n 37 \nConstruction of a Placenta Pit at \nGgolo HC III \n7,123,340 \n 38 \n3 stance waternourne toilet with a \nbathroom at Butooro HC III \n30,902,520 \n 39 \n3 Stance waterbourne toilet with \nbathroom at Mpigi health dep \n30,576,775 \n 40 \nWaiting shade at Kituntu HC III \n37,325,375 \n 41 \nWaterbourne toilet/bathroom at \nKamuli Gen Hosp \nKamuli \nDistrict \n23,261,576 \n 256,314,453 156,700,453", "metadata": {"page": 356, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "99,614,000 \n61% \n50% \nWIP \n 42 \nAntenental Shade at Kamuli Gen \nHosp \n20,121,200 \n 43 \nExpansion of Labaratory at \nNawendwa HC IV \n57,323,858 \n 44 \nTwo in one Staff House at Kawaaga \nHC II \n41,134,100 \n 45 \nRenovation of Maternity Ward at \nNawankofu HC II \n34,709,000 \n 46 \nRenovation of OPD at Nawankofu HC \nII \n18,499,500 \n 47 \nFencing Kasambira HC II \n24,965,823 \n 48 \nFencing Kasambira Balawoli HC III \n19,638,180 \n 49", "metadata": {"page": 356, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "49 \nPlacenta Pit at Namaira HC II \n8,330,608 \n 50 \nPlacenta Pit at Kasambira HC II \n8,330,608 \n 51 \nConstruction of Nsotoka Health \nCentre III \nKayunga \nDistrict \n980,494,263 \n 143,813,882 446,077,126 -302,263,244 \n45% \n43% \nWIP \n 52 \nConstruction of DHO's Staff house at \nNsotoka HC III \n 53 \nRenovation of an OPD at Bisina HC II \nKatakwi \nDistrict \n 115,444,090 115,444,090 \n 57,722,045 \n 57,722,045 \n50% \n56% \nWIP", "metadata": {"page": 356, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "56% \nWIP \n 54 \nRenovation of OPD at Kapujan HC III \n 55 \nRenovation of Olilim HC II \n 56 \nRenovation of DHO's Office \n 57 \nConstruction of Semi Detached staff \nhouse at Bulele HC III \nBuhweju \nDistrict \n38,313,488 \n 38,313,488 \n 19,156,744 \n 19,156,744 \n50% \n50% \nWIP \n 58 \nConstruction of a 2 stance VIP \nLatrine with urinal at Kalungu HC III \n 59 \nFencing at Busabaga HC III \n 130,647,169 210,909,726 105,454,863 105,454,863 \n50% \n68%", "metadata": {"page": 356, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "341 \n \n 60 \nRenovation of the OPD at Kizigo HC \nII \nLugazi \nMunicipality \n39,935,444 \n 61 \nRenovation of Najjembe HC III Staff \nQuarters \n23,500,253 \n 62 \nConstruction of an incenerator at \nNajjembe HC III \n16,581,902 \n 63 \nConstruction of OPD Block & 2 stance \nlatrine at Kigara HC II \nIsingiro \nDistrict \n210,664,767 \n \n1,285,941,18\n6 \n 642,970,593 642,970,593 \n50% \n48% \nWIP \n 64 \nConstruction of OPD Block & 2 stance", "metadata": {"page": 357, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Construction of OPD Block & 2 stance \nlatrine at Kagaga HC II \n188,306,650 \n 65 \nConstruction of OPD Blockk & 2 \nstance latrine at Kyabahesi HC II \n181,644,150 \n 66 \nConstruction of OPD Block & 2 stance \nlinned latrine at Burunduma \n178,124,150 \n 67 \nConstruction of OPD Block & 2 stance \nlatrine at Rwantaha \n180,722,150 \n 68 \nConstruction of OPD Block & a 2 \nstance lined latrine atWanjojera \n187,884,025 \n 69 \nRepairs & maintainence of Health \noffice block at District HQs \n50,147,600 \n 70 \nConstruction of a 2 bedroomed twin", "metadata": {"page": 357, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Construction of a 2 bedroomed twin \nstaff house & a 2 stance lined latrine \nat Kyarumunga HC II \n158,462,300 \n 71 \nConstruction of a 2 Bedroom twin \nstaff house & a 2 stance lined \nlatrined at Rwakakwenda HC II \n157,179,800 \n 72 \nConstruction Works at Female Ward \nat Kityerera HC IV \nMayuge \nDistrict \n 344,197,767 337,448,791 153,992,434 183,456,357 \n45% \n38% \nWIP \n 73 \nConstruction of a maternity ward at \nBuwambo HC IV \nNansana \nMunicipality \n 567,886,800 307,984,868 \n 30,000,000 277,984,868 \n5%", "metadata": {"page": 357, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5% \n15% \nWIP \n 74 \nConstruction Works at Muwangi HC \nII \nKyankwanzi \nDistrict \n 370,235,033 370,235,033 185,000,000 185,235,033 \n50% \n48% \nWIP \n 75 \n Functionalisation of Kachumbala HC \nIV \n Bukedea \nDistrict \n 1,773,095,134 \n \n1,773,095,13\n4 \n 822,000,000 951,095,134 \n46% \n33% \nWIP \n 76 \n Constrn of Operation Theatre at \nBitereko HC III \n Mitooma \nDistrict", "metadata": {"page": 357, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Mitooma \nDistrict \n 1,031,793,148 309,537,944 287,870,288 \n 21,667,656 \n28% \n35% \nWIP \n 77 \n Constrn of Operation Theatre & \nMortury at Rutete HC III \n Kabarole \nDistrict \n 326,245,846 311,778,181 \n 97,540,822 214,237,359 \n30% \n48% \nWIP", "metadata": {"page": 357, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "342 \n \n 78 \nRenovation of maternity ward at \nNambieso Health Centre III \nKwania \nDistrict \n77,895,965 \n 148,499,903 106,152,432 \n 42,347,472 \n50% \n65% \nWIP \n 79 \nConstruction of mortuary at Aduku \nHealth Centre III \n70,603,938 \n \n \n - \n 80 \nConstruction of a theatre at Kataraka \nHC IV \nFortportal \nCity \n685,000,000 \n 685,000,000 316,812,500 368,187,500 \n46% \n20% \nWIP \n 81 \nConstruction of a maternity ward at", "metadata": {"page": 358, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Construction of a maternity ward at \nKarambi HC III \n 82 \nFencing Magada HC III \nNamutumba \n157,217,180 \n 157,217,180 \n \n73,105,988 \n 84,111,192 \n46% \n10% \nMobilizati\non \n 83 \nPartial Fencing Bulange HC III \n 84 \nRenovation of Kiranga HC II \n 85 \nRenovation of ADHO's Office at \nDistrict HQs \n 86 \nRenovation of Kisumu HC II \n 87 \nConstruction of Placenta Pit at \nNagonde HC II \n 88 \nConstruction of Placenta Pit at \nKiranga HC II \n \n Total \n \n14,901,441,74\n8", "metadata": {"page": 358, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8 \n12,168,409\n,694 \n \n6,819,552,\n726 \n5,348,856,\n968 \n \n \n \n \nAppendix 11 a: USMID AF \u2013 Refugee Hosting Districts \n \n \nRehabilitation and Construction of \ninfrastructure investments \nUSMID-AF Operations \nTotal \nSN \nEntity Name \nRelease \nExpenditure \n % \nabsorp\ntion \nRelease \nExpenditure \n % \nabsorp\ntion \n Release \n Expenditure \n(UGX) \n % \nabsorption \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n4,853,248,410", "metadata": {"page": 358, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4,853,248,410 \n338,536,708 \n7% \n0 \n0 \n0% \n4,853,248,410 \n338,536,708 \n7% \n2 \nArua DLG \n1,463,289,437 \n0 \n0% \n300,000,000 \n41,849,600 \n14% \n1,763,289,437 \n41,849,600 \n2% \n3 \nIsingiro DLG \n9,434,605,852 \n0 \n0% \n1,048,178,428 \n10,165,005 \n1% \n10,482,784,280 \n10,165,005", "metadata": {"page": 358, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "10,165,005 \n0% \n4 \nKamwenge DLG \n4,914,506,357 \n0 \n0% \n29,765,500 \n29,765,500 \n100% \n4,944,271,857 \n29,765,500 \n1% \n5 \nKiryandongo DLG \n5,544,916,324 \n0 \n0% \n32,200,200 \n32,200,200 \n100% \n5,577,116,524 \n32,200,200 \n1% \n6 \nLamwo DLG \n3,350,000,000 \n635,586,050 \n19% \n325,725,859", "metadata": {"page": 358, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "325,725,859 \n40,525,300 \n12% \n3,675,725,859 \n676,111,350 \n18% \n7 \nMadi Okollo DLG \n2,991,756,515 \n727,705,114 \n24% \n95,000,000 \n93,941,000 \n99% \n3,086,756,515 \n821,646,114 \n27% \n8 \nMoyo DLG \n1,095,371,099 \n675,680,828 \n62% \n0 \n0 \n0% \n1,095,371,099 \n675,680,828 \n62% \n9", "metadata": {"page": 358, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "62% \n9 \nObongi DLG \n1,947,326,000 \n1,477,193,598 \n76% \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,947,326,000 \n1,477,193,598 \n76% \n10 \nTerego DLG \n3,570,661,110 \n1,132,137,519 \n32% \n396,740,124 \n244,909,502 \n62% \n3,967,401,234 \n1,377,047,021 \n35% \n11 \nYumbe DLG \n8,317,933,336 \n2,400,868,250 \n29% \n408,272,902 \n408,272,902 \n408,272,902 \n100% \n8,726,206,238 \n2,809,141,152 \n32%", "metadata": {"page": 358, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "343 \n \n \nTotal \n47,483,614,440 \n7,387,708,067 \n16% \n2,635,883,013 \n901,629,009 \n34% \n50,119,497,453 \n8,289,337,076 \n17% \n \nAppendix 11 b: Implementation of USMID-AF in Refugee Hosting Districts during FY2020/21 \n \n \nRehabilitation and \nConstruction of \nInfrastructure \nInvestments 2020/21 \nRehabilitation and Construction of Infrastructure Investments 2021/22 \nSN \nEntity Name \n Amount \nReleased \nNumb\ner of \nplanne\nd \nprojec\nts \nAmount", "metadata": {"page": 359, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ts \nAmount \nReleased \nAmount spent \nUn-utilised \nNum\nber \nof \nplan\nned \nproje\ncts \nPartially implemented \nUn-implemented \n1 \nAdjumani DLG \n12,347,521,704 \n8 \n4,853,248,410 \n338,536,708 \n4,514,711,702 \n3 \n3 \n4,853,248,410 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nArua DLG \n15,399,557,319 \n8 \n1,463,289,437 \n0 \n1,463,289,437 \n2 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 359, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n1,463,289,437 \n3 \nIsingiro DLG \n6,947,343,000 \n6 \n9,434,605,852 \n0 \n9,434,605,852 \n10 \n0 \n0 \n10 \n9,434,605,852 \n4 \nKamwenge DLG \n6,970,678,105 \n6 \n4,944,271,857 \n29,765,500 \n4,914,506,357 \n6 \n0 \n0 \n6 \n4,944,271,857 \n5 \nKiryandongo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 359, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kiryandongo DLG \n4,747,486,820 \n9 \n5,544,916,324 \n0 \n5,544,916,324 \n7 \n0 \n0 \n7 \n5,544,916,324 \n6 \nLamwo DLG \n0 \n0 \n3,350,000,000 \n635,586,050 \n2,714,413,950 \n4 \n2 \n3,350,000,000 \n2 \n2,200,000,000 \n7 \nMadi Okollo DLG \n0 \n0 \n2,990,756,515 \n727,705,114 \n2,263,051,401 \n8", "metadata": {"page": 359, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8 \n5 \n2,991,756,515 \n3 \n0 \n8 \nMoyo DLG \n1,162,000,000 \n1 \n1,095,371,099 \n675,680,828 \n419,690,271 \n1 \n1 \n1,095,371,099 \n0 \n0 \n9 \nObongi DLG \n2,365,018,000 \n3 \n1,947,326,000 \n1,477,193,000 \n470,133,000 \n3 \n3 \n1,947,326,000 \n0 \n0 \n10 \nTerego DLG \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 359, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n3,570,661,110 \n1,132,137,519 \n2,438,523,591 \n4 \n3 \n3,570,661,110 \n1 \n0 \n11 \nYumbe DLG \n10,671,408,000 \n5 \n8,317,933,336 \n2,809,141,152 \n5,508,792,184 \n5 \n5 \n8,317,933,336 \n0 \n0 \n \n Total \n60,611,012,948 \n46 \n47,512,379,940 \n7,825,745,871 \n39,686,634,069 \n53 \n53 \n22 \n26,126,296,470 \n31 \n23,587,083,470", "metadata": {"page": 359, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "344 \n \nAppendix 12: USMID \u2013 Cities and Municipal councils \nS\nN \nEntity Name \nFunding and absorption of funds \nDelayed contract implementation \nUnreleased previous year \ncommitted funds \nApproved \nbudget (UGX) \nWarrants/ \nRelease (UGX) \nExpenditure \n(UGX) \n % \nabso\nrptio\nn \nUnutilized \nFunds \nStart date \nCon\ntrac\nt \nperi\nod \nin \nFY \nStatus \n(Complet\ned, \nPartially \ncomplete\nd, Not \nstarted) \nUnspent \nbalance FY", "metadata": {"page": 360, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "balance FY \n2020/2021 \nAmount re-\nvoted FY \n2021/2022 \nAmount un-\nre-voted \n1 \nArua City \n11,136,490,022 \n11,136,490,022 \n11,133,069,900 \n100% \n3,420,122 \nJan-22 \n5 \nPartial \n- \n- \n- \n2 \nFort Portal \nCity \n9,147,407,697 \n9,147,407,697 \n4,634,251,113 \n51% \n4,513,156,584 \nApr-22 \n2 \nPartial \n- \n- \n- \n3", "metadata": {"page": 360, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "- \n3 \nHoima City \n17,436,501,888 \n17,436,501,888 \n12,832,857,565 \n74% \n4,603,644,323 \n \n \nPartial \n30,153,131,886 \n- \n30,153,131,88\n6 \n4 \nJinja City \n14,018,316,913 \n14,018,316,913 \n9,489,145,161 \n68% \n4,529,171,752 \n02/03/2022 \n3 \nNot started \n1,714,473,110 \n- \n1,714,473,110 \n5 \nKamuli MC", "metadata": {"page": 360, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5 \nKamuli MC \n13,148,341,701 \n13,148,341,701 \n7,000,932,883 \n53% \n6,147,408,818 \n0 \n0 \nNot started \n \n \n- \n6 \nLugazi MC \n18,019,273,284 \n18,019,273,284 \n11,032,843,665 \n61% \n6,986,429,619 \n0 \n0 \nNot started \n \n \n- \n7 \nMasaka City \n14,445,481,454 \n14,445,481,454 \n13,845,481,453 \n96%", "metadata": {"page": 360, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "96% \n600,000,001 \n12/05/2021 \n13 \nPartial \n19,529,858,900 \n14,445,481,454 \n5,084,377,446 \n8 \nMbale City \n18,797,865,000 \n18,797,865,000 \n18,684,130,139 \n99% \n113,734,861 \n20/11/2020 \n19 \nPartial \n- \n- \n- \n9 \nMubende MC \n19,123,795,715 \n19,123,795,715 \n15,277,674,152 \n80% \n3,846,121,563 \n08/05/2021", "metadata": {"page": 360, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "08/05/2021 \n13 \nPartial \n26,879,987,744 \n19,123,795,715 \n7,756,192,029 \n10 \nSoroti City \n10,860,092,650 \n10,860,092,650 \n10,798,602,908 \n99% \n61,489,742 \n19/10/2020 \n20 \nPartial \n- \n- \n- \n11 \nTororo City \n10,187,945,000 \n10,187,945,000 \n10,167,009,589 \n100% \n20,935,411 \n28/01/2021 \n17 \nPartial \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n \n Total \n156,321,511,324 \n156,321,511,324 \n124,895,998,528 \n \n31,425,512,796 \n \n \n \n78,277,451,640 \n33,569,277,169 \n44,708,174,471", "metadata": {"page": 360, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "345 \n \nAppendix 13 a: LRDP budget allocation \nSN \nEntity Name \nInfrastructure Projects, including Physical \nPlanning and land titling \nPerformance Improvement \nInvestment Servicing and Monitoring \n Actual \nexpenditure \nper \nExpenditure \nitem \nActual \nAllocat\nion \nAllocation \nvariance \nActual \nexpenditure \nper \nExpenditure \nitem \nActu\nal \nAlloc\nation \nAllocation \nvariance \nActual \nexpenditure \nper \nExpenditure \nitem \nActual \nAllocat\nion \nAllocation \nvariance \n1 \nBundibugyo DLG \n268,592,000", "metadata": {"page": 361, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "268,592,000 \n74% \nOutside threshold \n51,674,000 \n14% \nOutside threshold \n41,900,000 \n12% \nOutside threshold \n2 \nKyenjojo DLG \n407,749,461 \n76% \nOutside threshold \n47,000,000 \n9% \nWithin threshold \n80,756,838 \n15% \nOutside threshold \n3 \nWakiso DLG \n225,000,000 \n52% \nOutside threshold \n15,000,000 \n3% \nWithin threshold \n189,356,091 \n44% \nOutside threshold \n4 \nBunyangabu DLG \n233,216,284 \n79%", "metadata": {"page": 361, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "79% \nOutside threshold \n30,237,300 \n10% \nOutside threshold \n32,442,400 \n11% \nOutside threshold \n5 \nNakasongola DLG \n266,052,402 \n75% \nOutside threshold \n53,210,480 \n15% \nOutside threshold \n35,473,654 \n10% \nOutside threshold \n6 \nMityana DLG \n348,107,461 \n72% \nOutside threshold \n53,493,203 \n11% \nOutside threshold \n84,676,617 \n17% \nOutside threshold \n7 \nNtoroko DLG \n122,978,000 \n64% \nOutside threshold", "metadata": {"page": 361, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "64% \nOutside threshold \n49,175,000 \n26% \nOutside threshold \n19,023,000 \n10% \nWithin threshold \n \nTotal \n1,871,695,608 \n70% \n \n299,789,983 \n13% \n \n483,628,600 \n17% \n \n \nAppendix 13 b: LRDP funding and infrastructure projects implemented \nSN \nEntity Name \nTotal Funding \nInfrastructure Projects, including Physical Planning and \nLand Titling \n Budget \n Released \n Expenditure \n% \nAbsorption \nPlanned \nactivities \nActual \nactivities \nimplemented \nUn-\nimplemented \n Value of un-", "metadata": {"page": 361, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Value of un-\nimplemented \nactivities \n1 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n1,267,741,700 \n1,267,741,700 \n1,266,623,782 \n100% \n12 \n12 \n0 \n \n2 \nKyegegwa DLG \n1,931,586,000 \n1,931,586,000 \n1,918,767,748 \n99% \n \n \n0 \n \n3 \nBundibugyo DLG \n1,038,426,579 \n1,038,426,579 \n1,038,426,579 \n100% \n15 \n15 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 361, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n \n4 \nKasese DLG \n2,321,758,202 \n2,285,424,852 \n2,285,424,852 \n100% \n6 \n6 \n0 \n \n5 \nKyenjojo DLG \n2,143,515,541 \n2,143,525,541 \n1,867,516,712 \n87% \n6 \n5 \n1 \n 152,101,471 \n6 \nMukono DLG \n1,944,284,484 \n1,944,284,484 \n1,944,284,484 \n100% \n6 \n6 \n0 \n \n7", "metadata": {"page": 361, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7 \nWakiso DLG \n1,234,586,967 \n1,234,586,967 \n1,124,586,967 \n91% \n3 \n2 \n1 \n 100,000,000 \n8 \nNakaseke DLG \n943,169,464 \n933,178,464 \n933,178,464 \n100% \n5 \n5 \n0 \n \n9 \nKayunga DLG \n1,952,328,754 \n1,952,418,754 \n1,952,328,754 \n100% \n18 \n18 \n0 \n \n10 \nKabarole DLG", "metadata": {"page": 361, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kabarole DLG \n1,178,354,709 \n1,178,354,709 \n1,148,825,103 \n97% \n5 \n5 \n0 \n \n11 \nBunyangabu DLG \n867,098,000 \n867,098,000 \n833,928,841 \n96% \n7 \n3 \n4 \n 109,344,522 \n12 \nNakasongola DLG \n994,681,700 \n994,681,700 \n994,681,700 \n100% \n4 \n2 \n2 \n 66,796,861 \n13 \nMityana DLG \n1,234,868,818", "metadata": {"page": 361, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1,231,058,816 \n1,230,755,506 \n100% \n5 \n5 \n0 \n \n14 \nKiboga DLG \n819,532,000 \n819,532,000 \n819,532,000 \n100% \n \n \n0 \n \n15 \nMubende DLG \n1,989,903,534 \n1,989,903,534 \n1,989,903,534 \n100% \n \n \n0 \n \n16 \nKassanda DLG \n1,353,538,052 \n1,353,538,052 \n1,353,538,052 \n100% \n4 \n4 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 361, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "346 \n \n17 \nLuwero DLG \n1,917,397,000 \n1,917,397,000 \n1,916,857,000 \n100% \n11 \n11 \n0 \n \n18 \nNtoroko DLG \n494,183,000 \n494,183,000 \n495,138,000 \n100% \n2 \n1 \n1 \n 92,978,000 \n \nTotal \n25,626,954,504 \n25,576,920,152 \n25,114,298,078 \n98% \n109 \n100 \n9 \n 521,220,854", "metadata": {"page": 362, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Appendix 13 c: LRDP performance improvement and transfer of LRDP funds to the LLGs \nSN \n \nEntity Name \n \nPerformance Improvement Activities \nInvestment \nServicing and \nMonitoring \nTransfers of LRDP funds to the LLGs \nNumber \nof \nplanned \nactivities \n \nNumber \nof actual \nactivities \n \nImplementation of \nineligible activities \nNo. of \nplanne\nd \nactiviti\nes \nNo. of \nactual \nactiviti\nes \n \nExpected transfer \nto LLGs 65% \nActual transfers to \nLLGs \nVariance \nNo. of \nineligible \nActivities \n Amount of", "metadata": {"page": 362, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Activities \n Amount of \nineligible \nactivities \n1 \nKyankwanzi DLG \n4 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n3 \n824,032,105 \n819,274,368 \n4,757,737 \n2 \nKyegegwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,255,530,900 \n1,131,346,000 \n124,184,900 \n3 \nBundibugyo DLG \n5 \n5 \n1 \n3,000,000 \n5 \n5 \n674,977,276 \n674,977,276 \n0 \n4", "metadata": {"page": 362, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n4 \nKasese DLG \n1 \n1 \n \n0 \n1 \n1 \n1,485,526,154 \n1,479,319,000 \n6,207,154 \n5 \nKyenjojo DLG \n1 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n6 \n6 \n1,393,291,602 \n1,332,010,413 \n61,281,189 \n6 \nMukono DLG \n9 \n9 \n \n0 \n2 \n2 \n1,263,784,915 \n1,081,481,484 \n182,303,431 \n7 \nWakiso DLG", "metadata": {"page": 362, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Wakiso DLG \n1 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n2 \n802,481,529 \n695,230,876 \n107,250,653 \n8 \nNakaseke DLG \n1 \n1 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n2 \n606,566,002 \n606,566,002 \n0 \n9 \nKayunga DLG \n12 \n12 \n0 \n0 \n11 \n11 \n1,269,072,190 \n1,147,877,991 \n121,194,199 \n10 \nKabarole DLG \n10 \n10 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 362, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n3 \n3 \n765,930,561 \n615,990,709 \n149,939,852 \n11 \nBunyangabu DLG \n2 \n2 \n0 \n0 \n2 \n2 \n563,613,700 \n538,032,857 \n25,580,843 \n12 \nNakasongola DLG \n4 \n4 \n0 \n0 \n4 \n4 \n646,543,105 \n639,945,164 \n6,597,941 \n13 \nMityana DLG \n3 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n3", "metadata": {"page": 362, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3 \n3 \n800,188,230 \n744,478,225 \n55,710,005 \n14 \nKiboga DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n532,695,800 \n531,532,000 \n1,163,800 \n15 \nMubende DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n1,293,437,297 \n1,129,817,468 \n163,619,829 \n16 \nKassanda DLG \n8 \n8 \n0 \n0 \n3 \n3 \n879,799,734", "metadata": {"page": 362, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "879,799,734 \n871,639,052 \n8,160,682 \n17 \nLuwero DLG \n6 \n6 \n0 \n0 \n5 \n5 \n1,246,308,050 \n1,137,134,046 \n109,174,004 \n18 \nNtoroko DLG \n3 \n3 \n0 \n0 \n1 \n1 \n321,218,950 \n303,962,000 \n17,256,950 \n \nTotal \n70 \n70 \n1 \n3,000,000 \n53 \n53 \n16,624,998,099 \n15,480,614,931 \n1,144,383,168", "metadata": {"page": 362, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "347 \n \nAppendix 14 a: Uganda Road Fund (URF) \nSN \nEntity Name \nTotal amount received \nAmount \ntransferred to \nLLGS \n Retained at \nthe HLG \nBudget (HLG \nroads) \nVariance \n% \nperformance \n1 \nAlebtong DLG \n336,463,117 \n124,730,908 \n211,732,209 \n402,031,328 \n190,299,119 \n53% \n2 \nAmolatar DLG \n331,885,110 \n155,277,564 \n176,607,546 \n336,224,000 \n159,616,454 \n53% \n3", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "53% \n3 \nAmuria DLG \n345,774,755 \n161,699,571 \n184,075,184 \n424,535,000 \n240,459,816 \n43% \n4 \nArua DLG \n164,956,449 \n31,696,000 \n133,260,449 \n253,613,790 \n120,353,341 \n53% \n5 \nBududa DLG \n670,148,414 \n519,111,845 \n151,036,569 \n287,444,480 \n136,407,911 \n53% \n6 \nBuhweju DLG \n221,095,000 \n101,762,000", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "101,762,000 \n119,333,000 \n227,111,000 \n107,778,000 \n53% \n7 \nBuikwe DLG \n1,013,737,880 \n695,936,777 \n317,801,103 \n628,820,218 \n311,019,115 \n51% \n8 \nBukedea DLG \n345,774,755 \n161,699,571 \n184,075,184 \n350,321,032 \n166,245,848 \n53% \n9 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n282,957,645 \n95,773,000 \n187,184,645 \n356,644,352 \n169,459,707", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "169,459,707 \n52% \n10 \nBukwo DLG \n191,405,988 \n69,698,405 \n121,707,583 \n231,391,410 \n109,683,827 \n53% \n11 \nBulambuli DLG \n288,278,571 \n166,331,220 \n121,947,351 \n232,083,000 \n110,135,649 \n53% \n12 \nBundibugyo DLG \n589,482,682 \n367,288,018 \n222,194,664 \n422,868,000 \n200,673,336 \n53% \n13 \nBushenyi Ishaka MC", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Bushenyi Ishaka MC \n470,031,981 \n0 \n470,031,981 \n673,951,000 \n203,919,019 \n70% \n14 \nBusia MC \n363,873,000 \n0 \n363,873,000 \n549,347,000 \n185,474,000 \n66% \n15 \nButaleja DLG \n294,837,449 \n142,399,303 \n152,438,146 \n329,792,000 \n177,353,854 \n46% \n16 \nButambala DLG \n269,818,545 \n104,590,271 \n165,228,274 \n348,326,000", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "348,326,000 \n183,097,726 \n47% \n17 \nButebo DLG \n164,796,294 \n44,503,138 \n120,293,156 \n228,934,839 \n108,641,683 \n53% \n18 \nEntebbe MC \n936,074,161 \n0 \n936,074,161 \n1,342,581,000 \n406,506,839 \n70% \n19 \nFort Portal City \n571,923,518 \n0 \n571,923,518 \n819,436,000 \n247,512,482 \n70% \n20 \nGomba DLG", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Gomba DLG \n316,809,711 \n97,468,502 \n219,341,209 \n417,437,000 \n198,095,791 \n53% \n21 \nHoima DLG \n277,889,791 \n94,092,354 \n183,797,437 \n378,930,000 \n195,132,563 \n49% \n22 \nIbanda DLG \n714,470,171 \n533,639,854 \n180,830,317 \n344,145,543 \n163,315,226 \n53% \n23 \nIganga DLG \n227,293,000 \n66,048,000 \n161,245,000 \n330,317,000", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "330,317,000 \n169,072,000 \n49% \n24 \nIganga MC \n465,029,000 \n0 \n465,029,000 \n670826000 \n205,797,000 \n69% \n25 \nKabarole DLG \n398,231,897 \n197,296,987 \n200,934,910 \n393,371,000 \n192,436,090 \n51% \n26 \nKaberamaido DLG \n165,457,780 \n78,979,290 \n86,478,490 \n164,599,980 \n78,121,490 \n53% \n27 \nKakumiro DLG \n376,143,290", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "376,143,290 \n160,955,323 \n215,187,967 \n409,540,126 \n194,352,159 \n53% \n28 \nKalaki DLG \n124,741,409 \n47,729,421 \n77,011,988 \n146,564,673 \n69,552,685 \n53% \n29 \nKamwenge DLG \n704,213,234 \n115,885,008 \n588,328,226 \n733,613,100 \n145,284,874 \n80% \n30 \nKapelebyong DLG \n130,310,301 \n36,051,561 \n94,258,740 \n179,388,000", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "179,388,000 \n85,129,260 \n53% \n31 \nkatakwi DLG \n258,936,063 \n89,328,293 \n169,607,770 \n322,787,501 \n153,179,731 \n53% \n32 \nKayunga DLG \n535,752,747 \n140,083,934 \n395,668,813 \n703,764,575 \n308,095,762 \n56% \n33 \nKibuku DLG \n253,694,989 \n88,566,494 \n165,128,495 \n314,267,000 \n149,138,505 \n53% \n34 \nKikuube DLG \nKikuube DLG \n289,941,000 \n116,958,000 \n172,983,000 \n341,822,000 \n168,839,000 \n51% \n35 \nKira MC \n1,308,862,577 \n0 \n1,308,862,577 \n1,876,701,000 \n567,838,423 \n70%", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "348 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nTotal amount received \nAmount \ntransferred to \nLLGS \n Retained at \nthe HLG \nBudget (HLG \nroads) \nVariance \n% \nperformance \n36 \nKiruhura DLG \n334,138,515 \n177,017,321 \n157,121,194 \n299,023,788 \n141,902,594 \n53% \n37 \nKisoro DLG \n285,040,000 \n72,449,000 \n212,591,000 \n406,545,000 \n193,954,000 \n52% \n38 \nKisoro MC", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kisoro MC \n278,913,239 \n0 \n278,913,239 \n399,917,226 \n121,003,987 \n70% \n39 \nKoboko DLG \n221,203,822 \n49,348,567 \n171,855,255 \n327,064,728 \n155,209,473 \n53% \n40 \nKoboko MC \n315,231,787 \n0 \n315,231,787 \n451,992,245 \n136,760,458 \n70% \n41 \nKole DLG \n266,810,620 \n98,770,321 \n168,040,299 \n319,804,000", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "319,804,000 \n151,763,701 \n53% \n42 \nKumi DLG \n340,670,714 \n48,678,744 \n291,991,970 \n555,701,892 \n263,709,922 \n53% \n43 \nKumi MC \n262,813,204 \n0 \n262,813,204 \n376,832,336 \n114,019,132 \n70% \n44 \nKyegegwa DLG \n305,905,886 \n119741701 \n186,164,185 \n354,296,695 \n168,132,510 \n53% \n45 \nKyenjojo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kyenjojo DLG \n655,459,000 \n358,566,020 \n296,892,980 \n565,029,847 \n268,136,867 \n53% \n46 \nKyotera DLG \n1,294,908,115 \n1,039,408,115 \n255,500,000 \n487,513,000 \n232,013,000 \n52% \n47 \nLamwo DLG \n898,740,497 \n195,289,497 \n703,451,000 \n1,040,789,000 \n337,338,000 \n68% \n48 \nLira City \n703,934,000 \n0 \n703,934,000", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "703,934,000 \n884,859,000 \n180,925,000 \n80% \n49 \nLira DLG \n266,810,620 \n98,770,321 \n168,040,299 \n319,804,000 \n151,763,701 \n53% \n50 \nLugazi MC \n329,904,000 \n0 \n329,904,000 \n483,982,449 \n154,078,449 \n68% \n51 \nLuuka DLG \n373,970,000 \n119,134,000 \n254,836,000 \n300,249,000 \n45,413,000 \n85% \n52 \nLwengo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Lwengo DLG \n406,657,359 \n175,573,010 \n231,084,349 \n467,436,757 \n236,352,408 \n49% \n53 \nLyantonde DLG \n276,150,182 \n77,387,884 \n198,762,298 \n333,344,000 \n134,581,702 \n60% \n54 \nMakindye Ssabagabo MC \n1,812,621,000 \n0 \n1,812,621,000 \n2,910,073,000 \n1,097,452,000 \n62% \n55 \nManafwa DLG \n238,699,614 \n135,707,239", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "135,707,239 \n102,992,375 \n196,009,013 \n93,016,638 \n53% \n56 \nMasaka City \n730,096,205 \n0 \n730,096,205 \n1,012,331,246 \n282,235,041 \n72% \n57 \nMasaka DLG \n251,898,601 \n35,185,601 \n216,713,000 \n452,981,732 \n236,268,732 \n48% \n58 \nMasindi MC \n384,358,750 \n0 \n384,358,750 \n551,109,000 \n166,750,250 \n70% \n59", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "70% \n59 \nMitooma DLG \n285,542,278 \n104,181,130 \n181,361,148 \n345,212,490 \n163,851,342 \n53% \n60 \nMityana MC \n365,845,634 \n0 \n365,845,634 \n530,846,654 \n165,001,020 \n69% \n61 \nMoroto DLG \n171,024,000 \n35,091,000 \n135,933,000 \n258,699,000 \n122,766,000 \n53% \n62 \nMoroto MC \n292,886,720 \n0 \n292,886,720 \n419,953,000", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "419,953,000 \n127,066,280 \n70% \n63 \nMoyo DLG \n321,375,836 \n141,092,832 \n180,283,004 \n389,738,585 \n209,455,581 \n46% \n64 \nMpigi DLG \n443,564,870 \n149,974,506 \n293,590,364 \n558,781,000 \n265,190,636 \n53% \n65 \nMubende DLG \n987,718,000 \n711,899,000 \n275,819,000 \n527,562,000 \n251,743,000 \n52% \n66", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "52% \n66 \nMubende MC \n412,454,688 \n0 \n412,454,688 \n579785757 \n167,331,069 \n71% \n67 \nMukono DLG \n859,766,863 \n418,935,863 \n440,831,000 \n844,611,000 \n403,780,000 \n52% \n68 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n220,769,575 \n80,586,457 \n140,183,118 \n266,788,243 \n126,605,125 \n53% \n69 \nNakaseke DLG \n781,653,176 \n512,027,528", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "512,027,528 \n269,625,648 \n519,464,464 \n249,838,816 \n52% \n70 \nNakasongola DLG \n503,391,000 \n216,672,000 \n286,719,000 \n545,669,090 \n258,950,090 \n53% \n71 \nNamisindwa DLG \n330,423,565 \n145,949,746 \n184,473,819 \n349,275,000 \n164,801,181 \n53%", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "349 \n \nSN \nEntity Name \nTotal amount received \nAmount \ntransferred to \nLLGS \n Retained at \nthe HLG \nBudget (HLG \nroads) \nVariance \n% \nperformance \n72 \nNamutumba DLG \n310,009,220 \n115,018,105 \n194,991,115 \n371,095,590 \n176,104,475 \n53% \n73 \nNansana MC \n5,081,443,000 \n0 \n5,081,443,000 \n6,134,779,000 \n1,053,336,000 \n83% \n74 \nNapak DLG", "metadata": {"page": 365, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Napak DLG \n169,812,995 \n0 \n169,812,995 \n328,345,000 \n158,532,005 \n52% \n75 \nNebbi MC \n287,592,164 \n0 \n287,592,164 \n415,520,484 \n127,928,320 \n69% \n76 \nNgora DLG \n250,713,080 \n85,576,530 \n165,136,550 \n236,767,000 \n71,630,450 \n70% \n77 \nNjeru MC \n494,711,006 \n0 \n494,711,006 \n709,336,904 \n214,625,898", "metadata": {"page": 365, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "214,625,898 \n70% \n78 \nNtoroko DLG \n409,144,738 \n272,346,920 \n136,797,818 \n248,545,000 \n111,747,182 \n55% \n79 \nNtungamo MC \n327,470,000 \n0 \n327,470,000 \n474,662,000 \n147,192,000 \n69% \n80 \nOtuke DLG \n112,053,000 \n31,704,000 \n80,349,000 \n212,721,000 \n132,372,000 \n38% \n81 \nOyam DLG \n365,420,462 \n140,076,084", "metadata": {"page": 365, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "140,076,084 \n225,344,378 \n428,862,000 \n203,517,622 \n53% \n82 \nOyam DLG \n365,420,462 \n140,076,084 \n225,344,378 \n428,862,000 \n203,517,622 \n53% \n83 \nPakwach DLG \n525,378,571 \n374,035,156 \n151,343,415 \n288,771,487 \n137,428,072 \n52% \n84 \nPallisa DLG \n312,392,594 \n141,054,394 \n171,338,200 \n326,139,455", "metadata": {"page": 365, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "326,139,455 \n154,801,255 \n53% \n85 \nRubanda DLG \n327,104,128 \n114,229,570 \n212,874,558 \n405,130,299 \n192,255,741 \n53% \n86 \nRubirizi DLG \n280,690,311 \n128,143,181 \n152,547,130 \n290,437,607 \n137,890,477 \n53% \n87 \nRukiga DLG \n290,952,317 \n67,482,482 \n223,469,835 \n164,170,000 \n059,299,835 \n136% \n88 \nRukungiri DLG", "metadata": {"page": 365, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Rukungiri DLG \n504,582,056 \n167,339,704 \n337,242,352 \n513,877,491 \n176,635,139 \n66% \n89 \nRwampara DLG \n584,691,500 \n39,661,500 \n545,030,000 \n738,419,000 \n193,389,000 \n74% \n90 \nSembabule DLG \n658,750,762 \n347,546,954 \n311,203,808 \n592,264,729 \n281,060,921 \n53% \n91 \nSerere DLG \n407,662,982 \n234,635,349", "metadata": {"page": 365, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "234,635,349 \n173,027,633 \n295,038,000 \n122,010,367 \n59% \n92 \nSironko DLG \n399,815,539 \n165,809,536 \n234,006,003 \n484,106,602 \n250,100,599 \n48% \n93 \nSoroti DLG \n305,981,778 \n54,124,908 \n251,856,870 \n479,319,040 \n227,462,170 \n53% \n94 \nTororo DLG \n570,502,278 \n211,125,748 \n359,376,530 \n702,216,000", "metadata": {"page": 365, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "702,216,000 \n342,839,470 \n51% \n95 \nTororo MC \n369,649,141 \n0 \n369,649,141 \n530,031,000 \n160,381,859 \n70% \n96 \nZombo DLG \n367,531,172 \n186,470,394 \n181,060,778 \n344,613,652 \n163,552,874 \n53% \n \n Total \n45,691,919,465 \n13,139,474,615 \n32,552,444,851 \n51,950,635,524 \n19,398,190,673 \n63%", "metadata": {"page": 365, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "350 \n \nAppendix 14 b: Uganda Road Fund (URF) \nSN \n \nRoutine Manual Maintenance \nRoutine Mechanized Maintenance \nPeriodic maintenance \n \nEntity Name \n \nPlanne\nd \nLength \n(Kms) \nActual \nlength \n(Kms) \nPlanned \nAnnual \nExpenditure \nActual \nExpenditure \nPlanne\nd \nLength \n(Kms) \nActual \nlength \n(Kms) \nPlanned \nAnnual \nExpenditure \nActual \nExpenditure \nPlanned \nLength \n(Kms) \nActual \nlength \n(Kms) \nPlanned \nAnnual \nExpenditure", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Annual \nExpenditure \nActual \nExpenditure \n1 \nAlebtong DLG \n175.2 \n16 \n87,031,913 \n28,050,603 \n29.4 \n28.4 \n133,511,898 \n121,836,093 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n2 \nAmolatar DLG \n284.4 \n0 \n35,446,000 \n0 \n67 \n56 \n220,663,000 \n134,971,776 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n3 \nAmuria DLG \n66.2 \n39.6 \n41,630,000", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "41,630,000 \n20,042,000 \n58.4 \n22.8 \n62,409,000 \n27,495,000 \n15.9 \n0 \n71,800,000 \n0 \n4 \nArua DLG \n146.88 \n146.88 \n31,493,000 \n26,825,000 \n8 \n5.2 \n52,291,000 \n28,001,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n5 \nBududa DLG \n150.8 \n150.8 \n179,075,990 \n78,367,650 \n45.5 \n23.5 \n52,316,810 \n37,894,050", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "37,894,050 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n6 \nBuhweju DLG \n240 \n150 \n33,643,000 \n23,589,000 \n62 \n42 \n92,876,000 \n64,704,000 \n7 \n1 \n74,737,000 \n14,279,000 \n7 \nBuikwe DLG \n140 \n140 \n144,545,000 \n128,243,200 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n42 \n17.8 \n384,104,218 \n132,772,695 \n8 \nBukedea DLG \n40 \n21.3", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "40 \n21.3 \n35,500,000 \n18,637,500 \n63.5 \n33.7 \n184,421,032 \n96,821,041 \n15.9 \n8.63 \n25,000,000 \n13,125,000 \n9 \nBukomansimbi DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n68.9 \n38.5 \n286,766,352 \n151,700,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n10 \nBukwo DLG \n62 \n13.4 \n50,200,000 \n38,091,500 \n24 \n26 \n70,200,000", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "70,200,000 \n55,350,000 \n59 \n0 \n65,870,000 \n0 \n11 \nBulambuli DLG \n10.5 \n2 \n6,100,000 \n4,000,000 \n67.6 \n44.7 \n71,423,000 \n65,195,000 \n6.6 \n0 \n110,000,000 \n0 \n12 \nBundibugyo DLG \n50 \n50 \n60,600,000 \n31,750,000 \n40.2 \n38.5 \n159,400,000 \n88,516,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n13", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n13 \nBushenyi Ishaka MC \n10 \n4 \n51,000,000 \n15,800,000 \n51 \n45 \n274,600,000 \n246,507,981 \n36 \n17 \n130,000,000 \n46,000,000 \n14 \nBusia MC \n58 \n55.9 \n113,124,000 \n112,128,000 \n3.2 \n4 \n307,023,000 \n170,776,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n15 \nButaleja DLG \n193 \n0 \n40,724,000 \n0 \n65.3 \n46", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "65.3 \n46 \n219,960,000 \n85,580,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n16 \nButambala DLG \n201.9 \n137 \n43,646,000 \n9,508,000 \n105.5 \n52 \n168,990,000 \n137,795,000 \n58 \n0 \n66,900,000 \n0 \n17 \nButebo DLG \n143.5 \n116.4 \n48,000,000 \n38,269,081 \n19.2 \n12.5 \n72,259,090 \n48,259,090 \n4 \n0 \n40,000,000 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n18 \nEntebbe MC \n36.81 \n36.81 \n156,339,000 \n172,103,000 \n1,649 \n1,710 \n129,680,000 \n123,690,000 \n1.7 \n1.1 \n916,180,000 \n496,431,000 \n19 \nFort Portal City \n91.95 \n91.95 \n182,000,000 \n172,280,000 \n64.1 \n64.1 \n118,243,000 \n117,675,000 \n4.8 \n1 \n435,668,000 \n251,219,000 \n20 \nGomba DLG \n93.9 \n93.9", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "93.9 \n85,000,000 \n65,890,000 \n35 \n12.4 \n241,677,000 \n86,524,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n21 \nHoima DLG \n342.4 \n333.1 \n119,200,000 \n29,200,000 \n33 \n28 \n119,870,000 \n87,651,437 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n22 \nIbanda DLG \n135.6 \n45.5 \n130,680,000 \n30,033,000 \n72.6 \n72.6 \n139,589,000 \n111,791,000", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "111,791,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n23 \nIganga DLG \n128.14 \n128.14 \n120,400,000 \n66,249,000 \n8.89 \n8.89 \n10,374,000 \n10,337,000 \n12.66 \n12.66 \n147,571,000 \n62,431,000 \n24 \nIganga MC \n47.2 \n47.2 \n95,800,000 \n61,806,000 \n11.74 \n12 \n22,443,000 \n22,378,000 \n1.7 \n1.4 \n431,583,000 \n269,442,000", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "269,442,000 \n25 \nKabarole DLG \n174.9 \n109.3 \n101,700,000 \n22,368,598 \n112.3 \n106 \n147,000,000 \n134,085,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n26 \nKaberamaido DLG \n310 \n0 \n34,326,000 \n1,400,000 \n10 \n10 \n92,544,000 \n53,486,490 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n27 \nKakumiro DLG \n192 \n192 \n65,101,000 \n41,228,508 \n41 \n38", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "41 \n38 \n249,450,000 \n125,367,366 \n0 \n \n0 \n0 \n28 \nKalaki DLG \n960 \n50 \n45,800,000 \n20,736,000 \n14 \n8.1 \n61,206,550 \n31,741,956 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n29 \nKamwenge DLG \n164.3 \n0 \n96,976,000 \n0 \n51 \n50.5 \n197,708,000 \n179,198,100 \n48.4 \n48.4 \n318,689,000 \n318,689,000 \n30", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "30 \nKapelebyong DLG \n86 \n0 \n20,000,000 \n0 \n \n \n \n \n4 \n4 \n100,000,000 \n41,623,200 \n31 \nkatakwi DLG \n167 \n0 \n70,500,000 \n0 \n17.5 \n17.5 \n155,000,000 \n129,893,397 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n32 \nKayunga DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n105.5 \n52.6 \n488,450,000 \n251,466,345 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n33 \nKibuku DLG \n89.3 \n37.6 \n103,000,000 \n43,374,000 \n51.9 \n26.4 \n141,858,000 \n72,220,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n34 \nKikuube DLG \n449 \n287 \n72,400,000 \n41,466,000 \n34 \n11 \n181,353,000 \n58,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "351 \n \n35 \nKira MC \n47 \n44 \n248,960,000 \n195,893,000 \n66 \n58 \n484,500,000 \n390,652,000 \n0.5 \n0.4 \n480,041,000 \n299,414,000 \n36 \nKiruhura DLG \n180 \n19 \n30,000,000 \n3,600,000 \n39.9 \n49.3 \n108,000,000 \n88,572,600 \n24 \n9 \n73,000,000 \n35,466,429 \n37 \nKisoro DLG \n307.2 \n142", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "307.2 \n142 \n164,775,000 \n72,633,000 \n145 \n73 \n145,000,000 \n99,383,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n38 \nKisoro MC \n31.8 \n40.77 \n73,800,000 \n73,350,900 \n12.37 \n12.37 \n35,000,000 \n32,274,000 \n4.55 \n2.35 \n174,099,121 \n55,485,689 \n39 \nKoboko DLG \n323.7 \n323.7 \n110,200,000 \n27,550,000 \n68.7 \n47", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "68.7 \n47 \n82,440,000 \n56,400,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n40 \nKoboko MC \n82 \n82 \n53,200,000 \n49,600,000 \n16 \n16 \n72,000,000 \n72,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n41 \nKole DLG \n49 \n2 \n29,000,000 \n10,000,000 \n88 \n28 \n88,000,000 \n29,706,560 \n22 \n15.5 \n140,443,000 \n86,086,739 \n42 \nKumi DLG", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kumi DLG \n1242.4 \n621.2 \n125,553,000 \n72,720,000 \n24 \n10 \n175,072,892 \n55,738,752 \n104.4 \n40.6 \n146,160,000 \n103,905,000 \n43 \nKumi MC \n216 \n85 \n72,000,000 \n21,495,000 \n25.2 \n12 \n65,000,000 \n31,130,000 \n6 \n5 \n157,833,000 \n143,191,000 \n44 \nKyegegwa DLG \n300 \n60 \n57,940,224 \n12,300,000 \n94", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "94 \n47 \n224,160,118 \n131,645,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n45 \nKyenjojo DLG \n410.6 \n0 \n133,000,272 \n9,750,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n55.6 \n31 \n321,848,813 \n197,393,854 \n46 \nKyotera DLG \n222.6 \n14 \n135,271,000 \n14,000,000 \n91.7 \n41 \n242,867,000 \n215,713,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n47 \nLamwo DLG", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Lamwo DLG \n105.1 \n0 \n44,816,000 \n0 \n129 \n91.7 \n157,384,000 \n142,680,000 \n15.7 \n0 \n120,000,000 \n0 \n48 \nLira City \n60.92 \n80.77 \n267,000,000 \n195,892,000 \n25.1 \n31 \n386,839,000 \n337,060,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n49 \nLira DLG \n49 \n2 \n29,000,000 \n10,000,000 \n88 \n28 \n88,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "88,000,000 \n29,706,560 \n22 \n15.5 \n140,443,000 \n86,086,739 \n50 \nLugazi MC \n30 \n30 \n41,400,000 \n41,400,000 \n32 \n32 \n395,680,000 \n395,680,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n51 \nLuuka DLG \n175.58 \n0 \n45,150,000 \n0 \n25.6 \n24.2 \n112,661,000 \n98,734,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n52 \nLwengo DLG \n187 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "187 \n0 \n21,990,987 \n0 \n115 \n62.9 \n332,036,824 \n180,851,865 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n53 \nLyantonde DLG \n316 \n0 \n44,000,000 \n0 \n34.4 \n26 \n126,000,000 \n85,512,298 \n6 \n6 \n30,000,000 \n30,000,000 \n54 \nMakindye Ssabagabo MC \n25 \n10 \n90,000,000 \n25,404,000 \n0 \n10.2 \n0 \n79,996,000 \n7", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7 \n8.2 \n760,000,000 \n366,549,000 \n55 \nManafwa DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n22 \n10 \n41,700,003 \n30,325,855 \n3 \n1 \n87,900,000 \n42,349,420 \n56 \nMasaka City \n44.6 \n44.6 \n166,773,000 \n136,465,102 \n43.8 \n43.8 \n216,153,567 \n212,811,703 \n12 \n12 \n529,404,679 \n288,559,400 \n57 \nMasaka DLG \n81.57", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "81.57 \n0 \n47,963,160 \n4,718,000 \n98.59 \n47.89 \n275,108,990 \n134,443,000 \n4 \n4 \n36,892,215 \n36,752,000 \n58 \nMasindi MC \n218.7 \n115 \n215,980,000 \n117,043,850 \n42 \n39.7 \n117,600,000 \n109,053,000 \n3.7 \n3 \n76,899,000 \n49,996,000 \n59 \nMitooma DLG \n69 \n5 \n60,400,000 \n700,000 \n200.5 \n116", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "200.5 \n116 \n216,500,490 \n137,024,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n60 \nMityana MC \n53.8 \n53.8 \n31,804,000 \n29,051,000 \n38.2 \n12.7 \n375,063,000 \n252,785,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n61 \nMoroto DLG \n110 \n110 \n67,699,000 \n25,161,000 \n26 \n12 \n128,798,000 \n39,183,744 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n62 \nMoroto MC", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "62 \nMoroto MC \n56.8 \n56.8 \n54,200,000 \n54,200,000 \n2.93 \n2.93 \n42,855,000 \n42,855,000 \n1.22 \n0.88 \n217,000,000 \n99,232,000 \n63 \nMoyo DLG \n77.7 \n46.03 \n147,398,206 \n87,314,028 \n84 \n9.1 \n147,139,682 \n17,215,780 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n64 \nMpigi DLG \n60.5 \n60.5 \n49,500,000 \n35,700,000", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "35,700,000 \n97 \n40 \n377,819,000 \n193,430,250 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n65 \nMubende DLG \n350 \n185 \n86,333,000 \n30,471,000 \n272.5 \n121.5 \n318,245,000 \n158,245,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n66 \nMubende MC \n113 \n113 \n55,714,000 \n55,714,000 \n75 \n75 \n127,621,757 \n106,830,190 \n12 \n12 \n234,750,000 \n90,710,498", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "90,710,498 \n67 \nMukono DLG \n471.17 \n0 \n141,345,000 \n0 \n96.17 \n91.8 \n411,608,000 \n325,149,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n68 \nNakapiripirit DLG \n61 \n61 \n74,000,000 \n42,340,000 \n1 \n8 \n128,798,000 \n42,860,918 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n69 \nNakaseke DLG \n410.8 \n205.4 \n258,313,415 \n56,333,500 \n94.8 \n53", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "94.8 \n53 \n159,768,385 \n131,398,678 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n70 \nNakasongola DLG \n371.1 \n150.2 \n94,784,090 \n18,153,000 \n47 \n32.5 \n362,885,000 \n213,421,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n71 \nNamisindwa DLG \n103 \n0 \n104,968,000 \n0 \n61.6 \n47.1 \n61,663,000 \n102,061,049 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n72", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n72 \nNamutumba DLG \n263.8 \n0 \n94,723,907 \n0 \n36.7 \n30.73 \n151,367,950 \n134,013,203 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n73 \nNansana MC \n96.9 \n96.9 \n194,807,100 \n175,250,000 \n64.4 \n48.9 \n703,258,600 \n475,588,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "352 \n \n74 \nNapak DLG \n28.2 \n13.2 \n39,150,000 \n18,370,800 \n9 \n7 \n24,004,000 \n18,582,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n75 \nNebbi MC \n162.2 \n161.4 \n147,458,648 \n143,430,859 \n19.4 \n11.4 \n69,360,000 \n34,420,485 \n5.2 \n3.2 \n64,212,870 \n33,720,468 \n76 \nNgora DLG \n168 \n115.9 \n190,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "190,000,000 \n94,205,000 \n50.2 \n46 \n31,400,000 \n30,103,700 \n0.6 \n0 \n15,367,000 \n0 \n77 \nNjeru MC \n148.6 \n102.6 \n167,240,000 \n156,496,313 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n41 \n31.6 \n453,529,855 \n264,080,658 \n78 \nNtoroko DLG \n39 \n33 \n46,700,000 \n19,513,000 \n15 \n0 \n23,391,000 \n0 \n2.5 \n3.5", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3.5 \n110,000,000 \n78,166,000 \n79 \nNtungamo MC \n31 \n31 \n55,520,000 \n53,080,000 \n27 \n34 \n135,000,000 \n209,546,000 \n1 \n0 \n183,000,000 \n7,500,000 \n80 \nOtuke DLG \n150 \n0 \n101,033,000 \n0 \n28.5 \n28.5 \n55,321,000 \n54,520,000 \n2 \n1.2 \n56,367,000 \n8,870,000 \n81 \nOyam DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "0 \n0 \n83.75 \n14.95 \n312,280,000 \n122,906,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n82 \nOyam DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n83.75 \n14.95 \n312,280,000 \n122,906,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n83 \nPakwach DLG \n268 \n22 \n84,135,524 \n11,164,179 \n26 \n22 \n130,200,000 \n108,759,076 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n84 \nPallisa DLG", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Pallisa DLG \n230 \n145.5 \n106,855,420 \n39,440,000 \n10.5 \n8.5 \n132,478,960 \n59,721,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n85 \nRubanda DLG \n60 \n51.7 \n49,820,000 \n38,914,400 \n72.8 \n10.7 \n140,852,689 \n26,592,512 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n86 \nRubirizi DLG \n128 \n35 \n48,802,000 \n14,800,000 \n36 \n31.6 \n160,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "160,000,000 \n104,417,602 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n \n87 \nRukiga DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n75 \n75 \n81,000,000 \n81,000,000 \n5 \n5 \n36,000,000 \n36,000,000 \n88 \nRukungiri DLG \n100 \n25.9 \n136,598,000 \n39,874,738 \n183 \n28.2 \n186,208,820 \n119,761,098 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n89 \nRwampara DLG \n60 \n0", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "60 \n0 \n70,500,000 \n0 \n26 \n26 \n86,000,000 \n80,249,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n90 \nSembabule DLG \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n86.64 \n41.25 \n380,790,000 \n150,000,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n91 \nSerere DLG \n379.21 \n240.1 \n173,643,000 \n70,540,000 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n14.7 \n19.5 \n65,368,000", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "65,368,000 \n62,217,500 \n92 \nSironko DLG \n242 \n242 \n129,511,602 \n66,204,000 \n52 \n37 \n78,000,000 \n44,033,000 \n14 \n14 \n205,795,000 \n93,321,000 \n93 \nSoroti DLG \n168.2 \n168.2 \n123,000,000 \n77,499,880 \n38.1 \n25.5 \n104,000,000 \n70,289,400 \n10.2 \n0 \n82,000,000 \n0 \n94 \nTororo DLG \n529 \n535.3", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "535.3 \n215,122,000 \n72,662,000 \n128.7 \n123.1 \n183,692,000 \n175,419,370 \n114 \n0 \n170,000,000 \n0 \n95 \nTororo MC \n72.6 \n48.4 \n172,000,000 \n92,400,000 \n28 \n30.65 \n82,000,000 \n68,221,141 \n11.2 \n18.2 \n168,000,000 \n114,378,000 \n96 \nZombo DLG \n288 \n58 \n172,300,000 \n34,924,053 \n26 \n19 \n76,000,000", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "76,000,000 \n56,068,841 \n2 \n2 \n21,113,990 \n21,113,990 \n \nTotal \n16,067 \n7,385 \n8,494,132,\n458 \n4,089,157,\n242 \n6,720 \n4,924 \n15,394,408\n,459 \n10,306,553\n,352 \n845 \n378 \n8,675,569,7\n61 \n4,376,557,\n279", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "353 \n \nAppendix 15a: Public Corporations and State Enterprises that were supposed to be consolidated \nS/N \nName of Entity \nStatus \n1. \n \nBank of Uganda \nConsolidated \n2. \n \nElectricity Regulatory Authority \nConsolidated \n3. \n \nEnterprise Uganda \nConsolidated \n4. \n \nInsurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda \nConsolidated \n5. \n \nNational Enterprises Corporation \nConsolidated \n6. \n \nNational Drug Authority \nConsolidated \n7. \n \nNational Water & Sewerage Corporation \nConsolidated \n8. \n \nUganda Civil Aviation Authority \nConsolidated \n9. \n \nUganda Communications Commission \nConsolidated", "metadata": {"page": 369, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda Communications Commission \nConsolidated \n10. \nUganda Development Corporation \nConsolidated \n11. \nUganda Printing and Publishing Corporation \nConsolidated \n12. \nUganda Railways Corporation \nConsolidated \n13. \nUganda Wildlife Authority \nConsolidated \n14. \nUganda Wildlife Conservation Education Centre \nConsolidated \n15. \nKiira Motors Corporation Limited \nConsolidated \n16. \nMandela Stadium Limited \nConsolidated \n17. \n The Micro Finance Support Centre Ltd \nConsolidated \n18. \nPost Bank Uganda Limited \nConsolidated \n19. \nPride Micro Finance Limited \nConsolidated \n20. \nUganda Post Limited \nConsolidated \n21. \nUganda Broadcasting Corporation Limited \nConsolidated \n22. \nUganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited", "metadata": {"page": 369, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited \nConsolidated \n23. \nUganda Electricity Generation Company Limited \nConsolidated \n24. \nUganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited \nConsolidated \n25. \nUganda National Airlines Company Limited \nConsolidated \n26. \nUganda National Oil Company Limited \nConsolidated \n27. \nUganda Property Holdings Limited \nConsolidated \n28. \nUganda Seeds Limited \nConsolidated \n29. \nKilembe Mines Limited \nConsolidated \n30. \nNew Vision Printing & Publishing Company Limited \nConsolidated \n31. \nNational Housing & Construction Company Limited \nConsolidated \n32. \nHousing Finance Bank Ltd \nConsolidated \n33. \nDeposit Protection Fund Uganda \nConsolidated \n34. \nUganda Development Bank Limited \nConsolidated \n35.", "metadata": {"page": 369, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Consolidated \n35. \nNakivubo War Memorial Stadium \nDid not submit \n36. \nUganda Air Cargo Corporation \nDid not submit \n37. \nDairy Corporation Limited \nDid not submit", "metadata": {"page": 369, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "354 \n \nS/N \nName of Entity \nStatus \n38. \nUganda Crane Industries Limited \nDid not submit \n39. \nUganda Livestock Industries Limited \nDid not submit \n40. \nUganda Refinery Holding Company Limited \nDid not submit \n41. \nProduction Enterprises Corporations Limited \nDid not submit \n42. \nUganda Fisheries Enterprises Limited \nDid not submit \n43. \nKampala Industrial and business park Ltd \nDid not submit \n44. \nScience and Technology Equipment Production (unit) Ltd \nDid not submit \n45. \nUGMA Engineering Corporation Limited \nDid not submit \n46. \nHousing Finance Investments \nDid not submit \n47. \nUganda Energy Credit Capitalization Company Limited (UECCCL)", "metadata": {"page": 370, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Not Consolidated and not disclosed \n48. \nNile Hotel International Limited \nNot Consolidated and not disclosed \n49. \nUganda Hotel and Tourism Training Institute \nNot Consolidated and not disclosed \n50. \nNational Pipeline Company (NPC) \nNot Consolidated and not disclosed", "metadata": {"page": 370, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "355 \n \nANNEXURES \nANNEXURE I: SUMMARY OF ENTITY FINDINGS AND OPINIONS FOR MDAs, COMMISSIONS, STATUTORY CORPORATIONS AND STATE \nENTERPRISES AND PROJECTS \n \nNo. \nSECTOR AND ENTITY \nSUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS \n \nAGRICULTURE SECTOR \n \n1. \n \nThe Agriculture Cluster Development \nProject (ACDP) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.196.099Bn expected from the Donors, UGX.145.885Bn was available for \nspending, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.50.214Bn (26%). Further, of the expected UGX.0.700Bn GOU co-funding, \nUGX. 0.699Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.001Bn representing 99.8% performance.", "metadata": {"page": 371, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds of UGX.145.885Bn, UGX. 84.520Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of \nUGX.61.365Bn representing an absorption level of 57.93%. This affected implementation of activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI sampled four (4) activities worth UGX 63.061Bn and assessed the extent to which these had been implemented. \nOut of the 4 activities; two (2) activities were partially implemented, while 2 activities were not implemented. This \naffected service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted a number of shortcomings from my inspections such as delayed works, incomplete structures, un-utilised \nagro processing facilities all of which affected service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted avoidable expenditure on the procurement of M-Cash Uganda Limited as an E-Voucher management \nagency at a cost of UGX.6.8Bn. In addition, there was delayed operationalization of the M-cash electronic payment", "metadata": {"page": 371, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "platform for eight (8) months due to the failure by MAAIF to integrate this financial inclusion system to the NITA\u2018s \npayment gateway in time leading to farmers and agro dealers failure to transact during this period. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was failure to refund unutilized balances to farmers, Agro-dealers and MAAIF by UBA to the tune UGX.8.8Bn \non termination of their contract. \n2. \n \nSeed Certification Project \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Project had six objectives which were supposed to have been fully achieved by 30th June 2022. As of this \ndate, one (1) had been fully implemented, three (3) were partially implemented and two (2) had not been \nimplemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nAt the beginning of the year under audit (1st July 2021), the Project had a balance of UGX.938,133,721 from the", "metadata": {"page": 371, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "previous financial year 2020-2021 which was not utilized during the year. By 30th June 2022, all the funds were \nstill on the Project account. \n3. \n \nAgriculture Vector Control Project (AVCP) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Project planned to receive UGX.3.5Bn GOU counterpart funding, out of which UGX.3.44Bn was warranted, \nresulting in a shortfall of UGX0.06Bn (1.7%). Further, out of the budgeted UGX.39.8Bn donor funding, \nUGX.39.71Bn was availed for spending, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.09Bn (0.2%).", "metadata": {"page": 371, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "356 \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds for the financial year of UGX.39.71Bn, only UGX.38.33Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.38Bn representing an absorption level of 97%. Out of the 64 activities \nworth UGX.39.8Bn sampled; 28 activities representing 44% were fully implemented, 29 activities representing \n45% were partially implemented while 7 activities representing 11% were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nPhysical inspection of three (3) construction projects worth UGX.22Bn namely; Irrigation Scheme in Acomai, \nNational Metrology Laboratory at UNBS and holding grounds at Gwot Apwoyo Zonal Animal Disease control center \nrevealed that works were behind schedule which will result in delayed service delivery to the citizens. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was only one Multi-sectoral Steering committee sitting during the year out of the mandatory two (2) which", "metadata": {"page": 372, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "is a major internal control weakness and exposes the Project to performance challenges such as delays in project \nimplementation and unsatisfactory quality of works among others \n4. \n \nNational \nAgricultural \nResearch \nOrganization (NARO) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nNARO budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.834Bn during the year, however, UGX.3.097Bn was collected, representing \na performance of 109% which was partly attributed to the low NTR projections set for the entity by MoFPED \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.110.608Bn, UGX.109.089Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX1.519Bn (1.37%) which affected the implementation of activities. All the warrants given to the entity were \nutilized. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 372, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "utilized. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of seven (7) outputs with a total of sixteen (16) activities worth \nUGX.50.655Bn. Out of the seven out-puts 3 outputs with four (4) activities and expenditure worth UGX.2.158Bn \nwere fully implemented and 4 outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX.48.497Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds to the tune of UGX.0.093Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent \non other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nI undertook field inspections and noted that a number of project works were behind schedule which resulted into \ndelayed service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \n90 pieces of land owned by the entity were not recorded in the fixed assets register on IFMS while 17 pieces had \nencumbrances. In addition, 14 pieces lacked titles, while titles for 4 pieces had not been transferred from the", "metadata": {"page": 372, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "previous owners. Similarly, titles for 15 pieces of land had not been transferred in joint custody of ULC. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had unsettled domestic arrears as at 30th June 2022 amounting to UGX 2.58Bn. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staff structure of 995 staff, only 836 positions were filled leaving a balance of 159 (16%) \nvacant. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings i.e. lack of specific structures that steer \nand oversee ICT implementation, inadequately filled ICT staff establishment (58%), limited awareness of the \napproved ICT policy and guidelines by staff and lack of documented systematic business continuity or disaster \nrecovery testing, reporting and maintenance procedures.", "metadata": {"page": 372, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "357 \n \n5. \n \nCoordinating \nOffice for Control of Trypanosomiasis in \nUganda (COCTU) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX. 2.4Bn, UGX. 2.1Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.3Bn \n(11.6%). \n\uf0b7 \nI sampled out twelve out-puts and noted that eleven (11) outputs worth UGX.1.5Bn were fully implemented while \none (1) output worth 0.6Bn was partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity received off-budget financing to a tune of UGX.0.513Bn which was never declared to the PSST. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staff structure of 37 staff, only 19 positions were filled leaving a balance of 18 (49%) vacant. \n6.", "metadata": {"page": 373, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "6. \n \nResilience Project (RPLRP) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted UGX.23.9Bn for donor project activities, only UGX.14Bn was available, resulting in a shortfall \nof UGX.9.8Bn representing 41% of the budget. Further, only UGX.0.65Bn was warranted out of the UGX.1.0Bn \nGOU co-funding resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.35Bn representing 35% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds of UGX.14.03Bn; UGX.13.22Bn was spent by the Project resulting in an unspent \nbalance of UGX0.81Bn representing an absorption level of 94.2%. \n\uf0b7 \nOf the 4 quantified activities worth UGX.12.4Bn assessed; 2 activities representing 50% were fully implemented", "metadata": {"page": 373, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "while 2 activities representing 50% were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted inadequacies in service delivery in form of delayed works and incomplete livestock marketing and \nproduction infrastructure i.e. handover for construction of four (4) sites was delayed between 8 to 16 months and \ntwo (2) sites were yet to be completed despite project closure, hence requiring GOU funding interventions. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total expected loan amount of USD 40Mn only USD. 36.297Mn was received during the project life cycle \nresulting in un-disbursed loan proceeds of USD 3.703Mn (UGX.13.9Bn) representing 9.3% of the loan amount and \nas a result Government of Uganda will have to pay back the loan in full including funds that were never disbursed \nfor Project activities which reflects a loss to Government. \n7. \n \nUganda Multi-Sectoral \nFood Security and Nutrition Project", "metadata": {"page": 373, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Food Security and Nutrition Project \n(UMFSNP) \u2013 Grant NO. P149286 \n\uf0b7 \nThe approved project budget for donor funds was UGX.24.23Bn however UGX.25.13Bn was availed for spending, \nresulting in an excess of UGX 0.908Bn (3.7%). On the other hand, the approved GOU budget was 0.5Bn out of \nwhich UGX.0.398Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX0.102Bn which was 20% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total funds available from both donors and Gou of UGX 25.52Bn, UGX 8.897 was absorbed resulting in \nunspent balances of UGX 16.62Bn. This represents absorption of only 35% of the funds available. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that out of the 34 activities worth UGX.5.327Bn assessed; 14 activities- 41% were fully implemented,", "metadata": {"page": 373, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "15 activities-44% were partially implemented, while 5 activities-15% were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted shortcomings that affect service delivery for the citizens such as; failure to maintain demonstration gardens, \ndelayed approval of District Nutrition Action plans, delayed release of funds to Districts, and unutilised funds at \nthe Districts.", "metadata": {"page": 373, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "358 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere was no meeting held by the inter-ministerial Project Steering Committee during the year. \n8. \n \nNational \nAnimal \nGenetic \nResources \nCentre & Data Bank (NAGRIC & DB) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted NTR of UGX.1.56Bn, UGX.2.629Bn was realised, representing a performance of 169%. This \nwas attributed to the entity NTR budget projections way below probable revenue sources. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted UGX.73.362Bn, UGX.72.762Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX0.6Bn \nrepresenting 0.82% of the budget. The Shortfall affected implementation of activities \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 374, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the implementation of a sample of two outputs with a total of four (4) activities worth UGX.7.5Bn. I \nnoted that; 1 output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.2Bn was fully implemented while 1 output \nwith 3 activities worth UGX.5.5Bn was partially implemented. As a result, the entity did not finalise establishment \nof fish feed plant and animal feed production, processing, packaging and storage facilities on Centre farms. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.0.470Bn was irregularly diverted from the activities on which it was budgeted for and spent on other activities \nwithout seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \n I noted challenges in regard to service delivery mainly resulting from delays and non-performing contracts. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted shortcomings in the management of land owned by the entity which included encumbrances on 5 pieces", "metadata": {"page": 374, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of land, lack of land titles for all 16 entity pieces of land, failure to transfer all the sixteen (16) land titles into the \nname and custody of the Uganda Land Commission, unutilized pieces of land. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had outstanding arrears to the tune of UGX.1.31Bn which was an increment of 4.5% from the prior year \narrears balance of UGX.1.25Bn \n\uf0b7 \nThere was loss of 920 cattle, 521 goats and 1 pig estimated at UGX.0.33Bn through death and theft leading to \nloss of government biological assets and thus Government revenues. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that letters of credit opened as far back as 2018/2019 had not performed which continued to affect \nprogress of works and service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity management was not adhering to the approved staff structure during recruitment. Some of \nthe positions were over filled while others were under-filled. In addition, 17 staff had been in acting positions for", "metadata": {"page": 374, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "more than six months which was irregular. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted shortcomings in the management of IT Investments i.e. delays to implement the procured IT system, \nfailure to dispose IT hardware equipment, inadequate Internal Audit review of the ICT systems that produce \nfinancial statements, lack of an approved IT risk management framework/policy and lack of a business continuity \nplan. \n\uf0b7 \nWithholding tax to the tune of UGX.0.33Bn from payments worth UGX.6.25Bn was not recovered from service \nproviders.", "metadata": {"page": 374, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "359 \n \n9. \n \nNational Oil Palm Project (NOPP) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the Donor budget of UGX.39.29Bn, only UGX.21.15Bn was availed for spending resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX.18.14Bn representing 46%. Further, of the UGX.4.897Bn GOU co-funding, only UGX.4.647Bn was warranted \nresulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.25Bn representing 5.1%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds for the year of UGX.26.659Bn, only UGX.15.366Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.11.293Bn representing an absorption level of 58.5%. As a result of under-absorption,", "metadata": {"page": 375, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "a number of planned activities were not implemented by the project which affected service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the sampled 88 activities worth UGX.9.67Bn assessed; 15 activities representing 17% were fully \nimplemented, 22 activities representing 25% were partially implemented, while 51 activities representing 58% \nwere not implemented. Failure to fully implement activities affects service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted inadequacies in service delivery in form of delayed review of consultancy reports to enable approval of \nnew hubs for oil palm growing by IFAD and delayed hand over of Land for the nucleus estates for oil palm \ndevelopment due to delays in transferring of titles for the acquired land. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted non-remittance of loan recoveries to the UCF worth UGX.18.4Bn thus delaying implementation of critical \ngovernment programs. Further, there was non-utilization of reflows to a tune of UGX.29.1bn to fund the National", "metadata": {"page": 375, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Oil Palm Project (NOPP) in contravention of the tripartite agreement thus denying the citizens benefits accruing. \n10. \nCotton Development Organization (CDO) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted NTR of UGX. 4.62Bn, only UGX. 2.15Bn was collected, representing a performance of 46.5% \nof the target. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 13.017Bn, only UGX. 13.017Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 0.024Bn representing absorption level of 99.99%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that of the three (3) sampled quantified outputs with a total of four (4) activities worth UGX 1.63Bn; 1", "metadata": {"page": 375, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.0.199Bn was fully implemented and 2 outputs with three \n(3) activities worth UGX.1.43Bn were partially implemented. Out of the 3 activities, the entity fully implemented 1 \nactivity while 2 activities were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds to the tune of UGX. 28.4 Million were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other \nactivities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staff structure of 47 staff, only 37 positions were filled leaving a balance of 10 (21.3%) vacant. \nKey among the vacant posts is Classifier and Agronomy Officers. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings; such as lack of specific structures that \nsteer and oversee ICT implementation and lack of an IT structure \n\uf0b7 \nOne (1) piece of land out of the entity total of 3 pieces was not being utilised by the entity. \n11.", "metadata": {"page": 375, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11. \nDairy Development Authority (DDA). \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted NTR of UGX.0.56Bn, only UGX.0.45Bn was collected, representing a performance of 79.7% \nof the target.", "metadata": {"page": 375, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "360 \n \nUnqualified \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.11.6Bn, UGX.11.4Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.2Bn \n(1.7%). \n\uf0b7 \nI sampled one out-put that was quantified with a total of two (2) activities worth UGX 0.17Bn and noted that this \noutput was not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds to the tune of UGX.0.031Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other \nactivities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had outstanding domestic arrears to a tune of 283Mn, of which, UGX.186Mn were incurred during the \nyear under review. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 376, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "year under review. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the 55 pieces of land measuring approximately 20.887 hectares owned by the Authority, 35 pieces of DDA \nland did not have land titles while 20 titled pieces of land had not yet been transferred in the names of Uganda \nLand Commission. I further noted that 1 piece of land was not recorded in the entity\u2019s land register and the IFMS \nfixed assets module, while records for 2 pieces of land were scanty. 30 pieces of land were also not utilized by the \nentity at the time of Audit. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved one hundred and thirty-nine (139) posts only eighty-six (86) are filled and fifty-three (53) \nwere vacant representing 38% understaffing. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings for instance; 5 IT Systems worth \nUGX.226Mn had no clearance from NITA-U and MoFPED, IT assets and systems procured at a cost of UGX.218.9Mn", "metadata": {"page": 376, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were not planned for, one IT system was not being utilised among others. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that DDA was not levying and collecting Cess on Milk or Milk products and neither did the Authority receive \ndue compensation from the Ministry of Finance. \n12. \nNational Agricultural Advisory Services \n(NAADS). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNAADS budgeted to collect NTR of UGX. 0.06Bn during the year however; UGX. 0.03Bn was collected, representing \na performance of 50%. This was partly attributed to the unrealistic NTR projections due to the non-participation \nof the entity during the estimation of NTR by MoFPED. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budget of UGX.104.49Bn, UGX. 88.73Bn was warranted resulting in a short fall of UGX.1.519Bn (15.1%).", "metadata": {"page": 376, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Out of the total warrants of 88.73Bn, UGX 88.45Bn was absorbed representing an absorption level of 99.7%. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds to the tune of UGX.0.173Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other \nactivities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nField inspections and document review revealed several shortcomings in service delivery in form of delays for \nconstruction works and utilisation of completed facilities. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had unsettled domestic arrears as at 30th June 2022 amounting to UGX. 14.353Bn. In addition, the \nentity had Letters of Credit worth UGX.21.2Bn which did not perform for more than two years. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted challenges in the progress of the Atyak sugarcane production project in Northern Uganda due to a number \nof challenges such as adverse weather and field conditions at the Atiak Site, shortage of seed cane within the", "metadata": {"page": 376, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "361 \n \nproximity of the sites, fire outbreaks destroying substantial acreage of the plantation and the decision to \ntemporarily halt the operations in a bid to mechanise the process. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staff structure of 56 staff, only 50 positions were filled leaving a balance of 6 (10.7%) vacant. \nKey among the vacant posts is Manager Finance and Administration and Zonal Agricultural Development Officer. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings such as lack of specific structures that \nsteer and oversee ICT implementation, delayed implementation of 1 IT project, un integrated Agri-monitoring \nMonitoring System (NAMS) that is not interfaced with other systems, lack of clearance for procurement of 12 IT \nsystems/equipment worth UGX 0.146Bn by NITA-U and lack of specific structures that steer and oversee ICT \nimplementation. In addition, NAADS lacked an approved IT staff structure in place despite ICT prioritisation in NDP \nIII. \n13.", "metadata": {"page": 377, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "III. \n13. \nMinistry of Agriculture, Animal, Industry \nand Fisheries (MAAIF). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.254.12Bn, UGX.201.35Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX.52.66Bn representing a 21% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.201.35Bn, only UGX.196.54Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.4.81Bn representing an absorption level of 97.6%. As a result of failure to \nutilize warrants; Pension and gratuity arrears continued to accumulate, 0.29Mn cashew Nut seedlings were not \nprocured and Staff houses at FTI and BAC were not renovated. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 377, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 30 outputs sampled with a total of 83 activities worth UGX.55.7Bn; 18 outputs with 49 \nactivities and expenditure worth UGX.23.1Bn were fully implemented; 10 outputs with 32 activities worth \nUGX.31.9Bn were partially implemented that is; 20 activities were fully implemented, 11 activities were partially \nimplemented while 1 activity remained unimplemented and 2 outputs with 2 activities worth 0.7Bn were not \nimplemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.1.36Bn was irregularly diverted from the activities on which it was budgeted and spent on other activities \nwithout seeking and obtaining the necessary approval. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was inadequate delivery of services to the citizens as highlighted by delays in construction of infrastructure \nprojects (Dams, valley tanks, irrigation schemes), delayed delivery of vaccines and tractors, delayed distribution \nof tractors and failure to utilise well drilling rigs. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 377, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted shortcomings in the management of Public Land for instance; failure to record land pieces in the assets \nregister and GFMIS fixed asset module, encumbrances on 27 pieces of land through encroachment, lack of land \ntitles for 59 pieces of land, non-quantification of planned land for acquisition, non-involvement of ULC in land \nacquisition, failure to transfer 4 land titles into the name and custody of the ULC, unutilised pieces of land, lack of \nland lease register and Irregular allocation of Land by District Land Boards. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had outstanding arrears to the tune of UGX.11.46Bn which was an increment of 4.% from the prior year \narrears balance of UGX.11.03Bn.", "metadata": {"page": 377, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "362 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted loss of inventory worth UGX.2.36Bn due to a fire outbreak in stores of 34 items out of the 62 items kept \nin the stores. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry spent UGX.0.233Bn on PDM activities which was not provided for in the approved work plan. Further, \nas a result of failure to fund PDM, a number of activities necessary before the full roll out to ensure that the Pillar \nobjectives are achieved were not undertaken. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of the performance of the Agriculture extension function revealed Lack of Performance Indicators to \nmeasure the performance of the extension workers in line with the PDM modality and inadequate extension \nworkers; 57% gaps of the required 9,275 \n\uf0b7 \nI noted shortcomings in the management of IT Investments for instance procurements of IT systems without \nNITA-U clearance, failure to optimally use acquired IT systems, non-recording of IT systems and IT hardware in", "metadata": {"page": 378, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the assets register and in the format prescribed by the Accountant General, failure to dispose of IT equipment \nrecommended for disposal, failure to undertake system upgrades, lack of specific structures that steer and oversee \nICT implementation, inadequate IT staff structure, failure to follow-up issues raised regarding ICT weaknesses, \nlack of an IT risk management framework/policy and lack of a business continuity plan. \n\uf0b7 \nAn assessment of the management of Court Awards and Compensations revealed failure to adequately budget for \nliabilities arising, lack of criteria for their management, delayed settlement for outstanding cases and failure to \ndevelop and maintain a detailed register of cases. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of the Ministry\u2019s staff establishment revealed that out of 945 approved positions, only 652 were filled and \n(293 were still vacant representing 31% staffing gap. Notably, it was observed that the core departments of crop \nresources, animal and Fisheries directorates are significantly affected. \n\uf0b7 \nManagement of Pension and Gratuity at the Ministry revealed several anomalies i.e. Failure to budget for Pension", "metadata": {"page": 378, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "arrears, delayed access of pensioners to the pension Payroll, Unreconciled Pension payroll register and pension \ninterface file and Payment of unverified Residual Pension Arrears. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of the \u201cDevelopment of a Sustainable Cashew Nut Value Chain Project\u201d revealed incomplete Project \napprovals thus irregular implementation by the ministry and non-alignment to the Public Investment Plan. As a \nresult, there was noted failure to achieve the Project Mandate despite availability of Funds. \n\uf0b7 \nShortcomings were noted in the Asset Management Structure at the Ministry for instance poor state of stores. \n14. \nUganda Coffee Development Authority \n(UCDA). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.22.43Bn during the year under review but realized UGX.31.64Bn \nrepresenting a performance of 141% of the target. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 378, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Authority had a budget of UGX.87.3Bn, out of which UGX.86.07Bn was warranted, resulting in a \nshortfall of UGX 1.23Bn. Out of the total warrants of UGX. 86.07Bn received, only UGX.76.79Bn was spent by the \nentity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.9.28Bn representing an absorption level of 89%.", "metadata": {"page": 378, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "363 \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of four (4) sampled quantified outputs with a total of forty-three (43) activities worth UGX. 52.8Bn \nrevealed that all the four (04) outputs were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds amounting to UGX 0.183Bn was irregularly diverted from the activities on which it was budgeted for and \nspent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority received off-budget financing worth UGX.3.3Bn which was never declared to the PS/ST. \n\uf0b7 \nField inspections and document review revealed several short comings in service delivery such as delayed \ninstallation of wet mills, failure to establish demonstration gardens despite spending funds among others. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had unsettled domestic arrears as at 30th June 2022 amounting to UGX 15.9Bn. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 379, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staff structure of 224 staff, only 138 (61%) positions were filled leaving 86 (39%) positions \nvacant. Among the vacant posts are key positions of managers. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted shortcomings in the management of ICT systems such as failure to integrate systems and absence of an \napproved ICT structure and an IT business continuity plan. \n \nJUSTICE, LAW AND ORDER SECTOR \n \n1. \n \nThe Industrial Court of Uganda \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Court did not have a strategic plan to facilitate preparation of annual work plans and the achievement of the \nNDP objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that all the three (03) quantified activities assessed worth UGX.2.095Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the financial statements revealed that the Court reported under the statement of financial position", "metadata": {"page": 379, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "payables amounting to UGX. 247,000,000. These related to unpaid sundry creditors in the period under review. \n\uf0b7 \nThere are conflicting provisions between the Employment Act, 2006 and the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and \nSettlement) Act, 2006 on period taken by labour officers to handle labour disputes, the qualifications of both the \nLabour officers and the Court panellists and their role as quasi-judicial officers were not standardised. \n\uf0b7 \nI also noted delayed implementation of the Court structure resulting into increased case backlogs from 2,524 to \n2,722 cases (8%) as at 30th June 2022. \n2. \n \nDirectorate of Government Analytical \nLaboratory (DGAL). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.25.83Bn, only UGX.19.31Bn was spent by the entity resulting", "metadata": {"page": 379, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "in an unspent balance of UGX.6.52Bn representing an absorption level of 75%. As a result, I noted that out of the \nten (10) quantified outputs worth UGX.12.51Bn assessed; three (3) outputs were fully implemented, while seven \n(7) outputs were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that whereas DGAL acquired a Laboratory \nInformation Management System in the financial year 2020/2021 at a cost of \u20ac58,146.60 (equivalent to \nUGX.250,000,000), the system was not fully utilised.", "metadata": {"page": 379, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "364 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of the case backlog reduction strategy by DGAL and noted that despite the goal of \nclearing all backlog cases by June 2021, the backlog had only reduced by 63.97%, implying that the zero-backlog \ngoal was not achieved. I also noted that despite various efforts, the case turnaround time has remained stagnant \nat 30 days for over four financial years with no improvement. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that DGAL prioritises new cases over older cases. As a result, backlog cases which have remained \nunresolved for five (5) years or longer constitute 50% of all the backlog cases of DGAL. \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Directorate spent UGX.1.05Bn on the operations of the regional laboratories, I noted that the regional \nlaboratories are not sufficiently equipped for forensic analysis and are currently used by Scene of Crime Officers \nas temporary collection points for samples and exhibits before transferring them to the main laboratory for analysis. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 380, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of public land and noted that the entity did not maintain a land register or capture \nthe owned land in the assets register in the Government\u2019s Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of IT systems and noted that DGAL had a number of IT Governance shortfalls. For \ninstance, there were no structures to oversee ICT implementation, no approved IT staff structure, internal audit \ndid not review ICT systems, and the entity did not have an approved IT risk management framework. \n3. \n \nJustice Law and Order Sector (JLOS-\nSWAP). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds for the financial year of UGX.106.3Bn, only UGX.76Bn was spent by the Project \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.30.3Bn, representing an absorption level of 71.5%. As a result, I noted", "metadata": {"page": 380, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "that of the 370 activities, ninety (96) were fully implemented, 219 were partially implemented, and 73 were not \nimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that NIRA issued birth certificates to 42,216 children born to refugees out of the planned 50,000. Whereas \nNIRA had planned to cover six (6) refugee sites, the issuance was only done in three (3) refugee sites. This affected \nservice delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas a sum of UGX.86,754,847 was spent on reviewing stalled cases to enable the affected citizens to obtain \nnational IDs, only 2,498 cases were reviewed out of the planned 7,122 cases. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Judicial Service Commission procured furniture and a motorcycle worth UGX.35,842,000 for use by the regional \noffices of Arua and Mbarara. At the time of audit these offices had not been operationalised, implying that the \nequipment was not used for the intended purpose. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 380, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the clearance of case backlog by the Judiciary using the JLOS SWAP funding and observed that 2,632 \ncases which had been part of the backlog were handled to completion and 6,035 cases remain as part of the \nbacklog. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Judiciary spent a sum of UGX.160,000,000 on installing a wide and local area network in court stations, and \nonly 2 out of the 20 court stations were covered. The failure to establish networks may negatively impact the \nElectronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) rollout.", "metadata": {"page": 380, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "365 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere were delays by the Office of the Directorate of Public Prosecution to complete the construction of four (4) \nResident State Attorneys\u2019 offices in Kibuku, Sironko, Kyegegwa and Bulambuli, which delayed the deconcentration \nof services by the ODPP. \n\uf0b7 \nUganda Police faced the following service delivery issues, whereas UPF planned to conclude investigations for 3000 \ncases backlog and a total budget of UGX.750,000,000 was allocated, UPF only received UGX.318,000,000. I was \nnot availed with the report showing the actual number of cases investigated and concluded using the available \nfunds. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas UPF planned to investigate and complete 7000 cases of sexual gender-based violence crimes using a \nbudget of UGX.350,000,000, with 92% of the budgeted funds released only 10% of the planned cases were \ninvestigated. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 381, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "investigated. \n\uf0b7 \nThe construction of the Bunyangabu Justice Centre by UPF, a project worth UGX.1.7Bn has experienced delays \ndue to insufficient and delayed availability of funds. At the time of audit only UGX.920 Million had so far been \nreleased, implying that the project completion deadline of October 2022 could not be achieved. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the JLOS House construction project is experiencing funding shortfalls. The project, whose value is \nUGX.245Bn has only received funding worth UGX.31Bn, which is 12% of the estimated project cost. There is a risk \nthat inadequate funding could affect the Project's timely completion. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Law Development Centre, through the Legal Aid Clinic, offers Clinical Legal Education to Bar course students \nand provides legal aid services to indigent (needy) persons. The initiative faces challenges, including limited \ngeographical spread, staffing shortfalls, funding challenges and incomplete or inaccurate data and information. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 381, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry of Justice undertook to construct the Soroti regional offices, and UGX.511.28 Mn was availed however, \nduring the audit. The construction had not yet commenced. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the call centre's operations at NCIC and noted that the call centre only offers daytime services, which \nmay affect service to Ugandans in the diaspora. In addition, there is no budget provision in the JLOS SWAP project, \nand the call centre is operated by temporary staff, increasing the risk of service disruptions if they resign without \nnotice. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the UHRC had planned to hold 200 regional tribunal hearings for human rights violations, and a sum of \nUGX.73,949,000 was spent, I observed that the tribunal only held 50 out of the 200 planned hearings. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the Financial year, URSB planned to equip the innovation hub and national copyright resource centre.", "metadata": {"page": 381, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Project funds amounting to UGX.70,000,000 were released. However, only UGX.35,000,000 was spent on the \nacquisition of projectors and laptops for the purpose. By the time of audit, the hub had not yet been set up, and \nmanagement explained that they were waiting to relocate to the newly constructed offices. \n\uf0b7 \nURSB planned to integrate the entities systems with other e-government platforms, such as the national \nidentification database of NIRA and the Motor Vehicle register maintained by the Uganda Revenue Authority. \nAlthough UGX.260,000,000 was released for the purpose, the integration was not achieved resulting in the failure \nto attain the planned outcomes.", "metadata": {"page": 381, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "366 \n \n\uf0b7 \nUnder the JLOS SWAP project, MoLG planned to print 100,000 copies of the local council register and to undertake \ntraining of Local Council I, II, and III Courts in 30 Local Governments. Only 48,000 copies out of the 100,000 \ncopies were printed, while training was only 53% (7,980) of the target number of training were conducted. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted a misalignment in the construction of prisons. Whereas the JLOS SWAP project provides funding for the \nconstruction of prison wards, there is no concurrent funding for the construction of staff quarters, even when \nprisons cannot operate without staff. \n\uf0b7 \n I noted cumulative and persistent underfunding of the project. Over a period of three (3) years, the total approved \nbudget has been UGX.337Bn however, UGX.219Bn has been availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.118Bn. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 382, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI further noted that of the availed UGX.219Bn in the last three financial years, the entities have failed to absorb \nUGX.43Bn. Under absorption affects the timely delivery of services. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project does not have a detailed risk assessment policy, risk-management guidelines and risk \nregister as required under the Treasury Instructions. As a result, all project-specific risks may not be assessed in \ntime, and robust risk management and mitigation measures implemented. In addition, risk management \nprocedures may not be well coordinated and consistently applied across all of the JLOS SWAP implementing \nentities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays in completing construction projects in eight (8) implementing entities. The Accounting Officers \nattributed the delays to late or partial release of funds, failure to complete procurement processes on time and \ndisruptions due to the Covid pandemic in some cases. \n4. \n \nJustice Law and Order Sector (JLOS-\nSWAP).", "metadata": {"page": 382, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "SWAP). \n2021 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted revenue of UGX.127.64Bn for the financial year 2020/2021, only UGX.73.03Bn (57.2%) was \nreleased, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.54.60Bn (42.8%). \n\uf0b7 \nA comparison of the disbursement of JLOS SWAP funds to implementing entities and the actual expenditure \nrevealed that out of the available sum of UGX. 123Bn, only UGX. 73Bn was spent, and Letters of Credit amounting \nto UGX.1.2Bn performed, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.48.7Bn. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the extent of quantification of outputs and activities by management and noted that all of the \nprogramme activities were quantified in the annual work plans. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 382, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of 507 outputs/activities for the Programme that were fully quantified worth \nUGX.74.267Bn for the year under audit. I noted the 165 outputs/activities worth UGX.17.327Bn were fully \nimplemented. The entities implemented the activities (100%) within these outputs, 220 outputs/activities worth \nUGX. 37.945Bn were partially implemented, 122 outputs/activities worth UGX.18.9952Bn were not implemented \nat all. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the financial year 2020/2021, the JLOS SWAP project provided funding amounting to UGX. 8,507,209,099 \nfor constructing twenty-two (22) infrastructural development projects across the entire sector and country. A \nreview of the project progress revealed that four (4) projects for which UGX. 2,570,000,000 was released during \nthe year have experienced delays or stalled.", "metadata": {"page": 382, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "367 \n \n\uf0b7 \nDespite the strategic goal of clearing all backlogs, various entities still report outstanding/pending cases of backlog, \nand in some instances, the backlog has increased rather than reduced. \n\uf0b7 \nThe JLOS SWAP project depends on development partners to finance most of the budgeted activities. In the \nfinancial year 2020/2021, Development Partners directly contributed a total of UGX.16.5Bn. Of this, UGX.14.1Bn \nor 85% was contributed by the Embassy of Netherlands,1.69Bn by UNFPA, 0.52Bn by UNICEF, and 0.15Bn by \nDGF. Also, some donors contributed through budget support. For instance, EUR. 2,000,000 by Austria, EUR. \n6,000,000 by European Union, EUR. 6,500,000 through Dutch support, which approximately totaled UGX. 55.8Bn. \n5. \n \nOffice \nof", "metadata": {"page": 383, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Office \nof \nthe \nDirector \nof \nPublic \nProsecutions (ODPP). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.53.62Bn, only UGX.53.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.0.47Bn representing an absorption level of 99.12%. As a result, I noted that out of \nthe six (6) quantified outputs worth UGX.32.127Bn assessed; two (2) outputs were fully implemented, three (3) \noutputs were partially implemented, while one (1) was not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and I noted that three field offices in Namutumba,", "metadata": {"page": 383, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Kazo and Ntoroko districts were not established as planned. I also observed that the PROCAMIS system was only \nextended to ten (10) out of the twelve (12) offices and only a small number of staff were utilizing the system. I \nnoted delays to complete the construction of Soroti, Mbale and Mbarara regional offices. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the management of cases by ODPP and noted that there was an increase in cases of backlog by 35% \nin the year under audit. I also noted inconsistencies in the data kept on an outstanding number of cases. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of public land and noted that the entity maintained a land register however it did not \ninclude the values of the land owned. ODPP\u2019s land in Kibuku and Kapchorwa was encumbered while the entity did \nnot have land titles for 70 pieces of land. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 383, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI observed that ODPP had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.1,250,916,876 as at 30th June 2022. The arrears \nhave remained outstanding for over two (2) financial years. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the management of court awards and noted that there was inadequate budget provision made for court \nawards and hence a delayed settlement of court awards for concluded cases. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the staffing structure of ODPP and noted that out of the approved staffing level of 1,486, only 602 \npositions were filled (40.5%) leaving a staffing gap of 884 positions (59.5%). \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of IT systems and noted that sixty-five (65) IT assets were recommended for disposal \nhowever, none of these assets had been disposed of, the Prosecution Case Management System (PROCAM) was \ndecommissioned without following procedures for data protection, the entity did not have specific structures that", "metadata": {"page": 383, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "steer and oversee ICT implementation, there was no approved IT risk management framework/policy and there \nwas no business continuity plan for the entity. \n6. \n \nUganda Human Rights Commission \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.20.845Bn, UGX.20.239Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.0.455Bn representing an absorption level of 97.8%. As a result, I noted that of the", "metadata": {"page": 383, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "368 \n \nUnqualified \n \n \nthirteen (13) quantified outputs worth UGX.18.3Bn assessed; eight (8) outputs were fully implemented and five \n(5) outputs were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission received off-budget financing totalling to UGX.1.15Bn from five (5) development partners during \nthe year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted significant delays in the investigation of cases hence affecting the disposal rate of human rights cases. \n\uf0b7 \nI carried out inspections of regional offices of Jinja and Mbarara and noted that in the last two years, only one (1) \ntribunal meeting was held in Jinja and none in Mbarara. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of land and noted that all five (5) pieces of land owned by the entity were not recorded", "metadata": {"page": 384, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "in the GFMIS fixed assets module, the entity did not have a land tiltle for one piece of land for Gulu regional office, \ntitles for four (4) pieces of land had not been transferred into the custody of the Uganda Land Commission and \none piece of land in Masaka (Old Kumbu, Masaka Municipality) measuring approximately 0.0620 hectares belonging \nto the Commission was not in use. \n\uf0b7 \nUHRC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.290,507,036 as at 30th June 2022 \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of ICT and noted that the Commission has failed to dispose off old IT items for 4 to \n10 years. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission had no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security \nPolicy 2014. \n7. \n \nUganda Law Reform Commission. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 384, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.11.490Bn, only UGX.10.788Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.934Bn representing an absorption level of 92%. As a result, I noted that \nof the six (6) quantified outputs worth UGX.7.382Bn assessed; six(6) outputs were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted delays in the development of a number \nof publications which included lunyole versions of the constitution, development of the Braille version of the Local \nGovernment Act, translation of the Local Council Courts Act (LCCA) into five (5) languages, development and \nprinting of the 7th revised edition of the principal laws, Development of the Electronic Document Management \nSystem for the management of digitised records of the entity. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 384, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI observed that ULRC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.9.86Bn as at 30th June 2022. Included in this debt \nis UGX.9,49Bn in respect to unremitted contributions, interest and a 10% penalty arising from the failure by the \nLaw Reform Commission to remit the ten per cent (10%) employer\u2019s contributions to NSSF for the period from 1st \nJuly 1996 to 30th June 2022 as required by the NSSF Act. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that staff and system users were not consulted when \ndeveloping specifications or deciding on the kind of system to acquire. I noted that two (2) IT systems worth \nUGX.0.20Bn were acquired outside the planned procurements, and they were delays in the development of the \nElectronic Document Management System.", "metadata": {"page": 384, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "369 \n \n8. \n \nJudicial Service Commission (JSC) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.11.429Bn, only UGX.10.788Bn was spent by the Judicial \nService Commission, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.640Bn representing an absorption level of 94.6%%. \nAs a result, I noted that of the ten (10) quantified outputs worth UGX.10.815Bn assessed; three (3) outputs were \nfully implemented, and seven (7) outputs were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the Mbarara, Arua and Masaka \noffices had not been occupied for over two (2) years, while the Moroto regional office operated for less than a", "metadata": {"page": 385, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "year till it ceased operations in 2021. Judicial Service Commission continued to meet the expenses for water, \nelectricity and imprest for the regional offices even when they were not operational. I also noted that the staffing \nstructure does not provide for staff for the regional offices. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the operations of the Commission in regard to complaint and case management and noted delays in \nconcluding complaints/cases lodged and non-utilisation of the case management system. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that JSC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.138,219,093 as at 30th June 2022. The arrears have \nremained outstanding for over two (2) financial years. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the staffing structure of JSC and noted that out of the approved staffing level of 143, only 97 positions \nwere filled (68%), leaving a staffing gap of 42 positions (32%). \n9. \n \nMinistry of Justice and Constitutional \nAffairs.", "metadata": {"page": 385, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.164.83Bn, UGX.160.68Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.4.143Bn representing an absorption level of 97.49%. As a result, I noted that of the \nthirty-two (32) quantified outputs worth UGX.90.2Bn assessed; twelve (12) outputs were fully implemented, \nnineteen (19) outputs were partially implemented, while four (4) activities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted significant delays in the construction of \nthe JLOS house. There were also substantial delays experienced in the review of agreements and limited \nsupervision and approval of chambers of advocates. I also reviewed the ongoing compensation of war claimants \nand noted that there was limited funding for the compensation of war claimants and no clear criteria for payment", "metadata": {"page": 385, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of minors; hence a number of minors remained unpaid. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of Land of MoJCA and observed that the ministry did not have land titles for four (4) \npieces of land, and five (5) pieces of land in Mbale, Naguru, Moroto, Gulu, and Arua were not transferred into the \ncustody of the Uganda Land Commission, two (2) pieces of land located at Old Mbale Road, Akisim Ward, Soroti \nmunicipality, measuring approximately 0.651 hectares (14.3%) valued at UGX. 1,100,000,000 were not utilised, \nand land located at Kamukuzi Mbarara City had encumbrances. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that domestic arrears increased from UGX.381,258,505,803 in the previous year to \nUGX.531,295,341,706, representing an increase in arrears by 60.6%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 385, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted underfunding of liabilities arising from court awards and compensations, which stood at \nUGX.377,429,099,424 as at the period ending 30th June 2021. I observed that only UGX.19,160,000,000 was", "metadata": {"page": 385, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "370 \n \nbudgeted for, and these cases continue to accrue interest which was standing at UGX.115,667,496,357 at the end \nof the Financial year 2021/22. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted gaps in the criteria for management of court awards and compensations, including lack of guidance to \nother MDAs and LGs on settlement of the awards, prioritisation of high-interest cases, estimation of contingent \nliabilities etc. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed 88 court awards worth UGX.227,100,829,847 and noted that 44 cases with a total debt of \nUGX.208,996,489,066 have remained outstanding for more than ten years. Of these, 24 cases are accumulating \ninterest at an average annual rate of 7%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted the ministry lacked a comprehensive and accurate record of all cases. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 386, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the approved staffing level of 421, only 345 positions were filled (82%), leaving a staffing gap \nof 76 positions (18%). \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of IT systems and noted that the entity doesnot record the IT systems in the assets \nregister. There were limited upgrades of IT systems and I noted a failure to operationalise interfaces for systems \nintegration, delayed disposal of IT assets and limited utilisation of systems. \n10. \nThe Directorate of Citizenship and \nImmigration Control. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.101.30Bn, UGX.99.0Bn was spent by the entity resulting in \nan unspent balance of UGX.1.4Bn representing an absorption level of 98.6%. As a result, I noted that out of the", "metadata": {"page": 386, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "sixteen (16) planned outputs worth UGX.98.87Bn assessed; five (5) outputs were fully implemented, while eleven \n(11) outputs were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the average time taken to issue \npassports increased to 22 days from 15 days in the prior year, 2020/2021. In addition, the processing and issuance \nof passports is more congested in the central region of Kampala compared to regional passport offices. There is a \nneed to devise strategies to decongest Kampala Offices. \n\uf0b7 \nI analysed data for 20,924 unissued passports and noted that 760 passports were still held at quality control, \n2,435 passports had not been picked up for over six (6) months while 1,200 passports carried a status that showed \nthat they were not ready for pickup, such as \u201cfor approval\u201d, \u201cfor order generation\u201d or for deferred capture. Such", "metadata": {"page": 386, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "delays should be investigated and addressed to avoid discouraging applicants from picking up their passports. \n\uf0b7 \nOnly 32% of applicants who pay for express processing get their passports within two (2) days. Most applicants \nwho pay for express services get their passports within 15 or more days. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the extent of utilisation of smart gates at Entebbe International airport and observed only 0.05% of \ntravellers in the financial year 2021/2022 were cleared using the smart gates. The underutilisation implies that the \ngates are not delivering the intended services to the citizens. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed public land management and noted that NCIC\u2019s annual land acquisition budgets were inconsistent with \nits strategic plans. The land acquisition processes did not comply with the PPDA laws, and some of the entity\u2019s \nland was untitled. In addition, NCIC did not maintain a land register or capture the owned land in the asset\u2019s", "metadata": {"page": 386, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "371 \n \nregister in the Government\u2019s Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), and the manual land register \nmaintained does not comply with the format prescribed by the Accountant General. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed IT systems management and noted that NCIC\u2019s systems are not fully integrated, and the entity\u2019s ICT \ngovernance had a number of shortfalls. For instance, there were no structures to oversee ICT implementation; no \napproved IT staff structure, internal audit did not review ICT systems and the entity\u2019s business continuity policy, \nand the plan was not comprehensive enough to ensure the seamless continuation of business operations in the \nevent of a disaster. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the execution of the Turnkey contract for supplying an e-passports system and booklets did not fully \ncomply with the contract terms. For instance, the construction of the NCIC personalisation building and a security \nprinting factory has not yet commenced, migration of legacy data has not been done. \n11.", "metadata": {"page": 387, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11. \nThe Court of Judicature (The Judiciary). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.378.2Bn, only UGX.337Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.41.24Bn representing an absorption level of 89.12%. As a result, from the twelve \n(12) quantified outputs worth UGX.90.2Bn assessed; two (2) outputs were fully implemented, and ten (10) outputs \nwere partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that clearance rates had greatly \nimproved; however, I noted that the set targets were still low even with the increasing number of Judicial officers \nand funding. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the outstanding cases increased by 16%, and the average case disposal rate stood at 41%. I observed", "metadata": {"page": 387, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "that the small claims procedures attained a high success rate, and on the other hand, a review of mediation \nactivities revealed a very low success rate. I reviewed the construction works and noted delays in the construction \nworks with some projects like the Court of appeal buildings of Gulu, Mbarara, and the Court circuits of Luwero and \nSoroti, with no progress at all. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Judiciary had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.1,184,607,569 as at 30th June 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nJudiciary has an old fleet of vehicles. I sampled 26 vehicles and observed that each vehicle visited the garage an \naverage of eight (8) times in the year, while the annual average cost of repairs was UGX.26,486,047 per vehicle. \nI reviewed the Board of survey report and observed that none of the vehicles had been earmarked for disposal. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays in the roll-out of the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) in seven of", "metadata": {"page": 387, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the nineteen courts, the new set timelines of September 2022 was not met. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the interconnection of ECCMIS with other Government agencies like the Ministry of Justice and the \nOffice of the Directorate of Prosecution\u2019s Prosecutor Case Management Information System (PROCAMIS) for the \nexchange of data and cases had not been implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that all 111 pieces of land measuring approximately 42.783 hectares were not recorded in the entity\u2019s land \nand assets register.", "metadata": {"page": 387, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "372 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Judiciary did not have land titles for ninety-five (95) pieces of land measuring approximately 34.468 hectares. \n\uf0b7 \nThe titles for 11 pieces of land measuring approximately 6.705 hectares were not transferred into the custody of \nthe Uganda Land Commission. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not utilise five (5) pieces of land measuring approximately 6.963 hectares \n12. \nThe Uganda Prisons Service. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.101.30Bn, UGX.99.0Bn was spent by the entity resulting in \nan unspent balance of UGX.1.4Bn representing an absorption level of 98.6%. As a result, I noted that out of the", "metadata": {"page": 388, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "sixteen (16) planned outputs worth UGX.98.87Bn assessed; five (5) outputs were fully implemented, while eleven \n(11) outputs were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the average time taken to issue \npassports increased to 22 days from 15 days in the prior year, 2020/2021. In addition, the processing and issuance \nof passports is more congested in the central region of Kampala compared to regional passport offices. There is a \nneed to devise strategies to decongest Kampala Offices. \n\uf0b7 \nI analysed data for 20,924 unissued passports and noted that 760 passports were still held at quality control, \n2,435 passports had not been picked up for over six (6) months while 1,200 passports carried a status that showed \nthat they were not ready for pickup, such as \u201cfor approval\u201d, \u201cfor order generation\u201d or for deferred capture. Such", "metadata": {"page": 388, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "delays should be investigated and addressed to avoid discouraging applicants from picking up their passports. \n\uf0b7 \nOnly 32% of applicants who pay for express processing get their passports within two (2) days. Most applicants \nwho pay for express services get their passports within 15 or more days. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the extent of utilisation of smart gates at Entebbe International airport and observed only 0.05% of \ntravellers in the financial year 2021/2022 were cleared using the smart gates. The underutilisation implies that the \ngates are not delivering the intended services to the citizens. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed public land management and noted that NCIC\u2019s annual land acquisition budgets were inconsistent with \nits strategic plans. The land acquisition processes did not comply with the PPDA laws, and some of the entity\u2019s \nland was untitled. In addition, NCIC did not maintain a land register or capture the owned land in the asset\u2019s \nregister in the Government\u2019s Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), and the manual land register", "metadata": {"page": 388, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "maintained does not comply with the format prescribed by the Accountant General. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed IT systems management and noted that NCIC\u2019s systems are not fully integrated, and the entity\u2019s ICT \ngovernance had a number of shortfalls. For instance, there were no structures to oversee ICT implementation; no \napproved IT staff structure, internal audit did not review ICT systems and the entity\u2019s business continuity policy, \nand the plan was not comprehensive enough to ensure the seamless continuation of business operations in the \nevent of a disaster. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the execution of the Turnkey contract for supplying an e-passports system and booklets did not fully \ncomply with the contract terms. For instance, the construction of the NCIC personalisation building and a security \nprinting factory has not yet commenced, migration of legacy data has not been done.", "metadata": {"page": 388, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "373 \n \n13. \nCenters \nFor \nDisease \nControl \nand \nPrevention (CDC) Funds Managed By \nUganda Prisons Service (UPS) \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that management had not understood the internal control procedure of using serially numbered payment \nvouchers. Manually written references have the inherent risk of human errors. When payments are not properly \nreferenced, it becomes difficult to trace them to their supporting documentation. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted variances between the expenditure recorded in the cashbook and the expenditure reported in the quarterly \nfinancial reports for the year ended 30th September 2021. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the bank reconciliations from June 2021 to September 2021 were not correctly done. There were un-\nreconciling differences between the cashbook and the bank statement balances. In addition to this, the bank \nreconciliations provided for my review lacked evidence of review and approval by senior management. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 389, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project field staff allowances were not charged PAYE tax. Non-compliance with Income Tax Act \nmay precipitate tax penalties from Uganda Revenue Authority, leading to financial loss for the project. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted quarterly reports were not submitted to CDC on time. Late submission of reports may delay reporting, \nmonitoring and evaluation of the project by the development partners. \n14. \nThe Law Development Centre (LDC). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.28.663Bn, only UGX.28.640Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.023Bn representing an absorption level of 99.9%%. As a result, I noted \nthat of the five (5) quantified outputs worth UGX.28.64Bn assessed, all five (5) outputs were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 389, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted delays in the construction of the multi-\nstoreyed administration building and modification of the LDC printer building to accommodate a printery and store \nunits. I also noted delays in the delivery of equipment like the production machines, tools and desktops for Lira \ncampus. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays in the marking of exams while a review of the completion rate of the Bar-course for students at \nLDC revealed that, on average, 92% of students admitted for the Bar Course successfully enrolled to study the \ncourse. I also noted that, on average, only 48% of students enrolled for the Bar Course completed the course \nwithin the one-year duration of study of the course. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of land and noted that LDC did not have land titles for seven (7) pieces of land. LDC \ndid not utilise the five acres of land leased to LDC for 99 years to construct the Lira campus. There were significant", "metadata": {"page": 389, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "encumbrances on the land located on Plots 1 and 4 Block 213, Kyadondo - Bukoto Mulimira Zone, Bukoto Parish, \nNakawa Division, Kampala District, measuring approximately four (4) acres, which was fully occupied by squatters. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that domestic arrears increased by 95.3% from UGX.1.99Bn in the previous year to UGX.3.89 Bn as at \n30th June 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that LDC did not submit reports on their ongoing court cases to the Ministries of Justice and Finance \nas required by set guidelines. As a result, the nineteen (19) cases in which LDC is a litigant do not form part of the \ndatabase and record of ongoing cases maintained by the Ministry of Justice.", "metadata": {"page": 389, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "374 \n \n15. \nThe \nUganda \nRegistration \nServices \nBureau \u2013Liquidation. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.24.83Bn, only UGX.24.51Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.0.32Bn representing an absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that all the \nfour (4) quantified outputs worth UGX.20.2Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of URSB\u2019s mandate and noted that the Bureau was experiencing challenges in \nstorage space on the servers to support the entity\u2019s IT systems, affecting service delivery. Whereas the Bureau \nrequires a storage size of 69 terabytes, only nine terabytes were available for allocation. It was further revealed", "metadata": {"page": 390, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "that the available space is approximated to only serve until June 2023, given the current demand for storage \nspace, after which the Bureau will be out of space. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the operations of the National Marriage Registration System and noted several changes affecting service \ndelivery. These included; Clients can only make payments through the bank, the filling of civil marriage returns by \nthe Chief Administrative Officers is not enabled, the system doesnot provide alerts or real-time updates of an \napplication for marriage to intending couples, hence making the follow up of any progress difficult. In addition, \nthe replacement of lost certificates is not catered for in the system, and the system allows filing of marriages from \nungazetted churches. \n\uf0b7 \nA trend analysis of the Bureau\u2019s domestic arrears position for the past three years showed that arrears increased \nby 335% from UGX.1.47Bn in 2019/2020 to UGX.6.38Bn in 2021/2022. No budgetary provision was made to settle", "metadata": {"page": 390, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "domestic arrears totalling UGX.4,516,077,833 in the year under audit. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that the entity receives insufficient funds to maintain IT \nhardware. In addition, the Bureau has no maintenance plan for IT systems, and routine maintenance of systems \nis not carried out. Instead, the Bureau relies on corrective maintenance of IT systems and equipment in response \nto user requests or when systems break down. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Board of survey reports and the assets register revealed that 301 IT equipment had been used for \nperiods exceeding ten (10) years and are due for disposal. \n16. \nThe \nUganda \nRegistration \nServices \nBureau -Operations. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 390, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.24.83Bn, only UGX.24.51Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.0.32Bn representing an absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that all the \nfour (4) quantified outputs worth UGX.20.2Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of URSB\u2019s mandate and noted that the Bureau was experiencing challenges in \nstorage space on the servers to support the entity\u2019s IT systems, affecting service delivery. Whereas the Bureau \nrequires a storage size of 69 terabytes, only nine terabytes were available for allocation. It was further revealed \nthat the available space is approximated to only serve until June 2023, given the current demand for storage \nspace, after which the Bureau will be out of space. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the operations of the National Marriage Registration System and noted several changes affecting service", "metadata": {"page": 390, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "delivery. These included; Clients can only make payments through the bank, the filling of civil marriage returns by \nthe Chief Administrative Officers is not enabled, the system doesnot provide alerts or real-time updates of an \napplication for marriage to intending couples, hence making the follow up of any progress difficult. In addition,", "metadata": {"page": 390, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "375 \n \nthe replacement of lost certificates is not catered for in the system, and the system allows filing of marriages from \nungazetted churches. \n\uf0b7 \nA trend analysis of the Bureau\u2019s domestic arrears position for the past three years showed that arrears increased \nby 335% from UGX.1.47Bn in 2019/2020 to UGX.6.38Bn in 2021/2022. No budgetary provision was made to settle \ndomestic arrears totalling UGX.4,516,077,833 in the year under audit. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that the entity receives insufficient funds to maintain IT \nhardware. In addition, the Bureau has no maintenance plan for IT systems, and routine maintenance of systems \nis not carried out. Instead, the Bureau relies on corrective maintenance of IT systems and equipment in response \nto user requests or when systems break down. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 391, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA review of the Board of survey reports and the assets register revealed that 301 IT equipment had been used for \nperiods exceeding ten (10) years and are due for disposal. \n17. \nThe Ministry of Internal Affairs. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.67.55, UGX.67.08Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunutilised warrant of UGX.0.48Bn representing an absorption level of 99.3%. As a result, I noted that out of the \ntwenty-three (23) planned outputs worth UGX.26.77Bn assessed; eight (8) outputs were fully implemented, while \nfifteen (15) outputs were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted a 97% increase in the number of reported incidents of trafficking in persons from 214 in the year 2021 to", "metadata": {"page": 391, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "421 in the year 2022. In addition, only 78% of the victims are rescued and freed. The increase poses a security \nthreat to the citizens and increases public outcry. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry does not maintain a centralised database with statistics and detailed information relating to trafficking \nin persons despite receiving a donation of the software from the IOM. This makes it difficult to design interventions, \nplan for victims\u2019 support and link trafficking cases across different regions of the country. \n\uf0b7 \nThere are currently no reception shelters for accommodating the victims of trafficking in persons in the country, \nwhich renders the reintegration process difficult for returning victims and may reduce the chances of registering \nsuccess in prosecuting trafficking in persons \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed IT systems management; the Ministry\u2019s ICT governance had several shortfalls. For instance, there were \nno structures to oversee ICT implementation, no approved IT staff structure, and no IT risk management \nframework and business continuity policy. \n18. \nNGO Bureau", "metadata": {"page": 391, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "NGO Bureau \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted revenue of UGX.5Bn, only UGX.4.85Bn was received, representing a performance of 97% of \nthe target. All funds received were fully absorbed. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of the Bureau\u2019s ten (10) outputs and noted that; five (5) were fully implemented, \nthree (3) were partially implemented, and two (2) were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the Bureau\u2019s salary payments and noted that PAYE taxes amounting to UGX.255,190,100 were deducted \nfrom employee emoluments but were not remitted to URA.", "metadata": {"page": 391, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "376 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the NGO Bureau did not have a fully constituted and operational board of directors to oversee the \noperations of the Bureau during the year under review. \n19. \nUganda Police Force. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nUPF budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.24.50Bn but realised a total of UGX.33.01Bn representing a performance of \n135% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total budgeted GoU receipts for the financial year of UGX.980.67Bn, UGX.977.63Bn (99.9%) was \ncollected and fully utilised during the year. I sampled sixteen (16) outputs worth UGX.673.89Bn for assessment", "metadata": {"page": 392, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and noted that seven (7) outputs worth UGX.168.09Bn were fully implemented, while nine (9) outputs worth \n245.97Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of UGX.3.05Bn was diverted from activities for which they were budgeted and spent on the settlement of \narrears. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the performance of the police Canine unit and noted that; the police dogs are concentrated in the \nKampala region despite statistics indicating a significant number of crimes reported in rural areas. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the dogs\u2019 medical requirements are not sufficiently addressed due to an insufficient number of \nveterinary staff, insufficient transportation facilities and poor housing for the dogs. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the performance of the forensics unit and noted that the unit does not have a Laboratory Information \nManagement System and an automated exhibit tracking system. Analysis shows that there was an increase in the \nbacklog of cases in the Forensic unit. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 392, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI observed overcrowding at the UPF\u2019s enrolment and distribution centre for Certificates of Good Conduct. This was \nattributed to the increased demand for the certificates. For instance, the number of certificates issued increased \nby 170% from 31,671 in 2020 to 85,664 in 2021. There is need to establish more enrolment centres and \ndecentralise the operations. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the performance of investigation by the CID and noted that only 56% of cases were investigated and \nconcluded, leaving a backlog of 316,667 cases. This was partly attributed to low levels of automation in the \ninvestigation process, limited technical and financial support, and human resource challenges such as insufficient \ntraining. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the performance of the Express Penalty Scheme and noted an increasing trend of unpaid tickets for \nfines issued over three (3) years. The analysis revealed that out of the 1.77 million tickets issued in the last three", "metadata": {"page": 392, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "financial years, 700,000 tickets worth UGX.94Bn were still unpaid at the time of audit. This was attributed to \nweaknesses in the enforcement of payment of traffic fines. Some offenders are untraceable, with no permanent \naddresses; others are foreigners, and yet there is no policy on enforcement procedures, especially for such \ndefaulters.", "metadata": {"page": 392, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "377 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere was a fire outbreak at Uganda Police\u2019s Garment Factory in Lugogo along Jinja Road, which damaged both \nequipment and materials, causing an estimated loss of UGX.1.95Bn. An investigation into the cause and extent of \nthe fire's damage is yet to be concluded. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed public land management and noted that UPF land at Kabalagala, Nakawa and Pallisa is encumbered, \nwhich poses a risk of loss of land. A number of land parcels owned by UPF are not titled. \n\uf0b7 \nThere is unclear ownership of Police land in Naguru arising from a claim for the same land by M/s Oscar Industries \nLtd. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the Government leased land to UNAFRI for setting up their operations, the agency has since failed to \ndevelop the land and has subleased the land to Yuasa and Future group car bonds while the structures are being", "metadata": {"page": 393, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "rented out to individuals for revenue. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted deficiencies in the ICT Governance structures. The ICT department is understaffed, and there is no IT risk \nmanagement framework, risk register and business continuity plan. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UPF does not adequately budget for liabilities arising from compensations and court awards. There \nwere delays in the settlement of court awards, with some not settled for over 10 years. UPF does not maintain a \ncomprehensive and detailed register of all cases for compensation and court awards. \n20. \nNational Identification and Registration \nAuthority (NIRA). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.62.62Bn, only UGX.57.27Bn was spent by NIRA resulting in \nan unspent balance of UGX.5.34Bn representing an absorption level of 91.46%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 393, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted funds of UGX.75.02Bn, only UGX.62.62Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX12.4Bn, which represents 16.5% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total approved NTR estimates of UGX.15Bn, only UGX5.3Bn was collected, representing a performance \nof only 35%. \n\uf0b7 \nI sampled ten (10) outputs that had been fully quantified worth UGX.22Bn and noted that two outputs worth \nUGX.3.1Bn were fully implemented, and seven outputs worth UGX.18.9Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the progress of enrolment and registration of citizens and noted that approximately 4.3 million \nUgandans are still unregistered, and 419,055 have applied, but their applications are still under data processing.", "metadata": {"page": 393, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "It takes an average of 21 days to process an application instead of the expected seven days if NIRA is working \nefficiently, indicating delays in the process. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that about 1.6 million cards were printed but not issued, and 1.5M of these have been unissued for a \nperiod exceeding six months. In addition, about 1.3 million applications were rejected for inaccurate data and \nerrors that need rectification, but NIRA has not notified these clients.", "metadata": {"page": 393, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "378 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there were challenges with the registration of minors, including registration of births outside of homes. \nThe challenges were; the capture of incorrect and incomplete information and cultural practices of not naming \nchildren immediately at birth \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that there was no harmonization and interface of NIRA systems with other government agencies and \nenterprises. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted congestion at registration and card issuance centres especially in the Kampala metropolitan area, with over \n41% of total issued cards being issued within this area. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted challenges in customer service management, such as lack of dedicated staff to handle customer complaints, \nstaff deployed in the call centre not being trained in customer service, and lack of a manual or automated register \nof complaints received from walk-ins to enable their tracking up to their resolution, no dedicated staff to handle \nonline platforms and no support offered for clients who seek clarification during weekends and on days when there", "metadata": {"page": 394, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "are national events at Kololo airstrip. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were weaknesses noted in the management of the joint venture arrangement with USPC, including; failure \nto issue call-off orders for blank cards, delays in implementing and installing new systems under the joint venture \nand irregular pricing of supplies and services under the joint venture. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there was no strategy and plan regarding the transfer and migration of processed and stored data, \nprocess flows, biometric data scope and timing, among others which may lead to interruptions in the normal \noperations in the production of IDs, security and preservation of data integrity and delayed delivery of expected \noutputs under the Joint venture. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted a number of governance issues related to the management of ICT investments, including understaffing of \nthe ICT department, no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, no risk register, and no \napproved business continuity plan and disaster recovery in place. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 394, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI assessed the road map for the Mass Registration and Mass Renewal of National IDs and noted that there was no \nclear implementation strategy on when the new IDs are to be rolled out during the mass renewal and mass \nregistration, major contracts for supplying the blank cards, IT systems, equipment and staff to manage the exercise \nwere yet to be rolled out. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted Non-Compliance aspects in the acquisition of ICT solutions and equipment, such as the development of a \nwebsite with online services without clearance from NITA-U, an online booking system and website developed \nwithout business cases, an online booking system not being utilized by the entity and some modules not being \nused by the entity such as the alien registration, verification of Payment Registration Numbers (PRNs) and ID \nrenewal modules under the NSIS, the electronic data storage for Human Resource Management Information \nSystem and the registration module for CRIMS. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that 85 IT systems or hardware equipment had exceeded the recommended five years of useful life \nand were due for disposal.", "metadata": {"page": 394, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "379 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there was no strategy and plan regarding the transfer and migration of processed and stored data, \nprocess flows, biometric data scope and timing, which may lead to interruptions in the normal operations in the \nproduction of IDs, security and preservation of data integrity and delayed delivery of expected outputs under the \nJoint venture \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity is understaffed, with only 423 positions filled out of an approved structure of 865 staff, \nresulting in a shortfall of 442 (representing 49%). Key positions like Director ICT, manager Human Resources, \nManager Public Relations and Senior Accountant were vacant at the year-end. This leads to the underachievement \nof planned activities due to an overload of existing staff. \n21. \nAmnesty Commission \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 395, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted revenue of UGX.3.3Bn, only UGX.3.01Bn was received, representing a performance of 93% \nof the target. All funds received were fully absorbed. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of the Commission\u2019s four outputs and noted that; one (1) output was fully \nimplemented, while three (3) were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the entity\u2019s payments and noted that UGX.81,898,396 related to prior year invoices that were not \ndeclared as arrears in the financial statements for the year ended 30th June 2021 and thus not budgeted to be \npaid in the year under audit. \n \nSECURITY SECTOR \n \n1. \n \nMinistry of \nKampala Capital City and Metropolitan \nAffairs (MKCC&MA) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified", "metadata": {"page": 395, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry had a budget of UGX4.5bn which was all warranted. Out of this UGX.4.16Bn was utilized representing \nan absorption level of 92%. The un-utilized funds UGX.34Bn were meant for recruitment of staff. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that that the entity did not provide performance indicators in the work plans and as a result it was not \npossible to assess the extent to which planned activities were implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry had challenges of office space and significant staffing gaps. During the year the ministry was only \nhoused by the Office of the president. \n\uf0b7 \nIn regard to staffing, out of the approved staff establishment of 50 employees, 23 positions were filled leaving 27 \nvacancies unfilled representing a staffing gap of 54%. \n2. \n \nNational Enterprise Corporation (NEC) \nAgro SMSC LTD \n \nOpinion", "metadata": {"page": 395, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNEC AGRO SMC LTD had an operating margin of 7.4% which is below the 15% recommended threshold. This \nperformance was also below the 8.3% realized in the previous year 2020/21. \n\uf0b7 \nFor the year under review, NEC Agro SMC LTD posted a return on assets of 19% down from 21.6% posted in the \nprevious year, representing a reduction in ROA of 12%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the company had a current ratio of 10.7 for the year under review which was above the desirable \nratio of 1.5. This implies that the company is not facing liquidity problems. I further noted that the current ratio \nfor the year increased by 51% from a ratio of 7.1 recorded in the previous year.", "metadata": {"page": 395, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "380 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.1,638,416,786 in the year under review and \nUGX.1,470,968,482 in the previous financial year, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of \nreturn on Government investment. I further noted that the Company has not paid any dividends to Government \nfor the previous years. \n3. \n \nKiira Motors Corporation. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nKMC had an approved budget of UGX.218,200,839,000 which was all availed during the year. Out of this, the entity \nabsorbed UGX.65,215,742,112 which was only 30% of the funds availed. This affected the implementation of \nplanned activities (all the three outputs planned for the year were partially implemented). \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 396, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe entity had an un-recovered long outstanding receivable of UGX.8,489,374,688 from Makerere University which \nremained outstanding for more than eight years. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity bought 518 hectares of land without notifying Uganda Land Commission and without obtaining approval \nfor purpose of the land from the Uganda land Commission which contravened Section 49 (b) of the Land Act. I \nfurther observed that part of this land had encumbrances in form of squatters. \n\uf0b7 \nKMC does not have adequate ICT business continuity and disaster recovery measures in the event of ICT systems \nfailure and disruptions. \n4. \n \nPresidential \nInitiative \non \nBanana \nIndustrial Development (PIBID). \n2020/2021 \n \nOpinion \nDisclaimer \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas a Trial Balance was presented in the financial statements as the basis for the account balances disclosed,", "metadata": {"page": 396, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I noted that the ledgers required to show the build-up of figures in the Trial Balance were incomplete. I further \nnoted that the expenditure ledgers for Government subvention funds were inconsistent with the ones used to \nrecord expenditure of revenue from sales. I was therefore unable to confirm the correctness of the build-up of the \nfigures in the Trial Balance, which was the basis for preparation and presentation of the financial statements. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the statement of cash flows and noted figures in several account areas totalling to UGX.11Bn that were \ninconsistent with the statement of financial performance and were not supported with ledgers. I could not carry \nout reconciliations between the figures in the Statement of Financial Performance and those in the statement of \ncash flows due lack of proper underlying records. As a result, I could not verify the accuracy of the figures reported \nin the statement of cash flows and the statement of financial performance. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the summary of Budget Performance and the Statement of Appropriation Account (Based on Nature", "metadata": {"page": 396, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of Expenditure) indicates that the company spent UGX.1.213Bn on fixed assets during the financial year. However, \na review of the additions in the schedule of fixed assets, indicated that UGX.2.025Bn was spent on asset additions \nduring the year. This led to a discrepancy of UGX.812Mn between the summary of budget performance and the \nstatement of appropriation, and the fixed asset schedule amount in respect of asset additions. I was not provided \nwith ledgers to enable reconciliations of the amounts. These inconsistencies cast doubt on the accuracy of the \ninformation presented concerning the expenditure on fixed assets. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources, and rates charged at the entity level for the financial year \n2020/2021 and noted that out of the UGX.2.757Bn budgeted to be collected in the year under review, only \nUGX.0.295Bn was collected during the year representing 11% of the budget. Such a performance on NTR collection", "metadata": {"page": 396, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "381 \n \nimplies a significant failure of revenue collection strategies employed by the institution which may impact its \nsustainability. \n\uf0b7 \nIt was further allocated supplementary funding of UGX.527.8Mn for the PRESIDE research project, of which \nUGX.343.9Mn was received during the financial year and the balance received shortly after the close the financial \nyear as a result, out of the 23 outputs assessed, 14 outputs representing 61% were fully implemented and 6 \noutputs representing 26% were partially implemented and 3 outputs representing 13% were not implemented. \nFailure tp fully implement planned activities may lead to inability to attain the intended project objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nPBID has a secondary processing plant, which turns matooke chips into matooke flour with a capacity of 1 tonne \nper hour. During the audit, I was not provided with details of output during the period, but my anaysis of revenue", "metadata": {"page": 397, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "reported during the year shows only UGX.295Mn was attained against a budget of UGX.2.757Bn. This implies the \nplant is grossly under utilised. \n\uf0b7 \nOf the UGX.295Mn that was reported as collections from operations, only UGX.99Mn was banked. Out of the \nunbanked revenue of UGX.196Mn, only UGX.153.9Mn was accounted for in form of cash payments leaving a \nbalance of UGX.42Mn unaccounted for. There is a risk that this amount was not put to proper use. \n\uf0b7 \nPIBID lacked land titles for its land at Sanga (approximately 50 acres) and land located at Kyamuhanga \n(approximately 4 acres) exposing the land to the risk of encroachment and land grabbing. \n\uf0b7 \nPIBID does not have an approved salary structure on which it pays individual staff. It should be noted that this", "metadata": {"page": 397, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "issue has been re-occurring and Management has not taken action. \n\uf0b7 \nContracts totalling UGX.1.228Bn were signed by the entity without the approval of the Solicitor General contrary \nto Article 119 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended). This exposes government to risks \nof unfavaourable contractual terms and potential loss. \n5. \n \nUganda National Council for Science and \nTechnology (UNCST) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the approved budget for the financial year 2021/2022 and noted that the entity had a revenue budget \nof UGX.43.14Bn during the year under review. By the end of the year only UGX.29.10Bn had been realized, \nrepresenting a performance of 32.9% of the target \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 397, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity only had a budget of UGX5.5bn for land purchase during the period under review, but went \nahead and spent UGX.8.5bn resulting in an irregular over payment of UGX.3bn. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Uganda Land Commission was not involved in the procurement of the land since the entity did not obtain any \napprovals from ULC as required. Similarly, the title of the land was not transferred to the names of ULC by \nManagement as required by the land Act. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staff structure of 70 positions, 55 were filled leaving 15 positions unfilled. \n6. \n \nNational Enterprise Corporation (NEC) \nFarm Katonga. \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Company has an operating margin of 7.1%, which is below 15% which is generally recommended. \nThe current year operating ratio however is 5.9% above the ratio of the previous year 2020/2021.", "metadata": {"page": 397, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "382 \n \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \n I noted that the entity made profits of UGX. 253,263,582 after tax in the year under review up from \nUGX.32,789,541 realized in the previous year representing a rise in profits of 672.4%. Despite the performance, \nthe entity still had negative retained earnings of UGX. 1,558,748,753 as at the end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nReturn on Assets; Although the return on assets for the entity increased to 2.6% from 0.4% recorded in the \nprevious year, the return was still very low. \n7. \n \nNational Enterprise Corporation (NEC) \nHeadquarter \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the National Enterprise Corporation had not fully automated its financial production and reporting", "metadata": {"page": 398, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "processes. Financial Statements were still being produced in a manual form. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 26 staffs the entity has twenty-two (22) staffs only leaving a balance of four (4) positions \nunfilled. The four unfilled positions included key positions such as the Chief Accountant. \n8. \n \nNational Enterprise Corporation (NEC) \nLuwero Industries Limited. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nIncluded in the statement of financial position is a long-term outstanding trade debtors total of UGX.4,319,714,000 \nexpected from NEC Uzima being an advance for acquisition and installation of a new watering line. However, I was \nnot availed a plan of recovery or any initiatives taken by management to recover the funds. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the company had a current ratio of 20.3 for the year under review which was above the desirable", "metadata": {"page": 398, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ratio of 1.5. I further noted that the current ratio for the year increased by 71% from a ratio of 11.9 recorded in \nthe previous year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.7.882BN in the current year and UGX.3.682BN in the \nprevious financial year, the company did not propose any dividend pay-outs as a form of return on Government \ninvestment. I further noted that the Enterprise/Company has not paid any dividends to government for the previous \nyears. \n9. \n \nNational Enterprise Corporation (NEC) \nUzima Ltd \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Company has an operating margin of 6.2% which is below 15% and below the 32% realized in the previous \nyear 2020/21 \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 398, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "year 2020/21 \n\uf0b7 \nThe company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a \nreduction in ROA of 10% \n\uf0b7 \nThe company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, \nthe debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive \nretained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of \nreturn on Government investment \n10. \nNational \nEnterprise \nCorporation \n- \nConstruction, Works and Engineering Ltd \n2020/21 \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 398, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2020/21 \n\uf0b7 \nThe Company has an operating margin of 6.2% which is below 15% and below the 32% realized in the previous \nyear 2020/21", "metadata": {"page": 398, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "383 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a \nreduction in ROA of 10% \n\uf0b7 \nThe company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, \nthe debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive \nretained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of \nreturn on Government investment \n11. \nUganda Air Cargo Corporation (UACC) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 399, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation has long outstanding receivables amounting to UGX.21,530,187,266. Of this, over \nUGX.8,267,011,797 representing 38.4% has been outstanding for a period of more than five (5) years. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation continued to make losses posting a loss of UGX 9.04Bn in the current year. Similarly, the \nCorporation\u2019s liquidity and gearing position were below the desirable level which is an indicator that the Corporation \nis still not performing well financially. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation currently has no Board to oversee its operations after the old Board expired on 30th June 2022. \n12. \nState House. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Entity planned to collect NTR of 0.12Bn however by the end of the year 0.24Bn had been realised.", "metadata": {"page": 399, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I further noted that the entity had a budget for GOU funds of UGX 653Bn which was all warranted and absorbed. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of fourteen (14) outputs with a total of forty-six (46) activities worth \nUGX.408.6Bn and noted that nine (9) outputs with nineteen (19) activities worth UGX.149.2Bn were fully \nimplemented, while five (5) outputs with twenty-seven (27) activities worth UGX.259.4Bn were partially \nimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that State House had un-titled properties for eighteen 18 (State lodges) under its ownership. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Board of survey reports for the period ending June 2021, and the assets register revealed that \nvarious assorted ICT Equipment exceeded the recommended useful life and should have been disposed of which \nwas not done. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity did not have an approved IT Risk Management Framework/Policy and Risk Register which affects the", "metadata": {"page": 399, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "entity\u2019s ability to identify or detect IT related risks which can lead to failures of information systems. \n13. \nOffice of the President \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity was supposed to receive UGX.559,045,484,390 out of which UGX.555,960,866,639 was \nwarranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.3,084,617,751. The shortfall represents 0.55% of the approved budget. \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.555,960,866,639 received during the financial year UGX.554,639,945,166 was \nabsorbed by the Entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1,320,921,473 representing an absorption level of \n99.9%.", "metadata": {"page": 399, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "384 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI sampled ten (10) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of fifty-five (55) activities worth UGX.79.38Bn \nand noted that Four (4) outputs worth UGX.42.08Bn were fully implemented, five (5) outputs worth UGX.32.7Bn \nwere partially implemented while one (1) output with two (2) activities worth 1.56Bn was not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 46 out of the 62 pieces of land owned by the entity did not have titles while titles for 10 Pieces of land \nmeasuring approximately 6.82589 hectares were not transferred into the names of the Uganda Land Commission. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that at the end of the year the entity had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.31.8Bn. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Entity\u2019s current staffing levels revealed that out of the total of 737 positions, 298 were filled leaving", "metadata": {"page": 400, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "439 positions vacant representing 40% staffing levels. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted shortcomings in the management of the entities ICT function which included failure to dispose of obsolete \nassets, Non-compliance with NITAU requirements among others. \n14. \nMinistry of Defence and Veteran Affairs \n(MoDVA). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had an NTR estimate of UGX 0.70Bn and by the end of the year UGX. 1.2Bn had been collected \nrepresenting a performance of 175% \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had a total budget of UGX.4,168,226,754,316 which was all warranted. Out of this, UGX. 4.167Tn was \nspent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1,236,047,040 representing an absorption level of \n99.9%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 400, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI was not able to confirm the extent to which planned activities were implemented since the work plans did not \nhave KPIs to facilitate measurement of performance. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that all land measuring approximately 7,562.072 hectares were not recorded in the entity land/assets \nregister. I further noted that all land measuring approximately 7,562.0722 hectares were not recorded in the \nGFMIS fixed assets module of IFMS as required by the Treasury Instructions. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 20 pieces of land measuring approximately 12,534.378 hectares had encumbrances in the form of \nencroachment. In addition, 31 pieces of land measuring approximately 15,585.337 hectares did not have land \ntitles. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had domestic arrears amounting to UGX 314,062,612,228 as at 30th June 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the Management of ICT systems and noted shortcomings for example; 13 IT systems/equipment were", "metadata": {"page": 400, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "procured at a cost of UGX. 0.872,786,264 without clearance from NITA-U, the entity signed contracts worth \n0.711Bn without clearance from Attorney General, and 5 IT projects worth 0.872Bn were not implemented within \nthe required timelines, lack of business continuity plan, lack of ICT steering committee among others. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delayed completion of the UPDF National Referral Hospital at Lower Mbuya which resulted in delayed \nservice delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delayed compensation of court awards where in some cases the ministry had taken more than five (5) \nyears to effect compensations. In addition, the Ministry did not have a comprehensive register of court awards \nand compensations made and outstanding.", "metadata": {"page": 400, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "385 \n \n \nPUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT SECTOR \n1. \n \nDevelopment Response to Displacement \nImpact Project(DRDIP) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.245.88Bn received during the financial year, the project submitted invoices \ntotalling UGX.237.83Bn resulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX.8.05Bn representing an absorption level of 96.72%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of \neighteen (18) activities worth UGX.237.8Bn and noted that; One (1) output with seven (7) activities and \nexpenditure worth UGX.13.799Bn were fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with eleven (11) activities worth", "metadata": {"page": 401, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.224Bn were partially implemented. Out of the eleven (11) activities, the entity fully implemented seven (7) \nactivities; two (2) activities were partially implemented, while three (3) activities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project continued to cumulatively withdraw and disburse funds to the different subgroups in the \nimplementing districts. This currently stands at UGX.536.62Bn. However, only UGX.363.19Bn (67.6%) has been \nutilised and accounted for. The balance of UGX.173.43Bn (32%) remained unutilised and on the bank accounts \nfor the different subgroups. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the project's performance against the results framework and observed that the project had achieved \nyear four performance targets for nineteen (19) of the twenty-six (26) performance indicators representing 95%. \nHowever, seven (7) performance indicators in the project year three targets were not achieved. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 401, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the implementing partners lacked tangible achievement in implementing their target activities in \ncomponent 2 across all the districts due to the late engagement process of the implementing partners by DRDIP \nmanagement and the six months suspension by the IGG. Additionally, the funds to the implementing partners only \ncovered the labour training arrangements but did not consider the operational costs like fuel/ transport logistics. \n\uf0b7 \nThe project had an indicative planning figure of UGX.6.4Bn for implementing traditional and non-traditional \nlivelihoods but did not disburse funds to appraised micro-projects for the year under review. I also noted that the \nproject had not embarked on the procurement/ engagement process of the Capacity-Building Partners (CBPs) \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project had outstanding commitments to the tune of UGX. 62,171,493 at the year-end. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the DRDIP MIS was not yet integrated with other IT systems as required by the Project Implementation", "metadata": {"page": 401, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Manual. The un-integrated systems include; the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), OPM \nGeographical MIS used for monitoring and evaluation of government interventions across the country and the \nbeneficiary registry in the Ministry of Gender. \n2. \n \nThe New Vision printing and Publishing \ncompany Limited \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNew Vision Printing and Publishing Company Limited market capitalisation of UGX 12,240 million was significantly \nlower than the carrying amount of the company\u2019s net assets of UGX 65,039 million as at 30th June 2021 which is \nan indicator of impairment of the Company\u2019s tangible non-current assets. In accordance with IAS 36 Impairment \nof Assets, an impairment assessment was done on the company\u2019s non-current assets and no reportable exception \nwas found.", "metadata": {"page": 401, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "386 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe company had trade and other receivables of UGX 32.8 billion as at 30th June 2022 compared to UGX 32.4 \nbillion of the previous period (2021) and expected credit losses of UGX 3.37 billion (2021: UGX 3.2 billion) as at \n30th June 2022. Management performed the impairment assessment of trade receivables and other receivables \nusing its own expected credit loss model. I however noted challenges with the expected credit loss model, like a \nlack of integration of the risk management framework into the financial reporting system, the different users of \nthe model, were not trained on how to use the model and there were inconsistencies in the source of data for the \nmodel. \n3. \n \nUganda \nPrinting \nand \nPublishing \nCorporation \n \n \nOpinion \nQualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 402, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Qualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Statement of Financial Position as at 30th June, 2022 reported the UPPC Investment in the Joint Venture \n(Uganda Security Printing Company Limited) at a cost of UGX.9.097Bn as valued by 30th June, 2020 but did not \nuse the equity method as required by IFRS 11- Joint arrangements implying that the statement is misstated and \nmisleading to the users. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas the Tax records as per URA revealed a tax liability figure of UGX.1.609Bn, the Financial \nStatements disclosed only UGX.1.148Bn resulting in a variance of UGX.0.461Bn \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that debtors worth UGX.3.76Bn have been outstanding for a period ranging between 361 days to 1800 \ndays contrary to best practice thus limiting the availability of funds for UPPC activities. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of the Corporation financial performance revealed a fall in profits of 64.4% from profits of UGX.3.38Bn", "metadata": {"page": 402, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "realized in the previous year, a reduction of 21% on Return on Assets from 26% posted in the previous year, a \nliquidity ratio of 2.8 implying the Corporation is not efficiently using its current assets and failure to pay any \ndividend to government for the previous (3) years despite making profits. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Corporation did not have a functional Board of directors during the year under review since the \ntenure for the previous Board had elapsed in October 2021. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staff establishment of 120 staff, only 69 were filled representing 57.5% thereby leaving a \nstaffing gap of 51. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted shortcomings in regard to procurement and utilization of IT equipment i.e. IT systems/equipment procured \nwithout clearance by NITA-U and neither recorded in the Assets register, failure to accurately record (35) IT assets \nworth UGX.0.256Bn in the right format, failure to allocate and engrave 25 IT assets to staff in the assets register,", "metadata": {"page": 402, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "lack of specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation, non-representation of ICT in top \nmanagement, lack of an approved IT staff structure, failure by internal Audit to review the various ICT systems \nand lack of rights to some of the systems, unapproved draft ICT policy, lack of a risk register and lack of a business \ncontinuity plan. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that (01) piece of land measuring 1.778 Hectares was disposed of as a contribution to the joint venture \nwith USPC at UGX.9.091Bn below the Chief Government Valuer valuation of UGX.10.6Bn hence causing a financial \nloss of UGX.1.509Bn to Government and all the 5 pieces of land measuring approximately 1.256 hectares held by \nthe entity valued at UGX4.151Bn were not fully utilized.", "metadata": {"page": 402, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "387 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Corporation does not have an approved outsourcing policy/framework for received work orders. \n4. \n \nMarkets \nand \nAgricultural \nTrade \nImprovement Project (MATIP) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThere was a shortfall in GoU funding amounting to UGX.0.81Bn representing 81% of the budget. Similarly, the \nprogramme had a shortfall in releases from external financing amounting to UGX.32.10Bn representing 45% of \nthe approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nThe programme failed to absorb UGX.0.27Bn, representing an absorption level of 99%. As a result, I noted that \nout of the three (3) outputs with nineteen (19) activities worth UGX.37Bn planned for execution, one (1) activity", "metadata": {"page": 403, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "was fully implemented, seven (7) activities were partially implemented, while eleven (11) activities remained \nunimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the programme experienced several challenges in implementing several activities, such as delays in \ncompleting some markets/facilities and operationalising constructed markets/facilities activities, which delayed the \ndelivery of services to the citizens. \n5. \n \nMinistry of Public Service \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources and rates charged at vote level for the financial year 2021/2022 \nand noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.14Bn during the year under review; however, \nUGX.0.37Bn was collected, representing a performance of 264% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.34.4Bn, out of which UGX.33.3Bn was", "metadata": {"page": 403, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.1.1Bn. The shortfall represents 3.2% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.33.3Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling \nto UGX.31.045Bn resulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX. 2.259Bn representing an absorption level of 93.2%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of twenty-two (22) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total \nof one hundred forty-six (146) activities worth UGX.23.63Bn and noted that; three (3) outputs with twelve (12) \nactivities and expenditure worth UGX.10.02Bn were fully implemented. Nineteen (19) outputs with one hundred \nthirty-four (134) activities worth UGX.13.6Bn were partially implemented. Out of the one hundred thirty-four (134)", "metadata": {"page": 403, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "activities, the entity fully implemented fifty-five (55) activities; fifty-five (55) activities were partially implemented, \nwhile twenty- four (24) activities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI undertook physical inspections to establish if works/services were delivered. I noted performance gaps and delays \nin the renovation of Ministry premises; operationalisation of new cities; operations of the civil service college; \ncompliance with service delivery standards; harmonisation of salaries in Government and roll out and \nimplementation of the Human Capital Management System (HCM). \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that though the second phase of implementation of the pay policy was scheduled for FYR 2019/20, the \nMoPS failed to secure a budget allocation with MoFPED for financing pay enhancement. Also, there was no uniform \npercentage enhancement of the Public officers to benefit from salary enhancement. Additionally, selective \nenhancement of salaries for cadres like science teachers executing the same job as artisan teachers in public \nservice has further demotivated the workforce.", "metadata": {"page": 403, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "388 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that with the demand for wages outpacing the current growth rate of the economy, there is a risk that \nGovernment would fall short of: \n\uf0b7 \nServicing the financial implication of the increased pension liability as a result of salary enhancement since pension \nliability is calculated upon the final salary at retirement; \n\uf0b7 \nDelivering quality services in the different sectors to the citizens as a substantial portion of the resources available \nwould be reallocated to servicing the wage requirement. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the expiry of the five years approved pay targets and principles would elapse in the FYR ended \n2022/23. Yet, with the recently concluded budget cycle, no funds were appropriated to enhance the salaries of \ntechnical officers in the Public Service in both Central and Local Governments. \n6. \n \nLocal Government Finance Commission \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 404, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission did not budget for NTR but collected UGX.2,360,000. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was a shortfall in releases from GoU amounting to UGX.0.44Bn representing 7.57% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission failed to spend UGX.0.01Bn, representing an absorption level of 96.81%. As a result, I noted that \nout of the six (6) outputs with twenty-seven (27) activities worth UGX.1.71Bn assessed; twenty-four (24) activities \nwere fully implemented, three (3) activities were partially implemented while no activity remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission had outstanding domestic arrears amounting to UGX.349,024,808 at the end of the financial year \nrelating to unremitted cash limits for rent in 2020/2021. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 404, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Commission did not carry out its functions of revenue distribution, revenue maximisation for LGs and budget \nallocation for LGs for the FYR 2021/2022. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the Commission failed to coordinate the automation of Revenue management systems in LGs. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that although the Commission had an approved staff structure of sixty-four (64) officers and employees, \nonly thirty-six (36) positions, representing 56%, were filled, leaving twenty-eight (28) positions representing 44%, \nvacant. \n7. \n \nCity Wide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS) \n \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the program work plans and budgets were never approved by Parliament, contrary to the PFMA. \n\uf0b7 \nThe programme received all the anticipated funds from the donors; however, GoU counterpart funding was less \nthan expected by USD 0.02 Million.", "metadata": {"page": 404, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe program absorbed USD USD.1,141,876, which is 53% of the funds availed to the project for implementation \nof activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project substantially quantified all its activities. Out of the sixty-eight (68) activities assessed, \nforty-four (44) \u2013 65% of activities worth USD 975,602 were fully implemented, fourteen (14)- 21% of activities \nworth USD 116,816 were partially implemented, while ten (10)- 15% of activities worth USD 49,457 were not \nimplemented at all.", "metadata": {"page": 404, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "389 \n \n\uf0b7 \nInspection of the progress of the project works at four (4) sites revealed that; works at Kyanja had stalled, delayed \ncompletion of works at Kalerwe and inadequate contract management at Nakawa, City Square and Kalerwe. This \naffects service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe project had accumulated arrears amounting to USD 340,298 at the end of the financial year. \n8. \n \nNational Planning Authority \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.37.60Bn, only UGX.37.60Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.0.004Bn representing an absorption level of 99.9%. As a result, I noted that out of \nthe 6 quantified activities worth UGX.8.62Bn assessed; 3 activities representing 50% were fully implemented, 3", "metadata": {"page": 405, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "activities representing 50% were partially implemented and no activity was not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority experienced implementation challenges of some activities within the planned time frames, affecting \nservice delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staffing level of 181, only 126 positions were filled (69.6%), leaving a staffing gap of 55 \npositions (19.3%). \n\uf0b7 \nI noted inadequate top-level support in the transition from sector to program approaches to planning and budgeting \nas only the P/Ss\u2019 of the convening Ministries attend the programme working group (PWG) meetings. The rest were \nlower cadre officers, which lowered the level of the technical discussions. Program Working Groups were generally \nnot functional and had not played their coordination roles basically due to lack of human, financial, and logistical \nresources. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that at the sub-programme level, the coordination arrangements amongst the development partners, the", "metadata": {"page": 405, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "private sector, and the civil society groups were sluggish over the first half of the NDPIII. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was delayed approval of strategic plans at only 86% due to non-compliance and delays in responding by \nthe respective MDAs\u2019 and LGs\u2019 to the various review comments raised by NPA. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delayed realignment of the CNDPF to program planning approach, which affected the proper guidance of \nentities in undertaking planning activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there was a lack of a follow-up mechanism for ensuring that NPA recommendations on CoC issues are \nimplemented to improve budget compliance in the subsequent years. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there was lack of programme planning capacity in both MDAs and LGs as, by the time of the MTR, \nLGs were yet to produce programme-based BFPs despite being allowed to undertake budget expenditure. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that there was no adjustment or risk mitigation strategy which allowed Government to adjust the plan", "metadata": {"page": 405, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "throughout the implementation period in line with the available financial resources and the external environment \nwhile keeping the broad focus constant.", "metadata": {"page": 405, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "390 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted weaknesses regarding the reporting and performance evaluation on the implementation of NDP III i.e. \nfailure by LGs to produce the annual performance reports, only 4 (20%) out of the 20 programs had been able to \nproduce annual performance reports and the lack of follow-up mechanisms for proper compliance to the respective \nguidelines. \n\uf0b7 \nThe MTR highlighted that the PWG processes have not materialized as most programmes (16 out 20) are not \noperational, and their respective secretariats are not visible. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was slow progress in implementing NDP III Monitoring and Evaluation reforms. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there was no current 10-year national development plan informing the formulation of the NDP III and \nNDP IV. Additionally, the Authority only had a 5-year human resource development plan as opposed to the thirty-\nyear and 10-year long-term development plans as required by the regulations. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority lacked a National research agenda.", "metadata": {"page": 406, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Authority lacked a National research agenda. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the oversight and coordination mandate or research in different institutions was originally conducted \nby UNCST and was now duplicated in the Authority. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted absence of representation of ICT governance structures at top management and absence of ICT assets in \nthe asset management strategic plan of the Authority. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the staff exits from the Authority in the last five financial years and noted a total of 24 staff had left \nthe authority outside the jurisdiction of mandatory retirement or death. \n9. \n \nPublic Service Commission (PSC) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission did not budget for NTR however; UGX.1,420,000 was collected. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission failed to spend UGX.0.41Bn representing an absorption level of 97%. As a result, I noted that of", "metadata": {"page": 406, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the six (6) outputs with fifty-one (51) activities worth UGX.1.65Bn assessed; twenty-three (23) activities were fully \nimplemented, fifteen (15) activities were partially implemented while thirteen (13) activities remained \nunimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Commission\u2019s audit tool lacked a section for following up on prior supervision recommendations \nmade to DSCs before the current assessment. \n\uf0b7 \nThe revised PSC Guidelines to DSCs and the Assessment tool for Minimum Conditions and Performance Standards \nhave not yet been approved by the Commission awaiting the approval of the PSC Regulations. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that several stakeholders particularly the Ministry of Public Service, Ministry of Local Government, Education \nService Commission, and Health Service Commission are undertaking similar and complementary roles with the \nDSCs however, a review of the existing coordination arrangements revealed weaknesses in how PSC coordinates \nwith other players. The relationship of PSC with other stakeholders needs to be harmonized.", "metadata": {"page": 406, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "391 \n \n10. \nOffice of The Prime Minister \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.178.515Bn, only UGX.176.036Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.2.279Bn representing an absorption level of 98.6%. As a result, I noted \nthat of the 123 quantified activities worth UGX.163.119Bn assessed; 74 activities representing 60.1%, were fully \nimplemented, 32 activities representing 26.1%, were partially implemented, and 17 activities representing 13.8% \nwere not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry experienced challenges in implementing some of its activities within the planned time frames, affecting \nservice delivery. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 407, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that all the two pieces of land measuring approximately 161.8 hectares acquired by the Ministry were \nrecorded in the entity land/assets register. However, they were not captured in the fixed assets module of the \nGFMIS, thus affecting the accuracy of the non-produced assets reported in the financial statements. \n\uf0b7 \nI also noted that the titles for two pieces of land measuring approximately 161.8 hectares were not transferred \nfrom the previous owners' names. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity accumulated domestic arrears of UGX.111,434,060. I further noted that the entity did not \nbudget for prior year arrears of UGX.70,701,127. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.2.5Bn meant for the resettlement of victims of Apaa land was still held in the Office of the Prime Minister \nCompensation Account in Centenary Bank. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 407, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI observed that despite the training, the district disaster management committees were non-functional in the \ntrained districts as there was no evidence of regular meetings and community sensitization on disasters. \n\uf0b7 \nM/S Inspire Africa (U) Ltd was paid UGX.1,906,556,240 for setting up coffee shops and the attendant infrastructure \nin Arua, Mbale, Lira, Gulu and Tororo; however, except for Gulu, the coffee shops were either non-existent or \nnon-operational. \n11. \nGerman Refugee Response Fund project \n\u2013the scaled-up sustainable domestic \nwater supply and sanitation service \ninfrastructure in rhino camp refugee \nsettlement, \nArua \ndistrict, \nNorthern \nUganda \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo reportable issues \n12. \nUganda Refuge response fund -OPM \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nNo reportable issues", "metadata": {"page": 407, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "392 \n \nUnqualified \n13. \nGerman Refugee Response Fund project \n\u2013education infrastructure enhancement \nfor South Sudanese refugees and host \ncommunities in Bidi bidi \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo reportable issues \n14. \nEnhancing \nNational \nFood \nSecurity \nThrough \nIncreased \nRice \nProduction \nProject (ENRP) \nJune 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe budget absorption rate for the project during the year under review was 3%, which is considerably low, despite \nthe fact that the project is about to end. This implies that most activities budgeted for were not carried out, which", "metadata": {"page": 408, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "may lead to failure to complete the project in the planned time frame. However, I note that management sought \nand obtained a no-cost extension for two years from the Islamic development bank, which will enable the project \nto complete all the planned activities, including the major activity of the dam construction that caters for over 90% \nof the total project expenditure. \n15. \nProject for The Restoration of Livelihoods \nin the Northern Region (PRELNOR) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere was a shortfall in releases from external financing amounting to UGX.1.07Bn representing 4.3% of the \napproved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nThe project had an unspent balance of UGX.1.45Bn representing an absorption level of 94%. As a result, out of", "metadata": {"page": 408, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the eight (8) outputs with one hundred Twenty-six (126) activities worth UGX.24.10Bn assessed, one hundred and \nfour (104) activities were fully implemented, nine (9) activities were partially implemented while thirteen (13) \nactivities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe project is experiencing challenges in implementing its planned activities which affected service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted sustainability issues regarding maintenance of the roads constructed by the project when it eventually \ncloses. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the level of cumulative absorption of funds and noted that USD 47.3M representing 66% had been \nabsorbed as at 30th June 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year under review, the beneficiaries\u2019 contribution to the project was not valued, and therefore not \nreported on in the annual performance report and the financial statements. \n\uf0b7 \nOminut of the planned five satellite markets, only two markets, namely Opit in Omoro District and Lukole in Agago", "metadata": {"page": 408, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "District, were procured and were under construction. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the financial year, the Programme Policy Committee only met once and not every six months as required \nby the project detailed design report of 2014.", "metadata": {"page": 408, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "393 \n \n16. \nMinistry of Local Government \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.106.75Bn, only UGX.80.65Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.26.1Bn representing an absorption level of 75.6%. As a result, I noted that of the \n40 quantified activities worth UGX.23.51Bn assessed; 16 activities representing 40% were fully implemented, 18 \nactivities representing 45% were partially implemented, and 6 activities representing 15% were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry experienced challenges and delays in the implementation of some activities which affected service \ndelivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the MoLG did not make a budgetary provision for the settlement of court awards and compensation \nliabilities. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 409, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "liabilities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Ministry did not have approved selection criteria and allocation guidelines for the allocation of \nstart-up funds to the beneficiary Local Governments. Consequently, the Ministry allocated an arbitrary start-up \namount of UGX.50 million to each of the beneficiary local Governments irrespective of the differences in the \nrequirements and size of the newly created administrative units. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that despite the Government commitment to co-fund projects to the tune of USD 22.89 million, only USD \n8.03 million was paid, leaving USD 14.86 million outstanding. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Ministry delayed operationalizing the Busega Market which delayed service delivery to the citizens. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Ministry did not carry out the induction of newly elected Local Government leaders in 110 Districts \nand 19 Municipalities with their Lower Local Governments; only 10 Cities and 2 Districts of Mpigi and Mityana were", "metadata": {"page": 409, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "inducted using USMID and KOICA funding, while 23 Districts had induction of only the Higher Local Government \nCouncils \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that despite the submission of the cost implication two years after approval of the creation of cities, the \ncities are still operating on the budgets of Municipal Councils because they have not yet received funding for city \nstatus which hinders service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that several Districts and Cities had not constituted Service Commissions, while others were functional but \nnot fully constituted. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Ministry did not have specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. There was \nno approved IT risk management framework/policy, and risk register and there was no business continuity plan, \ncontrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \n17. \nLocal Economic Growth Support (LEGS) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 409, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the budget performance for the project for the year and noted that out of the planned expenditure of \nUGX.53,057,264,072, only UGX 19,072,116,523 was spent, resulting in an absorption level of 36%. There is a risk \nthat some key project activities may not be implemented by the end of the implementation period, which is 31st \nAugust 2023, resulting in repetitive project extensions. Ultimately impacting the achievement of the project \nobjectives", "metadata": {"page": 409, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "394 \n \n18. \nLocal Economic Growth Support (LEGS) \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by \nthe Microfinance Support Centre. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the \nrequirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \n\uf0b7 \nThe project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the \nprocurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \n\uf0b7 \nThrough field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than \nthose indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100", "metadata": {"page": 410, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers \nand 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. \n19. \nKampala Capital City Authority (KCCA). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.313.67Bn, only UGX.303.11Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.13.56Bn representing an absorption level of 95.7%. However, I could not \nassess the implementation of all the forty-six (46) outputs worth UGX.316Bn with 137 activities since they were \nnot quantified. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority had a long-term liability of UGX.42Bn on its balance sheet from a development credit agreement", "metadata": {"page": 410, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "entered. In addition, the entity had outstanding commitments to the tune of UGX.24.98Bn at the year-end and \nunremitted statutory deductions amounting to UGX.4.107Bn \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority delayed the commencement of the Kampala Rehabilitation project by eleven (11) months after the \nintended effectiveness date. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity incurred Nugatory expenditure -Interest on delayed payments worth UGX.94m \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority managed to recover only UGX.1.46Bn out of UGX.4.628Bn YLP funds disbursed to the youth groups \nsince the programme\u2019s inception. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Authority had not yet come up with the regulations to operationalize the 2019 outdoor ordinance \nas such, could not collect revenue from outdoor advertising activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 928 schools out of 1,927 were not registered with KCCA representing 48%, while provisional licenses", "metadata": {"page": 410, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "for 102 schools out of the 134 schools with provisional licenses had expired, implying that the schools were \noperating illegally. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Capital City Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had not been established, as I was not provided evidence \nof its existence and functionality. \n\uf0b7 \nDespite 2022 being the final year (expiry of the ten years) of implementing the Consultancy recommendations on \nKPDP, the Authority had not prepared an implementation and evaluation report to evaluate the plan\u2019s performance.", "metadata": {"page": 410, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "395 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted gaps in the implementation of the Parish Development Model, such as the absence of work plans, failure \nto fund SACCOs and contradicting PDM implementation guidelines. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority did not provide a sufficient budget for the settlement of court compensation/liabilities, and there \nwere no criteria to guide the settlement of the arrears. \n20. \nKampala Institutional and Infrastructure \nDevelopment Project (KIIDP). \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the available funds of UGX.121.3Bn, UGX.101.8Bn was spent, resulting in an unspent balance of \nUGX.19.5.Bn representing an absorption level of 84%. As a result, two outputs assessed with twelve (12) activities \nwere partially implemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 411, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project experienced challenges in implementing its activities which affected service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 459 titles bought by KCCA, only 64 land titles, representing 14%, had been processed and \nownership transferred to KCCA. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 871 PAPs due for compensation under the KIIDP II Project, only 695 PAPs (80% on average) had so far \nbeen fully compensated as at the time of audit. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Project Management spent UGX.558,001,750 to settle interest accrued on delayed payment of Interim \nPayment Certificates (IPC) without justification. \n \nPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SECTOR \n \n1. \n \nUganda Embassy in Abu Dhabi. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 411, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.1.59Bn during the financial year under review but realized \nUGX.0.044Bn only representing a performance of 3% of the target. The poor performance in NTR was partly \nattributed to unrealistic NTR projections due to the non-participation of the Embassy during the estimation of NTR \nby MoFPED. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.9.99Bn out of which UGX.9.38Bn was warranted resulting into 94% release of \nthe budgeted funds. All the total warrants received were spent representing an absorption level of 100%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of five (5) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of nine \n(9) activities worth UGX.9.30Bn and noted that three (3) outputs with four (4) activities and expenditure worth \nUGX.4.93Bn were fully implemented.", "metadata": {"page": 411, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nTwo (2) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX.4.37Bn were partially implemented. Out of the five (5) activities, \nthe Embassy fully implemented two (2) activities and three (3) activities were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds totaling to AED 40,300.42 (UGX.40,300,420) were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were \nbudgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy incurred a total expenditure on rescue accommodation of AED 201,000 (UGX.201,000,000). I noted \nthat the Embassy is liable for any damage caused to the premises and for any nuisance acts that would arise \nfollowing the admission of the distressed Ugandans and or any sickness which poses threats of potential contingent \nliabilities against GOU. This expenditure could have been avoided had the memorandum of understanding between", "metadata": {"page": 411, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "396 \n \nthe GOU and the Government of the United Arab Emirates in the Field of manpower and Domestic Worker Protocol \nbeen implemented and observed. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission is developing a data base of Ugandans working and resident in the UAE as stated in the \nStrategic plan. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission is renting the chancery premises at a total cost of UGX.500 million per annum which is very costly to \nGovernment in the long run. \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy established a Consulate in Dubai where rent is charged at a cost of AED 460,000 (UGX.460Mn) per \nannum. This is to facilitate the quick consular services needed to the many Ugandans. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Consulate lacks adequate budget provision for the smooth operations of a consulate. \n2. \n \nUganda Embassy in Abu Dhabi. \n2020/21 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified", "metadata": {"page": 412, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.1,593,934,550 during the Financial year 2021/2021 \nhowever; only UGX.53,465,766 was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.1,540,468,784 representing a 3.4% \nperformance. Shortfall in revenue collections affects implementation of planned activities. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX. 6.112Bn which was all warranted. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the three (3) outputs with a total of seven (7) activities and expenditure of UGX.6.14Bn sampled for \nassessment, I noted that all the three (3) outputs with a total of Seven (7) activities and expenditure worth \nUGX.6.14Bn were fully quantified. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 412, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that 3 outputs with 7 activities worth UGX.6.14Bn were partially implemented. Out of 7 activities, the entity \nfully implemented 1 activity (14%) while 6 activities were partially implemented (71%) and 1 activity (14%) \nremained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of UGX.10,964,532 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were \nbudgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n3. \n \nThe Embassy of Republic of Uganda, \nCairo \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not budget for NTR collection despite a communication from the PS/ST which projected \nthe Entity\u2019s NTR at UGX.1.3Bn. However, only UGX.0.226Bn was collected. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 412, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nAccording to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.4.75Bn which was all \nwarranted/released 100%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission received UGX.4.75Bn during the financial year which was all spent, representing an \nabsorption level of 100%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Embassy took a decision to directly purchase two motor vehicles, at AED. 376,094 (Approximately \nUSD. 102,000 or UGX. 387,600,000) which had not been delivered at the time of concluding the audit exercise \n(December, 2022).", "metadata": {"page": 412, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "397 \n \n\uf0b7 \nA comparison of the approved structure (07 staff) of the Mission with the staff on the ground (10 staff) indicated \na non-alignment of staff to the approved and communicated structure by the Ministry of Public Service. \n4. \n \nThe Embassy of Republic of Uganda, \nCairo \n2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.125Bn during the year under review. Out of this, \nUGX.0.101Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX UGX.2.024Bn which represents 4.75% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.3.59Bn and all of it was warranted. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 413, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that three (3) outputs with a total of Seventeen (17) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.29Bn were \nfully quantified, while One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure of UGx.0.3BN was not quantified to \nenable assessment of performance. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of UGX. 740,634,774 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they \nwere budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the approved staff establishment of the Embassy revealed that the Embassy had an approved staff \nstructure of 6 staff positions which were all filled. However, the Embassy had four (4) extra Staff. \n5. \n \nThe Embassy of Republic of Uganda, \nRome \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 413, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission did not budget for NTR collection despite a communication from the PS/ST which projected \nthe Entity\u2019s NTR at UGX.0.14Bn. However, only UGX.0.013Bn was collected from processing of documents and \nother miscellaneous revenues. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission was supposed to receive UGX5.032Bn, of which UGX.4.784Bn was warranted/released, \nthus representing 95.1% budget performance. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.4.784Bn received by the Mission during the financial year, UGX.4.246Bn was \nspent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.538Bn, representing an absorption level of 88.8%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of Fifteen (15) activities worth UGX.4.57Bn", "metadata": {"page": 413, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were partially implemented \n6. \n \nThe Embassy of Republic of Uganda, \nRome \n2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.1.594Bn during the year under review. However, this \namount was not indicated in the Mission\u2019s Statement of Appropriation. Out of the estimated NTR, UGX.0.019Bn \nwas collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.1.575Bn which represents 1.19% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nOf the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.5.032Bn, a sum of UGX.4.22Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.0.812Bn representing an absorption level of 84%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 413, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the four (4) outputs with a total of twenty-nine (29) activities and expenditure of UGX.4.22Bn sampled for \nassessment, two (2) outputs with a total of Eleven (11) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.14Bn were fully \nquantified. Two (2) output with Eighteen (18) activity and expenditure worth UGX.4.08Bn were not quantified to \nenable assessment of performance.", "metadata": {"page": 413, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "398 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted two (2) outputs with Eleven (11) activities worth UGX.0.14Bn were partially implemented. Out of the Eleven \n(11) activities, the entity partially implemented Five (5) activities (45%) while six (6) activities (55%) were not \nimplemented. No activities were fully implemented. \n7. \n \nThe Uganda Embassy, Ottawa \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Mission received all the funds amounting to UGX5.03Bn during the year, none of the outputs were \nfully achieved. Two (2) Outputs with six (6) activities worth UGX.4.73Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity submitted all the Quarterly performance reports beyond the deadlines \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 414, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nContrary to the PFMA 2015, I noted that the Mission collected revenue amounting to UGX. 195,916,665 during the \nperiod and only remitted UGX. 65,522,902 leaving the balance of UGX. 130,393,763 un-remitted. Similarly, in prior \nperiod ending 30th June 2020, the Mission collected UGX.13,091,885 and only remitted UGX.5,196,911 \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that outstanding commitments had increased from UGX.435,764,018 to UGX.693,780,172 at closure of the \nfinancial year most of which related to unpaid taxes and deduction on properties owned by the mission \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved 6 staff positions, 5 were filled leaving 1 vacant. \n8. \n \nThe Uganda Embassy, Ottawa \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 414, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Mission received all the funds amounting to UGX5.03Bn during the year, none of the outputs were \nfully achieved. Two (2) Outputs with six (6) activities worth UGX.4.73Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity submitted all the Quarterly performance reports beyond the deadlines \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to the PFMA 2015, I noted that the Mission collected revenue amounting to UGX. 195,916,665 during the \nperiod and only remitted UGX. 65,522,902 leaving the balance of UGX. 130,393,763 un-remitted. Similarly, in prior \nperiod ending 30th June 2020, the Mission collected UGX.13,091,885 and only remitted UGX.5,196,911 \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 414, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that outstanding commitments had increased from UGX.435,764,018 to UGX.693,780,172 at closure of the \nfinancial year most of which related to unpaid taxes and deduction on properties owned by the mission \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved 6 staff positions, 5 were filled leaving 1 vacant. \n9. \n \nUganda Embassy in Abuja \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nA sum of UGX.245,782,986 relating to foreign exchange gain was not transferred to the UCF contrary to section \n30 (1) of PFMA, 2015. The funds were spent on the movement of 5 officers arising from posting and transfer and \nrecalls which happened in one year. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy budgeted to receive UGX.5.609Bn out of which only UGX.5.406Bn was received leaving a balance of", "metadata": {"page": 414, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.0.195Bn thus affecting implementation of planned activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of twelve (12) activities worth UGX.5.628Bn \nhad 6 activities that were full implemented, 5 activities were partially implemented and 1 activity that was not \nimplemented during the year non or partial implementation of activities affected some delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 414, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "399 \n \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.18,600,672 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other \nactivities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy only paid UGX.3,095,724,757 (12.5%) and not UGX.4,820,729,056 (20%) agreed in signed contract \nas advance payment to a firm for construction works at Abuja Chancery plot. If this is to continue, this is likely to \nresult into litigation and financial loss. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the asset register, Board of Survey report and inspection of HOM residential house revealed that there \nwere 18 unserviceable items that were not disposed as required. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded yet UGX1.35Bn is urgently needed \nto procure various items to fund urgent operations. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 415, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nE-Visa approval for travelers to Uganda was handled by Immigration office in Kampala without the input of Embassy \nof Uganda in Nigeria. This poses various risks to Uganda and Nigeria Governments on security issues. \n10. \nUganda Embassy in Abuja, \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.20.845Bn, UGX.20.239Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.0.455Bn representing an absorption level of 97.8%. As a result, I noted that of the \nthirteen (13) quantified outputs worth UGX.18.3Bn assessed; eight (8) outputs were fully implemented and five \n(5) outputs were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission received off-budget financing totalling to UGX.1.15Bn from five (5) development partners during \nthe year.", "metadata": {"page": 415, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted significant delays in the investigation of cases hence affecting the disposal rate of human rights cases. \n\uf0b7 \nI carried out inspections of regional offices of Jinja and Mbarara and noted that in the last two years, only one (1) \ntribunal meeting was held in Jinja and none in Mbarara. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of land and noted that all five (5) pieces of land owned by the entity were not recorded \nin the GFMIS fixed assets module, the entity did not have a land tiltle for one piece of land for Gulu regional office, \ntitles for four (4) pieces of land had not been transferred into the custody of the Uganda Land Commission and \none piece of land in Masaka (Old Kumbu, Masaka Municipality) measuring approximately 0.0620 hectares belonging \nto the Commission was not in use. \n\uf0b7 \nUHRC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.290,507,036 as at 30th June 2022 \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 415, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the management of ICT and noted that the Commission has failed to dispose off old IT items for 4 to \n10 years. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission had no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security \nPolicy 2014. \n11. \nUganda Embassy in Ankara \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy had an approved NTR budget of UGX.0.02Bn but only UGX.0.011Bn was collected, resulting in a \nshortfall of UGX.0.009Bn which represents a performance of 55% thus affecting the entity\u2019s activities.", "metadata": {"page": 415, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "400 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy budgeted to receive UGX.5.877Bn, UGX. 5.418Bn was released resulting into a shortfall of \nUGX.0.459Bn representing a shortfall of 8% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of nine (9) activities worth UGX.5.363Bn had 5 \nactivities that were full implemented,2 activities were partially implemented and 2 activities that was not \nimplemented during the year non or partial implementation of activities affected service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy submitted performance report for Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports contrary \nto the circular standing instruments thus affecting timely evaluation of performance.. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of approved staff structure of 8 staff positions, only 6 were filled leaving 2 positions vacant thus overloading \nthe available staff time. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 416, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy has not procured a Chancery despite having planned to procure one. \n12. \nUganda Embassy in Ankara \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy had an approved NTR budget of UGX.1.594Bn but only UGX.0.0162Bn was collected, resulting in a \nshortfall of UGX.UGX.1.5778 which represents 1.02% performance thus affecting the entity\u2019s activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that three (3) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of eight (8) activities worth UGX.4.13Bn had \n4 activities that were fully implemented, 1 activity was partially implemented and 3 activities that were not \nimplemented during the year the embassy may fail to achieve the purpose for which it exists. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 416, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nUGX.38,516,920 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other \nactivities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the \nreports contrary to the circular standing instruments thus affecting timely evaluation of performance. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Embassy\u2019s diplomatic activities were inadequately funded leaving a number of activities \nunimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of approved staff structure of 8 staff positions, only 6 were filled leaving two positions vacant thus overloading \nthe available staff time. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded and this has affected activities \nthat require constant travels. \n13. \nUganda Embassy in China, Beijing \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 416, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR amounting to UGX. 0.19Bn during the year under review. Out of \nthis, only UGX.0.014Bn was collected, representing a performance of 7.4% of the target.", "metadata": {"page": 416, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "401 \n \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.6.280Bn out of which UGX.5.860Bn \nwas warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.420Bn. The shortfall represents 6.7% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of all the four (4) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of twenty (20) \nactivities worth UGX.6.280Bn and noted that; One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX. \n0.3Bn was fully implemented. Three (3) outputs with nineteen (19) activities worth UGX.5.98Bn were partially \nimplemented. \n14. \nUganda Embassy in China, Beijing \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 417, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review but collected UGX.9.831 million \nduring the year. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.98Bn out of which UGX.4.98Bn was warranted, implying 100% release of \nthe budget. All the funds received were absorbed. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of three (3) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of 7 activities worth \nUGX.4.981bn and noted that out of 7 activities, the entity fully implemented 1 activity (14%), 3 activities were \npartially implemented (43%) while 3 activities (43%) remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline given for submission \nof the reports. \n15. \nUganda Embassy in Berlin", "metadata": {"page": 417, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda Embassy in Berlin \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that several Out puts in the Strategic plan are not included in the Annual work plan and vice versa. In \naddition some annualised targets in the strategic plan were different from those in the annual work plan. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that although the Mission had not budgeted to collect NTR during the year under review, an amount of \nUGX.39,346,556 was recognized in the financial statements \n\uf0b7 \nOne (1) output (HIV/AIDS Mainstreaming) with a total of nineteen (19) activities and expenditure worth UGX. \n0.566Bn were insufficiently quantified. I observed that out of the nineteen (19) activities, five (5) activities (26%) \nwere quantified while fourteen (14) activities (74%) were not clearly quantified to enable assessment of \nperformance. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 417, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "performance. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 25 quantified activities, 7 activities (28%) were fully implemented, 9 activities (36%) were partially \nimplemented while 9 activities (36%) remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that \u20ac202,700 had been diverted to implement activities other than the activities for which they were \nbudgeted. \n\uf0b7 \nthe Mission has not had any approved Charter by the Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2014. This is despite the fact \nthat the finance committee meeting held on 24th February 2022 agreed on development of a Mission Charter. \n\uf0b7 \nDespite the Mission in Berlin being mandated to promote and protect Uganda\u2019s national interests in Germany, \nAustria, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, the Vatican, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania and with the United Nations", "metadata": {"page": 417, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "402 \n \nAgencies in Bonn, Hamburg and Vienna, by the time of audit the Ambassador had only been accredited in Germany \nalone. \n16. \nUganda Embassy in Berlin \n2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough all the funds were received during, the Mission did not achieve all the outputs. Five (5) out of seven (7) \nstrategic outputs from the strategic plan were partially achieved \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 5.77Bn, UGX.5.72Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.0.05Bn \n\uf0b7 \nOne (1) output with a total of four (4) activities and expenditure worth UGX.1.17Bn were insufficiently quantified.", "metadata": {"page": 418, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "I observed that out of the four (4) activities, three (3) activities (75%) were quantified while one (1) activity (25%) \nwere not clearly quantified to enable assessment of performance. \n\uf0b7 \n2 outputs with 13 activities worth UGX. 4.55Bn were partially implemented. Out of 13 activities, 3 activities were \npartially implemented (23%) while 10 activities (76.9%) remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nFrom a sample I noted that UGX.221,106,545 had been diverted from other activities to pay medical expenses. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the fixed assets register maintained by the entity was not updated. A number of assets in the BoS \nReport such as the saloon cars, desktop computers, laptops, printers, servers, photocopiers were not included in \nthe Assets register. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the approved staff establishment of the mission in Germany revealed that although the Mission had", "metadata": {"page": 418, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "an approved staff structure of 6 staff positions the actual staff positions filled were 9 (150%) resulting in an excess \nof 3 \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to the Public standing orders, the Mission paid EUR 14,921 (UGX.63,352,611) in respect to educational \nallowances to staff without children accompanying them at the Mission. \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the entity had an approved Procurement Plan, procurements worth UGX.286,095,641 for Medical \nInsurance, were undertaken outside the approved procurement plan. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 2 procurements for Heating Oil were undertaken using the request for quotation, and direct \nprocurement method, without a clear justification for the direct procurement method. \n17. \nUganda Embassy in Brussels \n \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 418, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.4Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.0085Bn \nwas collected, representing a performance of 2.1% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe budgets for four (4) outputs assessed were not supported by individual activity costings/budgets. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the four (4) outputs that had been fully quantified with 19 activities worth UGX.1.130Bn and noted that; \nOne (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.0.170Bn were fully implemented; One (1) output \nwith sixteen (16) activities worth UGX.0.80Bn were partially implemented. All the sixteen (16) activities, were \npartially implemented, while Two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth 0.160Bn was not implemented at all.", "metadata": {"page": 418, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "403 \n \n\uf0b7 \nthe Mission did not maintain a detailed risk register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities as \ndetailed in the approved work plans and budget. \n\uf0b7 \nthe mission had an accumulated unspent balance of UGX. 170,862,053 which had not been transferred to the \nconsolidated fund. \n\uf0b7 \nfunds to the tune of Euro. 14,238.10 (equivalent to UGX 56,952,400) were irregularly diverted from allowances \nand paid for installation of a gate at the official residence without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nState of the embassy Assets ; the Official residence requires more repairs ;an empty plot of land within the prime \narea of the city in Brussels measuring approximately more than 1.0 acres needs to redevelop to save on the \nhigh annual rental expenses incurred on staff accommodation \n18. \nUganda Embassy in Brussels \n2020/21", "metadata": {"page": 419, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.1.594 Bn during the year. However only UGX.0.387 Bn was collected, \nresulting in a shortfall of UGX.1.207Bn which represents 2.43% performance. \n\uf0b7 \n3 outputs with 7 activities worth UGX.5.423Bn which were fully quantified, were partially implemented. Out of 7 \nactivities, the entity fully implemented 1 activity (14.3%), 2 activities were partially implemented (28.6%) while 4 \nactivities (57.1%) remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX. 31,521,823 (Euro 8,168.18) were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and \nspent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 419, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nEmbassy land measuring approximately 1 acre is un-occupied and not under use. However, the mission incurred \ncosts to a tune of approximately UGX. 29,254,486 (Euro 7,580.65) on its maintenance during the year without any \nreturns. \n19. \nUganda Embassy in Juba \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not budget for NTR during the year under review, however UGX.453,110,497 was \ncollected as NTR during the period. \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.9.31Bn out of which UGX.9.31Bn was \nwarranted, resulting in 100% funding of the budget. Out of the total warrants of UGX.9.311Bn received during the", "metadata": {"page": 419, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "financial year, UGX.9.01Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.3Bn representing an \nabsorption level of 96.7%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of four \n(4) activities worth UGX.0.85Bn and noted that; One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth \nUGX.0.3Bn were fully implemented, two (2) outputs with three (3) activities worth UGX.55Bn were partially \nimplemented. Out of the three activities, two (2) activities were partially implemented and one (1) activity was not \nimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the financial statements and affairs of the Embassy for the underlying period, and noted a balance of \nUGX.335,754,842 as cash in transit which has been in the books of the embassy for more than five financial years.", "metadata": {"page": 419, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "404 \n \n20. \nUganda Embassy in Juba \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.3.188Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only \nUGX.0.416Bn was realized, representing a performance of 13% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.13.759Bn, out of which UGX. \nUGX.13.759Bn was warranted, resulting in 100% funding. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that all the four (4) outputs with a total of eighteen (18) activities and expenditure worth UGX.13.77Bn \nwere fully quantified. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of 18 activities worth", "metadata": {"page": 420, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX..13.77Bn and noted that; One (1) output with 1 activity worth UGX.9.08Bn was fully implemented, two (2) \noutputs with 14 activities worth UGX.0.796Bn were partially implemented while one (1) output with a total of three \n(3) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.89Bn were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline given for submission \nof the reports. \n21. \nUganda Embassy in Bujumbura \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission had an NTR budget of UGX.0.5Bn for the financial year however UGX 0.8Bn was realised \nabove the target. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 420, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "above the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had a budget for GoU funding of UGX. 9.2Bn for the year however UGX 9.6Bn was warranted which \nwas over and above the budget. All the warranted funds were utilized. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the budgets for three (3) out of the eight (8) outputs assessed were not supported by individual \nactivity costing/budgets. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had challenges in setting clear and appropriate performance indicators in the approved work plans \nand budgets. Some of the indicators used were generic and in some cases activities did not have performance \nindicators at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Embassy did not maintain a detailed register of risks and as such, there were no strategies and \nofficers responsible for ensuring risks did not materialize. \n22. \nUganda Embassy in Bujumbura \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 420, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of a sample of eight (8) strategic activities/targets for the year from the strategic plan, five (5) targets were \npartially achieved, and three (3) targets were not achieved by the end of the year. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity collected only UGX.250,911,619 out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.3.188 Bn during the year under review, \nresulting in a shortfall of UGX.2,937,088,381, which represents 8% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.3.286Bn, which was all warranted/released. This reflects a performance of \n100% of the budget.", "metadata": {"page": 420, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "405 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy did not fully implement the four planned outputs. Out of the four (4), only one (1) output with one \nactivity worth UGX.0.5Bn was fully implemented, and the three (3) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth \nUGX.2.75Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy did not remit unutilised end-of-year balances amounting to UGX.31,649,399 to the Treasury for \nonward transfer to the Consolidated Fund. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity irregularly paid UGX.402,208,624 (BIF.223,797,365) out of imprest on activities such as air tickets, \nsalaries, rent, security deposits and purchase of capital items, which are not small incidental expenditures such as \npostage and other office costs as guided by the Treasury Instructions 2017. And did not prepare a reconciliation", "metadata": {"page": 421, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of the Petty Cashbook and a Petty Cash Replenishment Request form. \n23. \nUganda High Commission Canberra \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to the requirements of the circular, the Uganda High Commission, Canberra had a Mission Chatter for \n2021/2022 which was not aligned to the Mission\u2019s Strategic Plan 2020/21 - 2025. As a result the budget for the \nsame financial year was also not aligned to the strategic objectives in the Strategic Plan. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that according to the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) projections, only UGX.23.08 was \nallocated to the High Commission over the five years, mainly for wage and non-wage (recurrent) spending \n\uf0b7 \nThe approved structure of the High Commission considers only the Head of Mission and the graded as Foreign \nService Officers. Other officers who are posted and work at the High Commission such as the Financial and the \nAdministrative Attaches were not included in the approved structure of the High Commission.", "metadata": {"page": 421, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI established that the High Commission paid a total of AUD 48,551.57 during the financial without separating what \nrelated to normal power use and the portion meant for cooling/heating. This is irregular and affects implementation \nof other planned activities of the High commission. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that MOFA released AUD.1,068,219.79 (UGX.3.00Bn) to the High Commission in excess of the required \ncommitment of AUD 320,000 for the Acquisition of the Chancery by Government of Uganda. The excess of AUD \n748,219.79 was deposited with Lawyers under an Escrow Account in the bank. However, this excess amount was \nwrongly expensed during the year instead of recognizing it as cash and cash equivalents on the escrow Account. \n24. \nUganda High Commission Canberra \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 421, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the mission finalised the preparation of the strategic plan for the period 2020/2021-2024/2025. \nHowever, the strategic plan was approved on 27th September 2021 after the end of the financial year under audit. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of AUD.10081.38 (UGX.27, 161,455) were irregularly diverted from the activities on \nwhich they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission spent UGX.171, 287,858 on medical refunds and other medical expenses to its staff during \nthe financial year. Out of the total refunds paid, the insurance refunded only the qualifying amount of \nUGX.72,880,522", "metadata": {"page": 421, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "406 \n \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the audit, I noted that the Mission spent UGX.82, 251,459 on electricity/gas expenses for Staff. However, \nI could not determine personal bills for officers and bills accruing to the government. I was therefore unable to \nestablish the actual expenses spent on electricity for government business. \n25. \nUganda Embassy in Algiers \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity collected NTR of UGX. 11,623,722 out of the budgeted UGX. 210m during the financial year under \nreview representing a performance of 5.5% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity received warrants amounting to UGX.4.4098Bn out of the budgeted UGX.4.886Bn resulting in a shortfall", "metadata": {"page": 422, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of UGX. 0.477Bn representing a 9.7% of the approved budget. All the funds received were however fully absorbed. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the extent of implementation of the only output that was well quantified and noted that this out-put \nwas partially implemented. Out of the nine (9) activities, the mission fully implemented two (2) activities (22%), \nwhile seven (7) activities (77%) were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the signatories to the Mission Accounts were not as per the guidelines given by the Accountant \nGeneral. \n26. \nUganda Embassy in Algiers \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the review, I noted that the Mission did not have a strategic plan that was well aligned to the NDP-III \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 422, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had an NTR budget of UGX2.125Bn out of which only UGX. 939,989 was collected representing a \nperformance of 0.04%. Shortfalls in NTR performance affect service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed a sample of three outputs with 28 activities worth UGX 3.89Bn. Two of the outputs with 17 activities \nwere fully quantified while one output with 11 activities was partially quantified. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of the two quantified outputs and noted that all of them were partially implemented. \n27. \nUganda Embassy in Tehran, 2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the mission did not budget for NTR for year under review and as such no NTR was collected. \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the approved budget, the mission was supposed to receive UGX.4.14Bn out of which UGX 3.66Bn", "metadata": {"page": 422, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "was received. All the funds that were received were absorbed. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of \neighteen (18) activities worth UGX.4.14bn and noted that all the out-puts were partially implemented. Out of the \n18 activities worth 4.14 Bn assessed, 8 (44%) activities were fully implemented while 10 (66%) activities were not \nimplemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission accumulated domestic arrears of UGX 157,418,581 during the year contrary to the Treasury \nInstructions. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year under review, the mission spent UGX.1,296,080,389, on rent which is 34.2% of the total \nexpenditure for the year of UGX.3, 795,208,084.", "metadata": {"page": 422, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "407 \n \n28. \nUganda Embassy in Tehran, 2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe mission did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review. However, the entity collected UGX. \n825,385. \n\uf0b7 \nThe mission budgeted to receive UGX.3.84Bn all of which was warranted and absorbed \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the mission had sufficiently quantified all the outputs and activities for year. I assessed the \nimplementation of these out-puts and noted that One output with five activities (5) was worth UGX 0.76Bn was \nfully implemented while two outputs worth 3.068Bn with sixteen (16) activities were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 however there was no evidence for submission \nbefore elapse of the deadline. \n29.", "metadata": {"page": 423, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "29. \nUganda High Commission in Dar es \nSalaam. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.5,301Bn, UGX.5,758Bn was spent by the entity resulting in \nover-expenditure of UGX.0.457Bn representing an absorption level of 109%. As a result, I noted that of the 21 \nquantified activities worth 5.76Bn assessed; 2 activities representing 6%, were fully implemented, and 19 \nactivities representing 94 %, were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission did not return to the consolidated fund unspent balances for the prior year, totalling to USD.63,345.76, \nan equivalent of UGX.222,343,617.6. Management instead used the funds for meeting extra-budgetary \nexpenditures. \n30. \nUganda High Commission in Dar es \nSalaam.", "metadata": {"page": 423, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Salaam. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.5.32Bn, UGX.5.01Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX. 0.31, representing absorption level of 94.7%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of four (4) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities worth UGX. 4.41Bn and \nnoted that one (1) output with three (3) activities worth 3.75Bn was fully implemented, and one (1) output with \nsix (6) activities worth UGX.0.410Bn was partially implemented (i.e Out of the six activities, the entity fully \nimplemented two (2) activities, and four (4) activities remained unimplemented) and two (2) outputs with three \nactivities worth 0.24Bn were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 423, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe entity procured several items that were not on the Mission\u2019s approved procurement plan. Out of the seven (7) \nprocurements sampled, there was no evidence of evaluation done and there were no contract managers. \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy spent USD 4.877.00 (UGX. 17,308,814.4) on refunds for medical expenses to its officers yet the \nPublic Service Standing Orders, 2010, requires Foreign Service Officers to be covered by full medical insurance. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy paid UGX.78,079,540 to its officials for educational allowances instead of paying educational \nInstitutions or Schools. \n31. \nUganda High Commission in Doha. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year under review of 3.183Bn, UGX 3.026Bn was warranted, representing \nan absorption rate of 95.06 % of the approved budget.", "metadata": {"page": 423, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "408 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThree (3) outputs with thirteen (13) activities worth. 3,183Bn were partially implemented. Out of the thirteen (13) \nactivities, the entity fully implemented two (2) activities; nine (9) activities were partially implemented, while two \n(2) activities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy did not have a substantive Contracts committee during the year under review. \n32. \nUganda High Commission in Doha. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.3.18Bn, UGX.2.99Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.0.19Bn, representing an absorption level of 94.02%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 424, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of three (3) outputs with a total of eleven (11) activities worth UGX.2.99Bn and \nnoted that three (3) outputs with eleven (11) activities worth UGX.2.99Bn assessed were partially implemented. \nOut of the eleven (11) activities, the entity fully implemented five (5) activities, four (4) activities were partially \nimplemented, and two (2) activities were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy submitted its performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of \nthe reports. \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy did not populate the summary statement of stores and other assets as required by the PFMA 2015. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that some procurements carried out were not included in the procurement plan. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission did not have a substantive Contracts committee in place during the year under review. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 424, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe embassy has an approved structure of 15 positions, out of which 9 were filled, resulting in a shortfall of 6 \n(representing 40%). \n33. \nUganda High Commission in Geneva. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the receipts of UGX.8,306,181,223 from the consolidated fund, UGX.7,818,929,021 was spent implying \nabsorption rate of 94%. UGX.487,252,202 (6%) was an unspent and subsequently returned to the consolidated \nfund. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of seven priority areas prescribed in the mission charter only three (3) areas were quantified. Failure to quantify \nactivities constrained evaluation of performance. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Geneva mission incurred a total of CHF 259,200 (UGX.1,015,690,752) on annual rent comprising CHF 157,200", "metadata": {"page": 424, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "for the chancery and CHF 102,000 for the official Residence. Mortgage financing could help the mission acquire its \nown property if well negotiated and hence minimize rental costs. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the staffing structure provides for the position of Foreign Service Officer (FSO) Grade III, it was not filled. \nIt was further noted that there is no provision for FSO II and yet it is filled while three (3) FSOIV are in place and \nyet the structure provides for only one(I). Unharmonized staffing presents a challenge for budget management. \n34. \nUganda High Commission in Geneva. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.7.24Bn, UGX.6.83Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.0.41Bn representing an absorption level of 94.3%.", "metadata": {"page": 424, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "409 \n \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of USD.17,463.62 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were \nbudgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the three (3) outputs with a total of nine (9) activities and expenditure of UGX.7.24Bn sampled for \nassessment, I observed that all the activities were not clearly quantified to enable assessment of performance. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staff positions, 4 (57%) were filled leaving 3 (43%) vacant. \n35. \nUganda Consulate in Guangzhou, China \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted NTR of UGX.0.04Bn for the year, only UGX.0.004Bn, was collected, representing a \nperformance of 10% of the target.", "metadata": {"page": 425, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "performance of 10% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \n The entity budget was UGX.7.71Bn out of which UGX.7.18Bn was received, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.53Bn. \nThe shortfall represents 6.9% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds of UGX.7.181Bn received during the financial year, UGX.3.785Bn was spent \nresulting in unspent balance of UGX.3.396Bn, an absorption level of 52.7%%. Some of the unspent funds are still \nheld on the Consulate account. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the five (5) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of eight (18) activities worth UGX.7.71Bn, \none (1) output with one (1) activity worth UGX.0.151Bn was fully implemented, while three (3) outputs with", "metadata": {"page": 425, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "eighteen (18) activities worth UGX.4.539Bn were partially implemented and one (1) output with two (2) activities \nworth 3.0Bn was not implemented at all. \n36. \nUganda Consulate in Guangzhou, China \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.09Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX. 0.024Bn was \ncollected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.2.026Bn which represents 1.2% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.545Bn, UGX.4.286Bn was spent by the entity resulting in \nan unspent balance of UGX.0.26Bn representing an absorption level of 94.3%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 425, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nAll the three (3) outputs with a total of seventeen (17) activities and expenditure worth UGX.4.34Bn were fully \nquantified. \n\uf0b7 \nThree (3) outputs with 17 activities worth UGX.4.34Bn were partially implemented. Out of the seventeen (17) \nactivities, the entity fully implemented eight (8) activities (47%), 2 activities (11.7%) were partially implemented \nand seven (7) activities (41.1)% were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission submitted performance reports for Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the \nreports. \n37. \nUganda Embassy in Khartoum. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.02Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX.0.158Bn was", "metadata": {"page": 425, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "collected, representing a performance of 790% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy was supposed to receive UGX.4.129Bn from the Treasury out of which UGX.3.95Bn was warranted, \nresulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.179Bn which represents 95.6% of the approved budget.", "metadata": {"page": 425, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "410 \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the five (5) outputs, one (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.0.17Bn were fully \nimplemented; two (2) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX.0.83Bn were partially implemented; and two (2) \noutputs with three (3) activities worth 2.95Bn were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year, USD.16,222.90 (equivalent to UGX.60,835,875) were charged wrongly on other expenditure item \ncodes without obtaining the necessary approvals. \n38. \nUganda Embassy in Khartoum. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nManagement partially implemented all eight (8) strategic activities/targets from the strategic plan by the end of \nthe financial year. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 426, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted NTR of UGX.3.14Bn, only UGX.0.039Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX. 3.11Bn, \nwhich represents 1.24% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nAll three outputs with a total of nine (9) activities and expenditure worth UGX. 3.96Bn were fully quantified. That \nis, all nine (9) activities (100%) within these outputs were clearly quantified to enable assessment of performance. \n\uf0b7 \nAll three (3) outputs with nine (9) activities worth UGX.3.96Bn were partially implemented. Out of the nine (9) \nactivities, the entity fully implemented three (3) activities (33%), One activity was partially implemented (11%), \nwhile five (5) activities (56%) remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 426, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the \nreports as indicated in the table below; \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy did not transfer end-of-year balances amounting to UGX.69,209,601 to the Treasury for onward \ntransfer to the Consolidated Fund. \n39. \nUganda Embassy in Kigali. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.80Mn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX. 46.7Mn was \ncollected, representing a performance of 58% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had a budget or UGX.3.3Bn which was all received and absorbed. \n\uf0b7 \nNone of the output was fully implemented. All the three outputs sampled were all partially implemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 426, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nDuring the year under review, the Mission paid rent amounting to UGX.599,992,260 which is 17.5% of the total \nexpenditure for the year of UGX.3,300,783,813, in regard to rent which is very high. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year, UGX 599.9Mn was spent on rent for the official residence for the Ambassador and five other \nMission staff. This constitutes 17.5% of the total mission expenditure of UGX 3.30Bn. The high administrative costs \nin rent reduce the amount of funds available in the budget for implementation of other activities and service \ndelivery. \n40. \nUganda Embassy in Kigali \n2020/21 \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission budgeted to collect NTR worth 3.188Bn out of which UGX 42.0million was collected translating into a \nperformance of 1.3%. \n\uf0b7 \n\uf0b7 \nThe mission had an approved budget of UGX 3.3Bn which was all warranted and absorbed.", "metadata": {"page": 426, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "411 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI sampled three (3) outputs with a total of ten (10) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.239Bn for assessment \nand noted that all the outputs were fully quantified. Out of the three out-puts, one output with 5 activities worth \nUGX.0.68Bn was partially implemented while the remaining two outputs with 5 activities were not implemented at \nall. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the \nreports. \n41. \nUganda Embassy in Kinshasa. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission had an NTR budget of UGX.0.5Bn for the financial year however UGX 0.8Bn was realised \nabove the target. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 427, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "above the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had a budget for GoU funding of UGX. 9.2Bn for the year however UGX 9.6Bn was warranted which \nwas over and above the budget. All the warranted funds were utilized. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the budgets for three (3) out of the eight (8) outputs assessed were not supported by individual \nactivity costing/budgets. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had challenges in setting clear and appropriate performance indicators in the approved work plans \nand budgets. Some of the indicators used were generic and in some cases activities did not have performance \nindicators at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Embassy did not maintain a detailed register of risks and as such, there were no strategies and \nofficers responsible for ensuring risks did not materialize. \n \n42. \nUganda Embassy in Kinshasa. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 427, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission finalized the preparation of the strategic plan for the period 2020/2021-2024/2025. \nHowever, this had not yet been approved by the National Planning Authority. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.125Bn during the year under review, out of this, \nUGX.0.669 was collected representing 31.48%, resulting in a shortfall in performance of UGX. 1.456Bn (68.52%). \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.7.46Bn and all of it was warranted resulting into 100% budget release. Out \nof these releases UGX.7.26Bn was absorbed leaving unspent balance of UGX.0.199Bn. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the extent of quantification of the seven (7) outputs with a total of thirty-four (34) activities and", "metadata": {"page": 427, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "expenditure of UGX.7.46Bn and noted that none of the outputs was fully quantified. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that reports for Q1, Q2 and Q3 quarters were submitted after the lapse of the deadline for submission. \n43. \nUganda High Commission in Kuala \nLumpur. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year under review; the Mission had an approved budget of UGX.3.712Bn out of which UGX.3.56Bn was \nwarranted and all the funds spent. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.9,843,762 which was fully realized representing a performance of \n100% of the target.", "metadata": {"page": 427, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "412 \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission planned to receive UGX.3.712Bn out of which UGX.3.562 was warranted resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX.150M that represents 4% of the approved budget. The unwarranted funds were meant for Presentation of \ncredentials to Cambodia, Laos-PDR and Myanmar and Commercial diplomacy activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not seek a revision of its budget, and the work plan as provided for by section 17 (3) of \nthe PFMA 2015. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.3.562Bn received during the financial year under review, UGX.3.53Bn was spent \nby the entity resulting in an absorption level of 99%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of fifteen (15) activities", "metadata": {"page": 428, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "worth UGX.3.557Bn and noted that all the four (4) outputs with fifteen (15) activities worth UGX.3.557Bn were \npartially implemented. Out of the fifteen (15) activities, the entity fully implemented eight (8) activities; six (6) \nactivities were partially implemented, while one (1) activity remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission did not implement some planned activities such as Presentation of Credentials to Cambodia, Laos-PDR \nand Myanmar, FDI of US $ 27.3M was not attracted to Uganda against the set target of USD 100M, One (1) Bench \nmarking study visit was not coordinated while 10 out of 12 official delegations were not coordinated. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission did not maintain a detailed risk register of risks which may affect the implementation of \nactivities as detailed in the approved work plans and budgets. There were no strategies and officers responsible \nto mitigate the occurrence of such risks. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 428, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe approved staff Structure of the Mission provides for five (5) staff however, I noted that the Mission is \nunderstaffed with a Human Resource capacity of three (3) (60%) Home-based Staff while (2) (40%) positions of \nFSO 111 and FSO V were not filled. I also noted that the position of FSO 11 that was not provided for in the \nstructure was filled. \n44. \nUganda High Commission in Kuala \nLumpur. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had an approved budget of UGX.3.54 Bn that was all released for the financial year 2020/2021. The \nEmbassy planned to achieve its deliverables through implementation of three (03) main outputs worth UGX.3.51Bn, \nrepresenting 99% of the total budget. \n\uf0b7 \nThe mission did not achieve all the targets set in the mission statement for the period under review. Out of eight", "metadata": {"page": 428, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(8) strategic activities/targets; four (4) objectives were fully implemented, three (3) were partially achieved while \none (1) was not achieved at all by the end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.11.8Million which was all realized representing a \nperformance of 100%. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission budgeted to receive UGX.3,542,140,000 out of which UGX.3,542,139,217Bn was warranted \nrepresenting 99.9% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the year of UGX.3.542,Bn, UGX.3.390Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of \nUGX.0.151Bn representing an absorption level of 96%. The unspent balance of UGX.45,545,945 (MYR 55,065.88)", "metadata": {"page": 428, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "413 \n \nwas returned to the Consolidated Fund while foreign exchange loss of UGX.115,988,734 was incurred during the \nperiod. \n\uf0b7 \nThree (03) outputs with a total of fourteen (14) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.51 were clearly and fully \nquantified to enable assessment of performance. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that three (03) outputs with a total of fourteen (14) activities worth UGX.3.51Bn were partially \nimplemented. Out of fourteen (14) activities, six (6) representing 43% of the activities were fully implemented; \nthree (3) activities (21%) were partially implemented while five (5) activities (36%) were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe activities that were not fully implemented included; 10 planned scholarships, Presentation of Credentials to \nCambodia, Laos-PDR and Myanmar, 3 bilateral engagements and 12 planned official delegations. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 429, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2 and Q3 after the deadline given for submission of the \nreports and the level of performance was consistent with my review of other comparative information and reports. \n45. \nUganda High Commission in London. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission continues to experience funding challenges, with several of its planned activities in the strategic plan \nnot adequately funded as planned. Of specific concern is the absence of funding to undertake urgent repairs on \nthe Mission properties (Chancery, Official residence and the Rentable structure on Wardour Street), which continue \nto increase the eventual repair costs given that they continue to further degenerate with severe weather conditions. \nThe continued underfunding implies that the Mission will face challenges in implementing all the planned activities \nwhich may in turn impact on the attainment of the intended goals. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission did not budget to collect any Non-Tax Revenue (NTR) during the year under review, although a total", "metadata": {"page": 429, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of UGX.769.6Mn was collected. Failure to budget for such NTR implies that there was no target upon which the \nMission\u2019s performance could be evaluated. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Accounting Officer did not appoint contract managers for the procurements worth GBP.113,788 (equivalent \nto UGX.522Mn) during the year under review. Failure to appoint contract managers is irregular and may lead to \nchallenges in contract implementation going un detected by management, in the absence of close supervision of \nthe performance of such contracts. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission did not procure a medical insurance provider during the year under review, and mission staff would \nobtain treatment from health facilities and claim refunds upon presentation of receipts. This practice is contrary to \nthe requirements by the public service standing orders. \n46. \nUganda High Commission in London. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 429, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Accounting Officer did not appoint contract managers for the procurements worth GBP.58,231 (equivalent to \nUGX.287Mn) during the year under review. Failure to appoint contract managers is irregular and may lead to \nchallenges in contract implementation going un detected by management, in the absence of close supervision of \nthe performance of such contracts. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission did not procure a medical insurance provider during the year under review, and mission staff would \nobtain treatment from health facilities and claim refunds upon presentation of receipts. I further noted some \npayments for medical bills were not supported by prescriptions from a doctor, as required by the Public Service", "metadata": {"page": 429, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "414 \n \nStanding Orders. This practice exposes the Mission to a risk of misuse, since there are no controls regarding the \nkind of medical attention provided to staff, eligibility, as well as receipts presented by staff. \n47. \nUganda Embassy in Mogadishu. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity did not budget to collect any NTR during the year under review however they were able to collect UGX. \n1,127,805. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.876Bn out of which UGX. 4.743Bn was warranted, resulting in under funding \nof UGX.0.133Bn. This represents 2.73% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of the one output that had been fully quantified worth UGX.2.546Bn and noted that \nthe output was partially implemented.", "metadata": {"page": 430, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the output was partially implemented. \n48. \nUganda Embassy in Mogadishu. \n 2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Embassy did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review and as such there was no \ncollection \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.3.786Bn, UGX.3.696Bn was spent by the entity resulting in \nan unspent balance of UGX.0.09Bn representing an absorption level of 97.6%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the three (3) outputs with a total of four (4) activities and expenditure of UGX.3.87Bn sampled for \nassessment, I reviewed the extent of quantification of outputs and activities and noted that all the out-puts were \nquantified. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 430, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "quantified. \n\uf0b7 \nOne (1) Output with one (1) activity and expenditure of UGX 1Bn was fully implemented, while the balance of two \nout-puts were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the given deadline for submission \nof the reports. \n49. \nUganda Consulate in Mombasa. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR amounting to UGX.0.09Bn during the year under review. Out of \nthis, UGX.0.0002Bn was collected, representing a performance of 0.2%of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity was supposed to receive UGX.4.085Bn all of which was warranted representing a 100% performance \nof the approved budget. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 430, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI observed that the budgets for three (3) out of the five (5) outputs assessed were not supported by individual \nactivity costing/budgets. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission did not maintain a detailed register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities \nas detailed in the approved work plans and budgets.", "metadata": {"page": 430, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "415 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Consulate received the used utility vehicle from the High Commission in Nairobi (formerly used by the then \nHigh Commissioner) in the year 2015, when the Consulate was opened. The condition of the utility vehicle is \nparticularly dire and has on numerous occasions been recommended for boarding off by our board of survey. \n50. \nUganda Consulate in Mombasa. \n2020/21 \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI sampled Ten (10) strategic activities/targets from the strategic plan for review Six (6) strategic activities/targets \nwere fully achieved, one(1) strategic activity/target was partially achieved and three(3) strategic activities/targets \nwere not achieved. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.125Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX. 116,709", "metadata": {"page": 431, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.2,124,883,291 which represents 0.005% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.2.967Bn out of which UGX.2.967Bn was warranted and released which was \n100% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.2.967Bn, UGX.3.008Bn was spent by the entity resulting in \nan over expenditure of UGX.0.041Bn representing an absorption level of 101.4%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission \nof the reports. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that a sum of KES.695,000 (equivalent to UGX.23,630,000) was paid to Mission staff as working from home \nand risk allowances during the financial year 2020/2021.", "metadata": {"page": 431, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nMission has an approved staff structure of 17 staff positions. Out of which 15 positions were filled representing \n88% fulfillment. \n51. \nUganda Embassy in Moscow. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX. 80,000,000 during the year under review. Out of this UGX. \n31,650,301 was realized, representing a performance of 40% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.5,606,341,048, out of which \nUGX.5,253,940,545 was warranted, resulting in a shortfall UGX:352,400,503. The shortfall represents 4% of the \napproved budget. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 431, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds of UGX. 5,253,940,545 received during the financial year, UGX. 5,047,157,896 was \nspent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.206,782,649, representing an absorption level of 96.%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of sixteen (16) \nactivities worth UGX.5.61Bn and noted that; One (1) output with six (6) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.01 \nhad been fully implemented, one (1) output with five (5) activities worth UGX.1.81Bn had been partially \nimplemented and the other out-put was not implemented at all.", "metadata": {"page": 431, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "416 \n \n52. \nUganda Embassy in Moscow. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of \n100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed \nrepresenting 100% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \n\uf0b7 \nAll the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully \nquantified. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 432, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "quantified. \n\uf0b7 \nOne (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two \n(2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the \nreports. \n53. \nUganda High Commission in Nairobi. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to collect NTR amounting to UGX.0.4Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX.0.2Bn \nwas collected, representing a performance of 50% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity was supposed to receive UGX.16.242Bn out of which UGX.15.621Bn was warranted, resulting in a", "metadata": {"page": 432, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "shortfall of UGX.0.621Bn. The shortfall represents 3.8% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.15.621Bn received during the financial year UGX.15.211Bn was spent by the \nentity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.41Bn representing an absorption level of 97%. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the budgets for three (3) out of the six (6) outputs assessed were not supported by individual \nactivity costing/budgets. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the performance indicators in the approved work plans and observed that the indicators used to \nmeasure performance for some activities would not provide the most appropriate measure of performance. In \nsome cases, the indicators were generic and not specific to the activity while in other cases, management did not \nprovide indicators. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the High Commission did not maintain a detailed register of risks that may affect the implementation", "metadata": {"page": 432, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of activities as detailed in the approved work plans and budgets. As such, there were no strategies and officers \nresponsible to mitigate the occurrence of such risks or to minimise the impact in the event that these risks \nmaterialised. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the statement of arrears of revenues on page 33 of the financial statements revealed that the Mission \nhad cumulative arrears of revenue as at 30 June 2022 of UGX.112,630,169 however the same was not disclosed \nin the statement of financial position as receivables.", "metadata": {"page": 432, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "417 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of KES.1,435,892 (equivalent to UGX.44,512,665) were irregularly diverted from the \nactivities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary \napprovals. \n54. \nUganda High Commission in Nairobi. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI sampled eight (8) strategic activities/targets from the strategic plan for review and noted that One (1) strategic \nactivity was fully achieved, one (1) strategic activity/target was partially achieved and six (6) strategic \nactivities/targets were not achieved. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.3,188,000,000Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only", "metadata": {"page": 433, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.239,009,234 was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.2,948,990,766 which represents 8% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for \nsubmission. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the cumulative total expenditure reported in the performance reports of UGX.3.43Bn was different \nfrom the total reported in the financial statements of UGX.3.352Bn. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission has an approved staff structure of 8 staff positions. Out of these 7 positions were filled representing \n88% fulfillment \n55. \nUganda Embassy in New Delhi. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.34Bn during the year under review however only UGX.0.012Bn was", "metadata": {"page": 433, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "collected, representing a performance of 4% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity was supposed to receive UGX.4,834,538,951 which was all warranted representing 100% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity\u2019s performance could not be measured since the work plans and budgets did not have clear performance \nindicators. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the rent for the mission consumed more that 10% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the mission faces challenges in handling cases of human trafficking since no facilitation has been \nprovided to the Mission for this purpose. \n56. \nUganda Embassy in New Delhi. \n2020/21 \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission budgeted to collect NTR during the year under review of UGX 2.65Bn. However, UGX. 0.07Bn was \nrealised reflecting a revenue shortfall of 99.8% \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 433, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Mission budgeted to receive UGX.4.55Bn all of which was warranted and absorbed \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Mission did not have any fully quantified output as such I was unable to assess the extent of \nimplementation. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline set by the Treasury Instructions.", "metadata": {"page": 433, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "418 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission is under staffed by 18%. Out of the approved staff structure of 22 staff positions. Only 18 positions \nwere filled representing 82% fulfilment \n57. \nThe Uganda Embassy in New York. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission strategic plan was approved by NPA on 22/November/2021 after close of the financial year. Therefore, \nthe activities implemented during financial year 2020/2021 were not based on the approved strategic plan. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission planned to implement four (4) outputs with a total of eight (8) activities and expenditure of \nUGX.16.43Bn. I noted that all the four (4) outputs were not quantified to enable assessment of performance. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had receivables amounting to UGX.7.452Bn at the close of the financial year, including six (6) tenants", "metadata": {"page": 434, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "who had not paid amounts due for rent totalling USD.0.597Mn. Delayed collection may lead to default and eventual \nloss of funds. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had deposits amounting to UGX.0.909Bn. Whereas the funds are transferred to the Consolidated Fund \nfor Government revenue, the funds are a liability, returnable to the tenants and need to be secured as such. \n58. \nThe Uganda Embassy in New York. \n2020/2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission strategic plan was approved by NPA on 22nd November 2021, after close of the financial year. \nTherefore, the activities implemented during financial year 2020/2021 were not based on the approved strategic \nplan. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission planned to implement four (4) outputs with a total of eight (8) activities and expenditure of", "metadata": {"page": 434, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.17.08Bn. I noted that all the four (4) outputs were not quantified to enable assessment of performance. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had receivables amounting to UGX.4.681Bn at the close of the financial year including six (6) tenants \nwho had not paid amounts due for rent totalling USD.896,381 as at the end of the financial year. Delayed collection \nmay lead to default and eventual loss of funds. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had deposits amounting to UGX.0.862Bn. Whereas at the time of collection of rental payments by \ntenants (which include the refundable deposits) are transferred to the Consolidated Fund as Government revenue, \nthe funds are a liability, returnable to the tenants at the time of expiry of their rental periods, and therefore need \nto be secured as such. \n59. \nUganda Embassy in Paris. 2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 434, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the mission targeted to handle 200 visa applications, certify 80 documents and hold 5 meetings to \ncoordinate payment of subscription arrears regarding the bureau for international exhibitions, it was only able to \nhandle 124 visa applications, certify 54 documents and coordinate 4 meetings implying variances of 76 applications, \n26 certifications and 1 meeting. Failure to achieve the targets implies that the goal of generating revenue through \npromoting tourism may not be achieved. \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Mission charter provides for acquisition of property annually, it was noted that no property had been \nacquired. Instead, the Mission spent Euros 9,000 on rent of the Official residence monthly. \n\uf0b7 \nAt the time of audit inspection the renovation works for the chancery had stalled due to delayed payments dating \nback to February 2022,and this exposed the Mission to extra monthly costs such as; rent for new", "metadata": {"page": 434, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "419 \n \nChancery;Euros.21,750, rent for Warehouse; Euros 1,571, security costs and remobilization of workers. Delayed \npayments may also attract penalties from the Contractor and Consultant. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the country subscribes to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it has \nincurred subscription arrears dating as far back as 2014 amounting to Euros 25,0139.34 an equivalent of \nUGX.101,183,684 as at 31 December 2021. There is a risk of prevention of certification and/or embargo on Uganda \nSeed exports to the European and other markets. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of the board of survey report and physical inspection of the mission representation car, utility van and the \nICT equipment revealed that though they are due for replacement due to high maintenance costs, this had not \nbeen effected. \n60. \nUganda Embassy in Paris. 2020/21 \n \nOpinion", "metadata": {"page": 435, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.8.849Bn, UGX.8.203Bn was spent by the \nembassy resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.669Bn representing an absorption level of 93%. The unspent \nbalance at the end of the financial year was subsequently swept back to the consolidated fund account. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the mission did not have an approved and certified five-year strategic plan as required. There is \na risk that activities implemented during the financial year 2020/2021 were not aligned to the NDP-III, which \nnegatively affects the achievement of NDP-III objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of UGX.37,684,240 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they \nwere budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n61. \nUganda Embassy in Pretoria.", "metadata": {"page": 435, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Mission did not budget for None Tax Revenue (NTR) during the financial year 2021/2022, I noted \nthat the Mission collected UGX.86.2Mn. Failure to budget for such NTR implies that there was no target upon which \nthe Mission\u2019s performance could be evaluated. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the appropriated budgeted of UGX.6.923Bn, only UGX.3.465Bn (representing 50% of the budget) was \nwarranted leading to inability by the Mission to undertake the majority of the planned activities. I observed that \nthe released funds could barely cover employee costs and the majority of the planned activities were not funded. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that although the Mission in Pretoria has over the years been employing local staff, there was no social \nsecurity/gratuity scheme for such staff. It was further observed that although a local consultant was engaged, who", "metadata": {"page": 435, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "compiled a valuation of how much is due for all staff (both current and those who exited), the current staff \ncontracts have not been amended to cater for staff gratuity/social security, going forward. Such an omission \nexposes the Mission to risks of costly litigation and potential sanctions by the host nation. \n62. \nUganda Embassy in Pretoria. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Mission did not budget for None Tax Revenue (NTR) during the financial year 2020/2021, I noted \nthat the Mission collected UGX.86Mn. Failure to budget for such NTR implies that there was no target upon which \nthe Mission\u2019s performance could be evaluated. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that although the Mission in Pretoria has over the years been employing local staff, there was no social \nsecurity/gratuity scheme for such staff. It was further observed that although a local consultant was engaged, who \ncompiled a valuation of how much is due for all staff (both current and those who exited), the current staff", "metadata": {"page": 435, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "420 \n \ncontracts have not been amended to cater for staff gratuity/social security, going forward. Such an omission \nexposes the Mission to risks of costly litigation and potential sanctions by the host nation. \n63. \nUganda Embassy in Riyadh \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy budgeted to collect NTR amounting to UGX.0.02Bn during the year under review but realized \nUGX.1.249Bn above the target by 1.23Bn \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds of UGX.5.278Bn received during the financial year UGX.5.062Bn was spent by the \nentity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.216Bn representing an absorption level of 96%. The unspent funds \nwere returned to the consolidated fund. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 436, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of all the three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of twelve (12) \nactivities worth UGX.5.21Bn and noted that; all three (3) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX.5.21Bn \nwere partially implemented. Out of the twelve (12) activities, the entity fully implemented seven (7) activities and \nfive (5) activities were partially implemented. \n64. \nUganda Embassy in Riyadh \n2020/2021 \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources and rates charged at vote level for the financial year 2020/2021 \nand noted that the embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.125Bn during the year under review. Out of this, \nUGX.0.645Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX UGX.1.48Bn which represents 30% performance. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 436, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe mission\u2019s budget was revised from UGX 4.15Bn to 4.36Bn which was all warranted \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.36Bn, UGX.4.26Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nabsorption level of 97.7%. \n\uf0b7 \nI sampled three out-puts and reviewed the work plans for quantification and observed that two (2) outputs with a \ntotal of five (5) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.06Bn were fully quantified, one (1) output with a total of \nfive (5) activities and expenditure worth UGX.1.08Bn were insufficiently quantified. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2 and Q3, after the deadline given for submission \nof the reports. \n65. \nUganda Embassy in Tokyo \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified", "metadata": {"page": 436, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX: 20m during the year out of which UGX.5.5m was \ncollected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.14.5m. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission budgeted to receive UGX.5.8Bn and UGX:5.8Bn was warranted. Out of this UGX 5.3Bn was spent \nresulting in unspent balances of 0.3Bn \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of the three (3) outputs that had been insufficiently quantified with a total of \ntwenty-four (24) activities worth UGX.5.5Bn and noted that all outputs were partially implemented. \n66. \nUganda Embassy in Tokyo 2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 436, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX. 1,594,000,000 during the year, out of this, UGX. 8,182,199 was \ncollected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX UGX. 1,585,817,801.", "metadata": {"page": 436, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "421 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission budgeted to receive UGX.6.04Bn which was all warranted representing 100% performance on GoU \nreceipts. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts of UGX.6.04Bn, UGX.5.86Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of \nUGX.0.18Bn representing an absorption level of 97%. \n\uf0b7 \nAll the three outputs were insufficiently quantified and as a result I could not assess the extent of implementation \nof these activities. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. \n67. \nUganda Embassy in Washington \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission delayed to remit cash balances to the Consolidated Fund. I noted that the Mission had total collections", "metadata": {"page": 437, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "including unspent balances in the current year and balance brought forward from previous year totalling to \nUGX.1.679Bn. At the closur1e of the period, UGX.1.348Bn had been transferred to the Treasury for onward transfer \nto the Consolidated Fund leaving a balance UGX.0.331Bn. The practice amounts to a violation of regulations and \ncould lead to misallocation of the Embassy\u2019s funds. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Assets Register maintained by the Mission was not in the format prescribed in the Treasury \nInstructions, and several asset details were missing. I also noted a number of unserviceable items recommended \nfor disposal in the prior financial year but still remained undisposed at the end of 2020/2021. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission owns two chancery buildings in Washington DC. The Board of Survey and an engineering assessment \non the buildings disclosed the following among other issues; \no", "metadata": {"page": 437, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "o \nThe back porch of one of the buildings continued to disintegrate due to an unstable foundation. \no \nThe Chancery buildings on plots 5909 and 5911 had shown serious structural cracks ranging from 1mm to 7mm. \nThe landing rear porch of building on plot 5909 had completely failed. \no \nThe buildings were susceptible to storm water, which was disastrous to their integrity given that the interior of \nthe buildings was made of wood. The incomplete splash aprons were noted to be allowing water in the buildings. \n\uf0b7 \nMy inspection of the buildings revealed structural issues including corrosion of water pipes, cracks in the buildings, \ndetached chimney on building on 5911 and detached porch on building on plot 5909. The buildings are likely to \ndeteriorate further if no urgent civil works are undertaken, which renders their occupancy by Mission staff and \ntheir clients unsafe. Delayed works may also render the repairs more costly. \n68. \nUganda Embassy in Washington. \n2020/21", "metadata": {"page": 437, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2020/21 \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) provided for a total of UGX.3.719Bn in \nNTR from the Embassy during the year under review, as per MOFPED NTR Estimates for 2020/2021. However, \nUGX.0.0797Bn was collected which represents a paltry 2.14% performance, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.3.64Bn. \n \n1", "metadata": {"page": 437, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "422 \n \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts from the Consolidated Fund for the financial year of UGX.8.033Bn, UGX.6.681Bn was \nspent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.352Bn representing an absorption level of 83%. As a \nresult, several activities of the Mission were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission delayed to remit cash balances to the Consolidated Fund. The Mission had revenue collections including \nunspent balances in the current year and balance brought forward from previous year totalling to UGX.1.776Bn. \nAt the closure of the period, UGX.0.334Bn had been transferred to the Treasury for onward transfer to the \nConsolidated Fund leaving a balance of UGX.1.442Bn. The practice amounts to a violation of the PFMA/R and could \nlead to misallocation of the Embassy\u2019s funds.", "metadata": {"page": 438, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "69. \nUganda Embassy in Addis Ababa. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe mission budgeted to collect NTR during the year under review of UGX 0.04Bn. However, the entity collected \nUGX. 0.009Bn. This represents revenue performance of 0.22% \n\uf0b7 \nThe mission budgeted to receive UGX.3.902Bn all of which was warranted. Out of the UGX. 3.902Bn that was \nwarranted, UGX.3.60Bn was absorbed resulting in absorption level of 92% \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the mission did not have performance indicates for all the outputs in the work plan and as such I was \nnot able to assess the extent of implementation. \n\uf0b7 \nI inspected the status of the Ambassador\u2019s residence and noted that the building needs urgent repairs and \nrenovations. \n70. \nUganda Embassy in Addis Ababa.", "metadata": {"page": 438, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda Embassy in Addis Ababa. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mission had an NTR budget of 0.0078Bn which was all realized. \n\uf0b7 \nThe mission budgeted to receive UGX.3.44Bn all of which was warranted. Out of this the mission absorbed \nUGX.3.15Bn representing an absorption level of 92% \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the extent to which out-puts were quantified and noted that out of the three outputs sampled, two (02) \noutputs with a total of nineteen (19) activities and expenditure worth UGX.1Bn were fully quantified. One (01) \noutput with a total of nine (09) activities and expenditure worth UGX.2.32Bn, was insufficiently quantified. In \nregard to implementation, the two outputs were all partially implemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 438, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA review of the approved staff establishment of the Embassy revealed that the Mission had an approved staff \nstructure of eight (08) staff positions. Out of this, five (62.5%) were filled leaving three (3) vacant. \n71. \nUganda Embassy in Copenhagen. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.22Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.033Bn \nwas collected, representing a performance of 15% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX. 6.141Bn received during the financial year UGX. 6.00Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.141Bn representing an absorption level of 98%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 438, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of to UGX 850,596,700 (equivalent to DKK 1,701,193.4) were irregularly charged \non wrong item codes without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals", "metadata": {"page": 438, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "423 \n \n\uf0b7 \nAssessment of implementation of the one (1) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of four (4) activities \nworth UGX.0.604Bn and noted that; One (01) activity was fully implemented; while Three (03) activities were \npartially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nthe Mission did not maintain a detailed risk register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities as \ndetailed in the approved work plans and budgets. \n\uf0b7 \nstatus of the embassy Assets; \no \nThe Chancery- the building requires a total overhaul; the windows are too old even to replace broken \nglass is a challenge. The basement has signs of water entering through the walls, there are signs that \nthe building is slowly sinking in and needs immediate reinforcement right from the basement, though the \nheating system was repaired, with the damaged or worn out insulation it\u2019s not effective. \no", "metadata": {"page": 439, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "o \nOfficial residence; The residence is not occupied though some repairs had been done during the past few \nyear covering the kitchen, the toilets, there is leakage on the external walls possibly due to drainage \nproblem, there is need for remodelling to fix a 2nd bathroom for the master bedroom to be self-contained, \nthere is dampness in some part of the basement that requires reinforcement/ fixing urgently before \noccupancy. \no \nFurniture \u2013very old furniture, requires replacement \no \nA vehicle Toyota Hiace van 2.5 Combi model 2009 is not in use and parked due to the very high costs of \nmaintenance. \n72. \nUganda Embassy in Copenhagen. \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX UGX. 1,585,166,839 during the year. However, UGX.8,767,711 was", "metadata": {"page": 439, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "collected, representing 0.5% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.6.54Bn, UGX.4.92Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.1.62Bn representing an absorption level of 75.2%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the four (4) outputs with a total of twenty-five (25) activities, one (1) output with a total of two (2) activities \nwere fully quantified. Two (2) outputs with a total of twenty-two (22) activities were insufficiently quantified. One \n(1) output with a total of one (1) activity was not quantified at all to enable assessment of performance. \n\uf0b7 \nOne (1) output with two (2) activities which was fully quantified worth UGX.4.37Bn was partially implemented. Out \nof the two (2) activities, the 2 activities were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 439, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Uganda Embassy Chancery building requires very urgent renovation \n\uf0b7 \nThe official residence building also requires complete and total renovation \n\uf0b7 \nTwo mission vehicles are very old and need replacement", "metadata": {"page": 439, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "424 \n \n73. \nMinistry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry had an approved budget of UGX.70,982,930,947, out of which UGX.64,457,203,544 was warranted \nresulting in a budget shortfall of UGX 6.5Bn. This shortfall negatively affected implementation of activities. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of UGX 64.45 received, UGX.62.45 was absorbed resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2Bn. The failure to \nabsorb all warrants as availed affected service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the extent of implementation of a sample of 14 outputs worth UGX.52 Bn and observed that 2 outputs \nworth 34Bn were fully implemented, 7 outputs worth 18.4 Bn were partially implemented and 5 out-puts were not \nimplemented at all.", "metadata": {"page": 440, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds totaling to UGX.32, 812,431 were mischarged/diverted to pay for activities for which it was not \nbudgeted. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had domestic arrears totaling to UGX.37Bn most of which related to unpaid contributions to International \norganizations. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Medical Insurance provided to staff of the Missions abroad was inadequate and did not cover \nsome of the illnesses suffered by the Mission staff abroad. I further observed that the current abridged PPDA \nguidelines for missions abroad were not applicable in most host countries which resulted in non-compliance with \nthe same. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was no mechanism to follow up and track promises and offers made by other governments to the \nGovernment of Uganda which resulted in loss of opportunities for Ugandans. \n\uf0b7 \nI also noted that missions were significantly underfunded in regard to capital budgets which affected their ability \nto undertake any activity of a capital nature.", "metadata": {"page": 440, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted shortcomings in the management of the entities IT systems which included; failure to obtain NITA-U \napprovals for IT systems, lack of a steering Committee for ICT activities, lack of source codes for the Ministry\u2019s IT \nsystems and limited integration of the various IT systems. \n \n74. \nMinistry of East African Community \nAffairs \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.02Bn during the year however, no collections were made by the \nMinistry. \n\uf0b7 \nThe approved budget of the ministry was UGX.38.043Bn out of which UGX.37.604Bn was warranted, resulting in \na shortfall of UGX.0.438Bn, which is 1.15% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 440, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.37.605Bn received during the financial year, UGX.36.661Bn was spent by the \nentity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.944Bn representing an absorption level of 97.5%. \n\uf0b7 \n I reviewed the extent to which a sample of 9 outputs were implemented and noted that all the nine (9) outputs \nwith their fourteen (14) activities and expenditure of UGX.26.6Bn were fully implemented.", "metadata": {"page": 440, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "425 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delayed service delivery due to the fact that the achievement of Uganda\u2019s EAC commitments is dependent \non the corroboration of the other member states. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that although the trend of domestic arrears over the past three (3) years shows a reduction in arrears, \nthe Ministry had outstanding arrears totalling to UGX.1.665Bn as at 30th June 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved 103 staff positions, 72 positions representing 70% were filled while 31 positions representing \n30% were vacant. Further, the Ministry planned to recruit eight (8) staff to fill some of the vacant positions, \nhowever this was not implemented. \n75. \nThe Independent Electoral Commission. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission budgeted to collect NTR amounting to UGX.0.19Bn during the year under review. Out of this,", "metadata": {"page": 441, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "only UGX.0.11Bn was collected, representing a performance of 58% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.230.16Bn out of which UGX.227.59Bn \nwas warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.2.57Bn. The shortfall represents 1.12% of the approved budget. Out \nof the total warrants of UGX.227.59Bn received during the financial year UGX.161.32Bn was utilized by the entity \nresulting in un-utilized warrants to the tune UGX.66.27Bn. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of six (6) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of sixteen \n(16) activities worth UGX.79.14Bn and noted that; two (2) outputs were fully implemented, three (3) outputs were \npartially implemented and one (1) output was not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 441, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of UGX.556,130,140 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were \nbudgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the commission had undertaken activities towards the conduct of women council elections however; \nthe exercise was never completed due to inadequate funding. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that payables worth UGX. 2,744,317,391 relate to fines and penalties levied against the commission by \nUganda Revenue Authority and these date back to more than five financial years. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission delayed to vacate the current location of its offices in order to pave way for the construction of \nthe Kampala express way. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted short comings in the management of the ICT function at the commission such as failure to obtain NITA U \napprovals of the Commission\u2019s system, failure to dispose of obsolete ICT items and absence of structures to steer", "metadata": {"page": 441, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ICT within the Commission. \n \n \nWORKS AND TRANSPORT SECTOR \n \n1. \n \nMinistry of Works and Transport (MoWT) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.215.63Bn but only UGX.209.00Bn was collected, representing a \nperformance of 97% of the target.", "metadata": {"page": 441, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "426 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry was supposed to receive UGX.836.61Bn, out of which UGX.767.1Bn was warranted, resulting into a \nshortfall of UGX.69.51Bn. As a result some key activities like PAPs are not paid, Railway infrastructure rehabilitation \nnot undertaken and EACAA School is not rehabilitated. \n\uf0b7 \nMOWT was responsible for making payments under the contract for civil works for the Rehabilitation of the Tororo-\nGulu Railway. However, the contractor terminated the contract due to failure by the Government of Uganda to \nmeet its obligations but an advance payment of EUR.8,854,839.68 remained un recovered from the contractor. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of twenty (22) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of \none hundred and ten (110) activities worth UGX.693Bn and noted that; five (5) outputs with eight (8) activities", "metadata": {"page": 442, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and expenditure worth UGX.294.6Bn were fully implemented, fifteen (15) outputs with ninety seven (97) activities \nworth UGX.390.4Bn were partially implemented and two (2) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX.8.1Bn were \nnot implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.3,577,035,246 was irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other \nactivities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nAn inspection of the regional mechanical workshops established that 23 District road equipment remained in the \nWorkshops\u2019 yards for a period of between one to five years without repair. They are thus not serving their purpose \n\uf0b7 \nAn inspection of the East African civil Aviation Academy (Soroti Flying School) indicated that all its nine (9) training \naircrafts were grounded due to the expiry of their insurance and/or being faulty. I further noted that three aircrafts", "metadata": {"page": 442, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "involved in accidents during the year under review had not been repaired due to the delayed compensation by the \ninsurance service provider. \n\uf0b7 \nLand acquired under the SGR project, measuring approximately 1,305.886 acres costing UGX.99,343,193,128 was \nnot recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module thus affecting the accuracy of the non-produced assets in the \nfinancial statements. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that a total of two (2) IT systems/equipment with a total cost of UGX.200,780,000 were implemented \nwithout business cases and approval by NITA-U. \n2. \n \nUganda Road Fund. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nDue to Government reforms to rationalize Government agencies and public expenditure, there exists a material \nuncertainty that may cast significant doubt that the Council shall remain a Going Concern in the foreseeable future. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 442, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the revised approved budget for the financial year of UGX.509.42Bn, only UGX.387.89Bn was warranted \nresulting into a shortfall of UGX.121.53Bn representing 24% of the revised approved budget. As a result, UNRA \nand Local Governments were underfunded by UGX.69,891,747,788 and UGX.47,820,884,749 for the routine and \nperiodic maintenance of roads respectively. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of four (4) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty \nseven (47) activities worth UGX.386.20Bn and noted that: one (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure \nworth UGX.10.80Bn was fully implemented; three (3) outputs with forty six (46) activities worth UGX.375.40Bn", "metadata": {"page": 442, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "427 \n \nwere partially implemented and out of the forty six (46) activities, the entity fully implemented nineteen (19) \nactivities; twenty two (22) activities were partially implemented, while five (5) activities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds to the tune of UGX.963,052,641 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted \nand spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nSome Designated Agencies had not submitted accountability statements in respect of UGX.3,153,732,552 of the \nFund released to them in the fourth quarter, which ended on 30th June 2022 contrary to the financial regulations. \n\uf0b7 \nURF and PPDA jointly constructed their offices known as the PPDA-URF Towers and agreed to equally share the \ncost of land and construction of the twin tower building. I however, noted the following; \no", "metadata": {"page": 443, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "o \nThe land title had not been transferred from PPDA into the joint owners\u2019 names. \no \nLevel 1 and 6 of the building including the day care were not used as intended because they have not \nyet been equipped. \no \nURF did not involve PPDA in running the shared facilities and incurred UGX.291,424,050 during the \nyear under review. \n\uf0b7 \nContracts totalling to UGX.323,913,112 entered into were over and above the market estimated value of \nUGX.263,090,000, resulting into a variance of UGX.60,823,112. There was no evidence that the Accounting Officer \nreconfirmed whether the market price was still valid. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that a total of five (5) IT systems/equipment procured at UGX.639,534,325 were not cleared by NITA-", "metadata": {"page": 443, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "U. In addition, 192 IT hardware equipment valued at UGX.112,038,842 that were recommended for \ndecommissioning by board of survey report were not disposed of. \n3. \n \nMultinational Lake Victoria Maritime \nCommunications \nand \nTransport \n(MLVMCT) Project \u2013 Ministry of Works \nand Transport. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Project expected to receive UGX.26,592,490,000 and UGX.2,500,000,000 from ADB/F and GoU respectively. \nHowever, the Project received only UGX.2,988,851,679 from ADB/F in form of cash (UGX.1,192,269,000) and", "metadata": {"page": 443, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "direct payments (UGX.1,796,582,679) and UGX.2,438,300,000 from GoU. This resulted into a combined revenue \nshortfall of UGX.23,665,338,321 representing 81.3% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the available funds of UGX.6,050,869,770.9, a total of UGX.5,514,951,020 was spent resulting into an \nunspent balance of UGX.535,918,750.90 representing an absorption level of 91.14%. The unspent funds from the \nFund amounting to UGX. 491,942,262 (Equivalent USD.129,458.49) remained on the Loan Special Account as at \n30/06/2022 while that from GoU amounting to UGX. 43,976,488.90 was transferred back to the GoU Consolidated \nFund. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 443, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Fund. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Loan is equivalent to USD.14.35 Million and became effective on 20th April 2018. The last outstanding \ndisbursement is expected on 30th April 2023. Audit established that a total of only USD.2,164,354.69 had been \ndisbursed by 30/06/2022.", "metadata": {"page": 443, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "428 \n \n4. \n \nUganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Cabinet on 22nd February, 2021 under minute no. 43 (CT 2021) took a decision to merge UNRA with MoWT. \nUnder the circumstances, there is material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt that the Authority shall \nremain a Going Concern in the foreseeable future. \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the revised approved budget, the entity expected to receive UGX.3,654,658,940,745 out of which \nUGX.3,150,755,611,035 was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.503,903,329,710 representing 14% of \nthe approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.3,150,755,611,035 received during the financial year, the entity submitted", "metadata": {"page": 444, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "invoiced totalling UGX.2,662,030,909,590 resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.488,724,701,445 representing \nan absorption level 84.5%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of 13 projects with a total of twenty six (26) outputs that had been fully quantified \nwith a total of fifty three (53) activities worth UGX.1,473Bn and noted that; Nine (9) outputs with nineteen (19) \nactivities worth UGX.154Bn were fully implemented, Sixteen (16) outputs with thirty three (33) activities worth \nUGX.1,285Bn were partially implemented and One (1) output with one (1) activity UGX.34 Bn was not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nA sum of UGX.136,480,916,768 was spent from various projects to cater for activities that are not related to the \nrespective projects with no evidence of approval from the appropriate authority. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 444, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe entity had contingent liabilities worth 381,799,539,802, Out of which UGX.144,301,631,989 was in-respect of \ncertificates of works, which the Accounting Officer had not yet approved by the close of the year under review. \n\uf0b7 \nThe review of expenditure made during the year indicated that UNRA paid out UGX.12,972,532,057 in-respect of \ninterest charges for the Interim Payment Certificates (IPCs) which were not paid in the agreed timelines. \n\uf0b7 \nI under took engineering audit of a selected sample 9 road development, bridge & rehabilitation projects and noted \nthe following; \no \nInadequate estimation of quantities for 5 projects audited leading to multiple contract variations. \no \nAccess to sites for 6 out of the 9 projects was not achieved as required by the different contract arrangements. \no \nDelays in completion of design reviews which delayed timely issuance of instructions to Contractors. \no", "metadata": {"page": 444, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "o \n8 out of the 9 projects audited were not completed on/in time and had time extensions which delayed the \navailability of the upgraded roads to the users. \no \nPayment of interim payment certificates to the contractors were not on time for eight projects under audit. \no \nI observed there environmental social and health safety concerns on six road projects audited. \no \nI undertook measurements on some selected items to establish the consistency with which the supervision team \naccurately measures the quantities before payments and established over payment amounting to \nUGX.231,870,478.13 & EUR 47,469.01 from different projects.", "metadata": {"page": 444, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "429 \n \no \nI observed unjustified application of foreign currency correction factor which resulted into a total overpayment \nof UGX.94,887,347. \no \nI established that for Mpigi town roads project, the contractor was paid partly in foreign currency despite a PSST \ndirective against the practice for solely Government of Uganda funded projects. USD 11,153,986.05 was paid \nout to the Contractor at an exchange rate of 1USD at UGX.2,282.1, which meant that Government incurred an \nextra cost of over UGX.15,448,939,920.88 to acquire this amount of dollars considering the average USD \nexchange rate was UGX.3667.16 during the contract execution period. \no \nI established that for Mpigi town roads project, a total amount of UGX.2,319,823,581.79 was advanced to the", "metadata": {"page": 445, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "contractor in payment certificates (01 to 07) in regards to materials on site without any contractual basis. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.1,567.84Bn for land acquisition, UGX.1,292.13Bn was warranted / availed to \nthe entity during the period under review representing 82.4% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 2,080 land titles that the entity obtained during the financial years 2018/19 to 2021/22, \nonly 102 land titles had been transferred into UNRA\u2019s name resulting into the balance of 1,978 (95%) land titles \nto still have been in the names of PAPs by the end of the year under review. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the review of implementation of ICT activities, I noted that the entity did not have a business continuity \nand disaster recovery plan. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was delayed completion of 22 road with a total contract value of UGX.82,177,512,239. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 445, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThere were abandoned Road Works for mechanised maintenance on Busolwe \u2013 Nabumali Junction that had been \ncontracted at UGX.1,486,162,399. \n5. \n \nUpgrading of Rwenkunye \u2013Apac \u2013 Lira - \nAcholibur Road Project (252.5 Kms) \nimplemented by Uganda National Roads \nAuthority (UNRA) for the financial year \nended 30th June, 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to the requirements of the Public Finance Management regulations 2016, I noted that out of the release \nof UGX 119,673,517,241. for the project activities during the year only UGX 114,253,192, 241. was used on the", "metadata": {"page": 445, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Upgrading of Rwenkunye \u2013Apac \u2013 Lira - Acholibur project activities and the balance totalling UGX 5,420,325,000. \nwas relocated to other projects without the Ministers approval. \n\uf0b7 \nIn spite extension of the project closure date now planned as 12 October 2024 from 30th April 2020 as per the \napproved extension, a review of the monthly June 2021 Progress report, established that the cumulative physical \nprogress as at 30th June 2021 was only 1.5% against 11.5% planned, resulting in an overall slippage of 13%. The \ncontractors delayed to mobilize heavy machinery and equipment for works, slow progress by management to \nsecure a right of way due to slow compensation to people affected by the road project (PAPs) and COVID-19 \npandemic whereby the Contractors could not carry out the activities as planned due to restricted movements both \nlocal and international. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that acquisition of titles (i.e. legal ownership) for the acquired for the entire road having a total length of", "metadata": {"page": 445, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "191 Km for which compensation had been made is still in process. However, it was not clear how far the process \nhad reached and when it would end, in spite of UNRA Management engaging Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban \ndevelopment (MoLHUD) on this matter.", "metadata": {"page": 445, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "430 \n \n6. \n \nUganda Civil Aviation Authority. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority budgeted to receive UGX.3Bn from GOU, out of which UGX.1.13Bn was received, resulting in a \nshortfall of UGX1.87Bn. This affected maintenance activities in the upcountry aerodromes \n\uf0b7 \n For a sample of twelve (12) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty seven (47) activities, one \n(1) output with three (1) activities and expenditure worth UGX.41.8m was fully implemented, three (3) outputs \nwith seventeen (17) activities and expenditure worth UGX.2.65bn were partially implemented and eight (8) outputs \nwith twenty nine (29) planned activities with no expenditure were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 446, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \n2 pieces of land measuring approximately 23.913 hectares in Entebbe had encumbrances of approximately 8.92 \nhectares in the form of encroachment by the local population. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 36 pieces of land measuring approximately 1662.94 hectares the Authority held, 18 pieces of land measuring \napproximately 496.184 hectares (30%) did not have land titles. \n\uf0b7 \nGovernment entities owed UCAA a total of UGX.137.2Bn representing 77% of the total debtors of the Authority of \nUGX.177.72Bn. Most of these debts have been outstanding for more than 5 years \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority made irregular Payment of salary to former staff of UGX.107,788,492. \n\uf0b7 \nI inspected the functionality of Kisoro aerodrome and observed that the runway tarmac had started stripping off \nand developing potholes which may be potentially dangerous. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 446, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI carried out financial analysis of financial information and noted that the Authority has continuously made losses \nfor the previous two years. However, the ratios computed indicate that UCAA is making significant improvements \nin profitability and its ability to sustain provision of services. \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough management implemented the Point of Sale system in 2013 to track revenue reported, I noted that only \n16 out of the 25 concessionaire shops have POS terminals installed while some concessionaires use the POS \nterminals selectively. The Authority has failed to implement a Cargo Handling IT System to track revenues from \nCargo. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of ICT activities implemented revealed that a total of six (6) IT systems procured of UGX.5.54Bn were \nnot cleared by NITA-U and a total of eight (8) systems were not integrated to share information with other systems. \nThis can result in inefficiencies. \n \nUganda National Airlines Company Ltd \n(UNACL). \n \nOpinion", "metadata": {"page": 446, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total expected revenue collection during the financial year of UGX.348.384Bn, only UGX.141.750Bn was \nrealized by the entity representing only 40.7% performance. This under collection affects service delivery \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.22.825Bn collected in respect of airport tax from passengers through Entebbe International Airport had \nremained un-remitted to UCAA for over two years. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Company failed to transfer USD.1,233,318 collected during the year from the Republic of Burundi due to forex \ntransfer restrictions.", "metadata": {"page": 446, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "431 \n \n\uf0b7 \nFinancial analysis using rations indicated that the Company is not performing well in terms of profitability and \nability to sustain provision of services. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delayed Certification of an Air Maintenance Organization and delayed Membership to IATA. Such delays \naffect the Company\u2019s operations \n\uf0b7 \nThe Company lacks an IT Cargo Management System and uses a manual system, which is open to abuse and is \ndifficult to monitor. \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Company procured Oracle Fusion IT System with a financial management module, at the time of \npreparation of financial statements, its only schedules and ledgers that are extracted and the financial statements \nproduced manually. This exposed the financial statements to manipulation. \n\uf0b7 \nManagement used direct procurement method and entered into a contract with M/S Kiira Motor Corporation to \nsupply one (1) unit of Kayoola Diesel Coach at a contract price of UGX.519,687,420 on 28th February 2022. The", "metadata": {"page": 447, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "contract provided for the bus to be delivered within 120 days but it had not been delivered at the time of reporting \nin December 2022. \n7. \n \nUganda Railways Corporation. \n \nOpinion \nQualified \n\uf0b7 \n1,946 stolen railway materials equivalent to UGX.12,391,542,000 were recovered from a Steels factories in Lugazi. \nSimilarly, 750 meters of the railway line estimated at UGX.1,100,961,000 were vandalised and the railway materials \nwere traced to another steel factory in Mukono. However, URC entered into an out of court settlement and was \ncompensated only UGX.735,757,503,000 resulting into a loss of UGX.12,757,503,000. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of a contract for Civil works for rehabilitation of Tororo-Gulu Railway undertaken at contract price of", "metadata": {"page": 447, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "EUR.39,337,756 (excluding VAT/other taxes) revealed that the contractor terminated the contract due to delays \nin payment by the Government of Uganda but never handed over the re-usable materials for reconstruction of the \nline. As a result, most of the materials were stolen and the Supervisor Consultant reports indicated that by 30th \nJuly, 2022, URC had lost 136,416 of the re-usable items equivalent to Euro.3,083,846.54. \n\uf0b7 \nManagement made a provision for bad debts worth UGX.4,414,665,000 against a total figure of UGX.7,228,231,000 \nresulting into a net receivables of UGX.2,813,566,000. I was not provided with the justification and computation \nof the provision \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation had a total of UGX.1,130,149,381 relating to VAT receivable which was not supported. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 447, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI established that total rental revenue of UGX. UGX.757,490,969 was not disclosed in the financial statements. The \nrevenue for the year under audit is misstated. \n \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.509,300,000 was paid to two suppliers as fuel deposits but lacked supporting documents. \n\uf0b7 \nURC has 521 wagons located in different parts of Kenya as per its assets register. However, only 243 wagons were \nconfirmed in existence leaving a balance of 393 wagons un-accounted for. \n\uf0b7 \nLoan amount of UGX.22,067,482,000 and interest payable of UGX.9,511,880,000 disclosed in the financial \nstatements were not supported and did not show any movement from last financial year.", "metadata": {"page": 447, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "432 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation budgeted to collect revenues amounting to UGX.128.96Bn during the year under review but only \nUGX.16.4Bn was collected, representing a performance of 12.7% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation planned to receive UGX.225.175Bn from GOU sources but only UGX.191Bn was received, resulting \ninto a shortfall of UGX.34.175Bn representing under performance of 34.2%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total funds of UGX.191Bn received during the financial year, UGX.158.69Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.32.31Bn representing absorption level of 83.1%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of thirty seven (37) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total", "metadata": {"page": 448, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of seventy eight (78) activities with a budget worth UGX.116Bn and noted that; \n\uf0b7 \nTwo (2) outputs with three (3) activities and expenditure worth UGX.372 million were fully implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nFifteen (15) outputs with forty two (42) activities with expenditure worth UGX.39.6bn were partially implemented. \nOut of the forty two (42) activities, the entity fully implemented six (6) activities; eighteen (18) activities were \npartially implemented, while eighteen (18) activities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nTwenty (20) outputs with thirty three (33) activities with expenditure worth UGX.3bn were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nA project for rehabilitation of the Namanve \u2013 Tororo Line was undertaken at a contract sum UGX.184,067,631,879 \nbut the majority of the line was undressed and laid back along the stretch, the sleepers are not packed and made", "metadata": {"page": 448, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "firm on the permanent way and there are no ballast stones on the sections worked on the main line. As a result, \nthere were noted cases where trains tipped and derailed on several sections of the railway line. \n\uf0b7 \nInspection of the project for Construction of the Sleeper making Factory at Kawolo Station at contract sum of \nEUR.19,840,000 revealed that progress of works was approximately at 55% and land left outside the fence had \nbeen encroached. \n\uf0b7 \nManagement had not remitted NSSF contributions to a tune of UGX.2,902,946,239 by 30th June, 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.941,540,000 allocated for the purchase of locomotives under GOU funding was diverted to activities not \nrelated to the purchase of locomotives. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were accumulated rental arrears for over 12 years from August 2009 to December 2021 of KSH.1,860,153", "metadata": {"page": 448, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(UGX.59,152,865) for a URC House located at LRV, Kisumu, 12/252-Tom Mboya Street. \n\uf0b7 \n Out of expected compensation to URC of UGX.34,563,250,000 from UNRA, for takeover of part of the station and \nrailway land reserves, an amount of UGX.6,402,682,500 was paid to URC resulting into a balance of \nUGX.28,160,567,500. However, there are ligation claims by third parties that the land being compensated did not \nbelong to URC which has hampered the settlement of the obligation by UNRA. \n\uf0b7 \nURC regularly revised its freight rates down to levels that did not seem commercially viable given the prevailing \neconomic circumstances for the year under audit. For example, tariffs for transportation of grain/ conventional \ncargo on the northern routes were revised to USD 19.6/ton from USD 27.6/ton for Mombasa- Kampala route yet \nfuel costs which make up the largest part of the cost driver significantly rose over the period.", "metadata": {"page": 448, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "433 \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of an agreement between the Government of Uganda and Mango Tree (U) Ltd to rehabilitate and upgrade \nthe Marine Vessel (MV) Pamba without recourse to public funds revealed that there was no competitive procuring \nof the private service provider. In addition, whereas Marine Vessel (MV) Pamba operated during the year, there \nwere no arrangements by URC in respect to monitoring of revenue collected by the operator of the vessel and also \nthe revenue sharing terms which would allow both parties to mutually benefit as required in the agreement. \n\uf0b7 \nA financial analysis of the Corporation indicated that it has continuously made losses for the previous two years \nand that URC still needs to make significant improvements in Operating efficiency, profitability and its ability to \nsustain provision of services. \n\uf0b7 \nI undertook the review of land management and observed that; \no \n6 pieces of land measuring approximately 10.8 hectares out of 281 pieces of land measuring", "metadata": {"page": 449, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "approximately 8,407 hectares (0.13 %) and costing UGX.2,473,324,000 were not recorded in the entity\u2019s \nland register. \no \n13 pieces of land measuring 434.5 hectares valued at approximately UGX.1.732Bn had encumbrances in \nthe form of caveats, court injunctions and encroachment. \no \nOut of the 281 pieces of land measuring approximately 8,406.94 hectares the entity held, 6 pieces of \nland measuring approximately 802.9 hectares (4.1%) did not have land titles. \no \nOne (1) piece of land measuring approximately 12.24 hectares (0.15%) worth UGX.55,763,745,000 in \nNalukolongo was irregularly subdivided and transferred to several private ownership. \no \nLand measuring approximately 49.32 hectares was leased out during the period under review, but 7", "metadata": {"page": 449, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "pieces of land measuring approximately 45.32 hectares were not traceable to the lease register. \no \nOut of the lease rentals of UGX.132,600,000 expected in the period under review, the entity only received \nUGX.107,112,000 (81%) by 30th June, 2022 with a balance of UGX.25,488,000 still outstanding. \no \nThe District Land Boards (DLB) across the country, KCCA and ULC without advertising or seeking for \nconsent from URC allocated/leased five (5) pieces of land measuring approximately 45.312 hectares that \nwere not under their jurisdiction. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the implementation of ICT activities and noted that: \no \n68 IT equipment procured for UGX.520,935,318 and two IT systems worth UGX.191,785,702 were not \ncleared by NITA-U. \no", "metadata": {"page": 449, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "o \nThree (3) systems were not integrated or not automatically sharing information with other systems. \no \n51 IT equipment valued at UGX.5,057,500 were recommended in board of survey report for disposal but \nthi shad not been implemented. \no \nThere were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation, no approved IT risk \nmanagement framework/policy at the Corporation, and no risk register.", "metadata": {"page": 449, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "434 \n \no \nThere was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy \n2014. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was an irregular contract variation of UGX.29,535,900 (203% of the contract sum) for construction of 2-\nstance toilet and provision of mobile toilet services at Nalukolongo Workshop contrary to Regulation 55(4) of PPDA, \n2014. \n\uf0b7 \nStaff with the same salary scales were earning different gross amounts while some staff with low scales were \nearning higher than those staff in higher positions. \n\uf0b7 \n76 residential tenants in stations lacked tenancy agreements from which the monthly rental charges were \ndetermined, 5 tenants were occupying the Corporation\u2019s premises with no valid tenancy agreements, the total \noutstanding arrears in relation to tenants with expired tenancy agreement stood at UGX.618,256,896 as at", "metadata": {"page": 450, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "30/06/2022 and 15 tenants had accumulated arrears worth UGX.808,890,455 as at 30/06/2022 even though \ncontracts required them to make rental and lease fees payments in advance. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was failure by the entity to dispose of about 21,993 unusable sleepers that had been collected from the \ndismantled line along the Tororo-Gulu line. These are exposed to theft and loss of value \n8. \n \nUpgrading of Kapchorwa Suam and \nEldoret \nBypass \nRoads \nProject \n(Uganda)implemented \nby \nUganda \nNational Roads Authority (UNRA) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UNRA delayed to pay the Contractor\u2019s Interim Payment Certificate (IPC) within the stipulated days in", "metadata": {"page": 450, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the contract thereby incurring UGX.609,061,148 and USD.130,733.97 in finance charges \n\uf0b7 \nUNRA signed contracts with three companies to relocate utilities along the project road for a total cost of UGX. \n5,887,444,880 against a budget amount of UGX. 3 Billion thereby resulting into an additional amount of \nUGX.2,887,444,880. This is an increase of 96% beyond the budgeted amount for this activity casting doubt to the \ncomprehensiveness of the feasibility studies undertaken by the UNRA and the Contractor before BoQs were made. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the progress of work did not match the remaining period to the completion date. The road works were \nestimated to be at 68%, the OSBP at 25% and Suam Bridge at 70% with just few months to reach contract \ncompletion date. \n\uf0b7 \nI further noted that some of the project components had not been implemented at the time of audit these include;", "metadata": {"page": 450, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Training in labor based construction techniques, Refurbishment of a post-crash care center and procurement of \ntheatre equipment. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the contracts signed by the consultants required them to provide the Professional liability insurance \nof 110% of the contract value but those provided did not cover the entire period \n\uf0b7 \nIf there is no Insurance cover as per the PPDA regulations, UNRA will not have a fallback position in case the \nconsultants do not meet their contractual obligations. \n9. \n \nRoad Sector Support Project 4 (RSSP\u20134), \nfor the upgrading of Kigumba \u2013 Masindi \n\u2013 Hoima \u2013 Kabwoya Road Project \nimplemented by UNRA \n\uf0b7 \nI noted during various grievances relating with the resettlement of PAPs for Lot 1. Nine PAPs had their access \nroads blocked, ninety-seven complained of damaged houses, nine complained of flooding and water contamination", "metadata": {"page": 450, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "435 \n \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \nand thirty-one were disputing compensation amounts paid to them. The cases, reported between September 2018 \nand August 2021, had not been resolved by the time of our audit, 2 years later. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that while the contractor was making payments towards obligations in regard to Pay as you earn tax \n(PAYE) and NSSF, they did not make returns to the relevant statutory bodies as required by law. In some instances \nthe payments were lower than the required amounts. Unpaid taxes deprive government of revenue, while staff \ndeprived of their NSSF savings may resort to legal action. \n\uf0b7 \nWhile UNRA obtained a certificate of no objection for the construction and construction supervision of Hoima Town \nroads, certificate of no-objection was not obtained for the construction and construction supervision of Masindi", "metadata": {"page": 451, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and Kigumba Town roads due to delays in approvals by the funders. By the time of audit in September 2022, the \ncontractor was on site and the reported levels of completion for Masindi and Kigumba town roads was 77% roads \n21% respectively. The contractor had issued a notice of intention to close the site over non-payment for works \ndue to delays in approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the consultant was yet to complete the designs for the OSBP due to non-harmonization of the designs \nwith those of Rwanda and the DRC at time of audit and there was no proof of communication between the MOFA \nand authorities in Rwanda and the DRC to that effect.The OSBP consultant\u2019s scope of activities was supposed to \nbe covered in nine months (ending January 2022 with contract deliverable including an Inception Report, Monthly \nProgress Reports, Draft Feasibility Report, Final Feasibility Report, Draft Engineering Architectural Design Report \nand The Final Engineering Architectural Design. However by the time of our audit in September 2022, only the", "metadata": {"page": 451, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "draft feasibility study had been delivered, pending URA comments and UNRA approval. The contract delivery date \nhas been extended to 24th March 2023. \n10. \nUpgrading \nof \nMuyembe-Nakapiripirit \nRoad Project implemented by Uganda \nNational Roads Authority (UNRA) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to the requirements of the Public Finance Management regulations 2016, I noted that, although there \nwere surplus funds amounting to UGX.9,526,145,971 for the Muyembe - Nakapiripirit Road project, management \nreallocated the funds to another Project to pay its debts without the Ministers approval. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays in project implementation with cumulative physical progress as at 30th June 2021 at only 2.71% \nagainst 15.59% planned, resulting in an overall slippage of 12.88%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 451, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nContrary to the requirements of Clause 2.1 of the Contract Agreement between UNRA and the Contractor I noted \nthat there were still some sections of the road that had pending land acquisition issues that needed to be \naddressed. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that acquisition of titles (i.e. legal ownership) for the acquired land (Muyembe-Nakapiripirit road having a \ntotal length of 92 Km) for which compensation had been made is still in process. However, it was not clear how \nfar the process had reached and when it would end. \n11. \nAlbertine \nRegional \nSustainable \nDevelopment Project (ARSDP) (Uganda \nNational Roads Authority). \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nI noted the following during the audit in relation to land acquisition:", "metadata": {"page": 451, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "436 \n \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nCompensation for PAPs in ROW on the entire completed road Section (Km 100.4) stands at 99.7% with 0.3% \nrepresented by six (6) PAPs (according to UNRA Compensation Status Report dated 8th July 2022) outstanding as \nthese still have unresolved issues like court cases and family disputes. \n\uf0b7 \nThe land acquired has not been transferred in the names of The Government of Uganda (UNRA) and the titles \nhave not been returned to the owners. \n\uf0b7 \nOn the other hand, there are PAPs who were injuriously affected by the ongoing road construction activities. The \ntotal number as per the contractor\u2019s records is 148 which had all not been addressed by 30th June 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that although the salaries and 5% NSSF contribution for the two individual local consultants ware paid in \nJuly 2021 the 10% NSSF contribution was paid on 22nd April 2022. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 452, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that UNRA did not comply with the requirements of the NSSF Act and maybe penalized by the NSSF \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that all consultants had Interim Extensions of Time (EOT) and were on duty but had outstanding payments. \nThe supervision consultant had invoices No. 69 to No. 76 totalling USD 920,421.4. The individual consultants for \nthe Social Development Specialist, Environmental Safeguards Specialist and Project Management Specialist were \nonly paid for field facilitations totalling UGX 24,460,000 not monthly allowances in the year of audit. \n12. \nRoad \nSector \nSupport \nProject \n5 \n(Upgrading \nof \nRukungiri-Kihihi-\nIshasha/Kanungu \nand \nBumbobi-\nLwakhakha Roads (Uganda National \nRoads Authority). \n2022", "metadata": {"page": 452, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2022 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to the requirements of the Regulation 16 of the Public Finance Management regulations 2016, I noted \nthat UGX.4,526,512,477 (50%) of the available GoU counterpart funds for FY 2021/22 was reallocated to fund \nexpenditures for Civil works of Kapchorwa-Suam road Project. This action overrides established budgeting \nprocedures without the Minister\u2019s approval. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the financing charges on the ADF loan and noted that total charges of UGX.3,357,809,609 were accrued \non the disbursed and undisbursed loan balances with ADF during FY 2021/22. Furthermore, due to delayed \nprocurement, prolonged acquisition of the Project right-of-way, and slow execution of works by the Contractors, \nthe initial disbursement deadline of 31st December 2020 was extended to 31st December 2024. The implication is", "metadata": {"page": 452, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "that the project is exposed to higher avoidable interest charges accruing from undisbursed loan balance due to \nloan under-utilization and hence delayed implementation of Project activities. \n\uf0b7 \nThe upgrade of the Rukungiri-Kihihi-Ishasha/Kanungu 78.5 km stretch attained 25.75% physical progress during \nthe FY 2021/22. Cumulatively, since the Project\u2019s inception, 68.35% physical progress had been attained, against \nthe planned progress of 84.30% as of 30th June 2022. The slippage of 15.95% recorded was attributed to \nencumbrances on land on sections that required extra land take beyond the 30m standard Right of Way, excessive \nrainfall in the region, and the Contractors restricted access to Ishasha Bridge.Time elapsed as of 30th June 2022 \nwas 43.8 months representing 88.3% of the total extended civil works contract duration of (49.6 months). \nCumulative financial progress recorded was 55.23% against the planned 76.25%.", "metadata": {"page": 452, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThere was a delay in conducting consultancy services procurement processes from initiation to contract signature; \nThe procurement to conduct gender awareness took 1,513 days (equivalent to 4 years and 2 months)", "metadata": {"page": 452, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "437 \n \n13. \nUpgrading of Tirinyi-Pallisa-Kumi/Pallisa-\nKamonkoli Road Project (111kms) i \n(Uganda National Roads Authority). \n2022 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Interim payment certificates (IPCs) established that there was delayed certification of contractor\u2019s \nIPCs and subsequently delayed payments beyond the stipulated time period of 56 days with a time lag ranging \nfrom 23-122 days for GOU portion and 44-101 days for IsDB portion. These delays have attracted interest charges \namounting to UGX.4,858,216,355. This is wasteful as it should have been avoided had the Supervising Consultant \napproved the IPCs in time. \n\uf0b7 \nAudit noted that there were delays, by the Bank, ranging from 100 to 157 days to release funds requested by", "metadata": {"page": 453, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UNRA for payment of contractor\u2019s certificates to be remitted to the contractor\u2019s bank account. \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to the requirements of the Regulation 16 of the Public Finance Management regulations 2016, I noted \nthat, although there were surplus funds amounting to UGX.3,687,491, 470 for Tirinyi Palisa Kumi Kamonkoli road \nproject that should have been returned to the consolidated fund at year end, management reallocated these funds \nto the Nakalama Tirinyi-Mbale project to pay debts owed to the contractor without the Minister\u2019s approval. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that a total of UGX.4,563,236,836 for Lot 1 and UGX.1,075,035,660 for Lot 2 was paid to the contractor \nas costs due to the approved Extension of Time amounting to 215 days and 45 days respectively beyond the \noriginal completion dates. This was attributed to delayed compensation of project affected persons. \n14. \nNorth \nEastern", "metadata": {"page": 453, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "North \nEastern \nRoad-Corridor \nAsset \nManagement Project (NERAMP) by UNRA \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nBy the end of the year 2021/22, the project had incurred total financial charges of USD. 1,020,775.068 on delayed \nabsorption of disbursed project amount worth USD. 10,964,141.51 \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project is slow and has resulted into an under-utilization of the signed loan amount thus incurring \ncommitment charges of USD. 785,248.3 on the unwithdrawn principle Loan Amount. \n\uf0b7 \nInterest payment of UGX. 20,152,565,660 due to delayed payment of claims under the contract for Provision of \nworks and Services. \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to the requirements of the Regulation 16 of the Public Finance Management regulations 2016, I noted", "metadata": {"page": 453, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "that UGX. 26,580,590 (USD 7,056.24) of the funds available from GOU counterpart funding was re-allocated to \nfunding civil works without evidence of approval. \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the OPRC Consultancy Agreement between UNRA and the consultant had the contract price agreed of \nUSD. 9,463,248 and UGX. 2,370,533,211 inclusive of all applicable taxes, withholding tax due from project \nconsultant was erroneously charged to the Project account USD. 187,438 instead of the consultant. \n15. \nUpgrading Masaka \u2013 Bukakata Road \nProject \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the financing agreements expired on 30th June 2022 when the funders had not yet disbursed a total", "metadata": {"page": 453, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of USD.1,047,693.84, which was equivalent to UGX.3,952,948,858. It may therefore be difficult to settle the Project \noutstanding obligations amounting to UGX.5,046,437,929. \n\uf0b7 \n The Project cost increased by UGX.340,948,885 in respect of interest paid and interest payable during the year \nunder review alone. This figure was likely to increase in the subsequent year if the outstanding certificates of \nworks worth UGX.4,864,209,954 were not settled at the beginning of the following year.", "metadata": {"page": 453, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "438 \n \n16. \nNational Building Review Board (NBRB) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted UGX.9.428Bn a total of UGX.8.259Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.1.169Bn. \nThe shortfall represents 12% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total of UGX.8.727Bn that was available during the financial year, only UGX.5.819Bn was spent by the \nentity resulting into an unspent balance of UGX.2.907Bn representing an absorption level of 67%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the approved staffing level of 101, only 29 positions were filled (28%) leaving a staffing gap of \n72 positions (72%). \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 454, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA review of the ICT governance structure of the entity revealed that despite the deployment of the Building Industry \nManagement System (BIMS) countrywide, there are no specific structures that steer and oversee IT \nimplementation, no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity and no business continuity plan \ncontrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \n17. \nNational Building Review Board (NBRB) \n2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that, whereas NBRB had an approved five year strategic plan by the Board, it had not been reviewed and \napproved by NPA to facilitate compliance to national planning requirements and its alignment to the NDP III \ninfrastructure sector priorities. There is a risk that some activities implemented during the financial year 2020/2021 \nwere not aligned to the NDP-III, which negatively affects the full realization of NDP-III sector objectives. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 454, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX. 5.99 Bn received during the financial year, UGX. 5.36 Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 0.638 Bn representing absorption level of 89.36%. These funds were \nmeant for activities that were not fully implemented by the end of the financial year, and these include; \nProcurement of ICT equipment, Procurement of a healthcare insurance scheme for staff, Advertising and marketing \ncampaigns. \n\uf0b7 \nPAYE amounting to UGX 23,400,000 was not recovered from the Executive Secretary\u2019s monthly benefits contrary \nto the Income Tax Act 1997 (As amended) \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough 49 positions were required to be filled during the year under audit, I noted that by the end of the year \nonly 20 (40.8 percent) had been filled resulting into a staffing gap of 29 (59.1 percent). A further analysis of vacant", "metadata": {"page": 454, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "positions revealed that the Board lacked key top management personnel including Directors, Managers for all the \n4 Directorates and a Senior Internal Auditor. Understaffing stresses the existing staff and affects effective \nimplementation of all planned activities \n \nLANDS SECTOR \n \n1. \n \nNational Physical Planning Board (NPPB) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.469Bn, UGX.4.469Bn was spent by the entity representing \nan absorption level of 100%. I noted that of the 06 quantified activities worth UGX.0.768Bn assessed; five (5) \nactivities representing 83% were partially implemented while one (1) activity representing 17% was not \nimplemented. I observed that the budgets for the six outputs assessed were not supported by individual activity \ncostings/budgets and the Board did not submit performance reports for the year under review.", "metadata": {"page": 454, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "439 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the board did not have substantive staff despite having an approved staff structure of 35 positions. \nThe board had only three (3) staff on secondment and twenty (26) on assignment of duties. \n \n2. \n \nNational \nHousing \nand \nConstruction \nCompany Limited (NHCCL) \n \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Company included a gain on fair valuation of investment property undertaken amounting to \nUGX.18 billion basing on the valuation undertaken in the financial year ended 30th June 2022. However, there was \nrevaluation of the investment property as required under IAS 40 at the end the accounting period ended 30th June \n2021 due to the prevailing COVID 19 lock down during the year. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 455, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nAs at close of business 30 June 2021, the Company had unremitted statutory obligations of UGX. 5.9 billion which \nrelated to Value Added Tax (UGX. 2.5 billion), Pay as you Earn (UGX. 2.0 billion) and National Social Security Fund \n(UGX. 1.5 billion). \n \n\uf0b7 \nAs at close of business on 30 June 2021, the Company did not have a governance structure in place to influence \nhow the company's objectives are set and achieved as well as monitoring and addressing risk to optimize \nperformance. \n3. \n \nMinistry of Lands, Housing and Urban \nDevelopment \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe ministry was supposed to receive UGX. 159,525,734,214 out of which UGX.143,686,352,595 was warranted,", "metadata": {"page": 455, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "resulting in a shortfall of UGX. 15,839,381,619 The shortfall represents 11% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX. 143.6 Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling \nUGX. 142.7 Bn resulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX 0.948Bn representing an absorption level of 99.3%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the fifty-five (55) activities worth UGX.24.244Bn assessed, twenty-seven (27) activities were \npartially implemented, while seventeen (17) remained unimplemented. I noted that a total of UGX. 131.9m was \nirregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas payables reduced from UGX 249Bn in the previous financial year to UGX 203Bn I noted that the payables \nfigure remains significant. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 455, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "figure remains significant. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity made payments amounting to UGX 19Bn to acquire 4 pieces of land (Ranches) measuring 2339.04 \nHectares for ranches which had been fully compensated. Out of the 31 pieces of land measuring approximately 21 \nhectares held, 25 pieces of titled land measuring approximately 17 hectares were not recorded in the entity \nland/assets register and GIFMS fixed asset module. \n\uf0b7 \nThe ministry is understaffed, with only 513 out of the 1,050 approved staff establishment, leaving 537 (51%) \nvacant. \n\uf0b7 \nThe ministry did not provide an adequate budgetary provision for settlement of liabilities relating to court awards \nand compensations amounting to UGX.165Bn.", "metadata": {"page": 455, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "440 \n \n4. \n \nAlbertine \nRegion \nSustainable \nDevelopment \nProject \n(ARSDP) \n\u2013 \nMoLHUD \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted IDA disbursement of UGX.28,056,477,734 for the year 2021/2022, only UGX.27,026,553,795 \n(96%) was disbursed, leading to a shortfall of UGX.1,029,923,940 (4%). \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the available funds to the project in the year of UGX.43,970,076,060 (Disbursement in the year and balance", "metadata": {"page": 456, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "brought forward UGX.16,943,522,266), only UGX.24,827,886,040 (56%) was spent, leaving unspent balance of \nUGX.19,142,190,020. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project had thirty-five (35) unresolved environment and social related grievances and yet the \nproject was left with approximately two (2) months to close. \n5. \n \nUganda Land Commission. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe ULC had an approved budget of UGX.93.65bn out of which 76.5bn was received resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX17.51Bn. This represented a receipt percentage of 82%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.76.51Bn received during the financial year UGX. 75.42Bn was spent resulting in", "metadata": {"page": 456, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "an unspent balance of UGX.1.08Bn representing an absorption level of 98.6%. \n\uf0b7 \nThe ULC continued to accumulate payables with the balance as at 30th June 2022 being UGX.138.737Bn which is \n22% lower than the balance reported at 30th June 2021. Most of the payables had been outstanding for more \nthan 10 years. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved establishment of 80 staff, the commission had 35 officers implying staffing gaps of 45(56%). \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Commission operated with only 35 staff which is inadequate to implement the new strategic plan \nyet the new approved structure of 80 staff had not been operationalised. \n\uf0b7 \nThe outstanding court wards and compensations of UGX. 5.53Bn for the year were not adequately budgeted for. \nBesides the commission lacks guidelines for settlement of the said liabilities. \n \nACCOUNTABILITY SECTOR \n \n1.", "metadata": {"page": 456, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1. \n \nPublic Procurement and Disposal of \nPublic Assets Authority (PPDA) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nPPDA had an approved budget of UGX.23.28Bn out of which UGX.19.52Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall \nof UGX.3.76Bn which represents 16.15% of the approved budget. The deficit in the budget negatively impacted \nservice delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 \npositions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff \nestablishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. \n2. \n \nCompetitiveness \nand \nEnterprise \nDevelopment Project (CEDP) Component \n1- Land administration IDA CREDIT \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 456, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA total of UGX.17.786Bn was received to be spent on different outputs during the year under review, and only \nUGX.9.155Bn (51%) was utilized leading to under-absorption of UGX.8.634Bn (49%). As a result, several planned \nactivities were not implemented.", "metadata": {"page": 456, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "441 \n \nAGREEMENT CR 52690-UG PROJECT ID \nP130471-2022 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the contract for the production of base maps for land administration in Uganda awarded to a firm at a \ncontract price of Euros 4,712,135 revealed a contract performance of 89% despite having paid Euros 4,294,439 \n(91.1%) of the contract price. \n3. \n \nCompetitiveness \nand \nEnterprise \nDevelopment \nProject \n(CEDP) \nCOMPONENT 2-5 IDA CREDITS CR \n52690-UG AND 65380-UG PROJECT ID \nP130471-2022 \n \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 457, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe CEDP 2-5 project had budgeted for UGX.46.9Bn for the FY 2021/2022 to be spent on various outputs, however, \nonly UGX.21.7Bn (46%) was utilised leading to under-absorption of UGX.25.2Bn (54%). Management attributed \nthe poor absorption to the impact of COVID-19 restrictions and disruptions in the supply chain that affected the \nimplementation of planned activities and deliveries relating to procurements that had been undertaken. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of USD.7,417,107 was spent by the project on various procurements for which there was no market price \nassessment. This was in contravention of Section 26 (4) of the PPDA Act. As a result, I was unable to confirm the \nbasis on which the contract prices were determined. \n\uf0b7 \nProject management awarded contracts to various suppliers for the supply of Motor Vehicles at a cost of", "metadata": {"page": 457, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "USD.1,322,779 (equivalent to UGX.4.765Bn). A total of UGX.552.8Mn was paid to the suppliers as 20% advance \npayment while UGX.3.5Bn was used to secure letters of credit from Bank of Uganda in respect of the supplies. \nContrary to the delivery schedules stated in the bidding documents of between 90 days to 120 days, the bidder \nquoted 3-6 months for the delivery of vehicles. After signing the contract, the delivery schedule was revised to 6-\n7 months due to disruptions in the supply chain caused by COVID-19. The vehicles had not been delivered by the \ntime of reporting in December 2022. Failure to emphasise the delivery schedule could have disadvantaged other \npotential suppliers, who could have delivered earlier. \n\uf0b7 \nCEDP set out to procure a Boat for the Uganda Wildlife Education Centre at a contract price of USD.695,000", "metadata": {"page": 457, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(equivalent to UGX.2.5Bn). As at the end of the year, the contract for the supply had expired, the final design had \nnot yet been agreed on and no delivery had been made. The contract had consequently not been performed, \nleading to delayed service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Project effected payments amounting to USD.998,634 (equivalent to UGX.3.55Bn) in respect of the supply, \ninstallation and maintenance of the Uganda Wildlife Authority Integrated Financial Management System for which \nit was observed the contract implementation was marred by irregularities. Several modules purchased including \npayroll batch processing, recruitment, leave management, and time management were not fully functional and \nsome were never utilized by the Authority. Lapses were noted in technical support management and failure by the \nsystem to integrate with the banks. It was also noted that consequently, the Authority abandoned the system and \npurchased another system to perform the same functionalities. No value for money was achieved in the \nprocurement. \n4.", "metadata": {"page": 457, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "4. \n \nMicrofinance Support Centre Limited \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nMSC did not have a strategic plan aligned to NDPIII contrary to Section 13(6) of the PFMA, which requires that \nthe annual budget shall be consistent with the National Development Plan, the Charter of Fiscal Responsibility", "metadata": {"page": 457, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "442 \n \nUnqualified \n \n \n(CFR) and the Budget Framework Paper (BFP). In addition, the strategic objectives outlined in the strategic plan \nwere not specific and measurable, limiting performance assessment. \n\uf0b7 \nIt was observed that During the financial year 2020/21, out of the approved budget of UGX.401.643bn, \nUGX.402.617bn was realized, and UGX.370.683bn was spent. Out of the budget realized, MSC failed to absorb \nfunds to a tune of UGX.31.934bn representing 7.93% of the realized funds limiting the service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nAn audit of expenditure revealed that MSC effected reallocations/ virements on the budget line items worth \nUGX.1,015,000,000 from the departments of Finance, Administration and Human Resources, affecting the \nimplementation of the planned outputs. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 458, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA review of the loan portfolio of the company revealed that a total of UGX.126.37 billion relating to conventional \nlending was outstanding in loans and advances as at 30th June 2021. The portfolio had grown from UGX.75.14 Bn \nin 2019 by UGX.57 billion over the three years to UGX.126.37 Billion, locking funds to other befitting clients. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring FY 2020/21, the MSCL Board approved the write-off of 167 loans amounting to UGX.4,682,672,669 without \nfollowing the Public Finance Management Act 2015, which requires approval by the Parliament on write off above \n10 million. The total loans written-off (incl. Principal, interest and charges/penalties) over the same period \namounted to UGX.27,515,715,35. I noted that FYs 2020/21 (20.7%), 2014/15(37.9%) and 2012/13 (19.1%)", "metadata": {"page": 458, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "accounted for the highest proportion of loan write-offs attributed when compared to the total loan amount \ndisbursed over since 2005. The write-offs lock funds to befitting potential clients. \n\uf0b7 \nUnder absorption of emyooga funds. Out of the receipts of UGX.337.72Bn, a total of UGX.304.3 Bn (90%) was \nspent and/or disbursed by the entity, leaving a balance of UGX.33.3bn (24%) limiting the service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nOver 6,326 EMYOOGA SACCOs validated and financed through Microfinance Support Centre by June 2021 were in \noperation without acquiring a license to operate from the Uganda Microfinance Regulatory Authority. \n\uf0b7 \nMicrofinance Support Centre Limited disbursed funds worth UGX.7.750Bn to 252 unregistered SACCOs as of 31st \nMarch 2021, exposing public resources to the risk of loss. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 458, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the funds that were disbursed as grants to various constituencies SACCOS, UGX. 34,716,666,049 remained \nun-accessed by the beneficiary SACCOS as at 30th June 2021, rendering the transferred fund idle. \n\uf0b7 \nPhysical inspections in Kayunga District revealed that a total of UGX.500,000,000 disbursed by various SACCOs \nwas never supported by loan agreements. There was no evidence to support the existence of the borrowing by \nassociations, and beneficiaries could not be traced hence misappropriation. \n\uf0b7 \nIt was observed that from a sample of the SACCOs that were inspected, a total of 140 associations that had \naccessed loans worth UGX.3.52bn, from the Apex Constituency SACCOs, had defaulted in payment of UGX.2.49bn \nby the time of verification, representing 70.74% default rate. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 458, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA review of the SACCOs\u2019 documentation regarding disbursements of loans to the different beneficiaries revealed \nthe absence of loans agreements with some borrowers exposing the funds to the risk of default.", "metadata": {"page": 458, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "443 \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the draft financial statements revealed that a total of UGX.600,000,000 was reported held on a \nsuspense account. The funds relate to unresolved receipts and disbursements \n\uf0b7 \nAn audit of the fixed assets registers indicated that a total of UGX.4,582,946,000 was reported as the value of \nPlant property and Equipment as at 30th June 2021 for which a total of 554 fixed assets were carried at zero \nNetbook Value, while they were still in use by the company hence understating the asset values in the financial \nstatements. \n\uf0b7 \nMSCL wage and other staff-related costs have increased to UGX.11,117,980,000 over the years, representing \n211% variance from the approved Government wage ceiling. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that during the period under review, a total of UGX.57,667,906,500 was disbursed to various", "metadata": {"page": 459, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "beneficiaries in the form of special Grants without a grant management policy. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Government of Uganda debt stock as of 30th June 2021 revealed that the Islamic Development Bank had \ndisbursed USD.3,950,000 to the GOU of which only 39.5% had absorbed. \n5. \n \nEnterprise Uganda Foundation \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Foundation does not have a comprehensive database for all MSMEs in Uganda contrary to Clause 3.3(A) of \nthe Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development to promote \nthe development of Medium Small and Micro Enterprises (MSMEs) in Uganda. There is a risk that some MSMEs \nmissed out the opportunities provided by the Foundation. \n\uf0b7 \nOne of the objectives of the Foundation is to create and nurture special interest groups like Women and Youth to \nbecome effective entrepreneurs and enhance the productivity, growth and competitiveness of MSMEs in Uganda.", "metadata": {"page": 459, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "However, the criterion utilized in selection of these beneficiaries was not in place. There is a likelihood of deserving \nMSMEs missing out the opportunities of services delivered by the Foundation. \n6. \n \nPrivatization and utility sector reform \nproject (operations account) FY 2020/21 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThere was unauthorized Over Expenditure on Wages of UGX. 1,884,571,00. Whereas UGX. 1,500,000,000 had \nbeen appropriated, UGX. 3,344,571,000 was spent. \n\uf0b7 \nI established that the Unit did not have any quantified outputs, and as such, no assessment as to the extent of \nimplementation was undertaken. I was therefore unable to establish the reasonableness of individual activity costs \nfor each planned output \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Government had entered into concessions with various Government and private organizations for", "metadata": {"page": 459, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the provisions of different services, but the Accounting Officer had failed to recognize the same in the statement \nof financial. The organizations include; Dairy Corporation Ltd, Kilembe Mines Limited, Nile Hotel International \nLimited, Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Uganda Electricity Generation Company Limited, Uganda \nRailways Corporation, Uganda seeds Limited (Nyakatonzi cooperative Union), Uganda Seeds Limited (Farm Input \nCare Centre Limited [FICA}), Uganda Livestock Industries Limited (Kiryana Ranch), Uganda Livestock Industries \nLimited (Kyempisi Ranch) and Uganda Livestock Industries Limited (Aswa Ranch-Partial Sale of 297 Hectares). \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year under review, I observed that PU had down sized affecting several operations of the Unit that \ninclude among others, non-renewal of contracts for most staff (current staff are only 3), reduction of staff salaries", "metadata": {"page": 459, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "444 \n \ndue to non-availability of budget to fund the unit operations and non-renewal of the rent agreement for the units \noffice premises among others. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Privatization Unit had continued to irregularly accumulate domestic arrears. The value of arrears grew \nup to UGX.10,377,057,000 from UGX.10,278,272,000 of the previous year. A review of the composition of the \npayables revealed that UGX.9,984,335,000 (96% of the total payables) relates to Pay as You Earn (PAYE). \n\uf0b7 \nI also established that currently, the Unit has a DRIC committee that is fully constituted in accordance with the \napplicable laws. It was, however noted the appointments of the members to the committee were never time-\nbound, and as such, some members had served for over 10 years. \n7.", "metadata": {"page": 460, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7. \n \nUnfpa Funded Programme Component of \nData and Population Dynamics \n \nImplemented \nby \nNational \nPlanning \nAuthority (NPA) \nDec 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that NPA paid VAT amounting to UGX.2,023,200 on its supplies contrary to Clause 9.1.3 of the general \nterms and conditions of the agreement between NPA and UNFPA which considers such expenditure ineligible unless \nthe IP can satisfy the UNFPA that it is unable to recover the VAT. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that payments to some consultants amounting to UGX.3,881,400 were made basing on budgeted figures \nwhich were higher than the contract/invoice prices, of which, UGX.1,995,000 was recovered and refunded to", "metadata": {"page": 460, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UNFPA, leaving the balance of UGX.1,886,400 outstanding. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that NPA paid UGX.5,464,900 as reimbursable costs claimed by a consultant without evidence of any \naddendum to the service provider\u2019s contract. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted a payment of UGX.4,770,000 reimbursed to different participants of a virtual meeting deposited on one \nbank account lacked support payment schedules. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the NPA did not withhold UGX.9,279,123 from payments made to service providers who are not \nexempted from WHT. The non-compliance impacts Government efforts to raise revenue for provision of public \nservices. \n8. \n \nUNFPA funded programme component of \ndata and population dynamics \n \nImplemented by Uganda Bureau of \nStatistics \nDecember 2021 \n \nOpinion", "metadata": {"page": 460, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo Significant matter to report on. \n \n9. \n \nThe Project for Financial Inclusion in \nRural Areas (PROFIRA) \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nThere were delays in disbursement of project funds by Government of Uganda (GoU), for counterpart funding. As \nat 30th June 2022, counterpart funding received amounted to UGX.3.28 Billion against a budgeted amount of \nUGX.3.67 Billion for the year. This represents 89% of the projected commitments. The Government funding was", "metadata": {"page": 460, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "445 \n \nUnqualified \n \nmeant to cater for contract renewal of the Government-funded staff until project closure, costs for conducting \nproject completion activities and operating costs. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that there was no exit strategy in place. During the last implementation support mission, PROFIRA \nManagement agreed to work closely with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) \nand the Parish Development Model (PDM) Secretariat to develop a clear proposal for MoFPED to consider scaling \nup PROFIRA\u2019s expertise and knowledge in the current Government programmes of Financial Inclusion. \nFurthermore, PROFIRA was to develop a proposal for the deployment of revolving funds to Community Savings \nand Credit Groups (CSCGs)/Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) and other SACCOs already in existence \nfor consideration under PDM. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the GoU and IFAD agreed to offer additional contracts to two contracted Service Providers till", "metadata": {"page": 461, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "November 2022, to ensure that grant funds are fully and properly utilized, and that outcome measurement of the \ngrant is facilitated. During audit examination, I however noted that the contracts have not been signed and \nimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \n Whereas there were set standards for the financial management and monitoring of performance of the grant, to \na tune of UGX.4,728,805,337, the project is coming to an end without proper modalities for monitoring and \nsupervision. \n10. \nThe Project for Financial Inclusion in \nRural Areas (PROFIRA) \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that, as reported in my report for the year ended 30th June 2020, Government of Uganda has not yet \nhonored its obligation of UGX.5.6Bn as co-funding for the Project. The project entirely depended on the IFAD \nfunding in implementing its activities \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 461, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI observed that the project has been supporting SACCO\u2019s that were not registered by Uganda Microfinance \nRegulatory Authority (UMRA). Un-registered SACCO\u2019s are unregulated and this could result into loss of member \ndeposits and endanger the sustainability of the Project-supported SACCOs. \n11. \nResource \nEnhancement \nand \nAccountability Programme \n(REAP) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo reportable issues. \n12. \nDirectorate for Ethics and Integrity (DEI) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.10.833Bn received during the financial year UGX.10.562Bn was utilized by the", "metadata": {"page": 461, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Directorate resulting into unutilized warrants of UGX.0.562Bn, representing absorption level of 97.5%. Un utilised \nwarrants signify failure to utilise availed funds which negatively impacts service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the domestic arrears balance of UGX.442Mn at the beginning of the year, only UGX.122Mn (28%) was paid, \nwhile the balance of UGX.319Mn still remained outstanding during the Financial Year 2021/2022. Delayed \nsettlement of arrears could lead to costly litigation and loss to government.", "metadata": {"page": 461, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "446 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Directorate of Ethics and Integrity (DEI) has an approved staff structure of 122, but only 54 (44.3%) were \nfilled leaving 68 (55.7%) positions unfilled. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and \nadversely affects the day-to-day running of the Directorate. \n\uf0b7 \nManagement spent a total of UGX.248.883Mn on micro procurements without use of request for quotations, \ncontrary to the PPDA Act Section 79 (1) Subsection 5(C) and 7(C) Fourth Schedule, that specifies the conditions \nfor use of Procurement Methods for Micro Procurement and Quotation and proposal method. This could lead to \nuncompetitive prices and failure to maximize value for money. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Directorate irregularly used direct procurement for the purchase of vehicles at a cost of UGX.1.046Bn, contrary", "metadata": {"page": 462, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "to PPDA Guidelines 2014 Paragraph 1, Thresholds for Procurement of supplies and non-consultancy services, \nmethod. This could also lead to uncompetitive prices and failure to maximize value for money. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the governance structures indicated that there was neither specific structure that steers and oversees \nICT implementation nor an approved IT staff structure while at the same time the expected ICT Unit of two staff, \nonly one position had been filled. \n13. \nPrivatization and utility sector reform \nproject \n(divesture \nand \nredundancy \naccount) FY 2020/21 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that for the period under review, there was no evidence that a report was submitted to Parliament by \nthe Minister on the steps taken to implement the Act. \n14. \nNational \nLotteries \nand \nGaming", "metadata": {"page": 462, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and \nGaming \nRegulatory Board (NLGB) \n2021/22 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.8.370Bn, a total of UGX.8.310Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of \nUGX.0.06Bn representing 0.72% of the approved budget. I further noted that of the total warrants of UGX.8.310Bn, \nthe Board spent a total of UGX.7.528Bn resulting into unspent warrants of UGX.0.782Bn. Unreleased and unutilised \nfunds signify failure to implement all the planned activities which negatively impacts service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Board remained understaffed with only had 36 positions out of 51 approved positions leaving a gap of 15 \npositions, representing 30% of the approved structure. Understaffing constrains effective service delivery. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 462, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Board failed to prepare 4 Statutory Regulations to regulate the industry contrary to the provision of Section \n70 of the Lotteries and Gaming Act, 2015. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity failed to prepare a National Register of gaming or betting machines and devices, as provided \nfor under Section 36 of the Lotteries and Gaming Act, 2015. Absence of a register of machines and equipment \nbeing used in the industry, complicates monitoring and renewal of licences and also exposes the industry players \nto risks of using inappropriate machinery and equipment. \n\uf0b7 \nI carried out a review of management of IT investments at the entity and noted that; \no \n138 IT assets (100%) inspected over the period under review were not accurately recorded in the Assets \nregister.", "metadata": {"page": 462, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "447 \n \no \nThe Board\u2019s IT department was inadequately staffed, with only one staff out of the required three. \no \nThe Board did not have a business continuity plan in place. \n\uf0b7 \nSuch weaknesses negatively impact on the capacity of IT to effectively facilitate the management of the entity\u2019s \noperations. \n15. \nBank of Uganda \n2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings \n16. \nCapital Markets Authority 2020/2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings \n17. \nCOVID-19 \nEconomic \nRecovery \nAnd \nResilience Response Program (CERRRP) \n22nd May 2020 to 30th April 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified", "metadata": {"page": 463, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings \n18. \nDeposit Protection Fund \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings \n19. \nHousing Finance Bank Limited for the \nyear ended 31st December, 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings \n20. \nHousing Finance Bank Limited - Pool \nHouses Collection Account \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings \n21. \nHousing Finance Bank Limited - Pool \nHouses Collection Account \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings", "metadata": {"page": 463, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "448 \n \n22. \nPostbank Uganda Limited \n31st Dec, 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings \n23. \nPride Microfinance Limited (MDI) \n31st December, 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings \n24. \nThe \nResource \nEnhancement \nand \nAccountability Programme \n(REAP) \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \n No material findings \n25. \nUganda Development Bank (UDBL) \n31st December, 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings \n26. \nUganda Seeds Limited", "metadata": {"page": 464, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda Seeds Limited \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nQualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that in the Statement of Financial Position, the company reported a current account balance of \nUGX.1.221Bn which was not backed by any schedule and/or supporting documents. I was unable to confirm the \ncorrectness of the current account balance reported in the financial statements. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of UGX.110Mn in outstanding receivables was not supported by any documentation or schedule to enable \nindependent confirmation of the value. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas the Company reported net cash flows of UGX.13.77Mn as per statement of cash flows (page \n11), this was not reported in the statement of financial position. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed a reduction in capital reserves of UGX.57.6Mn in the statement of changes in equity, however, the", "metadata": {"page": 464, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "change in the capital reserves was not in line with the reported net loss in the statement of profit or loss of \nUGX.62.6Mn, thereby occasioning an unexplained variance of UGX.5Mn. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Company did not have any quantified outputs, and as such, no assessment as to the extent of implementation \nwas undertaken. \n\uf0b7 \nUganda Seeds Limited did not have an approved strategic plan and budget to guide and support the company's \nManagement undertaking its stewardship roles.", "metadata": {"page": 464, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "449 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas the board had leased property to a private firm for a period of 30 years, over the years the \nfirm had used the properties to secure loan facilities from different funders and created mortgages over the same \nwithout authorisation from the Board. \n\uf0b7 \n UNRA is in the process of tarmacking the Masindi-Kinyara-Biiso Road which would affect some of the land currently \nsubleased to the concessionaire however no disclosure was made in the financial statements in regard to the over \n3 acres of land to be taken over by UNRA upon compensation. \n\uf0b7 \nPhysical inspections conducted revealed that there was gross mismanagement of the assets and abandonment of \nmost of the buildings. Many assets were obsolete and were observed not to be maintained as agreed upon. I \nfurther noted that most buildings lacked a roof and were uninhabitable. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 465, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that there was no evidence of any board meetings. I also noted that the company last filed a board \nresolution in 2005 and that the company file at Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) lacked any resolution \nof the AGM appointing the directors and no evidence that AGM had ever been held. \n27. \nYoung Africa Works Uganda \u2013 Lead Firm \nStructure Project \n5th November, 2019 to 31st December, \n2020 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings \n28. \nUganda \nMicrofinance \nRegulatory \nAuthority (UMRA) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nUMRA had an approved budget of UGX.7Bn out of which UGX.6.75Bn was warranted leading to a shortfall of", "metadata": {"page": 465, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.0.25Bn (0.04% of the budget). As a result, some planned activities could not be implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThere is an apparent conflict between Section 28 of the Tier-4-Microfinance-Institutions-Money-Lenders Act, 2016 \nand Section 51 of the Public Finance Management Act, 2015 with regard to the period for submission of financial \nStatements to the Auditor General. The former prescribes three months while the later provides 2 months after \nthe end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted the following matters in the management of the licensing mandate of the Authority over SACCOs and \nMoney lenders; \n\uf0b7 \nChallenges in licensing of SACCOs arising out of a conflict of laws between the Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and \nMoney lenders Act and the Cooperative Societies Act 2020 resulting in low registrations. \n\uf0b7 \nFailure by the Minister to put in place the maximum interest chargeable by the different money lenders contrary \nto the requirements of the Act. \n\uf0b7 \n\uf0b7 \nAbsence of clear guidelines for the determination of \u2018fit and proper persons\u2019 for purposes of money lenders.", "metadata": {"page": 465, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "450 \n \n\uf0b7 \nFailure to constitute the SACCO Stabilisation Fund and the SACCO Savings Protection Fund contrary to the law. \n29. \nMinistry \nof \nFinance, \nPlanning \nand \nEconomic Development (MoFPED) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the MoFPED had an approved budget of UGX.815.5Bn out of which UGX.792.8Bn was warranted, \nresulting in a shortfall of UGX.22.7Bn, which represents 2.8% of the approved budget. Budget shortfalls constrain \nmanagement is implementing fully, the approved activities and hence service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.792.8Bn received during the financial year, UGX.782.4Bn was utilised by the", "metadata": {"page": 466, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ministry resulting in unutilized warrants of UGX.10.34Bn representing absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I \nnoted that of the 64 outputs that I sampled, Eighteen (18) outputs were fully implemented, thirty-six (36) outputs \nwere partially implemented, Seven (7) out puts were not implemented, while Three (3) out puts could not be \nassessed. Failure to fully implement all planned activities negatively impacts service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry did not have a running strategic plan to facilitate achievement of the NDP III objectives. This poses \na risk of non-attainment of NDP III objectives since the strategic plan that would serve as basis for the annual \nplan and budget that is being implemented is non-existent. \n\uf0b7 \nDomestic arrears stock was reported as UGX.473Bn as at the end of the financial year 2021/22 up from \nUGX.268.9Bn in F/Y 2020/21 representing 76% increase. The Domestic arrears are not given appropriate budget", "metadata": {"page": 466, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "provision hence accumulation of the stock. Failure to budget and pay arrears negatively impacts the \ncreditworthiness of the Ministry and could result into penalties and costly litigations. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry did not disclose contingent liabilities worth UGX2.839Bn in the memorandum statement of Contingent \nliabilities. This denies end users of the Financial Statements useful information for decision making. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry has seven (7) IT systems which were not integrated or not automatically sharing information with \nother systems. This could lead to duplication of functionalities, procurement of non-compatible solutions and \nequipment, and general deviation from Government\u2019s efforts to rationalize resources for better service delivery. \n30. \nContingencies Fund \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe approved budget for the previous financial year (FY2020/21) was UGX.45.49Trillion, which would have", "metadata": {"page": 466, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "translated into UGX.227.47Bn funding for the Contingencies Fund in the year under review, in accordance with \nthe formula provided in the PFMA, 2015. I however noted the following;", "metadata": {"page": 466, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "451 \n \no \nParliament appropriated UGX.62.07Bn out of UGX.227.47Bn (27.3%) to the Contingencies Fund, leading \nto a deficit of UGX.165.40Bn (72.7%). \no \nDue to an upsurge of COVID-19, additional funds were appropriated via a supplementary budget of \nUGX.228.30Bn, making a total of UGX.290.37Bn. \no \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.290.37Bn, only UGX.72.06Bn (24.8%) was released to the MDAs for \nemergencies, leading to a total deficit of UGX.219.33Bn (75.5%). \n\uf0b7 \nThe continued failure to appropriate funds in accordance with the formula provided in the PFMA, 2015 (as", "metadata": {"page": 467, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "amended), is an indicator of noncompliance and defeats the intentions of the law. \n31. \nTreasury Operations \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Treasury Operations had an initial approved budget of UGX.15.094Tn which was later revised to \nUGX.17.863Tn. Out of the revised Budget, UGX.17.391Tn was warranted, out of which, UGX.13.959Tn was \nutilized by the entity resulting into an unutilized balance of UGX.3.432Tn representing a performance level of \n80.26%. Audit however noted that the entity remained with a total of UGX.4.661Tn as payables at year end. \n\uf0b7 \nThere are was a significant change of the reported payables from UGX.2.345Tn to UGX.4.583Tn resulting into", "metadata": {"page": 467, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "an increase of UGX.2.238Tn representing 95%. The significant increment in the liabilities was due to the \nInternational Court of Justice ruling in favour of Democratic Republic of Congo to a tune of UGX.1.228Tn and the \nassumption of Uganda Telcom liabilities of UGX.0.028Tn. \n\uf0b7 \nAudit noted that as regards the management of Boards for Corporations and companies in which Government has \nshareholding, there were no clear guidelines, policies or regulations for the management, appointment, evaluation \nor determination of such Boards. \n\uf0b7 \nThe government is defaulting on the payment of an outstanding balance of USD.889,411.24 (UGX.3,343Bn) \nout of a total USD.1,659,450.22 as a 10th Instalment for 51 callable shares from African Development Bank \n(ADB). Failure to pay-up on callable shares puts the country at a risk of losing paid up shares and the corresponding", "metadata": {"page": 467, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "callable shares in the Bank. \n32. \nMicrofinance SupportCenter (MSC) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.154.18Bn for capital expenditure, Emyooga grant and other recurrent \nexpenditures, UGX.146.85Bn was realized and UGX.125.65Bn was spent, leaving UGX.21.2Bn unspent which \nrepresents 14.4% of the realized funds. Unspent funds represent services not delivered. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of UGX.1.44Bn was disbursed as additional capitalization to the existing EMYOGA SACCOs when they had \nnot made recoveries of above 70% of the first seed capital disbursed, as evidenced by the loan disbursement and \nrecovery schedules submitted by the respective SACCOs. This can lead to disbursements to SACCOs that are \nalready at default. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 467, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "already at default. \n\uf0b7 \nThe loan portfolio of the company has grown from UGX.105Bn in 2020 to UGX.146Bn over the three years \nrepresenting a 39% growth. However, a total of UGX.3.7Bn was disbursed to several clients without undertaking \nadequate loan appraisal documentation, hence an increase in default risk exposure as well as potential loss to \ngovernment.", "metadata": {"page": 467, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "452 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the loan portfolio and noted that an average of 53% and 52% of impaired loans was registered in the \nfinancial years 2019/20 and 2020/21 respectively, while there has been a progressive increase to 71% in the \nfinancial year ended 30th June 2022. Such increases imply that there are more loans that are likely to become \nuncollectable and therefore leading to loss to government. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted weaknesses in the IT systems which include; \no \nThere was no evidence of systems ownership \no \nThe two systems operated by the entity were not integrated or not automatically sharing information \nwith other systems. \no \nThere were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. \no \nThere was no approved IT risk management framework/policy and risk register at the entity. \no \nThere was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy", "metadata": {"page": 468, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2014. \n33. \nNational Population Council (NPC) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity was supposed to receive UGX.16.191Bn out of which UGX.12.742Bn was warranted, resulting into a \nshortfall of UGX.3.449Bn. The shortfall represents 21.3% of the approved budget. As a result some activities \nplanned for the year, were not implemented, which negatively impacts on service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had an approved staff structure of 97 positions, out of which 74 (76%) positions were filled, leaving 23 \n(23.7%) positions not yet filled. Staffing gaps constrain the entity in implementing its mandate effectively. \n\uf0b7 \nNPC staff were paid a salaries amounting to UGX.4.01Bn for the F/Y 2021/2022 off the IPPS and yet the human", "metadata": {"page": 468, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "resource system was procured for payroll management. This creates an opportunity for payment of ineligible staff \nand creation of non-existent staff/pensioners. \n\uf0b7 \nI carried out a review of management of IT investments at the entity and noted that; \n\uf0b7 \nThree (3) IT systems /equipment acquired at UGX.415Mn had no clearance from NITA-U, while IT \nsystems/equipment costing UGX.342Mn did not have clearance from MoFPED. \n\uf0b7 \nTwo (2) Multi-year system implementation projects worth total of UGX.342Mn did not have approval from \nParliament. \n\uf0b7 \nThe National population data bank and the KMIS systems costing UGX.342Mn were not being utilized by NPC. \n\uf0b7 \nAbsence of ICT governance structures hampers formulation of appropriate ICT policies, strategies and may lead \nto misalignment of IT investments with the overall strategic objectives. \n34. \nProcurement and Disposal of Public", "metadata": {"page": 468, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Procurement and Disposal of Public \nAssets Authority (PPDA) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nPPDA had an approved budget of UGX.23.28Bn out of which UGX.19.52Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall \nof UGX.3.76Bn which represents 16.15% of the approved budget. The deficit in the budget negatively impacted \nservice delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 468, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "453 \n \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 \npositions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff \nestablishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. \n35. \nUganda \nProperty \nHoldings \nLimited \n(UPHL) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to collect UGX.11.16Bn revenue and collected UGX.10.88Bn resulting into an \nunderperformance of UGX.0.28, which was 2.6% of the budget. The underperformance in NTR collections was \npartly attributed to the depreciating value of the Uganda shilling against the Kenyan shilling and the Great Britain \nPound. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 469, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Pound. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity had receivables from UGX.4.7Bn in the statement of financial position at year-end implying \nthat these were not honoured within the 15 working days as required by regulations thereby holding up funds \nwhich would have been used to implement planned activities. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the properties owned by the Government of Uganda within and outside the country revealed that \nseveral commercial properties are not owned and managed by UPHL, yet the company was established majorly to \nhold, invest in and control the real estate properties of the Government of Uganda. The properties risk being \ncondemned because of poor management. \n\uf0b7 \nThe company procured IT systems which were not integrated thereby not meeting the intended objective of shared \ninformation. \n36. \nUganda \nProperty \nHoldings \nLimited \n(UPHL) \n2020/21 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified", "metadata": {"page": 469, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Uganda Property Holdings Limited did not manage some Government Commercial properties. This \ncompany was established principally to own, invest in and control the real estate Properties of the Government of \nUganda. As a result, some commercial buildings in Nairobi, Kinshasa, and London are not well maintained to the \nextent of being at risk of condemnation by the relevant city authorities, like the Commercial Building in Nairobi. \nManagement explained that the cabinet is handling the issue, and I am waiting for the cabinet's decision. \n\uf0b7 \nUganda Property Holding has 39 properties comprising of 23 in Mombasa, 12 in Uganda, and 4 in the UK. I \nreviewed all ownership documents for the said properties and found that two properties did not have certificates \nof title, namely, Plot M82, Masese, Jinja, and Plot KRC Mbaraki, Mombasa. I advised management to follow up on \nthe above properties and secure their ownership by obtaining the certificate of titles. \n37.", "metadata": {"page": 469, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "37. \nUganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.67.52Bn, the Bureau utilized warrants amounting to \nUGX.60.12Bn resulting in unutilized warrants of UGX.7.4Bn representing an absorption level of 89.2%. As a result, \nI noted that of the 124 quantified activities worth UGX.23.6Bn assessed, 90 activities representing 72.6% were \nfully implemented, 22 activities representing 21.8% were partially implemented, while 7 activities representing \n5.6% were not implemented. Failure to fully implement planned activities negatively impacts service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \n A review of the staffing structure for UBOS revealed that out of the total approved staff establishment of 413 \nstaff, only 285 (69%) positions were filled, leaving 128 (31%) positions vacant. Understaffing negatively impacts \non the Bureau\u2019s capacity to deliver services.", "metadata": {"page": 469, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "454 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the buildings located at UBOS Entebbe Office were in a poor state, and are were due for demolition. \nAlthough UBOS has an architectural plan for redevelopment of the UBOS office into the East African Bureau of \nStatistics and a training centre, funding for the construction works has not yet been secured. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Parish Development Model (PDM) baseline data collection exercise had only commenced in 169 out \nof 181 Higher Local Governments (HLGs) and the exercise was incomplete and behind schedule at a completion \nrate of 41%. The data processing at the Bureau had also been affected by limited access granted by the Ministry \nof ICT and National Guidance (MOICT&NG) to the data collected from the local governments which is affecting the \ninitial implementation of Parish Development Model. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that several procurements to the tune of UGX.1.08Bn were not executed as of 30th June 2022. As a result,", "metadata": {"page": 470, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "implementation of critical government programs was delayed. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted inadequate management of grants from development partners relating to three projects under the Bureau; \n \no \nI observed that the Bureau received UGX.5.15Bn from the Ministry of Education and Sports for the Baseline \nEducation Census Project funded by World Bank. However, I noted that the exercise was delayed and only \nUGX.1.2Bn had been utilized by the time of audit (November 2022) for the recruitment, procurement of \ntools for the census, and training of project staff. \n \no \nDuring the FY 2021/2022, the Bureau received UGX.2.14Bn for the project: Support of the Advancement \nof the Uganda Annual Agricultural Survey (AAS). However, the Bureau failed to absorb part of the funds \nand refunded UGX.1.87Bn to the FAO International Representative. \n \n\uf0b7 \nFailure to absorb project funds leads to delayed service delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 470, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "38. \nURA Corporate \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority had a revenue collection target of UGX.22,802.62Bn, out of which UGX.22,098.06Bn (96.9%) was \ncollected. Under-collection of revenue affects the overall delivery of Public services by the Government. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the planned 493 compliance audits, only 227 (46%) were carried out, implying that the corrective actions \nthat would have been undertaken to enhance tax compliance were impeded. This negatively affected revenue \ncollection. \n\uf0b7 \nDespite several tax heads having 0 (zero) budgeted revenue, a total of UGX.370.58Bn was collected from the tax \nheads in question - contrary to the provisions in Paragraph 4.19.3 of the Treasury Instructions, 2017 and Section \n45(3) of the PFMA, 2015. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 470, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nURA did not have documented step-wise processes on the importation and exportation of precious minerals. As \nresult, the Gold exports were not being captured in the customs systems \u2013 ASYCUDA and Taxes arising out of Gold \nexportation to the tune of UGX.340.56Bn were not collected.", "metadata": {"page": 470, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "455 \n \n\uf0b7 \nURA was not able to receive and reconcile taxes amounting to UGX.182.9Bn which was received by BOU from \nMDAs, arising from missing IFMS details on the amounts. This resulted in the misstatement of revenue collected \nper tax head and taxpayers' accounts. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of 13,555 customs entry declarations with assessed taxes of UGX.133.16Bn had not been paid as of the \nend of the year. This implies delayed or lost Government revenue and distorts the Government\u2019s cashflow planning \nand management. \n\uf0b7 \nSome companies were importing rice from an EAC partner state free of VAT, potentially causing a revenue loss of \nUGX.240.62Bn. \n\uf0b7 \n \n39. \nURA Revenue Collection Account \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 471, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority had a revenue collection target of UGX.22,802.62Bn, out of which UGX.22,098.06Bn (96.9%) was \ncollected. Under-collection of revenue affects the overall delivery of Public services by the Government. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the planned 493 compliance audits, only 227 (46%) were carried out, implying that the corrective actions \nthat would have been undertaken to enhance tax compliance were impeded. This negatively affected revenue \ncollection. \n\uf0b7 \nDespite several tax heads having 0 (zero) budgeted revenue, a total of UGX.370.58Bn was collected from the tax \nheads in question - contrary to the provisions in Paragraph 4.19.3 of the Treasury Instructions, 2017 and Section \n45(3) of the PFMA, 2015. \n\uf0b7 \nURA did not have documented step-wise processes on the importation and exportation of precious minerals. As", "metadata": {"page": 471, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "result, the Gold exports were not being captured in the customs systems \u2013 ASYCUDA and Taxes arising out of Gold \nexportation to the tune of UGX.340.56Bn were not collected. \n\uf0b7 \nURA was not able to receive and reconcile taxes amounting to UGX.182.9Bn which was received by BOU from \nMDAs, arising from missing IFMS details on the amounts. This resulted in the misstatement of revenue collected \nper tax head and taxpayers' accounts. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of 13,555 customs entry declarations with assessed taxes of UGX.133.16Bn had not been paid as of the \nend of the year. This implies delayed or lost Government revenue and distorts the Government\u2019s cashflow planning \nand management. \n\uf0b7 \nSome companies were importing rice from an EAC partner state free of VAT, potentially causing a revenue loss of \nUGX.240.62Bn. \n40. \nUganda Retirement Benefits Regulatory", "metadata": {"page": 471, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda Retirement Benefits Regulatory \nAuthority. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.14Bn during the year, but only received UGX.12.72Bn which resulted into a \nshortfall of UGX.1.28Bn which represents 9.1% of the approved budget. As a result, some planned activities such \nas; Board capacity development, Trustee certification programme and Sector players\u2019 workshops were not \nimplemented. This impacts negatively, on service delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 471, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "456 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe approved structure for URBRA provides a staff ceiling of 73, however, I observed that only 42 positions \n(57.5%) were filled, hence a staffing gap of 31 positions (42.5%) which includes key positions such as one Director \nand eight (8) manager positions. This limits the Authority\u2019s capacity to duly implement all its mandate. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Authority\u2019s procurement plan, procurement files and the annual procurement report/register, \nindicated that procurements worth UGX.0.114Bn were not implemented. This in turn leads to delayed delivery of \nservices. \n41. \nFinancial Intelligence Authority. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not budget to collect NTR during the year but collected UGX.13Mn. Failure to budget \nfor revenue leads to unauthorized collections and makes it impossible to measure performance. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 472, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nReview of the entity\u2019s staffing structures revealed that out of the total approved structure of 86 staff, only 41 \n(48.8%) positions were filled and 45 (51.2%) positions had not yet been filled. These included the key posts of; \nDirector Legal, Inspection and Compliance, Director Audit, Director Finance and Administration among others. \nUnderstaffing contrains the entity\u2019s capacity to effectively deliver its mandate. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority made procurements for a total of UGX0.551Mn without conducting market assessments. Lack of \nmarket surveys is not only irregular, but also implies procurements could have been executed at uncompetitive \nprices, hence impacting on value for money. \n42. \nInsurance Training College (ITC). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nITC had an approved budget of UGX.9.177Bn of which UGX.8.325Bn was realized, leading to a shortfall of", "metadata": {"page": 472, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.0.852Bn representing 9.9%% of the budget. I further noted that out of the total receipts for the year, only \nUGX.6.332Bn was expensed, leading to a surplus of UGX.1.992Bn representing 69% absorption. Also noted was \nthat out of the eleven (11) planned activities, the entity fully implemented five (5) activities, while four (4) \nactivities were partially implemented, and two (2) activities remained unimplemented. Failure to fully implement \nall planned activities negatively impacts service delivery. \n \n\uf0b7 \nITC acquired fourteen (14) IT assets worth UGX.326.9Mn without clearance from NITA-U. Such non-compliance \nwith the government policies and guidelines may lead to duplication of acquisition, non-compatible solutions \nwhich can lead to loss to government. \n43. \nTax Appeals Tribunal. \n2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified", "metadata": {"page": 472, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted for UGX.7.6Bn, out of which UGX.7.4Bn was received, resulting into a deficit of UGX.240Mn. \nThe deficit represents 3.2% of the approved budget. The deficit in the budget negatively impacted service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had an ambitious plan of one hundred fifty thousand and nine hundred twenty (150,920) planned \nactivities worth UGX.2.8Bn, out of which, only seven hundred and eighteen (1,718) activities were fully \nimplemented, hence limiting delivery of the entity\u2019s mandate and service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of 163 tax appeal cases worth UGX.882.6Bn were pending, resulting into locking potential government \nrevenue in dispute.", "metadata": {"page": 472, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "457 \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the 40 approved posts, only 23 were filled leaving a balance of 17 vacant, which represents 43% of the \nrequired manpower for the Tribunal. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely \naffects the day-to-day running of the Tribunal. \n \n44. \nThe Inspectorate of Government (IG). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nA total of UGX.17.786Bn was received to be spent on different outputs during the year under review, and only \nUGX.9.155Bn (51%) was utilized leading to under-absorption of UGX.8.634Bn (49%). As a result, several planned \nactivities were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \n A review of the contract for the production of base maps for land administration in Uganda awarded to a firm at", "metadata": {"page": 473, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "a contract price of Euros 4,712,135 revealed a contract performance of 89% despite having paid Euros 4,294,439 \n(91.1%) of the contract price. \n \n45. \nPPDA Tribunal. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \n The budget for the Tribunal was not aligned to its strategic plan creating a risk of the entity not achieving its long \nterm objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Tribunal did not maintain a detailed risk register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities as \ndetailed in the approved work plans and budgets. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there was no segregation of duties between the function of the Board of the Tribunal and the \nAdministrative Function. This is because the members of the Tribunal execute both functions. \n46. \nInsurance Regulatory Authority. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 473, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Authority collected revenue UGX.20.02Bn out of a budget of UGX.21.55Bn. This was in addition to balance \nbrought forward of UGX.7.69Bn resulting in total funds available amounting to UGX.27.71Bn. I reviewed the \nAuthority\u2019s budget implementation and noted that out of the 67 quantified activities assessed worth UGX.2.314Bn; \n36 activities representing 54% were fully implemented, 18 activities representing 27% were partially implemented, \nwhile 13 activities representing 19% were not implemented. Failure to fully implement all planned activities delays \nservice delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nIRA has a staffing structure totaling to one hundred and nine (109) staff of which eighty-six (86) staff positions \n(i.e. 78% of the approved structure) filled, leaving a balance of twenty-three (23) positions (22%) vacant. \nUnderstaffing impacts on the entity\u2019s capacity to effectively execute their mandate. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 473, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nProcurements to the tune of UGX.5.822Bn were not undertaken as of 30th June 2022. As a result, implementation \nof critical planned programs was delayed. \n47. \nPublic Procurment And Disposal of Public \n(PPDA) \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nPPDA had an approved budget of UGX.23.28Bn out of which UGX.19.52Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall \nof UGX.3.76Bn which represents 16.15% of the approved budget. The deficit in the budget negatively impacted \nservice delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 473, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "458 \n \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 \npositions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff \nestablishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. \n48. \nCapital Markets Authority. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.6.894Bn, UGX.6.237Bn was warranted and the entity spent UGX.5.246Bn \nresulting into un-utilized warrants of UGX.975Bn representing an absorption level of 84.32%. As a result, some of \nthe Authority planned activities remained unimplemented, due to failure to absorb all the availed funding, which", "metadata": {"page": 474, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "in turn, negatively impacts service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity paid mandatory (10%) contributions to the National Social Security Fund worth UGX.301.66Mn, and \nalso paid an extra UGX.446.04Mn to a second standard contribution scheme operated by the Authority. This \nresulted into a double payment of gratuity contributions contrary to the requirements of the Public Service Standing \nOrders. \n\uf0b7 \nThe responsible Minister had not constituted the Capital Markets Tribunal to handle disputes arising out of disputes \nin the sector. The entity also lacked some critical regulations necessary for the management of the activities of the \nAuthority. \n\uf0b7 \nThe audit of the licensing function revealed that: The Authority conducted irregular licensing without prescribed \nfees being paid, the entity failed to follow up licensees with expired licenses, the entity failed to collect security \ndeposit from Brokers dealers licensed, lacked evidence of proper due diligence, and also failed to license primary", "metadata": {"page": 474, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "dealers of Government Bonds. Such weaknesses point to challenges in execution of its mandate which could lead \nto failure to collect all potential revenues. \n\uf0b7 \nIn the audit of Human Resource management, I noted that the Authority lacked an approved staff and salary \nstructure, contrary to the standing orders. There were also no comprehensive annual performance plans and Job \nDescriptions for the staff during the year under review. This complicates assessment of staff performance at year \nend. \n49. \nCapital Markets Authority (CMA) - \nInvestor Compensation Fund 2022 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nIn spite of the Board approving the Capital Markets Authority (Investor Compensation Fund) Regulations, 2018, \nthere was no evidence that the same were gazetted as required under the Interpretation Act Cap 3. This implies \nthat the Fund is being operated with unauthorized legislation. \n \n \nINFORMATION \nCOMMUNICATION \nSECTOR", "metadata": {"page": 474, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "SECTOR \n \n50. \nMinistry of ICT and National Guidance \n(MoICT) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry budgeted to receive UGX.90Bn from Treasury but received UGX.74.5Bn resulting into a shortfall of \nUGX.15.5Bn (17%). Revenue shortfall affected the implementation of planned activities.", "metadata": {"page": 474, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "459 \n \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.74.5Bn, only UGX.72Bn was spent by the entity resulting in \nan unspent balance of UGX.2.5Bn representing an absorption level of 97%. As a result, some planned activities \nwere not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity has outstanding payables of UGX.320.471Bn in the statement of financial position of which \nUGX.320.033Bn is an unpaid pension for former UPTC and UTL staff. Unpaid pension not only exposes government \nto risks of costly litigation but also denies the pensioners their right to live a decent life. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry-approved establishment has 103 positions of which 63 positions are filled (61.2%) leaving a staffing \ngap of 40 positions (38.8%). Understaffing negatively affects the overall service delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 475, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI reviewed ICT investment initiatives and noted; \no \nThere were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. \no \nThe entity has 7 (53.8%) out of 13 positions of ICT staff establishment. All have the required \nqualifications. \no \nThere was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. \no \nThere was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy \n2014. \n\uf0b7 \nOne system, the Academic Information Management System (AIMS), costing UGX.3.0Bn was developed using \nInnovators and adopted by Government, however, the source codes were yet to be handed over to evidence \nGovernment Ownership. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry budgeted for UGX.12.4Bn for PDM activities, out of which, UGX.9.4Bn was released resulting in a", "metadata": {"page": 475, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "budget shortfall of UGX.3Bn (25%). As a result, planned PDM activities were not fully implemented. \n51. \nUganda \nCommunications \nEmployees \nContributory Pension Scheme [UCECPS] \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nQualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Actuary/ Asset Consultant did not conduct an actuarial valuation of the scheme for the year under \nreview, and the existing one was done in 2019. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were unsupported payables of UGX.3.904 Bn, of which Administrative fees of UGX.2.022Bn and Actuarial \nfees of UGX.442Mn. Under the circumstances, it was difficult to provide assurance that the amounts in question \nare genuine liabilities to the Scheme. I further noted that the amounts have not changed over the years implying \nScheme\u2019s inability to settle its obligations. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 475, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nDisclosed under Note 15 to the Financial Statements on page 22, are receivables recognised by the Scheme \namounting to UGX.4.171Bn, up from UGX.4.038Bn the previous year, arising from amounts due from employers \n(UTL In-Administration). However, these receivables were not supported with any documentation and schedule to \nconfirm the amounts and authenticity, which renders the receivables doubtful. \n\uf0b7 \nI further noted that as reported in the previous year, according to UTL in-administration, only UGX.2.466Bn was \ndue to UCECPS, implying a variance of UGX.1.705Bn.", "metadata": {"page": 475, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "460 \n \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the FY 2020/21, UCECPS realised only UGX.0.311Bn but expended UGX.0.332Bn, representing 106.74% of \nthe realised monies. I noted that the expenditure exceeded the cash collection, and payments were made using \nthe cash balances carried forward from FY 2019/2020. \n\uf0b7 \nI established from the statement of Net Assets Available for Benefits on page 14 of the financial statements that \nthe current assets amounting to UGX.4,550,343,000 was due from government. This arose after management on \nthe advice of government, diverted money from the Defined Contributions (DC) active members Fund to pay the \nincreased monthly pensions to the Defined Benefits members, thus creating a deficit/Liability to the scheme. \n\uf0b7 \nPS/ST directed that UCECPS transfer the files of all pensioners of UPTC to the line Ministry of Information", "metadata": {"page": 476, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Communication Technology and National Guidance (MoICT&NG) to facilitate the payment of the pensioners \neffective FY 2020/2021 in accordance with the decentralisation policy. I noted however that, the decision to \nstreamline pension payments has created uncertainty on the continuity of UCECPSs. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year under review, the scheme expected a total sum of UGX.331,340,796 from the Employer (UTL) as \na contribution to the members. However, only UGX.310,962,857 was remitted relating to arrears which in turn led \nto the monthly interest which accumulated to UGX.112,119,561. The total amounts due from the employers (UTL) \nhad accumulated to UGX.4,171,050,819 as of 30th June 2021. \n\uf0b7 \nPAYE of UGX.44,867,514 withheld from employees as required during the year was never remitted to URA by the", "metadata": {"page": 476, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "year end. I further noted that the accumulated PAYE arrears stood at UGX.241,677,000. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the board was not fully constituted as the Government (Founder) had only appointed one \nrepresentative as of 30th June 2021 \n52. \nUganda Institute of Communication \nTechnology (UICT). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget for the financial year of UGX.11.4Bn, only UGX.6.1Bn was collected by the entity \nresulting into an under-collection of UGX.5.3Bn representing a performance level of 53.5%. As a result, I noted \nthat of the 15 quantified activities worth UGX.3.95Bn assessed; no activities were fully implemented, while 15 \nactivities representing 100% were partially implemented. Failure to fully implement planned activities negatively \nimpacts service delivery. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 476, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "impacts service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the staff establishment showed that only thirty-seven (37) positions (38%) were filled out of the \nestablished ninety-seven (97) positions leaving sixty (60) positions vacant (62%). Most of the vacant positions \nwere key positions that are required to achieve the mandate of the Institute. Failure to fill the staff establishment \nhampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Institute. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Institute was among the 11 entities selected for implementation of Electronic Government Procurement (EGP) \nsystem, and hence was required to conduct all its procurement process on the EGP system effective 1/July/2021. \nHowever, I noted that the Institute faced a number operational challenges that affected the timely implementation \nof planned procurements. These included; \n\u2022 \nThe system was unable to update the procurement file directory where; procurement is retendered, \nwhere a requisition is rejected before final approval, where procurement is reinstated due to inadequate \nstatement of requirements and where procurement is cancelled.", "metadata": {"page": 476, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "461 \n \n\u2022 \nThe system network connectivity was noted to be unstable and this delayed implementation of various \nprocurements, which greatly affected service delivery at the Institute. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that several procurements to the tune of UGX.1.06Bn were not initiated as of 30th June 2022. As a result, \nimplementation of critical institute programs was delayed. \n53. \nUganda Institute of Communication \nTechnology (UICT). \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX. 3.5 Bn, out of which UGX.2.38 Bn was availed, resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX.1.11 Bn, which is 31.7% of the budget. Revenue shortfalls affect the implementation of planned activities. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 477, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Institute has total receivables of UGX.440,038,625 in the statement of financial position, which includes an \namount of UGX.343,855,528 relating to student debtors. The student-related receivables grew by 11% from \nUGX.308,954,465 (2019/20) to UGX.343,855,528 (2020/2021). \n\uf0b7 \nThe institute and staff who were in acting position for more than 6 months, contrary to Section 3.3.5.1 of the UICT \nHuman Resource Manual 2018 that requires that acting appointments not to exceed six (6) months, save for \nspecial circumstances approved by the Governing Council. In addition, a review of the staff establishment showed \n107 (61%) positions were filled, 68 (38.9%) positions vacant. Unfilled postilions negatively impact the Institute\u2019s \ncapacity to have effective service delivery. \n54. \nUganda Post Limited", "metadata": {"page": 477, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda Post Limited \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nReceivables were reported at UGX.8.71Bn by close of the financial year, contrary to paragraph 4.2.1 of Posta \nUganda\u2019s debt management policy 2016, which stipulates that standard terms for sundry debtors are 30 days from \nthe date of invoice. Accumulation of receivables denies the company the cash flows which are vital for service \ndelivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe financial statements revealed that UPL\u2019s payables increased by UGX.1.9Bn from UGX.14.79Bn as at 30th June \n2021 to UGX.16.69Bn in financial year 30th June 2022. Accumulation of payables creates a risk of litigation that \nmay lead to payment of penalties and fines for delayed settlement to possible aggrieved parties in future. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 477, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA review of UPL\u2019s staff list as at 30th June 2022 and the approved Organisation Structure revealed that out of the \nstaff establishment of 247, only 172 positions were filled, leading to a staffing gap of 75 (30.4%). Inadequacy in \nstaffing leads to inability to fully carry out the mandate hence negatively negatively impacting on staff performance, \nservice delivery and attainmant of company objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nThe following aspects were noted in regard to management land by UPL; \n\uf0b7 \nThe Company did not renew leases for three (3) pieces of land. The entity has taken an average of 14 years from \nthe time of expiry of the lease term without having them renewed. This exposes such land to a risk of loss. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 10 pieces of land did not have their sizes recorded in the land register either in acres or hectares as \nrequired. I also noted that 8 pieces of land did not have a value attached to them in form of cost of valuation \namount.", "metadata": {"page": 477, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "amount. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 1 piece of land measuring approximately 0.464 hectares (5.8%) valued at UGX.1.147Bn was not being \nutilized by the entity.", "metadata": {"page": 477, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "462 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 1 piece of land measuring 0.612 hectares (7.5 %) valued at UGX 0.465Bn out of the 8.06798 hectares \nof land owned by the entity had encumbrances in the form of court injunctions. \n\uf0b7 \nIt was observed that Uganda Post was paid UGX.2.81Bn as compensation for the land and building. However, I \ndid not obtain the details of the application of these monies after the asset was sold off. \n\uf0b7 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere was no revaluation carried out over the past eight years. Non-asset revaluation implies the carrying amounts \nof the assets in the financial statements may be misstated. \n\uf0b7 \n \n\uf0b7 \n \n55. \nUganda Communications Commission. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 478, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total funds available of 200.537Bn, only UGX. 147.082Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent \nbalance of UGX. 53.455Bn representing an absorption level of 73.33%. Un utilised funds imply that some planned \nactivities may not have been implemented, leading to delayed service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission irregularly paid UGX.228Mn for extra civil works on the installation of Lifts at Communications \nHouse. The additional works were not part of the original contract and were not approved by the Commission\u2019s \nContract Committee, contrary to the procurement regulations. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission did not charge 2% Gross Annual Revenue for Registered Television Stations and FM Radio stations \nas required by the UCC New License framework on fees and fines under General Notice No. 977 of 2017. This \ndeprives the Commission of revenue. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 478, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Commission does not have procedures on management of confiscated equipment. This may lead to misuse of \nthe confiscated equipment and may deepen disputes and cause financial losses to Government. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission has delayed completion of the National E-commerce Platform aimed at supporting SMEs in the \ninformal sectors of the Agriculture, Retail and Services industry in Uganda, in order to promote access to online \nsales, overcome challenges in delivering to too hard-to-reach communities and to spur economic growth. As a \nresult, the informal sector is losing out on the benefits of E-commerce. \n\uf0b7 \nEight (8) IT systems/equipment procured at UGX.9.8Bn were not cleared by NITA-U contrary to current guidelines. Besides, \nsix (6) IT systems developed in-house were not being optimally utilized by the entity, while three (3) systems were not \nintegrated or not automatically sharing information with other systems. Such weaknesses reduce the expected efficiencies ICT \nis supposed to bring in the business processes of the Commission.", "metadata": {"page": 478, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "56. \nUganda \nCommunications \nUniversal \nService Access Fund (UCUSAF) \u2013 UCC \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Uganda Communications (Universal Service and Access Fund) Regulations, 2019 do not provide the sharing \nratio and/or details against which the sharing of Fund revenue should be based. During the year under review, the \nCommission budgeted to transfer UGX.6.5Bn to MoICT&NG for its share from the information and communication", "metadata": {"page": 478, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "463 \n \ntechnology development fund, but the basis for arriving at this figure could not be supported. The lack of these \nratios creates uncertainty in funding and may lead to inter-institutional funding conflicts. \n57. \nRegional Communications Infrastructure \nProgram, \nPhase 5 \u2013 Uganda Project, IDA LOAN \nNO.5635-UG \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.58.41Bn, only UGX.53.75Bn was spent by the entity resulting \ninto unutilized funds of UGX.4.655Bn representing an absorption level of 92.02%. I noted that of the 19 outputs \nthat I sampled, 12 outputs with 14 activities were fully implemented, 15 quantified activities of the 5 outputs were \nnot implemented. 2 outputs could not be assessed due to lack of performance targets and indicators. Failure to", "metadata": {"page": 479, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "fully implement all planned outputs negatively impacts service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Project remained with outstanding payables totalling to UGX.5.08Bn by the end of year, which were as a result \nof completion works for the last mile project whose payments were not made to the contractors. World Bank/IDA \ncautioned and notified NITAU and MoFPED that it would not pay or take on any project liabilities after 31st \nDecember 2022. This implies that Government may have to bear the burden of paying the respective suppliers. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of USD.249,500 was spent without obtaining a no objection from the World Bank in accordance with the \nfunding guidelines. This caused the PS/ST to instruct the Accounting Officer of NITAU to refund the money to \nabate the risk of affecting funding of other ongoing World Bank Projects. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Project failed to upgrade the service desk due to the limited time to procure and implement the works before", "metadata": {"page": 479, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "project closure in December 2022. Consequently, a total of USD.664,160.64 was reallocated from the IT service \ndesk budget to upgrade the Data centre. \n \n58. \nNational \nInformation \nTechnology \nAuthority \u2013 Uganda (NITA-U) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.30.24Bn, only UGX.28.678Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin unutilized funds of UGX.1.559Bn representing an absorption level of 94.84%. As a result, I noted that some of \nthe planned activities for the year were not implemented, which negatively impacts on service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority accumulated receivables and payables to a tune of UGX.28.5Bn and UGX.21.85Bn respectively. The", "metadata": {"page": 479, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "accumulation of receivables was a result of non-consolidation of MDA and LG IT budgets with NITA-U while the \npayables was a result of the budget cuts on the IT consolidated Budget of MDAs and LGs. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority did not have a fully constituted Board which may lead to NITA failing to have effective oversight \nfunctions appropriately undertaken. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted a delay in reduction of the cost of internet to USD.20 per MBPS in order to promote connectivity in provision \nof Government services in the country. Failure to reduce the internet cost will deny service delivery such as \naffordable communication and electronic learning in both public and private institutions country wide. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority was registering professionals and the training institutions without a prescribed standards or \nregulations. Over 62 applicants for individual Service Provider and IT institutions applications were received since \n2017, 13 of the applicants were certified and only 2 Individual Service Providers have updated certificates while \nthe 11 are expired.", "metadata": {"page": 479, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "464 \n \n59. \nUganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporations Trade and other Payables increased to UGX.84Bn from UGX.75.119 (i.e. an increase of \u2026%). \nFurther analysis on trade and other payables revealed that some payables had remained outstanding for more \nthan eight years old without any movements. The increased payables expose the Corporation to a risk of costly \nlitigation as well as penalties and fines from statutory bodies. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation has contingent liabilities outstanding as of 30th June 2022 of UGX.6.252Bn. This figure significantly \nincreased by 300% from UGX.1.827Bn as at 30th June 2021. This figure will worsen the liability position if it \nmaterialises. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 480, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "materialises. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporations\u2019 strategic plan running for the period 2017-2022 had expired and Management was in process \nof designing a new one aligned to NDPIII. It implies the organisastion is being managed without a strategic \ndirection. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation has an approved staff establishment for 353 positions of which 99 (28%) positions remained \nvacant due to indequate wage. This undermines service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation does not have Land titles for 36 pieces of land it currently owns. Further, the Corporation owns \n80 acres of land as per Vesting Order at Bobi-Gulu and the land is not being utilized and hosts equipment that is \nnot on air. Lack of Land titles may result in encroachment, disputes and even loss of public land. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation has land titles for 19 pieces of land which were leased out, however there were no lease", "metadata": {"page": 480, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "agreements for 10 of these pieces of land. In addition, out of 19 pieces of land leased out, 6 pieces had expired \nleases. This exposes such land to a risk of loss. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed Uganda Broad Casting Corporation IT systems and noted the following; \no \nThe systems were not intergrated, \no \nno systems maintenance strategy and policy was in place, \no \nSONAPS system used for studios production chain for ingesting media from various sources onto UBC computing \nstorage, editing content, archiving and storage, playout, scheduling of adverts and announcements, and \nmonitoring became unusable after 3 years in use. \no \nThe entity did not have an approved IT staff structure in place despite ICT prioritization in NDP III. \no \nThere was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 480, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThere was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \n60. \nUganda Post Limited. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nReceivables were reported at UGX.8.71Bn by close of the financial year, contrary to paragraph 4.2.1 of Posta \nUganda\u2019s debt management policy 2016, which stipulates that standard terms for sundry debtors are 30 days from \nthe date of invoice. Accumulation of receivables denies the company the cash flows which are vital for service \ndelivery.", "metadata": {"page": 480, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "465 \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe financial statements revealed that UPL\u2019s payables increased by UGX.1.9Bn from UGX.14.79Bn as at 30th \nJune 2021 to UGX.16.69Bn in financial year 30th June 2022. Accumulation of payables creates a risk of litigation \nthat may lead to payment of penalties and fines for delayed settlement to possible aggrieved parties in future. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of UPL\u2019s staff list as at 30th June 2022 and the approved Organisation Structure revealed that out of the \nstaff establishment of 247, only 172 positions were filled, leading to a staffing gap of 75 (30.4%). Inadequacy in \nstaffing leads to inability to fully carry out the mandate hence negatively negatively impacting on staff performance, \nservice delivery and attainmant of company objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nThe following aspects were noted in regard to management land by UPL; \n \no", "metadata": {"page": 481, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "o \nThe Company did not renew leases for three (3) pieces of land. The entity has taken an average of 14 \nyears from the time of expiry of the lease term without having them renewed. This exposes such land to a \nrisk of loss. \no \nI noted that 10 pieces of land did not have their sizes recorded in the land register either in acres or \nhectares as required. I also noted that 8 pieces of land did not have a value attached to them in form of \ncost of valuation amount. \no \nI noted that 1 piece of land measuring approximately 0.464 hectares (5.8%) valued at UGX.1.147Bn was \nnot being utilized by the entity. \no \nI noted that 1 piece of land measuring 0.612 hectares (7.5 %) valued at UGX 0.465Bn out of the 8.06798", "metadata": {"page": 481, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "hectares of land owned by the entity had encumbrances in the form of court injunctions. \no \nIt was observed that Uganda Post was paid UGX.2.81Bn as compensation for the land and building. \nHowever, I did not obtain the details of the application of these monies after the asset was sold off. \no \nThere was no revaluation carried out over the past eight years. Non-asset revaluation implies the carrying \namounts of the assets in the financial statements may be misstated. \n \n \nTRADE SECTOR \n \n1. \n \nSoroti Fruit Factory \n2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Company had an approved revenue budget of UGX.17.9Bn, for the year under review, out of which UGX.9.5Bn", "metadata": {"page": 481, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(comprising of UGX.1.27Bn sales revenue, UGX.0.014Bn other income and UGX.8.252Bn capitalized grants from \nUDC) was realized, leaving UGX.8.4Bn unrealized. Revenue shortfalls impact negatively on the company\u2019s capacity \nto implement planned activities. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the financial statements revealed an operating loss margin of UGX.5.496Bn resulting from low sales of \nUGX.1.285Bn during the year against the expenses of UGX.6.781Bn (comprised of UGX.1.263Bn cost of sales and \nUGX.5.518Bn operating expenses). This implies that the company has continued to make losses. \n\uf0b7 \nI inspected the inventory stores at the facility and established huge volumes of orange concentrate in the cold \nroom stores. The factory did not have a recognizable packaging line for ready-to-drink juices in PET bottles leading \nto choking in the Cooling Rooms. The inability to transform Concentrate into marketable juice because of lack of", "metadata": {"page": 481, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "466 \n \na commercial packaging line for Ready to Drink Juice, has meant that the company keeps huge volumes of \nConcentrate which are kept in cold rooms, thus increasing costs of production and inadequate products in the \nmarket. \n\uf0b7 \nOf the 71 approved regular positions, only 31 were filled leaving 40(56.3%) vacant. By the time of audit, the entity \nhad lost 4 members of senior management namely the Chief Executive Officer, the Assistant Manager of Technical \nServices and the Assistant Manager of production. Staffing gaps negatively impact on the company\u2019s capacity to \ndo business. \n2. \n \nSoroti Fruit Factory \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of sales, costs and production documents coupled with physical inspections revealed that the factory is", "metadata": {"page": 482, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "loss making as the sales figure was only UGX.818m compared to the cost of sales of UGX.2.1Bn. This indicates \nthat the profitability of the product is very low. In the year under review the company made a loss of UGX.6.833Bn. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the factory still had, in store, concentrate and pulp that had been produced close to two years ago \nand indication of limited market for the juice produced \n3. \n \nNile Hotel International Ltd (NHIL) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity did not have a strategic plan that is aligned to the NDP III in terms of time scope. Further noted was \nthat the entity\u2019s strategic plan is not aligned to that of UDC as their parent shareholder. This creates a risk of non-\nalignment of the entity\u2019s strategic objectives to the national priorities as envisaged in the Vision 2040 and the NDP \nIII. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 482, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "III. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Company\u2019s Board Charter reeled the following short comings; \no \nThe charter did not specify which committees are to be put in place as per Section 2.4 in addition to Section \n7.1 which further mentions permanent and adhoc committees. \no \nNo general rules and procedures on members\u2019 conduct and vacation of office were included. \no \nThe charter was not signed/approved by the Board or its representation through a resolution. \n\uf0b7 \nAbsence of an up-to-date Board charter may reduce the powers of the Board and hinder good governance of the \ncompany. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Board members continued to be involved in the day to day management/activities of the Company including \napproval of accounting transactions. This practice contradicts with good corporate governance, which encourages \nseparation of roles between the Management and the Board. \n4. \n \nAgricultural Credit Facility (ACF)", "metadata": {"page": 482, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualiified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo significant findings. \n5. \n \nUganda Export Promotions Board \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Government has decided to merge the Uganda Export Promotion Board with the Ministry of Trade, Industry \nand Cooperatives due next financial year to reduce public expenditure to facilitate efficient and effective service", "metadata": {"page": 482, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "467 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \ndelivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the \nBoard\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \n\uf0b7 \nUEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was \ncollected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue \ncollection efforts of the country. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage \n(TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly \nimpacted service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been \nappointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 483, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nUEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid \nfor goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the \nintention of the provisions. \n6. \n \nUganda Freezones Authority (UFZA) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the UGX.13.964Bn approved budget, only UGX.12.231Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of \nUGX.1.732Bn which represented 14.16% of the budget. As a result, three (3) outputs were partially \nimplemented, hence negatively affecting public service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority did not have Land titles for four (4) pieces of land measuring 173.1 Acres in various parts of the \ncountry. This increases the risk of exposure to land grabbing and encroachment.", "metadata": {"page": 483, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that contrary to Section 76 of UFZA Act 2014, which requires the Authority, in each year, within two \nmonths after the end of the financial year, to submit to the Minister, a statement of its activities in the preceding \nfinancial year, indicating any particular problems experienced by the Authority in that year in carrying out its \nobjects and functions and making recommendations for resolving those problems and containing such other \ninformation as the Minister may direct, at the time of the audit in October 2022, the Authority had not prepared \nthe report to the Minister for the financial year 2021/2022. Failure to produce and submit the required reports \nimplies that the Minister and eventually Parliament to whom the annual report should be submitted by the \nMinister, did not assess the Authority\u2019s performance. \n7. \n \nUganda Warehouse Receipt System \nAuthority (UWRSA) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 483, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.15,066,500,000 out of which UGX.13,374,785,874 was warranted, resulting \ninto a deficit of UGX.1,691,714,126. The deficit represents 11% of the approved budget. Unreleased funds \naffect public service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.13,374,785,874 received during the financial year UGX.10,236,743,800 was \nspent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.3,138,042,074 representing absorption level of 76.5 \n%. Unabsorbed funds negatively affected delivery of services to the beneficiaries.", "metadata": {"page": 483, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "468 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe vote had accumulated domestic arrears of UGX.380, 245,920 relating to acquisition of IT system. \nAccumulation of domestic arrears indicates non-compliance to the commitment control system and stifles the \nprivate sector growth and may lead to unnecessary ligation costs. \n\uf0b7 \nI review the IT investment and not that; \no \nThe IT investment projects were behind schedule \no \nThree systems with an acquisition cost of UGX.642,797,920 did not meet the user requirements and \ndid not have any automated mechanisms to share information (integrated) which may lead to \nduplication of system and defeating rationalisation policy. \no \nThere was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security \nPolicy 2014 which may lead to loss of data in case of disaster. \no \nThe entity was preparing financial statements off the system rendering the financial statements prone", "metadata": {"page": 484, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "to errors. \n \n8. \n \nMinistry \nof \nTrade, \nIndustry \nand \nCooperatives \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry charged wrong expenditure codes leading to mischarge of UGX.5.3Bn. I observed that, although the \nPS/ST authorized the change in the Ministry\u2019s workplan to enable the Accounting Officer to utilize the funds \nrequested, for renovation of premises as opposed to rent, the ministry has not recorded the resulting prepayment, \nsince the amount is question is to be recovered through rental deductions, following an MoU signed with Uganda \nProperty Holdings Limited, who own the premises that were renovated. \n\uf0b7 \nFour (4) pieces of land measuring approximately 3.107 hectares (100%) costing UGX.0.822Bn were not recorded", "metadata": {"page": 484, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "in the Ministry\u2019s land register. In addition, Property comprised in Plots 9, 11 and 13 Corporation rise - Bukoto \nKampala, valued at UGX.1.935Bn (Land - UGX.1.77Bn and Developments UGX.159.8 Mn) had no land title and was \nnot disclosed in the memorandum Statement. Failure to properly record all public land could cpmplicate proper \nfollow up of such land. \n\uf0b7 \nFour (4) pieces of land measuring approximately 3.107 hectares held by the Ministry did not have Land titles, yet \nthey were acquired over 16 years ago. This exposes such land to a risk of loss through encroachment and land \ngrabbing. \n\uf0b7 \nFive (5) plots acquired by Government of Uganda to resettle the metal fabricators previously operating along Katwe \nroad under their association Katwe Small Scale Industrial Development Association (KSIDA), measuring", "metadata": {"page": 484, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "approximately 0.435 hectares (14%) and costing UGX.0.505Bn was irregularly transferred to KSIDA as the user \nunder Uganda Land Commission instead of Ministry of Trade as the rightful user. \n\uf0b7 \nLand measuring 1.462 hectares (47%) acquired at UGX.0.217Bn out of the 3.107 hectares of land owned by the \nMinistry, had encumbrances in the form of court injunctions and encroachment as there was a legal challenge with \na private company. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the Ministry disclosed domestic arrears as at 30th June 2022 of UGX.4.2Bn (2020/2021: \nUGX.16.4Bn). I noted that although the ministry settled a total of UGX.12.3Bn in lieu of subscription fees to", "metadata": {"page": 484, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "469 \n \ninternational organisations, the Ministry was not able to fully settle the opening domestic arrears due to insufficient \nbudgetary provisions. This exposes government to a risk of litigation and possible unnecessary litigation costs. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of UGX.27.9Bn was paid to 13 Cooperative Societies, yet these were not in the original Ministry\u2019s work plan. \nThis creates unfairness and lack of transparency in the settlement of the outstanding compensation funds. \n\uf0b7 \nWar claims compensation of UGX.29.09Bn was made to third parties but not directly to the beneficiary Cooperative \nsocieties for onward remittance to beneficiary Cooperative members. I found the practice of payment through third \nparties both inconveniencing and exposing government to a risk of loss of public funds to non-bonafide members, \ngiven the lack of participation of members of the cooperative societies. \n9. \n \nUganda National Bureau of Standards.", "metadata": {"page": 485, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.65.04Bn out of which UGX.64.08Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall \nof UGX.0.96Bn, representing 1.4% of the approved budget. Under release of funds undermines service delivery \nsince not all the planned outputs could be produced, given the available funds. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Digital Conformity Stamps had not yet been implemented by the entity despite the service provider\u2019s readiness. \nAs a result, UGX.19.88 Bn was not remitted by the service provider to UNBS since it is dependent on UNBS\u2019s \nimplementation of Digital Conformity Stamps. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Bureau had a staff presence at only 27 out of the 170 border entry points. There is a risk that sub-standard \ngoods are entering the Ugandan market through border points where the Bureau staffs are not present. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 485, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe entity had accrued pension and gratuity of UGX.1.29Bn contrary to regulations. Non-payment of pension leads \nto the accumulation of arrears and affects the livelihood of the pensioners. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was no particular budget line for destroying substandard commodities that come into the country and those \nseized from market surveillance activities. As a result, warehouses in the Bureau were filled with substandard \nproducts that were not yet destroyed. \n\uf0b7 \nProcurements amounting to UGX.1.32Bn that were initiated during the financial year had not been completed by \nthe close of the financial year. This leads to delays in service delivery. \n10. \nUganda \nDevelopment \nCorporation \n(UDC). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 485, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the UGX.243.62Bn total funds available for spending, only UGX.33.14 (13%) was spent by the Corporation \nleaving a balance of UGX.210.48Bn representing 87% under absorption. The low absorption was attributed to the \nsupplementary funding that was approved during the financial year and only availed towards year-end. Delayed \nreceipt and utilization resulted into delays in service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there is slow progress on the takeover of Government interests as listed in Schedule 2 of the UDC Act \n2016, which identified seven Government undertakings that were to be taken over. I noted that only two companies \n(i.e. Phoenix Logistics and Tri-Star Apparels Ltd) had been transferred to UDC. The remaining five, namely; Amber \nHouse Limited, Embassy House, Development House, Munyonyo Commonwealth Resort and Nile Hotel \nInternational Limited were still outstanding. Delays undermine the implementation of the UDC Act 2016 and \nundermine the public policy of streamlining the management of these corporations", "metadata": {"page": 485, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "470 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation has been holding 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 6.932 hectares without land titles for \na long time without justification, exposing the corporation to the risk of loss of land thru land grabbing and \nencroachment. \n\uf0b7 \nUganda Development Corporation (UDC) entered into a number of contracts worth UGX.2.7Bn with various \nsuppliers without conducting market price assessments. This was contrary to the procurement law and exposed \nthe entity to a risk of obtaining services at uncompetitive prices. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the 70 established posts in the UDC structure, only 49 are filled (70% staffing level) and 21 positions were \nvacant representing 30%. I further noted that among the vacant positions were significant/priority positions such \nas the Director of Internal Audit, Manager Investment (mining and manufacturing), and Manager Investments \nAppraisal among others. Inadequate staffing levels affect the level and quality of service delivery by the Corporation", "metadata": {"page": 486, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and may compromise the principle of segregation of duties. \n11. \nGreat Lakes Trade Facilitation Project \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo reportable findings \n12. \nUganda Investment Authority. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity did not budget for NTR during the year under review as reflected in the statements of appropriation, \nalthough UGX.0.435Bn was collected. Failure to budget for NTR implies that there was no target upon which the \nAuthority\u2019s performance could be evaluated. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants received of UGX.28.3Bn during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling \nUGX.25.36Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2.94Bn representing an absorption level of 90%,", "metadata": {"page": 486, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "consequently some activities were either partially or not implemented at all, which negatively impacts service \ndelivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority did not maintain a detailed risk register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities as \ndetailed in the approved work plans and budgets, as a result, there were no strategies and officers responsible for \nmitigating such risks or minimizing the impact in the event these risks materialized. \n\uf0b7 \nMost pieces of land measuring approximately 11,931.343 hectares held by the entity were recorded in the entity \nland/assets register. However, 6 pieces of land measuring approximately 14.407 hectares were not recorded in \nthe GFMIS fixed asset module thus affecting the accuracy of the non-produced assets in the financial statements. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity has outstanding payables of UGX.3.596Bn in the statement of financial position, a decrease by \nUGX.1.1140Bn from UGX.4.736Bn reported in the previous financial year. Although there was a decrease in", "metadata": {"page": 486, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "domestic arrears, the entity accumulated new domestic arrears of UGX.966.425Mn. Continued accumulation of \ndomestic arrears is contrary to the commitment control system of government, and also exposes government to \nrisks of costly litigation. \n\uf0b7 \nThe authority had receivables of UGX.21.396Bn in the statement of financial position relating to rent, the sale of \ngoods and services and administrative fees at the end of the financial year, a reduction by UGX.50.589Mn (0.24%)", "metadata": {"page": 486, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "471 \n \nfrom the previous year. Slow recovery of accrued revenue denies Government the much needed funds for service \ndelivery. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staffing level of 124 employees, the Authority has only 75 positions filled (60.5%) leaving a \nstaffing gap of 49 positions (39.5%). Understaffing negatively affects service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of five (05) IT systems/equipment worth UGX.297.68Mn were procured without obtaining clearance by \nNITA-U and one system was not being utilised. This is irregular and could lead to duplication and wastage of \nresources. \n \nTOURISM SECTOR \n \n1. \n \nUganda Hotel and Tourism Training \nInstitute (UHTTI) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 487, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX 7.633Bn, the Institute spent UGX 7.165Bn resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX 0.468Bn representing an absorption level of 98.9%. As a result, I noted that of the 24 \nquantified activities worth UGX 2.649Bn assessed; 14 activities representing 58.3% were fully implemented, 7 \nactivities representing 29.2% were partially implemented, while 3 activities representing 12.5% was not \nimplemented \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the staffing structure for UHTTI revealed that out of the total approved staff establishment of 175 \nstaff, only 124 (71%) positions were filled, leaving 51 (29%) positions vacant. \n\uf0b7 \nThe receivables amount for the Institute declined from prior year balance of UGX 0.547 to UGX 0.274Bn in the", "metadata": {"page": 487, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "current year arising from recovery of student debts of UGX 0.257Bn and bad debt provision of UGX 0.145Bn in line \nwith the Institute\u2019s debt recovery policy. Out of the total outstanding balance of UGX 0.274Bn; UGX 0.149Bn were \ndue from to student debtors, UGX 0.12Bn were for hotel trade debtors and balance of UGX 0.0006Bn were staff \nloans. \n2. \n \nUganda Wildlife Research and Training \nInstitute (UWRTI). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts of UGX.3.85Bn received during the financial year, UGX.3.522Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.328Bn representing an absorption level of 91%. As a result, some planned", "metadata": {"page": 487, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "activities were not implemented. The unspent funds were held in the Institute\u2019s bank account. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Uganda Wildlife Authority donated 30 acres of land in Rwenjubu Kasese District, to Uganda Wildlife Research \nand Training Institute but there was no land title to confirm ownership. This land was not being utilised by the \nInstitution although Management indicated that UWRTI had secured funding through CEDP for the construction of \na centre for excellence. In the absence of a land title, the land is prone to encroachment. \n\uf0b7 \n \n3. \n \nHarnessing \nNature \nand \nDigital \nTechnology to Stimulate Recovery and \nBuild A Resilient Tourism Industry in \nUganda \nDec 2021 \n\uf0b7 \nNo significant matter to report on.", "metadata": {"page": 487, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "472 \n \n \nImplemented by MoTWA \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n4. \n \nUganda Wildlife Authority. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of a total budget of UGX.119.469Bn, UWA received a total of UGX124.820Bn, representing 105% of the \nbudget. However, the Authority spent only UGX.88.607Bn, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.30.862Bn \nrepresenting an absorption level of 74.17%. As a result, I noted that of the 114 quantified activities worth \nUGX.54.37Bn that I assessed during the audit, 70 activities representing 61.4% were fully implemented, 23 \nactivities representing 20.2% were partially implemented, while 21 activities representing 18.4% was not", "metadata": {"page": 488, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "implemented. Under absorption of availed funds implies failure to fully implement all planned activities which \nnegatively impacts service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nIt was observed that the Authority had outstanding payables of UGX.25.454Bn, reported in the statement of \nfinancial position, out of which UGX.8.111Bn were gratuity for staff not yet due and balance of UGX.17.343Bn \nrelates to trade payables, insurance claims payable, Gorilla levy payable and revenue share to the communities. \nThis despite the fact that the Authority had the cash resources which could have been utilized to settle the payables. \nDelayed settlement of outstanding payables exposes government to a risk of costly litigation. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there were several ongoing cases of claims on land in the gazetted areas under the management of \nUganda Wildlife Authority, as evidenced by active court cases in some of the National Parks namely: Lake Mburo", "metadata": {"page": 488, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "National Park, Mt. Elgon National Park, Semiliki National Park and Matheniko Bokora. This was attributed to \nincreased encroachment to the National park land. There is urgent need to resolve these cases to prevent loss of \ngazetted land areas that could affect wildlife conservation. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Authority did not have an approved comprehensive management plan to manage the invasive and \nexotic plant species problem that has covered an average of 30% of the surface areas of Queen Elizabeth, Lake \nMburo Park, Murchison Falls, and Kidepo Valley National Parks. The invasive species contracts the grazing areas \nfor herbivores animals and affect the rangeland and environmental quality that consequently reduce wildlife \npopulation of grazers such as hippos, buffalos, zebras, topis, and Uganda Kobs. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that several procurements to the tune of UGX.61.169Bn were not executed as of 30th June 2022. This was", "metadata": {"page": 488, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "attributed to delays in procurement processes and partly due to effects of COVID-19 that affected the \nimplementation by the Authority that was operating a contingency budget that had scaled down on the capital \ninvestments. Failure to implement planned procurements leads to non-provision of planned services. \n\uf0b7 \nOver the last three years, UWA procured and installed three (03) different Accounting Systems, namely: The Sun \nSystem, Microsoft Dynamics GP and the Microsoft Business Central System. The frequency of change of systems \nwas unjustifiably high and costly to Government. I observed that there were weaknesses in systems change over, \nsince management did not properly identify challenges that would require a switch to a new accounting package. \nSuch a practice leads to wasteful expenditure on systems acquisition and no value for money.", "metadata": {"page": 488, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "473 \n \n5. \n \nUWA-IFPA-CD Project \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the received grant of USD.4.5Mn, only USD.0.744Mn (UGX.2,710Bn) was expended reflecting unspent funds \nof UGX.8,889,891,079 and USD.1,191,819.40 held in the BOU UGX and USD bank accounts respectively, resulting \ninto underperformance of 83.7%. This resulted into partial or non-implementation of planned activities, which in \nturn delays service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe project implementation had been delayed and some planned project activities such as Procurement of \nfirefighting and personal protection equipment, undertaking studies on Invasive species and developing their \nrespective management plans, and Procurement of road construction equipment (3 graders, 2 excavators, 2", "metadata": {"page": 489, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "bulldozers, 2 water bowsers, 2 tippers) were not implemented. Failure to absorb Development Partner funds implies \nproject objectives have not been met. \n6. \n \nUWA-SIDA Project 2022 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the received grant of USD.860,299 only UGX.557,053,138 (USD.135,324.7) was expended leading to \nunspent funds of UGX.2,317,274,301 and USD.39,857.23 held in the UGX and USD bank accounts respectively, \nresulting in underperformance of 82.3%. The failure to utilize the released funds resulted into non-implementation \nof several planned activities. \n\uf0b7 \nThe project implementation had been delayed and by 31st of May 2022, the project was not fully implemented \nwith various planned activities such as Procurement and installation of Guard observation towers in Queen Elizabeth", "metadata": {"page": 489, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "National Park (QENP), procurement of drones and IPADs for overhead surveillances and supporting of community \nlivelihoods around Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP), QENP and Toro-Semiliki wildlife Reserve (TSWR) not \ncompleted. This led to a no cost extension by the funder to a new expiry date of 30th June 2023. Failure to absorb \nDevelopment Partner funds implies project objectives have not been met. \n7. \n \nWildlife Research and Training Institute \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts of UGX.3.85Bn received during the financial year, UGX.3.522Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.328Bn representing an absorption level of 91%. As a result some planned \nactivities were not implemented. The unspent funds were held in the Institute\u2019s bank account. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 489, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Uganda Wildlife Authority donated 30 acres of land in Rwenjubu Kasese District, to Uganda Wildlife Research \nand Training Institute but there was no land title to confirm ownership. This land was not being utilised by the \nInstitution although Management indicated that UWRTI had secured funding through CEDP for the construction of \na centre for excellence. In the absence of a land title, the land is prone to encroachment. \n8. \n \nUganda Wildlife Education Conservation \nCentre (UWEC). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Centre received total revenue of UGX.14.369Bn (including self-generated revenue of UGX.2RC.169Bn) during \nthe financial year. Out of the total available funds for the year, the Centre spent UGX.10.9Bn resulting into an", "metadata": {"page": 489, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "unspent balance of UGX.3.469Bn representing an absorption level of 75.86%. As a result, I noted that of the 59 \nquantified activities worth UGX.5.87Bn that I assessed, 25 activities representing 42.4% were fully implemented, \n27 activities representing 45.8% were partially implemented, while 7 activities representing 11.9% were not \nimplemented. Failure to fully implement all planned activities negatively impacts service delivery.", "metadata": {"page": 489, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "474 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Centre had total payables of UGX.2.51Bn, of which UGX 1.36Bn was due to the Consolidated Fund, \nwhile the balance of UGX.1.15Bn was due to other creditors as at 30th June 2022. Delays in settlement of \noutstanding liabilities could lead to costly litigation, in the event creditors decide to take such options. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of management of IT investments at the Centre revealed that; \no \nThere were no approved specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. \no \nThere was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. \no \nThere was no approved business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information \nSecurity Policy 2014. \n\uf0b7 \nAbsence of ICT governance structures hampers formulation of appropriate ICT policies, strategies and real time", "metadata": {"page": 490, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "upgrade of ICT interventions. In addition, it may lead to misalignment of IT investments with the overall entity \nstrategic objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Government has taken a decision to merge Uganda Wildlife Conservation Education Centre with \nUganda Wildlife Authority with the aim of reducing public expenditure to facilitate efficient and effective service \ndelivery. This process is in its final stages pending advice from Ministry of Public Service and Ministry of Tourism, \nWildlife and Antiquities. This situation, along with other matters as set forth in Note 8.2.11, indicates the existence \nof a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Agency\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \nManagement was advised to engage with the Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities and Uganda Wildlife Authority to \nadequately prepare for this transition. \n9. \n \nMinistry \nof \nTourism, \nWildlife \nand \nAntiquities (MoTWA). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified", "metadata": {"page": 490, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.126.68 Bn during the year under review out of which only UGX.68.22 \nwas collected, representing a performance of 54% of the target. Management attributed the low performance to \nthe long period of closure and economic slowdown due to COVID-19. NTR/revenue shortfalls at the Treasury level, \nnegatively affect the implementation of planned activities by the Government. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry accumulated payables of UGX.4.3Bn of which UGX.3.1Bn relate to contributions to International \nOrganisations and have been outstanding for over two financial years, exposing the Ministry to risks of not \nbenefiting from membership and also being expelled from the organisation. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry did not implement five planned procurements worth UGX.1.576Bn. This adversely affects service \ndelivery. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 490, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry developed a strategic plan for 2020/21 \u2013 2024/25, but at the time of the audit, the plan had not been \napproved by the National Planning Authority, implying that the activities being implemented may not be aligned \nwith NDP III. \n10. \nUganda Tourism Board. \n \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nUganda Tourism Board did not budget for NTR but MoFPED allocated NTR budget for the entity to collect of \nUGX.0.28Bn during the year under review. However, UTB was only able to collect UGX.0.043Bn, representing a", "metadata": {"page": 490, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "475 \n \nUnqualified \n \n \nperformance of 15.35% of the target. Shortfall in NTR collections negatively affect the implementation of planned \nactivities by Government. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of UGX.500Mn was paid to an athlete to promote Tourism Board activities without deducting 6% withholding \ntax amounting to UGX.30Mn, contrary to the requirements of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act. \n\uf0b7 \nUganda Tourism Board (UTB) entered into a number of contracts worth UGX.5.989Bn with both local and \ninternational service providers and supplies without conducting market price assessments. This was contrary to \nthe procurement law and exposed the entity to a risk of obtaining services at uncompetitive prices. \n \nWATER AND ENVIRONMENT SECTOR \n1. \n \nDRESS EA Project \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 491, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Project received UGX 0.58Bn (62.59%) against the estimated budget of UGX.0.925Bn. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total available funds of UGX.0.579Bn received, UGX.0.157Bn was spent representing an \nabsorption level of 27%. The unspent funds were still held on the Project Bank accounts to continue funding \nproject activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that three (3) outputs with eight (8) activities worth UGX.0.116Bn were partially implemented. The project \nfully implemented four (4) activities; four (4) activities were not implemented, while eight (8) outputs with fourteen \n(14) activities remained unimplemented. \n2. \n \nInvesting in Forests and Protected Areas \nfor Climate Smart Development (IFPA-\nCD) \n \nMoWE \n \nOpinion", "metadata": {"page": 491, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Project received 100% of its donor budget of USD 1,446,010(UGX.5.08Bn) and USD774,331(UGX.2.62Bn) \n(100%) of its GoU counterpart funds. \n\uf0b7 \nOf the USD 1,446,010 disbursed by the donor, only USD 145,945.13 (10%) was spent while 100% (UGX \n2,301,718,612) of the Gou receipts were spent. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed twenty-nine (29) activities and noted that five (5) activities were fully implemented; four (4) activities \nwere partially implemented while Twenty (20) activities were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nManagement did not apply the risk mitigation measures identified in the Project Appraisal Document to respond \nto the materialising risk of delay in procurement and approval processes.", "metadata": {"page": 491, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "3. \n \nInvesting in Forests and Protected Areas \nfor Climate Smart Development (IFPA-\nCD) \n \nNFA \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entire USD 3.87Bn that had been budgeted for the period under review (2021/2022) was disbursed \nby World Bank, representing 100% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entire USD 3.87Bn that was available for spending was not spent representing 0% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of the Thirty-seven (37) activities that were fully quantified with a budget of USD \n2.29Bn and noted that all the Thirty seven (37) activities were not implemented at all.", "metadata": {"page": 491, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "476 \n \n \n4. \n \nThe Integrated Water Management and \nDevelopment Project (IWMDP) - MOWE \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project had an approved budget of USD.34,469,308.17 out of which USD.15,041,655 was received, \nresulting in a shortfall of USD.19,427,653.17. The shortfall represents 56.4% of the approved budget. I further \nnoted that a total amount of USD 8,232,148 had been rolled over from the previous financial year implying that a \ntotal amount of USD.23,273,803.83 was available for spending during the F/Y under review. \n\uf0b7 \n Out of the total funds of USD.23,273,802.83 available during the financial year, USD 8,868,133.20 was spent by", "metadata": {"page": 492, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the project resulting in under-absorption of USD 14,405,669.63 representing an absorption level of 38.1%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available amount of USD.23,273,802.83, a total amount of USD.14,405,669.63 was spent resulting \nin an unspent balance of USD 8,868,133.2 representing absorption level of 61.9%. \n\uf0b7 \n I noted that of the 56 quantified activities worth USD.8,225,143.33 assessed; 7 activities representing 12.7% \nwere fully implemented, 6 activities representing 11% were partially implemented and 42 activities representing \n76% were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nMid-term review report revealed that slow achievement of the project targets. Failure to implement the project \nwithin the contract period resulted into the slow disbursement rate from the bank which stood at 29% as at \n30/06/2022. \n5. \n \nThe Integrated Water Management and", "metadata": {"page": 492, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Integrated Water Management and \nDevelopment Project \u2013 NWSC \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo reportable matter. \n \n6. \n \nSupport \nto \nPreparation \nof \nPriority \nIrrigation Investments (SPPII) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project had a total budget of USD.831,947.58 which was based on the rolled over balances from \nthe previous financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nI was not provided with evidence to show that detailed Design reports for Matanda and Kabuyanda Environment \nSocial Impact Assessment and additional surveys were critically evaluated by a competent authority and approved. \nEvidence of an approved report on assessment of knowledge gap for targeted stakeholders was also not availed \nfor verification. \n7.", "metadata": {"page": 492, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "7. \n \nStrategic Towns Water Supply and \nSanitation Project (STWSSP) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project had a total budget of UGX.30.82Bn for the F/Y under review. I further noted that total \nreceipts totalled to UGX 62.69Bn representing 203.4% performance. The over performance was attributed to \noutstanding commitment for that previous financial years that were affected by the effects of Covid-19. \n\uf0b7 \nThe project had GOU counterpart budget of UGX 11.01Bn a sum of which only UGX 9.56Bn (86.8%) was released \nleading to a shortfall of UGX 1.45Bn (13.2%).", "metadata": {"page": 492, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "477 \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds for financial year of UGX.72.27 Bn UGX.72.23 Bn was spent resulting in an unspent \nbalance of UGX 0.04Bn representing in an absorption level of 99.9%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of Ten (10) activities with a budget of UGX 27.41Bn assessed, Two (02) activities worth UGX 3.45 \nBn were fully implemented, Six (06) activities worth UGX.20.33Bn were partially implemented, and Two (02) \nactivities worth UGX.3.6BN activities were not implemented. \n8. \n \nWater Supply and Sanitation Programme \nII (WSSP II) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project had a total amount of UGX.7.62bn on the JPF account that was available for spending", "metadata": {"page": 493, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "during the year under review. This amount is comprised of UGX.7.61bn rolled over from the previous financial year \nand interest income of 6.16m. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted amount of UGX.21.02Bn, Government of Uganda released UGX.20.48Bn representing a \nperformance of 97.4%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds for spending of UGX.28.15Bn from both JPF and GOU component, UGX.27.44Bn \nwas spent leaving unspent balance of UGX.0.73Bn representing an absorption level of 97.5%. The balance of \nUGX.0.73Bn remained on the Account at the closure of the project on the 30th of June 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nI conducted an assessment of the achievement of the project targets/objectives and noted that out of the planned \nsix (6) project objectives/targets, all the targets were partially achieved. \n9.", "metadata": {"page": 493, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "9. \n \nAdapting to Climate Change in Lake \nVictoria Basin (ACC-LVB) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of approved budget of USD 274,903.71 (UGX.1.00Bn) for the financial year 2021/2022, USD.200,000 \n(UGX.0.73Bn) was disbursed, representing a performance of 72.8%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total available funds for spending of UGX.1.57Bn, a total amount of UGX 1.06Bn was spent \nduring the financial year representing an absorption level of 67.98%. The table below refers; \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of the two (2) planned outputs with six (6) activities and noted that Two (2) \nactivities (33.33%) were fully implemented while Four (4) activities (66.67%) were partially implemented.", "metadata": {"page": 493, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "10. \nSecuring Uganda\u2019s Natural Resource \nBase in Protected Areas Project \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that all the amount of USD 946,168 that was budgeted for in the financial year under review (2021/2022) \nwere received representing 100% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds for the financial year of USD 946,168, only USD 110,911 was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of USD 835,257 representing an absorption level of 11.7%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that of the 60 quantified activities worth USD 2,294,046 that were assessed; Thirty-one (31) activities were \nfully implemented; One (1) activity was partially implemented and Twenty eight (28) activities were not \nimplemented at all. \n11. \nNational Forestry Authority \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 493, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved NTR estimate of UGX 12.88 billion, the Authority collected UGX 12.035Bn billion representing \na performance of 93.4% of the target.", "metadata": {"page": 493, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "478 \n \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved GoU budget of UGX. 36.88 billion, UGX. 25.44 billion (75.3%) was warranted, resulting in a \nshortfall of UGX11.44 billion (31.02%). Of the total warrants of received during the financial year, UGX. 25.023Bn \nwas spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.413Bn representing an absorption level of \n98.38%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the seven (7) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of Sixteen (16) activities budgeted at UGX 34.8 \nBn, Seven (7) outputs with nine (9) activities were fully implemented while Seven (7) activities were partially \nimplemented with expenditure totalling t0 UGX 24.61. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 494, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that 86 pieces of land whose value could not be established had encumbrances in the form of caveats, \ncourt injunctions and encroachment. I further noted that 36 pieces of land on which NFA offices sit did not have \nland titles, and approximately 241,604 ha (22%) on average of the total area of the CFR of 1,088,430 ha gazetted \nas forest reserves are encroached with agriculture, settlements, mining among others. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted a significant balance of receivables of UGX UGX.9.44Bn at close of the financial year which impacts on the \nliquidity capacity of the Authority when not collected. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted irregularities in management of IT investments including; procurement of systems without NITA-U \nclearance; E-recruitment module was not optimally utilised was not being utilized; I further noted inefficiencies in \nICT governance and lack of ownership of the existing ICT systems among others. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 494, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted irregularities in land management like irregular allocation of Central Forest Reserves by both the Uganda \nLand Commission and District Land Boards and encroachment on forest reserves. Uganda Land Commission \nirregularly issued 19 titles in the Central Forest reserves while the District Land Boards had irregularly issued 26 \ntitles in the in forest reserves. I further noted that some of the titles were later cancelled resulting in a number of \ncourt cases. \n12. \nUganda \nNational \nMeteorological \nAuthority (UNMA). \n \nOpinion \nQualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority collected NTR of UGX 0.392Bn out of the estimated UGX 2.2Bn representing a performance of \n17.8%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted revenue of UGX.25.755Bn only UGX.18.931Bn (73.5%) was warranted. Of these warrants,", "metadata": {"page": 494, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX. 18.64Bn was absorbed by the Authority leaving unspent balance of UGX 0.29Bn. Of the 9 outputs with 65 \nfully quantified activities, 2 activities (3%) were fully implemented, 61 activities (93.8%) were partially \nimplemented, while 2 activities (3%) remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \n7 of the 9 pieces of the Authority\u2019s land did not have land titles. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority had receivables totalling to UGX.3.13Bn at the closure of the financial year under review. This \ncomprised outstanding of letter credit UGX.699,777,683 and pre-payments totalling to UGX 2,428,702,532 \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority collected NTR amounting to UGX 153Mn, however it had not been remitted to the Consolidated Fund \nby end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 494, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that a total of UGX 74Mn transferred to the National Meteorological Training School (NMTS) as subvention \nwas not accounted for by the school.", "metadata": {"page": 494, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "479 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority did not have a fully constituted board, with only 5 of the 6 stipulated members in place. \n\uf0b7 \nThree IT valued at UGX 1.2 Bn were not implemented within the required timelines as specified in the inception \nreports/contracts. There were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation/governance. In \naddition, the Authority did not have a business continuity plan. \n13. \nInvestment plan preparation grant for \nthe strategic plan for climate resilience. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project had no approved budget during the financial year under review. I further noted that there \nwas an outstanding balance rolled over from the previous financial year of USD.129,834.39 which was utilised \nduring the F/Y under review (2021/2022). \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 495, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds of USD 129,834.39 during the financial year, USD 121,976.08 was spent resulting \nin an unspent balance of USD. 7,858.31 representing absorption level of 93.95%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of three (03 outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of six (06) activities \nworth USD 121,976.08 and noted that all the three (3) outputs with six (6) activities and expenditure worth UGX. \n0.45Bn were fully implement \n\uf0b7 \nOutstanding payables totaling to USD.16,194.21(UGX0.06Bn ) as at the closure of the financial year under review \nwhich was 20% reduction from USD.20,772.39(UGX 0.077Bn) recorded in financial year 2020/2021. \n14. \nIntegrated Water Management and \nDevelopment Project- NWSC \n2020/21", "metadata": {"page": 495, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo material findings to report. \n \n15. \nNational \nWater \nand \nSewerage \nCorporation- \nKampala \nWater \nLake \nVictoria Water and Sanitation (KW-LV \nWATSAN I) PROJECT \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo reportable matter. \n \n16. \nNational \nWater \nand \nSewerage \nCorporation-Kampala \nWater \nLake \nVictoria Water and Sanitation (KW-LV \nWATSAN II) \u2013June 2022 \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas the project Package 4B KWTP was completed and handed over to Government and the Defect", "metadata": {"page": 495, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Liability Periods ended in September 2022 and October 2022 for Katozi and Gaba projects, respectively, there were \nstill outstanding snags in both projects. \n17. \nNational \nEnvironment \nManagement \nAuthority (NEMA) \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority collected NTR of UGX 5.93Bn (66.1%) against the estimated UGX 8.98Bn as projected by Ministry \nof MOFPED. However, there were no NTR estimates indicated in the statement of appropriation. Out of the", "metadata": {"page": 495, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "480 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \nbudgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing \nperformance of 79% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized \nUGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs \nwith twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity \nworth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 496, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. \nOut of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private \nsector. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the \nNational Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was \ncollected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority \naccess to statutory funds \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the \nNational Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the \nservices of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical \nchallenges. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 496, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \n \n18. \nIrrigation for Climate Resilience Project \n(ICRP) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the project\u2019s budget of USD.4,334,366 for the year under review, USD 3,339,866 (77%) was \nreleased resulting in a shortfall of USD. 994,500Bn (23%). \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds for the financial year of USD 9,645,763, USD 339,783.65 was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of USD 9,305,979.35 representing an absorption level of 4%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that of the 81 quantified activities worth USD 831,947.58 w, Fifteen (15) activities representing 18.5% \nwere fully implemented; Seven (7) activities representing 8.6% were partially implemented, while Fifty nine (59)", "metadata": {"page": 496, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "activities representing 72.8% were not implemented. \n \n19. \nEnhancing Resilience of Communities to \nClimate Change (EURECCCA) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project had a budget of UGX. 12.56Bn (USD 3,462,844) out of which UGX. 6.11Bn was disbursed \nresulting in a short fall of UGX 6.45Bn (51.4%). \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total amount available during the financial year, UGX.5.89Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance \nof UGX.0.36Bn representing an absorption level of 5.8%.", "metadata": {"page": 496, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "481 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of ten (10) out of seventeen (17) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total \nof twenty-six (26) activities worth USD.2,522,858 (UGX 9.15Bn) and noted that; Nine (9) outputs with twenty-four \n(24) activities and expenditure worth USD 2,366,682 (UGX. 8.58Bn) were partially implemented. Four (4) activities \nworth USD 352,020 (UGX 1.29Bn) were fully implemented and Twenty (20) activities worth USD 2,009,667 (UGX \n7.29Bn) were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nOne (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth USD 156,171 (UGX 0.57Bn) were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \n \n20. \nNyabyeya Forestry College (NFC)", "metadata": {"page": 497, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe College budgeted to collect NTR of UGX 0.483Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX 0.626Bn was \ncollected, representing a performance of 129.5% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe College received UGX 1.49Bn Government support out of the budgeted amount of UGX 2.72Bn, resulting in a \nshortfall of UGX 1.23Bn. The shortfall represents 45.1% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total available funds of UGX 2.383Bn, a sum of UGX 2.375Bn was spent representing an \nabsorption level of 99.7%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that seven (7) outputs with nine (9) activities worth UGX 1.44Bn were fully implemented while one (1)", "metadata": {"page": 497, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "output with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.002Bn was partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the College strategic plan was still in draft form as it lacked approval by both the Governing Council \nand National Planning Authority. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the approved establishment structure revealed that out of the 83 approved positions, only 46 had been \nfilled leaving 46 positions vacant. \n \n21. \nFarm Income Enhancement and Forestry \nConservation Project (FIEFOC ). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Project received UGX 52.15Bn (62.5%) against a budgeted amount of UGX 83.43Bn. Given the opening balance \nof UGX 1.12Bn from previous year, the total project funds available for the year totaled UGX 53.27Bn. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 497, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total available funds of UGX 53.27Bn, a sum of UGX 52.44Bn was spent representing an \nabsorption level of 98.4%. The unspent funds were still held on the Project Bank accounts to continue funding \nfuture project activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that three (3) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX 16.34Bn were fully implemented while six (6) \noutputs with thirty-seven (37) activities worth UGX 34.21Bn were partially implemented. The project fully", "metadata": {"page": 497, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "482 \n \nimplemented twenty-five (25) activities; five (5) activities were partially implemented, while seven (7) activities \nremained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the total amount of UGX 2,244,572,384 was due from the Enable Youth Project beneficiaries (Principal \n+ Interest), of which UGX 1,479,980,097 was due by 30/06/2022 in the year under review. However, only UGX \n159,827,501 (10.8%) was recovered by 30/06/2022, leaving a balance of UGX 1,320,152,596 outstanding. \n \n22. \nNorthern Uganda Resilience Initiative \nProject \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 498, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total rolled over funds of UGX.429,703,797 from the previous financial year, the project spent \nUGX.428,792,000 (99.7%) leaving an unspent balance of UGX 911,797 at the end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nThe project did not fully implement all the 16 activities as planned. I noted that 12 (75%) were fully implemented \nwhile 4(25%) were partially implemented. \n \n23. \nThird National Communication (TNC) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total approved budget of USD 170,174 for the period, USD.140,000 was received representing a \nperformance level of 82.27% of the target. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 498, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total amount of US$178,440.50 available for spending, the project spent US$ 147,196.88 (82.8%) \nleaving an unspent balance of US$ 31,243.62. \n \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of the 80 planned activities under the four components and noted that 36 activities \n(45%) were fully implemented, 38 activities (47.5%) were partially implemented and 6 activities (7.5%) were not \nimplemented at all. \n \n24. \nWater Supply and Sanitation on Refugee \nHosting \nCommunities \nin \nNorthern \nUganda Funded by (KFW) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project received UGX.20.24Bn of the UGX.23.6Bn that had been budgeted for, resulting in a", "metadata": {"page": 498, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "shortfall of UGX.3.36Bn. The shortfall represents 16% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.20.241Bn only UGX.10.016Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX. UGX.10.492Bn representing absorption level of 48.8%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of two (2) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of eleven \n(11) activities worth UGX 10.016Bn and noted that; no outputs was fully implemented while Two (2) outputs with \neleven (11) activities worth UGX 10.016Bn were partially implemented. I further noted that out of the eleven (11) \nactivities, the project fully implemented five (5) activities and six (6) activities were partially implemented.", "metadata": {"page": 498, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "483 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed service delivery and noted that there were delays in project completion which results in delayed benefit \nof water supply to the intended beneficiaries. \n25. \nMinistry of Water, and Environment \n(MoWE) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry collected NTR of UGX 1.643Bn (196.1%) against the estimated UGX 0.838Bn as projected by Ministry \nof MOFPED. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 536.2Bn by the Ministry, only UGX 456.1Bn was warranted representing \nperformance of 85% of the target. I noted that out of the UGX 456.1 warranted to the Ministry, only UGX 448.2Bn", "metadata": {"page": 499, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "was spent representing an absorption level of 98.3%. Subsequently, the unspent funds amounting to UGX 7.7Bn \nwere swept back to the Consolidated Fund. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Forty-six (46) outputs with seventy-three (73) activities worth UGX.259.77Bn were partially \nimplemented. Out of the seventy-three (73) activities, two (2) activities were fully implemented, seventy (70) \nactivities were partially implemented, while one (1) activity remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that a register of land owned by the Ministry in different areas was not updated, with some land pieces \nlacking acreage, cost of acquisition and others lacking dates of acquisition. All the 372 pieces of land were not \nrecorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module. I noted that out of the 372 pieces of land held, 221 pieces do not have \nland titles. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 499, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "land titles. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to acquire land at a cost of UGX 31.06Bn in the financial years 2018/19-2021/22 but did not \nindicate the acreage in the Ministerial Policy statements. The Ministry acquired 113 pieces of land measuring \n4481.9 hectares of land at UGX 10.39Bn using direct procurement without the approval of the Contracts \nCommittee contrary to Section 85 (2) of the PPDA Act, 2003. I further noted that the said land was acquired \nwithout confirmation of funding by the Accounting Officer contrary to Section 59(2) of the PPDA Act 2003. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry acquired 113 pieces of land measuring 4481.9 hectares of land at a cost of UGX 10.39Bn without \nnotifying Uganda Land Commission. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted accumulated interest expenditure of UGX. 553.03m resulting from non-payment of VAT and delayed \npayment. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 499, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "payment. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved staff structure of 709 staff, only 370 (52.2%) were filled leaving a staffing deficit of 339 \n(47.8%) positions.", "metadata": {"page": 499, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "484 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed documents relating to the procurement/development of 3 (three) IT systems and noted that the systems \nare not owned by the entity which increases the risk of exposure to vendor manipulation. I noted that the Ministry \nhas no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry has no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. I also noted \nthat the Ministry has no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy \n2014. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Ministry does not prepare all components of financial statements on the system for example the \nCash flow statement and Financial statements for donor funded projects but rather, does it off the system using \nthe financial statements templates provided by the Accountant General. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of the e-Government Procurement (e-GP) system revealed that the Ministry approved a procurement plan", "metadata": {"page": 500, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "for 1420 procurements estimated at a cost of UGX. 406.77Bn, but none of the procurement was completed on the \nsystem. I was not provided with contract management files for contract management files for 3 projects that were \nsampled for audit review. \n26. \nBuilding Resilient Communities, Wetland \nEcosystems and Associated Catchments \nin Uganda-Project \nDec 2021 \n \nImplemented by MoWE \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo significant matter to report on. \n \n27. \nEnhancing Conjunctive Management of \nSurface and Groundwater Resources in \nSelected Transboundary Aquifers \nJuly 2020 to 31 December 2021 \n \nImplemented by the Nile Basin Initiative \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo significant matter to report on. \n28. \nSouth Western Cluster Water and \nSanitation Project \u2013 NWSC \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo material issues to report on", "metadata": {"page": 500, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "485 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n29. \nNational \nWater \nand \nSewerage \nCorporation (NWSC) \n2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe financial statements under Note 28 include a Financial Asset in form of Trade Receivables. Management has \nestimated the fair value of the net financial asset receivable to be UGX 159.87 billion as at 30th June 2022. \nHowever, I was not provided with a periodic assessment and documentation of the risk and parameters leading to \nthe expected trade loss of UGX.8.47Bn as required under IFRS 9. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted incidents where NWSC possessed land that had expired land leases; some titles were yet to be transferred \nin the company names; some land housing NWSC infrastructure and which was given by other government", "metadata": {"page": 501, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "agencies had no MoUs signed; and some land was encroached on. \n30. \nMultinational Lakes Edward and Albert \nIntegrated \nFisheries \nand \nWater \nResources Management Project (LEAF) II \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nA total of seven (7) strategic outputs (58.3%) were fully achieved, while 5 outputs were partially achieved and still \non-going (41.7%). \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budgeted revenue of USD 333,824.97, USD 320,930.55 was realised representing \nperformance of 96% of the target. The project absorbed 99.99% of the total available funds for spending. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the eleven (11) planned activities, ten (10) representing 90.9% were fully implemented; one (1) activity \nrepresenting 9% was partially implemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 501, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI assessed five key deliverables (construction of a surveillance station, 3 landing sites, and supply of a research \nvessel) and noted that they were not undertaken in a timely manner. This was as a result of rising water levels \nand delays in GoU counterpart funding that affected works. \n \n \nENERGY SECTOR \n\uf0b7 \n \n1. \n \nElectricity Regulatory Authority (ERA) \n2022/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the budgeted revenue of UGX 30.432Bn, a sum of UGX.30.046Bn was realised representing a \nperformance of 99%. The received funds were fully absorbed. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the fifty-two (52) outcomes under the six (6) core focus areas, twenty (20) outcomes had been fully", "metadata": {"page": 501, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "achieved, thirty-one (31) were partially achieved while one (1) outcome under accelerating electricity access was \nnot achieved. Out of a total of 342 activities planned to be implemented, 263 activities (76.9%) were completed, \n73 activities (21.3%) were still in progress while 6 activities (1.8%) were not executed. Non-implementation of \nactivities affects achievement of intended service delivery outcomes. \n\uf0b7 \nThe total staff establishment was at 92 persons and only 63 (68%) positions had been filled.", "metadata": {"page": 501, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "486 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe average annual quality of service performance for the distribution companies, especially those operating in \nrural areas was 60%, while that of UMEME was 90%. \n\uf0b7 \nThere are inadequacies in the awareness of the existence of the rebate policy, which has resulted in only two (2) \nrebate applications being processed, with an expected installed capacity addition of 9.1 MVA. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the management of IT investments revealed inadequacies including; failure to seek clearance from \nNITA(U) on acquisitions, non-integration of IT systems and applications, lack of a specific structure to steer and \noversee ICT implementation, staffing gap and failure by Internal audit to review the ICT systems that produce \nfinancial statements. \n2. \n \nGrid \nExtension \nand \nReinforcement \nProject- Ministry of Energy and Minerals \nDevelopment (MEMD)", "metadata": {"page": 502, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted Loan disbursements and GoU funds of USD.1.08Mn and USD.0.053Mn, only USD.0.85Mn and \nUSD 0.044Mn was received, resulting into revenue performance of 78.7% and 83.48% respectively. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the available funds for the year totalling to USD.1.549Mn comprising an opening balance of \nUSD.0.655Mn and USD 0.894Mn received during the year, only a total of USD 0.82Mn was utilised during the year, \nleaving a balance of USD.0.73Mn, representing an absorption rate of only 52.9%. \n\uf0b7 \nAs at 30th June 2022, 5 years into implementation, it was noted that only USD.2.815Mn (80.4%) had been released", "metadata": {"page": 502, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "to the project of which only USD.2.085Mn (74.1%) had been spent hence putting the overall loan absorption at \n59.6% by 30th June 2022. The project was expected to close on 31st October 2022 but has since been granted \nan extension of up to 30th April 2024. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays in project implementation with several activities still in progress under; Safeguard Supervision and \nMonitoring consultant, Consultancy services for Gender Based Violence/Violence against Children, Consultancy \nservices for Social Safeguards specialist and Power Subsector Sector Strengthening. \n3. \n \nHydropower \nOperations \nand \nMaintenance Excellence (HOME) Project \nDec 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project Statement of Financial Position included an amount of UGX 17.71 billion, being the Project \ncash balance as at 31st December 2021. However, management did not open a separate bank account for the", "metadata": {"page": 502, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "project as required by the Grant Agreement (Clause 5.6) and Chapter 13 of UEGCL\u2019s Finance Regulations Manual. \nCo-mingling of grant funds with other funds makes them susceptible to misuse, and it renders it difficult to easily \nascertain the accuracy of the project balances. \n\uf0b7 \nIn the period under review, I noted that the absorption of budgeted funds was only NOK.2.274m of the budgeted \nNOK.30.278m, representing a 7.5% absorption level. Low funds absorption leads to delayed implementation of \ncritical project activities, which may hinder project effectiveness. \n4. \n \nFuel Marking Quality Programme (FMQP) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX 9.684Bn out of which, UGX 9.288Bn was realised, resulting in a shortfall of", "metadata": {"page": 502, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.0.396Bn. The shortfall represents 4.08% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of five (5) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of twelve \n(12) activities worth UGX.2.590Bn and noted that one (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth", "metadata": {"page": 502, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "487 \n \nUGX.1.493Bn were fully implemented. Four (4) outputs with ten (10) activities worth UGX.1.097Bn were partially \nimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of the compliance assessment results of 3,132 fuel stations assessed in Central, Eastern and Western \nregions against the different clauses of US 947-1:2019 standards revealed that a total of 1,773(57%) of the fuel \nstations contravened the required standards. \n\uf0b7 \nFuel marking laboratory established in 2009 and as at June 2022, the laboratory had not yet attained ISO \naccreditation as at June 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Programme uses uncertified service providers in conducting the calibration exercise of laboratory \nequipment. This could lead to equipment breakdown or invalid test results leading to loss of customer confidence. \n\uf0b7 \nThere are inadequate working and safety conditions at Malaba and Mutukula petroleum laboratories. \n5.", "metadata": {"page": 503, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "5. \n \nEnergy for Rural Transformation III PSFU \nProject (ERT III). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity did not receive any funding for the period under review. The funds amounting to USD 254,802 carried \nfrom prior year were available for spending during the period. Out of this, USD. 230,234 was spent by the entity \nand USD. 7,810 lost in foreign exchange resulting in an unspent balance of USD. 16,758 representing absorption \nlevel of 93% for the year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UGX. 7,412,500 related to an outstanding payment to Comboni Technical Institute for training fees \nhas remained unpaid having bounced several times. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the project cumulative receipts of USD. 1,747,860, only USD. 1,726,531 was absorbed by the", "metadata": {"page": 503, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "project representing an absorption level of 98.7% over the project life. \n\uf0b7 \nAs at 31st December, 2021; 860 trainees had qualified for the electrical installation permit, grade D, exceeding the \nobjective target of 850 certified wiremen. However, objective of developing six Community Based Micro Hydro \nPower Generation Schemes in the districts of Kabarole and Kasese was not achieved. There was no Pico /micro \nscheme developed at the time of project closure. \n6. \n \nUganda Rural Electricity Access Project \n(UREAP). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that, for the financial year 2021/22 the project had a Budget of UGX.112,283,563,000, out of which \nUGX.72,711,272,991 was disbursed representing a shortfall 39,572,290,009, which is 35.2% of the Budget. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 503, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI also noted that as at 1st July 2021, the project had an opening balance of UGX.564,461,546. During the year \nUGX. 72,711,272,991 was released, thus leading to total available funds of UGX.73,275,734,537. Out of which, \nUGX. 71,218,963,281 was utilised representing an absorption level of 97.2%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that as at 30th June 2022, the Bank had disbursed USD 64.19Million and Euros 9.23Million against the \nLoan credit facility of USD 100 Million and Grant of Euros 11.205 million representing 64.19% and 82.35%, \nrespectively. I further noted that the deadline for disbursements for the loan funding (project closure) was revised \nto 31st December, 2023 from 31st December 2020 and that of the grant maintained at 31st December, 2022 after \na number of projects lagged behind.", "metadata": {"page": 503, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "488 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays in implementation of the works and the overall project completion for the lots-1-7 was at 83% and \nLots-10-13 at 59.84%. Notably, under Lots 10 and 13, Medium Voltage stringing, and Low Voltage (LV) stringing \nhad not yet commenced and so has customer connections in all the lots. Under Lot 7 Low Voltage Pole erection \nwas at 61% and stringing at 9.9%. \n\uf0b7 \nSupplies in the Lot 9A category (supply of pre-paid energy metres) at the time of audit had not yet been delivered \ndue to divergent views and on-going negotiations on the understanding of the technical requirements for the \nprepaid energy meters between MEMD and the supplier (XJ Group), discussions were yet to be concluded as at \nyear end. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 7 batches submitted by UMEME for connections from supplies under lot 8A and 8B, only batch 1 and 2 had", "metadata": {"page": 504, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "been verified by MEMD causing a delay in the necessary funding for completion of the exercise; A total of 16,518 \nverified eligible connections had been invoiced by UMEME but not paid for L&T and inspection fees for no pole \nservices amounting to UGX.1,404,030,000 (VAT exclusive). \n7. \n \nGulu \u2013 Agago Transmission Line project \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted Donor and GoU funds of USD.15.69Mn and USD.1.99Mn, only USD.3.92Mn and USD.0.56Mn \nwas received resulting into revenue performance of 25% and 28% respectively. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the available funds for the year totalling to USD. 6.26Mn, only USD.1.38Mn was utilized, leaving", "metadata": {"page": 504, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "a balance of USD.4.88Mn, representing an absorption rate of only 22%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UGX 217.34Mn of the prior year outstanding receivables related to funds due from a Contractor, whose \ncontract for construction of PAPs resettlement houses had been terminated. Construction of only 7 houses out of \nthe 17 had commenced. In addition, out of the 472 PAPs set for cash compensations, 463 disclosures had been \nmade representing 98%. Of these, 459 (97%) agreements were obtained from the disclosures, out of which 2 \n(0.4%) disputes arose, and payments to 455 (96.4%) PAPs were made by year end. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays in project implementation with; Tower structures at 37.5% against a planned target of 77% and \nSubstations and HPP switchyard station at 17.49% against a planned target of 48.4%. Major Project works such", "metadata": {"page": 504, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "as; Survey, Design, Supply and Installations works had not yet commenced as at 30th June 2022. \n8. \n \nEnergy for Rural Transformation III (ERT \nIII) \u2013REA Project. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that as at 1st July 2021, the Project had an opening balance of UGX 41.24Bn. During the year UGX.86.35Bn \nwas disbursed. The available funds totaled to UGX.127.59Bn, out of which, UGX.62.02Bn was utilized on grid \nintensification and extension projects and Last Mile Consumer Connections, leaving an unutilized balance of \nUGX.65.5Bn, representing an absorption level of 51.3%. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the total amount of credit for the project was USD 143.2 Million (USD 135M IDA Credit and USD", "metadata": {"page": 504, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "8.2M GEF grant). Of which, USD 116.1 Million relates to REA. By the end of the financial year, the Bank had only \ndisbursed USD 76.9 Million, representing 66% of the total credit to REA. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Fast Track 1 Kiganda-Mile 16 was completed and commissioned on 5th February, 2021, while Fast \ntrack 2 Ruhumba-Kashwa was completed and commissioned on 28th August 2021. The Projects were handed over", "metadata": {"page": 504, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "489 \n \nto respective utilities for operation and maintenance. However, there are outstanding PAPs under these projects \nthat have not been identified and paid. The compensatory funds lie on an escrow account \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Fast Track 3&4 Line contracts were signed on January 2020, and were expected to be completed \nwithin 15 months. However, although the commissioning dates had been extended to 25th/Sept/2022 and \n27th/Aug/2022 for lines 3 and 4 respectively, by October 2022, both lines had not yet been commissioned. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Lines 11-21 under lots B, C and D experienced delays and compensation of PAPs was cited as the \nmajor reason for delayed erection of poles and line stringing. Particularly, none of the PAPs under the rerouted \nline 18 had been compensated although the valuation report had been submitted to the CGV. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the schemes under grid intensification and associated connections were largely delayed due to to", "metadata": {"page": 505, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "delays in compensation of PAPs as well as non-conformance of the transformers to the approved specification at \nthe time of Factory Acceptance Tests under Umeme Scheme, Batch 1. \n\uf0b7 \nTo-date, out of 48,152 PAPs approved for compensation, only 34,722 PAPs have been paid. Out of the approved \ncompensation amount of UGX.34,207,862,587, only UGX. 23,138,699,477 was paid leaving a balance of \nUGX.11,069,163,110 as the outstanding compensation amount. \n9. \n \nMasaka-Mbarara Transmission Line and \nextension of substations project \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted GoU funds and Loan disbursements of USD 3.40Mn and USD 1.71Mn, respectively, only USD", "metadata": {"page": 505, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "1.01Mn was received under GOU. There were no donor funds received due to low absorption capacity of the donor \nfunding, resulting into revenue performance of only 29.8%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the available funds for the year totalling to USD 15.66Mn, only USD 9.07Mn was utilized, leaving \na balance of USD 6.59Mn, representing an absorption rate of only 58%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that implementation of the project was lagging behind the planned timelines, notably the construction had \nnot commenced as planned. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays and challenges in implementation of RAP. Out of 2,654 PAPs approved for compensation, only 847 \nPAPs had been paid, leaving 1,807 (32%) PAPs not paid. . I further noted that out of the 2,654 PAPs, 1,704 \ndisclosures had been made representing 64% and 1,617 (61%) agreements were obtained from disclosures. \n10.", "metadata": {"page": 505, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "10. \nUganda National Refinery Company \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Entity budgeted to receive UGX 6.97Bn, out of which UGX 5.61Bn was availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX \n1.36Bn which represents 20% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nVarious construction projects at Kabaale Industrial Park had progressed to significant stages. However, the \nRefinery FID was extended to mid-2023, crude oil export hub was not undertaken, Kabaale airport construction \nwas 85% complete, and road construction and other amenities were on-going. \n\uf0b7 \nThe construction of the Refinery had not commenced. Agreements such as; Implementation Agreement, Crude \nSupply Agreement, and Shareholders Agreement were not in place although negotiations had commenced. In \naddition, the resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was not completed.", "metadata": {"page": 505, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "490 \n \n11. \nKampala \nMetropolitan \nTransmission \nSystem Improvement Project. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted under Donor funding that the Entity budgeted to receive USD 585,915, out of which USD.127,317.33 was \nreleased, resulting in a shortfall of USD 458,597.66 representing 78% of the Budget. Under Gou Funding USD. \n1,900,000 was budgeted, Out of which USD. 1,047,848.46 was released, resulting in a shortfall of USD 852,151.5 \nrepresenting 45% of the Budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the available funds of USD.7,628,745.3 for the period under review, USD 2,409,128.47 was utilised, leaving", "metadata": {"page": 506, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "a balance of USD. 5,219,616.83, representing an absorption rate of 31.5%. \n\uf0b7 \nThere are significant delays in project implementation. The initial project completion date was February 2022. \nHowever, by November 2022, UETCL was still undertaking the procurement process of the EPC contractor. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 129 Project Affected Persons (PAPs), 115 (89%) had been compensated \n12. \nStrengthening Management of Oil and \nGas Sector in Uganda Programme \n(SMOGU) \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Programme budgeted to receive USD 738,078 for the period under review, and only USD 551,358.46 was \nrealized representing, 75% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the financial year, USD 551,358.46 was available for spending on the Local account, out of which, USD", "metadata": {"page": 506, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "429,604 was spent by the project resulting in an unspent balance of USD 121,754.46, representing an absorption \nlevel of 77.9%. \n\uf0b7 \nThe counterpart funding for the program from GoU amounting to MNOK 12,401. (USD 1.256 Million) was not \nrealized. \n13. \nPetroleum Authority of Uganda (PAU). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.65.22Bn out of which UGX. 55.22Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX. 10Bn. The shortfall represents 15.3% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX. 55.22Bn, only UGX.54.68Bn was spent by the entity resulting", "metadata": {"page": 506, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "in an unspent balance of UGX.0.54Bn, representing an absorption level of 99.02%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that of the 7 quantified activities worth UGX.27.59Bn assessed; none of the activities was fully \nimplemented, 37 activities representing 94.87% were partially implemented, while 2 activities representing 5.13% \nwere not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of 277 total staff establishment, only 202 (73%) positions had been filled, leaving 75 (27%) \npositions still vacant. This adversely affects the implementation of the Authorities Operations. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted during the review of the ICT investment that the Authority had total warrants for the financial years for IT \ninvestment of UGX. 13.111Bn and only UGX. 12.611Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of \nUGX.0.54Bn representing an absorption level of 96%. \n14. \nGrid \nExpansion", "metadata": {"page": 506, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Grid \nExpansion \nand \nReinforcement \nProject (GERP)-UETCL. \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted Donor and GoU funds of USD. 30,311,916 and USD 714,286, only USD. 25,773,250 and USD \n216,497 was received resulting into revenue performance of 85% and 30% respectively.", "metadata": {"page": 506, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "491 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total available funds for the year of USD. 54,992,890, only USD. 16,203,439 was utilized, \nleaving a balance of USD. 38,789,451, representing an absorption rate of only 29.4%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total amount of credit for the Project of USD 127.3 Million (USD 100M IDA Credit and USD 27.3M GoU \ncounterpart funding), only USD 55,230,250 (55.2%) and USD 8,161,920 (28.8%) had been disbursed under IDA \nfunds and GOU funds respectively. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the annual target of 95% progress, under Lot 1; -Construction of 132kv Double Circuit Transmission Lines, \nonly 68% was achieved. Out of the annual target of 99% progress under Lot 2- construction of Substations, only", "metadata": {"page": 507, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "56.8% was achieved. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 3,364 identified PAPs under Kole-Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, only 2,952 (87.8%) had been compensated. \nSignificant delays were noted under the Arua Section, out of 633 PAPs, 160 (25%) had not been compensated \nunder the Arua section, while out of 2,351 under Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, payment to 386 PAPs (17%) remained \noutstanding. Construction of PAP houses was yet to be completed. \n \n15. \nUganda Petroleum Fund (UPF). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year, funds amounting to UGX.10,945,470,241 were not transferred by Uganda Revenue Authority to", "metadata": {"page": 507, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the Petroleum fund account Contrary to Section 56 (2) and (3) of the PFMA, 2015. This affects timely disbursement \nof funds to the Consolidated Fund. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that, funds were neither appropriated nor transferred to the Reserve despite the establishment of the \nPetroleum Revenue Investment framework/Policy. The net cash and bank balance on the Fund of \nUGX.110,238,744,342, as at June 30th 2022, remained unutilized. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Investment Advisory Committee to the Minister was faced with challenges of inadequate funding \nof its planned activities. Activities such as benchmarking with oil producing countries and some trainings, among \nothers, were not undertaken \n16. \nUganda Electricity Generation Company \nLimited (UEGCL) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 507, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the planned revenue of UGX.259.3Bn, the Company realized UGX.210.9 Billion representing a performance \nof 81.4% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nUn \u2013 implemented activities/Projects of UGX. 522,000,000 under Nyagak III HPP \n\uf0b7 \nDelayed implementation of projects of Isimba HPP at 99.5% completion, Karuma HPP at 96.7%, Muzizi HPP at \n55.4%, Nyagak HPP at 82.6% \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total funds available in the year of the Norwegian Grant of UGX. 20,116,425,000, only UGX \n1,395,157,000, was spent resulting into an under absorption of UGX. 17,653,567,000. The company returned UGX \n1,067,701,350 in the year under review relating to previous activities not undertaken.", "metadata": {"page": 507, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "492 \n \n\uf0b7 \nLong outstanding Payables of UGX 985,000,000 relating to penal interest charged by URA, resulting from late \npayment of WHT on consultancy services for the period 2001-2009. \n\uf0b7 \nDelayed commissioning of Karuma Dam, completion date was extended to 22nd January 2023, resulting in a delay \nof 3 years and 6 months from the initial planned completion date. \n\uf0b7 \nNon-conformances (NC) in relation to electrical, mechanical and civil works components that required rectification \nbefore commissioning of the Karuma dam. \n\uf0b7 \nDelayed completion of Project snags at Isimba HPP. The Defects Liability Period was extended from 1st April 2022 \nto 30th September 2022 \n\uf0b7 \nPending activities after Final Loan draw down for Isimba HPP. Although, the final loan drawdown date was 21st \nDecember 2021, certain activities were outstanding, for instance; the floating boom installation and access road", "metadata": {"page": 508, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "construction. \n\uf0b7 \nDamaged equipment after the flooding of Isimba HPP. The Company spent UGX 1.3Bn to fix the damage, but \nother repairs and replacements were yet to be undertaken. The flooding was attributed to the contractor\u2019s failure \nto fix all the snags. \n\uf0b7 \nRevenue loss due to Irregular Energy Billing at Isimba HPP: UGX 56 Billion. This is because the Company bills \nenergy sold and not the available capacity. \n\uf0b7 \nPayments to owner\u2019s Engineer Isimba HPP: UGX. 1,494,332,008, resulting from delay in completion of rectifications \nby contractor \n\uf0b7 \nRehabilitation of the Nalubaale \u2013 Kiira hydropower plants. I noted that with concern the withdrawal of KfW from \nthe funding of the proposed rehabilitation of the Nalubaale \u2013 Kiira hydropower plants \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 508, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nExpired final drawdown period of KfW Loan worth Euros 40 Million for Muzizi HPP (44.7MW) of 30th December, \n2021, without any evidence availed to confirm that the entity applied for an extension from the lender in regard \nto extending the final drawdown date. \n17. \nMutundwe-Entebbe 132kv Double Circuit \nTransimssion Line Project - UETCL \nJune 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that a total of 79 land titles that project affected persons handed over to UETCL were physically missing \nfrom the UETCL archives. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays in transfer of land titles, out of 346 titles received from PAPs only 3 were processed.", "metadata": {"page": 508, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "493 \n \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas the compensation process started in December 2015, as at 30 June 2021, out of 1,053 \nproject affected persons, only 880 had been compensated \n18. \nUganda Electricity Distribution Company-\nUEDCL \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the planned revenue of UGX.89.35Bn, the Company realized UGX.73.32 Billion representing a performance \nof 82% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts of UGX 73.32Bn, only UGX 66.091Bn was absorbed representing absorption rate of 90%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the one hundred (100) key initiatives implemented under six (6) sampled departments and Units ,47(47%)", "metadata": {"page": 509, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "tasks had been fully implemented, 45(45%) were partially implemented while 7(7%) were not implemented during \nthe year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted outstanding receivables for energy bills by Government entities of UGX. 68,333,895,572, and this resulted \ninto withdrawal of the sum from the escrow Account. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Company had recognized payables of UGX 9.258 arising from Power Evacuation Losses stemming from \nabsence of adequate and appropriate transmission lines to evacuate generated electricity from Kikagati, Nkusi, \nMpanga and Siti Power Plants. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays in connection of New Service Customers within the stipulated timelines and several Faulty Meter \nComplaints from customers. The delays ranged between 10 to 500 days. \n19. \nUganda National Oil Company \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 509, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive funding from government and internally generated resources amounting to UGX \n130.67Bn, out of which UGX 48.29Bn was received, representing a budget performance of only 37%, it was also \nnoted that the funding gap was majorly from less Gou funds warranted. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total budget of UGX. 129.10Bn expected to be funded by government, only 46.59Bn was actually \nreceived, creating a funding gap of UGX. 93.16Bn. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the received government funds, UGX. 35.93Bn was actually spent, representing an absorption level of 77% \nand an expenditure \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that annual work plans are not harmonized with the budget estimates, and as a result the work plan and \nactivity performance are monitored separately and are not quantified. It is difficult to harmonize funds spent in \nrelation to budget, work plans and actual performance. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 509, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the twenty-four (24) KPI\u2019s sampled under the four (4) core focus areas and fifteen (15) \nobjectives, thirteen (13) KPI\u2019s had been fully achieved, nine (9) were partially achieved while two (2) KPI\u2019s under \nMaximize Shareholder Value and increasing profitability were not achieved as summarized in the tables below.", "metadata": {"page": 509, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "494 \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Land held by the entity revealed that the entity did not have Land titles for two (2) pieces of land \nmeasuring approximately 2,221.839 hectares. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted through land inspection, document review and inquiries with management that Plot 7 in Namuwabula \nEstate Mpigi District measuring approximately 121 hectares (5.4%) out of the total entity land measuring of \n2,223.339 hectares had encumbrances in the form of encroachment and was not utilized by the entity at the time \nof Audit. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the implementation of key interventions under the UNOC Flagship Projects is behind schedule. These \nactivities include construction under the EACOP Project, the Refinery Project, Kabaale Industrial Park, construction \nof the oil Jetty and Pipeline at JST, as well as undertaking the Engineering Procurement and Construction activities \nat the Kampala Storage Terminal. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 510, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA review of the approved structure and the staff list revealed that out of the 261 approved posts for the company, \nonly 114 (44%) were filled leaving 145 (56%) posts vacant. \n\uf0b7 \nInternal Audit did not review the ICT systems that produce financial statements. There is a risk that internal control \nweaknesses related to ICT system may not be detected timely. \n20. \nUganda Refinery Holding Company Ltd \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Entity budgeted to receive UGX 6.97Bn, out of which UGX 5.61Bn was availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX \n1.36Bn which represents 20% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nVarious construction projects at Kabaale Industrial Park had progressed to significant stages. However, the \nRefinery FID was extended to mid-2023, crude oil export hub was not undertaken, Kabaale airport construction", "metadata": {"page": 510, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "was 85% complete, and road construction and other amenities were on-going. \n\uf0b7 \nThe construction of the Refinery had not commenced. Agreements such as; Implementation Agreement, Crude \nSupply Agreement, and Shareholders Agreement were not in place although negotiations had commenced. In \naddition, the resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was not completed. \n21. \nUganda \nElectricity \nTransmission \nCompany Limited (UETCL) \n2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted Tariff revenue and GoU funding of UGX.1.447Tn and UGX.85.46 Bn respectively, UGX.1.546Tn \nand UGX.28.186 Bn was realised, respectively, representing a performance of 6.85% surplus above the Tariff \nBudget target and a budget shortfall of 67% under GoU Funding. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 510, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI sampled twelve (12) activities under two (2) projects worth UGX.76.173Bn and three (3) activities under the key \nperformance indicators (KPIs) for the FY 2021/22. I noted that two (2) projects and nine (9) activities in relation \nto construction works were partially implemented while one activity in regards to Karuma project was not \nimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nIncluded under Note 23, trade and other receivables is an amount of UGX.647 Bn, relating to trade receivables. \nUGX. 88.8Bn relates to outstanding energy sales for the period which was over 90 days over due.", "metadata": {"page": 510, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "495 \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the staff structure of 491 staff only 357 positions were filled, resulting in a staffing gap of 134 (27%) of the \nstaff structure. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UETCL o the Rural Electrification Fund evacuates power over weak third-party grids, The entity relies \non 33KV infrastructure of UEDCL, REA and UMEME as wheelers, to evacuate power. The lines are faced with \nvarious faults and outages making it unreliable. I further noted that there were no formal wheeling agreements \nimposing duties and obligations for the third-party wheelers. \n\uf0b7 \n I noted non-remittance of the 5% Rural Electrification Levy by UETCL, amounting to UGX.131,958,754,535, \ncontray to the electricity (establishment and management of Rural electrification fund) instrument No. 75 of 2001 \nand instrument number 29 of 2021. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 511, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \n I noted termination of the contract for the construction of houses for Project Affected Persons, due to submission \nof false extensions of advance payment guarantee by contractors amounting to UGX. 256,455,705 and \nperformance bond guarantee amounting to UGX. 128,227,852. \n\uf0b7 \nThe progress of execution of work by the new contractor under LOT A (Uganda- Kenya Overhead transmission \nline) was at only 30%, 60% of the works were affected by court injunctions and 10% by failure to procure materials \nto cover the vandalized sections. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted cases of increased vandalism of UETCL\u2019s installations specifically the transmission lines and substations. \nThe theft of Capacitor banks at Namanve substation, the theft of copper cables at Queen\u2019s way substation, theft \nof transformer oil from the Soroti substation tower vandalism at NELSAP and many others, resulted in a Loss of \nUGX. 184,206,894", "metadata": {"page": 511, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe ICT systems such as Sun system, Payroll System, Geographical Information System and Budget Information \nSystem were not properly integrated to enable sharing of information. \n22. \nNational Pipeline Company \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Entity budgeted to receive UGX 10.43Bn, out of which UGX 6.29Bn was availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX \n4.14Bn which represents 39.6% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the consortium managing the Jinja Storage Tanks had expressed challenges in the stocking of the \nexpected twelve (12) Million litres as the minimum National Strategic Reserve and has since communicated its \nintention to opt out of the JV partnership in FY 2022/23. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the construction of an oil jetty and connecting pipeline to Jinja Storage Tanks had not commenced, \nas expected. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 511, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "as expected. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Company was unable to secure a Joint Venture Partner for the planned Engineering, Procurement \nand Construction (EPC) of the Kampala Storage Terminal. As a result, the activities under the Terminal were not \nundertaken as planned.", "metadata": {"page": 511, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "496 \n \n23. \nUganda Energy Credit Capitalisation \nCompany Limited \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini \nHydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 \nbillion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter \nfunding is affecting project part effectiveness. \n24. \nThe Ministry of Energy and Mineral \nDevelopment (MEMD) \n2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 512, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe ministry budgeted to receive UGX. 622.775Bn out of which UGX. 480.146Bn was warranted, resulting in a \nshortfall of UGX.142.63Bn. The shortfall is 23% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX. 54.27Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only \nUGX. 32.689Bn was collected, representing a performance of 60% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 480.146Bn, a sum of UGX. 479.284Bn was spent by the \nentity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 0.863Bn, representing an absorption level of 99.8%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX. 0.054Bn was fully implemented,", "metadata": {"page": 512, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Twenty-five (25) outputs with ninety-nine (99) activities worth UGX. 289.953Bn were partially implemented while \nFourteen (14) outputs with twenty-eight (28) activities worth 0.496Bn were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted delays in titling of the acquired land under the major dam projects despite having started the processes \nas early as 2013. For instance;23 titles out of 137 titles have been processed under the Isimba Dam project, while \nno titles had been transferred into the ULCs name for the benefit of MEMD under the Karuma dam project. \n\uf0b7 \nIn addition, although UGX. 1,666,421,984, was paid out as Mineral Royalties during the year, UGX. 674,446,095 \nremained outstanding. \n\uf0b7 \nFurthermore, the Ministry had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX 8.2Bn. This amount related to outstanding,", "metadata": {"page": 512, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "debenture payment on Isimba and Karuma HPPs, Corporation Tax Obligation of Amber House Ltd as well as \nContributions to International Organizations. \n\uf0b7 \nManagement planned to distribute 200,000 Promotional cylinder Kits annually for 5 years. However, only 6,000 \nkits were acquired and distributed during the year due to inadequate funding. \n25. \nKilembe Mines Ltd (KML) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.47Bn out of which, UGX.1.83Bn was realised, resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX.2.64Bn which is 59% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Company had an outstanding receivable of UGX.2.31Bn as at 30th June 2022, 54% of the amount \nrelates to unpaid rent from Tibet Hima Mining Co. Ltd. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 512, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Company had outstanding payables of UGX.2.36Bn. The amount increased from UGX.2.28Bn to UGX.2.36Bn \nresulting into an increase of UGX.75,672,320 (3%) as at 30th June 2022.", "metadata": {"page": 512, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "497 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe company had a total outstanding statutory obligation of UGX.310,173,160 attributed to URA and NSSF. The \ndelayed payment of statutory deductions may attract fines and penalties. \n\uf0b7 \nFive (5) years have elapsed without an investor/operator being identified to take over Kilembe Mines operations, \nfollowing the termination of the Tibet Hima Concession Agreement. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the monthly Energy sales of Mubuku HPP for the FY 2021/2022 revealed that the plant evacuated \n5,446.09 MWh, which translated into UGX.471,702,475. The plant\u2019s annual available capacity is 21,960.00MWh \nwhich would result into revenue of UGX.1,927,690,934.This implies that the company was failing to generate \nrevenue amounting to UGX.1,455,988,459 annually. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 513, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Company had not undertaken an environment Audit, contrary to Section 4.5.6 of the Generation \nlicense that requires the Licensee to provide to the Regulatory a detailed environmental audit on an annual basis. \n \n26. \nAtomic Energy Council \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the planned revenue of UGX.40.4Bn, the Council realized UGX.12.5 Billion representing a performance of \n69% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the seven (7) sampled activities worth UGX 24.6Bn, four (4) activities were partially implemented worth \nUGX. 11,810,138,800 while 3 (three) activities worth UGX. 12,767,593,500 were not implemented at all. In \naddition, management did not execute all procurements planned for the period under review worth UGX. 5.9Bn \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 513, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that AEC does not have quality Assurance Laboratories required for proper functioning and execution of \ncouncil mandate. In addition, AEC does not have sufficient Inspection Equipment thus compromising on the \nrequired frequency of inspections. \n\uf0b7 \n Due to inadequate space, management did not utilise the radiation detection, environmental monitoring and \nemergency preparedness and response equipment which was procured by Council. Construction of the UGX 1.5 \nBn technical block at Mpoma was yet to commence. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved structure of seventy (70), only forty-one (41) positions (58.6%) were filled leaving twenty-\nnine (29) positions vacant \n\uf0b7 \n \n27. \nEnergy for Rural Transformation Project \n(ERT III)-PCU \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 513, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe entity did not receive any funding for the period under review. The funds amounting to USD 254,802 carried \nfrom prior year were available for spending during the period. Out of this, USD. 230,234 was spent by the entity \nand USD. 7,810 lost in foreign exchange resulting in an unspent balance of USD. 16,758 representing absorption \nlevel of 93% for the year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UGX. 7,412,500 related to an outstanding payment to Comboni Technical Institute for training fees \nhas remained unpaid having bounced several times.", "metadata": {"page": 513, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "498 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the project cumulative receipts of USD. 1,747,860, only USD. 1,726,531 was absorbed by the \nproject representing an absorption level of 98.7% over the project life. \n\uf0b7 \nAs at 31st December, 2021; 860 trainees had qualified for the electrical installation permit, grade D, exceeding the \nobjective target of 850 certified wiremen. However, objective of developing six Community Based Micro Hydro \nPower Generation Schemes in the districts of Kabarole and Kasese was not achieved. There was no Pico /micro \nscheme developed at the time of project closure. \n\uf0b7 \n \n28. \nOpuyo- Moroto 132kv Transmission Line \nProject - (UETCL) Dec 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 514, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project receivables decreased from USD.4,116,412 (2020) to USD.56,741 (2021). The outstadnig \nreceivables related to funds due from UETCL (USD.53,135) and advances to staff of USD.3,606. There is a risk \nthat these funds may never be recovered, yet the project was closing. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that despite the project being closed, out of 1,360 PAPs, only 1,333 had been compensated leaving a \nbalance of 27 (3%) by 31st December 2021. There is a risk that the outstanding compensation to PAPs may not \nbe completed due to project closure. \n \n29. \nEnergy for Rural Transformation III \nImplemented by Uganda Energy Credit \nCapitalization Company Limited (ERT III- \nUECCCL) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 514, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nDuring the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini \nHydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 \nbillion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter \nfunding is affecting project part effectiveness. \n \n \nEDUCATION SECTOR \n \n1. \n \nMinistry of Education and Sports \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.6.3Bn during the year under review out of which, only UGX.0.064Bn \nwas realized, representing a performance of only 1% of the target. The entity further budgeted for GOU receipts", "metadata": {"page": 514, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of UGX.535.284Bn of which UGX.415.72Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX. 119.56Bn which is \n22.33% % of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 415.72Bn, a sum of UGX. 412.98Bn was spent by the Ministry \nresulting into an unspent balance of UGX. 2.7Bn representing an absorption level of 99.3%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of sixty-one (61) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of \none hundred thirty-four (134) activities worth UGX.411.48Bn and noted that; Fifteen (15) outputs with twenty-one", "metadata": {"page": 514, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "499 \n \n(21) activities and expenditure worth UGX.63.71Bn were fully implemented. Twenty-nine (29) outputs with eighty \n(80) activities worth UGX.320.27Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 3 pieces of land measuring approximately 9.749 hectares the entity held, 1 piece of land \nmeasuring approximately 3.77 hectares (39%) did not have a land title. \n\uf0b7 \nI also noted that the title for 1 piece of land measuring approximately 1.935 hectares was not transferred from \nthe previous owners \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that advances to various Education Institutions for Infrastructure development amounting to UGX. \n2,348,930,185 remained outstanding. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that payables increased from UGX. 39,452,425,980 in the FY2021/22 to UGX.78, 254,703,720 in the", "metadata": {"page": 515, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "financial year under review representing an increment of UGX.38,802,277,740 (98%) \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the contract duration of 5 constructions under implementation had expired before completion. In \naddition, out of a combined contract sum of UGX.2,966,331,534, only UGX.1,014,245,153 (34%) had been paid \nto the respective contractors. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry of Education and Sports did not provide an adequate budgetary provision for the settlement of \nliabilities relating to court awards and compensations of UGX.22,881,496,579 \n\uf0b7 \nThis amount would have been avoided had the Ministry settled her obligation in time. \n2. \n \nCASH-IN: \nPrivately \nManaged \nCash \nTransfers in Africa Project \nDec, 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified", "metadata": {"page": 515, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Project funding revealed that out of the received grant of DKK306,394 (US $49,730.41) only \nDKK202,954.07 (US $32,947.09) was expended reflecting unspent funds of DKK103,439.93 (US $16,783.32) \nresulting into underperformance of 33.75% \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that management deducted overheads in access of DKK8,531.55 (US $1,392.30). The actual project \nexpenditure was US $26,295.66 (DKK161,981.27) but management charged administrative fees of US $6,651.43 \n(DKK40,972) representing 25.3% of actual expenditure contrary to Article 5 of the Partnership Agreement on \nresearch collaboration for CASH IN Research Programme which requires overheads to be deducted at 20% on", "metadata": {"page": 515, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "actual spending (and not budgeting). \n\uf0b7 \nI however noted that Makerere University, being the partner institution did not return unspent amounts worth US \n$16,783.32 (DKK103,439.93) to the coordinating institution. \n\uf0b7 \nFrom the review of the bank statements, I noted that Project funds were placed on a general college account in \nStandard Chartered Bank contrary to the requirements of the agreement. \n3. \n \nARSDP (MOES Component) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there was no approved budget or supplementary budget for the IDA Donor funding, and the project \nwas not included in the PIP. The Project funding of UGX.57.20Bn for the year under audit was not included in the \nVote\u2019s approved estimates for the year, hence off-budget financing.", "metadata": {"page": 515, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "500 \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the ARSDP Project Financing Agreement signed on the 24th August, 2015 indicated that the project \nwhich was supposed to end on 30th June, 2019 had its completion date revised thrice to 31st December 2022 due \nto delayed commencement. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the mid-Term Bursary Scheme Review Report had not been produced hindering timely remedial actions \nwhich may affect the Project\u2019s ability to achieve its intended objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there were some Bursary scheme management activities which were not achieved, such as the \ndevelopment of a framework for transfer of knowledge to the client staff and the design of a tracking system to \nmonitor training providers and trainees. \n \n4. \n \nCASJET Project for the Year Ended 31st \nDecember, 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified", "metadata": {"page": 516, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the project would commence on 1st January 2021, \nthe project funds were released on 8th October, 2021, thus occasioning a delay of 7 months in the implementation \nof project activities in the year. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned \nproject activities. \n5. \n \nCIDIMOH MAK Project Dec, 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project was supposed to commence on 1st January 2021, however, funds were released on 28th \nOctober 2021, thus delaying the project for 8 months. This delayed implementation of project activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project requisitioned funds to undertake different activities during the year. However, out of the", "metadata": {"page": 516, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "NOK 735,552 (USD.87,464) received, only NOK 596,058 (USD.70,877), representing 81% was spent. \n6. \n \nCIDIMOH UBG Project Dec, 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo significant matter to report on \n7. \n \nCOLOCAL Project Dec, 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project approved financial need request of USD.78,717 which was disbursed, but only USD.16,696 \n(21%) was spent during the period under review, leaving USD.62,021 unspent (79%). This affected \nimplementation of planned activities.", "metadata": {"page": 516, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "501 \n \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the Partnership Agreement stated that the project would commence on 1st January 2022, I noted that \nthe project funds were released on 15th November, 2022, thus occasioning a project delay of almost 11 months. \nThis affected implementation of project activities. \n \n8. \n \nECARESA Project \nDec, 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds were disbursed to the project late towards the year end on 21st October 2021 which was in \ncontravention of the Partnership agreement which required funds to be disbursed on 1st January, 2021. This \noccasioned a delay of almost 10 months, thus affecting timely implementation of project activities. \n9. \n \nClimate Smart Agriculture in Sub-\nSaharan Africa (CSA) Project \nDec 2021", "metadata": {"page": 517, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Dec 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe project requisitioned for funds as per its budget of NOK 500,216 (USD.54,371) and out of that, USD.58,382 \nwas received during the year. The funds remained unutilized throughout the year due to COVID-19 pandemic \nchallenges. \n \n10. \nEconomic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that EPRC received UGX.4,388,749,097 from GOU through Ministry of Planning and Economic Development \nin the financial year under review. The grant was not enough to finance the entities planned activities. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 517, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI further noted the GOU grant financed research activities worth UGX.256,095,782 during the year under review \nwhich represents 13% of the total research costs. \n11. \nEconomic Policy Research Centre \nJun 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo significant findings to report on \n \n12. \nGENDIG Project \nJun 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nThere was no reportable issue noted.", "metadata": {"page": 517, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "502 \n \nUnqualified \n13. \nUNFPA \nFunded \nProgramme \nRef; \nUGA08CMH/HIV/GBV/UFP/AYP/FGM \nimplemented \nby \nthe \nMinistry \nof \nEducation and Sports, 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo significant matters to report on. \n \n14. \nMATHSD Project \nDec, 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the project would commence on 1st January 2021,", "metadata": {"page": 518, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the project funds were released on 13th September,2021, thus occasioning a delay of 8 months of implementing \nproject activities in the year. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the planned implementation of project \nactivities. \n15. \nMakerere Institute of Social Research \nCarnegie Corporation Grant Number G-\n16-54073 Support Project \nApril 2021 to March 2022 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere were no material or reportable issues \n \n16. \nMakerere Institute of Social Research \n(MISR) on Decolonization, Humanities, \nDisciplines and the University for the \nPeriod \n1st \nJanuary, \n2021 \nto \n31st \nDecember, 2021 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 518, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that during the year under review, a total sum of USD 38,516.64 was not accounted for by project \nmanagement. Failure to account for funds could imply that the funds in question might not have been put to the \nintended use. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted an over expenditure of USD.6,724 resulting from an expenditure of USD.11,024 against a budget of \nUSD.4,300.", "metadata": {"page": 518, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "503 \n \n17. \nUganda Covid 19 Emergency Education \nResponse Project (UCEERP) \u2013 Ministry of \nEducation \nand \nSports \n(Grant \nNo.TF0B3597) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total funds received during the financial year under review of USD. 9.31Bn, a sum of \nUSD.9.2 Bn was spent by the Project resulting into an unspent balance of USD. 0.102Bn, representing absorption \nlevel of only 98%. \n \n18. \nStrengthening \nPublic \nInvestment \nManagement - Center of Excellence for \nPIM \ntraining \nP16990B-GRANT \nNO. \nTF0B1422", "metadata": {"page": 519, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the work plans, the project planned to receive US $558,252.76 out of which US $536,728.00 was \nreceived, resulting in a shortfall of US $21,524.76 The shortfall represents 3.9% of the approved work plan. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the available funds of US $536,728.00 only US $438,226.38 was spent resulting into unspent balance of US \n$98,501.62 (18%). \n\uf0b7 \nFour (4) outputs with forty three (43) activities worth US $558,252.76 were partially implemented. \n19. \nStrengthening \nPublic \nInvestment \nManagement - Center of Excellence for \nPIM \ntraining \nP16990B-GRANT \nNO. \nTF0B1422", "metadata": {"page": 519, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "TF0B1422 \nAugust,2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the work plans, the project planned to receive US $809,999 out of which US $626,453 was received, \nresulting in a shortfall of US $183,546. The shortfall represents 22.6% of the approved work plan. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the disbursed funds of US $626,453 only US $272,777.92 was spent resulting into unspent balance of US \n$353,675.08 representing under absorption level of 56.5%. \n\uf0b7 \nFour (4) outputs with forty-three (43) activities worth US $442,304.54 were partially implemented. Out of the \nforty-three (43) activities, the project fully implemented twenty-five (25) activities; sixteen (16) activities were \npartially implemented, while two (2) activities were not implemented at all.", "metadata": {"page": 519, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "20. \nAfrican Centre for Agro ecology and \nLivelihood Systems (ACALISE) Project \u2013 \nUMU \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the available funds amounting to USD 1,596,155 (receipt of USD 1,485,162 and balance brought \nforward of USD 110,993) for the project operations for the financial year, only USD 891,615 was spent, leaving an \nunspent balance of USD 704,540. This represents approximately 56% absorption rate. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Results Framework Indicators specifically for the year under review revealed that some indicators \ndid not perform as expected or targeted. There were no admissions for masters students. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the revenue generated by the farm and the corresponding farm expenses for the year 2021/2022 \nrevealed that the farm made a deficit of USD. 2,148. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 519, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA visit to the Soil Laboratory revealed two (2) challenges of lack of a Laboratory Technologist and lack of distilled \nwater in the laboratory resulting from lack of an electric plug to connect the water distillation unit to the 3-phase \nelectricity supply point.", "metadata": {"page": 519, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "504 \n \n21. \nSoroti University. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the university budgeted to collect UGX. 0.88Bn as NTR for the financial year 2021/2022, however only \nUGX.0.43Bn was collected representing a performance of 48% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity budgeted to receive UGX. 24.29Bn out of which UGX. 24.27Bn warranted, resulting into a shortfall of \nUGX.0.02Bn, which is 0.11% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX. 24.27Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling \nUGX.22.93Bn resulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX.1.34Bn representing an absorption level of 94.5%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 520, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI assessed twelve (12) outputs that were fully quantified with thirty six (36) activities worth UGX 14.36 and noted \nthat Seven (7) outputs with twenty one (21) activities and expenditure worth UGX. 783Bn were fully implemented. \nFive (5) outputs with fifteen (15) activities worth UGX. 6.51Bn were partially implemented. Out of the fifteen \nactivities (15), the entity fully implemented nine (9) activities. Two (two) activities were partially implemented, \nwhile four (4) activities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that a number of key positions of Professors, Associate professors, Senior lecturers and Lecturers were \nvacant. Out of the established structure of 1,312, only 166 had been recruited representing a percentage of 9% \nindicating a shortfall of 1,146 staff (91%) positions. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 520, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that all the 2 pieces of land measuring 228.96 hectares (100%) valued at UGX.420, 000,000,000 held by \nthe university, were recorded in the entity land/assets register. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 228.96 hectares held, 1piece measuring \napproximately 44.66 hectares (19.4 %) valued at UGX. 81,480,000,000 had encumbrances in the form of land \ndisputes, court injunctions and encroachment \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the University did not have adequate infrastructure to accommodate the students under these specific \ncourses. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the subsequent payments of staff in the financial year under review revealed that staffs at M15 were \nstill paid salary of M20 despite its abolishment in the FY under review resulting in under payment by UGX. \n185,256,275. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 520, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the positions on the appointment letters of 37 university staff were no longer on the approved structure \nand there were no letters of re-designation to that effect. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Soroti University had 5 IT systems which were not integrated or not automatically sharing \ninformation with other systems. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that entity did not transfer all the two (2) land titles of land measuring approximately 228.96 hectares \nheld, into the name and custody of the Uganda Land Commission.", "metadata": {"page": 520, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "505 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 228.96 hectares held, 1piece of land measuring \napproximately 44.6 hectares (19.51%) valued at UGX. 81,480,000,000 were not utilized by the entity at the time \nof audit because of the ongoing court process. \n22. \nBusitema University. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the projected NTR of UGX.7.53Bn, a sum of UGX.7.39Bn was collected, representing a \nperformance of 98% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the approved budget of UGX.59.24Bn, a sum of UGX.51.84bn was warranted, resulting in a \nshortfall of UGX.7.4Bn. The shortfall represents 12.5% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 521, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the University had off budget financing from development partners to a tune of UGX. 2,616,726,500 \nand USD. 815,318.45 for implementation of various projects. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.51.89Bn received during the financial year UGX.51.84Bn was spent \nby the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.05Bn, representing an absorption level of 99.9% \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that all the six (6) outputs that had been fully quantified with total of (16) activities worth UGX.38.74Bn \nwere partially implemented. Out of the (16) activities, the entity fully implemented ten (10) activities; four (4) \nactivities were partially implemented while two (2) activities were not implemented at all \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 521, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the University had outstanding receivables amounting to UGX. 2,093,054,875 an increase of UGX. \n789,091,874 (37.7%) from UGX. 1,303,963,001 in the prior year. The prior figure of UGX. 1,031,855,860 had been \noutstanding for over one year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas the University received funds amounting to UGX.33.66bn to cater for wage from the Central \nGovernment, the University did not receive the corresponding wage allocation for Social benefits of UGX3.36bn \n(10% of the approved wage) \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that only 63 of the University\u2019s 216 lecturers were PhD holders while 136 staff had Master's degrees giving \nthe University only 30.1% of PhD holders. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the University had only 500 staff in post as opposed to the approved staff establishment of 2800 staff", "metadata": {"page": 521, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "hence a staffing level of 18%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the University had substantive heads of departments for only 42 (55%) of its 62 departments across \nall its Faculties with the remaining 20 having heads of department in acting Capacity. \n \n23. \nGulu University. \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nThe University budgeted to receive UGX 59.79Bn from Government support out of which UGX 56.10Bn was \nwarranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 3.69Bn. The shortfall represents 6.2% of the approved budget.", "metadata": {"page": 521, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "506 \n \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \n All the warranted amount of UGX56.091Bn was spent by the University, representing an absorption level of 100%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that of the 12 quantified activities worth UGX45.64Bn assessed; 6 activities representing 50% were fully \nimplemented, 4 activities representing 33.3% were partially implemented, while 2 activity representing 16.7% was \nnot implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe University acquired one (1) piece of land measuring 318 hectares. Out of the agreed purchase price of UGX \n6,539,395,190 only UGX 2,356,590,768 was paid leaving a balance of UGX 4,182,804,422 outstanding. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that three Gulu University Constituent College task force members irregularly received gratuity worth UGX \n82,932,099. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 522, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that all thirteen (13) pieces of land measuring approximately 2,532 hectares were not recorded in the \nGFMIS fixed asset module. In addition, 8 pieces of titled land measuring approximately 2,186 hectares were not \nrecorded in the land/assets register, of the university; Four (4) pieces measuring approximately 961 hectares had \nencumbrances in the form of encroachment by the local population; and Five (5) pieces of land measuring \napproximately 346 hectares (14%) did not have land titles. \n\uf0b7 \nIncluded in the Universities payables of UGX6.98Bn are two interim certificates worth UGX2.606Bn for payment of \nthe construction of the Business Development Center (Teaching Facility) at Gulu University. Due to the long \noutstanding Payables, the contractor stopped working and the fate of the project has remained unclear. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the ICT governance structure of the University revealed that; there was no approved IT risk", "metadata": {"page": 522, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "management framework/policy and there was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National \nInformation Security Policy 2014. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the audit of Gulu University, I observed that total of four (4) IT systems/equipment developed were not \ncleared by NITA-U. \n24. \nThe \nHigher \nEducation \nStudents' \nFinancing Board (HESFB) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.26.19Bn, only UGX. 24.05Bn was spent \nrepresenting an absorption level of 91.83%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation a total of fifty four (54) activities worth UGX.19.99Bn and noted that; twenty eight \n(28) activities were fully implemented representing 52%; seventeen (17) activities were partially implemented", "metadata": {"page": 522, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "representing 31%, while nine (9) activities remained unimplemented representing 17%. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Board accumulated payables totalling to UGX. 15.33Bn compared to the previous year payables position of \nUGX.1.42Bn accounting for an increase of 977% out of which 99.4% relates to Loan disbursements to beneficiary \ninstitutions. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas the cumulative outstanding loan amount due for recovery from 3,025 beneficiaries by the \nclosure of the financial year under review stood at UGX.4.305Bn, only UGX.0.308Bn representing 7% for the \ncurrent financial year and a cumulative of UGX.0.609Bn had been recovered.", "metadata": {"page": 522, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "507 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Board reported a Loan Portfolio/investment of UGX.127.83Bn but I noted that there were analysis reports \nmade to ascertain the risks status and aging analysis of the loan portfolio. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that out of the approved establishment of 65 staff only 28 positions were filled (43%) leaving 37 \npositions vacant (58%). \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Board\u2019s term expired in March 2022 and there was no Board for the last quarter of the financial \nyear 2021/2022. \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to the Higher Educating Students Financing Board Act, 2014 which requires centralization of management \nof scholarships, it was observed that part of this mandate was managed by other government agencies such as \nMinistry of Education and Sports and Uganda Missions abroad. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were gaps in risk management because of absence of fraud Prevention Mechanisms and Risk Assessment \nand Management Policies. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 523, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and Management Policies. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted gaps in the monitoring and Evaluation of the Board activities due to absence of joint Monitoring Team and \nData Quality Control Strategy as required by Section 3.4.1 and 3.4.6 of the HESFB Monitoring and Evaluation \nProcedures Manual, 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that, the Board failed to charge 7% Value Retention Fee Interest on the annual students outstanding loans \nand delayed to operationalization the 5 year Resource Mobilization Strategy (RSM) for 2019/2020-2023-2024 \n25. \nKabale University. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the budgeted receipts from GoU of 47.898Bn, only UGX.44.611Bn was received by the entity \nresulting in a shortfall of UGX.3.287Bn. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 523, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.44.611Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX. 44.599Bn, \nresulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.013Bn which represents an absorption level of 99.97%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 7 quantified activities worth UGX.3.13Bn assessed; 4 activities representing 57% were fully \nimplemented, while 3 activities representing 43% were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Kabale University had long outstanding payables of UGX.1,872,390,164 \n\uf0b7 \nA total of 4 IT systems/equipment internally developed were not cleared by NITA-U \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Kabale University had 7 systems which were not integrated or automatically sharing information with \nother systems. \n\uf0b7 \nSix (6) categories of IT equipment recommended for disposal by board of survey report were not disposed. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 523, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThere were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation and there was no approved IT risk \nmanagement framework/policy at the entity \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not transfer the two (2) land titles of land measuring approximately 20.563 hectares \ninto the name and custody of the Uganda Land Commission", "metadata": {"page": 523, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "508 \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of Plot No.364 Ndorwa Block 3 Kabale Kikungiri Hill land and Plot 66-76 Kirigime Road Land records \nrevealed that the University had not valued its pieces of land since 2002 and 2009, respectively. \n \n26. \nLira University. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted NTR of UGX.4.948Bn, only UGX.3.621Bn was realised, representing a performance of 73.2%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX 31.811Bn, the university received warrants of UGX 27.747Bn resulting into a \nshortfall of UGX 4,063,277,549. (12.77) %. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 524, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.27.75Bn available for spending, invoices totalling UGX.25.31Bn were submitted \nresulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX.2.44Bn representing an absorption level of 91.2%. As a result of failure \nto absorb funds, the entity still has staffing gaps in the approved structure. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed a sample of eleven (11) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of fourteen (14) activities \nworth UGX.11.031Bn and noted that Six (6) outputs with six (6) activities and expenditure worth UGX8.551Bn \nwere fully implemented. Five (5) outputs with eight (8) activities worth UGX2.480Bn were partially implemented. \nOut of the eight (8) activities, the University fully implemented two (2) activities while six (6) activities were partially \nimplemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 524, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the two (2) pieces of land measuring approximately 417.533 hectares held, (One) 1 piece of titled land \nmeasuring approximately 165.975 hectares was not recorded in the entity land/asset register. I also noted that \nthe 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 417.533 hectares were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module \nthus affecting the accuracy of the non-produced assets in the financial statements. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 417.533 hectares the University held, 1 piece of land \nmeasuring approximately 165.975 hectares (39.75%) did not have land title. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 417.533 hectares held by the University, one (1) \npiece of land measuring approximately 165.975 hectares (39.75%) was not utilized while one (1) land title \nmeasuring approximately 251.558 hectares was not transferred into the name and custody of the Uganda Land", "metadata": {"page": 524, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Commission. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that only 267 positions out of the approved establishment of 991 posts were filled leaving 724 positions \nvacant representing a staffing gap of 73%. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the audit of Lira University Information Technology (IT) Investments, I observed that; A total of six (6) IT \nsystems/equipment procured of UGX 56,410,000 were not cleared by NITA-U. In addition, 430 IT hardware \nequipment had exceeded the recommended five (5) years useful life, hence due for disposal. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. Furthermore, out of the total \napproved established positions in the structure for the ICT Department of thirteen (13) staff, only six (6) \nrepresenting (46%)of the approved structure were filled leaving seven (7) (54%) positions vacant.", "metadata": {"page": 524, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "509 \n \n27. \nMAK Holdings. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nIncluded in payables of UGX 846,382,405 as shown in the statement of financial position and under note 18 to the \naccounts are long outstanding arrears of UGX 791,911,805 \n\uf0b7 \nReview of the Guest House cash book and bank statements revealed that out of cash collected of UGX 780,314,500, \na total of UGX 371,772,200 was spent at source \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Makerere University Holding Limited operated without a strategic plan an annual work plan and budget. \nThere were no minutes to show approval and review of the strategic plan and the budget by the Board. \n\uf0b7 \nMak Holdings does not have an Investment Policy and Audit Risk Management Policy. I also noted that Mak", "metadata": {"page": 525, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Holdings Financial Management Policy and the Mak Holdings Human Resource Manual, 2016 being implemented \nwere not approved by the Board. I further noted that the existing policies were not communicated to employees \n\uf0b7 \nThe Guest House is in a dire state with dilapidated structures and rooms with outdated facilities \n28. \nMAK Holdings. \n2021 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Company management budgeted to receive and generate revenue of UGX.1,892,600,000 however, \nonly UGX.809,760,761 (43%) was realized reflecting an underperformance of UGX.1,082,839,239 which is 57% of \nthe expected revenue for the year. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Makerere University Guest house had accumulated creditors to the tune of UGX.620,024,827 from", "metadata": {"page": 525, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.405,138,535 in the financial year ended 30th June, 2020 representing a 53% increase in liabilities. Some of \nthe outstanding liabilities include statutory payments worth UGX.240,026,071. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted an increase in receivables of UGX.299,307,621 from UGX.271,978,943 reported in the prior year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Makerere University Guest House issues Manual Receipts and purchases most of its supplies from \nsuppliers who do not have the Electronic Fiscal Receipting and Invoicing System (EFRIS) contrary to Section 73A \n(1) of the Tax Procedures Code Act. The Company is therefore, disadvantaged from the benefits associated with \nthe EFRIS system which includes accuracy in VAT payable and claimable records. \n29. \nMapronano World Bank Project. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 525, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted out of the released US $280,331.61 under SALIVA Project, only US $178,755.45 was spent by the project \nresulting into unspent balance of US $101,576.16representing 36% under absorption level. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the released funds worth US $404,167.62 under NANO Project, only US $254,334.12 was spent by the \nproject management resulting into unspent balance of US $149,833.50 representing 37% under absorption. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of seven (7) outputs with a total of twenty-two (22) activities worth \nUS $1,574,943 and noted that; Four (4) outputs with fifteen (15) activities and expenditure worth US \n$1,077,340.69 were fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities worth US $497,602.41 were", "metadata": {"page": 525, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "partially implemented. Out of the six activities, two were fully implemented; three were partially implemented while \none was not implemented at all.", "metadata": {"page": 525, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "510 \n \n30. \nMaRCCI World bank Project. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in \na shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) \nactivities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ \n5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ \nnon-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. \n31.", "metadata": {"page": 526, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "31. \nManagement Training and Advisory \nCentre (MTAC). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted NTR of UGX.2.19Bn for the financial year 2021/2022, a sum of UGX.2.11Bn was collected \nrepresenting performance of 96.3% of the target. This resulted into a short fall in revenue collection of UGX. \n79,995,000. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of UGX. 7,795,757,000 the Centre had budgeted to receive from the Government, only UGX. 7,767,641,000 \nwas warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX. 28,116,000. The shortfall represents 0.5% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.9.88Bn, a sum of UGX.9.53Bn was spent by the Centre", "metadata": {"page": 526, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "resulting into unspent balance of UGX.0.35Bn representing an absorption level of 96.4%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of five (5) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of nineteen \n(19) activities worth UGX. 5,460,767,000 and noted that three (3) outputs with fourteen (14) activities with \nexpenditure worth UGX. 4,355,739,000 were fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX. \n1,105,028,000 were partially implemented. Out of the five (5) activities, the entity fully implemented one (1) \nactivity; four (4) activities were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity had outstanding commitments to a tune of UGX. 1,121,289,592 as at 30th June 2022. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 526, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Centre had receivables amounting to UGX. 690,189,868 this financial year compared to UGX.703, \n515,408 brought forward from the previous financial year. Included in the receivables are students\u2019 debtors worth \n547,570,961 which relate to prior years. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 3.844 hectares costing UGX. 30,498,500,000 were recorded \nin the entity\u2019s land register while 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 1.644 were not recorded in the Centre\u2019s \nasset register. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Centre had staff who have served in acting positions for over 5 years. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of 73 approved positions in the Centre\u2019s structure only 48 were filled leaving 25(34.2%) positions \nvacant. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Centre provides support to its outreach centres in form of among others provision of computers", "metadata": {"page": 526, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "to enable delivery of teaching. It was established that all centres have inadequate computers to facilitate learning. \n\uf0b7 \nVerification of the number of enrolled students for the year under review indicated that management was only \nable to attract 711 students in the different diploma programmes leading to under enrolment of 1,209.", "metadata": {"page": 526, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "511 \n \n\uf0b7 \nReview of the required wage bill to pay the staff currently employed by the Centre amounts to UGX.858,920,011 \nbut only UGX. 100,000,000 (11%) was allocated by Government, leading to funding gap of UGX.758,920,011. \n\uf0b7 \n \n32. \nMakerere University. \n2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nUniversity budgeted to receive UGX.389.433Bn, but only UGX.347.889Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX.41.543Bn. The shortfall represents 10.67% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.132.332Bn, only UGX.68.083Bn was realized, representing a", "metadata": {"page": 527, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "performance of 51.4 % of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.347.889Bn received during the financial year, UGX344.465Bn was spent resulting \ninto an unspent balance of UGX3.424B,n representing an absorption level of 98%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of a sample of fourteen (14) outputs with a total of thirty five (35) activities worth UGX 341.13Bn assessed, I \nnoted that Two (2) outputs with two (2) activities and expenditure worth UGX.1.298Bn were fully implemented; \nand Twelve (12) outputs with thirty-five (35) activities worth UGX.339.833Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted long outstanding payables of UGX.959,975,856 due from rental income attributed toUniversity tenants. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted through land inspection, document review and inquiries from management that four (4) pieces of land", "metadata": {"page": 527, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "measuring 103.05 hectares (6.3%) out of the 1,645.04 hectares of land owned by Makerere University had \nencumbrances in the form of caveats, court injunctions and encroachment. While three (3) pieces of land \nmeasuring approximately 309.2 hectares (9.34%) out of the 32 pieces held did not have land titles. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity did not transfer all the twenty-nine (29) land titles measuring approximately 1,335.84 hectares held, \ninto the name and custody of the Uganda Land Commission. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the University leased three (3) pieces of land during the period under review, these pieces of land were \nnot traceable to the lease register. \n\uf0b7 \nOne (1) lease for land measuring 3.98 hectares had expired at the time of carrying out the audit. Besides, the \nentity did not receive any lease rentals from the leased properties. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 527, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA review of the IT systems of the University revealed a number of irregularities such as; procurement of equipment \nworth UGX.41,826,600 and tenure decommission 1,417 IT equipment despite recommendation of the board of \nsurvey report. \n33. \nNORHED Consolidated Project for the \nYear Ended 31st Dec, 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st \nJanuary 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under \nNORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing \nagreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned \nproject activities.", "metadata": {"page": 527, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "512 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 \n(USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 \n(USD.167,049). \n\uf0b7 \nI further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only \nNOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption \nrate of only 53.4%. \n34. \nROM Project for the Year Ended 31st \nDecember, 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 528, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the project would commence on 1st January 2021, \nthe project funds were released on 17th November, 2021, thus occasioning a delay of 10 months in the \nimplementation of project activities in the year. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation \nof planned project activities. \n \n35. \nTELLS Project for the Year Ended 31st \nDecember, 2021 \n \nImplemented by Makerere University \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the project would commence on 1st January 2021, \nthe project funds were released on 30th November, 2021, thus occasioning a delay of 11 months in the \nimplementation of project activities in the year. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation \nof planned project activities. \n \n36. \nMuni University.", "metadata": {"page": 528, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Muni University. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX 26.639Bn received during the financial year, the University spent UGX 26.145Bn \nresulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX 0.494Bn representing an absorption level of 98.15%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that of the 17 quantified activities worth UGX 3.878Bn assessed; 7 activities representing 41.2% were fully \nimplemented, whereas 10 activities representing 58.8% were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that of the six (6) pieces of land measuring approximately 1,334.85 hectares held by the University were \nnot recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module, four (4) pieces of titled land measuring approximately 1,155.65 \nhectares were not recorded in the land/assets register; One (1) piece of land at Bidibidi measuring approximately", "metadata": {"page": 528, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "177.891 hectares had encumbrances in the form of the utilization of the entire piece of land to resettle refugees \nby OPM; 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 179.202 hectares (13%) did not have land titles and the \nUniversity failed to transfer all the four (4) titles of land measuring approximately 1,155.65 hectares held, into the \nname and custody of the Uganda Land Commission. \n\uf0b7 \nThe statement of financial position and note 19 of the financial statements disclosed UGX 2,850,053,751 as \nreceivables included in the balance under note 19(a) are accrued revenue of UGX 338,023,245. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that a total of two (2) IT systems developed were not cleared by NITA-U", "metadata": {"page": 528, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "513 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Big Blue button and E-books systems developed systems are not owned by the entity, as a result, it increases \nthe exposure of the entity to vendor manipulation. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the 11 total approved established positions in the structure for the ICT Directorate/Department/Unit staff, \nonly 8 staff representing (73%) were filled leaving 3 staff (27%) positions vacant. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. \n37. \nMbarara University of Science and \nTechnology \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nA review of Statement of the financial Position and note 19(a) revealed that receivables worth UGX. 958,118,173 \nremained outstanding. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 529, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "remained outstanding. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted NTR of UGX.12.477Bn, only UGX.10.844Bn was collected, representing a performance of 87% \nof the target. \n\uf0b7 \nOut to the approved budget, UGX. 59.171Bn out of which UGX.54.671Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX4.53Bn. The shortfall represented 7.6% of the revised approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.54.671Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling \nUGX.53.870Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.802Bn representing an absorption level of 99%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of twenty-five (25) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total", "metadata": {"page": 529, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of eighty-three (83) activities worth UGX.41.861Bn and noted that; Ten (10) outputs with twenty (20) activities \nand expenditure worth UGX.1.629Bn were fully implemented while thirteen (13) outputs with fifty-nine (59) \nactivities worth UGX.40.073Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the fifty-nine (59) activities, the entity fully implemented twenty (20) activities; eighteen (18) activities were \npartially implemented, while twenty-one (21) activities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nProcurements totalling to UGX.311,643,492 sourced using Micro procurement were split to fit within the set \nthreshold of UGX.5,000,000. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the University entered into a contract worth UGX. 8,397,814,309 with a contractor to construct Phase", "metadata": {"page": 529, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "2, of faculty of Computer Formatics, for a period of 18 months. However, the funds to pay for the multi- year \nproject were not released. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of 3 IT systems/equipment procured at UGX.122,410,500 were not cleared by NITA-U, while systems \ncosting UGX.122,410,500 did not have clearance from MoFPED. \n38. \nNational Council of Sports. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds during the financial year of UGX.18.368Bn, only UGX.18.043Bn was spent by the \nentity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.325Bn representing an absorption level of 98.2%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.781Bn during the year under review, out of only \nUGX.0.670Bn was realized, representing a performance of 86% of the target.", "metadata": {"page": 529, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "514 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 4 quantified activities worth UGX.15.1Bn assessed; 3 activities representing 75% were fully \nimplemented, while 1 activity representing 25% was not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that transfers to Uganda netball federation and Uganda Boxing federation worth UGX.270,040,950 were \nnot fully accounted for. \n\uf0b7 \n I noted a shortage of sports academies and technical capacity in terms of personnel with internationally accredited \nskills to promote sports in the country. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not transfer land in to the custody of Uganda Land Commission \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the staff of the entity had not been enrolled on the IPPS system and were paid through IFMS without \nIPPS numbers. \n\uf0b7 \nA total of 3 IT systems/equipment acquired at UGX.43,049,727 were not cleared by NITA-U. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 530, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nReview of the ICT governance structure of the entity revealed that; there were no specific structures that steer \nand oversee ICT implementation; the entity did not have an approved IT staff structure in place despite ICT \nprioritization in NDP III; there was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity; there was no \nbusiness continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \n39. \nUganda Management Institute (UMI). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Institute did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review however, UGX 12.02Bn was \ncollected. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget, of UGX 38.03Bn, a sum of UGX 32.05Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX 5.98Bn. The shortfall represents 15.72% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 530, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX 43.57Bn received during the financial year UGX 31.55Bn was spent by the institute \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX 12.020Bn representing an absorption level of 72%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of a sample of seven (7) outputs assessed with a total of twenty five (25) activities worth UGX2.31Bn four (4) \noutputs with twenty two (22) activities worth UGX 1.48Bn were partially implemented and three (3) outputs with \nthree (3) activities with a budget of UGX 0.83Bn were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nOut if 276 positions in the establishment 200 posts were filled leaving 76 positions vacant representing a staffing \ngap of 28%. \n\uf0b7 \nAll the 05 pieces of land measuring approximately 6.725 hectares held, by Institute were not transferred into the \nname of the Uganda Land Commission as required by the law. \n40.", "metadata": {"page": 530, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "40. \nUganda National Examinations Board \n(UNEB). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had an approved budget of UGX 146,445,366,444 which was entirely warranted. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not budget for NTR collection despite a communication from the PS/ST which projected \nthe entity\u2019s NTR at UGX.56.89Bn.", "metadata": {"page": 530, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "515 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Uganda Land Commission was not notified about the acquisition of one piece of land measuring 0.4 hectares \ncosting UGX.750,000,000 to enable recording and updating of the GOU land register. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that all the 6 pieces of land measuring approximately 2.12 hectares held by the entity at the reporting date \nhad not been transferred into the custody of ULC. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that one piece of land measuring approximately 0.4 hectares (100%) had not yet been used in accordance \nwith the approved purpose set out in the strategic plan. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was no IT risk management framework/policy at UNEB by the time of the audit. \n41. \nUganda \nBusiness \nand \nTechnical \nExaminations Board (UBTEB) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 531, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.7.7Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only \nUGX.2.3Bn was realised, representing a performance of 30% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total available funds of UGX. 35.2Bn during the financial year, UGX. 32.65Bn was spent \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 2.55Bn representing absorption level of 92.8%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that four (4) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditures worth UGX.16.3Bn were fully implemented \nthree (3) outputs with nine (9) activities worth UGX.16.4Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Board did not have a land title for its 1 piece of land measuring approximately 0.404 hectares \n(100%) \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 531, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(100%) \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UBTEB had only made payments amounting to UGX. 3,792,402,179 against the required amount of \nUGX. 5,126,257,884 toward advance payments for the construction of the proposed UBTEB assessment Centre \nhence an underpayment of UGX.1,333,855,405. I further noted that at the time of the audit in October 2022, the \nBoard had not made any payments toward the four Interim payment certificates raised by the contractor totaling \nUGX. 2,980,505,141 \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there was no Business and Technical Vocational Qualifications Framework in place rendering it difficult \nfor the Board to effectively execute its mandate. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that though the Board had 205 approved staff positions, only 97 had been filled leaving a staffing gap of \n108 (52%). \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 531, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that Uganda Hotel Training and Tourism Institute, Bukalasa Agricultural College, and Nyabyeya Forestry \nCollege do offer diploma programmes but assess their students contrary to the provision of the law. \n42. \nMakerere Institute of Social Research- \nNorhed Project \u201cBuilding and Reflecting \non \nInterdisciplinary \nPhd-Studies \nfor \nHigher Education Transformation\u201d Grant \nNumber: Uga-13/0023 For the Period 1st \nJanuary 2021 to 31st August, 2021 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere were no material and reportable issues", "metadata": {"page": 531, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "516 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n43. \nMISR NORHED Project II \u201cBuilding and \nReflecting On Interdisciplinary PHD-\nStudies \nfor \nHigher \nEducation \nTransformation\u201d Grant Number: UGA-\n13/0023 for the Period 1st September, \n2021 to 31st December, 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThere are no reportable issues. \n \n44. \nUganda Petroleum Institute Kigumba \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.0.647Bn for the year 2021/2022, UGX.0.641Bn was collected,", "metadata": {"page": 532, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "representing a performance of 99% of the target. Similarly, the Institute budgeted to receive UGX.8.5Bn from GOU \nof which only UGX.4.75Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX. 3.75Bn representing 45% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total releases of UGX. 5.389Bn received during the financial year, UGX. 4.761Bn was spent \nby the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 0.628Bn representing an absorption level of 88.3% \n\uf0b7 \nI noted from a sample of (16) Outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of one hundred forty-six (146) \nactivities worth UGX. 4.096Bn that; \n\uf0b7 \nSix (6) outputs with fifty-seven (57) activities and expenditure worth UGX. 1.409Bn were fully implemented, three", "metadata": {"page": 532, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(3) outputs with eleven (11) activities worth UGX. 2.244Bn were partially implemented, Seven (7) outputs with \nseventy (78) activities worth UGX. 0.443Bn were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 103 approved staff for the Institute; only 81 positions were filled leaving 22 (21.4%) \npositions vacant. Of the 81 staff, 40 staff were on Government payroll (permanent), 1 staff on probation while 41 \nare on governing council contract \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that contract staff salary for the month of June 2022 worth UGX. 47,877,500 had not been paid. Further \nenquiries indicated that contract staff had not been paid for the last four (4) months. \n \n45. \nEducation Service Commission \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 532, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Commission had a revised budget, totalling UGX.21.28Bn, out of which UGX.18.03 was warranted, resulting \ninto a shortfall of UGX.3.25Bn. The shortfall represents 15.3% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission received UGX.18.03Bn during the financial year, however UGX.17.6Bn was spent resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.0.42 representing an absorption level of 98%", "metadata": {"page": 532, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "517 \n \n\uf0b7 \nFrom the sampled of Six (6) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of twenty-four (24) activities worth \nUGX.15.92Bn, I noted that; Five (5) outputs with twenty-one (21) activities and expenditure worth UGX.11.94 \nwere fully implemented. One (1) output with three (3) activities worth UGX.3.98 were partially implemented. Out \nof the three (3) activities, the entity fully implemented two (2) activities; one (1) activity was partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Commission was allocated land measuring approximately 0.405 hectares by the Ministry of Education \nand Sports of which the Commission had not acquired a land title. \n\uf0b7 \nThe commission budgeted to receive UGX.1,022,060,300 for the last 3 financial years, for implementation of IT", "metadata": {"page": 533, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "systems and acquisition of IT Equipment, however, only UGX.321,530,300 was warranted, resulting into a shortfall \nof UGX.700,530,000 which is 68.5% of the budget. \n46. \nMandela National Stadium Limited \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the entity budgeted to receive UGX.98.36Bn, only UGX.82.88Bn was collected, resulting into a shortfall \nof UGX.15.48Bn which is 15.7% of the budget. \n\uf0b7 \n Out of the two (2) outputs with a total of thirty three (33) activities and total expenditure of UGX.34.3Bn sampled \nfor assessment, I noted that One (1) output with six (6) activities and expenditure worth UGX.2.2Bn was fully", "metadata": {"page": 533, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "implemented while one (1) output with twenty-seven (27) activities worth UGX.32.1Bn was partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the 3 pieces of land measuring approximately 50.199 hectares, land measuring approximately \n25.199 hectares had encumbrances in the form of court injunctions and encroachment. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the financial statements revealed that Mandela National Stadium Limited had receivables of UGX. \n30,839,304,013 at the close of the financial year, an increase of 1,051.8% from receivables of UGX.2,677,452,246 \nof the previous financial year 2020/2021. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was neither approved IT risk management framework/policy nor risk register at the entity. Furthermore, \nthere was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 533, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas the Uganda Land Commission leased 2 piece of land measuring 2.433 hectares during the \nperiod under review, these pieces of land were not traceable to MNSL lease register. \n47. \nKyambogo University \n2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.139.89Bn, out of which UGX.129.13Bn \nwas warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX10.76Bn. The shortfall represents 7.7% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.77.14Bn during the year under review, out of which only \nUGX.74.68Bn was realized, representing a performance of 97% of the target. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 533, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.129.13Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoiced totaling \nUGX.128.75Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.38Bn representing an absorption level of 99.71%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of sixteen (16) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of \neighty three (84) activities worth UGX. 119.91Bn and noted that; Two (2) outputs with six (6) activities and \nexpenditure worth UGX.1.01Bn were fully implemented; Twelve (12) outputs with seventy six (76) activities worth \nUGX.118.61Bn were partially implemented.", "metadata": {"page": 533, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "518 \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the University expenditure vouchers revealed that payments relating to the previous year totaling to \nUGX.2,663,779,707 were neither disclosed/ verified as part of the arrears in the previous financial year nor \nbudgeted for, but was paid in the current financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas the Ministry of Public Service issued a salary structure for all Public Universities for uniformity \nof payment of salaries of public universities, Kyambogo University paid top-up on the approved salaries from \nallowances\u2019 allocation to a tune of UGX.8,934,707,841. \n\uf0b7 \nA comparison of 5% NSSF deducted from the salaries of employees for the month of December, January, February \nand March with the total amount of 5% NSSF remitted for the same months, revealed a discrepancy of", "metadata": {"page": 534, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.116,071,516 unremitted amount to NSSF. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had 38 positions in ICT staff establishment of which only 7 (18%) positions were filled \n48. \nThe \nNational \nCouncil \nfor \nHigher \nEducation \n2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.4.780Bn during the year under review out of which, only \nUGX.3.425Bn was collected, resulting to a short fall in revenue collection of UGX.1.355Bn, representing a \nperformance of 74% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity was supposed to receive UGX.13.83Bn out of which UGX.12.472Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall", "metadata": {"page": 534, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of UGX.1.358Bn, representing 9.83% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.12.472Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling \nUGX.11.18Bn resulting into un-utilised warrants of UGX.1.3Bn representing an absorption level of 90%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of five (5) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of one hundred fifteen \n(15) activities worth UGX.11.2Bn and noted that; Two (2) outputs with three (3) activities and expenditures worth \nUGX.1Bn were fully implemented. Three (3) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX.10.2Bn were partially \nimplemented. Out of the twelve (12) activities, the entity fully implemented three (3) activities while nine (9) \nactivities were partially implemented, and none of the activities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 534, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the approved staff establishment of 125 staff, NCHE has only 53 staff, resulting to a staffing \ngap of 72 staff (58%). I further noted that the Council had a wage requirement of UGX. 12,821,702,568 but only \nreceived UGX. 7,064,285,393 resulting into a shortfall of UGX. 5,757,417,175. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that only 487 programs were accredited out of 600 planned for the year, leaving 113 programs not \naccredited. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 30 universities\u2019 provisional licenses were not assessed for progression to charter status, after 3 years \nof holding provisional licenses. \n\uf0b7 \nI further noted that licenses of 76 Tertiary Institutions were not assessed for progression of certificate of \nclassification and registration.", "metadata": {"page": 534, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "519 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI also noted that four (4) Universities whose licences were revoked continue to operate contrary to the regulations. \n49. \nNational Curriculum Development Centre \n2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources and rates charged at vote level for the financial year 2021/2022 \nand noted that the entity did not budget for NTR in the year under review; however, UGX.0.095Bn was collected. \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.42.16Bn out of which UGX. 40.72Bn \nwas warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX1.38Bn which is 3.3% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.40.72Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totaling", "metadata": {"page": 535, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX. 39.027Bn resulting in an un-utilized warrant of UGX.1.7Bn representing an absorption level of 95.8%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of eleven (11) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of \nseventy-two (72) activities worth UGX.39.03Bn and noted that; Two (2) outputs with eleven (11) activities and \nexpenditure worth UGX.0.49Bn were fully implemented. Nine (9) outputs with sixty-one (61) activities worth \nUGX.38.54Bn were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Centre had receivables totaling to UGX.392,497,559 as at 30th June 2022 though there were no \ndemand notes or reminders issued in the current year in regard to these arrears of revenue or any other serious \naction to ensure recovery. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 535, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas the Centre had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.3.7 Bn as at the end of the FY \n2020/2021, did not budget for domestic arrears 1,820,651,696 was spent to settle the arrears. \n50. \nPharm-Biotechnology \nand \nTraditional \nMedicine (Pharmbiotrac) Centre Ace Ii \nProject \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Funds disbursement schedules revealed that a sum of USD. 290,728 (60.3%) was received in the \nyear under review out of the expected amount of USD. 1,719,039 resulting into a shortfall of USD. 1,428,311. This \nrepresents a performance of only 17% of the target. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 535, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Project received USD. 290,728 during the financial year, and it also had balances brought forward of USD. \n1,003,605, thus making a total of USD. 1,294,333 available for spending in the year. Out pf the available funds, a \nsum of USD. 1,073,844 was spent, leading to a funds absorption rate 83%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of one (1) output that had been fully quantified with a total of six (6) activities \nworth USD. 52,351 and noted that; \no \nIn this One (1) output, only two (2) activities were fully implemented. \no \nIn this output no activity was partially implemented. \no \nIn this output, four (4) activities were not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of USD. 5,396.68 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were \nbudgeted and spent on other activities (in form of excess expenditure) without seeking and obtaining the necessary \napprovals.", "metadata": {"page": 535, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "520 \n \n51. \nOpec \nFund \nfor \nInternational \nDevelopment \n(OFID)-Vocational \nEducation Project Phase 11 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project was supposed to receive UGX.22.1Bn but only received a total of UGX UGX.3.1 Bn \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total of UGX.18.87Bn availed for financing the Project for the year under review only \nUGX.2.9Bn (15%) had been absorbed. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Project was planned to be concluded by December 2021 but extended to 2024 due to slow \nprogress of implementation. I noted that except for supply of institute buses which accounts for 22 % of", "metadata": {"page": 536, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Component 2 and supply of equipment and tools which constitutes 16% of the total project budget, the \nprocurement of the remaining training supplies i.e. Furniture, tractors and off-shelf Workshop & ICT equipment \nand text books had not taken off by the time of concluding the audit. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that while key among the outputs of the consultancy services is the development of Training Plan for the \nselected 8 Technical Institutions, the competence based curriculum was not yet in place \n \n52. \nUganda \nSkills \nDevelopment \nProject \n(USDP)- PSFU \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Project effective date was 28th October 2016 and the closure date scheduled for end December \n2022. During the period the project had cumulatively received total of USD.22.6million for the entire project period \nrepresenting a 100% budget performance. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 536, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the cumulative amount received over the years, a sum of USD.22.3 million had been accounted for by the \nend of the financial year leaving a balance of USD. 269,151.09 outstanding. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the total available funds of UGX.10.28Bn during the financial year, UGX.10.06Bn was spent \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.22Bn representing an absorption level of 98%. \n \n53. \nUganda \nSkills \nDevelopment \nProject \n(USDP) -MOES \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total available funds of UGX. 149.2Bn during the financial year, a sum of UGX. 61.3Bn was spent by the", "metadata": {"page": 536, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Project, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 87.8Bn representing an absorption level of 41%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of nine (9) \nactivities worth UGX.47.2Bn and noted that; One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth \nUGX.31.4Bn was fully implemented. One (1) output with seven (7) activities worth UGX.7.6Bn was partially \nimplemented while one (1) output with one (1) activity worth 6.4Bn was not implemented at all. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Project had 20 ongoing construction works worth UGX. 114Bn at various Technical Colleges and \nVocational Training Institutes (VTIs) which were still incomplete by the close of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the procurement files and contract management reports revealed that the suppliers had not fully \ninstalled, tested and trained users on equipment supplied to the project.", "metadata": {"page": 536, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "521 \n \n54. \nMakerere University Business School \n(MUBS) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe university was supposed to receive UGX 104,621,213,940 (including a supplementary funding of UGX 3.9Bn) \nout of which UGX 92,165,930,845 was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 12,455,283,095. The shortfall \nrepresents 11.9% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \n Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX 92,165,930,845, only UGX 92,164,632,939 was spent by the \nschool resulting in an unspent balance of UGX 1,297,906 representing an absorption level of 99.99%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 537, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that of the 47 quantified activities worth UGX.10.47Bn assessed; 07 activities representing 14.89% were \nfully implemented, 20 activities representing 42.55% were partially implemented, while 20 activity representing \n42.55% was not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \n I noted through land inspection, document review and inquiries from management that one (1) piece of land \nmeasuring 0.906 hectares located on Plot 1, Kireka Hill view road had encumbrances in the form of encroachment. \n\uf0b7 \nI also noted that MUBS had un cleared invoices for the financial year 2021/22 of UGX 6,503,448,034 which were \nnot within its appropriated budget estimate limits (subject to the accounting warrants issued) and on the GFMIS. \n\uf0b7 \nMUBS advanced UGX 203,180,200 to its staff through their personal bank accounts to undertake various \nprocurements and civil works other than paying funds directly to suppliers. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 537, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nPayments totalling to UGX 143,879,238 were made for photocopying services. In a bid to confirm the genuineness \nof the expenditure, I requested for evidence of work done but all in vain. \n\uf0b7 \nOnly 1,274 positions out of the approved establishment of 2,551 posts were filled leaving 1,292 positions vacant \nrepresenting a staffing gap of 51%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the 5 pieces of land measuring approximately 22.618 hectares held, 2 pieces of land measuring \napproximately 0.906 hectares (4%) were not utilized by the school while one (1) piece of land measuring 0.906 \nhectares located on Plot 1, Kireka Hill view road had encumbrances in the form of encroachment by the local \npopulation. I also noted that MUBS did not transfer four (4) titles of land measuring approximately 18.879 hectares, \ninto the name and custody of the Uganda Land Commission. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 537, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA total of six (6) IT systems procured of UGX 1,349,567,207 were not cleared by NITA-U while one (1) IT system \nwith a total cost of UGX 40,000,000 acquired were not being optimally utilized. I also noted that two (2) IT projects \nwith a total cost of UGX 224,768,402 were not implemented within the required timelines as specified in the \ninception reports/contracts and 826 IT equipment recommended for decommissioning by Board of Survey report \nwere not disposed. \n\uf0b7 \nThe University lacked specific structures to steer and oversee ICT implementation as well as no approved IT risk \nmanagement framework/policy and risk register. Relatedly, there was no business continuity plan, contrary to \nSection 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014.", "metadata": {"page": 537, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "522 \n \n55. \nThe Norwegian Programme for Capacity \nDevelopment in Higher Education And \nResearch For Development (Norhed) \n2020 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st \nJanuary 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under \nNORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing \nagreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned \nproject activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963", "metadata": {"page": 538, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 \n(USD.167,049). \n\uf0b7 \nI further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only \nNOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption \nrate of only 53.4%. \n \nGENDER AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT \nSECTOR \n \n1. \n \nUNFPA \nFunded \nProgramme \nUGA09GBV/PGUG12 \nSep 2021 \n \nImplemented by MGLSD \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 538, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that expenditure amounting to UGX.1,074,783 was not supported contrary to the requirements of the \nTreasury Instructions. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Ministry recruited GBV support officers as volunteers who earned a basic allowance, however, \ntheir contracts indicated that they earned a monthly salary of UGX.500,000, which is above the PAYE threshold \nand qualifies for PAYE deductions as per the income Tax Act. \n2. \n \nUNFPA \nfunded \nprogramme \nRef; \nGPECMUGA and UGA09GBV \nDec, 2021 \n \nImplemented by Ministry of Justice and \nConstitutional Affairs (MOJCA)- \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nNo reportable issues \n3. \n \nEqual Opportunities Commission (EOC).", "metadata": {"page": 538, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 13.271Bn, only UGX. 12.648Bn was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.623Bn representing an absorption level of 95%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that of the 100 quantified activities worth UGX.12.59Bn assessed; 90 activities representing 90% were \nfully implemented, 5 activities representing 5% were partially implemented, while 5 activities representing 5% \nwere not implemented. I also noted absence of a detailed risk register of risks and funds to the tune of UGX. \n0.126Bn were irregularly diverted.", "metadata": {"page": 538, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "523 \n \n\uf0b7 \nOne piece of land accommodating EOC headquarters with a leasehold for 89 years measuring 0.180Ha, lacked a \ntitle as it was reported lost. In addition it was not recorded in the fixed asset register and on the GFMIS fixed asset \nmodule. \n\uf0b7 \nThere are long outstanding receivables of UGX.247.98M which relate to outstanding salary advances to staff. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there is fusion of the Board and Management where members of the Commission were involved in \nthe day to day activities of the Commission. \n\uf0b7 \nOne IT systems/equipment procured at UGX 225Mn was not cleared by NITA-U, there were no specific structures \nto steer and oversee ICT implementation, and no approved IT staff structure in place or approved IT risk \nmanagement framework/policy and risk register. \n4. \n \nMinistry of Gender, Labour and Social", "metadata": {"page": 539, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social \nDevelopment (MoGLSD) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.282.50Bn a sum of UGX. 271.46 was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of \nUGX.11.042Bn. The shortfall represents 3.9% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the year of UGX.271.46Bn a sum of UGX.271.46Bn was spent by the entity representing \nan absorption level of 100 %. \n\uf0b7 \n I noted that of the 110 quantified activities worth UGX.219.9Bn assessed; 62 activities representing 56% were \nfully implemented, 10 activities representing 9% were partially implemented, while 38 activities representing 35% \nwere not implemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 539, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "were not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of UGX.9.39Bn budgeted NTR, UGX.13.83Bn was collected, representing a performance of 147% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 10 pieces of titled land measuring 73.8367 hectares were not recorded in the land register and GFMIS \nfixed asset module, 3 pieces measuring approximately 2.33 hectares had encumbrances while 27 pieces measuring \n139.2042 hectares (73%) were not titled. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UGX.9.2Bn remained recovered under Uganda women Empowered Program (UWEP) and recoveries \nworth UGX.8.5Bn were not transferred to Bank of Uganda. In addition, UGX.2.95Bn on Uganda women Empowered \nProgram - UWEP National Recovery Account was un-tagged to any District. \n\uf0b7 \nA sum of UGX.0.814 on Youth Livelihood Program-YLP National Recovery Account remained un-tagged to any", "metadata": {"page": 539, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "District, and UGX.39.010Bn remained un-recovered from the youth groups. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Ministry lacks effective measures to Curb the increasing number of Street Children. Out of \nUGX.0.142Bn planned for implementation of street children activities, only UGX.0.044Bn (69%) was warranted, \nresulting into a shortfall of UGX 0.098 Bn (31%). \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that one IT systems procured at UGX.53M was not cleared by NITA-U and two IT systems with a total cost \nof UGX.50Mn were not being optimally utilized while three (3) projects with a total cost of UGX.1.013Bn were not \nimplemented within the specified timelines.", "metadata": {"page": 539, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "524 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that of thirty-seven (37) pieces of land measuring approximately 217.4869 Hectares, 10 pieces measuring \napproximately 78.2827 Hectares titles were not transferred to the Uganda Land Commission. \n5. \n \nNational \nCouncil \nfor \nPeople \nwith \nDisabilities \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe NCPD had a budget of UGX.1.2bn out of which only 0.838bn was received representing 69% and a budget \nshortfall of 31%. The shortfall hampered the implementation of planned activities such as the monitoring of human \nrights violations against persons with Disabilities and the development of a monitoring and Evaluation Framework \nfor National Council for Persons with Disabilities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the NCPD has 5 pieces of land across the country transferred from the Uganda Foundation for the", "metadata": {"page": 540, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Blind but only, 1 piece in Kireka is titled but not fully secured as it is heavily encroached. 1 Piece of land in Lira \nDistrict is surveyed but not titled while the rest are neither surveyed not titled. \n\uf0b7 \nOutstanding payables increased by UGX. 163,200,000 (30%), from UGX. 539,360,000 as at 30th June 2021 to \nUGX. 702,560,000 as at 30th June 2022.This was majorly in respect of cumulative unpaid staff gratuity for five (5) \nconsecutive financial years \n \n6. \n \nNational Council for Older Persons \n(NCOP) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts of UGX.0.726Bn for the financial year, only UGX. 0.724Bn was spent by the entity resulting", "metadata": {"page": 540, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "in an unspent balance of UGX.1.855Mn representing an absorption level of 99.7%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that four (4) outputs with twelve (12) activities and expenditure of UGX. 0.724Bn sampled for assessment \nwere not quantified. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that NCOP did not prepare and submit the annual monitoring plans to the Ministry of Gender for \nconsolidation and onward submission to MoFPED and NPA Similarly NCOP did not prepare and submit quarterly \nmonitoring reports to the Ministry of Gender for onward submission to the Office of the Prime Minister and MoFPED \nas required. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that NCOP spent UGX.6.031Mn on vehicle repairs and maintenance without pre and post vehicle \ninspection/assessment by the Government Chief Mechanical Engineer. \n7. \n \nUganda National Cultural Centre \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 540, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe entity had an approved budget of UGX 12.765,000,000, out of which UGX. 9,724,000,000 was availed, \nresulting in a shortfall of UGX 3,041,000,000 which is 24% of the budget. Out of the total receipts for the financial \nyear of UGX.13.036Bn, UGX.13.050Bn was spent resulting into an excess expenditure of UGX.0.014Bn representing \nan absorption level of 103%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 4 activities worth UGX. 13.039Bn were fully implemented representing 100% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 4.446 hectares owned by UNCC, were not transferred into \nthe custody of the Uganda Land Commission as required. I also noted that one (1) piece of land at Nommo Gallery, \nwas being used contrary to the approved purpose in the entity Strategic Plan.", "metadata": {"page": 540, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "525 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted non-recognition of arrears of revenue from M/S Creation Limited amounting to UGX 1,600,000,000 as \nreported in the financial statements. Additionally, management had long stopped billing M/S Creation Limited on \naccount of lack of interest from the client/tenant to pay since 2017, despite continued occupying the premises. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the board term of office had expired in May 2022 thus the Centre is operating without oversight roles \nand duties of the board being performed. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted staffing gap of 21 (30%) vacancies as only 48 positions (70%) out of the approved establishment of 69 \nposts were filled. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UNCC did not conduct Non Tax Revenue assessment and failed to enforce Tenancy Agreement terms \nand its Board of trustees had expired. \n \n8. \n \nThe National Children Authority (NCA)", "metadata": {"page": 541, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority had an approved budget of UGX.0.909Bn out of which UGX.0.905Bn was released, resulting in a \nshortfall of UGX.0.004Bn. The shortfall represents 0.4% of the approved budget. Out of the total receipts for the \nfinancial year of UGX.0.905Bn, only UGX.0.904Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.00028Bn \nrepresenting an absorption level of 99.9%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the six (6) outputs quantified and assessed worth UGX.0.905Bn; two (2) outputs with two (2) \nactivities were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirteen (13) activities worth UGX.0.378Bn were partially", "metadata": {"page": 541, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "implemented, while five (5) activities remained unimplemented. The entity did not maintain a detailed risk register \nto mitigate implementation risks or to minimise their impact. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity did not have a Governing Board and Committees Contrary to section 9 (c) (1) and 9 (J) (1) of the \nChildren\u2019s Amendment Act (2016) which could affect the entity\u2019s ability to achieve the set objectives and mandate. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity did not have an approved staff structure clearly showing the departments and requisite staffing levels \n(staff establishment) and currently operates with only 10 employees. \n9. \n \nNational Library of Uganda \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had an approved budget of UGX. 1,068,432,118, out of which UGX. 941,329,988 was received, leading", "metadata": {"page": 541, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "to a shortfall of UGX 127,102,130, which was 12 % of the budget The entity budgeted to receive UGX.0.1Bn from \ndevelopment partners, out of which UGX.0.185Bn was availed, resulting in an over performance of UGX0.07Bn, \nwhich is 1.6% of the budget. The entity budgeted to collect NTR of 0.05Bn during the year under review. Out of \nthis, only 0.049 Bn was collected, representing a performance of 98% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of nine (9) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of ten (10) activities worth \nUGX 0.813Bn and noted that; Two (2) outputs with two (2) activities and expenditure worth UGX 0.03Bn were \nfully implemented. Two (02) outputs with three (3) activities worth UGX.0.27Bn were partially implemented, while \nFive (5) outputs were not implemented. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 541, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe library has an approved staffing structure of 32 staff out of whichonly 22 (68%) positions are filled leaving 10 \n(32%) vacant.", "metadata": {"page": 541, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "526 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted from management that no board has been constituted by the responsible Minister since 2018. \n10. \nNational Women\u2019s Council \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Council had an approved budget of UGX 2.8Bn out of which UGX.2.848Bn was availed. Out of the available \nfunds of UGX.2.848Bn, UGX.2.832Bn was spent representing an absorption level of 99%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the seven (07) activities worth UGX.0.446Bn, the entity fully implemented one (01) activity; \ntwo (02) activities were partially implemented, while four (04) activities remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Council had outstanding payables of UGX 35 million relating to unpaid taxes in the period under review. \n11.", "metadata": {"page": 542, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "11. \nNational Youth Council \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe Council budgeted to receive UGX. 2.076Bn out of which UGX.2.074Bn was received, a performance of 99.95% \nof its approved budget for the year. Out of the total receipts of UGX. 2.076 Bn UGX. 2.074Bn was spent \nrepresenting an absorption level of 99.95%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that four (04) outputs with five (05) quantified activities amounting to UGX 0.085Bn were assessed as \nfollows; 2 activities representing 40% were fully implemented, 2 activities representing 40% were partially \nimplemented, while 1 activity representing 20% was not implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Council had outstanding payables totalling to UGX 175Mn as presented in the statement of financial position. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 542, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI also noted inadequate staffing of key personnel with only 8 (57%) out of approved posts of 14, filled leaving 7 \n(43%) posts vacant. \n12. \nNational Social Security Fund \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that under Clauses 8.1.2 and 10.2 of the agreement between GOU and NSSF under the Bwebajja Project \nthat GOU was required to budget for and include the upfront payment and annuity fees upon commencement of \nconstruction in its annual budget plans to ensure that there is adequate appropriation of funds to meet GOU\u2019s \npayment commitments. Additionally, GOU was expected to make an upfront payment of UGX.95 billion on the third \nanniversary of commencement of construction, which was not done. In addition, the project appears to be behind \nschedule and this may occasion significant implementation risks. \n \n13. \nUNFPA Country Programme Component", "metadata": {"page": 542, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UNFPA Country Programme Component \nof Data and Populationdynamics \nImplemented by Ministry of Gender, \nLabour & Social \nDevelopment (Mglsd) \n2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that expenditure amounting to UGX.1,074,783 was not supported contrary to the requirements of the \nTreasury Instructions. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Ministry recruited GBV support officers as volunteers who earned a basic allowance, however, \ntheir contracts indicated that they earned a monthly salary of UGX.500,000, which is above the PAYE threshold \nand qualifies for PAYE deductions as per the income Tax Act.", "metadata": {"page": 542, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "527 \n \n14. \nUNFPA funded programme component of \ndata and population dynamics \n \nImplemented by National Population \nCouncil (NPC) \nDec 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nNo significant matter to report on", "metadata": {"page": 543, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "528 \n \n \nHEALTH SECTOR \n \n1. \n \nMoroto RRH \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not have a strategic plan that had been approved by NPA. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the approved Local revenue estimates for the financial year 2021/2022 and noted that the Hospital did not budget \nto collect during the year. However, Moroto RRH did collect UGX. 13,136,750. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital budgeted to receive UGX. 9,624,678,535 as grants from the Treasury. However, UGX. 9,003,682,579 (95.5%) \nwas warranted and UGX. 8,560,717,959 (88.9%) received respectively. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 544, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nMoroto RRH did not budget to receive external/donor financing. But UGX. 2,180,676,879 was received as Off-Budget Financing. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 8,560,717,959, UGX. 8,553,113,589 (99.9%) was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 7,604,370 (0.1%). \n\uf0b7 \nMoroto RRH did not maintain a Non-Tax- Revenue register as required despite the Hospital collecting NTR revenue of \nUGX.13,136,750 during the year under review. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of payment vouchers revealed that funds amounting to UGX.22,887,500 did not have supporting documentation to \nprovide evidence of occurrence of the activities for which they were drawn. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 544, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that Moroto RRH had off-budget financing amounting to UGX.2,312,143,345 and out of this, UGX.1,746,648,373 was \nspent; leaving unspent funds at the year-end of UGX.565,494,972 \n\uf0b7 \nIt was observed that UGX. 29,918,000 remained unaccounted for under the WHO fund account. \n\uf0b7 \nAudit observed that the Administration Block that houses offices of administrators is dilapidated. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that Moroto RRH did not have a policy on Motor vehicle Management. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital has an approved structure of 420 staff and only 268 (63.8%) are filled leaving a staffing gap of 152 (36.2%). \n\uf0b7 \nProcurements worth UGX. 342,136,804 did not have procurement records in place. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 544, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital management did not implement the recommended disposal of the Hospital assets. This recommendation was \nmade in the financial year ended June 2021.", "metadata": {"page": 544, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "529 \n \n2. \n \nMoroto RRH \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Hospital did not submit wage estimates to MoPs, as required. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed funds absorption and noted that UGX.4,029,000,000 (91%) was spent out of the total receipts of \nUGX.4,414,000,000, resulting in an unabsorbed balance of UGX.385,000,000. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the payroll data (IPPS) and IFMS payments revealed variances between amounts on the approved payroll and \npayments to individual employees, leading to over payment of UGX. 16,770,404 \n\uf0b7 \nI further noted that there was an under payment of salaries of UGX.15,196,847 \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 545, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas UGX.1,051,244,661 was deducted from employees\u2019 salaries to be remitted to different beneficiaries, only \nUGX.1,034.320,950 was remitted, leading to under remittance of UGX 16,923,711 \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UGX.168,066,631 was paid as residual arrears to 13 staff. However, these had not been verified and were not \npart of schedule provided by MoFPED for payment \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Hospital did not prepare monthly wage, pension and gratuity performance analysis and thus did not submit \nquarterly returns on payroll to MoPS \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the effectiveness and reliability of the IPPS/NID staff/pensioner/beneficiaries\u2019 verification interface and noted the \nfollowing; \n\uf0b7 \nIn-adequate sensitization and training in the use and navigation of the system \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 545, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOperational challenges were encountered \n\uf0b7 \nLack of some of the rights like the person-to-holder which are very crucial and important to the Human Resource Officers \n\uf0b7 \nLack/inadequate verification and ineffectiveness of the system may affect the integrity of the IPPS payroll \n\uf0b7 \nThe Regional Referral Hospital received funding in instalments of UGX.65,680,000 on 18th September 2020 and \nUGX.300,000,000 on 16th December 2020, to undertake interventions to avert the effects of Covid 19 Pandemic. \n\uf0b7 \nBased on the procedures undertaken, I noted that the entity had prepared the strategic plan but it was not approved by NDP \nat the time of audit. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.6.962Bn, UGX.6.555Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent \nbalance of UGX.0.408Bn representing an absorption level of 94.2%. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 545, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that Moroto RRH received off-budget financing to a tune of UGX.365,680,000 directly from the Ministry of Health for \nundertaking activities like interventions in the control of Covid 19 which was never declared to the PS/ST \n\uf0b7 \nThe three (3) sampled outputs with a total expenditure of UGX.0.364Bn, no output was fully quantified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital has an approved structure of 420 staff at the Regional Referral Hospital, only 265 (63.10%) are filled leaving a \nstaffing gap of 155 (36.90%) positions.", "metadata": {"page": 545, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "530 \n \n3. \n \nMbale RRH \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Mbale Regional Referral Hospital (HRRH) had an approved budget of UGX. 20,099,113,265, of which a total of UGX. \n20,098,363,264 (100%) was warranted by year end \n\uf0b7 \nThe total expenditure for the year was UGX. 14,466,167,628, out of which UGX. 4,725,708,673 (32.67%) was spent on \nsalaries, pension and gratuity. \n\uf0b7 \nThe RRH budgeted to receive UGX.9,494,298,740 for salaries, pension and gratuity during the year under review but received \nUGX.7,963,496,389 representing 84% performance \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 546, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the UGX.7,963,496,389 received for salary, pension & gratuity, the Referral Hospital spent, UGX. 4,725,708,673 \nrepresenting 59% \n\uf0b7 \nThere were no overpayments of salaries, Pensions & Gratuity \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UGX. 205,587,924 had been approved in the IPPS payroll to be paid to employees, however, a review of payments \non IFMS revealed that only UGX. 172,686,917 was paid leading to under payments of UGX 32,901,007. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 21 pensioners/beneficiaries were underpaid by UGX.932,313,680. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that all pensioners appeared on the IPPS payroll register and had the necessary documentation in their pension files \nto support their existence. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 546, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that UGX.591,967,479 had not been paid to 7 pensioners/beneficiaries and 1 pensioner/beneficiary was underpaid by \nUGX.200,350,810 by the close of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UGX. 41,149,706 was paid to 5 staff who had either retired, transferred, absconded or died with average delays \nof 12 months. \n\uf0b7 \nBased on the procedures performed, I noted that there were no cases of wrong alignment of staff on the IPPS. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UGX.243,474,459 was paid as residual arrears to 7 pensioners who had not been verified, and therefore were not \npart of the schedule provided by MoFPED. \n\uf0b7 \nIn addition, 1 pensioner was paid UGX.29,248,375 in excess of the verified salaries, pension and gratuity arrears. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 546, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI further noted that out of 2 verified pensioners, 1 was under paid by UGX.47,843,436 while the other was not paid the verified \nsum of UGX.3,051,540. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that payment of salary/pension arrears to staff/pensioners were all supported by copies of the beneficiaries\u2019 bank \nstatements showing the transfer of funds to the claimants\u2019 bank accounts and photocopies of their national identity cards. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that no arrears were paid to pensioners who had not missed pension in the previous financial year(s). \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 3 newly recruited/ transferred employees delayed to access payroll, with average delays of 120 days (17 weeks) \n\uf0b7 \nI also noted that 6 staff that joined during the year did not access the staff payroll by close of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 3 new pensioners/beneficiaries delayed to access pension payroll, with average delays of 484 days (69 weeks)", "metadata": {"page": 546, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "531 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI further noted that 19 pensioners never accessed the payroll between the time of departure and end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds amounting to UGX. 64,922,643 were charged on account codes other than those prescribed for salary, \npension and gratuity \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that loan/savings deductions were backed by letters of undertaking or consent letters as a prerequisite of approval \nof the deductions. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed from the active deductions report (downloaded on 30th September, 2022 at 5.00pm), that UGX.8,154,511 relating \nto 2 employees was deducted past the due date. \n\uf0b7 \nAnalysis of the active deductions report (downloaded on 30th September, 2022 at 5.00pm) revealed that UGX.5,768,461 \ndeducted from 02 employees had irregular end dates ranging from 120 months to 180 months", "metadata": {"page": 547, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI observed that deductions amounting to UGX.33,780,714 relating to 14 employees were neither in the \u201cmy approvals\u201d report \nnor in \u201cMy active deductions\u201d report on the PDMS. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that UCLA/UBA deducted UGX. 41,305,339 from 17 employees without approval of the Accounting Officer from the \nPDMS. \n\uf0b7 \nIn addition, UGX. UGX.1,083,492 was deducted by UCLA/UBA from 20 staff over and above the approved amounts by the \nAccounting Officer. This resulted into financial loss to the affected staff. \n\uf0b7 \nA comparison of the \u201cactive deductions\u201d and \u201cmy approvals\u201d reports in the PDMS revealed that there were variances in \ndeduction amounts. \n\uf0b7 \nI also noted that there were variances in monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report in the PDMS and IPPS payroll \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 547, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nLST of UGX.17,575,000 was not deducted from 316 employees \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital had wrongly deducted the LST of 166 employees resulting into an overpayment of UGX.55,000 and under \npayment of UGX.2,351,250. \n\uf0b7 \nMy analysis of the IPPS register and re-computation of PAYE revealed that although PAYE was deducted from all employees \non the payroll, the Hospital wrongly computed the PAYE of 356 employees resulting into an under payment of UGX.9,608,994. \n\uf0b7 \nI compared the deductions in the IPPS payroll registers with the remittances/payments in the IFMS details XML payment file \nand noted an over and/or under remittance amounting to UGX.46,591,062 and UGX.331,536,207 respectively. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 547, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI observed that there were no deductions remitted to a supplier/beneficiary with no corresponding deductions on the payroll. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that there were variances of UGX.359,258,628 between the IPPS payroll registers and interface files availed to the \nentity by the core FTP system. This creates an opportunity for manipulation and misappropriation of salary/pension funds and \ncould also lead to over/under payments of salary/pension. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that all the relevant documents to support the creation of assignments on the IPPS payroll for 18 employees and 22 \npensioners were in their respective files.", "metadata": {"page": 547, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "532 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted \nand spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of \nprivate wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) \nwas realized. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 548, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "was realized. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated \nto the entity by Parliament. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \n\uf0b7 \nI also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of", "metadata": {"page": 548, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "conclusion of my audit. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to \nseek such services from nearby health facilities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \n\uf0b7 \nI noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication \nLtd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. \n4. \n \nThe Country Coordinating \nMechanism \nDecember 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of a total of USD.555,693 available for spending during the year only USD.515,017 was spent resulting into an unspent \nbalance of UGX.40,676 representing 7.3% of the available funds. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 548, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of a total of USD.555,693 available for spending during the year only USD.515,017 was spent resulting into an unspent \nbalance of UGX.40,676 representing 7.3% of the available funds. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of a total of USD.555,693 available for spending during the year only USD.515,017 was spent resulting into an unspent \nbalance of UGX.40,676 representing 7.3% of the available funds. \n5. \n \nUganda Debt-swap (Kawolo- \nBusolwe General Hospitals) \nProject \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the refurbishment of Busolwe General Hospital whose proposed scope was estimated to cost USD 5,532,792.38 \nhas delayed to commence to-date despite the fact that the project designs had been approved by the Bi-National Committee \na year ago in December 2021.", "metadata": {"page": 548, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "533 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n6. \n \nADB \n\u2013UCI \nEast \nAfrica's \nCentres of Excellence for \nSkills and Tertiary Education \nin Biomedical Sciences \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe project expected to receive UGX.24.67Bn from Africa Development Bank/Fund (ADB/F) but only UGX.21.57Bn was received \nresulting into a shortfall of UGX.3.10Bn (11.63%). \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total funds available of UGX.31,632,037,899, the project spent a total of UGX.24,381,361,189 resulting into unspent", "metadata": {"page": 549, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "balance of UGX.7,250,676,710. The unspent balance majorly relates to uncompleted works (progress at 68%) for the Multi-\nPurpose building for cancer treatment and research. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted the following anomalies regarding the construction of the Multipurpose building for which Roko Construction Ltd was \nthe contractor: \no \nRoko\u2019s contract expired on 30th December 2020 and the Bank objected to any further extensions. \no \nManagement cashed the performance bond of UGX8bn after Roko Construction failed to perform as per contract \no \nInconsistencies in the valuation of completed works between Certificates 6 and 7 with Certificate 6 dated 7th \nSeptember 2021 having the total value of certified works as USD.10,136,181 and Certificate 7 dated 24th May 2022 \nhaving a total value of works completed being USD.9,691,293 hence a decrease in the value of works of USD \n444,887. \no", "metadata": {"page": 549, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "o \nAn overpayment to Roko of USD.82,444. \no \nUCI did not claim for liquidated damages amounting to USD.68,137.4 from Roko Construction Limited even after \nthe Institute became aware of Roko\u2019s failure to deliver the contract. \n\uf0b7 \nThe consultant had been paid USD.913,983 (95%) of the contract sum yet the progress of construction works that the \nconsultant was supervising was only 69% as at 30th June 2022. The contract for consultancy services for the design and \nconstruction supervision expired in April 2020 and had never been renewed. \n\uf0b7 \nBy 30.06.22, a total of USD.851,608 (80% of the contract sum) was paid to M/S MFI document solutions for the supply of ICT \nand Telemedicine Equipment. However, by at the time of the audit, the ICT equipment had not yet been delivered and", "metadata": {"page": 549, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "installed. I further observed that the KCB bank performance guarantee presented by the supplier to the institute expired on \n31/03/2022. There is a risk of loss of funds \n\uf0b7 \nA total of USD.483,000 (20% of the contract sum) was advanced to a supplier in March 2020 for the supply of a Magnetic \nResonance Imaging (MRI). However, at the time of the audit the MRI scanner had not yet been delivered and installed. I \nfurther observed that the Stanbic Bank performance guarantee IG21293UG0101204 presented by the supplier to the Institute \nexpired on 18th October 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nUSD.176,600 (20%) had been advanced to a supplier in March 2020 for the supply of Laboratory Furniture but at the time of \nthe audit, the furniture had not yet been delivered.", "metadata": {"page": 549, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "534 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project staff were paid salaries to the tune of UGX.287,225,467 and UGX.83,170,756 was deducted as PAYE \nout of which UGX.31,289,385 was remitted resulting in to an under remittance of UGX.51,881,371. \n7. \n \nUganda \nReproductive \nMaternal and Child Health \nServices \nImprovement \nProject (URMCHSIP) \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the available budget of USD180Mn, a total of USD 131.7Mn was spent resulting into unutilized balance of USD \n17,056,967 yet the project was closing in December 2022, a month away. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 550, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that, as at 30th September 2022, the digitalized system for verification of outputs and invoicing which had been rolled \nout by the Ministry to all the 131 districts was being utilised by only 98% of the districts to verify outputs and generate \ninvoices. \n\uf0b7 \nDespite the significant contribution of URMCHSIP to the mandate of the health sector and bearing in mind that the project \ninterventions will be closing by 31st December 2022 and finally end by June 2023, measures have not been put in place by \nthe Ministry to guide the sustainable financing of the project interventions after close of project. \n\uf0b7 \nA local firm was contracted in June 2022 to develop a Birth and Death and Adoption Orders Registration System (BDAR) \nthrough NIRA. However by the time of reporting in December 2022 this had not been done. The performance gurantees were \nalso still outstanding. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas 200 computers were supplied and delivered to NIRA in September 2022 for use in High Volume HC IIIs to support", "metadata": {"page": 550, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "in Notification of Health Facility Deaths and Births, they had not yet been distributed to the intended beneficiaries by November \n2022. \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to the RBF implementation manual, a total of UGX. 2,771,416,463 transferred to various Health facilities meant for \nthe maintenance (medicines and other supplies) lacked the required accountabilities. \n8. \n \nUganda \nCancer \nInstitute \n2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity had prepared its Strategic Plan for the period 2020/21 \u2013 2024/25. However, although the plan was \nsubmitted to National Planning Authority (NPA) it had not yet been certified by the time of reporting. There is a risk that \nactivities implemented during the financial year 2020/21 were not aligned to the NDP-III, which negatively affects the \nachievement of NDP-III objectives. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 550, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources and rates charged at vote level for the financial year 2020/21 and noted that \nalthough the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.1.95Bn during the year under review, only UGX.1.58Bn was collected \nresulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.37bn (representing under performance of 18.97% of the target). Shortfalls in NTR collections \naffect the implementation of planned activities at Government wide level. \n\uf0b7 \nUCI budgeted to receive UGX.37.76Bn out of which UGX.37.11Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.65Bn \n(representing 1.72% of the budget). Revenue shortfalls affect the implementation of planned activities. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of UGX. 82,520,767 were irregularly reallocated from the activities on which they were budgeted \nand spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. Unauthorized reallocation of funds is not", "metadata": {"page": 550, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "535 \n \nonly contrary to the Public Finance and Management Act, but it negatively affects the delivery of services and negates the \npurpose of budgeting. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds to the tune of UGX.161,782,565 meant for contract staff salaries were reallocated and spent on permanent staff salary \npayments without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the Hospital\u2019s NTR records revealed that the Accounting Officer waived off Radiography fees worth UGX.35,610,000 \nduring the year under review. However, there was no policy in place to guide management on waivers. These waivers can be \nabused. \n9. \n \nUganda \nCancer \nInstitute \n(UCI) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 551, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.148.22bn received during the financial year, the Institute submitted invoices totaling \nUGX.147.64Bn resulting in unutilized warrants of UGX.0.58Bn representing an absorption level of 99.6%. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds amounting to UGX.269,511,315 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent \non other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Institute paid domestic arrears incurred outside the appropriated budget to a tune of UGX.1,351,175,775. \n\uf0b7 \nI was not provided with supporting documents for expenditure of UGX.292,502,866. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Institute has two (2) IT systems which were not integrated and not automatically sharing information with other systems \nwhich leads to inefficiencies. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 551, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the implementation of ICT activities and noted that there was no; approved IT risk management framework/policy \nand risk register at the entity and business continuity plan. \n\uf0b7 \nManagement under paid pension to a tune of UGX.31,103,361 and did not pay gratuity of UGX.24,928,278. \n10. \nChina \nUganda \nFriendship \nHospital Naguru \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.10.870Bn, only UGX.9.99Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.0.878Bn (representing an absorption level of 91.92%). As a result, of the 28 quantified activities", "metadata": {"page": 551, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "536 \n \nworth UGX.0.996Bn assessed; 25 activities (representing 89%) were fully implemented, 2 activities (representing 7.1%) were \npartially implemented while 1 activity remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nTwo (2) land titles for land measuring approximately 1.259ha were not transferred into the names and custody of the Uganda \nLand Commission contrary to the Treasury Accounting Instructions. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital\u2019s Procurement and Disposal Unit which is supposed to have two (2) staff, according to the approved staff \nestablishment, has only one (1) staff in post handling all procurement duties. This can lead to internal control overrides. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring inspection of the Hospital Stores, I observed that the storage area was small and medicines were congested with the \nmedicines on the floors instead of pallets and boxes leaning onto the walls. In addition, the store was not well lit and was \npoorly ventilated. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 552, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nFourteen (14) tracer drugs selected experienced stock-outs ranging from 42 to 312 days. Stock-outs erode patients\u2019 confidence \nin the public health care system, which compels them to seek inappropriate and expensive alternative health care services \nelsewhere. \n\uf0b7 \nManagement experienced delays of up to 54 days in delivery of medicines and sundries to the hospital by National Medical \nStores. \n\uf0b7 \nExamination of end-of-year stock balances for essential medicines revealed that some of the drugs had expired \n11. \nChina \nUganda \nFriendship \nHospital Naguru 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThrough document review (interviews), I noted that the entity had prepared a draft five-year strategic plan FY 2020/21-\n2024/25 which had not yet been approved by the National Planning Authority at the time of audit. Failure to have timely", "metadata": {"page": 552, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "approval of the strategic plan by the NPA leads to non-alignment of the operational plans with the strategic plan which \nnegatively affects the achievement of NDP-III objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources and rates charged at vote level for the financial year 2020/21 and noted that \nthe entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX. 234,656,317 during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX. 142,441,055 was \ncollected, representing a performance of 60.7% of the target. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.10.362Bn received during the financial year. UGX. 10.13Bn was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.0.232Bn representing an absorption level of 97.8%. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted the Hospital received off-budget financing to a tune of UGX.254,095,329, which was not declared to treasury and,", "metadata": {"page": 552, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "therefore, not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. These funds were received directly from development partners for \nundertaking activities not budgeted for. \n\uf0b7 \nThree suppliers whose outstanding arrears were UGX.516,952,824 as at the end of FY 2019/20 were paid a total of UGX \n636,305,508. Therefore, UGX.119,352,684 was paid to the suppliers in excess of the outstanding amounts. Despite the fact \nthat UGX.119,352,684 was paid to three providers in excess of their outstanding domestic arrears, five suppliers with arrears \ntotalling to UGX.102,668,097 were not paid. \n\uf0b7 \nThe hospital structure has 349 approved positions. However, only 297 (85%) positions were filled and 52 (15%) positions \nwere vacant by the end of the year under review. The hospital lacked a neurosurgeon to build the capacity of the emergency", "metadata": {"page": 552, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "537 \n \nservices and reduce unnecessary referrals. Inadequate staffing undermines the achievement of strategic objectives and affects \nservice delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the information system at the hospital is manual and there is no linkage between the point of admission of a \npatient, to treatment, laboratory, pharmacy, billing, payment and finally discharge as there are no patient records and as such \nit is difficult to confirm completeness of the fees billed since the current system cannot completely and quickly show the \nservices consumed by a particular patient. Failure to integrate the systems leads to loss of revenue as it is difficult to quickly \nestablish the services different patients have consumed, paid for, and those that have not been paid for. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was a continued challenge concerning inadequate ward space especially for the Pediatrics, inpatient care for \nmalnourished children, new born care and isolation of patients with contagious diseases. Congestion at the hospital with", "metadata": {"page": 553, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "patients crowded in the wards and some sleeping on the floors exposes the patients to spread of contagious diseases. \n12. \nMbarara RRH \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of UGX.8,686,536,283, UGX.7,319,187,794 (84%) was spent by the entity on salaries, pension and gratuity resulting in \nan unspent balance of UGX.1,367,348,489 that were returned to the consolidated fund. \n\uf0b7 \nRRH underpaid UGX.56,327,519 in respect of pension and gratuity. \n\uf0b7 \n4 newly recruited employees failed to access the payroll by the end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.521, 912 relating to 2 employees was deducted past the end date according to my active deductions report. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 553, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nUGX.17,719,439 deducted monthly from 72 employees, had loans with regular end dates ranging from 96 to 234 months. \n\uf0b7 \nRHH has arrears of UGX.1, 096,830,103, spanning as far as 12 years ago these relate to majorly unpaid utilities. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of budgeted total revenue of UGX.18, 030,255,546 for the year 2021/2022, UGX.16,028,761,438 (89%) was realized thus \naffecting operations of the private wing. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts of UGX.16, 489,165,699, UGX.15, 075,132,144 (91%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent \nbalance of UGX.1, 414,033,555 (9%) that were returned to the consolidated fund. This affected majorly payment of salaries \nand pension. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 553, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and pension. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.2, 158,463,042 received by the RRH from development partners was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted a slow progress of works on 32 of the 56 Unit staff house under construction. Works remained at 30% yet the \ncompletion date was 22/07/2022. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.69, 820,000 was paid for a Video Conferencing Equipment that remained un-utilized by the end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 388 positions in the establishment register for the RHH, only 315 positions were filled leaving 73 (19%) positions \nvacant. \n13. \nMasaka RRH \n \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.7,188,852,354, UGX.6,475,538,668 was spent by the entity resulting in \nan unspent balance of UGX.713,343,686, representing an under absorption level of 9.9%", "metadata": {"page": 553, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "538 \n \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \n I noted an under payment of UGX.73,203,538 in respect of pension and gratuity. the underfunding was mainly caused by \nMedium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) ceilings communicated by MoFPED. \n\uf0b7 \n15 newly recruited/ transferred employees delayed to access payroll, with average delays of 29 days (4 weeks) \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.8,878,853 relating to 8 staff was underpaid as a result of the delayed access and payment. \n\uf0b7 \n3 new pensioners/beneficiaries delayed to access pension payroll, with average delays of 6 days (1weeks). \n\uf0b7 \nMoPS made deductions from staff on behalf of UCLA/UBA amounting to UGX.36,611,225 relating to 12 employees and the \namount lacked letters of undertaking or consent letters \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 554, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nUGX.14,473,215 relating to 8 employees was deducted by UCLA/UBA past the end date. \n\uf0b7 \nNoted unrealistic loan end dates for 8 employees ranging from 111 to 1663 years. In the year under review, UGX.23,704,932 \nhad been deducted from these employees \n\uf0b7 \nUCLA/UBA deducted UGX.17,460,348 from 21 staff without approval of the Accounting Officer from the PDMS \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital had wrongly deducted the LST of 255 employees resulting into an under deduction of UGX.7,916,250. \n\uf0b7 \nThrough a re-computation of PAYE, I noted that the Referral Hospital had wrongly computed the PAYE of 271 employees \nresulting into an under payment of UGX.6,170,287. \n\uf0b7 \nCompared the deductions in the IPPS payroll registers with the remittances/payments in the IFMS details XML payment file", "metadata": {"page": 554, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "and noted an under remittance amounting to UGX.58,592,895. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were variances of UGX.106,777,757 between the IPPS payroll registers and interface files availed to the entity by the \ncore FTP system. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity paid UGX.28,348,917 in respect of Salaries off IPPS \n\uf0b7 \nNoted funds amounting to UGX.54,934,223 relating to Pension were charged on account code 211101-General Staff Salaries \nother than 212102 that is prescribed for Pension. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of budgeted total revenue of UGX.12,967,092,147 for the year 2021/2022, UGX.12,976,969,799 (102.8%) was realized \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 554, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.12,967,092,144, UGX.12,241,302,938 (94%) was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.725,789,206 (5.9%). \n\uf0b7 \nViolation of Restricted Bidding Procedures for project of remodeling of maternity complex ground floor into ICU \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity assets register did not conform to requirements as it lacked asset numbers, registration numbers, initial cost, \nrecoverable cost. \n\uf0b7 \nSlow progress on implementation of capital works under construction of maternity and senor staff hostel. \n\uf0b7 \nMasaka Regional referral hospital received and utilized un-warranted off-budget financing from development partners a sum \nof UGX.4,586,597,602 which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \n14. \nArua RRH", "metadata": {"page": 554, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Referral Hospital spent, UGX.7,041,373,112 on Salaries, Pension and Gratuity, representing 58% of the total expenditure \nof UGX.12,229,767,057. \n\uf0b7 \n18 newly recruited/ transferred employees delayed to access payroll, with average delays of 6 months (24 weeks). I further \nnoted that UGX.97,500,429 relating to 14 staff was not paid because of the delayed access and payment. Delayed access of", "metadata": {"page": 554, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "539 \n \nnewly recruited or transferred staff to the payroll leads to demotivation of the affected staff as well as accumulation of salary \narrears. \n\uf0b7 \nMedical intern staff were paid past their due date by an average of 27 days, in all 6 months reviewed. I noted that in June \n2021 and October 2021, they were paid 52 days and 45 days after the closure of the months. Delayed payment of salaries \nleads to demotivation of the affected staff as well as accumulation of salary arrears. \n\uf0b7 \nAn over and/or under remittance amounting to UGX.248,991,771 and UGX.1,544,347 respectively were noted during \ncomparison of the deductions in the IPPS payroll registers with the remittances/payments in the IFMS details XML payment \nfile. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 555, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "file. \n\uf0b7 \nNet variances of UGX.56,622,986 between the IPPS payroll registers and interface files availed to the entity by the core FTP \nsystem. This creates an opportunity for manipulation and misappropriation of salary funds and could also lead to over/under \npayments of salary \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital did not maintain IPPS pension registers nor did it maintain IPPS verification reports for their pension staff. As a \nresult, I was unable to analyse their pension and gratuity payroll with the payments executed in IFMS \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital did not include Hospital Management Board Member\u2019s retainer fees of UGX.19,200,000 in the computation of \nPAYE leading to under deduction of PAYE of UGX.5,760,000. Omission of commissioner\u2019s gratuity from the computation of \nPAYE leads to understatement of payables and receivables. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 555, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital received off budget financing to a tune of UGX.2,692,383,900, which was not transferred to the consolidated \nfund as required by the law. These funds were received directly from Ministry of Health and development partners for \nundertaking activities not budgeted for. Off-budget financing distorts planning, may result in duplication of activities and is \ncontrary to the Public Finance Management Act. \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough UGX.843,109,684 from other government units was reported as part of the project balances in the memorandum \nstatement for project balances on page 47 to financial statements, they it was not appropriated by Parliament and were not \npart of the budget. Inadequate disclosures may give room to misuse of funds. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of budgeted total revenue of UGX.12,359,383,661 for the year 2021/2022, UGX.12,357,633,660 (99%) was realized. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 555, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.12,357,633,660, UGX.12,229,767,057 (99%) was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.127,866,603 (1%). The unspent balance at the end of the financial year was \nsubsequently swept back to the consolidated fund account. The funds that were not absorbed were meant for the part payment \nof supply of an assortment of orthopedic equipment and accessories. I noted that while the equipment was delivered, it was \nnot paid because the hospital administrator rejected some accessories valued at UGX.5,900,000. \n\uf0b7 \nThe budgets for 2 of the 12 outputs assessed were not supported by costings/budgets for each of the activities within these \noutputs. I was therefore unable to confirm if the funds allocated for these out-puts were reasonable and justifiable. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 555, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nArua Regional Referral Hospital structure lacked over 69 positions that were prerequisite to the full operationalization of a \nreferral hospital. The Hospital was operating on a staffing structure established in 1996 when the hospital was still operating \nas a District hospital. The structure had not been updated to match its new status as a regional referral hospital. As a result,", "metadata": {"page": 555, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "540 \n \nwhile the hospital staffing level stood at 77.3%, several critical staff could not be recruited and absorbed leaving several \ndepartments understaffed \n\uf0b7 \nSeveral inadequacies in vital equipment like infant warmers, patient monitors, operating beds and headlamps among others \nwere observed. There were also cases of stock outs of vital accessories needed to operationalize some medical equipment like \nbatteries, distilled water for incubators, tubes for infusion pumps among others. The theatre also lacked several complementary \nequipment like cupboards needed to store sterilized equipment and accessories, drums for sterile equipment, mayo trays, \noperating stools, weighing scales etc. \n\uf0b7 \nMaintenance works were hampered because of lack of ready spare parts for some medical equipment such as the Auto Clave \nmachines. Some equipment was too old or damaged beyond repair for example operating lights in the Gynecology Theatres. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 556, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe x-ray duo-diagnostic heavy-duty machine was non-functional, idle and redundant. The machine needed updating of \nsoftware yet the service provider\u2019s contract had expired. Idle and redundant medical equipment denies services to the patients \nand the equipment may be rendered obsolete over time. \n\uf0b7 \nThe hospital had non-functional medical equipment eg Weighing scales \u2013 infants, Ultra scanners, Infusion Pump etc. Non-\nfunctioning equipment denies services to the patients and the equipment may be rendered obsolete over time. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring Inspections, it was noted that the hospital the structure was old, non-maintained, without sanitation facilities, no heavy \nduty staff gloves and therefore exposing staff to infections, had inadequate detergents, no flat iron, basins and buckets for \ncarrying machine washed clothes and no uniforms and seats for staff. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Oxygen plant was non-functional and hospital was relying on the oxygen supplied by NMS and therefore affecting the", "metadata": {"page": 556, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "hospital drugs budget. No proper storage for both empty and filled cylinders. Cylinders were scattered on the ground exposing \nthem to theft and explosions. Although the daily oxygen production is documented to be 30 cylinders per day, there was no \nproper distribution system to respective ward/s users in terms of requisitions and dispatch exposing the cylinders to the risk \nof black market. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Pediatric Ward The ward has capacity of 40 beds but on average accommodates 90 children making others to sleep on \nthe floor as shown in the picture. No trolleys for equipment and drugs, No wheel chairs. 3 oxygen concentrators function out \nof 6. \n\uf0b7 \nDoors and windows broken without locks and therefore exposing patient and staff to risk of theft. Poor hygiene was also \nnoticed in toilets and bathrooms due to their non-functionality. \n\uf0b7 \nThe maternity ward had Inadequate leading floor cases during the peak hours, Inadequate sanitary facilities, one toilet and \nbathroom supporting an average of 100 women on in the ward, Maternity had 6 deliveries but the minimum required beds", "metadata": {"page": 556, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "are 10,the drainage system for the sluicing room was blocked and non-functional. \n\uf0b7 \nGynae Theatre\u2019s cupboards had rusted and hence exposing the medical tools to contaminations, no trolleys, no fridge, and no \nanaesthetist for operations.", "metadata": {"page": 556, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "541 \n \n\uf0b7 \nOrthopaedic Workshop was adequately equipped and staffed. It lacked the following materials for operations; Polypropylene \nfor making sockets, Eva Foams for making soft inserts, Pop powder for fabrication of devices, Knee Joint for Artificial limbs \nand Components for fabricating the limbs \n\uf0b7 \nHospital Lagoon\u2019s fence was vandalized due to the absence of security and as a result manhole covers have been stolen and \nthe community was using the land for grazing. \n\uf0b7 \nArua Regional Referral Hospital private wing did not have an approved work plan and budget for the financial year \n2019/2020.The strategic plan and budget is supposed to guide the budgeting process by creating integrated link with the \ngeneral hospital annual work plans which feed into the budget to ensure effective service delivery and achievement of their \nvision, mission and objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nThe hospital did not maintain a detailed risk register for all risks that may affect the implementation of activities as detailed in", "metadata": {"page": 557, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "the approved work plans and budgets. As such, there were no strategies and officers responsible to mitigate the occurrence \nof such risks or to minimize the impact in the event that these risks materialized. The failure to maintain risk registers implies \nthat the entity does not have a mitigation or response strategy to risks that may affect the achievement of planned activities. \nArua Referral Hospital showed that receipts and payments totaling UGX.2,692,383,900 did not go through GFMIS. It was further noted \nthat these transactions were not disclosed in the financial statements for year under review. \n15. \nJinja RRH \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year under review (FY 2021/22), Jinja RRH spent, UGX. 9,978,315,215 on salaries, Pension and Gratuity, \nrepresenting 61% of the total expenditure of UGX. 16,236,829,143. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 557, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nJinja RRH budgeted to receive UGX.11,065,053,195 in respect of salaries, pension and gratuity during the year under review \nand received UGX. 11,065,053,193 representing 100% performance. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 11,065,053,193, UGX. 9,978,315,215 was spent by the entity resulting \nin an unspent balance of UGX.1,086,737,978 representing an absorption level of 90%. \n\uf0b7 \nReview of the payroll registers (IPPS) and IFMS payments revealed an under payment of UGX. 22,130,445 in respect of \npension and gratuity. \n\uf0b7 \nJinja RRH had wrongly computed the gratuity benefits of 06 pensioners who were paid gratuity during the year resulting into \nan overstatement of UGX. (15,917,110). \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 557, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nJinja RRH had wrongly computed the pension benefits of 05 new pensioners (who were paid pension during the year) resulting \ninto an overstatement of UGX. 172,855. \n\uf0b7 \nIn addition, I compared the re-computed pension given the number of months the person was paid in the year and actual \npension paid and noted an over payment of UGX. 1,466,274 to 04 pensioners/beneficiaries and an under payment of UGX. \n4,413,861 to 02 pensioners/beneficiaries. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that 15 newly recruited/ transferred employees delayed to access payroll, with average delays of 81 days (12 weeks). \n\uf0b7 \nI however, noted that 03 new pensioners/beneficiaries delayed to access pension payroll, with average delays of 24 days.", "metadata": {"page": 557, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "542 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that UGX. 3,790,460 was paid to 02 staff who had either retired, transferred, absconded or died with average delays \nof 1 month. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds amounting to UGX. 41,131,639 in respect of pension payments were charged on gratuity code. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that MoPS deducted UGX. 117,047,028 from 46 staff on behalf of UCLA/UBA without letters of undertaking or \nconsent as a prerequisite of approval of the deductions \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that UGX. 1,282,001 relating to 03 employees was deducted past the end date. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted unrealistic loan end dates for 29 employees ranging from 6 to 10 years. In the year under review, UGX. 73,560,513 \nhad been deducted from these employees. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 558, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI observed that UCLA/UBA deducted UGX. 79,301,673 from 43 staff without approval of the Accounting Officer from the PDMS. \n\uf0b7 \nLST of UGX. 100,000 was not deducted from 01 employee \n\uf0b7 \nThe RRH had wrongly deducted the LST of 308 employees resulting into an overpayment of UGX. 1,455,000 and under \npayment of UGX6,765,000. \n\uf0b7 \nJinja RRH had wrongly computed the PAYE of 320 employees resulting into an overpayment of UGX. 2,623,500 and under \npayment of UGX. 11,932,835. \n\uf0b7 \nI compared the deductions in the IPPS payroll registers with the remittances/payments in the IFMS details XML payment file \nand noted an under remittance amounting to UGX. 21,057,742. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 558, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI compared the payroll registers (IPPS file) with the IFMS interface files and observed that there were net variances of UGX. \n(12,684,721). \n\uf0b7 \nA comparison of the IPPS payroll register and IFMS payment file revealed that UGX. 328,826,285 was paid off the IPPS to 10 \nemployees and 176 pensioners. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the relevant documents to support the creation of assignments on the IPPS payroll for 20 employees were not on \ntheir files \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that funds to the tune of UGX. 33,822,862 were irregularly misclassified through wrong coding without seeking and \nobtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nThe hospital disclosed accumulated verified payables figure of UGX. 1,280,812,842, mainly arising from consumption of utilities", "metadata": {"page": 558, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "like electricity and water. Out of the opening payables balance of UGX. 1,184,835,800, only UGX. 9,802,796 was budgeted for \nand paid during the year which left UGX. 1,175,033,004 from the previous years unpaid. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the budgeted total revenue of UGX. 19,066,169,970 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 17,937,733,921 (94%) \nwas realised.", "metadata": {"page": 558, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "543 \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 17,570,129,321, UGX. 16,236,829,143 (92%) was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1,333,300,178 (08%). The unspent balance at the end of the financial year was \nsubsequently swept back to the consolidated fund account. \n\uf0b7 \nReviews revealed that NTR had an initial budget amount of UGX. 813,349,837 and a revised amount of UGX. 885,620,813. \nhowever, there was no documentary evidence in terms of work plans and budget estimates to support the budget figure. \n\uf0b7 \nThe private wing pharmacy lacked stock cards to show drugs received, drugs issued out and the balance at hand on any \nparticular day. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 559, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "particular day. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were no monthly, quarterly or annual drugs and medical supplies reconciliation records in place and as such, I was \nunable to ascertain the balance of stock at hand. \n\uf0b7 \nInquiries revealed that the hospital had an auto clinic system that was supposed to help with daily reconciliations, however, \nthis had been off for more than 5 months during the year and therefore was not up-to-date. \n\uf0b7 \nInquiries revealed that the personnel working in the private pharmacy currently did not have the requisite technical knowledge \nto enable smooth operations. There was no evidence to show that these employees received training to equip them with the \nbasic knowledge for running the operations of the pharmacy. \n\uf0b7 \nInquiries revealed that there was no approved fees structure to guide in charging of patients. There was no evidence of fees \nbeing made public through notice boards and other strategic locations. \n\uf0b7 \nAn inspection of the store revealed that Various drugs that expired during the year had not yet been removed from the shelves", "metadata": {"page": 559, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "as required. \n\uf0b7 \nI also observed that the Hospital procures drugs with a short expiry period \n\uf0b7 \nAn inspection of the medical stores revealed Leaking roof that lets in rain water hence contaminating the drugs, there were \nfew shelves to handle all the drugs. Most drugs had been laid on the floor, the store was generally in a disorganized state, the \napproved structure recommends 3 positions in the store. However, only 1 position was filled leaving a staffing gap of 2 \npositions \n\uf0b7 \nInspection of a sample of stock cards revealed that they had not been updated. For example, they lacked quantities in, and \nbalances of items in stock, I also noted that management did not maintain a stock book. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the entity did not have a strategic plan that had been approved by NPA. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the budgets for 04 of the 05 outputs assessed were not supported by costings/budgets for each of the activities", "metadata": {"page": 559, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "within these outputs. I was therefore unable to confirm if the funds allocated for these out-puts were reasonable and justifiable. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that a number of assets that were identified by the Board of Survey Report in 2021 for disposal had not been disposed \nof by the time of audit (25th July 2022). \n16. \nSoroti RRH \n \nOpinion \n\uf0b7 \nOut of UGX.7,484,933,156 received as wage, pension and gratuity, UGX.7,216,775,575 was spent, resulting in an unspent \nbalance of UGX.268,157,978 that was returned to the consolidated fund. This was due to failure to recruit staff.", "metadata": {"page": 559, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "544 \n \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital overpaid UGX.6,723,758 in respect of salaries and pension, the Accounting Officer promised to recover the funds \nfrom the respective employees. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital underpaid UGX.462,977,214 to 9 pensioners/beneficiaries this was attributed to challenges with accessing the \npayroll. \n\uf0b7 \n4 newly recruited/ transferred staff delayed to access the payroll with delays ranging from 2 to 3 months, all arrears were paid \nby the financial year end. \n\uf0b7 \n5 new pensioners/beneficiaries delayed to access pension payroll, with delays ranging from 3 to 25 months. As a result, UGX. \n43,777,430 was not paid. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX. 32,005,554 was paid to 7 staff who had either retired or died. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 560, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nUGX. 66,126,78 relating to pension and gratuity were charged on account codes other than those prescribed for pension \nand gratuity. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX. 167,564,620 was deducted from 81 employees without letters of undertaking or consent. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX. 1,356,648 relating to 5 employees was deducted by UCLA/UBA past the end date. \n\uf0b7 \n9 employees had unrealistic loan end dates ranging from 47674 to 53394 years. UGX. 19,762,167 had been deducted from \nthese employees. \n\uf0b7 \nUCLA/UBA deducted UGX.20,972,029 from 12 staff without approval of the Accounting Officer from the PDMS. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were variances in monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report in the PDMS and IPPS payroll. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital had not deducted LST of 266 employees. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 560, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital wrongly computed the PAYE in respect of 270 employees resulting into under deduction of UGX. 6,079,991. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were inconsistencies between interface files and payroll registers. \n\uf0b7 \nA comparison of the IPPS payroll register and IFMS payment file revealed that UGX.41,858,894 was paid off the IPPS to 3 \nemployees. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that there is absence of a designated cash office and billing clerk, patients are given bills verbally by the ward in \ncharge nurses. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital had irregularly accumulated domestic arrears worth UGX.271,502,307 as disclosed in the statement of \noutstanding commitments. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital received off budgeting financing on the Administration account of UGX.1,897,356,302 but only spent", "metadata": {"page": 560, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.1,343,183,215 leading to an under absorption of UGX.834,398,779 representing 62%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the budgeted total revenue of UGX. 9,728,867,272 for the financial year 2021/2022, UGX. 9,728,867,272 (100%) was \nrealized.", "metadata": {"page": 560, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "545 \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 9,728,867,272, UGX. 9,460,702,687 (97%) was spent by the entity \nresulting in an unspent balance of UGX.268,164,585 (3%). \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital experienced drug stock outs for several essential medicines. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital experienced expiry of several essential medicines. \n\uf0b7 \nThe hospital did not have a designated storage area for expired drugs. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the Hospital\u2019s approved staff list of 289, only 194 (67%) were filled. \n\uf0b7 \nThe hospital did not maintain a detailed risk register. \n17. \nHoima RRH \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 561, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of UGX. 7,354,467,299 received as wage, pension and gratuity, only UGX. 7,141,440,796 was spent, resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX. 213,026,503 that was returned to the consolidated fund. This was due to failure to recruit heath \nworkers and delayed submission of pensioner\u2019s documentation for payment by the RRH. \n\uf0b7 \nRRH overpaid UGX. 1,273,933 in respect of salaries. The Accounting officer promised to recover the funds from the respective \nemployees. \n\uf0b7 \nRRH underpaid UGX. 74,926,837 in respect of pension and gratuity due to insufficient allocation funds by MoFPED. \n\uf0b7 \n13 newly recruited/ transferred employees delayed to access payroll, with average delays of 1.8 months. By close of the", "metadata": {"page": 561, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "financial year, 8 staff had not been paid a total of UGX. 9,078,276. \n\uf0b7 \n5 new pensioners/beneficiaries delayed to access pension payroll, with average delays of 4 months. As a result, UGX. 5,343,902 \nwas not paid by the end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX. 7,268,797 was paid to 6 staff who had either retired, transferred, or died with average delays of 1.5 month. Delayed \nremoval of staff from payroll resulted into financial loss to government. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX. 1,757,809 relating to Pension and Pension Arrears were charged on account codes other than those prescribed for \nPension and Pension Arrears. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX. 4,586,671 relating to 8 employees was deducted by UCLA/UBA past the end date. \n\uf0b7 \nRRH had unrealistic loan end dates for 8 employees ranging from 109 to 4738 years.", "metadata": {"page": 561, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nUCLA/UBA deducted UGX. 21,015,298 from 8 staff without approval of the Accounting Officer from the PDMS. In addition, \nUGX. 4,315,541 was deducted by UCLA/UBA from 23 staff over and above the approved amounts by the Accounting Officer. \n\uf0b7 \nThe RRH wrongly deducted the LST of 187 employees resulting into an over deduction of UGX. 2,836,250. \n\uf0b7 \nThe RRH wrongly computed the PAYE in respect of 151 employees resulting into under deduction of UGX. 4,097,543. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was under remittance of PAYE amounting to UGX. 56,049,162.", "metadata": {"page": 561, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "546 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe RRH paid UGX. 22,434,758 off the IPPS to 2 employees and 2 pensioners/beneficiaries. The Accounting Officer explained \nthat with the introduction of HCMS, the challenge will be resolved. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX. 266,171,930 spent on activities under account item codes they were not budgeted majorly due block releases by MoFPED. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts of UGX. 9,515,008,698, UGX. 9,301,982,191 (97.76%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent \nbalance of UGX. 213,026,507 which was swept to the consolidated fund account. This affected the staff recruitment and \npayment of pension. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.58,857,369 remained unaccounted for by the end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 562, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nUGX.17,694,000 was paid to a firm that is not registered to pay the value added tax causing a loss to government. \n\uf0b7 \nNSSF Contributions amounting UGX.6,503,625 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff were not remited. \nUGX.2,227,822,220 received by the RRH was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \n18. \nKabale RRH \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of UGX. 5,131,275,924 received as wage, pension and gratuity, only UGX. 5,131,275,845 was spent, hence no unspent \nbalance. \n\uf0b7 \n3 new beneficiaries of the deceased had not been accessed to pension payroll, with delays ranging from 6 to 18 months. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 562, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nKabale RRH deducted UGX.4,586,671 relating to 6 employees was deducted by UCLA/UBA past the end date. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that unrealistic loan end dates for 5 employees for a period of 9 years each in the year under review, UGX. 1,150,488 \nhad been deducted from these employees. \n\uf0b7 \n A comparison of the \u201cactive deductions\u201d and \u201cmy approvals\u201d reports in the PDMS revealed that there were variances in \ndeduction amounts by UGX. 1,376,164. \n\uf0b7 \nRe-computation of LST revealed the Kabale RR Hospital had wrongly deducted the LST of 12 employees resulting under \ndeduction of UGX. 257,500. \n\uf0b7 \nKabale RRH\u2019s payroll registers (IPPS file) with the IFMS interface files and observed that there were variances of UGX. \n4,068,109. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 562, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total budget of UGX. 9,692,089,179, Kabale RRH received all the funds budgeted for that is 100%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for UGX. 9,692,089,100, UGX. 9,644,150,861 (99.5%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent \nbalance of UGX. 47,938,239 (0.5%). The unspent balance of UGX. 47,938,239 at the end of the financial year was subsequently \nswept back to the consolidated fund account. \n\uf0b7 \nKabale RRH received UGX. 1,953,693,454 from donors like USAID, Global Fund and some from MOH to cater for HIV activities. \n\uf0b7 \nKabale RRH had obsolete and unserviceable Medical equipment and non-functional oxygen plant and limited information on \nconstruction of the oxygen plant.", "metadata": {"page": 562, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "547 \n \n\uf0b7 \nKabale RR Hospital has an approved staff structure of 417 positions. I noted that out of the approved staff structure, 170 \n(41%) positions had been filled leaving 247 (59%) positions vacant. \n\uf0b7 \nKabale RRH had not prepared the risk register for the hospital. \n19. \nLira RRH \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of UGX. 7,127,988,692 received as wage, pension and gratuity, only UGX. 7,116,377,641 was spent, resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX. 11,611,051 that was returned to the consolidated fund. This was due to non-payment of one contract \nstaff/pensioner Mr. Odu Benard. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 563, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe RRH underpaid UGX. 288,412 in respect of salary due to failure by the staff to report the under payments of his salary. \n\uf0b7 \n01 new pensioner/beneficiary delayed to access pension payroll, with average delays of 1 month. As a result, UGX. 222,822 \nwas not paid by the end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX. 46,025,872 relating to Pension was charged on account codes other than those prescribed for Pension. \n\uf0b7 \nThe RRH has accumulated arrears of UGX.186,559,362, arising from non-payment employee costs. \n\uf0b7 \nPrepayments amounting to UGX.402,264,456 in respect of NWSC and UMEME advance payments had not been consumed \nat the end of the financial year. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 563, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of budgeted total revenue of UGX.15,649,329,200 for the year 2021/2022, UGX.10,790,701,383 (69%) was realized \nthus affecting payment of contract staff salaries, allowances and related expenses. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts of UGX.10,790,701,383, UGX.10,599,468,917 (98.2%) was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.191,232,466 (1.8%) that were returned to the consolidated fund. This affected majorly payment \nof salaries and allowances. \n\uf0b7 \nFuel expenditure amounting UGX.35,298,250 deposited in United Bank of Africa (UBA) cards remained unaccounted at the \nend of the financial year. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 563, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nUGX.24,204,209 relating to payment for supplies/works executed in the financial year 2020/2021 was expended as part of \nthe current year expenditure yet there was no evidence of prior recognition of the domestic arrears and there was no budget \nprovision. \n\uf0b7 \nMedical Insurance contract awarded to M/s UAP Old Mutual Insurance Uganda Limited on the 26th day of April, 2022 at a \ncontract sum of UGX.263,587545 had no contract management plan and contract management report, no clearance was \nobtained from the Solicitor General, payment to the tune of UGX.247,772,213 (94%) had been effected yet the contract \nwas still running up to 365 days after commencement and according to the special conditions of contract, the payment \nschedule was meant to be semi-annual basis.", "metadata": {"page": 563, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "548 \n \n20. \nEntebbe RH \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of UGX.3,387,231,383, UGX.3,354,258,489 (99%) was spent by the entity on salaries, pension and gratuity resulting in \nan unspent balance of UGX.32,972,894 that were returned to the consolidated fund. \n\uf0b7 \nRHH Overpaid UGX.1,594,870 in respect of pension and gratuity. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.389,111,854 underpaid in respect of pension and gratuity. \n\uf0b7 \nRRH wrongly computed the gratuity benefits of 8 pensioners resulting in an understatement and overstatement of \nUGX.14,291,376 and UGX. 24,504,532 respectively. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 564, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nUGX.9,607,206 deducted on the payroll was not remitted to respective beneficiary institutions. \n\uf0b7 \nRelevant documents to support the creation of assignments on the IPPS payroll for 4 pensioners were not on their respective \nfiles. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity did not maintain an up-date the staff list that included all new staff and excluded all staff leavers. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of UGX.1,200,000,000, was allocated for procurement of drugs and medical supplies UGX.1,021,000,000 (85%) resulting \nin a deficit of UGX. 179,000,000 (15%). \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the available allocation for procurement of drugs and medical supplies of UGX.1,036,173,022, UGX.411,082,167 (40%) \nwas utilized by the entity leading to utilized balance of UGX.625,090,855 (60%). \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 564, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \n37 medicines and supplies totaling 3,260 in number (units) had expired. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 559 approved positions, only 176 (31%) posts were filled, leaving 383 (69%) vacant positions. \n\uf0b7 \nRRH lacked 71 medical equipment, and had excess of 51 medical equipment. \n\uf0b7 \n2 equipment in the radiology department were not functioning \n\uf0b7 \nProcurements of UGX.267, 725,480 were not in the procurement plan. \n21. \nCentre for Disease Control \nand Prevention (CDC) \nSept 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Project had budgeted for USD 4,820,288 (UGX. 14,423,091,800), only USD 2,610,101 (UGX. 9,479,082,377) was", "metadata": {"page": 564, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "received for utilisation for the financial year ending 30th September 2021 (representing 54%). I further noted that out of the \nUSD 2,610,101 (UGX. 9,479,082,377) received, the project only utilised USD 2,577,021 (UGX. 9,362,167,833) leaving a \nbalance of USD 33,080 (UGX 116,914,544 ). The low release of funds coupled with under absorption of funds implies unrealistic \nover budgeting. In addition the low absorption of funds received constrains management in the delivery of planned project \noutputs. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that, whereas the Finance Unit Standard Operating Procedures provide that accounts and Financial statements / \nreports are to be prepared on the accrual basis using historical cost accounting, the Project operations manual 2017 provide \nfor preparation on the basis of historical cost accounting. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 564, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nA review of 4 beneficiary Rural Referral Hospitals\u2019 (RRH) financial reports, at the end of the year, revealed expenditure \namounting to UGX 63,868,601 in excess of the budgeted amounts.", "metadata": {"page": 564, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "549 \n \n22. \nItalian Support to UHSSP and \nPRDP \n\u2013Karamoja \nRegion \nStaff Housing Project \nJune 2021 \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 \n(100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 \n(79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the \nremaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project \nis exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 565, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nThe Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the \ninitial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project \nto keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was \nrefunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally \nborrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts \nat USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th \nJune 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian", "metadata": {"page": 565, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the \nadvance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The \ncontractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant \nand shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This \ncourt case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had \nnot been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement \nof project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. \n23. \nThe Italian Support to the \nUganda", "metadata": {"page": 565, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Uganda \nHealth \nSector \nStrategic Plan Iii (HSSPIII) \nand the Peace, Recovery and \nDevelopment Plan (PRDP) \nFor Northern Uganda \nKaramoja \nRegion \nStaff \nHousing Project (KRSP) \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total actual receipts of EUR 4,199,750 a sum of EUR 3,691,785.65(88%) had been utilised by 30th June 2022 \nimplying an under absorption of 12% of the total project grant. At the end of the financial year, the project closed with a cash \nand cash equivalent of EUR 530,266.59. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the contracts for Lot 1 and Lot 2 were meant to be completed on 16th May 2021, only Lot 1 sites had been handed", "metadata": {"page": 565, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "over and commissioned by end of FY 2021/2022. This implies delays for Lot 2 of 17 months from the planned completion date \nof 16th May 2021. By December 2022, the sites had not been completed. \n\uf0b7 \nIn addition, Lot 3 had not yet started thereby occasioning significant delays on this lot 3 and the entire project. \n24. \nKayunga \nYumbe \nHospital \nProject (KAYUP) FYT \nJune 2021 \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that out of the expected receipts of USD.8,643,589.75, the project received funding totalling USD.8,579,596.82 \nconstituting USD.7,769,470.24 from external sources and USD.810,126.58 (UGX. 2,880,000,000) from GoU counterpart", "metadata": {"page": 565, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "550 \n \ncontribution. Therefore, a budget shortfall of USD.135,657.97 (representing 1.7% of the external funding approved budget) \nwas registered. This has a negative effect on the timely delivery of the planned outputs achievement of project objectives. \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the contract for the supply of medical and Hospital furniture worth USD 1,999,854.56 was initiated in the FY \n2018/2019, deliveries had not yet been made by close of the year under review (30th June 2021). In addition, the performance \nguarantee had expired. Under the circumstances, the intended service delivery is compromised. In addition, the expiry of the \nbank guarantee exposes the Ministry of Health to a risk of a financial loss in the event that the company fails to deliver. \n\uf0b7 \nThree (3) Supplies contracts worth USD 2,582,573.121 for the supply of laboratory equipment had not performed by 30th", "metadata": {"page": 566, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "June 2021 as planned thereby delaying the intended service delivery at both Kayunga and Yumbe hospitals. Failure to ensure \ntimely execution of the project supplies contracts impacts negatively on the achievement of the primary objective of the project \nof contributing to the delivery of the Uganda National Minimum Health Care Package (UNMHCP), through improvement of \nhealth infrastructure at the two hospitals. \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the year under review, the project planned, under component 3, to procure six (6) vehicles (2 Ambulances, 2 mini-\nbuses and 2 pickups) for the two hospitals. Draft contracts were prepared and submitted to the Funds for final approval. \nHowever, approval of Draft contracts by the Development funders was yet to be obtained and accordingly clearance from the \nSolicitor General had not been sought by 30th June 2021. Under the circumstances, the intended project outputs were not \nattained thereby delaying planned service delivery at the two (2) hospitals. \n\uf0b7 \nThere were delays by the Funding Agencies in effecting payments due to Contractors and Suppliers for services offered to the", "metadata": {"page": 566, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "project. This led to failure to pay project obligations on time resulting into accrued outstanding obligations of USD 2,361,491.08 \nof which USD 1,558,909.95 was related to unpaid interim certificates for civil works, USD765,581.13 due to equipment \nsuppliers and USD 3,700 in respect of unpaid Project staff salaries. Low disbursement rate exposes the project to a risk of loss \nof funds due to unfavourable foreign exchange fluctuations. Furthermore, the project is at risk of having incomplete project \ncomponents and litigations due to unpaid obligations at project closure. \n25. \nUganda Nurses and Midwives \nCouncil (UNMC). \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nIncluded in the disclosed receivables of is an amount of UGX444.4Bn which arose out of a Court ruling in favour of Council \nbut had not been realised by the time of reporting. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 566, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Uganda Nurses and Midwives Council Act 1996 provides that the Registrar shall publish the names of all registered \nnurses in the Gazette after the 1st day of January and not later than the 31st day of March in each year, at the time of \nreporting in December 2022, the Council had not gazetted the names of persons. \n26. \nUganda Nurses and Midwives \nCouncil (UNMC). \n2020/21 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that a material uncertainty existed regarding the continued operation of Uganda Nurses and Midwives Council in the \nforeseeable future. This state of affairs is supported with a letter from the Permanent Secretary \u2013 Ministry of Public Service to \nall Accounting Officers Ref: MSD/135/165/01 dated 19th April 2021 in which guidance was provided on the modalities for \nmanagement of public Institutions during the implementation of recommendations on the rationalization of Agencies and \nPublic Expenditure. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 566, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Public Expenditure. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that during the year under review, management made the necessary adjustments to the opening reserves and \nreceivables (1st July 2020) to recognize the unaccounted for advances of UGX 1,274,315,720 which formed a basis for \nqualification of opinion on the Council\u2019s financial statements for the Financial Year ending 30th June 2020.", "metadata": {"page": 566, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "551 \n \n\uf0b7 \nCouncil sued RAM Engineering and Stanbic Bank in a fraudulent case worth UGX 444,400,000 and the case was ruled in favor \nof UNMC. In the court ruling dated 4th October 2021, a garnishee order for refund of UGX.444,400,000 was issued against \nthe respondent and the bank jointly and, or severally. I further noted that costs of the application were awarded to Uganda \nNurses and Midwives Council (the Applicant). During the year under review, management made the necessary adjustments to \nthe financial statements in the form of a receivable of UGX 444,400,000 and further disclosed a contingent asset in the form \nof interest and costs of the application. By the end of the year under review, funds were yet to be recovered as per the court \nruling. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 567, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "ruling. \n\uf0b7 \nOn 3rd July 2020, management fixed a sum of UGX. 4,370,100,000 (UGX 4,000,000,000 and USD 100,000) with Standard \nChartered Bank for 6 months with approval of the Governing Council vide resolution No. 11 under minute Ref: \nFC/16/26/06/2020 of the 7th full Council Virtual meeting held on 24th, 25th and 26th June 2020. Council earned interest \nincome of UGX.163,429,767 that was credited on Standard Chartered Bank A/c No. 0102086768300 on 2nd January 2021. In \naddition, a sum of UGX 4.5bn was fixed on 21st June 2021 with the same bankers. I noted that the investment decisions were \nmade without the guidance envisaged under a resource mobilization strategy. Furthermore, an investment register was not \navailed for audit verification. \n27. \nUganda Medical and Dental \nPractitioners Council. \n \n \nOpinion", "metadata": {"page": 567, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nDue to Government reforms to rationalize Government agencies and public expenditure, there exists a material uncertainty \nthat may cast significant doubt that the Council shall remain a Going Concern in the foreseeable future. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that whereas the Council\u2019s potential revenue from members was UGX.2,336,864,180, only UGX.2,094,087,170 was \nbudgeted for leaving UGX.242,777,010 unbudgeted for. The Council has not established a mechanism to collect and update \ninformation in the register of members so as to have reliable data to inform the revenue budgeting process. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Council collected Non \u2013 Tax Revenue of UGX.1,846,419,724 against a budget of UGX.2,094,087,170 leading to under \ncollection of UGX.247,667,446. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 567, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nContrary to section 32(1) of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, 1998, that requires inspection/supervisory visits to be \nundertaken by the office of the Registrar at least once in every quarter of the year, I noted that inspection visits of health \nfacilities were done once in the year and only 155 out of 1,523 health units were inspected. This can lead to complacency and \ncompromise standards of health practitioners thus affecting the lives of patients. \n28. \nUganda Medical and Dental \nPractitioners Council. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n2020/21 \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the council has an approved staff establishment of 28 positions. However, only 16 positions (representing 57%) \nwere filled leaving 12 positions (43%) vacant. Under the circumstances, the existing staff are exposed to a risk of job-related \nstress which could negatively affect service delivery. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 567, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nUganda Medical and Dental Practitioners council had four (4) motor vehicles. The council did not have a policy on Motor \nVehicle Management to guide the usage of its fleet of four (4) vehicles so as to eliminate theft, losses, wastage and misuse. \n\uf0b7 \nNone of the four (4) vehicles owned by the council was inspected during the year under review. Under the circumstances, \nthere is a risk of unforeseen mechanical failures that would expose the users of such vehicles to road accidents. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the three (3) drivers employed by the Council had not undertaken additional training to obtain additional skills \nand were not subjected to annual medical examination to ascertain their fitness to drive.", "metadata": {"page": 567, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "552 \n \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that as part of Management\u2019s responsibilities for the Financial Statements outlined on Page 6 of the Financial \nStatements, the Accounting Officer stated that a material uncertainty existed regarding the continued operation of Uganda \nMedical and Dental Practitioners\u2019 Council in the foreseeable future. Management\u2019s judgement was informed by a letter Ref: \nMSD/135/165/01 dated 19th April 2021 from the Permanent Secretary \u2013 Ministry of Public Service to all Accounting Officers. \nIn this letter, guidance was provided on the modalities for management of public Institutions during the implementation of \nrecommendations on the rationalization of Agencies and Public Expenditure. \n29. \nThe \nRehabilitation \nand \nExpansion of Kayunga and \nYumbe \nHospitals \nProject \n(KAYUP) -BADEA No. 0761, \nOFID No. 1628P and SFD No. \n6/620 \u2013 Ministry of Health \nProject.", "metadata": {"page": 568, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Project. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nThe total loan disbursements from the 3 external funding agencies amounted to USD 34.427Million by 30th June 2022 \nrepresenting 93% of the approved loan of USD 37 million. The balance of USD 2.572 M had not been disbursed \n\uf0b7 \nBy 30th June 2022, the project registered outstanding obligations of USD 1,615,332.06 due to delays in payment by the \nfunders \n30. \nUganda-Spain Debt Swap \nProject. \nJune 2021 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nWhereas the project had a closing cash balance of USD 1,355,619.94, I noted the existence of outstanding claims from Excel \nConstruction Ltd worth USD 1,414,640 and M/S ISDEFE (consultant) of Euros 88,437.97. This state of affairs affects the", "metadata": {"page": 568, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "implementation of planned project activities which ultimately leads to delayed service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nThere was a delay in the refurbishment of Busolwe General Hospital whose proposed scope was estimated to cost USD \n5,532,792.38. This is despite the fact that the consultant so far has been paid EUROs 155,108 since December 2017. Delayed \nimplementation of the project activities and disbursement of funds attracts commitment charges. In addition, these delays \nmay result into cost overruns on the entire project. \n31. \nButabika \nNational \nMental \nReferral Hospital. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.18.77Bn, only UGX.18.02Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an", "metadata": {"page": 568, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "unspent balance of UGX.0.762Bn representing an absorption level of 96%. As a result, I noted that out of the 20 quantified \nactivities worth UGX.16.4Bn assessed; 18 activities representing 90% were fully implemented, 2 activities representing 10% \nwere partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted an encroachment of up to 11.30 hectares on the hospital land by over 2,000 families/households. In the circumstances, \nmanagement is constrained in the effective delivery of the Hospital mandate. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that a number of critical medical equipment had been faulty for quite a long time without repair and or replacement \nof their spare parts rendering them redundant. An X ray machine had broken down since January 2022 \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.55,427,002 had not yet been paid to pensioners by the year end hence the pensioners\u2019 livelihood is negatively affected. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 568, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of an approved staff structure of 531 positions, the Hospital has only 410 (77%) positions filled, leaving 121 (23%) \npositions vacant", "metadata": {"page": 568, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "553 \n \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Hospital has an official bed capacity of 550, I noted that the bed occupancy rate was 150% and that the Hospital \nwas handling over 1,000 in-patients on a daily basis. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity has two Information technology systems, that is, the internally developed Medical Records Management System \n(MRMS) and the Health Management Information System (HMIS) which were not integrated and therefore not automatically \nsharing information with each other which leads to duplications and inefficiencies and affects service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \n143 IT equipment which had exceeded the recommended 3 year useful life and recommended for decommissioning by the \nBoard of Survey were not disposed of. \n \n32. \nKawempe National Referral \nHospital. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 569, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.13.168Bn, the Hospital spent UGX.13.030Bn resulting in unspent balance \nof UGX.0.139Bn representing an absorption level of 99%. The unspent funds were meant for payment of salary and furniture \nand fittings. \n\uf0b7 \n26 quantified activities worth UGX.11.557Bn were assessed and established that 23 activities representing 88% were fully \nimplemented while 3 activities representing 12% were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds to the tune of UGX.47,111,540 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on \nother activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the payables of UGX.932,927,785, UGX.669,602,626 owed to UMEME Ltd have been outstanding for the last 3 financial", "metadata": {"page": 569, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "years while UGX.263,325,159 owed to BHL Healthcare Ltd has existed for the last 2 financial years. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital did not pay gratuity worth UGX.167,487,795 to three (3) pensioners as by the close of the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the hospital had an established staffing level of 889 only 296(33%) positions were filled leading to an understaffing \nof 585 (67%). \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Hospital deployed two (2) information systems (Integrated Hospital Management Information System and Open \nElectronic Medical record system) they did not have any automated interface mechanisms to share information (integrated). \nThis leads to duplication and inefficiency. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of the ICT governance structure of the entity revealed that there was no specific structure that steers and oversees \nICT implementation and approved IT risk management framework/policy.", "metadata": {"page": 569, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "The Hospital contracted M/S Toyota Uganda Limited (CFAO Motors Uganda) to supply two double cabin Pickups at a contract sum of \nUGX.433,432,126. I however noted that although the entire contract amount was paid only one double cabin pickup had been \ndelivered by the time of reporting, almost 6 months late. \n33. \nKiruddu \nNational \nReferral \nHospital. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.21.287Bn, only UGX.20.656Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.0.63Bn (representing an absorption level of 97.6%). As a result, of the 30 quantified activities worth \nUGX.20.7Bn assessed; 22 (73%) activities were fully implemented, 4 (13%) activities were partially implemented while 4 \n(13%) activities were not implemented.", "metadata": {"page": 569, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "554 \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that Plot 3927 Block 273 and plot 1774 block 255 at Kiruddu-Makindye in Kampala District where the Hospital \npremises and treatment plant has land titles registered in the names of Kampala Capital City Authority but not in the Hospital \nname which may result into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \n\uf0b7 \nIncluded in reported payables balance of UGX.458,284,964. is a long-outstanding obligation of UGX.94,372,000. in respect of \nspecial meals served in FY 2019/20. I observed that management did not budget for the settlement of domestic arrears during \nthe year under review. The Hospital is at risk of litigation and eventual payment of fines which may result into a financial loss. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 830 approved positions; only 293 (35%) posts were filled, leaving 537 (65%) positions vacant. Included in the 537", "metadata": {"page": 570, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "vacant positions are critical positions such as Director surgical services, 36 consultants and 20 senior consultants. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that a total of three (3) IT systems were not being optimally utilized by the entity and the Integrated Hospital \nManagement System (IHMS) running in the Hospital is not owned by the entity. In addition, the Hospital\u2019s IHMS is not \nintegrated or automatically sharing information with other systems. This leads to redundancies, duplications and inefficiencies. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of drugs supply chain management revealed that on several occasions there were drug stock outs which left Kiruddu \nNRH without several essential, vital and necessary drugs. Drugs stock outs are potentially dangerous to the lives of patients. \n \n34. \nNational Drug Authority. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total expenditure budget of UGX.104.8bn, only UGX.85.7bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance", "metadata": {"page": 570, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of UGX.19.1bn representing an absorption level of 82%. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of forty three (43) activities with a total of one hundred twenty four (124) targets \nworth UGX.73.9Bn and noted that twenty three (23) activities with fifty one (51) targets and expenditure worth UGX.43.7Bn \nwere fully implemented, twenty (20) activities with seventy three (73) targets worth UGX.30.2Bn were partially implemented. \nOut of the seventy three (73) targets, the entity fully achieved forty (40) targets; thirty two (32) targets were partially achieved, \nwhile one (1) target was not achieved. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Authority had long outstanding receivables from Ministry of Health and tenants to the tune of UGX.43,210,405,917 and \nUGX.131,298,624 respectively. Receivables represent idle assets which deny the entity availability of funds for prompt service \ndelivery.", "metadata": {"page": 570, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI note that out of the four (4) pieces of land measuring approximately 2.537 hectares held, one (1) piece of land located on \nBlock 423, plot 13 in Busiro County (measuring approximately 1.619 hectares) had encumbrances in the form of encroachment \nby the local population. Encumbrances hinder management\u2019s ability to utilize the land and pose a risk of loss of land. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that NDA has four (4) IT systems which were neither integrated nor automatically sharing information amongst each \nother and with other government systems. \n35. \nUganda Covid-19 Response \nand \nEmergency \nPreparedness \nProject \n(UCREPP) \n\uf0b7 \nThe project with a funding of USD. 12.5M has a completion date of 31st December 2022. I established that the Project", "metadata": {"page": 570, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "managed to achieve, on average, only 10% of what it had planned to do during the period under review implying non-\nachievement of 90% of the approved budget and work plan.", "metadata": {"page": 570, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "555 \n \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nDuring the period, UGX. 258,159,000 was disbursed to two hospitals, however only UGX. 210,593,083 had been utilized leaving \na balance of UGX. 47,565,917 not utilized. \n36. \nUganda \nNational \nHealth \nResearch Organization. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nManagement did not appraise their staffs for the year under review. \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough the Organization\u2019s employees are entitled to benefits such as membership to the provident fund scheme, staff \ninsurance and annual leave, management did not pay any of the benefits during the year under review. \n37. \nUganda Blood Transfusion \nServices (UBTS). \n \nOpinion", "metadata": {"page": 571, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.19.3Bn, only UGX.18.83Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent \nbalance of UGX.0469Bn (representing an absorption level of 98%). As a result, of the (27) activities worth UGX.17.742Bn \nassessed; 25 activities representing 92% were fully implemented, 1 activity representing 4% was partially implemented while \n2 activities representing 8% were not implemented at all. The unimplemented activities related to non-payment of employee \ncosts and domestic Arrears \n\uf0b7 \nTwo (2) regional office buildings of UBTS in Mbale and Fort portal were constructed within the regional hospitals land without \nland titles or signed memoranda of understanding. In the circumstances, UBTS could lose infrastructural investments in case \nof future disagreements. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 571, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "of future disagreements. \n\uf0b7 \nPlot 2F on Nakasero Hill Road which houses the Headquarters of UBTS was encroached upon by a Hotel by way of a wall fence \ncovering a total area of 0.079ha. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX 955,195,790 was reported as payables of which UGX.624,097,536 was accrued during the year. The payables arose from \nover commitment beyond the approved estimates as appropriated by Parliament for the financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 424 approved staff positions only 286 (67%) posts were filled, leaving 138 (33%) positions vacant. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that whereas a contractor for the remodelling and expansion of a store at Nakasero prepared and submitted building \nplans to UBTS, there was no evidence that these plans had been submitted to KCCA and subsequently approved. \nImplementation of unapproved building plans poses a risk of financial loss in the event that the responsible Authority", "metadata": {"page": 571, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "(Metropolitan Authority/KCCA) refused to approve the plans and directed the demolition of the works already done. \n\uf0b7 \nRecords of 313,975 units of blood collected and recorded on the Blood Safety Information system indicated that 252,178 units \nof blood were dispatched to 488 health units. However, there was no record of blood received and issued by health Units on \nthe District Health Information System (DHIS2) to enable verification of data entered in the DHIS2. Tracing of blood to the \n\u2018last mile\u2019 or user becomes difficult and renders the accountability cycle for the blood units incomplete.", "metadata": {"page": 571, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "556 \n \n38. \nUganda \nVirus \nResearch \nInstitute. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.15.939Bn, UGX.15.536Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.403Bn \n(representing 2.53% of the approved budget). The activities that were affected by the budget cuts included travel abroad \n(UGX.0.156Bn), validation of pensioners (UGX.0.012Bn) and workshops (UGX.0.235Bn). \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.15.536 Bn, only UGX.15.323Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an", "metadata": {"page": 572, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "unutilized warrant of UGX.0.213Bn (representing an absorption level of 98.6%). As a result, I noted that of the thirty-one (31) \nquantified activities worth UGX.14.51Bn assessed; twenty-nine (29) activities (representing 87%) were fully implemented and \ntwo (2) activities (representing 13%) were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Institute did not have land titles for the four (4) pieces of Land under its use. I further established that apart from \nKamwanyi land measuring about 1.416 hectares and the UVRI Headquarters land measuring about 29.137 hectares, \nmanagement was not certain of the size of the land in Arua and at Zika Forest. Lack of Land titles could result into \nencroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \n\uf0b7 \nThe reported payables of UGX.202,811,084 relating to property tax that the Institute owes Entebbe Municipal Council have", "metadata": {"page": 572, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "been outstanding since FY 2010/11. Under the circumstances, the entity runs a risk of litigation that could result in a financial \nloss in the form of penalties. \n\uf0b7 \nContrary to PPDA Regulations, contract managers did not submit monthly reports to the Accounting Officer on the progress \nof contracts worth GBP.7,938.63; USD.33,473.07 and UGX.3,280,937,286. Failure to monitor the progress of contracts \nincreases the risk of poor contract performance as gaps are not identified early for remedial action. \n \n39. \nNational Medical Stores. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the NTR estimate of UGX.56.38Bn, NMS realized only UGX.45.086Bn representing a performance of 80% of the target \nand a shortfall of UGX.11.265Bn. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 572, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nAccording to the GOU approved budget, NMS was supposed to receive UGX 600.314Bn out of which UGX.589.056Bn was \nwarrantied resulting in a shortfall of GoU funding of UGX.11.258Bn. Essential drugs could thus not be procured. \n\uf0b7 \nThe value of Non-Viable Stock rose from UGX.5,161,429,000 (FY 2020/21) to UGX.13,418,720,000 composed of expired and \nunused drugs, gloves and other items resulting into increases the costs involved in destruction and denial of essential drugs \nto the population. \n\uf0b7 \nManagement reported a provision for doubtful debts to the tune of UGX.25,891,381,000 composed of debts that appear \nirrecoverable but efforts to have MoFPED approve the write-off have not been successful. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 572, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nManagement presented the status of twelve (12) court cases for and against NMS as part of the contigent liabilities. However, \nthree (3) of the court cases stretch to over 10 years (from 2008) without any ruling by the Courts of Law. \n\uf0b7 \nThe ERP system (NMS+) which is used to undertake the roles of warehousing, finance, procurement, audit and fleet \nmanagement was not integrated nor automatically sharing information with other government systems such as IFMS, Human \nCapital Management and e-Government procurement. This leads to duplications and inefficiencies.", "metadata": {"page": 572, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "557 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThree IT systems i.e. MACS, SAGE and NAVISION were not being used at the time of audit but had not yet been \ndecommissioned. There is need for management to ensure data integrity and completeness during decommissioning. \n40. \nUganda Heart Institute. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the NTR estimate of UGX.6Bn, the Institute realized UGX.6.485Bn representing a performance of 108% of the target \nhence the need for the Institute to review its revenue targets. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.29.216Bn, only UGX.28.873Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.0.343Bn (representing an absorption level of 98.8%). As a result, I noted that of the 37 quantified", "metadata": {"page": 573, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "activities worth UGX.14.365Bn assessed; 18 activities (49%) were fully implemented, 18 activities (49%) were partially \nimplemented while 1(one) activity remained unimplemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that land measuring 4.0470 hectares owned by the entity in Naguru had been encroached upon. Encumbrances \nhinder management\u2019s ability to utilize the land and pose a risk of loss of land. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.2,429,618,348 was assessed by URA as outstanding tax obligation (PAYE) arising from wrong deduction of taxes from \nprofessional allowances at 6% instead of 30% as per sec 19 (1) a of the Income Tax Act. Management has started \nimplementing the tax rates but it has resulted into low morale with some professional employees leaving the Institute which \nmay in the long run affect its ability to effectively deliver on its mandate. \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 573, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nI noted that UHI has a Hospital Management Information System (HMIS) for patient management and other ancillary services \nin the OPD, Theatre, Cath Lab, IPD, Lab and other ancillary services. Despite the fact that the system is meant to share \ninformation to aid the smooth running of the entity, the system operates in isolation of other systems such as IFMIS and \nHuman Capital Management (HCM) system of Ministry of Public Service. This leads to duplications and inefficiencies \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that there were no factory trainings conducted for users and engineers (technicians) for some of the equipment \nprocured by the Institute which makes the equipment susceptible to breakdown and prolonged down time. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that some vital medical equipment was inadequate according to the bio-medical department analysis and \nrecommendation, while others were due for replacement. This compromises the level of service to patients \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 573, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the 10 (ten) items selected as tracer Essential Medicines at the Institute, three (3) experienced stock-outs ranging from \n40 to 45 days. In addition, the Institute had some expired medicine which had no designated holding area; and were kept \ntogether with medicines still under use. This poses a high risk to the patients. \n \n41. \nMulago Specialized Women & \nNeonatal Hospital. \n \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the approved budget of UGX.25.88Bn, UGX.25.34Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.54Bn representing \n2.1% of the approved budget. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.25.34Bn, only UGX.24.96Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an", "metadata": {"page": 573, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "unspent balance of UGX.0.38Bn representing an absorption level of 98.5%. As a result, of the six (6) quantified activities worth \nUGX.4.59Bn assessed; five (5) activities (representing 83%) were fully implemented and one (1) activity was partially \nimplemented.", "metadata": {"page": 573, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "558 \n \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.785,971,835 that was deducted from staff salaries in respect of PAYE was not remitted to Uganda Revenue Law contrary \nto the Income Tax Act. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for pension for the financial year of UGX.11,059,648,812; UGX.11,009,275,358 was spent by the \nentity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.50,373,454. Non-payment of pension leads to accumulation of arrears and \naffects the livelihood of the pensioners. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.57,495,264 was deducted from staff salaries in respect of Local Service Tax (LST) but was not remitted to the respective \nlocal governments. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Hospital had four (4) systems (HMIS, RX solution, IPPS and IFMS) which were not integrated or not automatically sharing", "metadata": {"page": 574, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "information with other systems. \n\uf0b7 \nSeventy-one (71) IT equipment that had exceeded the recommended useful life and recommended for decommissioning by \nthe board of survey had not been disposed of. \n\uf0b7 \nSplitting of procurements was observed during the procurement of oxygen analyser, paramagnetic analysis TCP/IT module, \ncondensate drain system-900, non-return valves, cylinders, trolleys and head bars and medical gas plant contrary to Section \n58 (d) of the Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, 2003. I also observed that direct procurement was used without \njustification. \n\uf0b7 \nI observed that the fridges that store cold chain medicines are housed in a non-ventilated room thereby retaining the heat \nemitted from them which could damage the medicine and shorten the life span of the fridges. \n42. \nMulago \nNational \nReferral \nHospital. \n \n \nOpinion", "metadata": {"page": 574, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nQualified \n\uf0b7 \nDomestic arrears to the tune of UGX.1,384,692,974 paid during the year were recognized as part of the Statement of Financial \nPerformance instead of the Statement of Appropriation Account contrary to the Financial Reporting Guide 2018. In addition, \nthe amount was not disclosed in prior periods implying that they were not verified and reconciled with the balances on the \ndatabase maintained by the Accountant General\u2019s Office. \n\uf0b7 \nRecords for expenditure worth UGX.1,041,373,039 were missing on file at the time of audit. \n\uf0b7 \nPension and Gratuity worth UGX.387,436,568 was not paid to fifteen (15) pensioners and retirees. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total warrants of UGX.74.580bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling", "metadata": {"page": 574, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "UGX.72.183Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2.394Bn representing an absorption level of 96.8%. Recruitments of \nstaff were thus not undertaken as funds were released late in May 2022. \n\uf0b7 \nI assessed the implementation of a sample of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of fourteen (14) \nactivities worth UGX.50.683bn and noted that seven (7) outputs with thirteen (13) activities and expenditure worth \nUGX.45.883bn were fully implemented while One (1) output with one (1) activity worth 4.8bn was partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nFunds to the tune of UGX.1,177,688,181 were diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other \nactivities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals.", "metadata": {"page": 574, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "559 \n \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had 27 pieces of land measuring approximately 75 hectares at the reporting date. However, management did not \navail documentation to confirm the size, date and cost of acquisition, ownership and the location of the land. Similarly, the \nHospital did not have Land titles for 22 pieces of land whose size the hospital could not ascertain. \n\uf0b7 \nSix (6) pieces of land whose hectares and value could not be established due to management\u2019s inability to avail the information \nhad encumbrances in the form of caveats, court injunctions and encroachment. Similarly, some entities on the land had \nobtained title deeds without the consent/approval of the Hospital. \n\uf0b7 \nFor a sample of 463 key medical equipment in the Hospital, I noted that 46 were non-functional, 4 semi-functional and 413 \nare functional. \n\uf0b7 \nIn 2019, the Ministry of Health installed RX Solution, an electronic pharmaceutical management system in the stores with the", "metadata": {"page": 575, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "objective of automatically submitting data to the MoH PIP system for stock status reporting. However, although the RX \nsolutions had been installed on the Hospital computers in the store it was not being used by the stores staff. \n\uf0b7 \nHospital has six (6) systems which were not integrated and not automatically sharing information with other systems. As \nsuch, information sharing was purely manual despite being explicitly provided for in the respective system requirements. \n\uf0b7 \nDirect procurements worth UGX.571,826,881 were undertaken by the Hospital without justification while a total of \nUGX.777,307,880 procurements were irregularly undertaken during the year. \n \n43. \nAllied Health Professionals \nCouncil (AHPC). \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the availed funds of UGX.4,487,551,000 during the financial year, UGX.4,197,663,000 was spent resulting into an", "metadata": {"page": 575, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "unspent balance of UGX.289,888,000 representing absorption level of 93.5%. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of twenty (20) activities worth UGX 0.514Bn assessed, six (6) outputs with six (6) activities and expenditure worth \nUGX.0.298Bn were fully implemented, five (5) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX.0.216Bn were partially implemented \nwhile nine (9) outputs with nine (9) activities could not be assessed because they were not reported on in the annual \nperformance report of the entity. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.30,425,166 was irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without \nseeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nCouncil reported land and building in the financial statements originally acquired at UGX.609,000,000. Whereas buildings were", "metadata": {"page": 575, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "revalued to UGX.750,000,000 in 2022, the value of land remained at historical cost of UGX.370,881,000 implying that the land \nvalue disclosed in the financial statements was misstated. \n\uf0b7 \nReceivables of UGX.601,300,000 in respect of fees due from registered and licensed clinics & Laboratories Private Practice \nhave been outstanding for more than one financial year. \n\uf0b7 \nAHPC has two donated IT systems whose cost could not be ascertained and had no clearance from NITA-U. The two systems \nwere also not interfaced.", "metadata": {"page": 575, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "560 \n \n44. \nHealth Service Commission. \n2021/22 \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year UGX.8.088Bn, the Commission spent UGX.7.744Bn resulting in unutilized warrants \nof UGX.0.343Bn (representing an absorption level of 95.75%). As a result, I noted that out of the 19 quantified activities \nworth UGX.7.309Bn assessed; 7 activities representing 37% were fully implemented while 12 activities representing 63% were \npartially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nOn 31st March 2015, Butabika Hospital Management Board permitted the Commission together with four (4) other government \nentities to utilise three acres of Butabika Hospital land on a lease to construct office premises. However, by close of the year", "metadata": {"page": 576, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "under review, no action had been taken by the Commission despite its current substantial annual rent expenses of \nUGX.680,000,000. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that although the Board of Survey recommended twenty-seven (27) IT equipment valued at UGX.63,300,000 for \ndecommissioning in the financial year 2021/22, no disposals had been made. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of 79 positions only 52 are filled leaving 27 positions vacant. \n45. \nUganda AIDS Commission. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7 \nAccording to the revised approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.14.736Bn however UGX.14.551BN was \nwarranted resulting into a revenue shortfall of UGX. 0.185Bn. \n\uf0b7 \nThe Commission received off-budget financing to a tune of UGX. 939,268,646 which was not declared to Treasury and", "metadata": {"page": 576, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "therefore not appropriated by Parliament \n\uf0b7 \nAlthough UAC did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review UGX.40,180,000 was collected as NTR. \n\uf0b7 \nI reviewed the implementation of nine (9) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of forty-four (44) activities worth \nUGX.14.55Bn and noted that the reported performance at activity level was not aligned with the planned performance. As a \nresult, it was difficult to assess the level of implementation of the planned out puts. \n\uf0b7 \nUGX.13,347,458 was irregularly diverted from workshops and seminars code and spent on staff lunch without seeking and \nobtaining the necessary approvals. \n\uf0b7 \nThe entity had reported payables of UGX.76,162,182 which have been accumulating since July 2005. \n46. \nMinistry of Health. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 576, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Unqualified \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the UGX.243.62Bn total funds available for spending, only UGX.33.14 (13%) was spent by the Corporation leaving a \nbalance of UGX.210.48Bn representing 87% under absorption. The low absorption was attributed to the supplementary funding \nthat was approved during the financial year and only availed towards year-end. Delayed receipt and utilization resulted into \ndelays in service delivery. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that there is slow progress on the takeover of Government interests as listed in Schedule 2 of the UDC Act 2016, which \nidentified seven Government undertakings that were to be taken over. I noted that only two companies (i.e. Phoenix Logistics \nand Tri-Star Apparels Ltd) had been transferred to UDC. The remaining five, namely; Amber House Limited, Embassy House, \nDevelopment House, Munyonyo Commonwealth Resort and Nile Hotel International Limited were still outstanding. Delays \nundermine the implementation of the UDC Act 2016 and undermine the public policy of streamlining the management of these", "metadata": {"page": 576, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "corporations \n\uf0b7 \nThe Corporation has been holding 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 6.932 hectares without land titles for a long time \nwithout justification, exposing the corporation to the risk of loss of land thru land grabbing and encroachment.", "metadata": {"page": 576, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "561 \n \n\uf0b7 \nUganda Development Corporation (UDC) entered into a number of contracts worth UGX.2.7Bn with various suppliers without \nconducting market price assessments. This was contrary to the procurement law and exposed the entity to a risk of obtaining \nservices at uncompetitive prices. \n\uf0b7 \nOut of the 70 established posts in the UDC structure, only 49 are filled (70% staffing level) and 21 positions were vacant \nrepresenting 30%. I further noted that among the vacant positions were significant/priority positions such as the Director of \nInternal Audit, Manager Investment (mining and manufacturing), and Manager Investments Appraisal among others. \nInadequate staffing levels affect the level and quality of service delivery by the Corporation and may compromise the principle \nof segregation of duties. \n \nLEGISLATURE \n \n1. \n \nParliamentary \nPension \nScheme. \n \nOpinion", "metadata": {"page": 577, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "Opinion \nUnqualified \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the bank reconciliations from June 2021 to September 2021 were not correctly done. There were un-reconciling \ndifferences between the cashbook and the bank statement balances. In addition to this, the bank reconciliations provided for \nmy review lacked evidence of review and approval by senior management. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the project field staff allowances were not charged PAYE tax. Non-compliance with Income Tax Act may precipitate \ntax penalties from Uganda Revenue Authority, leading to financial loss for the project. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted quarterly reports were not submitted to CDC on time. Late submission of reports may delay reporting, monitoring and \nevaluation of the project by the development partners. \n2. \nParliamentary Commission. \n \nOpinion \nUnqualified \n \n\uf0b7", "metadata": {"page": 577, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "\uf0b7 \nOut of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.822.278Bn, only UGX.818.533Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an \nunspent balance of UGX.3.744Bn representing an absorption level of 99.5%. As a result, I noted that out of 27 quantified \nactivities worth UGX.703.275Bn assessed; 21 activities representing 77.7%, were fully implemented, and six activities \nrepresenting 22.3%, were partially implemented. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that completed physical works for the New Parliamentary Chambers stood at 53%, which is only an increase of 20% \nfrom the previous year at 33%. In addition, the contractor stated that works could not be completed by the end of the contract, \ni.e. May 2023. \n\uf0b7 \nA review of ICT activities implemented revealed the following; non-optimal utilization of IT system, absence of IT risk", "metadata": {"page": 577, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "management framework/policy and use of an old IT staff structure. \n\uf0b7 \nI noted that the Commission did not maintain an updated asset register as required and had not implemented the \ndisposal/divestment plans and recommendation of the Board of survey reports for the last four (4) financial years. \n562 \n \nANNEXURE II: REPORTS AND CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS", "metadata": {"page": 577, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": []}}, {"content": "| | ACRONYM | DESCRIPTION |\n|---:|:----------|:--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | AG | Auditor General |\n| 1 | AO | Accounting Officer |\n| 2 | Bn | Billion |\n| 3 | BoU | Bank of Uganda |\n| 4 | CAs | Contracting Authorities |\n| 5 | CFR | Central Forest Reserve |\n| 6 | DGAL | Directorate of Government Analytical Laboratory |\n| 7 | DLB | District Land Board |\n| 8 | FY | Financial Year |\n| 9 | GDP | Gross Domestic Product |\n| 10 | GoU | Government of Uganda |\n| 11 | ICT | Information Communication Technology |\n| 12 | IDA | International Development Association |\n| 13 | IESBA | International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants |\n| 14 | IFMS | Integrated Financial Management System |\n| 15 | IMF | International Monetary Fund |\n| 16 | KIS | Kalangala Infrastructure Services |\n| 17 | MAAIF | Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries |\n| 18 | MDAs | Ministries, Departments and Agencies |\n| 19 | MEMD | Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development |\n| 20 | MOFPED | Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development |\n| 21 | MoGLSD | Ministry of Gender Labour and Social Development |\n| 22 | MoU | Memoranda of Understanding |\n| 23 | MTEF | Medium Term Expenditure Framework |\n| 24 | NAA | National Audit Act |\n| 25 | NBI | National Backbone Infrastructure |\n| 26 | NDP | National Development Plan |\n| 27 | NDPII | Second National Development Plan |\n| 28 | NEF | National Environment Fund |\n| 29 | NEMA | National Environment Management Authority |\n| 30 | NFA | National Forestry Authority |\n| 31 | NGO | Non-Governmental Organisation |\n| 32 | NIN | National Identification Number |\n| 33 | NIRA | National Identification Registration Authority |\n| 34 | NPA | National Planning Authority |\n| 35 | NWSC | National Water and Sewerage Corporation |\n| 36 | OAG | Office of the Auditor General |\n| 37 | PAPs | Project Affected Persons |\n| 38 | PDMF | Public Debt Management Framework |\n| 39 | PFMA | Public Finance Management Act, 2015 |\n| 40 | PS/ST | Permanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury |\n| 41 | PSST | Permanent Secretary and Secretary to Treasury |\n| 42 | TAI | Treasury Accounting Instructions, 2016 |\n| 43 | TIN | Tax Identification Number |\n| 44 | Tn | Trillion |\n| 45 | TWGs | Technical Working Groups |\n| 46 | UCC | Uganda Communications Commission |\n| 47 | UCF | Uganda Consolidated Fund |\n| 48 | UDC | Uganda Development Corporation |\n| 49 | UETCL | Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited |\n| 50 | UGX | Uganda Shillings |", "metadata": {"page": 14, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | ACRONYM | DESCRIPTION |\n|---:|:----------|:--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | URA | Uganda Revenue Authority |\n| 1 | USD | United States Dollars |\n| 2 | USMID | Uganda Support for Municipal Infrastructure Development |\n| 3 | WMD | Wetlands Management Department |\n| 4 | YIGs | Youth Interest Groups |\n| 5 | YLP | Youth Livelihood Programme |", "metadata": {"page": 15, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Term | Definition |\n|---:|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Classified Expenditure | The expenses and commitments incurred by an authorised agency for the collection and dissemination of information related to national security interests |\n| 1 | Contingent Liability | A potential liability that may occur depending on the outcome of an uncertain future event. |\n| 2 | Domestic Arrears | Domestic arrears refer to short-term debts incurred by Governments against unpaid procurement invoices for supply of goods and services during the financial year |\n| 3 | External Debt | Portion of a country's debt that was borrowed from foreign lenders including commercial banks, Governments or international financial institutions. |\n| 4 | Garnishee order | A form of enforcing a judgment debt against a creditor to recover money. |\n| 5 | Nugatory Expenditure | Expenditure that does not achieve any result |\n| 6 | Off-budget financing | Off-buget refers to expenditure that is not funded through the budget |\n| 7 | Recruitment | Refers to the process of attracting, screening, selecting, and on boarding a qualified person for a job, provided by an employer in another territory and the preparation for their departure. |\n| 8 | Revolving Fund | A fund that is continually replenished as withdrawals are made. |", "metadata": {"page": 16, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Type of Entity/Audit | Planned Audits for the audit year 2022 | Revised Planned Audits for the year 2022 | Actual Performance as at December 31, 2022 | Audits in progress |\n|---:|:---------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------:|:---------------------|\n| 0 | MDAs | 160 | 190 | 186 | 4 |\n| 1 | Funds | 6 | 6 | 6 | - |\n| 2 | Classified entities | 26 | 26 | 10 | 16 |\n| 3 | International Audits | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 |\n| 4 | Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises | 99 | 85 | 83 | 2 |\n| 5 | Projects | 250 | 251 | 153 | 98 |\n| 6 | PSAs | 4 | 27 | 10 | 17 |\n| 7 | Districts | 156 | 156 | 151 | 5 |\n| 8 | Municipal Councils and Cities | 58 | 58 | 56 | 2 |\n| 9 | Divisions | 20 | 20 | 12 | 8 |\n| 10 | Lower Local Governments for 2020/2021 and Backlogs | 1,833 | 1,833 | 458 | 1,375 |\n| 11 | Regional Referral hospitals | 24 | 22 | 22 | - |", "metadata": {"page": 19, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Type of Entity/Audit | Planned Audits for the audit year 2022 | Revised Planned Audits for the year 2022 | Actual Performance as at December 31, 2022 | Audits in progress |\n|---:|:-----------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------|:---------------------|\n| 0 | Schools/Tertiary institutions year ended 20/21 | 776 | 769 | 633 | 136 |\n| 1 | Forensics/Special Audit | 80 | 82 | 23 | 59 |\n| 2 | VFM Studies | 28 | 25 | 15 | 10 |\n| 3 | Engineering Audits | 99 | 416 | 102 | 314 |\n| 4 | IT Audits | 10 | 12 | 3 | 9 |\n| 5 | Treasury Memoranda | 3 | 14 | 14 | - |\n| 6 | Audit of Companies with GOU minority interest | - | - | - | - |\n| 7 | TOTAL | 3,725 | 3,996 | 1,940 | 2,056 |", "metadata": {"page": 20, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Type of Opinion | 2021/22 |\n|---:|:------------------|----------:|\n| 0 | Unqualified | 654 |\n| 1 | Qualified | 13 |\n| 2 | Adverse | 1 |\n| 3 | Disclaimer | 1 |\n| 4 | Total | 669 |", "metadata": {"page": 20, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Type of Opinion | 2021/22 | 2020/21 | 2019/20 |\n|---:|:------------------|----------:|----------:|----------:|\n| 0 | Unqualified | 654 | 502 | 420 |\n| 1 | Qualified | 13 | 27 | 33 |\n| 2 | Adverse | 1 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | Disclaimer | 1 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | Total | 669 | 529 | 453 |", "metadata": {"page": 20, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 |\n|---:|:----|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | No | Observation | Recommendation |\n| 1 | 1.1 | Revenue Performance A review of the approved budget estimates of the Government of Uganda for the financial year ended 30th June 2022 revealed that the initial approved revenue budget was UGX.44.8Tn. This was later revised/increased by UGX.2.4Tn to UGX.47.2Tn. However, UGX.44.4Tn was realised representing 94.2% revenue performance level. Although the performance is commendable, the shortfall implies that government could not fully finance its planned programmes, which in turn affected service delivery. The Accounting Officer explained that while tax revenues were affected by poor economic conditions in 2021/22, the overall performance was very good. He further stated that Non-Tax Revenue collections were affected by the general slow economic recovery from the effects of the COVID-19. | The PS/ST was advised to continue exploring more avenues of ensuring that all budgeted revenue is always realised to fund the budget as approved. |\n| 2 | 1.2 | Utilization/expenditure of Funds Out of the total available funds of UGX.48.9Tn warranted during the financial year, UGX.44.4Tn was spent by Government resulting into an unutilized balance of UGX.4.5Tn representing a performance level of 90.93%.The summary is shown in the table below; Table: Showing Utilization of Warrants Revised budget (Tn) A Total warrants (Tn) B Total payments (Tn) C Varian ce (Tn) D=B- C % Vari ance MDAs 46.286 43.758 40.004 3.754 8.58 LGs 5.274 5.095 4.417 0.678 13.3 Total 51.561 48.854 44.421 4.432 9.07 | The PS/ST was advised to explore strategies aimed at addressing implementation challenges and also consider issuing warrants based on more realistic revenue projections. |\n| 3 | nan | nan | nan |\n| 4 | nan | nan | nan |\n| 5 | nan | nan | nan |\n| 6 | nan | nan | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 23, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | I observed that the failure to utilize the funds was attributed to the following; a) Some entities could not raise invoices to utilise all the funds available to them, due to implementation challenges and late release of funds. b) There was a mismatch between total funds issued and the total actual revenue collections, resulting into a funding gap. The PS/ST stated that in the FY 2021/22, the economy was slowly recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and the projected revenues were not realised. However, the Ministry is committed to ensuring that Budget preparation and execution is credible. To enhance revenues, Government is implementing the Domestic Revenue Mobilisation Strategy, while on the expenditure side, Government has re-prioritised interventions to fit the resource envelop and in line with the NDP III. This will ensure revenues are matched with expenditure. | | |\n| 1 | 1.3 | Un-funded Approved Budget The PFMA, 2015 Section 15 (1) and (2) requires that after approval of the annual budget by Parliament, the Secretary to the Treasury shall issue the annual cash flow plan of Government, based on the procurement plans, work plans, and recruitment plans approved by parliament. The annual cash flow plan shall form the basis for release of funds by the Accountant General to the Accounting Officers. Section 25(1) of the Public Finance and Accountability Act (PFMA) stipulates that the total supplementary expenditure that requires additional resources over and above what is approved by Parliament shall not exceed 3% of the total approved budget for that financial year, without the approval of Parliament. Whereas the initial budget appropriated by Parliament was balanced (i.e. Revenue estimates equaled expenditure estimates), I noted that the revised budget as a result of supplementaries, had revenue estimates of UGX.47.2Tn as compared to expenditure estimates of UGX.51.6Tn, creating a budget deficit of UGX.4.4Tn. Continued approval of supplementary budgets without a corresponding increase in revenue/financing, leads to increased funding gap that affects the earlier budget objectives and plans. For example, whereas the performance contracts with Accounting Officers are premised on availing the appropriated budgets during the | The PS/ST was advised to ensure that all supplementary expenditure approvals are supported with supplementary sources of financing to ensure that the earlier appropriated activities are implemented as planned. |", "metadata": {"page": 24, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | year, such contracts are not revised in situations of shortfalls in budgets. The detailed impact of the budget shortfall on the entity activities has been reported in the individual entity reports. The PS/ST stated that supplementary funding was issued against targeted borrowings and enhanced revenue mobilization measures that did not materialize. However, going forward, supplementary funding will be issued against confirmed funding sources of inflows to avoid unfunded activities and over commitments. | | |\n| 1 | 1.4 | Budgeting for Non-Tax Revenue Section 6 of the Budget Execution Circular for the FY 2021/22 provides that all work plans and Budgets for FY2021/22 are prepared and approved using the Program Budgeting System (PBS). All Budgets, irrespective of the source of financing (GoU, NTR/AIA, Donor or LG Revenue), will be migrated and loaded into the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) to facilitate Budget Implementation and reporting. According to the approved Budget estimates for the FY2021/22, it was projected that a total of UGX.1.59Tn would be collected as NTR. Review of Program Based Budgeting (PBB) tool used by the Government and IFMS records revealed that that NTR budgets for the respective MDAs were neither uploaded on PBS nor IFMS. The budgeting tool only had details regarding expenditure, and no revenue was included. I further noted that several Accounting Officers disowned the figures incorporated the NTR Estimates book, indicating that they had not been consulted in arriving at the estimates incorporated there in. As a result, I was unable to compare respective entity budget figures with the URA NTR collections that totaled to UGX.2.42Tn. Absence of proper revenue estimates for each entity undermines transparency, affects motivation of staff, and hampers performance assessment. Management explained that the PBS system has been enhanced and effective FY 2023/24, all Votes have budgeted NTR online and is uploaded into the IFMS. Going forward, the Accounting Officers are now able to budget for NTR on the PBS system. | The Accounting Officer is advised to ensure that all Ministries, Departments and Agencies budget for the Non-Tax Revenue and have the details provided in the IFMS and the PBS. |", "metadata": {"page": 25, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Financial year ended | Domestic debt (UGX Tn) | Foreign debt (UGX Tn) | Total (UGX Tn) | % change |\n|---:|:-----------------------|-------------------------:|------------------------:|-----------------:|:-----------|\n| 0 | June 2022 | 38.1 | 48.5 | 86.6 | 15.3% |\n| 1 | June 2021 | 30.8 | 44.3 | 75.1 | 24.3% |\n| 2 | June 2020 | 18 | 38.2 | 56.9 | 23.5% |\n| 3 | June 2019 | 15.2 | 30.9 | 46.1 | 11.1% |\n| 4 | June 2018 | 13.1 | 28.4 | 41.4 | |", "metadata": {"page": 27, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Financial year | AMOUNT (UGX Tn) | Increase (UGX Tn) | % Change |\n|---:|:-----------------|------------------:|--------------------:|:-----------|\n| 0 | 2021/22 | 48.4 | 4.4 | 10.1 |\n| 1 | 2020/21 | 44 | 5.1 | 13.1 |\n| 2 | 2019/20 | 38.9 | 8 | 25.9 |\n| 3 | 2018/19 | 30.9 | 2.5 | 8.8 |\n| 4 | 2017/18 | 28.4 | 6.2 | |", "metadata": {"page": 29, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | FY | Domestic Debt Stock (face value) | Increase | Unnamed: 3 |\n|---:|:--------|:-----------------------------------|:-----------|:-------------|\n| 0 | | UGX-Tn | UGX (Tn) | % |\n| 1 | 2021/22 | 38.1 | 7.3 | 23.7 |\n| 2 | 2020/21 | 30.8 | 12.9 | 71.5 |\n| 3 | 2019/20 | 18 | 2.5 | 16.0 |\n| 4 | 2018/19 | 15.5 | 2.4 | 18.7 |\n| 5 | 2017/18 | 13.1 | | |", "metadata": {"page": 30, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Details | FY 2017/18 (UGX-Tn) | FY 2018/19 (UGX-Tn) | FY 2019/20( UGX-Tn) | FY 2020/21 (UGX-Tn) | FY 2021/22 (UGX-Tn) |\n|---:|:----------------------------|----------------------:|----------------------:|----------------------:|----------------------:|----------------------:|\n| 0 | Issuances (Bills & Bonds) | 6.4 | 7.4 | 8.5 | 13.7 | 13 |\n| 1 | Redemptions (Bills & Bonds) | 4.6 | 5.2 | 5.9 | 7 | 8.4 |\n| 2 | NET Domestic Financing | 1.8 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 6.7 | 4.6 |", "metadata": {"page": 31, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Instr umen t | Instrument ID | Maturit y | Auction held | Amou nt Borro wed (UGX Bn) | % Intere st to be Charg ed | Interes t Per Annum (UGX Bn) | Total interest (UGX Bn) |\n|---:|:---------------|:---------------------------------|:------------|:---------------|-----------------------------:|:-----------------------------|-------------------------------:|:--------------------------|\n| 0 | Bond | UG12F0709234 10.000% 07-SEP-2023 | 2 Years | 29/06/2022 | 142.2 | 15.0 | 21 | 42 |\n| 1 | Bond | UG12J0605277 16.000% 06-MAY-2027 | 5 Years | 29/06/2022 | 31.9 | 15.0 | 4.8 | 23.9 |\n| 2 | Bond | UG12K0403325 16.375% 04-MAR-2032 | 10 Years | 29/06/2022 | 29.3 | 16.0 | 4.7 | 46.9 |\n| 3 | Bond | UG12K0811352 16.250% 08-NOV-2035 | 15 Years | 29/06/2022 | 16.2 | 16.0 | 2.6 | 39.6 |\n| 4 | Bond | UG12L0111405 17.500% 01-NOV-2040 | 20 Years | 29/06/2022 | 291.1 | 19.0 | 53.9 | 1077.1 |\n| 5 | | | | Total | 510.8 | | 86.9 | 1,229.50 |", "metadata": {"page": 32, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Instrumen t | Tenure | FY | Auction Date | Cost (UGX Bn) | Interes t rate | Interes t per annum (UGX Bn) | Total interest Accumulate d (UGX Bn) |\n|---:|:--------------|:---------|:--------|:---------------|----------------:|:-----------------|-------------------------------:|---------------------------------------:|\n| 0 | Bond | 10 years | 2020/21 | 21-Jan-21 | 28.6 | 16.0 | 4.6 | 45.7 |\n| 1 | Bond | 10 years | 2020/21 | 21-Jan-21 | 41.6 | 16.0 | 6.7 | 66.5 |\n| 2 | Bond | 20 years | 2020/21 | 21-Jan-21 | 67.8 | 17.5 | 11.9 | 237.4 |\n| 3 | Bond | 5 years | 2020/21 | 21-Jan-21 | 19.8 | 16.6 | 3.3 | 16.5 |\n| 4 | Bond | 5 years | 2020/21 | 21-Jan-21 | 110 | 16.6 | 18.3 | 91.4 |\n| 5 | Bond | 2 years | 2020/21 | 21-Jan-21 | 98.8 | 11.0 | 10.9 | 21.7 |\n| 6 | Bond | 2 years | 2020/21 | 21-Jan-21 | 125 | 11.0 | 13.8 | 27.5 |\n| 7 | Bond | 15 years | 2020/21 | 21-Jan-21 | 36 | 14.3 | 5.1 | 77 |\n| 8 | Bond | 2 Years | 2021/22 | 10-Feb-22 | 149.1 | 11.0 | 16.4 | 32.8 |\n| 9 | Bond | 10 Years | 2021/22 | 10-Feb-22 | 49.4 | 17.0 | 8.4 | 84 |\n| 10 | Bond | 10 Years | 2021/22 | 10-Feb-22 | 69.4 | 16.0 | 11.1 | 111.1 |\n| 11 | Bond | 15 Years | 2021/22 | 10-Feb-22 | 11.4 | 16.0 | 1.8 | 27.3 |\n| 12 | Bond | 20 Years | 2021/22 | 10-Feb-22 | 98.6 | 17.5 | 17.3 | 345.1 |\n| 13 | | | | Total | 905.5 | | 129.4 | 1184.1 |", "metadata": {"page": 33, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 |\n|---:|:---------------|\n| 0 | A |\n| 1 | GDP |\n| 2 | Total debt |\n| 3 | 51 52 Debt/GDP |\n| 4 | 34 35 |\n| 5 | Jun 2017 |", "metadata": {"page": 34, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Financial year | Total domestic Revenue \u2013 UGX.Tn | Total Interest \u2013 UGX.Tn | % of Interest to revenue | Bench mark |\n|---:|:-----------------|----------------------------------:|--------------------------:|---------------------------:|:-------------|\n| 0 | 2021/22 | 22.8 | 5.5 | 24.1 | <12.5 |\n| 1 | 2020/21 | 20.2 | 3.1 | 15.4 | <12.5 |\n| 2 | 2019/20 | 17.5 | 2.5 | 14.2 | <12.5 |\n| 3 | 2018/19 | 17.1 | 2 | 11.71 | <12.5 |\n| 4 | 2017/18 | 15.2 | 1.9 | 12.73 | <12.5 |", "metadata": {"page": 35, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Loan Id | Purpose | Date Signed | Last Payment | Debt Type | Interest Rate | Interest Rate Type | Outstanding Including Arrears (UGX Tn) 30.06.2022 |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------|:--------------|:---------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------:|\n| 0 | 20910000.0 | Prog. Support | 02.06.2020 | 02.06.2027 | Commercial Banks | 4.47 | Euribor | 1.2 |\n| 1 | 20909000.0 | Prog. Support | 24.03.2020 | 25.03.2027 | Commercial Banks | 4.45 | Euribor | 1.1 |\n| 2 | 20931000.0 | Prog. Support | 13.09.2021 | 13.09.2031 | Commercial Banks | 5.5 | Euribor | 0.8 |\n| 3 | 20931000.0 | Prog. Support | 13.09.2021 | 13.09.2031 | Commercial Banks | 5.72 | Libor 6 Months Deposit | 0.6 |\n| 4 | 20923000.0 | Prog. Support | 08.06.2021 | 11.06.2028 | Commercial Banks | 4.75 | Euribor | 0.8 |\n| 5 | | | | | | | Total | 4.5 |", "metadata": {"page": 36, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Financial year | Commitment fees Paid (UGX Bn) | Percentage charge |\n|---:|:-----------------|--------------------------------:|:--------------------|\n| 0 | 2021/22 | 77.5 | -2% |\n| 1 | 2020/21 | 79.1 | 1% |\n| 2 | 2019/20 | 78.6 | -10% |\n| 3 | 2018/19 | 87.8 | 140% |\n| 4 | 2017/18 | 36.5 | |\n| 5 | Total | 359.5 | |", "metadata": {"page": 36, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Loan particulars | Loan Amount (Euro Mn) | Date of signing |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------------------------------|------------------------:|:------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Construction of Muzizi Hydropower Plant | 40 | 25 November 2016 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Construction of Muzizi Hydropower Plant | 45 | 09 December 2016 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | KfW Grant Finance (Euros) | 5.36 | 22 September 2015 |\n| 3 | | TOTAL | 90.36 | |", "metadata": {"page": 37, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Description | Amount (USD) | Exchange Rate` | Amount (UGX.Bn) |\n|---:|:-----|:------------------------------------------------|:---------------|:-----------------|------------------:|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Front End Fee \u2013Kampala Jinja Expressway Project | 573,675 | 3,570.57 | 2.1 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | \u2026003201 Kampala \u2013 Jinja Expressway 1 | 251,982 | 3,550.43 | 0.9 |\n| 2 | | TOTAL | 825,657 | | 3 |", "metadata": {"page": 38, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Lender | Amount (UA) Mn | Amount (Euro.Mn) |\n|---:|:---------------------------------------------|:-----------------|-------------------:|\n| 0 | African Development Fund | 179.6 | 216.7 |\n| 1 | African Development Bank | 69.9 | 84.4 |\n| 2 | Corporate Internationalization Fund of Spain | | 26 |\n| 3 | TOTAL | 249.5 | 327.1 |", "metadata": {"page": 39, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | IPC No. | Submission Period | Invoice Amount | Invoice proportion | Unnamed: 4 | Amount Paid | Due date | Payment status |\n|---:|:----------|:--------------------|:-----------------|:---------------------|:-------------|:--------------|:-----------------|:--------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Feb.20 - Sep.20 | 0.4 | EU | 0.1 | 0.1 | 24-Dec 20 | Paid |\n| 1 | | | | GoU | 0.3 | 0.3 | | Paid |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Oct.20 \u2013 Feb.21 | 1.1 | EU | 0.3 | 0.3 | 12-Jul 21 | Paid |\n| 3 | | | | Gou | 0.8 | 0.8 | | |\n| 4 | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | 3.0 | Mar.21 - Apr.21 | 0.4 | EU | 0.1 | 0.1 | 23-Sep 21 | paid |\n| 6 | | | | GoU | 0.3 | 0.2 | | Paid 2nd Dec 2021 |\n| 7 | 4.0 | May.21 \u2013 Aug.21 | 0.9 | EU | 0.3 | 0.3 | Feb 22 | Paid:28-Jan22 |\n| 8 | | | | GoU | 0.6 | 0.5 | May 22 | GOU overdue 0.1 |\n| 9 | 5.0 | Sept.21 - Feb.22 | 0.7 | EU | 0.2 | 0.2 | EU paid 8-Jun 22 | GOU portion overdue |\n| 10 | | | | Gou | 0.5 | 0.0 | | |\n| 11 | | | paid | | 3.5 | 2.8 | | |", "metadata": {"page": 42, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Financial Institution | Reported paid- up capital (UGX Bn) | Requirement 31 December 2022 (UGX Bn) | Requirement 30 June 2024 (UGX Bn) |\n|---:|:-----|:-----------------------------|:-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------:|------------------------------------:|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Housing Finance Bank Limited | 122.0 | -2 | 28 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Tropical Bank Limited | 88.2 | 31.8 | 61.8 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Post Bank Limited | 98.0 | 22 | 52 |\n| 3 | | Total | | 51.8 | 141.8 |", "metadata": {"page": 43, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Financial Year | Budget (UGX Bn) | Warrants/Release (UGX Bn) | Variance (UGX Bn) |\n|---:|:-----------------|------------------:|----------------------------:|--------------------:|\n| 0 | 2021/2022 | 331.754 | 312.233 | 19.521 |\n| 1 | 2020/2021 | 357.098 | 331.691 | 25.407 |\n| 2 | 2019/2020 | 279.017 | 249.989 | 29.028 |\n| 3 | | 967.869 | 893.913 | 73.956 |", "metadata": {"page": 46, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|-----:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Procurement/Development and Use of Software/Licenses (IT Systems) and Equipment The ICT Systems Development Lifecycle (SDLC) requires a systematic approach which includes; initiation, planning and execution. In addition, I made my assessment basing on PS/ST and NITA-U guidance on ICT developments which aim to promote rationalisation and avoid further development of isolated IT systems in MDAs and LGs. | I advised the PS/ST to liaise with the responsible stakeholders to enhance controls and improve compliance with the Policies and |", "metadata": {"page": 46, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | During the audit of the sampled MDAs, I observed the following; \uf0b7 81% (95 out of 118) of IT systems/equipment procured by 42 MDAs lacked clearance from NITA-U. \uf0b7 52 IT systems/equipment acquired by 15 MDAs were not optimally utilized as envisaged. \uf0b7 24 Systems acquired at a cost above UGX.200Mn by 9 MDAs were not approved by Solicitor General as required by law. \uf0b7 I reviewed inception reports for sampled MDAs and noted that 44 IT projects with a total cost of UGX.34.8Bn, were not implemented within the contractual timelines. \uf0b7 38 IT Systems costing UGX.55Bn implemented in 15 MDAs did not meet the user requirements and the users not trained on the usage of the systems. \uf0b7 I noted that 29 IT systems acquired by 13 MDAs were not owned by the MDAs, as there was no formal handover of the systems and/ or source codes. \uf0b7 37 systems at 14 MDAs that hold data and information that is required and/or used by various MDAs, were found not integrated. Non-compliance may lead to duplication of acquisition, procurement of non-compatible solutions and equipment; and general deviation from Government\u2019s efforts to rationalize resources for better service delivery. | Guidelines, prioritise systems maintenance and upgrades to preserve the integrity and availability of data and systems, and to this effect, formal procedures should be put in place to guide the process. | |\n| 1 | 1.1 | Disposal and Decommissioning of ICT Assets Paragraph 15.11.1 of the TIs, 2017, PPDA Act, 2003 (as amended) and PPDA Regulations, 2014 together with the PFMA 2015, require MDAs and LGs to efficiently and transparently dispose assets as recommended. However, I noted that most MDAs are not disposing off IT assets as per the recommendations of the respective Boards of Survey. Delayed disposal of IT assets leads to a further diminution in value and loss to the government. In addition, a lack of appropriate policies may lead to the loss and misuse of critical data. Besides, hazardous materials from ICT equipment may be harmful to the environment. | I advised the Accounting Officers to develop appropriate policies, strategies and procedures to ensure data availability and integrity preservation in the event that some IT assets are decommissioned. In addition, the Board of Survey recommendations should be adhered to. |", "metadata": {"page": 47, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1.2 | ICT Governance IT governance entails leadership, structures, and processes that enable an organization to make decisions to ensure that its IT | I advised the Accounting Officers to |", "metadata": {"page": 47, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | sustains and extends its strategies and objectives. However, a review of the ICT governance structures of the sampled MDAs revealed the following; i. 40 MDAs did not have specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. ii. 12 MDAs did not have an approved IT staff structure. iii. Out of 1200 approved ICT staff positions across 43 MDAs, 689 (57.4%) were filled, leaving 511 (42.6%) positions vacant. iv. 40 MDAs did not have an approved IT risk management framework/policy, while 39 did not have an IT risk register in place. v. There was no business continuity plan in 37 MDAs contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. Absence of ICT governance structures hampers formulation of appropriate ICT policies, strategies and real time upgrade of ICT interventions. In addition, it may lead to misalignment of IT investments with the overall entity strategic objectives. | institute governance policies and structures to effectively manage ICT investments in consultation with other stakeholders. I also advised the Accounting Officers to ensure that the IT staff structure is fully filled. In addition, a fully-fledged business continuity plan should be developed. | |\n| 1 | 1.3 | Manual/Off-System Preparation of Financial Statements The MDAs acquired IT Systems to improve accountability and reporting, however, I noted that 13 MDAs were preparing financial statements off their financial reporting systems. As a result, the financial statements are prone to errors due to human intervention and manipulation. | I advised the Accounting Officers to institute mechanisms to enforce usage of the systems in preparation of financial statements. |", "metadata": {"page": 48, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Category | Approved Estimates (UGX\u2019 Bn) | Amount released (UGX\u2019 Bn) | % age funding received |\n|---:|:----------------|:-------------------------------|:----------------------------|:-------------------------|\n| 0 | Salary | 2,193,691,448,69 7 | 2,188,910,570,95 3 | 100% |\n| 1 | Pension | 177,207,071,969 | 175,939,228,687 | 99% |\n| 2 | Gratuity | 130,713,824,879 | 130,616,662,851 | 100% |\n| 3 | Pension arrears | 29,721,908,925 | 29,067,345,448 | 98% |\n| 4 | Salary arrears | 8,478,092,148 | 8,396,548,482 | 99% |\n| 5 | Total | 2,539,812,346,61 8 | 2,532,930,356,4 21 | 99.7% |", "metadata": {"page": 55, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Category | Amount released (UGX) | Expenditure - UGX | Unspent - UGX | % Absorpt ion |\n|---:|:----------------|:------------------------|:--------------------|:-----------------|:----------------|\n| 0 | Salary | 2,188,910,570,953 | 2,044,622,014,526 | 144,288,556,42 7 | 93% |\n| 1 | Pension | 175,939,228,687 | 167,980,071,241 | 7,959,157,446 | 95% |\n| 2 | Gratuity | 130,616,662,851 | 111,292,450,768 | 19,324,212,083 | 85% |\n| 3 | Pension arrears | 29,067,345,448 | 25,635,336,217 | 3,432,009,231 | 88% |\n| 4 | Salary arrears | 8,396,548,482 | 7,045,469,662 | 1,351,078,820 | 84% |\n| 5 | Total | 2,532,930,356,42 1 | 2,356,575,342,41 4 | 176,355,014,00 7 | 93% |", "metadata": {"page": 55, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------|:-----------------|\n| 0 | attributed to release of funds beyond the requirement, and delayed validation of pensioners. The Accounting Officers explained that the unspent balances were due to; \uf0b7 Delays in recruitment and deployment of secondary school teachers by Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) and Education Service Commission (ESC). \uf0b7 Delays by Ministry of Public Service (MoPS) to approve and clear the recruitment plans. \uf0b7 Absence of fully constituted District Service Commissions (DSCs) caused by delays in approving members by MoPS. \uf0b7 Late release of recruitment and wage funds by MoFPED as most LGs received funds in May, 2022. \uf0b7 Receipt of funds in excess of the supplementary requirement. \uf0b7 Delay in submission of requirements for access to pension and gratuity payroll, and inconsistency in the bio-data between the IPPS and NIRA. My interaction with MoPS revealed that a recruitment calendar was issued to provide for clearance of planned recruitments after the 2nd Budget Call. This will resolve the issue regarding under absorption resulting from late recruitments. During my interaction with MoFPED, the PSST explained that recruitment plans are contained within the PBS and Accounting Officers have been guided to start the recruitment process after the approval of the budget. | | |\n| 1 | 3.1.2 | Payments of salaries, pension and gratuity | |", "metadata": {"page": 56, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:-----|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | a) | Payment of ineligible persons Government has lost a total of UGX.19,026,546,948 due to payment of salaries to ineligible persons/individuals in 129 LGs. The payments contravene section (B - a) (1) & (2) of Uganda public service standing orders, 2021 requiring public officers to be appropriately appointed. I reviewed a file of teachers from the Education service Commission (ESC) and noted that 609 secondary school and tertiary institution employees used forged minutes to access government payroll. The individuals had been on the payroll for a varied number of years, ranging from 1 to 39 with some even approaching the retirement. Details are in Appendix 1 b. When I brought up the matter to the respective DLGs, the Accounting Officers discontinued salary payments and pledged to take up the matter with police for further investigations. The Accounting Officers explained that the issue of ineligible secondary school and tertiary institutions\u2019 employees was beyond them since the appointment and posting is done by MoES. I observed that the inability by the LGs to validate eligibility of the posting instructions was due to lack of a | I advised ESC and MoES to automate the database for all teachers, streamline the validation process and consider recruiting teachers to replace those deleted from the payroll. In addition, other government organs should investigate how the appointment and posting of ineligible secondary school and tertiary institutions |", "metadata": {"page": 56, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Recommendation |\n|---:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|:-------------|:-------------|:----------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | automated database in ESC containing minute extracts of all secondary school teachers. | | | | | employees was done by MoES. | |\n| 1 | b) | Over payment of salary, pension and gratuity Section B-a (7) of the Uganda Public Standing Orders, 2021 requires salaries to be fixed at annual rates and paid in twelve (12) equal instalments. It also requires salaries to be paid correctly, promptly and as a lump sum in accordance with the approved salary structure for the Public Service. Article 254 (1) & (3) of the constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 as amended provides that a public officer shall, on retirement, receive such pension as is commensurate with his or her rank, salary and length of service. The payment of pension shall be prompt and regular and easily accessible to pensioners. My review of the payroll registers (IPPS) and IFMS payments revealed an over payment of UGX.3,837,170,480 in 75 LGs in respect of 2,085 employees and 270 pensioners/beneficiaries as shown in the table below and details in Appendix 1 c. Category Number of staff/pensioners Over payment - UGX Salaries 2,085 2,261,246,384 Gratuity 208 1,293,882,652 Pension 62 282,041,444 Total 2,355 3,837,170,480 The Accounting Officers attributed the overpayments to errors in processing of payments for which recovery measures have been instituted. My interaction with MoPS revealed that the Ministry issued Establishment Notices guiding Accounting Officers to reconcile the payrolls before payments are made. | | | | | I advised the PS MoPS to resolve IPPS system errors and expedite the roll out of HCM. I further advised the PS to ensure that the Accounting Officers undertake effective reconciliations before payments are made. |\n| 2 | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | | | |", "metadata": {"page": 57, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Recommendation |\n|---:|:-----|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|:-------------|:-------------|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | c) | Under payment of salary, pension and gratuity Section B-a (7) of the Uganda Public Standing Orders, 2021 requires salaries to be fixed at annual rates and paid in twelve (12) equal instalments. It also requires salaries to be paid correctly, promptly and as a lump sum in accordance with the approved salary structure for the Public Service. Article 254 (1) & (3) of the constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 as amended provides that a public officer shall, on retirement, receive such pension as is commensurate with his or her rank, salary and length of service. The payment of pension shall be prompt and regular and easily accessible to pensioners. My review of the payroll registers (IPPS) and IFMS payments revealed an under payment of UGX.24,934,143,289 in 115 LGs in respect of 3,802 employees and 4,545 pensioners/beneficiaries as shown in the table below and Appendix 1 d. | | | | | I advised the PS MoPS to resolve IPPS system errors and expedite the roll out of HCM. I further advised the PS to ensure that the Accounting Officers undertake effective reconciliations before payments are made. I advised MoFPED to consider paying |", "metadata": {"page": 57, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 |\n|---:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------|\n| 0 | SN Observation Recommendation | Unnamed: 7 |\n| 1 | Category Number of staff/pensioners Under payment - UGX Salaries 3,802 3,608,932,261 Gratuity 3,600 6,327,639,889 Pension 945 14,997,571,139 Total 8,347 24,934,143,289 I noted that the underfunding was mainly caused by Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) ceilings communicated by MoFPED Under payments affected livelihood of staff and pensioners/beneficiaries. The Accounting Officers attributed the underpayment to inadequate funds to pay all approved salary, pension and gratuity benefits and errors in processing of payments for employees and pensioners/ beneficiaries. The arrears were submitted to MoFPED for payment in the financial year 2022/23. | salary, pension |\n| 2 | nan | and gratuity |\n| 3 | nan | obligations as a |\n| 4 | nan | statutory charge |\n| 5 | nan | without subjecting |\n| 6 | nan | it to budget ceilings. |\n| 7 | nan | nan |\n| 8 | nan | nan |\n| 9 | nan | nan |\n| 10 | nan | nan |\n| 11 | nan | nan |\n| 12 | nan | nan |\n| 13 | nan | nan |\n| 14 | nan | nan |\n| 15 | nan | nan |\n| 16 | nan | nan |\n| 17 | nan | nan |\n| 18 | nan | nan |\n| 19 | nan | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 58, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----:|\n| 0 | d) Payment of salary using wrong salary scales and salary steps/ levels/notches Section B \u2013 a (6) & (7) of the Uganda Public Service Standing Orders, 2021 provides that the Salary Structure shall indicate salaries attached to each salary scale in the public service, hence, salaries should be paid correctly, promptly and as a lump sum in accordance with the approved salary structure for the Public Service. Section (B - c) 1 of Public Service Standing Orders, 2021 provides that a public officer who holds a post graded in a salary scale with incremental levels, shall receive annual increments up to the maximum of the salary scale. My comparison of the base pay as per IPPS payroll registers with the base pay as per salary structure for 2021/22 revealed that, 1,264 employees in 26 LGs were paid on the wrong scales leading to over payments of UGX.532,949,259 and under payments of UGX.886,806,364. Additionally, 28,172 employees in 26 LGs were paid on wrong steps/levels/notches leading to over payments of UGX.2,386,682,931 and under payments of UGX.2,652,787,176. Details are in Appendix 1 e. Category Number of staff/pensioners Overpayment - UGX Underpaymen t - UGX Wrong scale 1,264 532,949,259 886,806,364 Wrong notches 28,172 2,386,682,931 2,652,787,176 Total 2,919,632,190 3,539,593,540 Under payment due to lower notches denies the affected staff their rightful emoluments and affects their terminal benefits while over payments caused financial loss to government. I advised Government through MoFPED to allocate sufficient funds to enable LGs to pay staff at the correct steps. I also advised MoPS to fast track the roll out of the HCM to all LGs. | nan |\n| 1 | nan | nan |\n| 2 | nan | nan |\n| 3 | nan | nan |\n| 4 | nan | nan |\n| 5 | nan | nan |\n| 6 | nan | nan |\n| 7 | nan | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 58, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 |\n|---:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------|\n| 0 | SN Observation Recommendation | Unnamed: 8 |\n| 1 | The Accounting Officers attributed the above to: \uf0b7 Non-automation of the incremental dates in the IPPS by MoPS for which the Accounting Officers had no control. \uf0b7 Inadequate staff capacity in the Human Resource Departments to monitor staff appointment anniversaries/assumption of duty considering the overwhelming numbers. \uf0b7 Failure by staff who qualify for salary increments to notify the Human Resource Department. \uf0b7 The slow rollout of Human Capital Management System (HCMS) in all MDALGs. My interaction with MoPS revealed that there is still a challenge in moving staff from one step to another because this comes with extra budget costs which are not provided by MoFPED. | nan |\n| 2 | 3.1.3 Payment of deductions (LST, PAYE, UNATU, UCLA) Section B-a (17) of the Uganda Public Standing Orders, 2021 requires the Accounting Officer to deduct any monies due to Government from an Officer\u2019s salary by way of statutory taxes like and any other authorized deductions. Furthermore, section B-a (18) requires that a public officer\u2019s individual contractual obligations such as hire purchase, loan, and contributions to saving schemes, trade unions and staff associations may be deducted from his or her salary in accordance with the regulations. In addition, section 10.2 of the guidelines and procedures for decentralized salary processing 2014 required MALGS to pay deductions to the respective beneficiaries and that no arrears in respect to payroll deductions would be accepted. I compared the deductions in the IPPS payroll registers with the remittances/payments in the IFMS details XML payment file and noted an over and under remittance amounting to UGX.5,013,885,697, and UGX.7,697,912,554 respectively as shown in the table below and appendix 1 f. S N Beneficia ry De duc tion cod e IPPS payroll Deduction amount (UGX) Amount remitted as per IFMS (UGX) Variance Over remittance (UGX) Under remittance (UGX) 1 URA 249 177,249,202, 488 173,280,707 ,359 - 1,501,880,7 13 5,470,375, 842 2 LST 250 5,980,754,39 6 8,118,380,5 44 - 2,583,748,0 85 451,598,8 59 3 UBA/UCL A 482 80,065,479,6 59 79,383,042, 549 - 902,686,46 4 1,611,519, 228 4 Others 3,549,448,15 4 3,410,599,9 64 - 25,570,435 164,418,6 25 Total 266,844,884, 697 264,192,730 ,416 - 5,013,885,6 97 7,697,912, 554 | nan |\n| 3 | nan | I advised MoLG to |\n| 4 | nan | ensure Accounting |\n| 5 | nan | Officers remit the |\n| 6 | nan | deductions |\n| 7 | nan | promptly. |\n| 8 | nan | nan |\n| 9 | nan | nan |\n| 10 | nan | nan |\n| 11 | nan | nan |\n| 12 | nan | nan |\n| 13 | nan | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 59, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 |\n|---:|----:|----:|\n| 0 | nan | nan |\n| 1 | nan | nan |\n| 2 | nan | nan |\n| 3 | nan | nan |\n| 4 | nan | nan |\n| 5 | nan | nan |\n| 6 | nan | nan |\n| 7 | nan | nan |\n| 8 | nan | nan |\n| 9 | nan | nan |\n| 10 | nan | nan |\n| 11 | nan | nan |\n| 12 | nan | nan |\n| 13 | nan | nan |\n| 14 | nan | nan |\n| 15 | nan | nan |\n| 16 | nan | nan |\n| 17 | nan | nan |\n| 18 | nan | nan |\n| 19 | nan | nan |\n| 20 | nan | nan |\n| 21 | nan | nan |\n| 22 | nan | nan |\n| 23 | nan | nan |\n| 24 | nan | nan |\n| 25 | nan | nan |\n| 26 | nan | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 59, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Over remittance creates avenues for siphoning funds leading to loss of Government funds. Under remittance creates un- necessary obligation to Government. I observed that Kaliro District diverted UGX.314,678,624 from the wage bill to cater for activities that are not related to the wage. These payments are under investigation and a separate report will be issued. | | |\n| 1 | 3.1.4 | Non-deduction of PAYE from Political leaders\u2019 and Commissioners\u2019 gratuity Section 19(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act provides that employment income mean any income derived by an employee from any employment and includes the following amounts whether of a revenue or capital nature; any wages, salary, leave pay, payment in lieu of leave, overtime pay, fees, commission, gratuity, bonus or the amount of any travelling, entertainment, utilities, cost of living, housing, and medical or other allowances among others. I noted that in 43 LGs, Political Leaders and District Service Commissioners were paid gratuity of UGX.1,352,773,796 which was not subjected to PAYE computations and deductions on the IPPS leading to a loss of tax revenue of UGX.363,098,974 to government. Details are in Appendix 1 g. In 9 LGs Political Leaders and District Service Commissioners\u2019 gratuity of UGX.439,505,102 was subjected to PAYE manually and UGX.112,440,114 was deducted and remitted to Uganda Revenue Authority. This practice complicates payroll management in LGs and creates inconsistencies where some LGs deduct the PAYE and others don\u2019t. Details are in Appendix 1 g. The Accounting officers explained that computations were not activated in the IPPS to automatically deduct PAYE from Political leaders and commissioners\u2019 Gratuity. My interaction with MoPS revealed that the error arose from the failure to distinguish between untaxable gratuity as per the Pensions Act and other taxable terminal benefits. MoPS has engaged the IPPS developer who required additional funding to rectify the error. | I advised MoPS to ensure that deduction of PAYE from Political leaders\u2019 and Commissioners\u2019 gratuity is automated in IPPS. |", "metadata": {"page": 60, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3.1.5 | Inaccurate computation of pension and gratuity Paragraph (L-d) (1) & (2) of the Uganda Public Service Standing Orders, 2021 on the computation of pension and commuted pension gratuity provides that pension is computed on the basis of (1/500)th of the annual salary at the time of retirement, multiplied by the total number of completed months of service using the formula P = LS x Sal/ (500) where P is Pension, LS is the length of Service in months, and Sal is the annual salary on retirement. | I advised MoPS to ensure that IPPS accurately captures staff information and automatically computes the correct pension and gratuity obligation. MoPS |", "metadata": {"page": 60, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | SN | Observation | Recommendation |\n| 1 | Additionally, Paragraph (L-d) (3) provides that a public officer has an option to receive all his or her pension as an annuity or to commute a third (1/3) of his or her pension for a 15-year period and receive it as a lump sum at retirement. I recomputed the pension and gratuity benefits and noted that 37 LGs did not accurately compute pension and gratuity benefits for 423 pensioners. Details are in Appendix 1 h. Category Number of pensioners/benefi ciaries Overpayment Underpayment Gratuity 222 276,463,546 442,670,972 Pension 201 53,663,042 61,942,500 Total 423 330,126,588 504,613,472 The Accounting Officers attributed this to failure by IPPS to automatically update the notches at the individuals\u2019 anniversary of appointment/assumption. Additionally, adjustment of scales and subscales at the point of capturing pension and gratuity by the Accounting Officers was not guided by MoPS. My interaction with MoPS revealed that there is a provision for the Accounting Officers to rectify retiree\u2019s base pay on the IPPS towards the date of retirement for which they are either not aware or are reluctant to adjust. | nan | was also advised to guide LG Accounting Officers on how to rectify the retiree\u2019s pension information in the system before computation is made. |\n| 2 | nan | nan | nan |\n| 3 | nan | nan | nan |\n| 4 | nan | nan | nan |\n| 5 | nan | nan | nan |\n| 6 | nan | nan | nan |\n| 7 | 3.1.6 | Access and deletion from the payroll | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 61, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 |\n|---:|:----|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | a) | Delayed access of newly recruited or transferred staff to the payroll Section B-a (11) of the Uganda Public Standing Orders, 2021 states that the Accounting Officer shall ensure that the Public officer accesses the payroll within four (4) weeks from the date of assumption of duty. I noted that 4,341 newly recruited/ transferred employees delayed to access payroll with the worst delays ranging from 5 to 12 months. As a result, by close of the financial year, 1,746 staff had not been paid a total of UGX.2,802,520,509. Details are in Appendix 1 i. Failure to access payroll affects staff livelihood and leads to un- necessary accumulation of arrears. The Accounting Officers attributed this to challenges with setting-up staff in the IPPS by MoPS because the process is not fully decentralised for which the LGs have no control. During my interaction with MoPS, the PS attributed the delay to recruitments outside the approved structure that necessitates verification and subsequent clearance. | I advised MoPS to ensure that the bottlenecks in recruitment are resolved and that verification and subsequent clearance of recruited staff is done in the shortest time possible. |\n| 1 | b) | Delayed access to the pension payroll Paragraph 5.1 of establishment notice no. 1 of 2020 requires responsible officers to initiate and complete the processing of retirement benefits within six months to the mandatory | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 61, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------|\n| 0 | retirement date. In case of death or early retirement, the process should be initiated immediately the Letters of Administration are issued and/or the early retirement has been granted. Paragraph 5.1.2 of establishment notice no. 3 of 2019 provides that pensioners\u2019 retirement benefits are authorised 5 days after retirement for payment. I however noted that 1,019 new pensioners/beneficiaries in 65 LGs delayed to access pension payroll, with some delays ranging from 50 to 110 months. As a result, UGX.1,380,739,357 was not paid. Details are in Appendix 1 i. Failure to access pension payroll affects pensioners\u2019 livelihood and also leads to accumulation of pension arrears. While non- removal of transferred staff affects the releasing LGs as replacements cannot access the payroll until the transferred staff have been discontinued. The Accounting Officers attributed this to challenges with setting-up pensioners in the IPPS by MoPS because the process is not fully decentralised for which the LGs have no control. Most Accounting Officers had hopes that the introduction of HCM will most likely address the issue. My interaction with MoPS indicated that this is still a challenge and as a stop gap measure, the Accounting Officers are advised to bring cases of un-validated staff to the attention of MoPS for follow up with NIRA. Going forward, with the introduction of HCM, data of only validated staff will be migrated. | | |\n| 1 | c) | Delayed removal of staff from payroll Section B-a (12) of the Uganda Public Standing Orders, 2021 provides that payment of a salary to a public officer shall be stopped immediately the officer ceases to render services to Government under whatever circumstances including death. I noted that UGX.1,071,478,611 was paid to 795 staff who had either retired, transferred, absconded or died with the worst delays ranging from 1 to 16 months. Details are in Appendix 1 i. Delayed removal of staff from payroll resulted into financial loss to government. The Accounting Officer attributed some of the delays to staff who had not been validated before decentralisation of payroll making the removal process difficult. Some of the delays were attributed to inconsistences in dates of birth in IPPS and National IDs. Going forward, the introduction of HCMS, will most likely resolve this issue. My interaction with MoPS indicated that this is still a challenge and as a stop gap measure, the Accounting Officers are advised | |", "metadata": {"page": 62, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 |\n|---:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------|\n| 0 | SN Observation Recommendation | Unnamed: 6 |\n| 1 | to bring cases of un-validated staff to the attention of MoPS for follow up with NIRA. Going forward, with the introduction of HCM, data of only validated staff will be migrated. | nan |\n| 2 | nan | nan |\n| 3 | nan | nan |\n| 4 | nan | nan |\n| 5 | 3.1.7 Inconsistencies between interface files and payroll registers Section 13.1 and 13.2 of the guidelines and procedures for decentralised salary payment processing, 2014 requires that the IPPS information tallies with the interface file of the vote. By, the final payroll should be mapped onto the interface to show the same data. I compared the detailed payroll register reports (MoPS) with the interface files from the Core FTP (MoFPED) and noted variances of UGX.28,347,479,053 in 107 LGs. Details are in Appendix 1 j. Category Number of employees/Pensioners Amount Salaries 10,504 27,545,118,941 Pension and Gratuity 25 802,360,112 Total 10,529 28,347,479,053 I further noted that some employees captured on the payroll and uploaded onto the Core FTP system did not appear in the interface files prompting the Accounting Officers to include them manually. This has created an opportunity for manipulation of salary funds thus leading to over/under payments. The Accounting Officers explained that the LGs had no control over the above, since Core FTP system is controlled by MoFPED. During my interaction with MoFPED, the Accountant General indicated that the Accounting Officers were permitted to make adjustments to rectify possible errors on the payroll without necessarily abusing the system. The Accountant General further explained that the window for making adjustments was deactivated after the audit. In addition, my interaction with MoPS revealed that with the migration to HCM, the process of payroll payments will be seamless because the HCM will directly interface with the IFMS. | nan |\n| 6 | nan | nan |\n| 7 | nan | nan |\n| 8 | nan | nan |\n| 9 | nan | nan |\n| 10 | nan | nan |\n| 11 | nan | nan |\n| 12 | nan | nan |\n| 13 | 3.1.8 Payments of salaries, pension & gratuity off the IPPS | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 63, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 |\n|---:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------|\n| 0 | Paragraph 4.5 of establishment notice no. 2 of 2019 requires the responsible officer to pay for only salaries, pension and gratuity processed through IPPS. A comparison of the IPPS payroll register and IFMS payment file revealed that UGX.13,502,944,430 was paid off the IPPS to 3,926 employees and 870 pensioners/beneficiaries as shown below and detailed in the table below and Appendix 1 j. Category Number of staff/pensioners Payment Off IPPS Salaries 3,926 4,898,961,116 | I advised the PS |\n| 1 | nan | MoPS to expedite |\n| 2 | nan | the roll out of HCM |\n| 3 | nan | to all LGs. |\n| 4 | nan | nan |\n| 5 | nan | nan |\n| 6 | nan | nan |\n| 7 | nan | nan |\n| 8 | nan | nan |\n| 9 | nan | nan |\n| 10 | nan | nan |\n| 11 | nan | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 63, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |\n|---:|:---------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | SN Observation | Unnamed: 1 | Unnamed: 3 | Recommendation |\n| 1 | nan | Pension and gratuity | 870 8,603,983,314 | nan |\n| 2 | nan | Total | 4,796 13,502,944,430 | nan |\n| 3 | nan | nan | nan | nan |\n| 4 | nan | Accounting Officers explained these were eligible | nan | nan |\n| 5 | nan | employees and pensioners/ beneficiaries and attributed the | nan | nan |\n| 6 | nan | payments off the IPPS to continuous drop off from the payroll, | nan | nan |\n| 7 | nan | delayed access to the payroll by new employees and | nan | nan |\n| 8 | nan | pensioners/ beneficiaries. | nan | nan |\n| 9 | nan | nan | nan | nan |\n| 10 | nan | interaction with MoPS revealed that the drop offs were | nan | nan |\n| 11 | nan | attributed to the use of dummy employee numbers, employees | nan | nan |\n| 12 | nan | having deductions more than 50% of their net pay and | nan | nan |\n| 13 | nan | recruitments outside the approved structure. MoPS further | nan | nan |\n| 14 | nan | explained that the introduction of HCM will resolve these | nan | nan |\n| 15 | nan | challenges. | nan | nan |\n| 16 | nan | nan | nan | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 64, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----:|----:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3.1.9 Management of deductions by UCLA/UBA Government of the Republic of Uganda represented by the Ministry of Public Service entered into a service agreement with UCLA/UBA on 3rd January 2020 to manage the loan deductions of civil servants. Uganda Consumer Lenders\u2019 Association/ Uganda Bankers Association (UCLA/UBA) contracted Payroll Consults Africa (PCA) to manage employee deductions on their behalf using the Payroll Deduction Management System (PDMS). I reviewed employee payroll deductions (non-statutory) and the PDMS records (active deductions report and my approvals) and observed the following; \uf0b7 Letters of undertaking or Consent Section 4.2 (b) of the guidelines of managing salary deductions on the Government payroll, 2014 states that as part of the due diligence process, the credit lending institutions and banks will seek for a letter of undertaking from the Accounting Officer/employer or a designated officer confirming that the officer is a bona fide Government employee indicating his or her positions in the MDA/LG, payment details, terms of appointment and other details that may be prescribed by the lending institution. In addition, only deductions consented by employees in writing should be submitted to MoPS (employer) for timely monthly payroll processing or as advised by the employer. I observed that MoPS deducted UGX.20,792,707,030 from 15,002 staff in 44 HLGs on behalf of UCLA/UBA without letters of undertaking or consent as a prerequisite of approval of the deductions. Details are in Appendix 1 k. | nan | nan | Government through MoPS should consider revisiting the MoU with UCLA/UBA with a view of streamlining the management of deductions. In the meantime, the role of coding and decoding of deductions should revert to the respective Accounting Officers. |\n| 1 | nan | nan | nan | nan |\n| 2 | nan | nan | nan | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 64, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------|:-----------------|\n| 0 | Loans/savings not supported by letters of under- taking/consent may lead to; unauthorized deductions and lack of assurance/guarantee to lending institutions which may limit access to loan services and affects the livelihoods of civil servants. The Accounting Officer explained that this was an oversight and promised to keep copies of letters of undertaking and consent letters in the subsequent years. I advised the Accounting Officers to ensure that letters of undertaking are duly prepared, signed by the bank and a copy retained on the staff personnel file for ease of reference. \uf0b7 Deduction past the deduction end date I observed that MoPS deducted UGX. 1,458,405,180 relating to 2,143 employees in 83 LGs past the end date on behalf of UCLA/UBA. Details are in Appendix 1 k. Deductions past the end date result into financial loss to the affected staff. \uf0b7 Unrealistic loan end dates I noted that unrealistic loan end dates for 2,729 employees in 69 LGs with the worst ranging from ranging from 11 to 5,642 years. In the year under review, UGX.4,745,884,699 had been deducted from these employees. Details are in Appendix 1 k. The above end dates are unrealistic and cast doubt on the integrity of the PDMS system controlled by PCA. This has led to continuous deductions from staff and there are possibilities of making deductions from staff without running loans. \uf0b7 Unapproved loan deductions by Accounting Officer in the PDMS I observed that UCLA/UBA deducted UGX.8,885,902,311 from 8,468 staff in 95 LGs without approval of the Accounting Officers from the PDMS contrary to Section 2.1.2 & 2.1.4 of the service agreement. Details are in Appendix 1 k. This creates opportunities to misappropriate funds through making fictitious deductions as well as over deductions. In addition, UGX.1,643,636,038 was deducted by UCLA/UBA from 8,756 staff over and above the approved amounts by the Accounting Officers in 68 LGs. Details are in Appendix 1 k. | | |", "metadata": {"page": 65, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | This resulted into financial loss to the affected staff. \uf0b7 Reliability of the Payroll Deduction Management System \u201cActive\u201d deductions report and \u201cmy approvals\u201d report in the PDMS should have consistent deduction amounts to give confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the system. A comparison of the \u201cactive deductions\u201d and \u201cmy approvals\u201d reports in the PDMS revealed that there were variances in deduction amounts. Details are in Appendix 1 k. Lack of integrity of the system creates opportunities for manipulation of the deduction which could result into financial loss to the affected employees. Details are in Appendix 1 k. The Accounting Officers explained that entities had no control over the challenges above in the management of non-statutory deductions in the PDMS system by UCLA/UBA. The Accounting Officers further explained that the issues would be resolved if the LGs do not have rights for coding and decoding of deductions. | | |\n| 1 | 3.1.10 | Use of wrong formula to compute statutory deductions Section 22 1(d) of the Income Tax Act as amended by Amendment Act of 2008 provides that for the purpose of ascertaining the chargeable income of a person for a year of income, Local Service Tax paid by an individual should be an allowable deduction. The Local Governments (Amendment) (No. 2) Act of 2008 defined \u201ctake-home salary\u201d as gross salary after deducting income tax in the form of Pay as You Earn (PAYE) and prescribed the rates of local service tax in respect of persons in gainfulemployment and earning a monthly take- home salary. I noted a contradiction between the Income Tax Act and the Local Government Act in regard to computation of PAYE and LST. The contradictions result from the Income Tax treating LST as an allowable deduction when computing PAYE while the Local Government Act treats PAYE as an allowable deduction when computing LST. Consequently, the contradiction has resulted to over deduction of PAYE of UGX.3,040,220,504 and under deduction of UGX.2,387,243,619 from 75,094 employees in 96 LGs. This has also resulted into under deduction of LST of UGX.682,208,048 and over deduction of UGX.1,043,454,067 from 94,892 employees in 102 LGs which is a loss to Government. Details are in Appendix 1 l. | I advised MoPs to engage the Attorney General to have the above contradiction resolved. |", "metadata": {"page": 66, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendation |\n|---:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------|:-----------------|\n| 0 | In addition, I also observed that 55 LGs, did not deducted LST of UGX.700,135,000 from 11,645 employees while 102 LGs, did not deducted PAYE of UGX.447,775,826 from 1,621 employees. Details are in Appendix 1 l. | | |", "metadata": {"page": 67, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendatio n |\n|---:|:------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3.2.1 | Strategic Planning for Land acquisition Regulation 25 (1) of The National Planning Authority (Development Plans) Regulations, 2018 requires a decentralised planning institution (Ministry, Department or Agency of Government, a sector or Local government) to prepare a decentralized development plan highlighting the development needs of the institution. Instruction 3.9.5 of the Treasury Instructions, 2017 requires the budget estimates to be based on the pre-determined objectives and outputs as provided in the strategic plans of the sector/entity. I noted that of the 12 sampled entities for the period 2018/19-2021/22 4 entities acquired Land 10 pieces of land of which 3 pieces measured 42.47 hectares and 7 pieces had undefined measurements. Details are in Appendix 2 a. \uf0b7 Only 1 of the 10 pieces measuring 40.47 hectares was planned in the strategic plan. \uf0b7 8 of the 10 pieces of which 1 piece measuring 40.47 hectares and 7 pieces of undefined measurements were budgeted for at a cost of UGX.0.627Bn while 2 pieces measuring 2 hectares were not budgeted for. | I advised the Accounting Officers to liaise with the relevant stakeholders to ensure that the planned fund allocation for Land acquisition are realised and undertake spending as per approved budget lines or seek approval for any reallocations and virements where need arises. |", "metadata": {"page": 67, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendatio n |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | \uf0b7 Of the budgeted amount of UGX.0.627Bn, UGX.0.624Bn was availed resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.003Bn (0.5%).Of this UGX.0.296Bn was spent on Land acquisition while UGX0.305Bn (49%) was diverted and the unspent difference of UGX.0.024Bn was swept back to the consolidated fund. Inadequate budgeting for land acquisition may lead to mischarges, diversions, interest costs arising from delayed payments and accumulation of Domestic arrears while under absorption and failure to acquire the planned size of land affects the entities abilities to achieve the intended objectives for Land acquisition. | | |\n| 1 | 3.2.2 | Titling and Transfer Section 49 (c) of the Land Act, Cap 227, states that the Uganda Land Commission shall procure certificates of title for any land vested in or acquired by the Government. I noted that out of the 631 pieces held by the 12 sampled entities of which 348 pieces measured 2384.78 hectares and 283 pieces had undefined measurements, 11 entities did not have titles for 428 pieces of land of which 172 pieces measured 651 hectares and 256 pieces had undefined measurements. Details are in Appendix 2 b. The anomalies were attributed to the following; inadequate funds by the entities to process Land titles and land having been donated by people who passed on without transferring title to the entity. Lack of Land titles results into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. | I advised the Accounting Officers to expedite the titling of all its land to secure it from potential loss. |", "metadata": {"page": 68, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendatio n |\n|---:|:------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3.2.3 | Failure to transfer Land into the Custody of ULC Instruction 16.13.11 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 requires that for land, a government entity shall be considered to have control if it has the title. If the government entity does not have title to the land, the entity shall not be considered to have control (the title of government land is supposed to be kept with the Uganda Land Commission). Section 49 of the Land Act Cap 227 further requires the Uganda Land Commission to hold and manage all the land in Uganda which is vested in or acquired by the Government including land acquired by the Government abroad. I noted that out of the 631 pieces held by the 12 sampled entities of which 348 pieces measured 2384.78 hectares and 283 pieces had undefined measurements, 6 entities did not transfer 102 pieces of land measuring approximately 676.253 hectares into the custody of the Uganda Land Commission. Details are in Appendix 2 c. | I advised the Accounting Officers to ensure that ensure that all Land titles are jointly registered in the names of both entities and ULC and also fast track the establishment and maintain ace of the Governments Land Inventory. |", "metadata": {"page": 68, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendatio n |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | The Accounting Officers explained that the District Local Governments were body corporates hence had a right to own land in their own names. Failure to transfer all Government Land into the custody of ULC is irregular and affects the Government\u2019s ability to effectively manage Public Land. | | |\n| 1 | 3.2.4 | Maintenance of land Register Instruction 16.6.1 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 requires the Accounting officer to maintain an electronic or manual register, in a form (TF 26) for all assets that contain the minimum of the following; Date of purchase of the asset, The supplier, The type and description of each asset,(for land - land registration number, The acquisition cost of the asset, The physical location of the asset, User of the asset/, Condition of the asset, Date of disposal (as applicable); and (l) Disposal proceeds (as applicable). Furthermore Instruction 10.12.4 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 requires all fixed asset acquired to be captured in the fixed asset module of the Government Financial Management Information System (GFMIS)-IFMS. I noted that out of the 631 pieces held by the 12 sampled entities of which 348 pieces measured 2384.78 hectares and 283 pieces had undefined measurements, 9 entities did not record a total of 583 pieces of land measuring approximately 1944.63 hectares in their respective Land registers rendering it difficult to confirm the completeness of their Land inventory. Details are in Appendix 2 d. I also noted that 10 entities did not record a total of 603 pieces of land measuring approximately 2234.98 hectares in their respective GFMIS fixed asset module thus affecting the accuracy of the non-produced assets in the financial statements. Details are in Appendix 2 e. The lack of an updated land register was mainly attributed to the absence of a reconciled position between land acquired by the lower local governments and the various departments in the district while the failure to update the GFMIS was attributed to non-functionality of the GFMIS system and valuation The non-recording of land in the land register and GFMIS Asset module affects the Government\u2019s ability to keep track of all its land and could lead to misstatement of the non- produced asset in the statement of financial position and in the summary statement of stores and other assets (physical assets). | I advised Government to ensure that all Land acquired is duly recorded in the entity Land register and GFMIS Asset modules. |", "metadata": {"page": 69, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendatio n |\n|---:|:------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3.2.5 | Use of Land in accordance with approved purpose in the entity Strategic Plan Out of 631 pieces of land of which 348 pieces measured 2384.78 hectares and 283 pieces had undefined measurements, held by the 12 sampled entities, 3 pieces of land measuring approximately 11.767 hectares (33%) were not used in accordance with the approved purpose set out in the strategic plan by 1 entity. Details are in Appendix 2 f. The anomalies were attributed lack of adequate funds to put the land to its intended use. Use of land for unapproved purposes defeats the purpose for acquisition which may affect the entity\u2019s ability to achieve its intended objectives. | I advised the Accounting Officer to lobby for funds to put the land to its intended use. |\n| 1 | 3.2.6 | Unutilized Land Instruction 16.13.12 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 requires that to control an asset, a government entity usually be the predominant user of the asset. I noted that out of the 631 pieces of land measuring approximately 2384.78 hectares held by the 12 sampled entities, 19 pieces of land of which 13 measured approximately 20.786 hectares and 6 pieces had undefined measurements were not utilized by the entity at the time of Audit. Details are in Appendix 2 g. The anomalies were attributed to inadequate funding by the respective Local Governments to develop the land. Vacant land if not secured is susceptible to encroachment hence depletion of Public Land | I advised the Accounting Officer to lobby for funds to put the land to its intended use. |\n| 2 | 3.2.7 | Encumbrance on Public Land Instruction 16.13.12 of the Treasury Instruction, 2017 requires that to control an asset, a government entity should be the predominant user of the asset. I noted that out of the 631 pieces of land measuring approximately 2384.78 hectares held by the 12 sampled entities, 37 pieces of land of which 13 measured approximately 121.257 hectares and 16 pieces had encumbrances in the form of caveats, court injunctions and encroachment. Details are in Appendix 2 h. The anomalies were attributed to the following; Lack of title and supporting documentation of ownership and prolonged non utilisation of land. | I advised Government to ensure that due diligence is done prior to acquisition of land and that the land is put to use when acquired. Meanwhile the Accounting Officers should ensure that all forms of encumbrances on its land are resolved. |", "metadata": {"page": 70, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendatio n |\n|---:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Land encumbrances hinder management\u2019s ability to utilize the affected land for the intended purpose, and may pose a risk of loss of land. | | |\n| 1 | 3.2.8 | Lease of public land A review of records and inquiry from management of the 12 sampled entities revealed that 4 entities leased out 159 pieces of land with undefined measurement in the period under review. A review of the lease process revealed the following; | |\n| 2 | a) | Register of Leased land Guideline 8.4.4 of the GoU Asset Management Framework and Guidelines, 2020 requires a schedule of land or any other asset disposed through a lease arrangement to be maintained following the provided format. I noted that all the 4 entities that a total of 159 pieces of land did not have updated lease register rendering it difficult to establish the actual size of land leased, lease expiry date, lease rentals to be collected and in arrears. Details are in Appendix 2 i. The anomalies were attributed to the Leases having been granted by former controlling Authorities that did not pass on inventory or lease records to the Boards for effective management. Failure to have an updated leased land register affects entities ability to properly manage the public land, which may result into losses due to either fraud or negligence. | I advised Government to ensure that updated lease registers are put in place. |\n| 3 | b) | Irregularities in Management of leased land Regulation 6 of the Land Regulations, 2004 requires a lease offer made by a board or the commission to communicate the offer stating the terms and conditions of the offer conditioned upon payment of fees and other charges, in full or by instalment. A review of a sample 159 leases issued by the 4 DLB\u2019s revealed the following; \uf0b7 No leases had expired at the time of carrying out this Audit. \uf0b7 2 leases granted by one entity for land measuring 5.821 hectares leased out had not been developed as per conditions of the lease agreement. Details are in Appendix 2 i. \uf0b7 2 entities did not receive any lease rentals from 82 lessees of UGX.96, 990,000 expected in the period under | I advised the Government to ensure that records for decentralised Public Land and leases are passed to the respective DLBS for proper management and follow up. |", "metadata": {"page": 71, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Observation | Recommendatio n |\n|---:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | review the hence an under collection of UGX.96,990,000. Details are in Appendix 2 i. \uf0b7 2 entities renewed leases for 3 pieces of land of undefined measurement without realisation of ground rent arrears or development of land as per lease agreement. Details are in Appendix 2 i. The anomalies regarding expiry, non-development of leased land and failure to collect lease rentals were mainly attributed to the following; Leases having been granted by former controlling Authorities that did not pass on inventory or lease records to the Boards for effective management. The anomalies regarding non collection of ground rent arrears were attributed to poor internal controls surrounding management of leases. Irregularities in lease management processes lead to loss of revenue and public land. | | |\n| 1 | 3.2.9 | Irregular allocation of Land by District Land Boards (DLB) Regulation 23 (1) of the Land Regulations, 2004 on procedure in connection with allocation of land by the board requires a person to apply to the board to be allocated land in the district which is not owned by any person or authority. In addition Regulation 23 (2) of the Land Regulations, 2004 requires the commission to advertise the application by giving notice in a newspaper with wide circulation to draw the attention of persons likely to be affected by the application, invite any person to comment on or object to the application and thereafter determine whether the applicant should be allocated the land for which the application is made I noted that during the period under review 2 Boards allocated 4 pieces of land without defined measurement that were not under their jurisdiction. Details are in Appendix 2 j. The above anomalies were attributed to; Lack of comprehensive databases of Public Land by the DLB\u2019s Irregular allocation of Land by the DLB may lead to litigation and Land conflict. | I advised the Accounting Officers to put in place databases of all public land under their jurisdictions and desist from allocating land outside them. |", "metadata": {"page": 72, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Details | Amount Disbursed - UGX | Amount Due by 30th June 2022 - UGX | Amount Recovered - UGX | Variance - UGX | % Reco vered |\n|---:|:----------|:-------------------------|:-------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:-----------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | YLP | 164,992,797,049 | 164,992,797,049 | 38,018,366,215 | 127,788,117,770 | 23.0 |\n| 1 | UWEP | 111,476,011,092 | 32,038,054,728 | 22,867,682,221 | 9,170,372,507 | 71.0 |\n| 2 | TOTALS | 278,920,746,571 | 197,030,851,777 | 60,886,048,436 | 136,144,803,341 | |", "metadata": {"page": 74, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Revenue Source | Approved Budget - UGX | Warrants - UGX | Variance - UGX | %age performance |\n|---:|:-----------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:------------------|:-----------------|:-------------------|\n| 0 | Local Revenue | 223,518,772,109 | 131,349,888,815 | 92,168,883,294 | 59% |\n| 1 | Central Government grants | 4,944,460,827,948 | 4,833,248,994,175 | 111,211,833,773 | 98% |\n| 2 | Transfers received from other government units | 629,935,041,555 | 390,759,823,561 | 239,175,217,994 | 62% |\n| 3 | External Assistance | 197,395,695,925 | 71,542,080,541 | 125,853,615,384 | 36% |\n| 4 | Total | 5,995,310,337,537 | 5,426,900,787,092 | 568,409,550,445 | 91% |", "metadata": {"page": 76, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Activity | Amount-Unspent (UGX) |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------------------------------|:-----------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Salary, pension and gratuity payment | 176,355,014,007 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | USMID AF in refugee hosting districts | 41,830,160,377 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Micro scale irrigation | 28,315,288,149 |\n| 3 | 4.0 | DRDIP funding subprojects | 12,412,158,314 |\n| 4 | 5.0 | USMID construction of roads | 31,425,512,796 |\n| 5 | 6.0 | Others | 413,327,040,296 |\n| 6 | | Total | 703,665,173,939 |", "metadata": {"page": 78, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Activity | Explanations from the Accounting Officers |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Salary, pension and gratuity payment | \uf0b7 Late disbursement of funds by MoFPED for recruitment of teachers and health workers. \uf0b7 Delay by MoES to approve the recruitment plans for secondary school teachers. \uf0b7 Delays by MoPS to approve staff structures. |\n| 1 | 2 | USMID AF in refugee hosting districts | \uf0b7 Delayed dissemination of the approved project designs and implementation guidelines by the USMID secretariat in MoLHUD. |\n| 2 | 3 | Micro scale irrigation | \uf0b7 Late disbursement of program funds \uf0b7 Failure to co-fund. |\n| 3 | 4 | DRDIP funding subprojects | \uf0b7 Late disbursement of program funds and approval of subprojects |", "metadata": {"page": 78, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S N | Vote Code | Entity Name | Amount - UGX |\n|---:|:------|:------------|:---------------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | 523 | Kayunga District | 773,412,069 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | 544 | Nakasongola District | 400,000,000 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | 586 | Otuke District | 342,888,374 |\n| 3 | 4.0 | 602 | Rubirizi District | 350,890,654 |\n| 4 | 5.0 | 556 | Yumbe District | 1,803,548,082 |\n| 5 | | Total | | 3,670,739,179 |", "metadata": {"page": 79, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity | Amount released in excess of the requirement - UGX |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Kiryandongo DLG | 2,578,969,118 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Kisoro DLG | 753,706,312 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Kole DLG | 414,577,139 |\n| 3 | 4.0 | Nakasongola DLG | 114,857,785 |\n| 4 | | TOTAL | 3,862,110,354 |", "metadata": {"page": 80, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Program | Number of HLGs | Amount (UGX) |\n|---:|:------------------------|:-----------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | Pension and gratuity | 43.0 | 5,461,616,914 |\n| 1 | Microscale Irrigation | 39.0 | 20,478,337,116 |\n| 2 | Ex-gratia | 11.0 | 525,038,679 |\n| 3 | Other expenditure lines | 43.0 | 13,059,125,064 |\n| 4 | Total | | 39,524,117,773 |", "metadata": {"page": 81, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Projects | Amount released - UGX | Amount spent - UGX | Unspent - UGX |\n|---:|:--------------------------|:------------------------|:---------------------|:----------------|\n| 0 | DRDIP | 211,983,309,284 | 198,556,306,121 | 13,427,003,163 |\n| 1 | Support to micro projects | 2,471,262,293 | 2,269,711,970 | 201,550,293 |\n| 2 | Total | 214,454,571,577 | 200,826,018,091 | 13,628,553,456 |", "metadata": {"page": 82, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Purpose | Budgeted amount - UGX | Released amount by OPM - UGX | Utilised amount by the DLGs - UGX | Unutilised funds - UGX |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------------|:------------------------------------|:-------------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Social and Economic Services Infrastructure | 195,564,238,35 3 | 154,667,673,38 9 | 142,866,878,89 1 | 11,800,794,498 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Sustainable Environmental Management | 40,033,537,720 | 19,558,580,728 | 18,689,049,164 | 869,531,564 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Livelihoods Program | 39,530,477,364 | 30,230,194,334 | 29,784,194,334 | 446,000,000 |\n| 3 | 4.0 | DRDIP Operations | 10,012,115,709 | 7,526,860,833 | 7,216,183,732 | 310,677,101 |\n| 4 | | Total | 285,140,369,146 | 211,983,309,284 | 198,556,306,12 1 | 13,427,003,163 |", "metadata": {"page": 88, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Name of the subproject | Amount (UGX) | Audit remark |\n|---:|:-----|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Construction of Community Centre and Fencing at Palabek Gem Zone one Block 1. | 1,212,000,000 | \uf0b7 No documents availed in support of existence of the project. \uf0b7 Project does not exist in the DRDIP Management Information System (MIS). \uf0b7 UGX.800m was recovered from an individual, who had irregularly withdrawn funds from the subproject account between 9th November, 2021 and 30th April, 2022. The case was reported at Lamwo Police station SD Ref 11/04/05/2022. |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Design and construction of Sludge Drying Beds for Management of Feacal Matter plus 1km Access Road for Palabek Refugee settlement in Palabek Ogili Sub County. | 1,010,000,000 | \uf0b7 No documents availed in support of existence of the project. \uf0b7 Project does not exist in the DRDIP Management Information System (MIS). |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Construction of Dormitory at Paludah S.S.S, 1 block for boys and 1 block for girls and School fencing in Palabek Ogili Sub County. | 555,500,000 | \uf0b7 No documents availed in support of existence of the project. \uf0b7 Project does not exist in the DRDIP Management Information System (MIS). |\n| 3 | | Total | 2,777,500,000 | |", "metadata": {"page": 91, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Item | Revised budget - UGX | % Allocation of the total budget | Variance (%) |\n|---:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | Capital Development (micro scale irrigation equipment) (75%) | 4,840,551,221 | 71% | (4%) |\n| 1 | Complementary services (25%) | 1,963,248,498 | 29% | 4% |\n| 2 | Total | 6,803,799,719 | 100% | 0% |", "metadata": {"page": 93, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Item | Revised budget - UGX | Warrants/ Release - UGX | Total expenditure - UGX | Unspent - UGX | % absorpti on |\n|---:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------|:--------------------------|:--------------------------|:----------------|----------------:|\n| 0 | Capital Development (micro scale irrigation equipment) (75%) | 37,690,186,415 | 36,501,761,177 | 9,662,606,574 | 26,839,154,603 | 26 |\n| 1 | Complementary services (25%) | 12,391,603,036 | 12,536,857,015 | 11,060,723,469 | 1,476,133,546 | 88 |\n| 2 | Total | 50,081,789,451 | 49,038,618,192 | 20,723,330,043 | 28,315,288,149 | 42 |", "metadata": {"page": 93, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Category | Number of LGs | Electronic | Manual |\n|---:|:-----|:-----------------------|----------------:|-------------:|---------:|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Maintained a data base | 19 | 2 | 17 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Did not maintain | 5 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | | Total | 24 | 2 | 17 |", "metadata": {"page": 97, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | City | Amount (UGX) |\n|---:|:-----|:------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Jinja | 1,320,853,586 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Mbarara | 187,992,208 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Mbale | 75,946,748 |\n| 3 | 4.0 | Soroti | 12,300,210 |\n| 4 | 5.0 | Fort portal | 166,605,512 |\n| 5 | | Total | 1,763,698,264 |", "metadata": {"page": 101, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Purpose | Budgeted amount - UGX | Released amount - UGX | Underfundi ng - UGX | Utilised Warrants - UGX | Unutilised Warrants - UGX |\n|---:|:-----|:------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:------------------------|:----------------------|:--------------------------|:----------------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Rehabilitation & Construction of infrastructure investments | 51,181,725,732 | 47,483,614,440 | 3,698,111,2 92 | 7,387,708,067 | 40,095,906,37 3 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | USMID-AF Operations | 3,072,686,937 | 2,635,883,013 | 436,803,924 | 901,629,009 | 1,734,254,004 |\n| 2 | | Total | 54,254,412,669 | 50,119,497,453 | 4,134,915,2 16 | 8,289,337,076 | 41,830,160,37 7 |", "metadata": {"page": 104, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |\n|---:|:-------------------|:--------------------------|:------------------|:----------------------|:--------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | Year 2021/22 | Unnamed: 1 | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 |\n| 1 | Description | Approved Budget (A) (UGX) | Release (B) (UGX) | Expenditure (C) (UGX) | Unspent (B-C) (UGX) | % absorption |\n| 2 | Developm ent grant | 156,321,511,324 | 156,321,511,324 | 124,895,998,528 | 31,425,512,796 | 80 |", "metadata": {"page": 107, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity | Unspent balance FY. 2020/2021 | Amount re-voted FY 2021/2022 | Amount un-re- voted |\n|---:|:-----|:---------|:--------------------------------|:-------------------------------|:----------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Jinja | 1,714,473,110 | - | 1,714,473,110 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Masaka | 19,529,858,900 | 14,445,481,454 | 5,084,377,446 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Mubende | 26,879,987,744 | 19,123,795,715 | 7,756,192,029 |\n| 3 | 4.0 | Hoima | 30,153,131,886 | - | 30,153,131,886 |\n| 4 | | Total | 78,277,451,640 | 33,569,277,169 | 44,708,174,471 |", "metadata": {"page": 108, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Main Expenditure Items | Threshold |\n|---:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | Infrastructure Projects, including Physical Planning and land titling | Minimum 80% |\n| 1 | Investment Servicing and Monitoring | Maximum 10% |\n| 2 | Performance Improvement | Maximum 10% |", "metadata": {"page": 111, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Main Expenditure items | Threshold | Allocation | Amount - UGX |\n|---:|:------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------|:-------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Infrastructure Projects, including Physical Planning and land titling | Minimum 80% | 70% | 1,871,695,608 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Performance Improvement | Maximum 10% | 13% | 299,789,983 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Investment Servicing and Monitoring | Maximum 10% | 17% | 483,628,600 |\n| 3 | | TOTAL | | | 2,655,114,191 |", "metadata": {"page": 111, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Cost centre | Approved Budget - UGX | Amount Released - UGX | % fundin g | Expenditur e - UGX | Amount not absorbed - UGX | % Absorpti on |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------|:---------------------|:----------------------------|:----------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Infrastructure Projects, including Physical Planning and land titling | 8,164,927,374 | 8,153,926,373 | 100% | 7,682,602,7 04 | 471,323,669 | 94% |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Performance Improvement | 843,710,153 | 843,710,153 | 100% | 853,914,340 | -10,204,187 | 101% |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Investment Servicing and Monitoring | 1,111,423,280 | 1,075,179,930 | 97% | 1,063,687,3 38 | 11,492,592 | 99% |\n| 3 | 4.0 | Transfer of LRDP funds to LLGs | 15,506,893,697 | 15,504,103,696 | 100% | 15,514,093, 696 | -9,990,000 | 100% |\n| 4 | | TOTAL | 25,626,954,504 | 25,576,920,152 | 100% | 25,114,298, 078 | 462,622,074 | 98% |", "metadata": {"page": 112, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Total releases received (UGX) | Expected transfer to LLGs 65% (UGX) | Actual transfers to LLGs (UGX) | Variance (UGX) |\n|---:|:--------------------------------|:--------------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:-----------------|\n| 0 | 25,576,920,152 | 16,624,998,099 | 15,480,614,931 | 1,144,383,168 |", "metadata": {"page": 113, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Category | Planned Length (KM) | Planned Annual Expenditure - UGX | Actual length (KM) | Actual Expenditure - UGX |\n|---:|:-------------------------------|:----------------------|:-----------------------------------|:---------------------|:---------------------------|\n| 0 | Routine Manual Maintenance | 16,067 | 8,494,132,458 | 7,385 | 4,089,157,242 |\n| 1 | Routine Mechanized Maintenance | 6,720 | 15,394,408,459 | 4,924 | 10,306,553,352 |\n| 2 | Periodic Maintenance | 845 | 8,675,569,761 | 378 | 4,376,557,279 |\n| 3 | Total distance | 23,632 | 32,564,110,678 | 12,687 | 18,772,267,873 |", "metadata": {"page": 114, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Entity Name |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalization Company Limited (UECCCL) |\n| 1 | 2 | Nile Hotel International Limited |\n| 2 | 3 | Uganda Hotel and Tourism Training Institute |\n| 3 | 4 | National Pipeline Company (NPC) |", "metadata": {"page": 119, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Enterprise |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium |\n| 1 | 2 | Uganda Air Cargo Corporation |\n| 2 | 3 | Dairy Corporation Limited |\n| 3 | 4 | Uganda Crane Industries Limited |\n| 4 | 5 | Uganda Livestock Industries Limited |\n| 5 | 6 | Uganda Refinery Holding Company Limited |\n| 6 | 7 | Production Enterprises Corporations Limited |\n| 7 | 8 | Uganda Fisheries Enterprises Limited |\n| 8 | 9 | Kampala Industrial and business park Ltd |\n| 9 | 10 | Science and Technology Equipment Production (unit) Ltd |\n| 10 | 11 | UGMA Engineering Corporation Limited |\n| 11 | 12 | Housing Finance Investments |", "metadata": {"page": 120, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entities | Surplus/Deficit | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Net Worth | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 |\n|---:|:-----|:------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------|:----------------------------|:----------------------|:-------------------------------|:----------------------------|:-----------------------|\n| 0 | | | Accounta nt General (A) UGX Bn | Audited Accounts (B) UGX Bn | Variance (B-A) UGX Bn | Accounta nt General (C) UGX Bn | Audited Accounts (D) UGX Bn | Varianc e (D-C) UGX Bn |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Bank of Uganda | 477.168 | 501.982 | 24.814 | 3,771.135 | 3,780.067 | 8.932 |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Electricity Regulatory Authority | (0.659) | (0.709) | (0.050) | 36.441 | 36.391 | (0.050) |\n| 3 | 3.0 | National Water & Sewerage Corporation | 6.874 | (38.866) | (45.740) | 1,438.149 | 1,392.544 | (45.605 ) |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Mandela Stadium Limited | 78.786 | 78.786 | - | 258.741 | 258.390 | (0.351) |\n| 5 | 5.0 | The Micro Finance Support Centre Ltd | (30.638) | (11.101) | 19.537 | 181.781 | 202.528 | 20.748 |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Post Bank Uganda Limited | 3.364 | 12.236 | 8.872 | 121.823 | 117.126 | (4.697) |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Pride Micro Finance Limited | 10.803 | 11.788 | 0.984 | 155.212 | 153.559 | (1.653) |\n| 8 | 8.0 | Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited | (0.146) | (0.086) | 0.060 | 169.390 | 169.488 | 0.098 |\n| 9 | 9.0 | Uganda Electricity Generation Company Limited | (39.568) | 27.863 | 67.430 | 793.181 | 860.611 | 67.430 |\n| 10 | 10.0 | Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited | (14.929) | 37.703 | 52.632 | 1,710.606 | 1,763.238 | 52.632 |\n| 11 | 11.0 | Uganda National Oil Company Limited | (1.356) | (1.356) | (0.000) | 564.090 | 564.090 | (0.000) |\n| 12 | 12.0 | Housing Finance Bank Ltd | 49.042 | 40.975 | (8.067) | 274.255 | 278.692 | 4.437 |", "metadata": {"page": 121, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | 2021/ 2022 (UGX Bn) | 2020 /202 1 (UGX Bn) | % increas e/decr ease | Response |\n|---:|------:|:------------------------------------------------|----------------------:|:-----------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Mandela National Stadium | 78.785 | 1.078 | 7,206 | Management explained that the increment was due to the Company receiving government support of UGX.80Bn in form of a subvention from Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES) without it, the Company would have had a deficit. |\n| 1 | 2 | Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited | 37.703 | 112.12 4 | -66 | Management explained that the previous year profit arose from a favorable foreign exchange translation while the current year loss is as a result of an unfavorable foreign exchange translation. |\n| 2 | 3 | Uganda Electricity Generation Company | 27.862 | 91.932 | -70 | Management explained that the decline was due to delayed commissioning of Karuma HPP (Increase in asset- WIP with no corresponding revenues) |\n| 3 | 4 | NEC Luwero Industries Limited | 7.882 | 3.682 | 114 | Management explained that the Company took over 5 years when there was no production. Production resumed in 2016 and in 2017., the first profits were recorded, by which time accumulated losses were UGX.22,821,246,024. |\n| 4 | 5 | NEC Construction Works & Engineering Limited | 4.352 | 3.264 | 33 | No Management response |\n| 5 | 6 | Insurance Training college | 1.992 | 2.419 | -18 | Management explained that it has set clear targets for income and the relevant revenue centres have set strategies of realizing. |\n| 6 | 7 | NEC AGRO SMC Limited | 1.638 | 1.470 | 11 | No management response. |\n| 7 | 8 | The Microfinance Support Centre Ltd (Dec 2019) | 1.48 | 30.070 | -95 | Management explained that this was due to reduction in impairment allowance which moved from UGX 15,629,327,000 to UGX 405,393,000 |\n| 8 | 9 | Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation | 1.204 | 3.383 | -64 | Management explained that it has strategies such as asset (machinery) acquisition, diversification, and building strategic relations with the aim of improving efficiency, quality and revenue. |\n| 9 | 10 | NEC Farm Katonga Limited | 0.253 | 0.032 | 672 | No management response |", "metadata": {"page": 123, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | 2021/ 2022 (UGX Bn) | 2020 /202 1 (UGX Bn) | % increas e/decr ease | Response |\n|---:|:------|:------------------------------------------------|:----------------------|:-----------------------|:------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | | | | |\n| 1 | 11.0 | Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited | - 0.085 | - 10.904 | -99.0 | Management explained that despite making a positive EBITDA, the net deficit for the year is as a result of the unclaimed depreciation charge as disallowed by ERA for the use of the concession assets by Umeme Ltd. UEDCL has every year engaged the regulator on this matter and until it\u2019s addressed by ERA, it will continue to affect the retained earnings. |\n| 2 | 12.0 | Uganda National Oil Company Limited | -1.355 | - 34.717 | -96.0 | Management explained that UNOC\u2019s anchor investment projects are greenfield projects which require 3 \u2013 4 years of construction, after taking Final Investment Decision (FID) before revenue can be generated. So far Government has provided funding for UNOC\u2019s equity in EACOP, while for Tilenga and Kingfisher, UNOC is carried up to First Oil. These projects can only generate revenues after First Oil. |\n| 3 | 13.0 | Kilembe Mines Limited | -2.389 | -3.908 | -39.0 | Management explained that it was fast- tracking the investor. The operations have been affected by COVID-19 restrictions as well as ravages to mine infrastructure, and, later \u201cEbola\u201d impasse. Further, the available law for such a transaction, the Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture (PERD) Act is being repealed and Government has disbanded the overseer (Privatization Unit) which impacts coordination of the investor search between the two ministries; that for Energy and Mineral Development and of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. |\n| 4 | 14.0 | Uganda Air Cargo Corporation | -9.039 | -7.694 | 17.0 | Management explained that to realize the annual budgeted revenue, UACC has put in place a number of strategies in order to become a profitable corporation. Such strategies include; having a serviceable fleet, strengthening partnerships/alliances with other operators in the industry, re-engaging former business contacts such as PAE, UN, Red Cross and Government of Uganda. With such measures and strategies, UACC is optimistic that the budgeted revenue performance will be achieved going forward. In addition, the Board approved the Corporation\u2019s 5-year Business Strategy and Investment Plan in January, 2022. |\n| 5 | 15.0 | Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC) | -9.345 | - 19.320 | -52.0 | Management explained that the UBC Act 2005 vested the Corporation with all the Assets and liabilities of the Former UTV and Radio Uganda. As a result, UBC inherited a number of assets and infrastructure that are |", "metadata": {"page": 124, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | 2021/ 2022 (UGX Bn) | 2020 /202 1 (UGX Bn) | % increas e/decr ease | Response |\n|---:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:----------------------|:-----------------------|:------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | obsolete hence the high cost of the operation and maintenance. Management is engaging the Government for funding to enable the Corporation replace the obsolete infrastructures and equipment. The UBC Act is also being reviewed to streamline the source of funding for the Corporation. In addition, the UBC Strategic Plan is also being reviewed to ensure that the Corporation generates revenue for its sustainable growth. | | | | | |\n| 1 | 16 | Civil Aviation Authority | - 10.827 | - 27.757 | -61.0 | Management explained that in the previous year the reported deficit was largely attributed to the effects of COVID-19. However, there is a significant reduction of the deficit from last year by 60.81%. This is explained by the recovery of aviation industry from the negative effects of COVID -19. |\n| 2 | 17 | Uganda Railways Corporation | - 32.328 | - 37.796 | -14.0 | Management explained that the loss was largely attributed to the poor performance of the main (freight and other cargo & passenger related revenue) income. |\n| 3 | 18 | Uganda National Airlines Company Limited | - 265.90 9 | - 164.60 1 | 62.0 | Management explained that the industry recovery from Covid-19 effects has been low and has slowed down the Airline\u2019s expansion efforts into new markets like China. Developments like Brexit also further slowed down launch plans for London. |", "metadata": {"page": 125, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | 2021/2022 UGX (Bn) | 2020/2021 UGX (Bn) | Increase/ Decrease | Response |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------|---------------------:|---------------------:|:---------------------|:-----------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Housing Finance Bank | 40.97 | 20.689 | 98% | No management response |\n| 1 | 2 | Uganda Development Bank | 38.82 | 22.109 | 76%. | No management response |\n| 2 | 3 | Post Bank Uganda Limited | 12.236 | 10.07 | 22% | No management response |\n| 3 | 4 | Pride Microfinance Limited | 11.788 | 12.69 | -7% | No management response |", "metadata": {"page": 125, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | Return On Asset (%) | Unnamed: 3 | Response |\n|---:|:------|:------------------------------------|:----------------------|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | 2021/2022 | 2020/21 | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | The Microfinance Support Centre Ltd | -5% | -2.3% | The increase in return on assets was attributed to the improved Earnings before interest and tax of UGX 1,480,168,000 compared to UGX (30,070,363,000) of the previous year. |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Mandela National Stadium | 30% | 0.6% | Management explained that the performance was attributed to the subvention of UGX 80,136,938,512 that was received from the Ministry of Education and Sports for the upgrade and renovation of the stadium. |\n| 3 | 3.0 | NEC AGRO SMC Limited | 19 | 21.6 | Management explained that the decrease was attributed to the purchase of land at Ugx 450,000,000 which increased the value of assets. Since there was no significant increase in net profit after tax, the returns on assets decrease. |", "metadata": {"page": 126, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | Return On Asset (%) | Unnamed: 3 | Response |\n|---:|:------|:------------------------------------------------|:----------------------|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | 2021/2022 | 2020/21 | |\n| 1 | 4.0 | Insurance Training college | 12% | 16% | Management explained that it shall only commit resources to investment proposals whose projected ROI is above the recommended 5%. |\n| 2 | 5.0 | NEC Construction Works & Engineering Limited | 7.50% | 14% | No response from management. |\n| 3 | 6.0 | Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation | 5% | 26% | Management explained that it has income generating strategies such as utilizing one of the properties as a printing school. Should resources become available, the properties shall be overhauled to attract investment opportunities. In addition, management explained that it was diversifying revenue streams and products and expanding the geographical reach to all regions of Uganda to make products and services accessible. |\n| 4 | 7.0 | NEC Farm Katonga Limited | 2.60% | 0.40% | No response from management. |\n| 5 | 8.0 | NEC Uzima Limited | 1.90% | 12.10% | Management explained that new installed machinery had not been operating because of technicalities involved but ROA is expected to increase again when full production commences |\n| 6 | 9.0 | Civil Aviation Authority | 1.20% | -3.30% | No response from management. |\n| 7 | 10.0 | Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited | 0.70% | 2.28% | Management explained that it is committed to expedite completion of projects in pipeline (Entebbe Mutundwe, Karuma, Gulu Agago) so that such projects become part of the revenue generation base. |\n| 8 | 11.0 | Uganda Electricity Generation Company | 0.38% | 1.30% | Management explained that the decline was due to delayed commissioning of Karuma HPP (Increase in asset- WIP with no corresponding revenues) |\n| 9 | 12.0 | Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited | -0.008% | -0.56% | Management explained that it shall continue to engage ERA to agree on a method of recovering the outstanding lease rental payments. |\n| 10 | 13.0 | Uganda Railways Corporation | -0.85% | -1.03% | |\n| 11 | 14.0 | Kilembe Mines Limited | -9% | -10% | Management attributed the lower ROA to the fact that the mine is under care and maintenance without the core business activity of mining. |\n| 12 | 15.0 | Uganda National Airlines Company Limited | -23% | -13.10% | Management explained that the return on Assets is negative for both years as the Company is still loss making. |\n| 13 | 16.0 | Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC) | -2.62 | -5.88 | Management explained that this has been greatly due to the high cost of operation. For example, example running the equipment\u2019s for the DTT sites, electricity bill and other expenses. |", "metadata": {"page": 127, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | Return On Asset (%) | Unnamed: 3 | Response |\n|---:|:------|:---------|:----------------------|:-------------|:-----------|\n| 0 | | | 2021/2022 | 2020/21 | |\n| 1 | | | | | |", "metadata": {"page": 128, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | Return On Asset (%) | Unnamed: 3 | Response |\n|---:|:------|:---------------------------|:----------------------|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | 2021/2022 | 2020/21 | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Uganda Development Bank | 5.3 | 2.91 | No management response |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Housing Finance Bank | 4 | 2.27 | The performance was attributed to an increase in the asset value from UGX 1,108.03bn in the prior year to UGX 1,304.16bn in the year under review. |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Pride Microfinance Limited | 3 | 3.3 | The reduction in the ROA was attributed to the low Earnings before interest and tax of UGX 11,440,731,000 compared to UGX 15,484,355,000 of the previous year. |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Post Bank Uganda Limited | 2.5 | 2.25 | The Reduction in return on assets was attributed to an increase in the asset value by 9.49% (from UGX 674.555bn to UGX 745.29 bn in the year under review). |", "metadata": {"page": 128, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Current Ratio | Unnamed: 3 | Remarks |\n|---:|:-----|:------------------------------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | 2021/2022 | 2020/2021 | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Uganda National Oil Company Limited | 30.2 | | Management explained that the company\u2019s current ratio was significantly impacted by the recognition of funds related to GOU\u2019s first (1st) tranche of the 15% shareholding in EACOP Co through UNOC, of UGX.480.9 billion. For the period between July 2022 \u2013 November 2022, the company paid USD.62.3 Million (equivalent to UGX.230.4 billion), as cash calls to EACOP Co. The current ratio should return to expected levels as the company continues to meet its cash call obligations to EACOP Co. |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Mandela National Stadium | 30.03 | 0.73 | Management explained that the Board and Management engaged the Shareholders to recapitalize the company. As a result, Government funded the renovation and upgrade of Mandela National Stadium to international standards. This will make it marketable and attractive to business. Public Private Partnerships will be entered into to enhance the performance of the company. |\n| 3 | 3.0 | NEC Luwero Industries Limited | 20.3 | 11.9 | No Management response. |\n| 4 | 4.0 | NEC AGRO SMC Limited | 10.7 | 7.1 | Management explained that this was due to the nature of business the company is engaged i.e., fertilizer sales and Food Supply. Payments by the main clients (Uganda Prisons Service and Ministry of Defense and Veteran Affairs) are received on quarterly basis whereas the company settles suppliers on monthly basis. |", "metadata": {"page": 129, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Current Ratio | Unnamed: 3 | Remarks |\n|---:|:-----|:------------------------------------------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | 2021/2022 | 2020/2021 | |\n| 1 | 5.0 | Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited | 10.4 | 6.8 | This performance was attributed to an increase in the Company\u2019s current asset during the year under review. |\n| 2 | 6.0 | The Microfinance Support Centre Ltd | 4.1 | 11.6 | The reduction in the entity\u2019s current ratio is attributed to an increase in the current assets from UGX.197.7Bn previous year to UGX.272.97Bn. Despite the increase in current liabilities from UGX.17Bn to UGX.66Bn in the current year under review. |\n| 3 | 7.0 | Uganda Air Cargo Corporation | 4 | 2.5 | Management indicated that UACC\u2019 s current asset levels which are mainly from the current debtors and cash/bank balances, are significantly contributed to by subvention received from Government. |\n| 4 | 8.0 | Civil Aviation Authority | 4 | 2.59 | No Management response. |\n| 5 | 9.0 | Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation | 2.8 | 2.1 | Management indicated that it has strategies to efficiently utilize its current assets by managing payments well and intensifying debt collection. |\n| 6 | 10.0 | Uganda Railways Corporation | 2.78 | 2.67 | No Management response. |\n| 7 | 11.0 | Insurance Training college | 2.4 | 3.3 | Management explained that it shall continue to closely monitor the liquidity ratio and take all necessary measures to keep it within the desirable range. |\n| 8 | 12.0 | NEC Uzima Limited | 2.2 | 2.3 | No Management response. |\n| 9 | 13.0 | Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited | 2.04 | 1.9 | Management explained that it will continue to engage the various distributors in an effort to enhance debt collection. Among other initiatives, Management has agreed on payment plans with a number distributors and is engaging a number of them routinely, pressing for remittances. It should be noted that the trend of receivables position has improved over the years. |\n| 10 | 14.0 | Uganda National Airlines Company Limited | 1.4 | 2.7 | Management explained that although this dropped in the FY2021/2022 when compared to the FY2020/2021, it remained positive implying that the Company is still able to meet its short-term obligations. |\n| 11 | 15.0 | NEC Construction Works & Engineering Limited | 1.3 | 1.4 | Management explained that this was due to advance payments received from their clients for work being executed. |\n| 12 | 16.0 | Kilembe Mines Limited | 0.57 | 0.56 | Management indicated that as a measure to improve the current ratio, it has sought financial support from the shareholders through the Board of Directors to rehabilitate |", "metadata": {"page": 130, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Current Ratio | Unnamed: 3 | Remarks |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | 2021/2022 | 2020/2021 | |\n| 1 | and refurbish the Company assets and provide funding to clear the outstanding liabilities to enable a fresh start to KML. | | | | |\n| 2 | 17 | Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC) | 0.44 | 0.38 | Management attributed the performance to the fact that the UBC Act had specified some of the sources of funding for UBC. However, at implementation some could not take place like the case of TV tax which Act is now under review. In addition, the Corporation is also reviewing its strategic plan for revenue mobilization. |\n| 3 | 18 | Uganda Electricity Generation Company | 0.27 | 0.43 | Management attributed the performance to the following; a) Lower revenue for Isimba based on energy sold as opposed to the approved power purchase agreement which was supposed to be capacity based. Revenues not able to meet loan obligations. ERA dictated this position as a government strategy to keep energy tariffs low. b) Delayed commissioning of Karuma HPP has resulted in delayed payment of the loan interest expenses that have fallen due. |", "metadata": {"page": 131, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Institution | Liquidity assessment for banking institutions | Unnamed: 3 |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------|:------------------------------------------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | SN | Bank | Current ratio | |\n| 1 | | | 31st Dec 2021 | 31st Dec 2020 |\n| 2 | 1 | Pride Micro Finance | 1.55 | 1.45 |\n| 3 | 2 | Post Bank | 1.07 | 1.08 |\n| 4 | 3 | Uganda Development Bank | 9.87 | 8.074 |\n| 5 | 4 | Housing Finance Bank | 1.24 | 1.25 |\n| 6 | | Average | 3.4 | 3 |", "metadata": {"page": 131, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Bank | 31st Dec 2021 (UGX-Billions) | 31st Dec 2020 (UGX-Billions) |\n|---:|:-----|:------------------------|-------------------------------:|-------------------------------:|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Pride Micro Finance | 182.16 | 183.39 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Postbank | 454.86 | 334.7 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Uganda Development Bank | 781.66 | 511.88 |\n| 3 | | Average | 472.89 | 343.32 |", "metadata": {"page": 132, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | Debt Ratio (%) | Unnamed: 3 | Remarks |\n|---:|:------|:------------------------------------------------|:-----------------|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | 2021/2022 | 2020/2021 | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Civil Aviation Authority | 48 | 51.9 | No response from Management. |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited | 10.31 | 10.23 | Management noted that the debt arises from the financial liability on the buyout amount of UMEME. This is the responsibility of the Government of Uganda. |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Uganda Electricity Generation Company | 0.88 | 0.74 | Management indicated that it had instituted strategies to improve profitability in the short term such as: a) Karuma and Isimba HPP loans have been converted from USD to UGX to avoid forex losses. b) Commissioning of Karuma HPP is being fast tracked to generate revenue in the next financial year. |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited | 0.67 | 0.65 | Management indicated that Conversion of debt to equity will be discussed in the next Annual General Meeting, slated for December 2022. |\n| 5 | 5.0 | NEC Construction Works & Engineering Limited | 0.666 | 0.69 | No response from Management. |", "metadata": {"page": 132, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | Debt Ratio (%) | Unnamed: 3 | Remarks |\n|---:|:------|:-------------------------------------------|:-----------------|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | 2021/2022 | 2020/2021 | |\n| 1 | 6.0 | NEC Uzima Limited | 55 | 53.5 | Management explained that the debt component related to the internal borrowing from NEC-Luwero Industries Ltd. This was used to acquire the new factory machinery and construction of the new building and this debt is interest free. |\n| 2 | 7.0 | Insurance Training college | 0.24 | 0.35 | Management indicated that every financial year, it develops strategies to reduce the debt obligations. This is evidenced by the debt reduction over the past three (3) financial years, 2019- 20 (4%), 2020-21 (6%), 2021-22 (23%). This has been achieved by timely payment of quarterly debt obligations and a prepayment of UGX.1 billion made in the FY 2021-22 over and above the annual debt obligations. |\n| 3 | 8.0 | Kilembe Mines Limited | 0.23 | 0.21 | Management indicated that, to further improve the debt position, management will continue following up with MOFPED on the issue of debt restructuring of the UGX.4.7bn. |\n| 4 | 9.0 | Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC) | 0.227 | 0 | Management indicated that a proposal had been submitted to the board for approval to lease some of the Corporations land to raise money to pay off some of the debts. Secondly, the corporation is following up on the presidential directives of writing off the penalties for NSSF and coming up with payment plan for the debts with NWSC, Umeme and the principle for URA and NSSF. |\n| 5 | 10.0 | Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation | 0.13 | 0.22 | No response from Management. |\n| 6 | 11.0 | NEC AGRO SMC Limited | 0.09 | 0.136 | No response from Management. |\n| 7 | 12.0 | Uganda Air Cargo Corporation | 0.075 | 0.13 | Management noted that it is desirous of increasing revenue generation, mainly by use of its own air assets, ensure frugality and enter into partnerships in order to make the Corporation profitable. Management shall ensure its working capital is organically generated and an anticipated upward trend will facilitate debt ratio improvement to recommended industry averages. |", "metadata": {"page": 133, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | Debt Ratio (%) | Unnamed: 3 | Remarks |\n|---:|:------|:----------------------------|:-----------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|\n| 0 | | | 2021/2022 | 2020/2021 | |\n| 1 | 13.0 | Uganda Railways Corporation | 0.0307 | 0.0207 | No response from Management. |", "metadata": {"page": 134, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Status of DSC | No of Districts & Cities | %age of total DSCs |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------:|---------------------:|\n| 0 | Functional and fully Constituted-(5 members) | 37 | 26 |\n| 1 | Functional but not fully constituted (4 members)- | 46 | 32 |\n| 2 | Functional but not fully constituted (3 members) | 59 | 41 |\n| 3 | Functional but not fully constituted (2 members) | 2 | 1 |\n| 4 | Not functional | 1 | 1 |\n| 5 | Total | 145 | 100 |", "metadata": {"page": 136, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Entity | Required funding - UGX | Released funds - UGX | Variance - UGX |\n|---:|:------|:-------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:-----------------------|:-----------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Ministry of Justice | 377,429,099,424 | 19,160,000,000 | 358,269,099,424 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Office of the Directorate of Public Prosecution (ODPP) | 182,834,548 | 0 | 182,834,548 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development | 165,210,577,218 | 0 | 165,210,577,218 |\n| 3 | 4.0 | Uganda Land Commission | 5,690,000,000 | 160,000,000 | 5,530,000,000 |\n| 4 | 5.0 | Ministry of Education and Sports | 22,881,496,579 | 0 | 22,881,496,579 |\n| 5 | 6.0 | Uganda Police Force | 8,884,474,063 | 500,000,000 | 8,384,474,063 |\n| 6 | 7.0 | Uganda Prisons Services | 244,335,022 | 0 | 244,335,022 |\n| 7 | 8.0 | Kampala Capital City Authority | 23,019,117,745 | 6,802,994,920 | 16,216,122,825 |\n| 8 | 9.0 | Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries | 549,272,513 | 0 | 549,272,513 |\n| 9 | | Total | 604,091,207,112 | 26,622,994,920 | 577,468,212,192 |", "metadata": {"page": 141, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Initi al Budg et (UGX Tn) A | Revise d budge t (UGX Tn) B | Total warrant s (UGX Tn) C | Actual expenditu re (UGX Tn) D | Unwarrant ed funds (UGX Tn) E=B-C | Unutilized warrants (UGX-Tn) F=C-D | % warrante d funds | % Warrants spent |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------|------------------------------:|-----------------------------:|---------------------------------:|------------------------------------:|-------------------------------------:|---------------------:|-------------------:|\n| 0 | MDAs | 39.94 3 | 46.287 | 43.759 | 39.927 | 2.528 | 3.832 | 94.54 | 91.24 |\n| 1 | LGs | 4.836 | 5.275 | 5.095 | 4.508 | 0.18 | 0.587 | 96.59 | 88.48 |\n| 2 | Total | 44.78 | 51.562 | 48.854 | 44.435 | 2.708 | 4.419 | 94.75 | 90.95 |", "metadata": {"page": 147, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Financial year ended | Domestic debt (UGX Tn) | Foreign debt (UGX Tn) | Total (UGX Tn) | % change |\n|---:|:-----------------------|-------------------------:|------------------------:|-----------------:|:-----------|\n| 0 | June 2022 | 38.1 | 48.5 | 86.6 | 15.3% |\n| 1 | June 2021 | 30.8 | 44.3 | 75.1 | 24.3% |\n| 2 | June 2020 | 18 | 38.2 | 56.9 | 23.5% |\n| 3 | June 2019 | 15.2 | 30.9 | 46.1 | 11.1% |\n| 4 | June 2018 | 13.1 | 28.4 | 41.4 | |", "metadata": {"page": 148, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | FY | Domestic Debt Stock (face value) | Increase | Unnamed: 3 |\n|---:|:--------|:-----------------------------------|:-----------|:-------------|\n| 0 | | UGX-Tn | UGX (Tn) | % |\n| 1 | 2021/22 | 38.1 | 7.3 | 23.7 |\n| 2 | 2020/21 | 30.8 | 12.9 | 71.5 |", "metadata": {"page": 148, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 2019/20 | 18 | 2.5 | 16.0 |\n|---:|:----------|-----:|:------|:-------|\n| 0 | 2018/19 | 15.5 | 2.4 | 18.7 |\n| 1 | 2017/18 | 13.1 | | |", "metadata": {"page": 149, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Financial year | Total domestic Revenue \u2013 UGX-Tn | Total Interest \u2013 UGX-Tn | % of Interest to revenue | Benchmark |\n|---:|:-----------------|----------------------------------:|--------------------------:|---------------------------:|:------------|\n| 0 | 2021/22 | 22.8 | 5.5 | 24.1 | <12.5 |\n| 1 | 2020/21 | 19.9 | 3.98 | 20 | <12.5 |\n| 2 | 2019/20 | 17.5 | 2.5 | 14.2 | <12.5 |\n| 3 | 2018/19 | 17.1 | 2 | 11.71 | <12.5 |\n| 4 | 2017/18 | 15.2 | 1.9 | 12.73 | <12.5 |", "metadata": {"page": 150, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No of cases | Details | Taxes Amount in contention \u2013 UGX Bn |\n|---:|--------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------:|\n| 0 | 15 | Cases of more than 2 years | 85.8 |\n| 1 | 23 | Cases above 1 (one) year and less than 2 (two) years | 111.6 |\n| 2 | 125 | Cases below one year | 159.3 |\n| 3 | 163 | Total | 356.7 |", "metadata": {"page": 151, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S N | Loan particulars | Loan Amount (Euro- Mn) | Date of signing |\n|---:|:------|:----------------------------------------|-------------------------:|:------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Construction of Muzizi Hydropower Plant | 40 | 25 November 2016 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Construction of Muzizi Hydropower Plant | 45 | 09 December 2016 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | KfW Grant Finance (Euros) | 5.36 | 22 September 2015 |\n| 3 | | TOTAL | 90.36 | |", "metadata": {"page": 153, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | POLICY | PURPOSE | STATUS |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Government White Paper on Education (1992) | Providing Government with a holistic understanding of the education value chain in the country including Education Planning and Policy Analysis | \uf0be The Education Policy Review Commission was established under Legal Notice No. 5 of 2021. \uf0be The process of reviewing the 1992 Government White Paper on Education is on- going. |\n| 1 | 2 | Government White Paper on Higher Education | Providing Government with a holistic understanding of the University Education and other Higher institutions | \uf0be The Government White Paper on Higher Education was approved by Top Management Meeting. \uf0be Pending the costing of the Whitepaper and Policy implications. \uf0be Needs a Certificate of financial implication. |\n| 2 | 3 | National Teachers\u2019 Bill | To provide a legal framework on management of teachers including their education and training | \uf0be The Minister issued drafting instructions to First Parliamentary Counsel to draft the National Teachers\u2019 Bill per the approved Principles. |\n| 3 | 4 | Technical and Vocation Education and Training (TVET) Bill. | To provide a legal framework on management of Technical and Vocation Education and Training | \uf0be The Minister issued drafting instructions to First Parliamentary Counsel to draft the TVET Bill per the approved Principles. |\n| 4 | 5 | Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) Policy | To operationalize the provisions that would arise from the enacted TVET Act | \uf0be Implementation of the policy is on-going. \uf0be The Department is required to submit quarterly reports on the achievements or status of implementation and this should also capture the challenges being experienced and the proposed measures. |\n| 5 | 6 | Education for Sustainable Development Policy | To provide policy guidelines on | \uf0be The Ministry is awaiting a Certificate of Financial Implications from the Ministry of |", "metadata": {"page": 160, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | POLICY | PURPOSE | STATUS |\n|---:|:-------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | sustainable education in the country | Finance, Planning, and Economic Development. \uf0be After obtaining a Certificate of Financial Implications, a Cabinet Memorandum has to be submitted to Cabinet Secretariat to obtain a Cabinet Memo number to enable the presentation of the draft policy to the Cabinet. | | |\n| 1 | 7 | National Physical Education and Sports Policy | To provide policy guidelines on Physical Education and Sports in the country | \uf0be The draft policy was submitted to the Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development to obtain a certificate of Financial Implications to enable submission to Cabinet. |\n| 2 | 8 | UNATCOM Policy Framework | To provide to regulate and guide UNATCOM activities | \uf0be Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) report is in place. |", "metadata": {"page": 161, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Contingent liabilities | Details | Amount (UGX) |\n|---:|:-----------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------|\n| 0 | Legal proceedings | i. Spencon Services Ltd | 45,656,660,072 |\n| 1 | | ii. Family Care Hospital | 550,000,000 |\n| 2 | Other Contingent liabilities | iii. National Drug Authority \u2013 verification fees, import fees and licenses | 43,210,405,917 |\n| 3 | | iv. National Medical Stores \u2013 Storage and distribution of drugs | 31,412,512,826 |\n| 4 | Total | | 120,829,578,815 |", "metadata": {"page": 168, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Item | Funds brought forward (UGX Bn) | Funding received during the year (UGX Bn) | Total funds available | Amount spent (UGX Bn) | Variance \u2013 UGX Bn |\n|---:|:----------------------|---------------------------------:|--------------------------------------------:|------------------------:|------------------------:|--------------------:|\n| 0 | Wage and non-wage | 3.8 | 12.87 | 16.67 | 8.7 | 7.97 |\n| 1 | Development/ projects | 76.6 | 150.35 | 226.95 | 24.44 | 202.5 |\n| 2 | Total | 80.4 | 163.22 | 243.62 | 33.142 | 210.48 |", "metadata": {"page": 170, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Sn | Project | No. of months delayed |\n|---:|-----:|:---------------------------------|:------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Kapchorwa-Suam project | 31 months |\n| 1 | 2 | Kigumba-Bulima | 24 months |\n| 2 | 3 | Rukungiri-Kihihi-Ishasha/Kanungu | 16 months. |\n| 3 | 4 | Kampala Northern Bypass | 6 months |", "metadata": {"page": 180, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/No | Contract/Project name | Overpayment (UGX) |\n|---:|:------------|:--------------------------------------------------|:--------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Kapchorwa-Suam | 20,594,809.19 |\n| 1 | 2 | Tirinyi-Pallisa-Kumi | 0 |\n| 2 | 3 | Pallisa-Kamonkoli | 0 |\n| 3 | 4 | Mpigi Town Roads (20km | 126,896,449.94 |\n| 4 | 5 | Kigumba-Bulima | 49,129,125 |\n| 5 | 6 | Namunsi \u2013 Sironko \u2013 Muyembe Kasalem (PHASE II) | 6,168,276 |\n| 6 | 7 | Kitala-Gerenge (in-house construction) | 0 |\n| 7 | 8 | Rukungiri-Kihihi-Ishasha/Kanungu | 29,081,818 |\n| 8 | TOTAL (UGX) | | 231,870,478.13 |\n| 9 | 9 | Kampala Northern Bypass II (Capacity Improvement) | EUR 47,469.01 |", "metadata": {"page": 181, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/No | Contract | Delays (days) | Uncharged Liquidated Damages (UGX) |\n|---:|:-------|:------------------------------------|:----------------|:-------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Bukalasa Agricultural College Lot 1 | 90.0 | 748,388,026 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Kaberamaido Technical Institute | 110.0 | 540,383,514 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Kalongo Technical Institute | 15.0 | 41,378,333 |\n| 3 | 4.0 | Ora Technical Institute | 44.0 | 104,234,819 |\n| 4 | 5.0 | Kitgum Technical Institute | 100.0 | 293,682,207 |\n| 5 | 6.0 | UTC Bushenyi Lot 1 | 76.0 | 746,294,824 |\n| 6 | 7.0 | UTC Bushenyi Lot 2 | 330.0 | 762,408,141 |\n| 7 | 8.0 | Nyamitanga Technical Institute | 226.0 | 228,585,432 |\n| 8 | 9.0 | Karera Technical Institute | 125.0 | 225,437,823 |\n| 9 | 10.0 | Lake Katwe Technical Institute | 30.0 | 84,004,849 |\n| 10 | | TOTAL | | 3,774,797,968 |", "metadata": {"page": 183, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Contract | Unrecovered Advance at Expiry of Guarantee (UGX) |\n|---:|:-----|:-------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Ssesse Farm Institute | 509,617,393 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | UTC Lira Lot 2 | 43,061,091 |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Kalongo Technical Institute | 387,890,177 |\n| 3 | 4.0 | Ora Technical Institute | 254,620,642 |\n| 4 | 5.0 | Kitgum Technical Institute | 440,639,594 |\n| 5 | 6.0 | UTC Bushenyi Lot 2 | 1,938,309,766 |\n| 6 | 7.0 | Nyamitanga Technical Institute | 581,149,404 |\n| 7 | 8.0 | Butalejja Technical Institute | 394,579,955 |\n| 8 | | TOTAL | 4,549,868,022 |", "metadata": {"page": 184, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/No | Contract | Overpayment (UGX) |\n|---:|-------:|:------------------------------------|:--------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Bukalasa Agricultural College Lot 1 | 195,571,075 |\n| 1 | 2 | Bukalasa Agricultural College Lot 2 | 93,966,832 |\n| 2 | 3 | Kaberamaido Technical Institute | 37,030,169 |\n| 3 | 4 | Ssesse Farm Institute | 103,786,000 |\n| 4 | 5 | UTC Lira Lot 1 | 129,914,950 |\n| 5 | 6 | UTC Lira Lot 2 | 113,394,178 |\n| 6 | 7 | Kalongo Technical Institute | 179,818,690 |\n| 7 | 8 | Ora Technical Institute | 62,686,000 |\n| 8 | 9 | Kitgum Technical Institute | 123,656,204 |\n| 9 | 10 | UTC Bushenyi Lot 1 | 99,470,240 |\n| 10 | 11 | UTC Bushenyi Lot 2 | 159,959,100 |\n| 11 | 12 | Nyamitanga Technical Institute | 14,367,666 |\n| 12 | 13 | Karera Technical Institute | 53,059,096 |\n| 13 | 14 | Lake Katwe Technical Institute | 60,394,667 |", "metadata": {"page": 184, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/No | Contract | Overpayment (UGX) |\n|---:|:-------|:------------------------------|:--------------------|\n| 0 | 15 | UTC Elgon Lot 1 | 23,112,847 |\n| 1 | 16 | UTC Elgon Lot 2 | 21,469,465 |\n| 2 | 17 | Kaliro Technical Institute | 8,114,020 |\n| 3 | 18 | Butalejja Technical Institute | 70,875,186 |\n| 4 | 19 | Kasodo Technical Institute | 125,683,060 |\n| 5 | 20 | Rwentanga Technical Institute | 33,199,300 |\n| 6 | TOTAL | | 1,709,528,745 |", "metadata": {"page": 185, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Item Description | Item Total cost | Per cent delivery (%) | Outstanding (EUROS) |\n|---:|:------|:--------------------------------------|:------------------|:------------------------|:----------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Software installation and Integration | 1,262,748 | 90.0 | 126,275 |\n| 1 | 2 | Technical Project management | 1,510,000 | 90.0 | 151,000 |\n| 2 | 3 | Training and capacity building | 343,100 | 90.0 | 34,310 |\n| 3 | 4 | MCES programmer training | 10,350 | 0.0 | 10,350 |\n| 4 | 5 | Video Surveillance system | 100,000 | 0.0 | 100,000 |\n| 5 | Total | | | | 421,935 |", "metadata": {"page": 187, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Programme | NDP III Public sector Budget Allocations (Ugx Bn.) FY2022/23 | Revised Annual Budget Estimates (UGX Bn.) FY2022/23 | The variance between annual Budget Estimates & NDP III (UGX Bn.) | Percentage Variances |\n|---:|:----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------:|------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------|\n| 0 | Intergraded transport infrastructure and services | 5385 | 4171.65 | -1,213.35 | -22.53% |\n| 1 | Regional Development | 4228 | 1190.18 | -3,037.82 | -71.85% |\n| 2 | Climate Change, Natural Resource, Env't & Water Mgt | 2088 | 617.4 | -1,470.60 | -70.43% |\n| 3 | Public Sector Transformation | 3847 | 206.28 | -3,640.72 | -94.64% |", "metadata": {"page": 202, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Indicator | Measurement in PIAPs | Measurement basis in PBS |\n|---:|:-----------------------------------------|:-----------------------|:---------------------------|\n| 0 | Average monthly nominal household Income | UGX | Percentage |\n| 1 | Net annual no. of jobs created | Number of Jobs | Percentage |\n| 2 | Energy generation capacity | Megawatts | Percentage |\n| 3 | Water usage | M3 per capita | Percentage |\n| 4 | Life expectancy at birth | Years | Percentage |\n| 5 | Maternal Mortality Ratio/100,000, | No per 100,000 | Percentage |\n| 6 | Travel Time with GKMA | Min/Km | Percentage |\n| 7 | Travel Time on Railway Network | Days | Percentage |\n| 8 | Freight Cargo Traffic | Tones | Percentage |\n| 9 | The unit cost of Internet | USD | Percentage |", "metadata": {"page": 203, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Audit Recommendation | Status of Implementation | Audit Comment on Resolving Previous Condition/Problem by Actions of Management |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Sensitisation and awareness on the externalization of labour program | | | |\n| 1 | 1 | The Ministry should make a deliberate effort to ensure that planned and budgeted awareness and sensitization activities for FY 2017/18 are undertaken. This should be done in the various local languages in the different regions. | Partially implemented | There remain gaps in sensitisation and awareness. The current activities are limited in frequency and coverage. |\n| 2 | 2 | MoGLSD should train and sensitize the district labour officers and use them as channels for creating public awareness in their localities through the free airtime given for government programmes at the local media stations. | Partially implemented/on- going | More than half of the country's labour officers have not received training on labour externalisation. |\n| 3 | 3 | MoGLSD should fast track the finalization of the review process for The Employment (Recruitment of Ugandan Migrant Workers Abroad) Regulations and also put in place mechanisms for dissemination of all statutory instruments relating to Externalization of Labour. | Implemented | It is now necessary to step up efforts to disseminate the revised regulations. |\n| 4 | Licensing of recruitment agencies and accreditation of foreign principals | | | |\n| 5 | Licensing of recruitment agencies | | | |\n| 6 | 4 | Ministry should develop an efficient system to track | Implemented | The External Employment Management Information |", "metadata": {"page": 240, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Audit Recommendation | Status of Implementation | Audit Comment on Resolving Previous Condition/Problem by Actions of Management |\n|---:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | compliance with licensing requirements and also validity of licenses and bank guarantees. Development of the online document processing system is a step in the right direction. | | System has improved tracking for compliance in labour externalisation processes. | |\n| 1 | 5 | As the guideline requires, the Ministry should plan and budget for training of applicants for licensing with the aim of enhancing their capacity and knowledge in managing the operations of private recruitment agencies. | Not Implemented | No record for training of applicants prior to licencing provided to the audit team. |\n| 2 | 6 | The Ministry should revise the existing laws governing Labour Externalization and make it more punitive to deter illegal recruitment of Ugandan migrant workers | Implemented | The penalties for non- compliance were made more severe in the revised Regulations. |\n| 3 | Accreditation of foreign principals | | | |\n| 4 | 7 | The Ministry should only approve manpower request from accredited foreign principals and also work closely with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Uganda missions to verify, validate information provided by foreign principals, and accredit the foreign principals in all labour receiving countries for all job categories | Implemented | Manpower requests by foreign recruitment agencies are initiated online by registered/ accredited companies. Although verifications by the mission staff takes long to due non-availability of resources. |\n| 5 | Monitoring and supervision of recruitment agency activities | | | |\n| 6 | 8 | Review the staff establishment of the External Employment Services Unit and allocate additional manpower and other resources to enable it effectively undertake planned activities. | Partially Implemented | Currently the Unit is supported by contract staff (one year) under projects. This is not sustainable. |\n| 7 | 9 | Fast track the development of the | Implemented | The management information system in in |", "metadata": {"page": 241, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Audit Recommendation | Status of Implementation | Audit Comment on Resolving Previous Condition/Problem by Actions of Management |\n|---:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Integrated Management Information System to facilitate proper monitoring. The system should ease the coordination and sharing information on migrant workers with foreign missions to facilitate monitoring of workers\u2019 welfare. | | place. However, there is need to integrate this system with other migration systems both locally and at the missions to strengthen monitoring. | |\n| 1 | 10 | Liaise with Ministry of Foreign Affairs and strengthen the capacity of respective missions abroad in terms of manpower (labour attaches) and financial resources to facilitate monitoring of workers\u2019 welfare. | Not Implemented | Deployment of labour attach\u00e9s remains pending. |\n| 2 | 11 | Ensure that negotiations take place for all labour receiving countries and bilateral agreements for migrant labour are signed and also start accreditation of foreign employers to get their goodwill in safeguarding welfare of Ugandan migrant workers. | Partially Implemented | MoU signed with the government of UAE but the agreement to operationalise the MoU is yet to be signed (As at 30th November, 2022). |\n| 3 | 12 | Enforce penalties for non- adherence to the terms of licensing. | Implemented | There is evidence that the ministry now takes action on non-compliance. |\n| 4 | 13 | Emphasize and undertake routine and spot inspections as required. | Partially Implemented | The frequency and coverage of spot/ routine inspections remains low. |\n| 5 | Grievance and complaints handling | | | |\n| 6 | 14 | Fast track the establishment of officers responsible for handling complaints both at the Ministry and in all labour receiving countries. | Partially Implemented | The ministry has designated officers (though some temporary) to handle complaints, this needs to be reciprocated in labour receiving countries. |\n| 7 | 15 | Set up a tracking system that monitors the recording, coding, investigation and | Partially Implemented | The module for complaints management is yet to be activated on the External Employment Management |", "metadata": {"page": 242, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Audit Recommendation | Status of Implementation | Audit Comment on Resolving Previous Condition/Problem by Actions of Management |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------|:----------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | resolution of all complaints raised by migrant workers. | | Information System (EEMIS). | |", "metadata": {"page": 243, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Audit recommendation | Status of implementation | Audit comment on resolving previous condition/problem by the actions of uwa management |\n|---:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Research and monitoring | | | |\n| 1 | Data for wildlife resources and biodiversity management | | | |\n| 2 | 1 | UWA should prioritize her population survey and ecological monitoring activities through improved budgeting and resource allocation mechanism. | Partially Implemented | UWA has undertaken many surveys over the years despite their limitations, thus having limited coverage. |\n| 3 | 2 | UWA should mobilize and encourage volunteers and students who are willing to conduct surveys into the activities of wildlife management. | Implemented | Many students are conducting research in the various PA despite their limited supervision and incorporation of UWA research priorities in their research. |\n| 4 | Wildlife Research for Conservation Management | | | |\n| 5 | 3 | UWA should strengthen the capacity of the Research and Monitoring unit so as to enable it adequately monitor and promote its planned research activities. | Partially Implemented | UWA designated research officers in the various PA\u2019s despite their lack of specific PA research plans and monitoring of various UWA interventions. |\n| 6 | 4 | The process of reviewing the Wildlife Policy should be expedited to enable the creation of the wildlife Research and Training Institute. | Implemented | The Wildlife policy was reviewed and the Research Institute is operational and sending research students to the PA\u2019s. |\n| 7 | Conservation and natural resource management | | | |\n| 8 | 5 | UWA should equip the planning unit to enable it to develop fire management plans and empower PAs for their implementation. | Partially Implemented | Planning Units have been equipped, fire management plans are prepared but are yet to be reviewed for their effectiveness and organizational learning. |\n| 9 | 6 | UWA should develop and document standard operational procedures for staffing, deployment, accommodation, and food rations for law enforcement rangers. | Partially Implemented | Staff welfare has greatly improved over the years despite the challenges of fully implementation across all the PA\u2019s. |\n| 10 | 7 | The UWA management should provide a complete set of uniforms to its entire staff in time. | Implemented | Uniforms situation has improved since most rangers at least have 2 sets of complete uniforms. |\n| 11 | 8 | UWA should effectively plan for its procurement activities, which should be accordingly implemented to avoid delays in the procurement process. | Implemented | Procurement process have improved over the years. |", "metadata": {"page": 245, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Audit recommendation | Status of implementation | Audit comment on resolving previous condition/problem by the actions of uwa management |\n|---:|:----------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 9 | UWA should review its staff medical scheme and strategies to ensure that all staff benefit, including rangers. | Implemented | Medical insurance is now being provided to all UWA staff across all levels. |\n| 1 | Re-introduction of Extinct Species | | | |\n| 2 | 10 | UWA should follow policies and guidelines for wildlife shipment, translocation and reintroduction and should be actively involved in the implementation of these policies. | Implemented | Polices for animal translocation have been developed and implemented across the PA\u2019s and these have proved to be very effective over the years. |\n| 3 | 11 | UWA should actively involve itself in the management of the Rhino Fund Uganda as required by the signed memorandum of understanding. | Partially Implemented | UWA is fully involved in the management of ZZiwa rhino sanctuary despite the delays in signing a new MoU with the land owner. |\n| 4 | 12 | UWA should develop a Rhino specific strategy for the reintroduction and management of the Rhinos in the country. | Implemented | Rhino specific strategy was developed and is being implemented with very promising results for the numbers of rhinos in Uganda. |\n| 5 | Community conservation revenue sharing scheme | | | |\n| 6 | 13 | The Community conservation unit of UWA should guide the communities neighbouring the PAs on how to access and utilize their share of revenue. | Partially Implemented/Con tinuous | Revenue sharing has greatly improved despite Covid 19 challenges. |\n| 7 | 14 | UWA should ensure prompt disbursement of the share of revenue to communities. | Not Implemented | Revenues are not promptly disbursed and thus the problem continues to exist due to covid 19 challenges. |\n| 8 | 15 | UWA should expedite the process of the review of the revenue sharing guidelines and the approved guidelines should be communicated to beneficiaries. | Partially Implemented | Revenue sharing guidelines have been developed but are yet to be disseminated to the beneficiary communities. |\n| 9 | Monitoring and Control of Problem Animals | | | |\n| 10 | 16 | UWA should consider strategies that will enable it to protect all its PAs boundaries to curtail the movement problem animals outside their gazetted areas. | Implemented | UWA continues to implement various strategies such as the electric fence, use of collars and other ICT strategies and these have had positive results. |\n| 11 | 17 | UWA, in consultation with Government, should | Not Implemented | UWA has not shown evidence for engagement of |", "metadata": {"page": 246, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Audit recommendation | Status of implementation | Audit comment on resolving previous condition/problem by the actions of uwa management |\n|---:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | consider strategies for freeing the buffer zones of the communities surrounding the PA. | | government to create buffer zones. Challenges with communities continue exist. | |\n| 1 | 18 | UWA should strengthen the capacity of rangers to enable them to effectively monitor and control the movement of problem animals. | Implemented/Con tinuous | UWA rangers have received training in the management of problem animals. The Use of ICT will greatly reduce the problem animal incidences. |\n| 2 | Maintenance and rehabilitation of infrastructure within the PAs | | | |\n| 3 | 19 | UWA should develop and implement a maintenance plan for its infrastructure. This will help in planning and scheduling its maintenance activities. | Not Implemented | The Strategic long term maintainace plan has not been developed thus maninatance of infrastructure continues to be undertaken as funds are available. |\n| 4 | 20 | The management of UWA should identify appropriate staff to manage its infrastructure needs. | Implemented | UWA has recruited and trained personnel to manage infrastructure in the PAs. |\n| 5 | 21 | UWA should prioritize the maintenance of its road and water equipment to enable it increase to its capacity to rehabilitate and maintain roads, trails, tracks and ferries in the PAs. | Implemented/cont inuous | Roads in the National Parks have improved over the years due to the road equipment\u2019s and the recruited staff across the PA\u2019s. |\n| 6 | Prosecution of offenders | | | |\n| 7 | 22 | UWA should identify, recruit, train and gazette prosecutors for every CA as specified in its strategic plan. | Partially Implemented | UWA identified, recruited, trained, and designated prosecutors for each PA, but the number of offenders is rising due to the absence of a system to track down the offenders' financiers. |\n| 8 | 23 | The legal unit should be staffed adequately to manage all UWA\u2019s legal matters, including the review of the existing Wildlife Act and drafting of the regulations to operationalize the Act. | Implemented | Numerous cases have been prosecuted, and laws and other regulations have on occasion been reviewed. |\n| 9 | 24 | The UWA Management should ensure that regulations to operationalize the Act are developed and approved by the relevant authorities. | Implemented/Con tinuous | The regulations have been operationalized |", "metadata": {"page": 247, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Audit recommendation | Status of implementation as reported by mowt | Audit comment on resolving previous condition/problem by actions of management |\n|---:|:---------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Mandate and Regulatory Framework for the construction industry | | | |\n| 1 | 1 | The Ministry should refocus on its core mandate to enable effective provision of oversight in the Construction Sector. | Not Implemented | No |", "metadata": {"page": 249, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Audit recommendation | Status of implementation as reported by mowt | Audit comment on resolving previous condition/problem by actions of management |\n|---:|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 2 | The Ministry should prioritize finalization of the UCICO bill. | Partially Implemented | No |\n| 1 | 3 | The Ministry should endeavour to finalize the development of the Regulations and the Building code as planned. | Implemented | Whereas, the building regulations and code were developed, They were not widely disseminated. |\n| 2 | 4 | In addition, funding earmarked for such activities should be put to the intended purpose to enable the realization of the planned outputs. | Not implemented | No |\n| 3 | 5 | The Ministry should also prioritize the review of the roads manuals, standards and guidelines to take into account the current road traffic in the country. | Partially Implemented | Whereas some manuals have been reviewed, they have not been disseminated |\n| 4 | 6 | The Ministry should ensure that strengthening and support to the regulatory and professional bodies is prioritized as envisaged under the policy. | Partially Implemented | No |\n| 5 | Dissemination of policies , laws, guidelines and standards | | | |\n| 6 | 7 | The Ministry should always prioritize the dissemination of the standards and training of stakeholders and also ensure that funds are utilized as intended to create awareness on quality aspects in the industry. Besides holding workshops and seminars, the Ministry should also strive to strengthen its resource centre so that relevant information can be easily accessed. | Not Implemented | No |\n| 7 | Research on Construction Materials | | | |\n| 8 | 8 | The Ministry should always endeavour to carry out research activities as planned so as to promote use of new and improved technologies such as usage of local construction materials. | Partially Implemented | Partially |\n| 9 | Monitoring of compliance to construction standards | | | |\n| 10 | 9 | The Ministry should always ensure that funds received for monitoring activities are utilized as planned. | Partially Implemented | Partially |", "metadata": {"page": 250, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Audit recommendation | Status of implementation as reported by mowt | Audit comment on resolving previous condition/problem by actions of management |\n|---:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | The Ministry should ensure that Annual Performance Agreements are signed with UNRA and MoUs entered into with other Agencies like KCCA, MoLG, Local and Urban Councils to streamline their respective monitoring roles. A mechanism should be established to enable follow-up of recommendations made in the technical compliance audit reports | | | |\n| 1 | Coordination of stakeholders | | | |\n| 2 | 10 | The Ministry should put in place a proper coordination mechanism among government entities implementing public works in order to harmonize their different activities and avoid duplication and resource wastage. In addition the Ministry should expedite the enactment of the UCICO bill to enhance coordination amongst the key government institutions and other stakeholders in the sector. | Not Implemented | No |", "metadata": {"page": 251, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. of Entities | No. of recommendations issued in all Treasury Memoranda audits No. and % of recommendations implemented | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | No. and % of recommendations partially implemented | Unnamed: 5 | No. and % of recommendations not implemented | Unnamed: 7 |\n|---:|------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|:-------------|-----------------------------------------------------:|:-------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:-------------|\n| 0 | 27 | 557 177 | | 32% | 86 | 15% | 294 | 53% |", "metadata": {"page": 255, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 |\n|---:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | audit of the Treasury Memoranda. During the financial year, I undertook twenty-seven (27) audits of Treasury Memoranda. These included thirteen (13) MDAs for the financial year 2019/2020, and Value for Money reports on audit of USMID in fourteen (14) Municipal Councils for the Financial Year 2015/2016. Overall a total of 557 recommendations were made in the twenty-seven (27) Treasury Memoranda. I observed that, thirty-two percent (32%) of the recommendations were fully implemented, fifteen percent (15%) partially implemented and fifty three percent (53%) not implemented at all as summarized in the table and chart below; Table 79: Summary of treasury memoranda implementation status No. of Entities No. of recommendations issued in all Treasury Memoranda audits No. and % of recommendations implemented No. and % of recommendations partially implemented No. and % of recommendations not implemented 27 557 177 32% 86 15% 294 53% No. of Entities No. of recommendations issued in all Treasury Memoranda audits No. and % of recommendations implemented No. and % of recommendations partially implemented No. and % of recommendations not implemented 27 557 177 32% 86 15% 294 53% | Unnamed: 3 |\n| 1 | % of recommendations implemented 32% % of recommendations partially implemented 15% % of recommendations not implemented 53% Chart showing implementation of Treasury Memoranda recommendations | % of recommendations implemented 32% % of recommendations partially implemented 15% implementation of recommendations |\n| 2 | nan | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 255, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | Treasury memorandum/ Entity | No. of Recommendat ions issued | No. and % of recommendati ons implemented | Unnamed: 4 | No. and % of recommendatio ns partially implemented | Unnamed: 6 | No. and % of recommendatio ns not implemented | Unnamed: 8 |\n|---:|:------|:-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------:|--------------------------------------------:|:-------------|------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------|------------------------------------------------:|:-------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs | 12 | 8 | 66.7% | 4 | 33.3% | 0 | 0% |\n| 1 | 2.0 | State House | 9 | 7 | 77.8% | 1 | 11.1% | 1 | 11.1% |\n| 2 | 3.0 | The Judiciary | 10 | 3 | 30% | 6 | 60% | 1 | 10% |\n| 3 | 4.0 | Uganda Police Force | 16 | 7 | 43.8% | 1 | 6.2% | 8 | 50% |\n| 4 | 5.0 | Ministry of Internal Affairs | 8 | 5 | 62.5% | 3 | 37.5% | 0 | 0% |\n| 5 | 6.0 | Ministry of Works and Transport | 7 | 2 | 28.6% | 1 | 14.3% | 4 | 57.1% |\n| 6 | 7.0 | Ministry of Local Government | 7 | 2 | 28.6% | 1 | 14.3% | 4 | 57.1% |\n| 7 | 8.0 | Uganda Prison Services | 13 | 4 | 30.8% | 9 | 69.2% | 0 | 0% |\n| 8 | 9.0 | Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries | 10 | 3 | 30% | 4 | 40% | 3 | 30% |\n| 9 | 10.0 | Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development | 22 | 7 | 31.8% | 12 | 54.6% | 3 | 13.6% |\n| 10 | 11.0 | Ministry of Water and Environment | 10 | 2 | 20% | 7 | 70% | 1 | 10% |\n| 11 | 12.0 | Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development | 9 | 6 | 66.7% | 2 | 22.2% | 1 | 11.1% |\n| 12 | 13.0 | Office of the President | 12 | 6 | 50% | 5 | 41.7% | 1 | 8.3 |\n| 13 | | Total | 145 | 62 | (43%) | 56 | (37%) | 27 | (19%) |", "metadata": {"page": 256, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity | No. of recommendati ons issued (USMID & Non USMID) | No. and % of recommendations fully implemented | Unnamed: 4 | No. and % of recommendations partially implemented | Unnamed: 6 | No. and % of recommendations not implemented | Unnamed: 8 |\n|---:|:-----|:------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------:|-------------------------------------------------:|:-------------|-----------------------------------------------------:|:-------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:-------------|\n| 0 | 1.0 | Arua Municipal Council | 40 | 1 | 2.5 % | 0 | 0% | 39 | 97.5 % |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Entebbe Municipal Council | 37 | 13 | 35.1 % | 4 | 10.8 % | 20 | 54.1 % |\n| 2 | 3.0 | Fort portal Municipal Council | 32 | 18 | 56.3 % | 5 | 15.6 % | 9 | 28.1 % |\n| 3 | 4.0 | Gulu Municipal Council | 21 | 1 | 4.8 % | 0 | 0% | 20 | 95.2 % |\n| 4 | 5.0 | Hoima Municipal Council | 30 | 13 | 43.3 % | 0 | 0% | 17 | 56.7 % |\n| 5 | 6.0 | Jinja Municipal Council | 30 | 13 | 43.3 % | 4 | 13.3 % | 13 | 43.3 % |\n| 6 | 7.0 | Kabale Municipal Council | 23 | 12 | 52.2 % | 2 | 8.7% | 9 | 39.1 % |\n| 7 | 8.0 | Lira Municipal Council | 20 | 4 | 17.4 % | 3 | 13.0 % | 13 | 56.5 % |\n| 8 | 9.0 | Masaka Municipal Council | 36 | 10 | 27.8 % | 4 | 11.1 % | 22 | 61.1 % |\n| 9 | 10.0 | Mbale Municipal Council | 30 | 5 | 16.7 % | 0 | 0% | 25 | 83.3 % |\n| 10 | 11.0 | Mbarara Municipal Council | 20 | 6 | 30% | 3 | 15% | 11 | 55% |\n| 11 | 12.0 | Moroto Municipal Council | 31 | 6 | 19.4 % | 0 | 0% | 25 | 80.6 % |\n| 12 | 13.0 | Soroti Municipal Council | 28 | 10 | 35.7 % | 1 | 3.6% | 17 | 60.7 % |\n| 13 | 14.0 | Tororo Municipal Council | 34 | 3 | 8.8 % | 4 | 11.8 % | 27 | 79.4 % |\n| 14 | | Total | 412 | 115 | 27.9 % | 30 | 7.3 % | 267 | 64. 8% |", "metadata": {"page": 257, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | % funding | Expenditure (UGX) | Unspent balance | % absorption |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|:------------------------|:----------------|:------------|:--------------------|:------------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 21,275,985,774 | 21,275,985,770 | 100% | 20,628,693,548 | 647,292,222 | 97% |\n| 1 | 2 | Agago DLG | 23,720,090,630 | 23,720,090,626 | 100% | 18,119,725,462 | 5,600,365,164 | 76% |\n| 2 | 3 | Alebtong DLG | 16,372,975,211 | 15,530,457,213 | 95% | 14,606,498,985 | 923,958,228 | 94% |\n| 3 | 4 | Amolatar DLG | 13,410,143,033 | 13,410,143,032 | 100% | 12,630,925,144 | 779,217,888 | 94% |\n| 4 | 5 | Amudat DLG | 5,277,225,121 | 5,288,394,151 | 100% | 5,121,393,539 | 167,000,612 | 97% |\n| 5 | 6 | Amuria DLG | 14,757,617,095 | 14,384,377,171 | 97% | 14,373,721,775 | 10,655,396 | 100% |\n| 6 | 7 | Amuru DLG | 15,808,535,680 | 15,808,535,679 | 100% | 13,968,101,814 | 1,840,433,865 | 88% |\n| 7 | 8 | Apac DLG | 18,866,246,967 | 18,866,246,965 | 100% | 16,539,304,013 | 2,326,942,952 | 88% |\n| 8 | 9 | Arua DLG | 17,244,231,533 | 17,244,231,530 | 100% | 15,677,186,595 | 1,567,044,935 | 91% |\n| 9 | 10 | Budaka DLG | 17,490,877,446 | 17,490,877,448 | 100% | 16,062,248,469 | 1,428,628,979 | 92% |\n| 10 | 11 | Bududa DLG | 19,359,133,543 | 18,759,133,541 | 97% | 18,674,420,255 | 84,713,286 | 100% |\n| 11 | 12 | Bugiri DLG | 29,053,929,346 | 29,053,929,346 | 100% | 25,818,069,854 | 3,235,859,492 | 89% |\n| 12 | 13 | Bugweri DLG | 12,737,248,494 | 12,737,248,494 | 100% | 11,681,216,046 | 1,056,032,448 | 92% |\n| 13 | 14 | BUHWEJU DLG | 9,716,893,839 | 9,716,893,839 | 100% | 9,716,893,839 | 0 | 100% |\n| 14 | 15 | Buikwe DLG | 15,050,741,512 | 15,050,741,510 | 100% | 14,645,675,456 | 405,066,054 | 97% |\n| 15 | 16 | BUKEDEA DLG | 19,281,732,995 | 19,281,732,995 | 100% | 19,253,000,000 | 24,994,502 | 100% |\n| 16 | 17 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 14,119,104,701 | 14,119,104,700 | 100% | 12,687,928,606 | 1,431,176,094 | 90% |\n| 17 | 18 | Bukwo DLG | 15,078,896,089 | 15,078,896,088 | 100% | 14,225,727,227 | 853,168,861 | 94% |\n| 18 | 19 | Bulambuli DLG | 15,914,684,784 | 15,914,684,784 | 100% | 14,903,283,804 | 1,011,400,980 | 94% |\n| 19 | 20 | Buliisa DLG | 9,585,889,206 | 9,585,889,204 | 100% | 8,479,115,922 | 1,106,773,282 | 88% |\n| 20 | 21 | Bundibugyo DLG | 24,037,015,266 | 24,036,984,522 | 100% | 23,486,072,685 | 550,911,837 | 98% |\n| 21 | 22 | Bunyangabu DLG | 14,555,406,953 | 14,555,406,950 | 100% | 12,485,873,507 | 2,069,533,443 | 86% |\n| 22 | 23 | Bushenyi DLG | 25,324,509,221 | 25,147,957,829 | 99% | 24,471,900,421 | 676,057,408 | 97% |\n| 23 | 24 | Busia DLG | 26,272,745,135 | 26,202,822,541 | 100% | 23,798,496,651 | 2,404,325,890 | 91% |\n| 24 | 25 | Butaleja DLG | 24,647,473,789 | 24,619,413,787 | 100% | 23,119,345,643 | 1,500,068,144 | 94% |\n| 25 | 26 | Butambala DLG | 18,285,313,750 | 18,285,313,749 | 100% | 16,064,692,206 | 2,220,621,543 | 88% |\n| 26 | 27 | Butebo DLG | 11,414,167,444 | 11,414,167,441 | 100% | 11,000,157,979 | 414,009,462 | 96% |\n| 27 | 28 | Buvuma DLG | 7,786,452,209 | 7,786,235,982 | 100% | 7,342,251,582 | 443,984,400 | 94% |\n| 28 | 29 | Buyende DLG | 14,175,712,705 | 14,175,712,705 | 100% | 13,326,607,003 | 849,105,702 | 94% |\n| 29 | 30 | Dokolo DLG | 14,856,047,801 | 14,856,047,801 | 100% | 14,856,047,801 | 0 | 100% |\n| 30 | 31 | Gomba DLG | 13,834,517,245 | 13,834,517,242 | 100% | 12,786,005,430 | 1,048,511,812 | 92% |\n| 31 | 32 | Gulu DLG | 22,043,000,902 | 22,043,000,902 | 100% | 16,788,060,472 | 5,254,940,430 | 76% |\n| 32 | 33 | Hoima DLG | 14,549,869,548 | 14,549,869,545 | 100% | 14,057,752,153 | 492,117,392 | 97% |\n| 33 | 34 | Ibanda DLG | 16,841,659,135 | 16,841,659,135 | 100% | 15,730,972,917 | 1,110,686,218 | 93% |", "metadata": {"page": 259, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | % funding | Expenditure (UGX) | Unspent balance | % absorption |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|:------------------------|:----------------|:------------|:--------------------|:------------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | 35 | Iganga DLG | 29,074,379,781 | 29,074,379,781 | 100% | 28,220,513,692 | 853,866,089 | 97% |\n| 1 | 36 | Isingiro DLG | 30,141,159,255 | 30,141,159,255 | 100% | 29,804,333,607 | 336,825,648 | 99% |\n| 2 | 37 | Jinja DLG | 28,513,734,076 | 28,513,734,073 | 100% | 25,169,850,578 | 3,343,883,495 | 88% |\n| 3 | 38 | KABALE DLG | 30,824,816,708 | 30,824,816,550 | 100% | 28,879,109,541 | 1,945,707,009 | 94% |\n| 4 | 39 | Kabarole DLG | 16,157,894,627 | 16,157,894,625 | 100% | 13,712,299,802 | 2,445,594,823 | 85% |\n| 5 | 40 | Kaberamaido DLG | 11,955,658,381 | 11,955,658,381 | 100% | 10,762,277,491 | 1,193,380,890 | 90% |\n| 6 | 41 | Kagadi DLG | 24,343,694,650 | 24,343,694,647 | 100% | 19,683,167,007 | 4,660,527,640 | 81% |\n| 7 | 42 | Kakumiro DLG | 15,813,256,152 | 15,813,256,148 | 100% | 11,717,577,177 | 4,095,678,971 | 74% |\n| 8 | 43 | Kalaki DLG | 9,566,417,081 | 9,225,181,440 | 96% | 7,213,309,119 | 2,011,872,321 | 78% |\n| 9 | 44 | Kalangala DLG | 10,643,092,809 | 10,643,092,806 | 100% | 10,207,542,193 | 435,550,613 | 96% |\n| 10 | 45 | Kaliro DLG | 21,956,704,847 | 21,956,704,843 | 100% | 21,328,362,003 | 628,342,840 | 97% |\n| 11 | 46 | Kalungu DLG | 18,720,704,896 | 18,720,704,895 | 100% | 17,540,574,068 | 1,180,130,827 | 94% |\n| 12 | 47 | Kamuli DLG | 38,397,491,398 | 38,397,491,396 | 100% | 35,669,455,320 | 2,728,036,076 | 93% |\n| 13 | 48 | Kamwenge DLG | 19,311,417,326 | 19,311,417,322 | 100% | 17,311,868,791 | 1,999,548,531 | 90% |\n| 14 | 49 | KANUNGU DLG | 29,070,210,548 | 29,070,209,852 | 100% | 29,420,808,169 | -350,598,317 | 101% |\n| 15 | 50 | Kapchorwa DLG | 14,390,736,339 | 13,880,262,907 | 96% | 13,278,215,143 | 602,047,764 | 96% |\n| 16 | 51 | Kapelebyong DLG | 8,139,318,283 | 8,139,318,281 | 100% | 6,182,866,152 | 1,956,452,129 | 76% |\n| 17 | 52 | Kasanda DLG | 15,057,562,119 | 15,057,562,117 | 100% | 14,558,853,148 | 498,708,969 | 97% |\n| 18 | 53 | Kasese DLG | 54,343,466,569 | 54,343,466,567 | 100% | 54,343,466,567 | 0 | 100% |\n| 19 | 54 | Katakwi DLG | 17,623,605,265 | 17,623,605,264 | 100% | 17,422,018,731 | 201,586,533 | 99% |\n| 20 | 55 | Kayunga DLG | 29,274,333,651 | 29,274,333,651 | 100% | 27,513,528,135 | 1,760,805,516 | 94% |\n| 21 | 56 | Kazo DLG | 11,471,775,103 | 11,471,775,103 | 100% | 9,783,228,038 | 1,688,547,065 | 85% |\n| 22 | 57 | Kibaale DLG | 13,019,324,232 | 13,016,922,431 | 100% | 11,883,756,754 | 1,133,165,677 | 91% |\n| 23 | 58 | Kiboga DLG | 17,469,067,253 | 17,469,067,252 | 100% | 16,682,180,817 | 786,886,435 | 95% |\n| 24 | 59 | Kibuku DLG | 15,948,680,423 | 15,948,680,418 | 100% | 15,437,732,169 | 510,948,249 | 97% |\n| 25 | 60 | Kikuube DLG | 13,140,576,822 | 13,140,576,822 | 100% | 10,819,867,416 | 2,320,709,406 | 82% |\n| 26 | 61 | Kiruhura DLG | 11,796,051,122 | 11,796,051,119 | 100% | 11,654,778,829 | 141,272,290 | 99% |\n| 27 | 62 | Kiryandongo DLG | 18,440,086,055 | 18,407,950,051 | 100% | 15,811,997,552 | 2,595,952,499 | 86% |\n| 28 | 63 | KISORO DLG | 31,179,977,457 | 31,179,977,455 | 100% | 30,425,337,300 | 754,640,155 | 98% |\n| 29 | 64 | Kitagwenda DLG | 10,575,233,318 | 10,575,233,318 | 100% | 10,575,233,318 | 0 | 100% |\n| 30 | 65 | Kitgum DLG | 22,530,731,282 | 22,530,731,275 | 100% | 21,938,662,396 | 592,068,879 | 97% |\n| 31 | 66 | Koboko DLG | 13,879,570,999 | 13,879,570,999 | 100% | 13,099,661,264 | 779,909,735 | 94% |\n| 32 | 67 | Kole DLG | 18,103,911,681 | 18,103,911,681 | 100% | 17,681,260,227 | 422,651,454 | 98% |\n| 33 | 68 | Kumi DLG | 19,762,519,218 | 19,762,519,218 | 100% | 19,473,527,194 | 288,992,024 | 99% |\n| 34 | 69 | Kwania DLG | 16,533,169,230 | 16,533,169,229 | 100% | 12,094,634,648 | 4,438,534,581 | 73% |\n| 35 | 70 | Kween DLG | 12,704,718,745 | 12,704,718,742 | 100% | 12,287,976,346 | 416,742,396 | 97% |\n| 36 | 71 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 16,704,783,737 | 16,704,783,736 | 100% | 15,699,227,921 | 1,005,555,815 | 94% |\n| 37 | 72 | Kyegegwa DLG | 16,292,734,365 | 16,292,734,364 | 100% | 12,247,224,766 | 4,045,509,598 | 75% |", "metadata": {"page": 260, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | % funding | Expenditure (UGX) | Unspent balance | % absorption |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------|:------------------------|:----------------|:------------|:--------------------|:------------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | 73 | Kyenjojo DLG | 23,970,046,591 | 23,970,046,591 | 100% | 23,007,362,204 | 962,684,387 | 96% |\n| 1 | 74 | Kyotera DLG | 24,174,866,868 | 24,174,866,867 | 100% | 23,356,748,155 | 818,118,712 | 97% |\n| 2 | 75 | Lamwo DLG | 11,984,323,910 | 11,984,323,907 | 100% | 10,492,318,855 | 1,492,005,052 | 88% |\n| 3 | 76 | Lira DLG | 26,522,903,923 | 26,522,903,919 | 100% | 21,683,419,464 | 4,839,484,455 | 82% |\n| 4 | 77 | Luuka DLG | 18,401,484,263 | 18,401,484,263 | 100% | 17,761,693,639 | 639,790,624 | 97% |\n| 5 | 78 | Luwero DLG | 46,331,161,230 | 46,331,161,229 | 100% | 45,710,524,143 | 620,637,086 | 99% |\n| 6 | 79 | Lwengo DLG | 19,333,094,646 | 19,333,094,645 | 100% | 18,562,007,203 | 771,087,442 | 96% |\n| 7 | 80 | Lyantonde DLG | 11,184,524,017 | 11,184,524,016 | 100% | 10,816,081,122 | 368,442,894 | 97% |\n| 8 | 81 | Madi-Okollo DLG | 11,376,849,365 | 11,376,849,365 | 100% | 9,896,924,970 | 1,479,924,395 | 87% |\n| 9 | 82 | Manafwa DLG | 18,203,387,289 | 18,203,387,289 | 100% | 17,988,140,081 | 215,247,208 | 99% |\n| 10 | 83 | Maracha DLG | 18,842,106,883 | 18,578,070,217 | 99% | 15,856,531,167 | 2,721,539,050 | 85% |\n| 11 | 84 | Masaka DLG | 13,933,029,085 | 13,933,029,084 | 100% | 12,830,800,908 | 1,102,228,176 | 92% |\n| 12 | 85 | Masindi DLG | 18,647,303,219 | 18,647,303,213 | 100% | 16,785,798,709 | 1,861,504,504 | 90% |\n| 13 | 86 | Mayuge DLG | 27,490,915,125 | 27,490,915,123 | 100% | 27,354,911,792 | 136,003,331 | 100% |\n| 14 | 87 | Mbale DLG | 28,632,307,089 | 28,438,231,917 | 99% | 27,324,583,982 | 1,113,647,935 | 96% |\n| 15 | 88 | Mbarara DLG | 20,977,512,841 | 20,977,512,841 | 100% | 19,932,050,137 | 1,045,462,704 | 95% |\n| 16 | 89 | Mitooma DLG | 19,600,888,251 | 19,554,840,494 | 100% | 18,649,823,932 | 905,016,562 | 95% |\n| 17 | 90 | Mityana DLG | 22,321,206,446 | 22,321,206,442 | 100% | 21,938,232,369 | 382,974,073 | 98% |\n| 18 | 91 | Moroto DLG | 9,794,417,292 | 9,794,417,288 | 100% | 7,979,169,707 | 1,815,247,581 | 81% |\n| 19 | 92 | Moyo DLG | 15,629,773,798 | 15,629,773,798 | 100% | 15,535,223,243 | 94,550,555 | 99% |\n| 20 | 93 | Mpigi DLG | 23,097,325,180 | 23,097,325,179 | 100% | 21,998,315,683 | 1,099,009,496 | 95% |\n| 21 | 94 | Mubende DLG | 19,251,853,116 | 19,251,853,116 | 100% | 17,886,713,055 | 1,365,140,061 | 93% |\n| 22 | 95 | Mukono DLG | 37,042,074,065 | 37,042,074,063 | 100% | 35,762,862,411 | 1,279,211,652 | 97% |\n| 23 | 96 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 8,015,431,352 | 7,946,716,446 | 99% | 6,737,651,892 | 1,209,064,554 | 85% |\n| 24 | 97 | Nakaseke DLG | 21,041,974,136 | 21,041,974,134 | 100% | 21,090,108,900 | -48,134,766 | 100% |\n| 25 | 98 | Nakasongola DLG | 20,337,859,061 | 20,324,459,060 | 100% | 20,206,732,974 | 117,726,086 | 99% |\n| 26 | 99 | Namayingo DLG | 17,354,543,860 | 17,291,909,473 | 100% | 15,544,560,031 | 1,747,349,442 | 90% |\n| 27 | 100 | Namisindwa DLG | 17,181,214,818 | 17,181,214,818 | 100% | 16,646,642,549 | 460,470,348 | 97% |\n| 28 | 101 | Namutumba DLG | 20,495,416,909 | 20,495,416,909 | 100% | 19,132,547,587 | 1,362,869,322 | 93% |\n| 29 | 102 | Napak DLG | 9,537,111,166 | 9,537,245,300 | 100% | 8,751,352,032 | 785,893,268 | 92% |\n| 30 | 103 | Nebbi DLG | 22,727,411,267 | 22,727,411,263 | 100% | 21,245,113,420 | 1,482,297,843 | 93% |\n| 31 | 104 | Ngora DLG | 12,991,399,015 | 12,991,399,014 | 100% | 12,803,000,000 | 188,399,014 | 99% |\n| 32 | 105 | Ntoroko DLG | 14,305,648,823 | 14,305,648,823 | 100% | 11,238,623,906 | 3,067,024,917 | 79% |\n| 33 | 106 | Ntungamo DLG | 38,932,143,477 | 38,932,143,477 | 100% | 37,762,453,879 | 1,169,689,598 | 97% |\n| 34 | 107 | Nwoya DLG | 13,120,716,805 | 13,120,716,801 | 100% | 11,441,968,812 | 1,678,747,989 | 87% |\n| 35 | 108 | Obongi DLG | 7,783,955,441 | 7,783,955,441 | 100% | 5,870,473,221 | 1,913,482,220 | 75% |\n| 36 | 109 | Omoro DLG | 17,832,400,482 | 17,832,400,480 | 100% | 16,596,098,934 | 1,236,301,546 | 93% |\n| 37 | 110 | Otuke DLG | 11,029,204,450 | 11,029,204,449 | 100% | 10,970,229,597 | 58,974,852 | 99% |", "metadata": {"page": 261, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | % funding | Expenditure (UGX) | Unspent balance | % absorption |\n|---:|:------|:--------------|:------------------------|:------------------|:------------|:--------------------|:------------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | 111.0 | Oyam DLG | 28,362,194,271 | 28,362,194,269 | 100% | 26,395,664,569 | 1,966,529,700 | 93% |\n| 1 | 112.0 | Pader DLG | 21,201,482,940 | 21,201,482,935 | 100% | 19,918,810,401 | 1,282,672,534 | 94% |\n| 2 | 113.0 | Pakwach DLG | 13,565,531,254 | 13,565,531,254 | 100% | 11,023,025,200 | 2,542,506,054 | 81% |\n| 3 | 114.0 | Pallisa DLG | 26,644,278,619 | 25,281,617,494 | 95% | 24,812,457,725 | 469,159,769 | 98% |\n| 4 | 115.0 | Rakai DLG | 28,465,494,541 | 28,465,110,406 | 100% | 28,461,505,553 | 3,604,853 | 100% |\n| 5 | 116.0 | Rubanda DLG | 20,962,602,894 | 20,956,595,340 | 100% | 20,955,595,340 | 1,000,000 | 100% |\n| 6 | 117.0 | RUBIRIZI DLG | 12,005,850,956 | 11,946,770,836 | 100% | 11,656,902,395 | 289,868,441 | 98% |\n| 7 | 118.0 | Rukiga DLG | 18,060,510,068 | 18,057,376,828 | 100% | 15,787,174,089 | 2,270,202,739 | 87% |\n| 8 | 119.0 | RUKUNGIRI DLG | 34,985,836,675 | 34,985,836,675 | 100% | 34,027,825,621 | 958,011,054 | 97% |\n| 9 | 120.0 | RWAMPARA DLG | 16,187,299,689 | 16,187,299,689 | 100% | 12,621,237,429 | 3,566,062,260 | 78% |\n| 10 | 121.0 | Sembabule DLG | 21,119,962,052 | 21,119,950,222 | 100% | 20,771,717,621 | 348,232,601 | 98% |\n| 11 | 122.0 | Serere DLG | 21,880,221,759 | 21,880,221,757 | 100% | 20,701,324,032 | 1,178,897,725 | 95% |\n| 12 | 123.0 | Sheema DLG | 19,948,054,140 | 19,948,054,140 | 100% | 17,873,167,111 | 2,074,887,029 | 90% |\n| 13 | 124.0 | Sironko DLG | 22,888,775,100 | 22,888,775,100 | 100% | 22,881,244,332 | 7,530,768 | 100% |\n| 14 | 125.0 | Soroti DLG | 20,648,302,625 | 20,648,302,625 | 100% | 18,996,422,961 | 1,651,879,664 | 92% |\n| 15 | 126.0 | Terego DLG | 17,538,401,731 | 17,538,401,731 | 100% | 11,006,267,990 | 6,532,133,741 | 63% |\n| 16 | 127.0 | Tororo DLG | 42,378,183,779 | 40,541,864,234 | 96% | 37,241,404,538 | 3,300,459,696 | 92% |\n| 17 | 128.0 | Wakiso DLG | 43,297,839,517 | 43,297,839,354 | 100% | 42,505,215,247 | 792,624,107 | 98% |\n| 18 | 129.0 | Yumbe DLG | 26,589,448,687 | 26,589,448,687 | 100% | 24,095,881,046 | 2,493,567,641 | 91% |\n| 19 | 130.0 | Zombo DLG | 18,033,649,862 | 18,033,649,862 | 100% | 15,031,054,357 | 3,002,595,505 | 83% |\n| 20 | | | 2,539,812,346,618 | 2,532,930,356,423 | 100% | 2,356,575,342,414 | 176,355,014,007 | 93% |", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN . | Vote Name | No. of staf f | Gross Amount | Unnamed: 4 | SN ..1 | Vote Name.1 | No. of staf f.1 | Gross Amount.1 | Unnamed: 9 | SN ..2 | Vote Name.2 | No. of staff | Gross Amount.2 |\n|---:|-------:|:-------------|----------------:|:---------------|:-------------|---------:|:--------------|------------------:|:-----------------|:-------------|---------:|:--------------|---------------:|:-----------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Abim DLG | 3 | 63,473,760 | | 44 | Kagadi DLG | 1 | 24,001,280 | | 87 | Madi-Okolo | 1 | 41,098,360 |\n| 1 | 2 | Agago DLG | 8 | 160,997,644 | | 45 | Kakumiro DLG | 12 | 315,455,31 8 | | 88 | Manafwa DLG | 2 | 68,063,022 |\n| 2 | 3 | Alebtong DLG | 1 | 36,854,776 | | 46 | KalangalaDLG | 7 | 337,628,32 7 | | 89 | Masaka DLG | 5 | 161,333,036 |\n| 3 | 4 | Amolatar DLG | 29 | 1,162,044,694 | | 47 | Kaliro DLG | 2 | 50,196,866 | | 90 | Mayuge DLG | 3 | 101,087,705 |\n| 4 | 5 | Amuria DLG | 8 | 135,317,483 | | 48 | Kalungu DLG | 2 | 72,964,818 | | 91 | Mbale DLG | 16 | 522,257,654 |\n| 5 | 6 | Amuru DLG | 4 | 123,939,231 | | 49 | Kamuli MC | 2 | 167,792,42 0 | | 92 | Mbarara City | 1 | 8,580,576 |\n| 6 | 7 | Apac DLG | 2 | 15,816,992 | | 50 | Kanungu DLG | 20 | 572,263,88 3 | | 93 | Mitooma DLG | 1 | 9,157,676 |", "metadata": {"page": 262, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 8 | Apac MC | 4 | 72,508,691 | Unnamed: 4 | 51 | Kapchorwa | 1 | 43,463,017 | Unnamed: 9 | 94 | Mityana DLG | 2 | 80,820,392 |\n|---:|----:|:-----------------|----:|:-------------|:-------------|-----:|:----------------|----:|:-------------|:-------------|-----:|:-------------------|----:|:--------------|\n| 0 | 9 | Arua City | 2 | 62,817,339 | | 52 | KapchorwaDLG | 1 | 12,125,971 | | 95 | Moroto | 1 | 94,312,080 |\n| 1 | 10 | Arua DLG | 8 | 180,124,087 | | 53 | Kapchorwa MC | 4 | 190,104,98 6 | | 96 | Moyo DLG | 2 | 55,247,825 |\n| 2 | 11 | Budaka DLG | 1 | 40,620,256 | | 54 | KapelebyongDL G | 8 | 103,116,78 1 | | 97 | Mpigi DLG | 23 | 1,071,320,831 |\n| 3 | 12 | Bududa DLG | 4 | 174,251,122 | | 55 | Kasese DLG | 9 | 226,994,72 9 | | 98 | Mubende Municipa l | 1 | 2,452,632 |\n| 4 | 13 | Bugiri DLG | 2 | 66,332,339 | | 56 | Kasese MC | 4 | 110,117,58 7 | | 99 | Mukono DLG | 2 | 95,369,082 |\n| 5 | 14 | Bugiri MC | 5 | 89,963,174 | | 57 | Kassanda DLG | 5 | 196,849,90 8 | | 100 | Nakapiripiriti DLG | 11 | 249,079,055 |\n| 6 | 15 | Bugweri DLG | 3 | 119,012,668 | | 58 | Katakwi DLG | 33 | 537,829,66 6 | | 101 | Nakaseke DLG | 5 | 148,568,347 |\n| 7 | 16 | Buhweju DLG | 2 | 113,980,979 | | 59 | Kayunga DLG | 11 | 310,909,94 8 | | 102 | Nakasongola DLG | 7 | 183,397,062 |\n| 8 | 17 | Buikwe DLG | 2 | 87,770,347 | | 60 | Kazo DLG | 2 | 49,564,798 | | 103 | Namisindwa DLG | 1 | 24,691,998 |\n| 9 | 18 | Bukedea DLG | 9 | 252,299,333 | | 61 | Kibaale DLG | 1 | 33,874,924 | | 104 | Namutumba DLG | 2 | 14,421,931 |\n| 10 | 19 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 3 | 131,498,679 | | 62 | Kiboga DLG | 16 | 691,792,38 2 | | 105 | Nansana Mc | 1 | 53,681,015 |\n| 11 | 20 | Bukwo DLG | 2 | 73,236,828 | | 63 | Kibuku DLG | 4 | 115,103,02 8 | | 106 | Napak DLG | 1 | 20,081,640 |\n| 12 | 21 | Bulambuli DLG | 1 | 41,070,267 | | 64 | Kiira Mc | 1 | 37,304,444 | | 107 | Ngora DLG | 2 | 77,347,671 |\n| 13 | 22 | Bundibugyo DLG | 1 | 63,229,436 | | 65 | Kiruhura DLG | 2 | 79,651,751 | | 108 | Njeru MC | 1 | 48,916,164 |\n| 14 | 23 | Bunyangabu DLG | 2 | 19,317,012 | | 66 | Kiryandongo | 1 | 36,466,122 | | 109 | Ntoroko DLG | 1 | 21,155,736 |\n| 15 | 24 | Busia DLG | 2 | 61,685,502 | | 67 | Kisoro DLG | 3 | 118,349,38 3 | | 110 | Ntungamo DLG | 3 | 150,663,621 |\n| 16 | 25 | Butaleja DLG | 2 | 65,958,331 | | 68 | Kitagwenda DLG | 4 | 93,688,764 | | 111 | Nwoya DLG | 1 | 58,179,255 |\n| 17 | 26 | Butambala DLG | 9 | 354,619,186 | | 69 | Kitgum DLG | 4 | 43,977,685 | | 112 | Otuke DLG | 3 | 100,007,444 |\n| 18 | 27 | Butebo DLG | 14 | 347,336,209 | | 70 | Kitgum MC | 6 | 102,540,00 9 | | 113 | Oyam DLG | 2 | 144,554,705 |\n| 19 | 28 | Buvuma DLG | 8 | 123,807,518 | | 71 | Kole DLG | 1 | 9,810,528 | | 114 | Pakwach DLG | 13 | 132,612,423 |\n| 20 | 29 | Dokolo DLG | 3 | 124,697,144 | | 72 | Kumi DLG | 2 | 36,082,550 | | 115 | Pallisa DLG | 12 | 291,198,152 |\n| 21 | 30 | Entebbe MC | 16 | 859,954,841 | | 73 | Kumi MC | 5 | 117,682,72 8 | | 116 | Rakai DLG | 11 | 444,695,084 |\n| 22 | 31 | Fort Portal City | 2 | 63,945,860 | | 74 | Kwania DLG | 2 | 47,978,797 | | 117 | Rubanda DLG | 2 | 55,871,035 |\n| 23 | 32 | Gomba DLG | 18 | 537,564,524 | | 75 | Kween DLG | 5 | 192,613,79 0 | | 118 | Rukungiri DLG | 1 | 37,709,817 |", "metadata": {"page": 263, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 33 | Gulu City | 2 | 98,416,284 | Unnamed: 4 | 76 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 12 | 510,599,05 6 | Unnamed: 9 | 119 | Sembabule DLG | 1 | 3,600,000 |\n|---:|:-----|:-------------|:----|:-------------|:-------------|:-----|:-----------------|:-----|:---------------|:-------------|:------|:----------------|----:|:----------------|\n| 0 | 34.0 | Hoima DLG | 1.0 | 10,563,168 | | 77.0 | Kyegegwa DLG | 4.0 | 65,020,108 | | 120.0 | Serere DLG | 3 | 123,071,820 |\n| 1 | 35.0 | Ibanda DLG | 1.0 | 37,695,953 | | 78.0 | Kyenjojo DLG | 5.0 | 121,934,63 6 | | 121.0 | Sheema MC | 1 | 48,579,405 |\n| 2 | 36.0 | Iganga DLG | 2.0 | 77,997,424 | | 79.0 | Kyotera DLG | 9.0 | 409,104,80 0 | | 122.0 | Sironko DLG | 2 | 78,101,419 |\n| 3 | 37.0 | Iganga MC | 3.0 | 62,514,514 | | 80.0 | Lamwo DLG | 1.0 | 10,482,346 | | 123.0 | Soroti City | 4 | 83,235,068 |\n| 4 | 38.0 | Isingiro DLG | 1.0 | 54,128,401 | | 81.0 | Lira City | 4.0 | 138,901,76 3 | | 124.0 | Soroti DLG | 7 | 223,858,840 |\n| 5 | 39.0 | Jinja City | 3.0 | 35,345,286 | | 82.0 | Lira DLG | 6.0 | 130,107,42 2 | | 125.0 | Tororo DLG | 2 | 82,893,177 |\n| 6 | 40.0 | Jinja DLG | 3.0 | 83,733,164 | | 83.0 | Lugazi MC | 2.0 | 88,732,373 | | 126.0 | Tororo MC | 1 | 50,746,626 |\n| 7 | 41.0 | Kaabong DLG | 6.0 | 53,599,604 | | 84.0 | Luuka DLG | 1.0 | 36,512,261 | | 127.0 | Wakiso DLG | 4 | 195,386,238 |\n| 8 | 42.0 | Kabale DLG | 4.0 | 111,011,684 | | 85.0 | Luwero DLG | 7.0 | 348,086,63 8 | | 128.0 | Zombo DLG | 1 | 31,921,061 |\n| 9 | 43.0 | Kabale MC | 2.0 | 67,185,245 | | 86.0 | Lyantonde DLG | 2.0 | 57,265,549 | | 129.0 | Mbarara DLG | 1 | 23,939,149 |\n| 10 | | Total | | | | | | | | | | | 609 | 19,026,546,94 8 |", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff overpaid | Over payment of salaries - UGX | No. of pensioners overpaid | Over payment of pension - UGX | No. of pensioners overpaid gratuity | Over payment of gratuity - UGX | Total No. of staff/ pensioners | Total over payment - UGX |\n|---:|-----:|:---------------|:------------------------|:---------------------------------|:-----------------------------|:--------------------------------|:--------------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:---------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Agago DLG | 267 | 191,196,327 | 15 | 306,013,490 | 10 | 35,293,917 | 292 | 532,503,734 |\n| 1 | 2 | Amolatar DLG | 2 | 6,141,407 | - | - | - | - | 2 | 6,141,407 |\n| 2 | 3 | Amudat DLG | 12 | 9,172,042 | - | - | - | - | 12 | 9,172,042 |\n| 3 | 4 | Amuria DLG | - | - | | 6,118,452 | - | - | - | 6,118,452 |\n| 4 | 5 | Amuru DLG | 316 | 240,956,760 | - | - | 4 | 20,960,445 | 320 | 261,917,205 |\n| 5 | 6 | Apac DLG | 305 | 289,606,752 | 21 | 63,719,643 | 13 | 114,019,350 | 339 | 467,345,745 |\n| 6 | 7 | Bududa DLG | 76 | 4,201,863 | 12 | 3,814,906 | - | - | 88 | 8,016,769 |\n| 7 | 8 | Bugweri DLG | 4 | 12,218,934 | - | - | - | - | 4 | 12,218,934 |\n| 8 | 9 | Buhweju DLG | 3 | 11,632,768 | - | - | - | - | 3 | 11,632,768 |\n| 9 | 10 | Bukedea DLG | 2 | 2,079,000 | - | - | 2 | 4,886,650 | 4 | 6,965,650 |\n| 10 | 11 | Bukwo DLG | 6 | 5,014,787 | | | | | 6 | 5,014,787 |\n| 11 | 12 | Buliisa DLG | 3 | 185,952 | - | - | - | - | 3 | 185,952 |\n| 12 | 13 | Bundibugyo DLG | 4 | 2,596,174 | - | - | - | - | 4 | 2,596,174 |\n| 13 | 14 | Bunyangabu DLG | - | - | 1 | 1,254,669 | - | - | 1 | 1,254,669 |", "metadata": {"page": 264, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 15 | Busia DLG | - | -.1 | 6 | 6,106,392 | -.2 | -.3 | 6.1 | 6,106,392.1 |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|:----|:------------|:----|:------------|:------|:-----------|:------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 16 | Butaleja DLG | 4 | 3,586,208 | 4 | 2,804,668 | | | 8 | 6,390,876 |\n| 1 | 17 | Butambala DLG | 6 | 2,557,693 | 2 | 91,466 | - | - | 8 | 2,649,159 |\n| 2 | 18 | Butebo DLG | 47 | 87,266,942 | 1 | 4,877,817 | | | 48 | 92,144,759 |\n| 3 | 19 | Dokolo DLG | 5 | 3,056,043 | 3 | 3,264,438 | - | - | 8 | 6,320,481 |\n| 4 | 20 | Gomba DLG | 1 | 956,585 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 956,585 |\n| 5 | 21 | Gulu DLG | - | - | 1 | 5,146,400 | - | - | 1 | 5,146,400 |\n| 6 | 22 | Hoima DLG | 13 | 6,111,973 | 4 | 915,759 | - | - | 17 | 7,027,732 |\n| 7 | 23 | Jinja DLG | 4 | 2,129,357 | - | - | - | - | 4 | 2,129,357 |\n| 8 | 24 | Kaberamaido DLG | 18 | 23,958,485 | 3 | 669,814 | - | - | 21 | 24,628,299 |\n| 9 | 25 | Kaliro DLG | 135 | 285,976,606 | 32 | 777,616,336 | - | - | 167 | 1,063,592,942 |\n| 10 | 26 | Kamuli DLG | - | - | 3 | 17,418,396 | - | - | 3 | 17,418,396 |\n| 11 | 27 | Kanungu DLG | 4 | 5,717,905 | - | - | - | - | 4 | 5,717,905 |\n| 12 | 28 | Kapelebyong DLG | 3 | 1,765,908 | - | - | - | - | 3 | 1,765,908 |\n| 13 | 29 | Kasanda DLG | 27 | 15,293,916 | | | | | 27 | 15,293,916 |\n| 14 | 30 | Kasese DLG | 4 | 698,659 | - | - | - | - | 4 | 698,659 |\n| 15 | 31 | Katakwi DLG | 12 | 6,937,546 | - | - | - | - | 12 | 6,937,546 |\n| 16 | 32 | Kayunga DLG | | 723,674 | - | - | - | - | - | 723,674 |\n| 17 | 33 | Kazo DLG | 6 | 1,799,529 | 1 | 684,126 | 1 | 26,824 | 8 | 2,510,479 |\n| 18 | 34 | Kibaale DLG | 3 | 1,259,797 | - | - | 1 | 4,387,638 | 4 | 5,647,435 |\n| 19 | 35 | Kiboga DLG | 5 | 2,950,495 | 3 | 740,633 | - | - | 8 | 3,691,128 |\n| 20 | 36 | Kikuube DLG | - | - | - | - | 4 | 24,438,089 | 4 | 24,438,089 |\n| 21 | 37 | Kiryandongo DLG | 32 | 23,496,128 | - | - | - | - | 32 | 23,496,128 |\n| 22 | 38 | Kitagwenda DLG | 14 | 9,703,322 | - | - | 3 | 6,526,823 | 17 | 16,230,145 |\n| 23 | 39 | Koboko DLG | 16 | 9,725,864 | 2 | 617,388 | - | - | 18 | 10,343,252 |\n| 24 | 40 | Kole DLG | 9 | 10,355,488 | - | - | - | - | 9 | 10,355,488 |\n| 25 | 41 | Kwania DLG | 31 | 10,998,352 | 11 | 5,999,040 | - | - | 42 | 16,997,392 |\n| 26 | 42 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 7 | 5,380,630 | 1 | 1,061,078 | - | - | 8 | 6,441,708 |\n| 27 | 43 | Kyegegwa DLG | 18 | 4,113,500 | - | - | 3 | 7,073,127 | 21 | 11,186,627 |\n| 28 | 44 | Kyenjojo DLG | 5 | 2,915,122 | 1 | 1,441,878 | - | - | 6 | 4,357,000 |\n| 29 | 45 | Lamwo DLG | 46 | 10,356,930 | 6 | 593,404 | - | - | 52 | 10,950,334 |\n| 30 | 46 | Lwengo DLG | 2 | 1,203,776 | - | - | - | - | 2 | 1,203,776 |\n| 31 | 47 | Lyantonde DLG | 14 | 29,361,140 | - | - | - | - | 14 | 29,361,140 |\n| 32 | 48 | Masindi DLG | 10 | 5,049,517 | - | - | - | - | 10 | 5,049,517 |\n| 33 | 49 | Mbale DLG | - | - | 1 | 7,004,740 | 4 | 18,675,277 | 5 | 25,680,017 |", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 15 | Busia DLG | - | -.1 | 6 | 6,106,392 | -.2 | -.3 | 6.1 | 6,106,392.1 |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------|----:|:-----------|:----|:------------|:------|:----------|------:|:--------------|\n| 0 | 50 | Mbarara DLG | 4 | 931,611 | | | | | 4 | 931,611 |\n| 1 | 51 | Moroto DLG | 3 | 10,907,516 | 44 | 20,346,066 | - | - | 47 | 31,253,582 |\n| 2 | 52 | Mukono DLG | 16 | 18,258,007 | 4 | 5,596,903 | 1 | 1,960,420 | 21 | 25,815,330 |\n| 3 | 53 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 18 | 6,143,716 | - | - | 3 | 1,492,448 | 21 | 7,636,164 |", "metadata": {"page": 265, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 54 | Nakaseke DLG | 4 | 6,978,540 | 4.1 | 2,117,167 | - | -.1 | 8 | 9,095,707 |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:------|:--------------|:------|:--------------|:----|:------------|:------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 55.0 | Nakasongola DLG | 14 | 18,794,400 | - | - | 1 | 355,048 | 15 | 19,149,448 |\n| 1 | 56.0 | Namayingo DLG | 9 | 2,253,878 | - | - | - | - | 9 | 2,253,878 |\n| 2 | 57.0 | Namisindwa DLG | 22 | 23,079,544 | 2 | 8,090,403 | 2 | 9,557,304 | 26 | 40,727,251 |\n| 3 | 58.0 | Napak DLG | - | 58,510,166 | - | - | - | - | - | 58,510,166 |\n| 4 | 59.0 | Ngora DLG | 29 | 76,499,843 | | | | | 29 | 76,499,843 |\n| 5 | 60.0 | Ntoroko DLG | 155 | 208,305,344 | 4 | 4,532,888 | - | - | 159 | 212,838,232 |\n| 6 | 61.0 | Ntungamo DLG | - | 4,598,279 | - | - | - | - | - | 4,598,279 |\n| 7 | 62.0 | Omoro DLG | 32 | 19,781,169 | 1 | 27,945,196 | | | 33 | 47,726,365 |\n| 8 | 63.0 | Otuke DLG | 8 | 5,713,368 | - | - | - | - | 8 | 5,713,368 |\n| 9 | 64.0 | Oyam DLG | 1 | 3,774,067 | | | | | 1 | 3,774,067 |\n| 10 | 65.0 | Pader DLG | 8 | 51,073,867 | - | - | 1 | 7,023,295 | 9 | 58,097,162 |\n| 11 | 66.0 | Pakwach DLG | 12 | 7,458,530 | 1 | 202,510 | - | - | 13 | 7,661,040 |\n| 12 | 67.0 | Pallisa DLG | 40 | 6,800,938 | 9 | 3,627,432 | - | - | 49 | 10,428,370 |\n| 13 | 68.0 | Rubirizi DLG | 1 | 298,134 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 298,134 |\n| 14 | 69.0 | Rwampara DLG | 11 | 2,312,108 | - | - | - | - | 11 | 2,312,108 |\n| 15 | 70.0 | Serere DLG | 171 | 335,083,437 | - | - | - | - | 171 | 335,083,437 |\n| 16 | 71.0 | Sironko DLG | 14 | 3,490,982 | 2 | 842,597 | - | - | 16 | 4,333,579 |\n| 17 | 72.0 | Soroti DLG | 5 | 3,928,822 | - | - | - | - | 5 | 3,928,822 |\n| 18 | 73.0 | Terego DLG | - | 26,393,927 | - | - | - | - | - | 26,393,927 |\n| 19 | 74.0 | Tororo DLG | 7 | 9,466,335 | 3 | 2,606,557 | - | - | 10 | 12,072,892 |\n| 20 | 75.0 | Yumbe DLG | - | - | - | - | 9 | 25,364,789 | 9 | 25,364,789 |\n| 21 | | | 2,085 | 2,261,246,384 | 208 | 1,293,882,652 | 62 | 282,041,444 | 2,355 | 3,837,170,480 |", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff who were underpai d | Under payment of salaries | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of pension | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid.1 | Under payment of gratuity | Total No. of staff/pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of salaries pension and gratuity |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|-----------------------------------:|:----------------------------|:----------------------------------------|:---------------------------|:------------------------------------------|:----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 289 | 338,144,717 | 7 | 31,251,071 | 2 | 107,682,956 | 298 | 477,078,744 |\n| 1 | 2 | Agago DLG | 196 | 213,927,108 | 161 | 416,373,103 | 19 | 232,511,286 | 376 | 862,811,497 |\n| 2 | 3 | Amolatar DLG | 5 | 12,754,770 | 59 | 88,318,430 | 16 | 79,248,632 | 80 | 180,321,832 |\n| 3 | 4 | Amudat DLG | 7 | 12,933,634 | - | - | - | - | 7 | 12,933,634 |\n| 4 | 5 | Amuria DLG | 4 | 5,914,978 | 248 | 93,068,807 | 5 | 176,603,659 | 257 | 275,587,444 |\n| 5 | 6 | Amuru DLG | 81 | 138,033,946 | 5 | 18,120,573 | 8 | 213,327,409 | 94 | 369,481,928 |\n| 6 | 7 | Apac DLG | 197 | 256,043,359 | 49 | 102,149,811 | 9 | 98,852,490 | 255 | 457,045,660 |\n| 7 | 8 | Arua DLG | 73 | 90,817,463 | - | - | 2 | 60,092,237 | 75 | 150,909,700 |\n| 8 | 9 | Budaka DLG | 8 | 2,805,893 | | | | | 8 | 2,805,893 |", "metadata": {"page": 266, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff who were underpai d | Under payment of salaries | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of pension | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid.1 | Under payment of gratuity | Total No. of staff/pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of salaries pension and gratuity |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|:-----------------------------------|:----------------------------|:----------------------------------------|:---------------------------|:------------------------------------------|:----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 10 | Bududa DLG | 94 | 8,982,815 | 5 | 3,316,086 | 6 | 203,674,935 | 105 | 215,973,836 |\n| 1 | 11 | Bugiri DLG | - | - | 10 | 21,022,685 | 3 | 121,501,539 | 13 | 142,524,224 |\n| 2 | 12 | Bugweri DLG | 3 | 5,125,601 | 5 | 12,842,774 | 9 | 137,397,413 | 17 | 155,365,788 |\n| 3 | 13 | Buikwe DLG | - | - | 15 | 26,058,557 | 5 | 177,892,183 | 20 | 203,950,740 |\n| 4 | 14 | Bukedea DLG | 7 | 5,313,652 | 2 | 34,969,922 | 7 | 209,591,259 | 16 | 249,874,833 |\n| 5 | 15 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 12 | 9,047,876 | 90 | 38,756,917 | - | - | 102 | 47,804,793 |\n| 6 | 16 | Bukwo DLG | 23 | 35,669,357 | | | | | 23 | 35,669,357 |\n| 7 | 17 | Bulambuli DLG | - | - | 187 | 71,610,435 | 1 | 23,566,380 | 188 | 95,176,815 |\n| 8 | 18 | Buliisa DLG | 3 | 2,708,435 | 47 | 30,073,266 | 2 | 5,425,611 | 52 | 38,207,312 |\n| 9 | 19 | Bundibugyo DLG | 16 | 9,178,494 | 4 | 6,026,349 | - | - | 20 | 15,204,843 |\n| 10 | 20 | Bunyangabu DLG | 2 | 2,530,857 | 1 | 569,320 | - | - | 3 | 3,100,177 |\n| 11 | 21 | Bushenyi DLG | - | - | 30 | 12,376,617 | 8 | 305,004,490 | 38 | 317,381,107 |\n| 12 | 22 | Busia DLG | - | - | 2 | 1,577,517 | | | 2 | 1,577,517 |\n| 13 | 23 | Butaleja DLG | 68 | 24,180,690 | 3 | 3,555,982 | | | 71 | 27,736,672 |\n| 14 | 24 | Butambala DLG | 3 | 6,481,445 | 2 | 2,705,527 | 6 | 192,512,007 | 11 | 201,698,979 |\n| 15 | 25 | Butebo DLG | 50 | 34,887,626 | 1 | 25,466,082 | 64 | 95,318,676 | 115 | 155,672,384 |\n| 16 | 26 | Buvuma DLG | 4 | 2,230,712 | 14 | 14,964,616 | - | - | 18 | 17,195,328 |\n| 17 | 27 | Dokolo DLG | 46 | 15,742,029 | 162 | 110,730,395 | 23 | 424,425,296 | 231 | 550,897,720 |\n| 18 | 28 | Gomba DLG | 3 | 2,284,615 | 1 | 2,358,948 | - | - | 4 | 4,643,563 |\n| 19 | 29 | Gulu DLG | 5 | 4,002,323 | 49 | 65,798,802 | 1 | 20,453,988 | 55 | 90,255,113 |\n| 20 | 30 | Hoima DLG | 7 | 4,712,242 | 6 | 1,870,184 | 3 | 3,484,671 | 16 | 10,067,097 |\n| 21 | 31 | Ibanda DLG | - | - | - | - | 1 | 28,231,704 | 1 | 28,231,704 |\n| 22 | 32 | Iganga DLG | 4 | 3,935,595 | 4 | 2,431,370 | - | - | 8 | 6,366,965 |\n| 23 | 33 | Jinja DLG | - | - | 27 | 8,998,580 | 13 | 101,566,787 | 40 | 110,565,367 |\n| 24 | 34 | Kabarole DLG | - | - | 76 | 101,124,563 | - | - | 76 | 101,124,563 |\n| 25 | 35 | Kaberamaido DLG | - | - | 18 | 29,363,296 | - | - | 18 | 29,363,296 |\n| 26 | 36 | Kagadi DLG | 22 | 42,058,162 | - | - | - | - | 22 | 42,058,162 |\n| 27 | 37 | Kakumiro DLG | 3 | 1,421,228 | 4 | 5,136,250 | 3 | 113,235,820 | 10 | 119,793,298 |\n| 28 | 38 | Kalaki DLG | - | - | - | - | 8 | 326,315,306 | 8 | 326,315,306 |\n| 29 | 39 | Kalangala DLG | - | - | 3 | 17,200,004 | 1 | 92,516,779 | 4 | 109,716,783 |\n| 30 | 40 | Kaliro DLG | 78 | 113,866,976 | 126 | 402,997,247 | | | 204 | 516,864,223 |\n| 31 | 41 | Kalungu DLG | - | - | 15 | 7,589,987 | - | - | 15 | 7,589,987 |\n| 32 | 42 | Kamuli DLG | - | - | - | - | 5 | 149,741,260 | 5 | 149,741,260 |\n| 33 | 43 | Kamwenge DLG | 3 | 187,280 | - | - | 6 | 5,293,037 | 9 | 5,480,317 |", "metadata": {"page": 267, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff who were underpai d | Under payment of salaries | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of pension | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid.1 | Under payment of gratuity | Total No. of staff/pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of salaries pension and gratuity |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|:-----------------------------------|:----------------------------|:----------------------------------------|:---------------------------|:------------------------------------------|:----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 44 | Kanungu DLG | - | - | - | - | 4 | 263,704,899 | 4 | 263,704,899 |\n| 1 | 45 | Kapchorwa DLG | | | 10 | 14,969,562 | 7 | 195,621,317 | 17 | 210,590,879 |\n| 2 | 46 | Kapelebyong DLG | 2 | 2,307,928 | - | - | 5 | 174,436,001 | 7 | 176,743,929 |\n| 3 | 47 | Kasanda DLG | 1 | 1,753,636 | 1 | 10,120,082 | 1 | 17,794,970 | 3 | 29,668,688 |\n| 4 | 48 | Kasese DLG | 3 | 1,390,657 | 14 | 4,406,935 | - | - | 17 | 5,797,592 |\n| 5 | 49 | Katakwi DLG | 54 | 40,907,518 | 48 | 76,443,176 | 15 | 421,214,313 | 117 | 538,565,007 |\n| 6 | 50 | Kayunga DLG | 15 | 18,498,602 | 15 | 16,884,967 | 25 | 773,212,876 | 55 | 808,596,445 |\n| 7 | 51 | Kazo DLG | 12 | 6,788,897 | 4 | 10,002,470 | 1 | 29,141,798 | 17 | 45,933,165 |\n| 8 | 52 | Kibaale DLG | - | - | 258 | 81,164,138 | 10 | 365,675,621 | 268 | 446,839,759 |\n| 9 | 53 | Kiboga DLG | 26 | 25,149,343 | - | - | - | - | 26 | 25,149,343 |\n| 10 | 54 | Kibuku DLG | 4 | 3,067,412 | | | | | 4 | 3,067,412 |\n| 11 | 55 | Kikuube DLG | 1 | 494,805 | 1 | 308,282 | 2 | 43,703,577 | 4 | 44,506,664 |\n| 12 | 56 | Kiruhura DLG | - | - | 1 | 2,383,476 | - | - | 1 | 2,383,476 |\n| 13 | 57 | Kiryandongo DLG | 9 | 4,647,021 | 14 | 15,148,551 | 1 | 74,145,857 | 24 | 93,941,429 |\n| 14 | 58 | Kisoro DLG | 4 | 11,439,927 | - | - | 3 | 71,723,587 | 7 | 83,163,514 |\n| 15 | 59 | Kitagwenda DLG | 8 | 6,168,285 | 54 | 56,498,685 | - | - | 62 | 62,666,970 |\n| 16 | 60 | Kitgum DLG | 29 | 6,021,536 | 42 | 9,412,673 | 2 | 62,240,795 | 73 | 77,675,004 |\n| 17 | 61 | Koboko DLG | 54 | 32,378,510 | 7 | 3,463,836 | 4 | 104,185,813 | 65 | 140,028,159 |\n| 18 | 62 | Kole DLG | - | - | 15 | 8,887,640 | 19 | 690,555,744 | 34 | 699,443,384 |\n| 19 | 63 | Kumi DLG | 4 | 3,354,732 | 39 | 28,610,769 | | | 43 | 31,965,501 |\n| 20 | 64 | Kwania DLG | 36 | 13,882,408 | 38 | 32,191,016 | 5 | 96,640,142 | 79 | 142,713,566 |\n| 21 | 65 | Kween DLG | - | - | 4 | 539,295 | 1 | 7,608,376 | 5 | 8,147,671 |\n| 22 | 66 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 16 | 12,601,201 | 9 | 2,551,977 | 8 | 199,565,944 | 33 | 214,719,122 |\n| 23 | 67 | Kyegegwa DLG | 9 | 2,871,067 | - | - | - | - | 9 | 2,871,067 |\n| 24 | 68 | Kyenjojo DLG | 493 | 483,068,356 | 1 | 5,219,498 | - | - | 494 | 488,287,854 |\n| 25 | 69 | Kyotera DLG | 16 | 9,078,536 | 19 | 56,263,454 | 12 | 524,778,525 | 47 | 590,120,515 |\n| 26 | 70 | Lamwo DLG | 199 | 72,385,357 | 65 | 172,870,554 | 5 | 218,812,963 | 269 | 464,068,874 |\n| 27 | 71 | Lira DLG | 54 | 87,787,056 | 309 | 474,851,062 | - | - | 363 | 562,638,118 |\n| 28 | 72 | Luuka DLG | - | - | - | - | 1 | 28,119,444 | 1 | 28,119,444 |\n| 29 | 73 | Lwengo DLG | 11 | 15,516,433 | 3 | 1,839,683 | 11 | 254,289,430 | 25 | 271,645,546 |\n| 30 | 74 | Lyantonde DLG | 16 | 3,581,341 | 2 | 8,183,991 | 26 | 565,278,652 | 44 | 577,043,984 |\n| 31 | 75 | Madi-Okollo DLG | 68 | 96,909,820 | - | - | - | - | 68 | 96,909,820 |\n| 32 | 76 | Manafwa DLG | 13 | 47,240,560 | 18 | 519,091,647 | | | 31 | 566,332,207 |\n| 33 | 77 | Masindi DLG | 3 | 1,403,523 | 1 | 2,910,457 | 5 | 98,907,353 | 9 | 103,221,333 |", "metadata": {"page": 268, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff who were underpai d | Under payment of salaries | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of pension | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid.1 | Under payment of gratuity | Total No. of staff/pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of salaries pension and gratuity |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------|:-----------------------------------|:----------------------------|:----------------------------------------|:---------------------------|:------------------------------------------|:----------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 78 | Mayuge DLG | 9 | 5,117,190 | 35 | 549,849,727 | - | - | 44 | 554,966,917 |\n| 1 | 79 | Mbarara DLG | 11 | 3,905,284 | 9 | 10,596,690 | - | - | 20 | 14,501,974 |\n| 2 | 80 | Mitooma DLG | - | - | - | 98,613,476 | - | - | - | 98,613,476 |\n| 3 | 81 | Mityana DLG | - | - | 13 | 10,042,822 | - | - | 13 | 10,042,822 |\n| 4 | 82 | Moroto DLG | 22 | 19,477,973 | 8 | 125,233,020 | - | - | 30 | 144,710,993 |\n| 5 | 83 | Moyo DLG | 8 | 5,309,700 | - | - | - | - | 8 | 5,309,700 |\n| 6 | 84 | Mpigi DLG | - | - | 43 | 117,041,487 | 13 | 348,339,516 | 56 | 465,381,003 |\n| 7 | 85 | Mukono DLG | 25 | 37,704,450 | 22 | 42,056,195 | 7 | 48,523,554 | 54 | 128,284,199 |\n| 8 | 86 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 32 | 29,234,183 | 4 | 2,243,958 | - | - | 36 | 31,478,141 |\n| 9 | 87 | Nakaseke DLG | 362 | 157,188,123 | 22 | 35,843,396 | 11 | 581,662,571 | 395 | 774,694,090 |\n| 10 | 88 | Nakasongola DLG | 10 | 28,977,489 | 20 | 34,617,273 | 5 | 94,366,350 | 35 | 157,961,112 |\n| 11 | 89 | Namayingo DLG | 11 | 1,472,229 | - | - | - | - | 11 | 1,472,229 |\n| 12 | 90 | Namisindwa DLG | 8 | 18,968,499 | 6 | 15,100,565 | 13 | 248,323,808 | 27 | 282,392,872 |\n| 13 | 91 | Namutumba DLG | 6 | 6,196,198 | 10 | 40,730,382 | 4 | 239,392,283 | 20 | 286,318,863 |\n| 14 | 92 | Napak DLG | 50 | 94,263,918 | 32 | 416,640,546 | 2 | 47,056,178 | 84 | 557,960,642 |\n| 15 | 93 | Ngora DLG | 70 | 121,306,601 | 145 | 549,800,981 | 145 | 549,800,981 | 360 | 1,220,908,563 |\n| 16 | 94 | Ntoroko DLG | 230 | 318,281,939 | 5 | 2,854,253 | - | - | 235 | 321,136,192 |\n| 17 | 95 | Ntungamo DLG | | | 2 | 6,463,912 | 4 | 184,789,280 | 6 | 191,253,192 |\n| 18 | 96 | Nwoya DLG | - | - | 2 | 29,890,706 | 1 | 9,910,534 | 3 | 39,801,240 |\n| 19 | 97 | Omoro DLG | 7 | 6,134,159 | 2 | 3,301,822 | 26 | 1,194,067,882 | 35 | 1,203,503,863 |\n| 20 | 98 | Otuke DLG | 37 | 24,183,765 | 22 | 42,146,396 | - | - | 59 | 66,330,161 |\n| 21 | 99 | Oyam DLG | 37 | 21,196,691 | 27 | 19,724,462 | 22 | 906,177,763 | 86 | 947,098,916 |\n| 22 | 100 | Pader DLG | - | - | 1 | 290,625 | 1 | 9,979,858 | 2 | 10,270,483 |\n| 23 | 101 | Pakwach DLG | 61 | 59,456,395 | 1 | 10,875,544 | - | - | 62 | 70,331,939 |\n| 24 | 102 | Pallisa DLG | 29 | 3,611,512 | 16 | 2,657,568 | - | - | 45 | 6,269,080 |\n| 25 | 103 | Rakai DLG | - | - | - | - | 1 | 9,673,288 | 1 | 9,673,288 |\n| 26 | 104 | Rubanda DLG | 5 | 1,552,173 | - | - | - | - | 5 | 1,552,173 |\n| 27 | 105 | Rubirizi DLG | - | - | 1 | 192,419 | 1 | 14,692,860 | 2 | 14,885,279 |\n| 28 | 106 | Rukiga DLG | 14 | 20,505,827 | 59 | 36,139,199 | - | - | 73 | 56,645,026 |\n| 29 | 107 | Rukungiri DLG | 20 | 11,415,980 | 72 | 63,457,909 | - | - | 92 | 74,873,889 |\n| 30 | 108 | Rwampara DLG | - | - | 12 | 3,200,265 | 7 | 12,072,957 | 19 | 15,273,222 |\n| 31 | 109 | Sembabule DLG | - | - | 153 | 129,347,924 | 2 | 80,197,985 | 155 | 209,545,909 |\n| 32 | 110 | Serere DLG | 117 | 34,040,580 | 12 | 121,121,672 | 219 | 177,623,830 | 348 | 332,786,082 |", "metadata": {"page": 269, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff who were underpai d | Under payment of salaries | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of pension | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid.1 | Under payment of gratuity | Total No. of staff/pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of salaries pension and gratuity |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|-----------------------------------:|:----------------------------|----------------------------------------:|:---------------------------|------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 111 | Sironko DLG | 9 | 3,872,313 | 36 | 2,867,938 | 2 | 714,996 | 47 | 7,455,247 |", "metadata": {"page": 269, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff who were underpai d | Under payment of salaries | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of pension | No. of pensioner s who were underpaid.1 | Under payment of gratuity | Total No. of staff/pensioner s who were underpaid | Under payment of salaries pension and gratuity |\n|---:|:------|:--------------|:-----------------------------------|:----------------------------|:----------------------------------------|:---------------------------|:------------------------------------------|:----------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 112.0 | Soroti DLG | 21 | 15,324,596 | 188 | 140,522,267 | 6 | 23,802,065 | 215 | 179,648,928 |\n| 1 | 113.0 | Terego DLG | 96 | 130,798,898 | 11 | 13,187,310 | 3 | 3,850,503 | 110 | 147,836,711 |\n| 2 | 114.0 | Tororo DLG | 10 | 7,972,574 | 43 | 63,172,825 | - | - | 53 | 71,145,399 |\n| 3 | 115.0 | Wakiso DLG | - | - | - | - | 15 | 577,145,734 | 15 | 577,145,734 |\n| 4 | 116.0 | Yumbe DLG | - | - | 37 | 27,601,152 | 18 | 427,362,122 | 55 | 454,963,274 |\n| 5 | 117.0 | Zombo DLG | 9 | 4,844,677 | 99 | 134,221,254 | 8 | 221,218,434 | 116 | 360,284,365 |\n| 6 | | | 3,802 | 3,608,932,26 1 | 3,600 | 6,327,639,88 9 | 945 | 14,997,571,13 9 | 8,347 | 24,934,143,28 9 |", "metadata": {"page": 270, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff paid using wrong scales | Under payment arising from wrong scales | Over payment arising from wrong scales | No. of staff paid using wrong level/notches | Under payment arising from wrong level/notches | Over payment arising from wrong level/notches |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|:---------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Agago DLG | 7 | 253,333 | 17,436,731 | 863 | 169,595,207 | 61,164,847 |\n| 1 | 2 | Alebtong DLG | | | | 489 | 42,848,922 | 96,681,173 |\n| 2 | 3 | Amolatar DLG | | 5 | 2,114,363 | - | - | - |\n| 3 | 4 | Amudat DLG | - | - | - | 131 | 8,821,147 | 5,465,374 |\n| 4 | 5 | Amuria DLG | 42 | 3,310,908 | - | - | - | - |\n| 5 | 6 | Amuru DLG | 4 | - | 7,438,884 | 536 | 94,590,275 | 24,633,475 |\n| 6 | 7 | Apac DLG | 6 | | 12,833,073 | 389 | 22,860,451 | 198,379,825 |\n| 7 | 8 | Arua DLG | - | - | - | 140 | 31,728,599 | - |\n| 8 | 9 | Budaka DLG | | | | 209 | 8,973,673 | 3,088,257 |\n| 9 | 10 | Bududa DLG | - | - | - | 460 | 13,060,926 | 5,487,101 |\n| 10 | 11 | Bugiri DLG | 27 | | 71,427,978 | 42 | 35,951,507 | |\n| 11 | 12 | Buikwe DLG | - | - | - | 138 | 18,082,106 | - |\n| 12 | 13 | Bukedea DLG | | | | 362 | 35,722,692 | 40,742,603 |\n| 13 | 14 | Bukomansimbi DLG | - | - | - | 163 | 2,543,387 | 7,883,236 |\n| 14 | 15 | Bukwo DLG | | | | | | |\n| 15 | 16 | Bulambuli DLG | | | | 261 | 47,362,610 | 10,434,972 |\n| 16 | 17 | Buliisa DLG | - | - | - | 56 | 2,290,202 | 220,492 |\n| 17 | 18 | Bundibugyo DLG | - | - | - | 880 | 27,345,851 | 4,937,210 |\n| 18 | 19 | Bunyangabu DLG | - | - | - | 230 | 5,386,346 | 377,164 |\n| 19 | 20 | Bushenyi DLG | | | | 187 | 8,777,441 | 20,013,665 |", "metadata": {"page": 270, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff paid using wrong scales | Under payment arising from wrong scales | Over payment arising from wrong scales | No. of staff paid using wrong level/notches | Under payment arising from wrong level/notches | Over payment arising from wrong level/notches |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|:---------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 21 | Busia DLG | 526 | 114,540,178 | | 367 | | 104,363,281 |\n| 1 | 22 | Butaleja DLG | | | | 49 | 600,770 | 1,496,834 |\n| 2 | 23 | Butambala DLG | - | - | - | 330 | 8,631,522 | 8,305,699 |\n| 3 | 24 | Butebo DLG | | | | | | |\n| 4 | 25 | Buvuma DLG | | | | 82 | 8,899,760 | |\n| 5 | 26 | Buyende DLG | | | | | | |\n| 6 | 27 | Dokolo DLG | 205 | - | 8,307,936 | - | - | - |\n| 7 | 28 | Gomba DLG | - | - | - | 151 | 9,041,655 | 435,105 |\n| 8 | 29 | Gulu DLG | | | | 391 | 2,598,635 | 15,872,018 |\n| 9 | 30 | Hoima DLG | 1 | 1,353,483 | - | 258 | 22,996,795 | - |\n| 10 | 31 | Ibanda DLG | - | - | - | 357 | 40,083,283 | - |\n| 11 | 32 | Iganga DLG | - | - | - | 47 | 4,299,277 | - |\n| 12 | 33 | Jinja DLG | - | - | - | 84 | 6,960,776 | 9,343,440 |\n| 13 | 34 | Kabarole DLG | - | - | - | 179 | 5,093,655 | - |\n| 14 | 35 | Kaberamaido DLG | - | - | - | 17 | 1,401,733 | 864,048 |\n| 15 | 36 | Kagadi DLG | 1 | - | 1,210,200 | 780 | 71,130,186 | 203,395,477 |\n| 16 | 37 | Kakumiro DLG | - | - | - | 273 | 49,631,274 | 26,569,115 |\n| 17 | 38 | Kalaki DLG | - | - | - | 263 | 41,653,446 | 23,948,209 |\n| 18 | 39 | Kalangala DLG | - | - | - | 106 | 1,717,422 | 4,327,751 |\n| 19 | 40 | Kaliro DLG | - | - | - | 70 | 1,403,312 | 40,233,766 |\n| 20 | 41 | Kalungu DLG | 2 | 1,534,598 | - | 20 | 5,499,498 | - |\n| 21 | 42 | Kamuli DLG | 78 | 32,076,919 | | 103 | 31,056,654 | |\n| 22 | 43 | Kanungu DLG | - | - | - | 61 | 19,905,739 | - |\n| 23 | 44 | Kapchorwa DLG | | | | 19 | 3,890,327 | 198,410 |\n| 24 | 45 | Kapelebyong DLG | 5 | 4,136,458 | 3,288,552 | - | - | - |\n| 25 | 46 | Kasanda DLG | | | | 561 | 11,780,802 | 7,665,567 |\n| 26 | 47 | Katakwi DLG | 5 | 3,685,562 | 1,284,374 | 25 | 12,662,460 | 4,339,693 |\n| 27 | 48 | Kayunga DLG | - | - | - | 1,274 | 37,654,341 | 14,039,665 |\n| 28 | 49 | Kazo DLG | - | - | - | 465 | 5,518,263 | 6,545,454 |\n| 29 | 50 | Kibaale DLG | - | - | - | 362 | 20,451,084 | 77,187,636 |\n| 30 | 51 | Kiboga DLG | 16 | 3,117,933 | 898,152 | 169 | 86,200,355 | 935,967 |\n| 31 | 52 | Kibuku DLG | | | | 254 | 56,363,333 | 27,254,2 |\n| 32 | 53 | Kikuube DLG | 4 | 1,607,592 | 190,704 | 67 | 650,211 | 1,758,260 |\n| 33 | 54 | Kiryandongo DLG | - | - | - | 470 | 4,378,478 | 10,968,244 |\n| 34 | 55 | Kitagwenda DLG | - | - | - | 413 | 8,829,370 | 6,374,332 |", "metadata": {"page": 271, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff paid using wrong scales | Under payment arising from wrong scales | Over payment arising from wrong scales | No. of staff paid using wrong level/notches | Under payment arising from wrong level/notches | Over payment arising from wrong level/notches |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------|:---------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 56 | Kitgum DLG | - | - | - | 391 | 763,096 | 606,107 |\n| 1 | 57 | Koboko DLG | - | - | - | 18 | 2,660,905 | 111,924 |\n| 2 | 58 | Kole DLG | - | - | - | 38 | 496,625 | 1,179,765 |\n| 3 | 59 | Kumi DLG | | | | 46 | | 3,071,498 |\n| 4 | 60 | Kwania DLG | 4 | | 6,495,660 | 386 | 33,811,755 | 98,064,057 |\n| 5 | 61 | Kween DLG | - | - | - | 40 | 2,471,699 | 1,942,501 |\n| 6 | 62 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 1 | 36,934 | | 692 | 13,241,598 | 1,371,444 |\n| 7 | 63 | Lamwo DLG | | | | | | |\n| 8 | 64 | Lira DLG | 41 | 61,153,105 | 2,309,916 | 54 | 6,721,709 | 21,187,494 |\n| 9 | 65 | Luuka DLG | - | - | - | 533 | 78,856,224 | - |\n| 10 | 66 | Luwero DLG | 84 | 1,192,717 | 58,795,487 | 1,021 | 159,782,804 | 37,639,077 |\n| 11 | 67 | Lwengo DLG | - | - | - | 161 | - | 1,746,555 |\n| 12 | 68 | Lyantonde DLG | - | - | - | 240 | 36,810,142 | 27,421,239 |\n| 13 | 69 | Madi-Okollo DLG | 3 | - | 13,028,412 | 364 | 44,922,682 | 45,822,211 |\n| 14 | 70 | Manafwa DLG | 49 | 2,999,221 | 3,992,491 | 39 | 2,326,483 | 17,700 |\n| 15 | 71 | Maracha DLG | - | - | - | 456 | 73,736,882 | 30,404,695 |\n| 16 | 72 | Masaka DLG | - | - | - | 146 | 19,477,354 | - |\n| 17 | 73 | Masindi DLG | 4 | 5,229,989 | 3,909,912 | 518 | 37,616,384 | 102,025,875 |\n| 18 | 74 | Mayuge DLG | - | - | - | 212 | 34,170,782 | 1,954,848 |\n| 19 | 75 | Mbale DLG | - | - | - | 32 | 3,304,547 | 16,095,368 |\n| 20 | 76 | Mitooma DLG | - | - | - | 82 | 28,040,621 | - |\n| 21 | 77 | Moroto DLG | - | - | - | 362 | 36,171,133 | 11,516,460 |\n| 22 | 78 | Moyo DLG | - | - | - | 258 | 15,445,842 | 21,578,973 |\n| 23 | 79 | Mpigi DLG | - | - | - | 51 | 28,003,018 | - |\n| 24 | 80 | Mubende DLG | - | - | - | 212 | 4,885,857 | 6,158,210 |\n| 25 | 81 | Mukono DLG | 28 | 607,972,506 | 19,830,096 | 506 | 144,933,326 | - |\n| 26 | 82 | Nakapiripirit DLG | - | - | - | 177 | 2,319,250 | 2,421,098 |\n| 27 | 83 | Nakaseke DLG | - | - | - | 93 | 5,177,017 | 1,278,305 |\n| 28 | 84 | Nakasongola DLG | - | - | - | 504 | 7,403,212 | 525,752 |\n| 29 | 85 | Namayingo DLG | - | - | - | 261 | 45,716,806 | 3,392,736 |\n| 30 | 86 | Namisindwa DLG | - | - | - | 511 | 9,882,656 | 27,680,666 |\n| 31 | 87 | Namutumba DLG | - | - | - | 40 | 26,837,268 | 1,229,349 |\n| 32 | 88 | Napak DLG | - | - | - | 212 | 28,658,716 | 45,396,242 |\n| 33 | 89 | Nebbi DLG | - | - | - | 362 | 46,976,448 | 101,224,523 |\n| 34 | 90 | Ntoroko DLG | - | - | - | 293 | 1,831,126 | 12,231,749 |", "metadata": {"page": 272, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff paid using wrong scales | Under payment arising from wrong scales | Over payment arising from wrong scales | No. of staff paid using wrong level/notches | Under payment arising from wrong level/notches | Over payment arising from wrong level/notches |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------|:---------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 91 | Ntungamo DLG | | | | 38 | 77,373,232 | 57,891,803 |\n| 1 | 92 | Nwoya DLG | | | | 88 | 39,414,847 | 85,363,741 |\n| 2 | 93 | Obongi DLG | 4 | 7,265,792 | - | 199 | 70,737,767 | 3,798,637 |\n| 3 | 94 | Omoro DLG | - | - | - | 315 | 24,376,694 | 52,233,032 |\n| 4 | 95 | Otuke DLG | 17 | 1,814,595 | 177,032,782 | - | - | - |\n| 5 | 96 | Oyam DLG | 38 | 13,951,723 | 70,258,148 | 790 | 39,126,815 | 154,466,990 |\n| 6 | 97 | Pader DLG | - | - | - | 391 | 2,317,452 | 191,600 |\n| 7 | 98 | Pakwach DLG | 2 | - | 18,607,482 | - | - | - |\n| 8 | 99 | Pallisa DLG | 4 | 584,148 | 3,711,420 | 273 | 6,434,068 | 62,905,178 |\n| 9 | 100 | Rukiga DLG | 10 | 191,531 | 194,053 | - | - | - |\n| 10 | 101 | Rwampara DLG | - | - | - | 443 | 6,307,817 | 5,880,119 |\n| 11 | 102 | Sheema DLG | | | | 74 | 7,495,398 | 14,067,459 |\n| 12 | 103 | Sironko DLG | 10 | 119,920 | 1,980,710 | 453 | 43,856,129 | 58,378,657 |\n| 13 | 104 | Soroti DLG | 7 | 4,261,245 | 3,744,507 | 42 | 16,978,770 | - |\n| 14 | 105 | Tororo DLG | 22 | 12,150,421 | 22,627,236 | 588 | 73,940,429 | 199,769,615 |\n| 15 | Wakiso DLG | - | - | - | 86 | 6,285,305 | - | |\n| 16 | 107 | Yumbe DLG | 7 | 2,265,548 | 14,018,628 | 1,115 | 21,182,667 | 17,762,314 |\n| 17 | 108 | Zombo DLG | - | - | - | 363 | 76,580,061 | - |\n| 18 | | | 1,264 | 886,806,364 | 532,949,259 | 28,172 | 2,652,787,176 | 2,386,682,931 |", "metadata": {"page": 273, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Over remittance of PAYE | Under- remittance of PAYE | Over remittance of LST | Under- remittance of LST | Over remittance of loans | Under- remittance of loans | Over remittance of other payroll deductions (union and association contributio ns, etc) | Under- remittance of other payroll deductions (union and association contribution s, etc) |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|:--------------------------|:----------------------------|:-------------------------|:---------------------------|:---------------------------|:-----------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 0 | 204,206,903 | 0 | 3,846,250 | 0 | 13,156,758 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 2 | Agago DLG | 0 | 3,772,687 | 0 | 31,521,778 | 0 | 9,547,276 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 3 | Amolatar DLG | 160,111,278 | 0 | 0 | 6,966,432 | 0 | 715,428 | 0 | 1,510,025 |\n| 3 | 4 | Apac DLG | 0 | 525,659,888 | 0 | 39,245,725 | 0 | 124,165,139 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 5 | Budaka DLG | 41,893,449 | 0 | 3,825,000 | 0 | 17,086,910 | 0 | 674,386 | 0 |\n| 5 | 6 | Bududa DLG | 20,767,556 | 0 | 0 | 5,389,000 | 6,170,615 | 0 | 0 | 220,684 |\n| 6 | 7 | Bugiri DLG | 0 | 567,722 | 0 | 552,500 | 2,411,911 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 8 | Bukedea DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26,395,654 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 9 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 43,797,626 | 0 | 0 | 5,735,149 | 169,091,765 | 0 | 0 | 11,278,906 |\n| 9 | 10 | Bukwo DLG | 0 | 90,269,334 | 7,698,520 | 0 | 2,569,674 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 11 | Bulambuli DLG | 0 | 0 | 5,476,922 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 12 | Bundibugyo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,104,012 |\n| 12 | 13 | Bunyangabu DLG | 0 | 6,400,315 | 0 | 0 | 1,760,337 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 14 | Butambala DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3,974,011 | 2,256,030 | 0 |\n| 14 | 15 | Butebo DLG | 0 | 164,624,486 | 0 | 121,494,672 | 22,054,301 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 16 | Buvuma DLG | 5,868,914 | 0 | 0 | 4,158,192 | 0 | 978,192 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 17 | Buyende DLG | 0 | 152,849,891 | 0 | 102,791 | 0 | 26,888,463 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 18 | Gomba DLG | 190,320,830 | 0 | 4,387,500 | 0 | 0 | 8,301,783 | 0 | 6,575,433 |\n| 18 | 19 | Gulu DLG | 0 | 823,501 | 0 | 2,532,500 | 0 | 15,558,712 | 0 | 10,107,854 |\n| 19 | 20 | Ibanda DLG | 13,223,527 | 0 | 5,221,010 | 0 | 0 | 17,255,317 | 0 | 858,140 |\n| 20 | 21 | Iganga DLG | 21,398,075 | 0 | 2,952,750 | 0 | 0 | 55,467,638 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 22 | Kabarole DLG | 0 | 41,280,379 | 0 | 9,188,750 | 0 | 43,056,522 | 0 | 2,492,103 |\n| 22 | 23 | Kaberamaido DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,669,891 |\n| 23 | 24 | Kalaki DLG | 0 | 646,070,920 | 0 | 33,333,750 | 0 | 308,716,572 | 0 | 15,098,511 |\n| 24 | 25 | Kaliro DLG | 0 | 3,430,866 | 2,127,411,711 | 0 | 43,133,746 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 26 | Kamuli DLG | 0 | 366,965,426 | 6,349,338 | 0 | 0 | 94,946,039 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 27 | Kamwenge DLG | 0 | 4,349,917 | 0 | 110,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 28 | Kanungu DLG | 0 | 210,430,753 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 29 | Kapelebyong DLG | 0 | 40,899,302 | 0 | 722,500 | 0 | 3,219,386 | 0 | 557,851 |", "metadata": {"page": 274, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Over remittance of PAYE | Under- remittance of PAYE | Over remittance of LST | Under- remittance of LST | Over remittance of loans | Under- remittance of loans | Over remittance of other payroll deductions (union and association contributio ns, etc) | Under- remittance of other payroll deductions (union and association contribution s, etc) |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------|:--------------------------|:----------------------------|:-------------------------|:---------------------------|:---------------------------|:-----------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 30 | Kasanda DLG | 34,238,685 | 0 | 24,351,111 | 0 | 7,421,158 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 31 | Kasese DLG | 50,323,268 | 0 | 1,100,000 | 0 | 1,098,637 | 0 | 0 | 1,569,845 |\n| 2 | 32 | Katakwi DLG | 12,837,742 | 0 | 603,750 | 0 | 16,341,645 | 0 | 0 | 1,926,596 |\n| 3 | 33 | Kazo DLG | 0 | 32,152,613 | 3,586,951 | 0 | 0 | 10,076,515 | 0 | 2,009,830 |\n| 4 | 34 | Kibuku DLG | 0 | 0 | 8,708,757 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 35 | Kiruhura DLG | 298,848 | 0 | 0 | 554,772 | 1,713,506 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 36 | Kisoro DLG | 0 | 9,369,790 | 0 | 37,851,490 | 222,787,561 | 0 | 0 | 2,943,417 |\n| 7 | 37 | Kitagwenda DLG | 0 | 119,729,596 | 0 | 31,437,519 | 0 | 51,441,866 | 0 | 1,003,508 |\n| 8 | 38 | Kole DLG | 0 | 47,270,021 | 5,545,380 | 0 | 95,900,089 | 0 | 0 | 2,353,456 |\n| 9 | 39 | Kumi DLG | 0 | 60,076,895 | 0 | 6,921,689 | 10,031,234 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 40 | Kwania DLG | 0 | 461,309,217 | 84,417,328 | 0 | 0 | 63,862,249 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 41 | Kween DLG | 0 | 19,361,360 | 2,265,000 | 0 | 0 | 394,808 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 42 | Kyegegwa DLG | 19,368,937 | 0 | 0 | 4,441,178 | 5,835,407 | 0 | 0 | 12,150 |\n| 13 | 43 | Kyenjojo DLG | 0 | 222,972,734 | 2,929,248 | 0 | 0 | 15,040,370 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 44 | Kyotera DLG | 11,183,105 | 0 | 16,878,159 | 0 | 911,228 | 0 | 0 | 21,233,357 |\n| 15 | 45 | Lamwo DLG | 0 | 202,897,742 | 3,912,446 | 0 | 0 | 39,783,714 | 0 | 2,977,389 |\n| 16 | 46 | Lira DLG | 4,740,375 | 0 | 0 | 9,979,802 | 0 | 35,838,133 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 47 | Lwengo DLG | 0 | 3,897,903 | 2,257,219 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,814,311 |\n| 18 | 48 | Lyantonde DLG | 9,114,066 | 0 | 17,038,700 | 0 | 2,200,933 | 0 | 0 | 16,910,573 |\n| 19 | 49 | Masaka DLG | 0 | 111,063,599 | 5,856,750 | 0 | 0 | 67,372,131 | 0 | 11,822,336 |\n| 20 | 50 | Mayuge DLG | 0 | 13,674,418 | 1,412,418 | 0 | 0 | 1,572,530 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 51 | Mitooma DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4,606,474 |\n| 22 | 52 | Mityana DLG | 0 | 58,348,383 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 53 | Moroto DLG | 128,227,013 | 0 | 3,631,020 | 0 | 4,811,416 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 54 | Mukono DLG | 0 | 274,009,652 | 0 | 8,126,880 | 0 | 12,562,585 | 0 | 1,317,586 |\n| 25 | 55 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 0 | 3,299,655 | 0 | 155,296 | 0 | 18,234,095 | 0 | 134,514 |\n| 26 | 56 | Nakaseke DLG | 0 | 428,478,570 | 0 | 22,952,500 | 0 | 453,160,665 | 0 | 1,729,595 |\n| 27 | 57 | Nakasongola DLG | 0 | 199,410,841 | 1,058,032 | 0 | 0 | 80,805,484 | 0 | 549,352 |\n| 28 | 58 | Namayingo DLG | 0 | 6,818,328 | 0 | 2,732,500 | 0 | 7,018,008 | 0 | 0 |\n| 29 | 59 | Namutumba DLG | 0 | 11,184,353 | 675,656 | 0 | 0 | 940,502 | 0 | 0 |\n| 30 | 60 | Napak DLG | 0 | 35,976,122 | 0 | 10,703,165 | 0 | 11,705,036 | 9,169,174 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 275, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Over remittance of PAYE | Under- remittance of PAYE | Over remittance of LST | Under- remittance of LST | Over remittance of loans | Under- remittance of loans | Over remittance of other payroll deductions (union and association contributio ns, etc) | Under- remittance of other payroll deductions (union and association contribution s, etc) |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------|:--------------------------|:----------------------------|:-------------------------|:---------------------------|:---------------------------|:-----------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 61.0 | Ntoroko DLG | 0 | 611,258,653 | 0 | 17,196,250 | 984,148 | 0 | 0 | 2,901,697 |\n| 1 | 62.0 | Oyam DLG | 0 | 7,341,501 | 1,897,741 | 0 | 0 | 658,667 | 0 | 179,356 |\n| 2 | 63.0 | Pader DLG | 213,984,251 | 0 | 217,100,724 | 0 | 19,552,928 | 0 | 0 | 15,257,249 |\n| 3 | 64.0 | Rakai DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,536,235 | 0 | 0 | 1,608,550 |\n| 4 | 65.0 | Rubanda DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17,861,661 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 66.0 | Rukiga DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,257,887 | 0 | 0 | 294,312 |\n| 6 | 67.0 | Rukungiri DLG | 0 | 3,124,470 | 1,688,711 | 0 | 35,109,885 | 0 | 2,670,980 | 0 |\n| 7 | 68.0 | Rwampara DLG | 0 | 6,915,972 | 0 | 1,923,750 | 0 | 226,769 | 0 | 17,655,816 |\n| 8 | 69.0 | Serere DLG | 101,394,233 | 0 | 0 | 5,322,470 | 47,580,981 | 0 | 2,467,232 | 0 |\n| 9 | 70.0 | Sheema DLG | 0 | 224,393,404 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 71.0 | Sironko DLG | 0 | 692,077 | 0 | 411,656 | 119,713 | 0 | 0 | 133,946 |\n| 11 | 72.0 | Soroti DLG | 206,660,833 | 0 | 0 | 1,309,602 | 0 | 1,638,969 | 76,565 | 0 |\n| 12 | 73.0 | Terego DLG | 0 | 36,952,586 | 0 | 10,662,940 | 29,011,783 | 0 | 296,047 | 0 |\n| 13 | 74.0 | Zombo DLG | 212,128,102 | 0 | 24,464,077 | 0 | 132,200,831 | 0 | 7,960,021 | 0 |\n| 14 | | Total | 1,501,880,713 | 5,470,375,842 | 2,583,748,085 | 451,598,859 | 902,686,464 | 1,611,519,228 | 25,570,435 | 164,418,625 |", "metadata": {"page": 276, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of political leaders and commissioners not subjected to PAYE | Amount of DPOL and DSC gratuity not subject to PAYE | PAYE not deducted | No. of political leaders and commissioners not subjected to PAYE on IPPS but deducted and remitted off the payroll | Amount of DPOL and DSC gratuity not subject to PAYE on IPPS but deducted and remitted off the payroll | PAYE deducted and remitted off the payroll |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Alebtong DLG | 19 | 40,687,200 | 13,300,960 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 2 | Amolatar DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 38,469,600 | 10,917,729 |\n| 2 | 3 | Amudat DLG | 0 | 21,710,400 | 7,772,520 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 4 | Amuria DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 12,723,997 | 12,723,997 |\n| 4 | 5 | Amuru DLG | 0 | 42,540,000 | 11,911,080 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 6 | Arua DLG | 0 | 6,178,846 | 1,853,653 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 7 | Budaka DLG | 0 | | | 19.0 | 3,845,140 | 3,583,813 |\n| 7 | 8 | Bududa DLG | 0 | 45,511,200 | 13,562,160 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 9 | Bukedea DLG | 23 | 44,402,400 | 13,709,520 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 10 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.0 | 39,268,846 | 11,196,171 |\n| 10 | 11 | Buliisa DLG | 0 | 35,503,200 | 10,745,760 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 12 | Butebo DLG | 12 | 37,808,861 | 10,819,458 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 13 | Dokolo DLG | 0 | 27,409,800 | 7,815,060 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 14 | Hoima DLG | 0 | 37,758,046 | 11,329,114 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 15 | Kagadi DLG | 0 | 71,100,000 | 20,757,360 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 16 | Kakumiro DLG | 0 | 63,930,046 | 19,273,814 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 17 | Kalaki DLG | 17 | 41,105,630 | 12,540,089 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 18 | Kalangala DLG | 0 | 38,715,646 | 11,264,534 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 19 | Kaliro DLG | 13 | 33,682,846 | 10,205,854 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 20 | Kanungu DLG | 1 | 5,603,200 | 899,550 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 21 | Kapelebyong DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 42,784,800 | 14,350,840 |\n| 21 | 22 | Kasese DLG | 1 | 1,837,200 | 106,200 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 23 | Katakwi DLG | 26 | 55,030,846 | 16,604,054 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 24 | Kibaale DLG | 4 | 36,656,860 | 2,471,538 | 2.0 | 10,000,000 | 560,000 |\n| 24 | 25 | Kiboga DLG | 0 | 36,656,860 | 2,471,538 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 26 | Kibuku DLG | 0 | 51,157,661 | 15,442,098 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 27 | Kiruhura DLG | 0 | 40,775,260 | 14,181,682 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 28 | Kween DLG | 1 | 4,119,230 | 1,235,769 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 29 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 24 | 53,959,646 | 7,884,694 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 29 | 30 | Kyegegwa DLG | 0 | 51,157,661 | 15,344,098 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 30 | 31 | Kyenjojo DLG | 2 | 3,715,200 | 1,114,560 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 277, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 32 | Lyantonde DLG | 7 | 13,018,800 | 1,383,330 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 |\n|---:|:-----|:------------------|----:|:--------------|:------------|----:|:------------|:------------|\n| 0 | 33.0 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 35,914,846 | 3,465,801 |\n| 1 | 34.0 | Maracha DLG | 0 | 74,312,446 | 2,233,558 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 35.0 | Mayuge DLG | 0 | 35,503,200 | 6,674,560 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 36.0 | Mbarara DLG | 0 | 13,429,246 | 3,583,813 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 37.0 | Mityana DLG | 7 | 11,505,600 | 1,546,800 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 38.0 | Moroto DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 46,708,060 | 14,107,218 |\n| 6 | 39.0 | Mpigi DLG | 0 | 45,037,245 | 20,555,147 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 40.0 | Mukono DLG | 23 | 36,656,860 | 2,471,538 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 41.0 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 0 | 4,119,230 | 1,652,673 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 42.0 | Nakaseke DLG | 0 | 0 | 14,903,640 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 43.0 | Namutumba DLG | 1 | 6,178,846 | 1,951,654 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 44.0 | Ngora DLG | 1 | 6,178,846 | 1,436,749 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 45.0 | Obongi DLG | 0 | 37,918,984 | 11,271,395 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 46.0 | Pallisa DLG | 0 | 30,701,600 | 7,763,210 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 47.0 | Rubirizi DLG | 17 | 39,476,400 | 11,808,720 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 48.0 | Serere DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 209,789,813 | 41,534,545 |\n| 16 | 49.0 | Sheema DLG | 1 | 3,330,400 | 901,120 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 50.0 | Soroti DLG | 19 | 46,131,646 | 12,082,340 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 51.0 | Yumbe DLG | 0 | 20,560,702 | 6,262,010 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | | Total | 219 | 1,352,773,796 | 363,098,974 | 50 | 439,505,102 | 112,440,114 |", "metadata": {"page": 278, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of pensioners with inaccurate computation of gratuity | Under payment arising from inaccurate computation of gratuity | Over payment arising from inaccurate computation of gratuity | No. of pensioners with inaccurate computation of pension | Under payment arising from inaccurate computation of pension | Over payment arising from inaccurate computation of pension |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 2 | 1,257,342 | 3,528,740 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 2 | Apac DLG | 1 | 0 | 31,990,188 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 3 | Arua DLG | 7 | 13,712,209 | 19,986,825 | 12 | 2,228,079 | 3,186,751 |\n| 3 | 4 | Bududa DLG | 7 | 2,893,388 | 0 | 16 | 189,197 | 1,102,663 |\n| 4 | 5 | Bugiri DLG | 5 | 66,275,774 | 32,300,364 | 3 | 797,536 | 5,891,178 |\n| 5 | 6 | Bugweri DLG | 5 | 21,597,796 | 288,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 7 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 1 | 2,073,619 | 3,769,815 | 1 | 23,040 | 41,887 |\n| 7 | 8 | Bukwo DLG | 1 | 0 | 876,008 | 1 | 0 | 537,813 |\n| 8 | 9 | Buliisa DLG | 2 | 5,807,914 | 0 | 2 | 45,477 | 0 |\n| 9 | 10 | Gulu DLG | 3 | 2,325,648 | 1,411,474 | 2 | 0 | 8,172,877 |", "metadata": {"page": 278, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 11 | Katakwi DLG | 7 | 22,571,164 | 20,949,565 | 7.1 | 2,175,600 | 0 |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|----:|:-------------|:-------------|------:|:------------|:-----------|\n| 0 | 12.0 | Kiboga DLG | 4 | 1,893,498 | 0 | 4 | 326,173 | 0 |\n| 1 | 13.0 | Kikuube DLG | 5 | 7,908,859 | 24,438,088 | 6 | 88,634 | 256,233 |\n| 2 | 14.0 | Kiryandongo DLG | 12 | 37,442,310 | 5,990,065 | 1 | 269,741 | 0 |\n| 3 | 15.0 | Kitgum DLG | 6 | 2,976,777 | 0 | 3 | 167,283 | 0 |\n| 4 | 16.0 | Koboko DLG | 6 | 4,509,870 | 1,189,700 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 17.0 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 5 | 0 | 472,181 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 18.0 | Kyotera DLG | 14 | 4,796,691 | 631,238 | 20 | 26,431,230 | 3,361,191 |\n| 7 | 19.0 | Lamwo DLG | 2 | 4,550,166 | 1,302,142 | 2 | 1,245,660 | 0 |\n| 8 | 20.0 | Lwengo DLG | 8 | 776,331 | 2,430,141 | 8 | 105,051 | 512,757 |\n| 9 | 21.0 | Lyantonde DLG | 1 | 2,262,466 | 0 | 1 | 50,278 | 0 |\n| 10 | 22.0 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 3 | 0 | 1,729,513 | 2 | 0 | 2,269,386 |\n| 11 | 23.0 | Masindi DLG | 20 | 55,896,349 | 23,011,404 | 21 | 628,379 | 255,682 |\n| 12 | 24.0 | Mubende DLG | 4 | 59,371,898 | 0 | 5 | 24,832,927 | 0 |\n| 13 | 25.0 | Mukono DLG | 17 | 54,884,324 | 49,065,820 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 26.0 | Namisindwa DLG | 28 | 13,563,515 | 2,319,952 | 28 | 395,935 | 420,120 |\n| 15 | 27.0 | Namutumba DLG | 3 | 0 | 14,892,594 | 2 | 0 | 157,645 |\n| 16 | 28.0 | Napak DLG | 2 | 349,287 | 8,902,518 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 29.0 | Omoro DLG | 11 | 9,599,685 | 2,008,334 | 11 | 106,664 | 22,315 |\n| 18 | 30.0 | Pakwach DLG | 3 | 7,664,267 | 5,567,181 | 3 | 84,252 | 4,024,152 |\n| 19 | 31.0 | Pallisa DLG | 5 | 1,062,400 | 1,486,749 | 5 | 613,916 | 11,804 |\n| 20 | 32.0 | Rubirizi DLG | 1 | 21,904,611 | 0 | 4 | 875,070 | 0 |\n| 21 | 33.0 | Sironko DLG | 8 | 2,781,855 | 632,440 | 9 | 182,918 | 2,180,651 |\n| 22 | 34.0 | Terego DLG | 3 | 3,850,502 | 0 | 3 | 79,460 | 0 |\n| 23 | 35.0 | Tororo DLG | 2 | 0 | 9,346,921 | 19 | 0 | 21,257,937 |\n| 24 | 36.0 | Wakiso DLG | 1 | 53,862 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 37.0 | Yumbe DLG | 7 | 6,056,595 | 5,945,586 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | | Total | 222 | 442,670,972 | 276,463,546 | 201 | 61,942,500 | 53,663,042 |", "metadata": {"page": 279, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staf f who dela yed to acce ss payr oll | Aver age delay s to acce ss the wage payr oll (mon ths) | No. of staff with outstandi ng payments by end of FY arising from delayed access by newly recruited/ transferre d staff | Amount outstanding arising from delayed access by newly recruited/tr ansferred staff | No. of pensioners /beneficiari es who delayed to access payroll | Average delays to access the pension payroll (month s) | No. of pensioner s/benefic iaries with outstandi ng payments by end of FY | Amount outstanding arising from delayed access by pensioners/b eneficiaries | No. of staff who dela yed to be remo ved from the payr oll | Aver age delay s to leave the wage payr oll (mon ths) | Amount paid to employees after expected date of removal |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|-------------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 75 | | 11.0 | 41,825,767 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 191,552,907 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 2 | Agago DLG | 29 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 9.0 | 51.0 | 1.0 | 6,535,930 | 8 | 7.0 | 14,470,403 |\n| 2 | 3 | Alebtong DLG | 17 | 4.0 | 14.0 | 13,229,127 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 2,705,671 | 1 | 3.0 | 2,823,002 |\n| 3 | 4 | Amolatar DLG | 9 | 1.0 | 9.0 | 15,213,034 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 6.0 | 17,112,541 | 8 | 4.0 | 7,063,729 |\n| 4 | 5 | Amudat DLG | 10 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 919,776 | 1.0 | 24.0 | 1.0 | 2,266,678 | 9 | 11.0 | 6,123,981 |\n| 5 | 6 | Amuria DLG | 54 | 12.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 7,014,100 | 4 | 7.0 | 17,539,906 |\n| 6 | 7 | Amuru DLG | 11 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 39.0 | 6.0 | 34.0 | | 15 | 24.0 | 36,600,909 |\n| 7 | 8 | Apac DLG | 66 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 35,473,604 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 19,479,285 | 12 | 8.0 | 30,004,274 |\n| 8 | 9 | Arua DLG | 4 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 15.0 | 110.0 | 21.0 | 133,398,427 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 10 | Budaka DLG | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 8.0 | 1.0 | 8.0 | 9,144,554 | 4 | | 3,606,481 |\n| 10 | 11 | Bududa DLG | 40 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 39.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 12 | Bugiri DLG | 28 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 24.0 | 2.0 | 6.0 | 15,006,365 | 16 | 2.0 | 16,746,826 |\n| 12 | 13 | Bugweri DLG | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 10.0 | 3.0 | 10.0 | 3,293,092 | 20 | 3.0 | 20,180,820 |\n| 13 | 14 | Buikwe DLG | 4 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 811,412 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 4 | 3.0 | 3,108,770 |\n| 14 | 15 | Bukedea DLG | 88 | 2.0 | 7.0 | 1,056,509 | 14.0 | 10.0 | 7.0 | 26,002,978 | 4 | 4.0 | 6,249,830 |\n| 15 | 16 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 0 | 0.0 | 11.0 | 6,341,595 | 9.0 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 1.0 | 328,631 |\n| 16 | 17 | Bulambuli DLG | 23 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 17.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 | 2.0 | 1,890,278 |\n| 17 | 18 | Buliisa DLG | 5 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 2,571,831 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 9,344,438 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 19 | Bundibugyo DLG | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 4.0 | 14.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 7 | 3.0 | 5,807,914 |\n| 19 | 20 | Bunyangabu DLG | 4 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 384,294 | 8.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 1.0 | 350,258 |\n| 20 | 21 | Bushenyi DLG | 10 | 2.0 | 6.0 | 10,499,223 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3,463,621 | 5 | 3.0 | 4,899,863 |\n| 21 | 22 | Busia DLG | 65 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 28.0 | 10.0 | 20.0 | 16,939,486 | 19 | 12.0 | 25,074,073 |\n| 22 | 23 | Butaleja DLG | 25 | 1.0 | | | | | | | 3 | 6.0 | 1,856,100 |\n| 23 | 24 | Butambala DLG | 7 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 3 | 6.0 | 2,247,315 |\n| 24 | 25 | Butebo DLG | 27 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 8.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 15 | 2.0 | 15,180,497 |", "metadata": {"page": 280, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staf f who dela yed to acce ss payr oll | Aver age delay s to acce ss the wage payr oll (mon ths) | No. of staff with outstandi ng payments by end of FY arising from delayed access by newly recruited/ transferre d staff | Amount outstanding arising from delayed access by newly recruited/tr ansferred staff | No. of pensioners /beneficiari es who delayed to access payroll | Average delays to access the pension payroll (month s) | No. of pensioner s/benefic iaries with outstandi ng payments by end of FY | Amount outstanding arising from delayed access by pensioners/b eneficiaries | No. of staff who dela yed to be remo ved from the payr oll | Aver age delay s to leave the wage payr oll (mon ths) | Amount paid to employees after expected date of removal |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|:-------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 26 | Buvuma DLG | 28.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2,108,118 |\n| 1 | 27 | Buyende DLG | 9.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 15,530,331 | 16 | 4.0 | 16.0 | 12,408,972 | | | |\n| 2 | 28 | Dokolo DLG | 2.0 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 9 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 4,038,474 |\n| 3 | 29 | Gomba DLG | 28.0 | 2.0 | 11.0 | 16,039,658 | 4 | 16.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4,191,898 |\n| 4 | 30 | Gulu DLG | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 8,073,588 |\n| 5 | 31 | Hoima DLG | 12.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 4,353,766 | 18 | 65.0 | 12.0 | 16,610,474 | 9.0 | 1.0 | 5,407,462 |\n| 6 | 32 | Ibanda DLG | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 8 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2,667,772 |\n| 7 | 33 | Iganga DLG | 47.0 | 2.0 | 46.0 | 29,675,874 | 6 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 8,900,893 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 1,828,155 |\n| 8 | 34 | Jinja DLG | 29.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 24 | 5.0 | | | 4.0 | 1.0 | 2,207,975 |\n| 9 | 35 | Kabale DLG | 124.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 7 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2,297,466 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 9,871,509 |\n| 10 | 36 | Kabarole DLG | 10.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 702,856 |\n| 11 | 37 | Kaberamaido DLG | 172.0 | 3.0 | 12.0 | 52,473,454 | 10 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 297,871 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2,773,761 |\n| 12 | 38 | Kagadi DLG | 105.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 10 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 942,137 | 20.0 | 5.0 | 34,895,609 |\n| 13 | 39 | Kakumiro DLG | 12.0 | 3.0 | 66.0 | 74,033,793 | 4 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3,443,014 | 12.0 | 10.0 | 15,518,066 |\n| 14 | 40 | Kalaki DLG | 20.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1.0 | 11.0 | 1,199,736 |\n| 15 | 41 | Kalangala DLG | 16.0 | 1.0 | 16.0 | 30,122,334 | 3 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 42 | Kaliro DLG | 43.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 11 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 6.0 | 3.0 | 11,466,319 |\n| 17 | 43 | Kalungu DLG | 15.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 5 | 26.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 44 | Kamuli DLG | 28.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 5,352,558 | 22 | 1.0 | 22.0 | 4,159,714 | | | |\n| 19 | 45 | Kamwenge DLG | 72.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 2,732,041 | 6 | 2.0 | 6.0 | 5,744,846 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 6,125,172 |\n| 20 | 46 | Kanungu DLG | 12.0 | 3.0 | 12.0 | 5,430,339 | 8 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4,936,460 |\n| 21 | 47 | Kapchorwa DLG | | | | | 17 | | 17.0 | 25,082,986 | 5.0 | | 2,578,750 |\n| 22 | 48 | Kapelebyong DLG | 2.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 3,155,787 | 6 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 15,984,791 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1,814,999 |\n| 23 | 49 | Kasanda DLG | 9.0 | 1.0 | | | 9 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 10,652,062 |\n| 24 | 50 | Kasese DLG | 10.0 | 2.0 | 10.0 | 11,596,763 | 7 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2,658,026 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 6,663,973 |\n| 25 | 51 | Katakwi DLG | 9.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 42,998,527 | 12 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 6,381,807 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 281, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staf f who dela yed to acce ss payr oll | Aver age delay s to acce ss the wage payr oll (mon ths) | No. of staff with outstandi ng payments by end of FY arising from delayed access by newly recruited/ transferre d staff | Amount outstanding arising from delayed access by newly recruited/tr ansferred staff | No. of pensioners /beneficiari es who delayed to access payroll | Average delays to access the pension payroll (month s) | No. of pensioner s/benefic iaries with outstandi ng payments by end of FY | Amount outstanding arising from delayed access by pensioners/b eneficiaries | No. of staff who dela yed to be remo ved from the payr oll | Aver age delay s to leave the wage payr oll (mon ths) | Amount paid to employees after expected date of removal |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|-------------------------------------------------:|----------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------:|---------------------------------------------------------:|----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------:|--------------------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 52 | Kayunga DLG | 72 | 2 | 66.0 | 76,089,749 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 17,946,110 | 7 | 4 | 11,937,661 |\n| 1 | 53 | Kazo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 16,277,128 | 15 | 14 | 10,007,528 |\n| 2 | 54 | Kibaale DLG | 80 | 2 | 11.0 | 11,596,763 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 9,249,075 | 8 | 4 | 6,123,981 |\n| 3 | 55 | Kiboga DLG | 12 | 7 | 8.0 | 17,227,243 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1,544,932 | 5 | 2 | 5,318,049 |\n| 4 | 56 | Kibuku DLG | 17 | 4 | | | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 9,783,264 |\n| 5 | 57 | Kikuube DLG | 24 | 9 | 25.0 | 55,489,300 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 4,109,070 | 17 | 6 | 16,421,978 |\n| 6 | 58 | Kiruhura DLG | 44 | 3 | 9.0 | 12,186,896 | 5 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 59 | Kiryandongo DLG | 5 | 0 | 5.0 | 6,716,685 | 17 | 1 | 10 | 65,703,667 | 9 | 3 | 13,937,711 |\n| 8 | 60 | Kisoro DLG | 19 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 6,101,105 |\n| 9 | 61 | Kitagwenda DLG | 4 | 2 | 3.0 | 11,369,295 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 62 | Kitgum DLG | 34 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2,460,449 | 2 | 1 | 1,054,211 |\n| 11 | 63 | Koboko DLG | 44 | 2 | 35.0 | 49,045,202 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 5,976,116 |\n| 12 | 64 | Kole DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 1,954,864 |\n| 13 | 65 | Kumi DLG | 451 | 10 | 0.0 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 12 | 15,715,785 |\n| 14 | 66 | Kwania DLG | 27 | 1 | 26.0 | 34,431,052 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 7,305,327 |\n| 15 | 67 | Kween DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 359,225 |\n| 16 | 68 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 144 | 3 | 121.0 | 255,016,293 | 8 | 2 | 16 | 6,007,295 | 20 | 4 | 25,623,734 |\n| 17 | 69 | Kyegegwa DLG | 150 | 1 | 150.0 | 74,952,600 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2,341,518 | 5 | 2 | 5,417,265 |\n| 18 | 70 | Kyenjojo DLG | 1 | 6 | 1.0 | 4,545,328 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 4,114,211 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 71 | Kyotera DLG | 8 | 3 | 1.0 | 4,621,212 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 72 | Lamwo DLG | 15 | 1 | 11.0 | 6,716,685 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3,573,149 |\n| 21 | 73 | Lira DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 26,444,576 | 10 | 4 | 16,067,592 |\n| 22 | 74 | Luuka DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2,342,700 | 5 | 3 | 6,852,439 |\n| 23 | 75 | Luwero DLG | 80 | 2 | 15.0 | 71,933,587 | 8 | 3 | 10 | 12,959,364 | 7 | 5 | 12,799,031 |\n| 24 | 76 | Lwengo DLG | 85 | 3 | 13.0 | 27,770,510 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 9,389,047 | 4 | 3 | 3,036,979 |\n| 25 | 77 | Lyantonde DLG | 8 | 3 | 7.0 | 7,228,968 | 21 | 36 | 21 | 144,602,074 | 22 | 16 | 42,805,698 |", "metadata": {"page": 282, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staf f who dela yed to acce ss payr oll | Aver age delay s to acce ss the wage payr oll (mon ths) | No. of staff with outstandi ng payments by end of FY arising from delayed access by newly recruited/ transferre d staff | Amount outstanding arising from delayed access by newly recruited/tr ansferred staff | No. of pensioners /beneficiari es who delayed to access payroll | Average delays to access the pension payroll (month s) | No. of pensioner s/benefic iaries with outstandi ng payments by end of FY | Amount outstanding arising from delayed access by pensioners/b eneficiaries | No. of staff who dela yed to be remo ved from the payr oll | Aver age delay s to leave the wage payr oll (mon ths) | Amount paid to employees after expected date of removal |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------|-------------------------------------------------:|----------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------:|---------------------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------:|--------------------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 78 | Madi-Okollo DLG | 45 | 1 | 11.0 | 12,702,348 | 8 | 31 | 11.0 | 21,597,119 | 16 | 16 | 6,109,572 |\n| 1 | 79 | Manafwa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 19.0 | 76,387,354 | 4 | 0 | 6,670,233 |\n| 2 | 80 | Maracha DLG | 77 | 3 | 67.0 | 57,832,046 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 81 | Masaka DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 82 | Masindi DLG | 17 | 10 | 12.0 | 18,537,950 | 19 | 55 | 4.0 | 26,034,565 | 12 | 2 | 1,260,420 |\n| 5 | 83 | Mayuge DLG | 56 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 15 | 10 | 0.0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 2,996,268 |\n| 6 | 84 | Mbale DLG | 19 | 4 | 19.0 | 43,972,694 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 18 | 4 | 24,881,192 |\n| 7 | 85 | Mbarara DLG | 35 | 4 | 28.0 | 35,938,827 | 3 | 4 | 3.0 | 31,485,033 | 3 | 0 | 3,560,705 |\n| 8 | 86 | Mitooma DLG | 11 | 3 | 13.0 | 52,189,312 | 8 | 2 | 6.0 | 14,518,516 | 6 | 2 | 2,282,431 |\n| 9 | 87 | Mityana DLG | 91 | 4 | 2.0 | 7,005,762 | 8 | 4 | | 15,588,842 | 8 | 12 | 18,426,582 |\n| 10 | 88 | Moroto DLG | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 12 | 7 | 5,757,367 |\n| 11 | 89 | Moyo DLG | 21 | 4 | 13.0 | 28,938,420 | 5 | 3 | 8.0 | 5,504,882 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 90 | Mpigi DLG | 21 | 2 | 4.0 | 4,306,754 | 16 | 1 | 9.0 | 4,812,599 | 2 | 1 | 938,781 |\n| 13 | 91 | Mubende DLG | 20 | 3 | 8.0 | 13,428,190 | 22 | 25 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 92 | Mukono DLG | 16 | 3 | 15.0 | 37,002,744 | 8 | 2 | 8.0 | 28,274,618 | 12 | 6 | 24,466,376 |\n| 15 | 93 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 7 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 94 | Nakaseke DLG | 16 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 32,768,000 |\n| 17 | 95 | Nakasongola DLG | 13 | 1 | 13.0 | 3,272,106 | 3 | 15 | 3.0 | 5,179,639 | 3 | 1 | 2,025,509 |\n| 18 | 96 | Namayingo DLG | 65 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 12 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 2,239,481 |\n| 19 | 97 | Namisindwa DLG | 49 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 7 | 6 | 9,616,642 |\n| 20 | 98 | Namutumba DLG | 133 | 4 | 103.0 | 149,303,319 | 11 | 10 | 0.0 | 0 | 9 | 5 | 8,093,192 |\n| 21 | 99 | Napak DLG | 29 | 5 | 46.0 | 99,440,472 | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4,065,777 |\n| 22 | 100 | Nebbi DLG | 4 | 3 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 21 | 14 | 17,348,048 |\n| 23 | 101 | Ngora DLG | 44 | 3 | 58.0 | 367,171,329 | 8 | 4 | 12.0 | 21,907,261 | 13 | 5 | 15,468,299 |\n| 24 | 102 | Ntoroko DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4,571,292 |\n| 25 | 103 | Ntungamo DLG | 14 | 2 | 3.0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 11,455,693 |", "metadata": {"page": 283, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staf f who dela yed to acce ss payr oll | Aver age delay s to acce ss the wage payr oll (mon ths) | No. of staff with outstandi ng payments by end of FY arising from delayed access by newly recruited/ transferre d staff | Amount outstanding arising from delayed access by newly recruited/tr ansferred staff | No. of pensioners /beneficiari es who delayed to access payroll | Average delays to access the pension payroll (month s) | No. of pensioner s/benefic iaries with outstandi ng payments by end of FY | Amount outstanding arising from delayed access by pensioners/b eneficiaries | No. of staff who dela yed to be remo ved from the payr oll | Aver age delay s to leave the wage payr oll (mon ths) | Amount paid to employees after expected date of removal |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------|:-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 104 | Obongi DLG | 46 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 11 | 18,684,675 |\n| 1 | 105 | Omoro DLG | 56 | 3 | 7 | 12,126,304 | 7 | 4.0 | 7 | 6,243,922 | 18 | | 54,558,940 |\n| 2 | 106 | Otuke DLG | 13 | 4 | 1 | 1,507,337 | 4 | 27.0 | 4 | 34,075,924 | 13 | 4 | 31,399,188 |\n| 3 | 107 | Oyam DLG | 46 | 1 | 21 | 59,225,548 | 38 | 0.0 | 0 | 14,521,285 | 40 | 6 | 64,329,568 |\n| 4 | 108 | Pader DLG | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 109 | Pakwach DLG | 115 | 4 | 71 | 131,591,923 | 9 | 24.0 | 9 | 48,149,403 | 3 | 8 | 6,605,233 |\n| 6 | 110 | Pallisa DLG | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 111 | Rakai DLG | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2,178,361 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 112 | Rubanda DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 2 | 5,618,632 |\n| 9 | 113 | Rubirizi DLG | 31 | 3 | 30 | 51,450,614 | 2 | 4.0 | 3 | 2,059,373 | 8 | 4 | 5,479,020 |\n| 10 | 114 | Rukiga DLG | 129 | 5 | 129 | 43,590,726 | 15 | 5.0 | 2 | 3,032,050 | 11 | 4 | 25,295,745 |\n| 11 | 115 | Rukungiri DLG | 7 | 2 | 7 | 10,733,102 | 6 | 5.0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 11,112,276 |\n| 12 | 116 | Rwampara DLG | 2 | 3 | 3 | 6,082,931 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3,911,449 |\n| 13 | 117 | Serere DLG | 147 | 5 | 147 | 74,269,549 | 29 | 8.0 | 29 | 67,196,981 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 118 | Sheema DLG | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 5.0 | 11 | 4,792,068 | 11 | 2 | 7,386,095 |\n| 15 | 119 | Sironko DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 12.0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 8,058,192 |\n| 16 | 120 | Soroti DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 12.0 | 11 | 25,842,175 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 121 | Terego DLG | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 4.0 | 11 | 13,187,310 | 10 | | 16,208,269 |\n| 18 | 122 | Tororo DLG | 30 | 2 | | 34,148,408 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 6 | 6,193,537 |\n| 19 | Wakiso DLG | 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 3,075,280 | |\n| 20 | 124 | Yumbe DLG | 123 | 3 | 112 | 203,440,332 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 125 | Zombo DLG | 10 | 2 | 10 | 92,374,336 | 13 | 1.0 | 13 | 16,684,152 | 12 | 4 | 8,511,386 |\n| 22 | | Total | 4,34 | 1 | 1,746 | 2,802,520,5 09 | 1,019 | | 549 | 1,380,739,35 7 | 795 | | 1,071,478,61 1 |", "metadata": {"page": 284, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff with inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from with inconsistency between Interface files and payroll | No. of pensioner s with inconsist ency between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Total | No. of staff paid salaries off the IPPS payroll | Amount of salary paid Off IPPS payroll | No. of pensione rs paid off the IPPS payroll | Amount of pension paid off the IPPS |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------|--------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 0 | 48,868,938 | 0 | 0 | 48,868,938 | 15 | 64,220,789 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 2 | Agago DLG | 0 | 315,536,779 | 0 | 0 | 315,536,779 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 3 | Alebtong DLG | 741 | 106,765,184 | 0 | 0 | 106,765,184 | 54 | 82,027,053 | 5 | 7,859,528 |\n| 3 | 4 | Amolatar DLG | 287 | 279,764,741 | 3 | 18,104,073 | 297,868,814 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 5 | Amudat DLG | 0 | 23,329,234 | 0 | 0 | 23,329,234 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 6 | Amuria DLG | 0 | 17,584,950 | 0 | 0 | 17,584,950 | 2 | 3,881,202 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 7 | Amuru DLG | 0 | 492,005,340 | 0 | 0 | 492,005,340 | 2 | 2,818,660 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 8 | Apac DLG | 0 | 5,910,650,619 | 0 | 0 | 5,910,650,619 | 21 | 21,042,185 | 87 | 1,383,917,393 |\n| 8 | 9 | Arua DLG | 0 | 405,643,886 | 0 | 0 | 405,643,886 | 11 | 6,563,331 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 10 | Budaka DLG | 74 | 156,961,189 | 0 | 0 | 156,961,189 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 11 | Bududa DLG | 915 | 40,176,917 | 0 | 0 | 40,176,917 | 5 | 15,316,264 | 4 | 69,580,342 |\n| 11 | 12 | Bugiri DLG | 0 | 8,829,021 | 0 | 0 | 8,829,021 | 28 | 28,158,449 | 124 | 2,400,610,261 |\n| 12 | 13 | Bugweri DLG | 0 | 61,084,198 | 0 | 0 | 61,084,198 | 20 | 75,192,815 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 14 | Buhweju DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 15 | Buikwe DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 16 | Bukedea DLG | 52 | 19,611,204 | 0 | 0 | 19,611,204 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 17 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 24 | 22,275,218 | 0 | 0 | 22,275,218 | 11 | 8,866,160 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 18 | Bukwo DLG | 27 | 877,935,066 | 0 | 0 | 877,935,066 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 19 | Bulambuli DLG | 87 | 69,831,190 | 0 | 0 | 69,831,190 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 20 | Buliisa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 21 | Bundibugyo DLG | 2 | 1,496,152 | 0 | 0 | 1,496,152 | 2 | 13,060,168 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 22 | Bunyangabu DLG | 45 | 28,750,721 | 0 | 0 | 28,750,721 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 37,640,083 |\n| 22 | 23 | Bushenyi DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 24 | Busia DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 25 | Butaleja DLG | 0 | 77,519,017 | 0 | 0 | 77,519,017 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 26 | Butambala DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 30,580,297 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 27 | Butebo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 140,209,245 |\n| 27 | 28 | Buvuma DLG | 0 | 4,095,171 | 0 | 0 | 4,095,171 | 5 | 11,209,358 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 29 | Buyende DLG | 0 | 900,284,210 | 0 | 0 | 900,284,210 | 12 | 4,784,979 | 4 | 86,680,635 |", "metadata": {"page": 285, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff with inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from with inconsistency between Interface files and payroll | No. of pensioner s with inconsist ency between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Total | No. of staff paid salaries off the IPPS payroll | Amount of salary paid Off IPPS payroll | No. of pensione rs paid off the IPPS payroll | Amount of pension paid off the IPPS |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------|--------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 30 | Dokolo DLG | 0 | 33,538,246 | 0 | 0 | 33,538,246 | 0 | 39,743,888 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 31 | Gomba DLG | 113 | 67,116,273 | 0 | 0 | 67,116,273 | 19 | 16,402,119 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 32 | Gulu DLG | 90 | 46,184,245 | 0 | 0 | 46,184,245 | 2 | 9,672,498 | 2 | 4,235,861 |\n| 3 | 33 | Hoima DLG | 0 | 5,871,166 | 0 | 0 | 5,871,166 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 12,769,046 |\n| 4 | 34 | Ibanda DLG | 637 | 209,039,360 | 0 | 0 | 209,039,360 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 35 | Iganga DLG | 0 | 310,497,898 | 0 | 0 | 310,497,898 | 9 | 34,131,042 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 36 | Isingiro DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 37 | Jinja DLG | 0 | 26,188,297 | 0 | 0 | 26,188,297 | 124 | 97,179,676 | 19 | 622,311,870 |\n| 8 | 38 | Kabale DLG | 755 | 361,856,390 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 224 | 64,062,664 |\n| 9 | 39 | Kabarole DLG | 649 | 307,979,582 | 0 | 0 | 307,979,582 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 170,678,575 |\n| 10 | 40 | Kaberamaido DLG | 166 | 104,547,107 | 0 | 0 | 104,547,107 | 51 | 352,199,949 | 6 | 79,689,822 |\n| 11 | 41 | Kagadi DLG | 0 | 43,887,232 | 0 | 0 | 43,887,232 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 42 | Kakumiro DLG | 0 | 195,408,985 | 0 | 0 | 195,408,985 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 43 | Kalaki DLG | 799 | 419,178,424 | 0 | 0 | 419,178,424 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 44 | Kalangala DLG | 192 | 58,921,568 | 0 | 0 | 58,921,568 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 45 | Kaliro DLG | 0 | 250,589,367 | 0 | 0 | 250,589,367 | 22 | 25,525,942 | 75 | 409,572,786 |\n| 16 | 46 | Kalungu DLG | 65 | 43,889,453 | 0 | 0 | 43,889,453 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 47 | Kamuli DLG | 0 | 928,799,558 | 0 | 0 | 928,799,558 | 732 | 328,067,291 | 18 | 506,311,340 |\n| 18 | 48 | Kamwenge DLG | 37 | 48,750,503 | 0 | 0 | 48,750,503 | 4 | 13,441,925 | 8 | 7,114,189 |\n| 19 | 49 | Kanungu DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 50 | Kapchorwa DLG | 0 | 128,437,788 | 0 | 0 | 128,437,788 | 1 | 1,255,448 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 51 | Kapelebyong DLG | 0 | 58,144,603 | 0 | 7,011,601 | 65,156,204 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 52 | Kasanda DLG | 0 | 78,579,617 | 0 | 0 | 78,579,617 | 0 | 0 | 39 | 45,710,683 |\n| 23 | 53 | Kasese DLG | 15 | 9,102,793 | 0 | 0 | 9,102,793 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 54 | Katakwi DLG | 20 | 11,117,891 | 22 | 450,074,788 | 461,192,679 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 55 | Kayunga DLG | 70 | 159,095,193 | 0 | 0 | 159,095,193 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 56 | Kazo DLG | 396 | 163,608,641 | 0 | 0 | 163,608,641 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 57 | Kibaale DLG | 0 | 67,860,433 | 0 | 0 | 67,860,433 | 198 | 267,905,954 | 7 | 7,638,423 |\n| 28 | 58 | Kiboga DLG | 0 | 25,595,288 | 0 | 0 | 25,595,288 | 13 | 50,256,431 | 4 | 9,339,434 |\n| 29 | 59 | Kibuku DLG | 0 | 614,892,218 | 0 | 0 | 614,892,218 | 8 | 7,215,805 | 3 | 75,135,778 |", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff with inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from with inconsistency between Interface files and payroll | No. of pensioner s with inconsist ency between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Total | No. of staff paid salaries off the IPPS payroll | Amount of salary paid Off IPPS payroll | No. of pensione rs paid off the IPPS payroll | Amount of pension paid off the IPPS |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|---------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------|--------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 60 | Kikuube DLG | 0 | 218,959,929 | 0 | 0 | 218,959,929 | 2 | 889,929 | 16 | 340,013,264 |", "metadata": {"page": 286, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff with inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from with inconsistency between Interface files and payroll | No. of pensioner s with inconsist ency between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Total | No. of staff paid salaries off the IPPS payroll | Amount of salary paid Off IPPS payroll | No. of pensione rs paid off the IPPS payroll | Amount of pension paid off the IPPS |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|---------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------|--------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 61 | Kiruhura DLG | 210 | 90,796,758 | 0 | 0 | 90,796,758 | 6 | 12,385,198 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 62 | Kiryandongo DLG | 0 | 21,184,352 | 0 | 0 | 21,184,352 | 21 | 24,991,785 | 3 | 14,805,596 |\n| 2 | 63 | Kisoro DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 64 | Kitagwenda DLG | 135 | 33,547,633 | 0 | 0 | 33,547,633 | 10 | 71,145,067 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 65 | Kitgum DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 6,137,612 |\n| 5 | 66 | Koboko DLG | 0 | 1,518,252,806 | 0 | 0 | 1,518,252,806 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 67 | Kole DLG | 0 | 10,355,488 | 0 | 0 | 10,355,488 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 68 | Kumi DLG | 0 | 359,718,520 | 0 | 0 | 359,718,520 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 69 | Kwania DLG | 0 | 154,871,882 | 0 | 0 | 154,871,882 | 6 | 32,886,550 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 70 | Kween DLG | 0 | 55,599,052 | 0 | 0 | 55,599,052 | 10 | 28,300,684 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 71 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 0 | 13,939,308 | 0 | 0 | 13,939,308 | 2 | 1,438,316 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 72 | Kyegegwa DLG | 14 | 2,402,866 | 0 | 0 | 2,402,866 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 73 | Kyenjojo DLG | 4 | 4,927,544 | 0 | 0 | 4,927,544 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 74 | Kyotera DLG | 505 | 297,936,427 | 0 | 0 | 297,936,427 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 75 | Lamwo DLG | 232 | 19,238,569 | 0 | 0 | 19,238,569 | 12 | 67,609,678 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 76 | Lira DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 476 | 1,247,047,602 | 71 | 184,126,452 |\n| 16 | 77 | Luuka DLG | 0 | 320,651,077 | 0 | 0 | 320,651,077 | 7 | 8,899,399 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 78 | Luwero DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 79 | Lwengo DLG | 49 | 33,988,738 | 0 | 0 | 33,988,738 | 14 | 14,829,645 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 80 | Lyantonde DLG | 52 | 11,380,969 | 0 | 0 | 11,380,969 | 33 | 158,742,468 | 1 | 40,537,322 |\n| 20 | 81 | Madi-Okollo DLG | 0 | 607,565,504 | 0 | 0 | 607,565,504 | 21 | 38,477,728 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 82 | Manafwa DLG | 0 | 237,407,527 | 0 | 0 | 237,407,527 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 83 | Maracha DLG | 0 | 49,015,193 | 0 | 0 | 49,015,193 | 67 | 62,244,541 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 84 | Masaka DLG | 219 | 47,056,562 | 0 | 0 | 47,056,562 | 2 | 8,321,464 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 85 | Masindi DLG | 0 | 1,899,055,822 | 0 | 0 | 1,899,055,822 | 1 | 7,644,944 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 86 | Mayuge DLG | 0 | 233,491,206 | 0 | 0 | 233,491,206 | 319 | 147,961,186 | 48 | 33,074,030 |\n| 26 | 87 | Mbale DLG | 0 | 227,212,724 | 0 | 0 | 227,212,724 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 88 | Mbarara DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 89 | Mitooma DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 29 | 90 | Mityana DLG | 139 | 128,671,074 | 0 | 0 | 128,671,074 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff with inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from with inconsistency between Interface files and payroll | No. of pensioner s with inconsist ency between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Total | No. of staff paid salaries off the IPPS payroll | Amount of salary paid Off IPPS payroll | No. of pensione rs paid off the IPPS payroll | Amount of pension paid off the IPPS |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|---------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-----------|--------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 91 | Moroto DLG | 0 | 42,890,728 | 0 | 0 | 42,890,728 | 198 | 13,816,711 | 7 | 4,415,528 |", "metadata": {"page": 287, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff with inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from with inconsistency between Interface files and payroll | No. of pensioner s with inconsist ency between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Total | No. of staff paid salaries off the IPPS payroll | Amount of salary paid Off IPPS payroll | No. of pensione rs paid off the IPPS payroll | Amount of pension paid off the IPPS |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|---------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------|--------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 92 | Moyo DLG | 0 | 88,948,906 | 0 | 0 | 88,948,906 | 23 | 13,299,698 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 93 | Mpigi DLG | 0 | 5,757,669 | 0 | 0 | 5,757,669 | 6 | 13,626,100 | 4 | 5,651,821 |\n| 2 | 94 | Mubende DLG | 41 | 19,396,416 | 0 | 0 | 19,396,416 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 95 | Mukono DLG | 448 | 45,950,261 | 0 | 0 | 45,950,261 | 198 | 19,049,044 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 96 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 0 | 5,724,300 | 0 | 0 | 5,724,300 | 7 | 11,503,325 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 97 | Nakaseke DLG | 768 | 573,807,535 | 0 | 0 | 573,807,535 | 7 | 38,340,350 | 1 | 17,007,117 |\n| 6 | 98 | Nakasongola DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 99 | Namayingo DLG | 0 | 159,978,512 | 0 | 0 | 159,978,512 | 9 | 7,942,617 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 100 | Namisindwa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 101 | Namutumba DLG | 0 | 144,042,459 | 0 | 0 | 144,042,459 | 75 | 22,852,650 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 102 | Napak DLG | 0 | 836,272,862 | 0 | 0 | 836,272,862 | 1 | 24,785,247 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 103 | Nebbi DLG | 0 | 82,756,771 | 0 | 0 | 82,756,771 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 104 | Ngora DLG | 0 | 118,987,825 | 0 | 0 | 118,987,825 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 105 | Ntoroko DLG | 363 | 25,473,624 | 0 | 0 | 25,473,624 | 95 | 328,785,473 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 106 | Ntungamo DLG | 0 | 118,406,599 | 0 | 0 | 118,406,599 | 371 | 231,305,222 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 107 | Nwoya DLG | 0 | 7,255,056 | 0 | 0 | 7,255,056 | 5 | 18,516,767 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 108 | Obongi DLG | 0 | 82,330,884 | 0 | 0 | 82,330,884 | 14 | 11,689,566 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 109 | Omoro DLG | 0 | 252,167,876 | 0 | 0 | 252,167,876 | 27 | 49,073,404 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 110 | Otuke DLG | 0 | 3,881,700 | 0 | 0 | 3,881,700 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 111 | Oyam DLG | 588 | 292,821,008 | 0 | 0 | 292,821,008 | 6 | 16,173,327 | 16 | 392,448,794 |\n| 20 | 112 | Pader DLG | 0 | 563,991,673 | 0 | 0 | 563,991,673 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 113 | Pakwach DLG | 0 | 6,477,528 | 0 | 0 | 6,477,528 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 114 | Pallisa DLG | 0 | 3,472,218 | 0 | 0 | 3,472,218 | 2 | 3,030,116 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 115 | Rakai DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 116 | Rubanda DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 124,003,227 |\n| 25 | 117 | Rubirizi DLG | 166 | 77,601,377 | 0 | 0 | 77,601,377 | 22 | 17,412,562 | 1 | 20,453,988 |\n| 26 | 118 | Rukiga DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 119 | Rukungiri DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 120 | Rwampara DLG | 45 | 8,338,721 | 0 | 0 | 8,338,721 | 2 | 12,387,222 | 0 | 0 |\n| 29 | 121 | Sembabule DLG | 214 | 348,680,895 | 0 | 0 | 348,680,895 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff with inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from with inconsistency between Interface files and payroll | No. of pensioner s with inconsist ency between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Total | No. of staff paid salaries off the IPPS payroll | Amount of salary paid Off IPPS payroll | No. of pensione rs paid off the IPPS payroll | Amount of pension paid off the IPPS |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|---------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------|--------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 122 | Serere DLG | 0 | 1,167,724,155 | 0 | 0 | 1,167,724,155 | 135 | 118,915,137 | 4 | 226,712,109 |", "metadata": {"page": 288, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff with inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from with inconsistency between Interface files and payroll | No. of pensioner s with inconsist ency between Interface files and payroll | Variance arising from inconsisten cy between Interface files and payroll | Total | No. of staff paid salaries off the IPPS payroll | Amount of salary paid Off IPPS payroll | No. of pensione rs paid off the IPPS payroll | Amount of pension paid off the IPPS |\n|---:|:------|:--------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------|:--------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 123.0 | Sheema DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 124.0 | Sironko DLG | 54 | 15,544,879 | 0 | 0 | 15,544,879 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6,237,150 |\n| 2 | 125.0 | Soroti DLG | 0 | 45,051,613 | 0 | 327,169,650 | 372,221,263 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 384,263,746 |\n| 3 | 126.0 | Terego DLG | 0 | 37,919,839 | 0 | 0 | 37,919,839 | 318 | 366,553,984 | 3 | 194,516,367 |\n| 4 | 127.0 | Tororo DLG | 0 | 771,749,550 | 0 | 0 | 771,749,550 | 1 | 3,532,865 | 15 | 468,511,233 |\n| 5 | 128.0 | Wakiso DLG | 0 | 63,789,727 | 0 | 0 | 63,789,727 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 129.0 | Yumbe DLG | 0 | 91,433,441 | 0 | 0 | 91,433,441 | 3 | 11,833,867 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 130.0 | Zombo DLG | 0 | 191,587,740 | 0 | 0 | 191,587,740 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | | Total | 10,504 | 27,545,118,94 1 | 25 | 802,360,11 2 | 27,985,622,6 63 | 3,926 | 4,898,961,116 | 870 | 8,603,983,31 4 |", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Entity Name | No. of staff witho ut letters of under taking | Amount deducted from staff without letters of undertaking | No. of staff with loan s ded ucti ons past end date s | Amount deducted past end date | No. of staff with unre alist ic end date s | Average length of abnormal dates (years ranging from to) | Amount deducted from staff with abnormal end dates | No. of staff with un- appr oved loans | Amount deducted from staff with un- approved loans | No. of staff from which Loan deduc tions were over and above the appro ved amou nts | Amount deducted over and above the approved amounts | No. of staff with varia nce betw een My appro vals and active deduc tions | Variance Amount between My approvals and active deductions | No. of staff from which Variance between monthly deductio amounts in active deductio ns report | Variance Amount between monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report |\n|---:|:--------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Adjumani DLG | | | 2.0 | 1,651,893 | 23 | 9 to 40 | 29,901,383 | 121.0 | 91,960,229 | 8 | 1,795,781 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 1 | Agago DLG | 732.0 | 1,263,291,271 | | | 28 | 11 to 5642 | 36,916,817 | | | 24 | 8,399,587 | | | | |\n| 2 | Alebtong DLG | | | 5.0 | 783,687 | 44 | 13 to 2575 | 22,850,556 | 46.0 | 41,833,912 | 31 | 21,676 | 13.0 | 639,030 | 126.0 | 347,545 |\n| 3 | Amolatar DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 47.0 | 2,350,252 | 8 | 9 to 257 | 16,377,769 | 93.0 | 121,782,489 | 18 | 3,306,509 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 289, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Entity Name | No. of staff witho ut letters of under taking | Amount deducted from staff without letters of undertaking | No. of staff with loan s ded ucti ons past end date s | Amount deducted past end date | No. of staff with unre alist ic end date s | Average length of abnormal dates (years ranging from to) | Amount deducted from staff with abnormal end dates | No. of staff with un- appr oved loans | Amount deducted from staff with un- approved loans | No. of staff from which Loan deduc tions were over and above the appro ved amou nts | Amount deducted over and above the approved amounts | No. of staff with varia nce betw een My appro vals and active deduc tions | Variance Amount between My approvals and active deductions | No. of staff from which Variance between monthly deductio amounts in active deductio ns report | Variance Amount between monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report |\n|---:|:-----------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Amudat DLG | 92.0 | 119,813,541 | 4.0 | 2,057,917 | 0.0 | | 0 | 4 | 3,527,541 | 21.0 | 1,257,778 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 1 | Amuria DLG | 272.0 | 28,882,820 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 110 | 10,345,961 | 116.0 | 45,240,985 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 2 | Amuru DLG | 417.0 | 647,330,578 | 2.0 | 4,858,988 | 29.0 | 11 to 590 | 34,210,170 | 64 | 2,467,844 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 3 | Apac DLG | 478.0 | 742,438,306 | 5.0 | 1,585,074 | 3.0 | 69 to 1499 | 3,120,636 | 60 | 71,051,264 | 84.0 | 73,965,427 | | | | |\n| 4 | Arua DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 5.0 | 670,980 | 16.0 | 9 to 51 | 15,860,074 | 82 | 22,253,294 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 5 | Budaka DLG | 96.0 | 175,852,054 | | | | | | 12 | 2,438,471 | 6.0 | 196,286 | 50.0 | 9,145,250 | | |\n| 6 | Bududa DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 3.0 | 610,176 | 4.0 | 9 to 1412 | 61,029 | 6 | 843,965 | 11.0 | 828,063 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 7 | Bugiri DLG | 281.0 | 808,378,322 | 218.0 | 215,166,058 | 171.0 | | 226,628,417 | 131 | 183,071,422 | | | | | | |\n| 8 | Bugweri DLG | 299.0 | 568,486,881 | | | 13.0 | 12 to 63 | 24,245,070 | 23 | 15,975,791 | 67.0 | 3,323,576 | | | | |\n| 9 | Buhweju DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 496.0 | 67,760,094 | 496.0 | 67,760,094 |\n| 10 | Buikwe DLG | 453.0 | 714,056,547 | 36.0 | 6,972,020 | 50.0 | 9 to 84 | 0 | 59 | 58,096,948 | 94.0 | 8,000,281 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 11 | Bukedea DLG | 27.0 | 32,256,931 | 42.0 | 28,288,094 | 0.0 | | 0 | 19 | 25,470,036 | 0.0 | 0 | 24.0 | 1,302,198 | 300.0 | 20,339,052 |\n| 12 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 20.0 | 9 to 43 | 23,813,207 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 6.0 | 0 | 122.0 | 7,136,646 |\n| 13 | Bukwo DLG | | | | | 7.0 | 13 to 35 | 13,656,161 | 57 | 9,873,428 | 106.0 | 7,960,954 | | | | |\n| 14 | Bulambuli DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 33 | 5,911,187 | 0.0 | 0 | 24.0 | 7,080,085 | | |\n| 15 | Buliisa DLG | 138.0 | 256,656,828 | 5.0 | 6,006,712 | 0.0 | | 0 | 2 | 4,270,800 | 16.0 | 11,970,780 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 16 | Bundibugyo DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 14.0 | 7,200,896 | 69.0 | 9 to 381 | 154,102,203 | 27 | 17,523,457 | 23.0 | 35,581,481 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 17 | Bunyangabu DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 9.0 | 2,029,155 | 24.0 | 9 to 149 | 52,362,610 | 70 | 91,149,019 | 104.0 | 219,224,727 | 64.0 | 4,041,609 | 111.0 | 2,827,028 |\n| 18 | Bushenyi DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | | | | |\n| 19 | Busia DLG | 75.0 | 16,527,300 | 44.0 | 6,522,948 | 1.0 | | | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | | | | |\n| 20 | Butaleja DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 21 | Butambala DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 4.0 | 639,250 | 6.0 | | 15,227,927 | 19 | 22,011,876 | 145.0 | 13,740,152 | 140.0 | 13,771,032 | 36.0 | 3,174,711 |\n| 22 | Butebo DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | | 80 | 145,413,728 | 121.0 | 513,854 | | | | |\n| 23 | Buvuma DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 4.0 | 771,823 | 20.0 | 9 to 12 | 32,424,902 | 8 | 4,317,648 | 0.0 | 0 | | | | |", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Entity Name | No. of staff witho ut letters of under taking | Amount deducted from staff without letters of undertaking | No. of staff with loan s ded ucti ons past end date s | Amount deducted past end date | No. of staff with unre alist ic end date s | Average length of abnormal dates (years ranging from to) | Amount deducted from staff with abnormal end dates | No. of staff with un- appr oved loans | Amount deducted from staff with un- approved loans | No. of staff from which Loan deduc tions were over and above the appro ved amou nts | Amount deducted over and above the approved amounts | No. of staff with varia nce betw een My appro vals and active deduc tions | Variance Amount between My approvals and active deductions | No. of staff from which Variance between monthly deductio amounts in active deductio ns report | Variance Amount between monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report |\n|---:|:--------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Buyende DLG | 562.0 | 1,016,683,423 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 577 | 1,019,461,431 | 6 | 578,629 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | Dokolo DLG | 39.0 | 32,199,959 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 14,602,075 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | Gomba DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 23 | 15,641,080 | 0 | | 0 | 11 | 8,251,701 | 33 | 1,214,804 | 108 | 1,051,704 | 108 | 1,237,069 |\n| 3 | Gulu DLG | | | 6 | 10,251,751 | 45 | 9 to 232 | 74,553,000 | 8 | 1,468,850 | 27 | 3,483,930 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 290, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Entity Name | No. of staff witho ut letters of under taking | Amount deducted from staff without letters of undertaking | No. of staff with loan s ded ucti ons past end date s | Amount deducted past end date | No. of staff with unre alist ic end date s | Average length of abnormal dates (years ranging from to) | Amount deducted from staff with abnormal end dates | No. of staff with un- appr oved loans | Amount deducted from staff with un- approved loans | No. of staff from which Loan deduc tions were over and above the appro ved amou nts | Amount deducted over and above the approved amounts | No. of staff with varia nce betw een My appro vals and active deduc tions | Variance Amount between My approvals and active deductions | No. of staff from which Variance between monthly deductio amounts in active deductio ns report | Variance Amount between monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report |\n|---:|:----------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Hoima DLG | | | 33.0 | 27,367,073 | 17.0 | 9 to 18 | 24,740,797 | 8 | 450,965 | 64 | 5,864,972 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 1 | Ibanda DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 35 | 42,576,583 | 96 | 2,391,812 | 14.0 | 113,938 | 162.0 | 27,117,958 |\n| 2 | Iganga DLG | 927 | 168,552,545 | 34.0 | 20,335,569 | | | | 73 | 90,057,326 | 28 | 2,768,907 | | | | |\n| 3 | Isingiro DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 11.0 | 11 to 106 | 1,622,788 | 14 | 2,619,177 | 0 | 0 | | | | |\n| 4 | Jinja DLG | | | 36.0 | 23,742,370 | 76.0 | 9 to 202 | 60,277,692 | 82 | 58,498,171 | 65 | 4,953,403 | | | | |\n| 5 | Kabale DLG | 0 | 0 | 5.0 | 3,408,639 | 0.0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 143.0 | 3,842,433 | 657.0 | 47,227,638 |\n| 6 | Kabarole DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 444 | 619,946,407 | 29 | 1,824,784 | 18.0 | 2,057,441 | 37.0 | 1,550,651 |\n| 7 | Kaberamaido DLG | 0 | 0 | 7.0 | 10,017,669 | 0.0 | | 0 | 11 | 12,754,733 | 55 | 3,475,301 | 14.0 | 1,878,489 | 55.0 | 3,475,301 |\n| 8 | Kagadi DLG | 845 | 1,681,647,581 | 2.0 | 664,600 | 63.0 | 9 to 252 | 126,923,539 | 150 | 233,479,947 | 16 | 7,262,432 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 9 | Kakumiro DLG | 275 | 515,960,731 | 0.0 | 0 | 23.0 | 9 to 145 | 38,565,990 | 29 | 62,083,492 | 20 | 1,065,390 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 10 | Kalaki DLG | 0 | 0 | 13.0 | 11,820,457 | 0.0 | | 0 | 272 | 302,340,063 | 0 | 0 | 41.0 | 1,552,219 | 182.0 | 4,718,799 |\n| 11 | Kalangala DLG | 45 | 42,843,106 | 16.0 | 3,161,180 | 9.0 | 9 to 129 | 9,042,408 | 34 | 40,572,513 | 0 | 0 | | | | |\n| 12 | Kaliro DLG | | | 40.0 | 39,870,979 | 71.0 | 9 to 965 | 123,390,571 | 62 | 95,675,157 | 76 | 4,264,771 | | | | |\n| 13 | Kalungu DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 8.0 | 19 to 252 | 12,981,766 | 23 | 6,299,952 | 28 | 1,447,526 | 80.0 | 2,759,126 | 17.0 | 0 |\n| 14 | Kamuli DLG | 1,346 | 2,136,372,466 | 14.0 | 5,649,245 | 87.0 | 8 to 222 | 141,966,827 | 935 | 1,352,661,144 | 100 | 11,176,978 | | | | |\n| 15 | Kamwenge DLG | 0 | 0 | 25.0 | 10,372,584 | 10.0 | 3 to 59 | 18,169,810 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1,107,607 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 16 | Kanungu DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 27.0 | 10 to 20 | 16,970,368 | 67 | 60,634,863 | 41 | 3,509,122 | 26.0 | 2,803,229 | 75.0 | 3,860,983 |\n| 17 | Kapchorwa DLG | | | | | | | | 10 | 1,825,092 | 165 | 12,230,438 | | | | |\n| 18 | Kapelebyong DLG | 0 | 0 | 14.0 | 7,060,981 | 0.0 | | 0 | 22 | 9,049,782 | 25 | 1,360,663 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 19 | Kasanda DLG | 50 | 101,191,408 | 4.0 | 1,474,152 | | | | 113 | 125,902,600 | 61 | 3,505,979 | | | | |\n| 20 | Kasese DLG | 0 | 0 | 146.0 | 151,923,363 | 3.0 | 010 to 010 | 566,750 | 44 | 44,119,766 | 64 | 5,641,196 | 92.0 | | 200.0 | |\n| 21 | Katakwi DLG | 9 | 0 | 2.0 | 1,939,178 | 0.0 | | 0 | 22 | 3,147,144 | 27 | 3,551,731 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 22 | Kayunga DLG | 24 | 229,718,762 | 0.0 | 0 | 50.0 | | 83,412,229 | 114 | 128,141,518 | 643 | 66,341,549 | | | | |\n| 23 | Kazo DLG | 0 | 0 | 2.0 | 363,534 | 0.0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 129.0 | 5,188,037 |", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Entity Name | No. of staff witho ut letters of under taking | Amount deducted from staff without letters of undertaking | No. of staff with loan s ded ucti ons past end date s | Amount deducted past end date | No. of staff with unre alist ic end date s | Average length of abnormal dates (years ranging from to) | Amount deducted from staff with abnormal end dates | No. of staff with un- appr oved loans | Amount deducted from staff with un- approved loans | No. of staff from which Loan deduc tions were over and above the appro ved amou nts | Amount deducted over and above the approved amounts | No. of staff with varia nce betw een My appro vals and active deduc tions | Variance Amount between My approvals and active deductions | No. of staff from which Variance between monthly deductio amounts in active deductio ns report | Variance Amount between monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report |\n|---:|:--------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Kibaale DLG | 335 | 685,049,938 | 1.0 | 336,000 | 27.0 | 9 to 1412 | 47,153,523 | 64 | 86,100,423 | 28.0 | 1,447,526 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 1 | Kiboga DLG | 0 | 0 | 11.0 | 9,389,274 | 0.0 | | 0 | 16 | 2,251,003 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 2 | Kibuku DLG | | | | | | | | 15 | 2,416,343 | | | | | | |\n| 3 | Kikuube DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 48 | 39,071,360 | 54.0 | 7,023,679 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 291, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Entity Name | No. of staff witho ut letters of under taking | Amount deducted from staff without letters of undertaking | No. of staff with loan s ded ucti ons past end date s | Amount deducted past end date | No. of staff with unre alist ic end date s | Average length of abnormal dates (years ranging from to) | Amount deducted from staff with abnormal end dates | No. of staff with un- appr oved loans | Amount deducted from staff with un- approved loans | No. of staff from which Loan deduc tions were over and above the appro ved amou nts | Amount deducted over and above the approved amounts | No. of staff with varia nce betw een My appro vals and active deduc tions | Variance Amount between My approvals and active deductions | No. of staff from which Variance between monthly deductio amounts in active deductio ns report | Variance Amount between monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report |\n|---:|:----------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Kiruhura DLG | 0 | 0 | 12.0 | 4,272,887 | 0.0 | | 0 | 34.0 | 41,845,063 | 114.0 | 114,624,153 | 16.0 | 162,858 | 100.0 | 11,345,545 |\n| 1 | Kiryandongo DLG | 316 | 452,483,491 | 20.0 | 1,298,454 | 2.0 | 112 to 864 | 2,967,888 | | | 16.0 | 2,132,833 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 2 | Kisoro DLG | 0 | 0 | 37.0 | 21,075,104 | 57.0 | 9 to 1412 | 911,065,027 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 3 | Kitagwenda DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 23.0 | 9 to 381 | 27,025,144 | 129.0 | 296,591,449 | 284.0 | 20,704,464 | 21.0 | 781,834 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 4 | Kitgum DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 29.0 | 1,614,671 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 5 | Koboko DLG | 0 | 0 | 36.0 | 19,825,094 | 0.0 | | 0 | | | | | 56.0 | 4,262,404 | 12.0 | 1,753,638 |\n| 6 | Kole DLG | | | | | 1.0 | 1 to 110 | 3,171,924 | | | | | 15.0 | 285,972 | 15.0 | 61,510 |\n| 7 | Kumi DLG | 0 | 0 | 32.0 | 7,880,110 | 49.0 | 9 to 1412 | 96,238,006 | 17.0 | 12,996,532 | 41.0 | 5,330,490 | | | | |\n| 8 | Kwania DLG | 198 | 414,929,083 | | | 32.0 | 9 to 48 | 59,741,926 | 137.0 | 171,792,320 | 80.0 | 8,803,583 | | | | |\n| 9 | Kween DLG | 0 | 0 | 27.0 | 27,473,090 | | | | 10.0 | 1,814,684 | 0.0 | 0 | | | | |\n| 10 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 634 | 1,173,594,581 | 45.0 | 27,622,355 | | | | 6.0 | 7,604,761 | 16.0 | 14,632,129 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 11 | Kyegegwa DLG | 0 | 0 | 12.0 | 6,019,096 | 0.0 | | 0 | 7.0 | 5,426,662 | 58.0 | 3,161,051 | 15.0 | 1,592,995 | 122.0 | 9,945,590 |\n| 12 | Kyenjojo DLG | 0 | 0 | 72.0 | 80,792,810 | 19.0 | 9 to 52 | 26,582,154 | 75.0 | 77,858,388 | 174.0 | 8,367,152 | 112.0 | 6,695,073 | 232.0 | 9,665,444 |\n| 13 | Kyotera DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 86.0 | 5,045,779 | 130.0 | 3,206,545 |\n| 14 | Lamwo DLG | | | | | | | | 8.0 | 6,995,325 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | Lira DLG | 0 | 0 | 6.0 | 5,787,997 | 5.0 | | 10,293,377 | 22.0 | 3,502,585 | 70.0 | 2,344,802 | | | | |\n| 16 | Luuka DLG | 833 | 151,052,362 | 58.0 | 48,093,072 | | | | 676.0 | 73,545,618 | 20.0 | 2,614,734 | | | | |\n| 17 | Luwero DLG | 0 | 0 | 19.0 | 7,710,040 | 196.0 | 9 to 98 | 318,878,701 | 419.0 | 362,326,533 | 550.0 | 20,483,256 | | | | |\n| 18 | Lwengo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 84.0 | 2,336,259 | 216.0 | 25,808,005 |\n| 19 | Lyantonde DLG | 70 | 69,046,902 | 1.0 | 184,303 | 0.0 | | 0 | 110.0 | 144,360,275 | 42.0 | 3,774,678 | 34.0 | 5,485,359 | 92.0 | 662,780 |\n| 20 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 0 | 0 | 13.0 | 2,509,346 | 0.0 | | 0 | 2.0 | 2,358,510 | 0.0 | 0 | 177.0 | 21,268,304 | 107.0 | 17,256,610 |\n| 21 | Manafwa DLG | 225 | 421,246,166 | | | | | | 10.0 | 1,614,447 | 848.0 | 156,970,488 | | | | |\n| 22 | Maracha DLG | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 8.0 | 22 to 89 | 15,547,450 | 16.0 | 12,920,916 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 23 | Masaka DLG | 0 | 0 | 18.0 | 5,146,832 | 12.0 | 10 to 101 | 13,082,389 | 86.0 | 60,979,404 | 0.0 | 0 | 522.0 | 2,529,692 | 686.0 | 116,243,688 |\n| 24 | Masindi DLG | 0 | 0 | 33.0 | 27,367,073 | 17.0 | 9 to 18 | 24,740,797 | 0.0 | 0 | | | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Entity Name | No. of staff witho ut letters of under taking | Amount deducted from staff without letters of undertaking | No. of staff with loan s ded ucti ons past end date s | Amount deducted past end date | No. of staff with unre alist ic end date s | Average length of abnormal dates (years ranging from to) | Amount deducted from staff with abnormal end dates | No. of staff with un- appr oved loans | Amount deducted from staff with un- approved loans | No. of staff from which Loan deduc tions were over and above the appro ved amou nts | Amount deducted over and above the approved amounts | No. of staff with varia nce betw een My appro vals and active deduc tions | Variance Amount between My approvals and active deductions | No. of staff from which Variance between monthly deductio amounts in active deductio ns report | Variance Amount between monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report |\n|---:|:--------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Mayuge DLG | | | 35 | 27,064,037 | 64 | 9 to 251 | 126,280,911 | 420 | 767,021,671 | 125 | 13,064,527 | | | | |\n| 1 | Mbale DLG | 1,245 | 196,544,619 | 92 | 35,297,096 | 106 | 9 to 1541 | 155,194,966 | 146 | 25,033,869 | 848 | 156,970,488 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 2 | Mbarara DLG | 14 | 26,470,745 | 6 | 31,265,414 | 8 | 9 to 139 | 13,679,431 | 18 | 17,160,490 | 311 | 7,299,179 | 272.0 | 2,118,408 | | |", "metadata": {"page": 292, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Entity Name | No. of staff witho ut letters of under taking | Amount deducted from staff without letters of undertaking | No. of staff with loan s ded ucti ons past end date s | Amount deducted past end date | No. of staff with unre alist ic end date s | Average length of abnormal dates (years ranging from to) | Amount deducted from staff with abnormal end dates | No. of staff with un- appr oved loans | Amount deducted from staff with un- approved loans | No. of staff from which Loan deduc tions were over and above the appro ved amou nts | Amount deducted over and above the approved amounts | No. of staff with varia nce betw een My appro vals and active deduc tions | Variance Amount between My approvals and active deductions | No. of staff from which Variance between monthly deductio amounts in active deductio ns report | Variance Amount between monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report |\n|---:|:------------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Mitooma DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 62.0 | 45,719,768 | 0.0 | | 0 | 9.0 | 5,866,793 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 69 | 6,387,294 |\n| 1 | Mityana DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 24.0 | 24,188,99 | 35.0 | 29,090,341 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | Moroto DLG | 212.0 | 357,727,173 | 10.0 | 2,481,650 | 10.0 | 13 to 25 | 14,033,751 | 6.0 | 5,743,878 | 129.0 | 11,601,271 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | Moyo DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 12.0 | 9 to 12 | 7,597,719 | 8.0 | 3,648,417 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | Mpigi DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 18.0 | 7,414,431 | 39.0 | 9 to 81 | 63,569,216 | 10.0 | 3,459,488 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | Mubende DLG | 91.0 | 166,168,759 | 43.0 | 9,193,080 | 99.0 | | 133,369,505 | 21.0 | 17,460,348 | 371.0 | 109,384,825 | 353.0 | 8,077,282 | 182 | 2,314,639 |\n| 6 | Mukono DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 42.0 | 14,032,804 | 106.0 | 9 to 278 | 201,435,493 | 41.0 | 34,824,302 | 59.0 | 2,560,644 | 421.0 | 52,890,921 | 118 | 4,807,795 |\n| 7 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 3.0 | 569,402 | 0.0 | | 0 | 8.0 | 8,682,765 | 7.0 | 509,132 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | Nakaseke DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 8.0 | 444,605 | 19.0 | | 1,645,478 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 200.0 | 10,489,146 | 410 | 26,269,050 |\n| 9 | Nakasongola DLG | 19.0 | 12,442,322 | 49.0 | 26,899,425 | 18.0 | 9 to 11 | 14,657,798 | 19.0 | 12,442,322 | 158.0 | 148,945,206 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | Namayingo DLG | | | 2.0 | 66,500 | 15.0 | 9 to 19 | 18,528,565 | 514.0 | 869,660,204 | 41.0 | 3,464,013 | | | | |\n| 11 | Namisindwa DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | | | 471.0 | 13,576,059 | 24 | 3,696,376 |\n| 12 | Namutumba DLG | 654.0 | 1,214,036,533 | 40.0 | 26,531,379 | | | | 15.0 | 10,620,729 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Nebbi DLG | 190.0 | 13,150,776 | | | | | | | | | | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | Ngora DLG | 475.0 | 884,789,375 | 14.0 | 4,069,392 | 14.0 | 9 to 92 | 17,487,458 | | | | | 59.0 | 72,920,215 | 1,633 | 104,639,842 |\n| 15 | Ntoroko DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 7.0 | 3,115,781 | 56.0 | 9 to 244 | 131,695,726 | 12.0 | 10,959,733 | 24.0 | 1,089,314 | 90.0 | 16,776,254 | 145 | 12,113,782 |\n| 16 | Ntungamo DLG | 8.0 | 10,239,883 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | Nwoya DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 221.0 | 27,349,594 | 0.0 | 0 | 170.0 | 6,580,562 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | Obongi DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 0 | 17.0 | 2,689,650 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | Omoro DLG | 655.0 | 1,039,249,388 | 21.0 | 4,091,933 | 105.0 | 9 to 152 | 176,511,469 | 13.0 | 7,673,618 | 42.0 | 1,560,767 | 41.0 | 1,021,155 | 95 | 3,979,156 |\n| 20 | Otuke DLG | 29.0 | 52,814,803 | 6.0 | 12,850,650 | 24.0 | 50 to 92 | 74,068,773 | 39.0 | 50,030,968 | 118.0 | 14,103,707 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | Oyam DLG | 969.0 | 1,722,117,890 | 50.0 | 32,570,873 | 1.0 | 1 to 1900 | 2,158,998 | 29.0 | 30,968,478 | 131.0 | 25,115,090 | 39.0 | 1,430,224 | 414 | 24,092,261 |\n| 22 | Pakwach DLG | 0.0 | 0 | | | | | | | | 65.0 | 34,271,206 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Entity Name | No. of staff witho ut letters of under taking | Amount deducted from staff without letters of undertaking | No. of staff with loan s ded ucti ons past end date s | Amount deducted past end date | No. of staff with unre alist ic end date s | Average length of abnormal dates (years ranging from to) | Amount deducted from staff with abnormal end dates | No. of staff with un- appr oved loans | Amount deducted from staff with un- approved loans | No. of staff from which Loan deduc tions were over and above the appro ved amou nts | Amount deducted over and above the approved amounts | No. of staff with varia nce betw een My appro vals and active deduc tions | Variance Amount between My approvals and active deductions | No. of staff from which Variance between monthly deductio amounts in active deductio ns report | Variance Amount between monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report |\n|---:|:--------------|------------------------------------------------:|------------------------------------------------------------:|--------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|------------------------------------------------------:|----------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Pallisa DLG | 0 | 0 | 36 | 8,792,289 | 18 | 37 to 125 | 179,954 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | Rakai DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 16 | 3,525,756 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 323,973 | 136 | 3,979,256 |\n| 2 | Rubanda DLG | 0 | 0 | 53 | 73,790,422 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 76 | 679,054 | 344 | 15,940,122 |\n| 3 | Rubirizi DLG | 0 | 0 | 1 | 103,594 | 13 | 9 to 16 | 24,116,580 | 312 | 53,725,444 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 1,399,075 | 312 | 53,725,444 |\n| 4 | Rukiga DLG | 0 | 0 | 30 | 64,812,489 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 293, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Entity Name | No. of staff witho ut letters of under taking | Amount deducted from staff without letters of undertaking | No. of staff with loan s ded ucti ons past end date s | Amount deducted past end date | No. of staff with unre alist ic end date s | Average length of abnormal dates (years ranging from to) | Amount deducted from staff with abnormal end dates | No. of staff with un- appr oved loans | Amount deducted from staff with un- approved loans | No. of staff from which Loan deduc tions were over and above the appro ved amou nts | Amount deducted over and above the approved amounts | No. of staff with varia nce betw een My appro vals and active deduc tions | Variance Amount between My approvals and active deductions | No. of staff from which Variance between monthly deductio amounts in active deductio ns report | Variance Amount between monthly deduction amounts in active deductions report |\n|---:|:--------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Rukungiri DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 178 | 9 to 1412 | 210,026,136 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,77 8 | 193,174,533 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | Rwampara DLG | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1,007,054 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 156 | 12,087,434 |\n| 2 | Sembabule DLG | 135 | 126,779,039 | 12 | 15,679,825 | 4 | 10 to 11 | 1,974,554 | 41 | 45,636,611 | 770 | 97,302,172 | 258 | 6,784,450 | 372 | 5,229,322 |\n| 3 | Serere DLG | 83 | 277,143,706 | 7 | 8,589,388 | 39 | 9 to 80 | 6,435,030 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | Sheema DLG | 0 | 0 | 68 | 26,414,353 | 85 | 9 to 172 | 72,160,119 | 33 | 18,938,753 | 35 | 3,672,225 | | | | |\n| 5 | Sironko DLG | 0 | 0 | 31 | 21,301,821 | 4 | 47 to 96 | 677,270 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | Soroti DLG | 0 | 0 | 13 | 2,828,410 | 60 | 9 to 333 | 77,144,222 | 63 | 32,737,209 | 92 | 2,521,018 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | Terego DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 122 | 149,576,412 | 93 | 8,488,586 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | Tororo DLG | 130 | 26,488,136 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 722,535 | | 33,633,069 | | 23,710,317 |\n| 9 | Wakiso DLG | 0 | 0 | 49 | 10,023,976 | 143 | | 204,453,730 | 24 | 16,442,942 | 136 | 4,042,000 | 117 | 5,657,588 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | Yumbe DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 15 | 2,595,697 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | Zombo DLG | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5,370,075 | 5 | 0 to 4 | 5,370,075 | 30 | 22,465,074 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | Total | 15,00 2 | 20,792,707,0 30 | 2,14 3 | 1,458,405, 180 | 2,72 9 | | 4,745,884,699 | 8,46 8 | 8,885,902,3 11 | 8,756 | 1,643,636, 038 | 6,8 75 | 597,776,37 4 | 8,935 | 694,882,95 7 |", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff from which no LST was deducte d | Amount of LST un deducted | Number of staff with wrong LST deductio n | Overdeductio n of LST | Under deduction of LST | Number of staff from which no PAYE was deducte d | Amount of PAYE un deducted | Number of staff with wrong PAYE deduction s | Over deduction of PAYE | Under deduction of PAYE |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------|--------------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 0 | 0 | 400 | 0 | 8,322,500 | 12 | 22,474,874 | 16 | 1,276,425 | 3,752,198 |\n| 1 | 2 | Agago DLG | 335 | 16,867,500 | 340 | 1,907,500 | 2,765,000 | 154 | 19,109,952 | 1,693 | 80,914,933 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 294, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff from which no LST was deducte d | Amount of LST un deducted | Number of staff with wrong LST deductio n | Overdeductio n of LST | Under deduction of LST | Number of staff from which no PAYE was deducte d | Amount of PAYE un deducted | Number of staff with wrong PAYE deduction s | Over deduction of PAYE | Under deduction of PAYE |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------|:--------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|\n| 0 | 3 | Alebtong DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 964 | 0 | 11,308,678 |\n| 1 | 4 | Amolatar DLG | 272 | 140,500,00 0 | 303 | 3,777,500 | 355,000 | 0 | 0 | 232 | 57,452,362 | 18,451,893 |\n| 2 | 5 | Amudat DLG | 0 | 0 | 154 | 581,250 | 590,000 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 5,976,211 |\n| 3 | 6 | Amuria DLG | 237 | 5,350,000 | 940 | 11,562,500 | 1,511,250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 7 | Amuru DLG | 448 | 22,095,000 | 171 | 1,928,750 | 495,000 | 33 | 571,647 | 1,248 | 16,533,764 | 0 |\n| 5 | 8 | Apac DLG | 0 | 0 | 265 | 0 | 16,300,000 | 424 | 22,369,629 | 802 | 0 | 42,323,166 |\n| 6 | 9 | Arua DLG | 683 | 13,592,500 | 620 | 8,720,000 | 2,357,500 | 0 | 0 | 106 | 0 | 35,428,296 |\n| 7 | 10 | Budaka DLG | 0 | 0 | 236 | 2,707,500 | 1,721,250 | 0 | 0 | 393 | 0 | 6,824,089 |\n| 8 | 11 | Bududa DLG | 80 | 1,360,000 | 175 | 0 | 1,313,750 | 3 | 2,266,344 | 9 | 518,779 | 0 |\n| 9 | 12 | Bugiri DLG | 0 | 0 | 2,002 | 21,002,500 | 10,113,750 | 0 | 0 | 2,251 | 0 | 7,326,484 |\n| 10 | 13 | Bugweri DLG | 58 | 3,107,500 | 79 | 2,010,000 | 373,750 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 14 | Buikwe DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,017 | 10,695,000 | 3,393,750 | 0 | 0 | 1,263 | 0 | 41,521,135 |\n| 12 | 15 | Bukedea DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,502 | 18,152,500 | 5,157,500 | 29 | 1,387,074 | 1,347 | 0 | 38,262,904 |\n| 13 | 16 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,007 | 3,222,000 | 14,655,000 | 5 | 2,918,072 | 1,073 | 38,801,620 | 0 |\n| 14 | 17 | Bukwo DLG | 0 | 0 | 751 | 1,220,000 | 16,027,500 | 54 | 6,552,892 | 76 | 0 | 24,709,686 |\n| 15 | 18 | Bulambuli DLG | 0 | 0 | 273 | 0 | 7,207,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 8,093,572 |\n| 16 | 19 | Buliisa DLG | 2 | 591,250 | 783 | 0 | 77,194,200 | 0 | 0 | 765 | 0 | 26,927,100 |\n| 17 | 20 | Bundibugyo DLG | 0 | 0 | 695 | 4,122,500 | 6,587,500 | 19 | 45,556,921 | 21 | 0 | 5,071,143 |\n| 18 | 21 | Bunyangabu DLG | 0 | 0 | 881 | 10,617,500 | 561,250 | 11 | 20,772,705 | 1,265 | 81,407 | 21,398,032 |\n| 19 | 22 | Bushenyi DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,430 | 19,042,500 | 31,250 | 3 | 768,685 | 21 | 0 | 4,287,265 |\n| 20 | 23 | Busia DLG | 107 | 7,785,000 | 629 | 8,882,500 | 5,595,000 | 5 | 947,415 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 24 | Butambala DLG | 0 | 0 | 54 | 1,465,000 | 0 | 1 | 773,527 | 196 | 29,764,012 | 0 |\n| 22 | 25 | Butebo DLG | 0 | 0 | 489 | 6,925,000 | 2,841,250 | 6 | 3,144,819 | 35 | 0 | 22,481,423 |\n| 23 | 26 | Buvuma DLG | 132 | 7,515,000 | 114 | 60,000 | 1,255,000 | 0 | 0 | 461 | 0 | 8,603,438 |\n| 24 | 27 | Buyende DLG | 43 | 3,220,000 | 65 | 3,960,000 | 275,000 | 14 | 6,718,292 | 82 | 0 | 24,873,729 |\n| 25 | 28 | Dokolo DLG | 331 | 9,036,250 | 1,021 | 12,660,000 | 1,511,250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 29 | Gomba DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,110 | 11,146,108 | 5,483,750 | 0 | 0 | 1,340 | 195,453 | 33,523,521 |\n| 27 | 30 | Gulu DLG | 0 | 0 | 592 | 85,000 | 2,615,000 | 1 | 2,796,827 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff from which no LST was deducte d | Amount of LST un deducted | Number of staff with wrong LST deductio n | Overdeductio n of LST | Under deduction of LST | Number of staff from which no PAYE was deducte d | Amount of PAYE un deducted | Number of staff with wrong PAYE deduction s | Over deduction of PAYE | Under deduction of PAYE |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------|:--------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------:|-----------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|\n| 0 | 31 | Hoima DLG | 156 | 11,240,000 | 902 | 10,140,000 | 1,567,500 | 0 | 0 | 1,219 | 0 | 71,608,660 |\n| 1 | 32 | Ibanda DLG | 2 | 30,000 | 1,229 | 15,552,500 | 3,832,500 | 0 | 0 | 1,209 | 555,387,743 | 60,018,802 |", "metadata": {"page": 295, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff from which no LST was deducte d | Amount of LST un deducted | Number of staff with wrong LST deductio n | Overdeductio n of LST | Under deduction of LST | Number of staff from which no PAYE was deducte d | Amount of PAYE un deducted | Number of staff with wrong PAYE deduction s | Over deduction of PAYE | Under deduction of PAYE |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------|:--------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|\n| 0 | 33 | Iganga DLG | 447 | 26,207,500 | 1,785 | 21,357,500 | 638,750 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 2,156,000 |\n| 1 | 34 | Jinja DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,387 | 18,490,000 | 2,165,000 | 0 | 0 | 1,032 | 0 | 33,372,739 |\n| 2 | 35 | Kabale DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,032 | 18,696,212 | 6,235,000 | 0 | 0 | 2,434 | 0 | 75,037,594 |\n| 3 | 36 | Kabarole DLG | 0 | 0 | 902 | 12,807,500 | 2,566,250 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 6,681,901 |\n| 4 | 37 | Kaberamaido DLG | 24 | 1,000,000 | 149 | 1,980,000 | 176,250 | 0 | 0 | 101 | 10,368,921 | 2,643,040 |\n| 5 | 38 | Kagadi DLG | 2 | 135,000 | 1,806 | 25,415,000 | 7,175,000 | 18 | 3,262,442 | 1,881 | 0 | 56,338,325 |\n| 6 | 39 | Kakumiro DLG | 6 | 220,000 | 924 | 12,015,000 | 3,960,000 | 0 | 0 | 1,070 | 0 | 45,361,333 |\n| 7 | 40 | Kalaki DLG | 0 | 0 | 149 | 2,995,000 | 0 | 16 | 14,608,233 | 24 | 0 | 8,975,341 |\n| 8 | 41 | Kalangala DLG | 0 | 0 | 588 | 187,500 | 23,663,750 | 0 | 0 | 359 | 735,254 | 6,067,532 |\n| 9 | 42 | Kaliro DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,258 | 15,392,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,754 | 0 | 62,609,187 |\n| 10 | 43 | Kalungu DLG | 14 | 730,000 | 30 | 442,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 743,264 |\n| 11 | 44 | Kamuli DLG | 49 | 4,100,000 | 3,077 | 32,448,750 | 26,820,000 | 38 | 30,518,433 | 0 | 3,216 | 73,404,073 |\n| 12 | 45 | Kanungu DLG | 0 | 0 | 95 | 1,017,500 | 997,500 | 0 | 0 | 98 | 0 | 3,730,538 |\n| 13 | 46 | Kapchorwa DLG | 362 | 24,185,000 | 496 | 5,405,000 | 960,000 | 1 | 270,732 | 945 | 0 | 14,670,573 |\n| 14 | 47 | Kapelebyong DLG | 145 | 7,545,000 | 130 | 2,160,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 208 | 5,035,322 | 0 |\n| 15 | 48 | Kasanda DLG | 4 | 115,000 | 1,255 | 8,855,000 | 12,045,000 | 4 | 762,054 | 1,426 | 0 | 29,666,070 |\n| 16 | 49 | Kasese DLG | 130 | 7,137,500 | 2,437 | 57,560,000 | 5,630,000 | 10 | 21,030,138 | 115 | 39,696,559 | 0 |\n| 17 | 50 | Katakwi DLG | 801 | 18,141,250 | 304 | 2,787,500 | 297,500 | 0 | 0 | 406 | 0 | 9,399,080 |\n| 18 | 51 | Kayunga DLG | 0 | 0 | 2,266 | 25,990,000 | 4,142,500 | 4 | 1,192,536 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 52 | Kazo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 1,587,408 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 53 | Kibaale DLG | 0 | 0 | 870 | 15,682,500 | 2,405,000 | 28 | 3,087,693 | 938 | 0 | 24,395,489 |\n| 21 | 54 | Kiboga DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,395 | 13,572,500 | 2,517,500 | 0 | 0 | 1,406 | 0 | 63,533,478 |\n| 22 | 55 | Kibuku DLG | 0 | 0 | 519 | 9,757,500 | 5,471,250 | 0 | 0 | 62 | 0 | 23,609,181 |\n| 23 | 56 | Kikuube DLG | 0 | 0 | 766 | 1,757,500 | 8,647,500 | 0 | 0 | 1,184 | 133,652 | 35,683,435 |\n| 24 | 57 | Kiruhura DLG | 0 | 0 | 959 | 8,862,500 | 5,282,500 | 0 | 0 | 1,142 | 0 | 55,698,773 |\n| 25 | 58 | Kiryandongo DLG | 433 | 24,206,250 | 1,395 | 16,347,500 | 6,953,750 | 1 | 201,811 | 1,406 | 0 | 24,588,301 |\n| 26 | 59 | Kitagwenda DLG | 129 | 9,155,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 76 | 0 | 24,197,560 |\n| 27 | 60 | Kitgum DLG | 0 | 0 | 27 | 207,500 | 50,000 | 9 | 6,626,901 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff from which no LST was deducte d | Amount of LST un deducted | Number of staff with wrong LST deductio n | Overdeductio n of LST | Under deduction of LST | Number of staff from which no PAYE was deducte d | Amount of PAYE un deducted | Number of staff with wrong PAYE deduction s | Over deduction of PAYE | Under deduction of PAYE |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------|:--------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|\n| 0 | 61 | Koboko DLG | 4 | 62,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 62 | Kole DLG | 0 | 0 | 393 | 0 | 12,010,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 63 | Kumi DLG | 26 | 470,000 | 1,031 | 1,365,000 | 0 | 6 | 1,066,721 | 441 | 173,759,405 | 0 |\n| 3 | 64 | Kwania DLG | 165 | 10,717,500 | 1,095 | 11,876,250 | 857,500 | 4 | 2,464,652 | 0 | 1,242 | 34,470,604 |", "metadata": {"page": 296, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff from which no LST was deducte d | Amount of LST un deducted | Number of staff with wrong LST deductio n | Overdeductio n of LST | Under deduction of LST | Number of staff from which no PAYE was deducte d | Amount of PAYE un deducted | Number of staff with wrong PAYE deduction s | Over deduction of PAYE | Under deduction of PAYE |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------|:--------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|\n| 0 | 65 | Kween DLG | 212 | 3,545,000 | 686 | 7,050,000 | 1,803,750 | 1 | 2,521,679 | 1,172 | 0 | 29,828,983 |\n| 1 | 66 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,575 | 21,985,000 | 6,603,750 | 0 | 0 | 1,831 | 0 | 68,707,401 |\n| 2 | 67 | Kyegegwa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 62 | 0 | 10,818,190 |\n| 3 | 68 | Kyenjojo DLG | 0 | 0 | 249 | 3,498,750 | 212,500 | 1 | 869,398 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 69 | Kyotera DLG | 0 | 0 | 2,184 | 18,095,000 | 18,478,750 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 70 | Lamwo DLG | 186 | 11,365,000 | 354 | 1,525,000 | 3,943,750 | 1 | 1,042,200 | 171 | 0 | 4,061,945 |\n| 6 | 71 | Lira DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,048 | 15,918,750 | 688,750 | 0 | 0 | 1,346 | 300,684,271 | 22,213,126 |\n| 7 | 72 | Luuka DLG | 3 | 125,000 | 1,659 | 17,412,500 | 1,882,500 | 0 | 0 | 304 | 0 | 3,659,218 |\n| 8 | 73 | Luwero DLG | 6 | 275,000 | 3,831 | 35,846,595 | 22,908,750 | 51 | 26,730,470 | 4,024 | 0 | 96,436,260 |\n| 9 | 74 | Lwengo DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,659 | 17,056,250 | 4,483,750 | 3 | 2,651,225 | 110 | 0 | 29,166,343 |\n| 10 | 75 | Lyantonde DLG | 0 | 0 | 885 | 6,855,000 | 8,801,250 | 11 | 1,486,254 | 1,036 | 0 | 32,930,876 |\n| 11 | 76 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 4 | 135,000 | 957 | 9,876,250 | 6,732,500 | 15 | 1,805,024 | 67 | 21,427,046 | 34,687 |\n| 12 | 77 | Manafwa DLG | 0 | 0 | 78 | 12,357,500 | 2,728,750 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 0 | 13,544,11 |\n| 13 | 78 | Maracha DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,486 | 39,192,500 | 160,000 | 0 | 0 | 938 | 13,051,508 | 0 |\n| 14 | 79 | Masaka DLG | 82 | 8,672,500 | 818 | 6,923,750 | 198,750 | 14 | 9,682,458 | 881 | 10,618,912 | 0 |\n| 15 | 80 | Masindi DLG | 356 | 4,100,000 | 1,239 | 11,872,500 | 2,440,000 | 1 | 2,810,000 | 1,406 | 509,315,123 | 16,075,037 |\n| 16 | 81 | Mayuge DLG | 0 | 0 | 75 | 30,181,902 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,373 | 0 | 41,504,234 |\n| 17 | 82 | Mbale DLG | 0 | 0 | 2,904 | 9,185,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3,929 | 41,213 | 40,339,994 |\n| 18 | 83 | Mbarara DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,158 | 14,520,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,284 | 200,906,092 | 31,593,639 |\n| 19 | 84 | Mitooma DLG | 72 | 3,937,500 | 95 | 1,170,000 | 310,000 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 0 | 12,076,258 |\n| 20 | 85 | Mityana DLG | 0 | 0 | 458 | 13,475,000 | 7,751,250 | 3 | 7,286,400 | 18 | 0 | 14,107,218 |\n| 21 | 86 | Moroto DLG | 144 | 8,118,750 | 121 | 255,000 | 1,638,750 | 21 | 8,124,515 | 745 | 0 | 11,304,400 |\n| 22 | 87 | Moyo DLG | 0 | 0 | 55 | 2,512,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 88 | Mpigi DLG | 55 | 2,285,000 | 1,214 | 15,293,750 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,509 | 0 | 28,446,228 |\n| 24 | 89 | Mubende DLG | 0 | 0 | 935 | 9,195,000 | 3,856,250 | 0 | 0 | 394 | 0 | 13,240,180 |\n| 25 | 90 | Mukono DLG | 0 | 0 | 2,927 | 39,461,250 | 8,527,500 | 3 | 2,287,752 | 938 | 0 | 78,724,807 |\n| 26 | 91 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 0 | 0 | 252 | 1,172,500 | 2,051,250 | 24 | 12,834,100 | 563 | 0 | 18,815,283 |\n| 27 | 92 | Nakaseke DLG | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 45,000 | 0 | 0 | 451 | 87,026,351 | 1,177,602 |", "metadata": {"page": 297, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff from which no LST was deducte d | Amount of LST un deducted | Number of staff with wrong LST deductio n | Overdeductio n of LST | Under deduction of LST | Number of staff from which no PAYE was deducte d | Amount of PAYE un deducted | Number of staff with wrong PAYE deduction s | Over deduction of PAYE | Under deduction of PAYE |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|-----------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------|:--------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|\n| 0 | 93 | Nakasongola DLG | 0 | 0 | 2,095 | 3,527,500 | 36,420,000 | 2 | 1,657,713 | 2,090 | 0 | 42,107,750 |\n| 1 | 94 | Namayingo DLG | 0 | 0 | 492 | 1,277,500 | 7,017,500 | 0 | 0 | 1,292 | 0 | 13,481,286 |\n| 2 | 95 | Namutumba DLG | 6 | 170,000 | 1,765 | 15,740,000 | 10,946,250 | 0 | 0 | 979 | 24,685,599 | 0 |\n| 3 | 96 | Napak DLG | 447 | 12,957,500 | 154 | 1,497,500 | 775,000 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 5,976,211 |", "metadata": {"page": 297, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff from which no LST was deducte d | Amount of LST un deducted | Number of staff with wrong LST deductio n | Overdeductio n of LST | Under deduction of LST | Number of staff from which no PAYE was deducte d | Amount of PAYE un deducted | Number of staff with wrong PAYE deduction s | Over deduction of PAYE | Under deduction of PAYE |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|:-----------------------------------------------|:----------------------------|:--------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|\n| 0 | 97 | Ngora DLG | 24 | 1,072,500 | 969 | 10,962,500 | 2,153,750 | 10 | 16,181,769 | 41 | 0 | 20,678,468 |\n| 1 | 98 | Ntoroko DLG | 181 | 11,997,500 | 284 | 1,790,000 | 2,423,750 | 2 | 401,986 | 693 | 0 | 27,134,849 |\n| 2 | 99 | Ntungamo DLG | 0 | 0 | 22 | 270,000 | 0 | 28 | 37,988,956 | 151 | 0 | 20,715,092 |\n| 3 | 10 | 0 Omoro DLG | 3 | 102,500 | 652 | 4,042,500 | 8,515,000 | 1 | 2,872,542 | 1,590 | 0 | 46,533,621 |\n| 4 | 10 | 1 Otuke DLG | 1,141 | 138,475,00 0 | 906 | 11,400,000 | 1,741,250 | 0 | 0 | 1,166 | 797,403,729 | 14,214,586 |\n| 5 | 10 | 2 Oyam DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,619 | 41,170,147 | 141,880,930 |\n| 6 | 10 | 3 Pakwach DLG | 5 | 292,500 | 1,001 | 7,365,000 | 10,443,750 | 1 | 72,595 | 69 | 0 | 18,267,544 |\n| 7 | 10 | 4 Pallisa DLG | 0 | 0 | 435 | 0 | 9,817,500 | 91 | 18,821 | 369 | 18,594,399 | 20,523 |\n| 8 | 10 | 5 Rakai DLG | 517 | 30,325,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 10 | 6 Rubanda DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,032 | 4,252,500 | 4,020,000 | 0 | 0 | 211 | 332,396 | 43,911,214 |\n| 10 | 10 | 7 Rubirizi DLG | 179 | 9,622,500 | 1,003 | 17,500 | 89,535,098 | 0 | 0 | 1,003 | 0 | 62,465,174 |\n| 11 | 10 | 8 Rukiga DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,109 | 15,682,500 | 251,250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 10 | 9 Rukungiri DLG | 421 | 10,676,250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 11 | 0 Rwampara DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,038 | 8,280,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 11 | 1 Sembabule DLG | 4 | 75,000 | 2,267 | 21,877,500 | 12,106,250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 11 | 2 Serere DLG | 300 | 20,122,500 | 240 | 4,840,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 0 | 19,022,013 |\n| 16 | 11 | 3 Sheema DLG | 0 | 0 | 97 | 1,175,000 | 387,500 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 1,322,995 |\n| 17 | 11 | 4 Sironko DLG | 256 | 3,427,500 | 66 | 2,205,000 | 5,262,500 | 50 | 10,345 | 383 | 4,303,618 | 1,054,718 |", "metadata": {"page": 298, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No. of staff from which no LST was deducte d | Amount of LST un deducted | Number of staff with wrong LST deductio n | Overdeductio n of LST | Under deduction of LST | Number of staff from which no PAYE was deducte d | Amount of PAYE un deducted | Number of staff with wrong PAYE deduction s | Over deduction of PAYE | Under deduction of PAYE |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------|:-----------------------------------------------|:----------------------------|:--------------------------------------------|:------------------------|:-------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:--------------------------|\n| 0 | 11.0 | 5 Soroti DLG | 801 | 25,455,000 | 104 | 1,230,000 | 297,500 | 0 | 0 | 535 | 0 | 24,395,489 |\n| 1 | 11.0 | 6 Tororo DLG | 318 | 10,062,500 | 78 | 17,272,500 | 13,663,750 | 337 | 57,933,014 | 57 | 0 | 10,309,201 |\n| 2 | 11.0 | 7 Wakiso DLG | 0 | 0 | 76 | 2,522,500 | 3,213,750 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 11.0 | 8 Zombo DLG | 295 | 6,325,000 | 1,354 | 6,762,500 | 13,291,250 | 5 | 4,697,181 | 444 | 0 | 28,685,210 |\n| 4 | | Total | 11,645 | 700,135,00 0 | 94,892 | 1,043,454,067 | 682,208,04 8 | 1,621 | 447,775,82 6 | 75,094 | 3,040,220,50 4 | 2,387,243,61 9 |", "metadata": {"page": 299, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Planned | Unnamed: 3 | Budgeted | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Actual | Unnamed: 8 | Release/wa rrant Ugx | Amount spent on Land Ugx | Diversion of Land Funds Ugx |\n|---:|:-----|:------------|:-----------------|:-------------|:-----------|:----------------|:-------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-----------------------|:---------------------------|:------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | Size (hecta res) | Amount Ugx | Piec es | Size (hectares) | Amount Ugx | Size (hectares) | Amount Ugx | Amount Ugx | Amount Ugx | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Wakiso DLG | 0 | 0 | 4 | Not specified | 131,574,000 | Not specified | 131,574,000 | 131,500,000 | 57,400,000 | 0 |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Mbale DLG | 0 | 0 | 3 | Not specified | 195,000,000 | Not specified | 195,000,000 | 193,034,360 | 193,034,360 | 0 |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Oyam DLG | 40.47 | 300,000,000 | 1 | 40.47 | 300,000,000 | 40.47 | 300,000,000 | 300,000,000 | 20,000,000 | 280,000,000 |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Sironko DLG | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 25,134,266 | 25,134,266 |\n| 5 | | Total | 40.47 | 300,000,000 | 10 | 40.47 | 626,574,00 0 | 42.47 | 626,574,001 | 624,534,36 0 | 295,568,62 6 | 305,134,26 6 |", "metadata": {"page": 299, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Total Land | Unnamed: 3 | Un0Titled Land | Unnamed: 5 | Causes |\n|---:|:-----|:-----------|:-------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | Pieces | Size (hectares) | Pieces | Size (hectares) | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Wakiso DLG | 45 | 47 | 32 | 20 | Land was donated by people who passed on without transferring title to the entity |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Jinja DLG | 28 | 149.8 | 3 | 10.747 | Not stated |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Mbale DLG | 26 | 281.1 | 6 | Not specified | Not stated |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Gulu DLG | 92 | Not defined | 76 | Not specified | Lack of funding to transfer titles |", "metadata": {"page": 299, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 5 | Oyam DLG | 20 | 290.35 | 10 | 58.45 | Lack of funding to transfer titles |\n|---:|:-----|:-------------|-----:|:------------|-----:|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 6.0 | Mbarara DLG | 78 | 235.65 | 68 | 113.94 | Lack of funding to transfer titles |\n| 1 | 7.0 | Buduuda DLG | 50 | 101.29 | 24 | 19.25 | Expired Land Board to effect titling of Land |\n| 2 | 8.0 | Butaleja DLG | 0 | 0 | 14 | 112 | Expired Land Board to effect titling of Land |\n| 3 | 9.0 | Sironko DLG | 37 | 759.59 | 21 | 317.09 | Lack of funding to transfer titles |\n| 4 | 10.0 | Soroti DLG | 138 | Not defined | 91 | Not specifed | Lack of funding to transfer titles |\n| 5 | 11.0 | Kumi DLG | 64 | 520 | 51 | Not specifed | Not stated |\n| 6 | | Total | 578 | 2384.78 | 396 | 651.477 | |", "metadata": {"page": 300, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Land not in the names of ULC | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Causes |\n|---:|:-----|:------------|:-------------------------------|:----------------|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | Pieces | Size (hectares) | Amount Ugx | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Wakiso DLG | 32 | 20 | Not defined | Corporate body hence has a right to own land in their own right |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Mbale DLG | 26 | 281.1 | Not defined | Ignorance of the Law/Lack of awareness |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Gulu DLG | 15 | 47.063 | Not defined | Corporate body hence has a right to own land in their own right |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Oyam DLG | 15 | 173.38 | Not defined | Corporate body hence has a right to own land in their own right |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Mbarara DLG | 14 | 151.71 | Not defined | Corporate body hence has a right to own land in their own right |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Buduuda DLG | 0 | 3 | Not defined | Not stated |\n| 7 | | TOTAL | 102 | 676.253 | | |", "metadata": {"page": 300, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Total Land | Unnamed: 3 | Land not recorded in the Land Register | Unnamed: 5 | Causes |\n|---:|:-----|:-----------------|:-------------|:----------------|:-----------------------------------------|:----------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | Pieces | Size (hectares) | No of Pieces | Size (hectares) | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Wakiso DLG | 45 | 47 | 1 | 1.51 | Absence of a reconciled position between land acquired by the LLGs and the district. |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Mbale DLG | 26 | 281.1 | 29 | 282.11 | Not disclosed |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Gulu DLG | 92 | Not defined | 3 | 4.495 | Not disclosed |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Mbarara DLG | 78 | 235.65 | 78 | 235.65 | Not disclosed |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Fort portal City | 53 | Not defined | 0 | 0 | Not disclosed |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Buduuda DLG | 50 | 101.29 | 0 | 0 | Lack of District Land Board |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Butaleja DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 112 | Not disclosed |\n| 8 | 8.0 | Sironko DLG | 37 | 759.59 | 0 | 0 | Not disclosed |\n| 9 | 9.0 | Soroti DLG | 138 | Not defined | 0 | 0 | Not disclosed |\n| 10 | 10.0 | Kumi DLG | 64 | 520 | 64 | 520 | Not disclosed |\n| 11 | | Total | 583 | 1944.6 | 175 | 1155.8 | |", "metadata": {"page": 300, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Directorate | Total Land | Unnamed: 4 | Land not recorded in GFMIS | Unnamed: 6 | Causes |\n|---:|:-----|:-----------------|:--------------|:-------------|:----------------|:-----------------------------|:----------------|:--------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | | Pieces | Size (hectares) | No of Pieces | Size (hectares) | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Wakiso DLG | LA | 45 | 47 | 27 | 23 | Absence of Land Values to update GFMIS |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Mbale DLG | LA | 26 | 281.1 | 23 | 281.1 | Non Functionality of the GFMIS0Asset module |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Gulu DLG | LA | 92 | Not defined | 36 | 112.2 | Not disclosed |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Oyam DLG | LA | 20 | 290.35 | 1 | 3.85 | Non Functionality of the GFMIS0Asset module |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Mbarara DLG | LA | 78 | 235.65 | 0 | 0 | Not disclosed |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Fort portal City | LA | 53 | Not defined | 0 | 0 | Not disclosed |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Buduuda DLG | LA | 50 | 101.29 | 50 | 101.129 | Not disclosed |\n| 8 | 8.0 | Butaleja DLG | LA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Non Functionality of the GFMIS0Asset module |\n| 9 | 9.0 | Sironko DLG | LA | 37 | 759.59 | 37 | 759.59 | Not disclosed |\n| 10 | 10.0 | Soroti DLG | LA | 138 | Not defined | 0 | 0 | Not disclosed |\n| 11 | 11.0 | Kumi DLG | LA | 64 | 520 | 64 | 520 | Non Functionality of the GFMIS0Asset module |\n| 12 | | Total | | 603 | 2234.98 | 238 | 1800.869 | |", "metadata": {"page": 301, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Directorate | Land not utilized in accordance with approved purpose | Unnamed: 4 |\n|---:|:-----|:---------|:--------------|:--------------------------------------------------------|:----------------|\n| 0 | | | | No of Pieces | Size (hectares) |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Gulu DLG | LA | 3 | 11.767 |\n| 2 | | Total | | 3 | 11.767 |", "metadata": {"page": 301, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Total Land | Unnamed: 3 | Unutilized Land | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Causes |\n|---:|:-----|:-----------------|:-------------|:----------------|:------------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-------------------|\n| 0 | | | Pieces | Size (hectares) | No of Pieces | Size (hectares) | Amount Ugx | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Wakiso DLG | 45 | 47 | 1 | 0.202 | Not defined | Inadequate Funding |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Jinja DLG | 28 | 149.8 | | | 0 | |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Mbale DLG | 26 | 281.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Gulu DLG | 92 | Not defined | 3 | 11.767 | Not defined | Inadequate Funding |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Oyam DLG | 20 | 290.35 | 1 | 3.853 | Not defined | Inadequate Funding |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Mbarara DLG | 78 | 235.65 | 6 | 3.264 | Not defined | Inadequate Funding |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Fort portal City | 53 | Not defined | 6 | Not defined | Not defined | Inadequate Funding |\n| 8 | 8.0 | Buduuda DLG | 50 | 101.29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |\n| 9 | 9.0 | Butaleja DLG | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1.7 | Not defined | Inadequate Funding |\n| 10 | 10.0 | Sironko DLG | 37 | 759.59 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |", "metadata": {"page": 301, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 11 | Soroti DLG | 138 | Not defined | 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | Unnamed: 7 |\n|---:|:-----|:-------------|------:|--------------:|----:|-------:|:------|:-------------|\n| 0 | 12.0 | Kumi DLG | 64 | 520 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | |\n| 1 | | Total | 631 | 2384.78 | 19 | 20.786 | | |", "metadata": {"page": 302, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No | Entity | Total Land | Unnamed: 3 | Encumbered Land | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Causes |\n|---:|:-----|:------------|:-------------|:----------------|:------------------|:----------------|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | Pieces | Size (hectares) | No of Pieces | Size (hectares) | Amount Ugx | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Wakiso DLG | 45 | 47 | 3 | 1.641 | Not defined | Lack of title and supporting documentation of ownership, prolonged non utilization of land attracting encroachers |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Mbale DLG | 26 | 281.1 | 9 | 42.2 | Not defined | Not stated |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Gulu DLG | 92 | Not defined | 2 | 5.946 | Not defined | Not stated |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Mbarara DLG | 78 | 235.65 | 3 | 32.59 | Not defined | Not stated |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Buduuda DLG | 50 | 101.29 | 3 | 28.88 | Not defined | Not stated |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Sironko DLG | 37 | 759.59 | 1 | 10 | Not defined | Not stated |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Soroti DLG | 138 | Not defined | 16 | Not defined | Not defined | Not stated |\n| 8 | | Total | 466 | 1424.63 | 37 | 121.257 | | |", "metadata": {"page": 302, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | N o | Entity | Land Leased | Unnamed: 3 | Undeveloped Leases | Unnamed: 5 | Uncollected Lease rentals | Unnamed: 7 | Leases renewed without payment of Ground rent | Unnamed: 9 | Causes |\n|---:|:------|:------------|:--------------|:-----------------|:---------------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | No of Pieces | Size (hectare s) | No of Pieces | Size (hectar es) | No of Pieces | Amount UGX | No of Pieces | Amount UGX | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Wakiso DLG | 1 | 4.07 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | Not stated | Leases were granted by former controlling Authorities and no inventory or lease records were ever passed on to the Boards, Leases fall under lower urban Authorities that manage and collect lease rentals forming part of NTR for Lower Units |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Gulu DLG | 5 | 10 | 2 | 5.821 | 5 | 30,300,000 | 1 | 0 | Not stated |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Buduuda DLG | 30 | Not defined | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Not stated |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Sironko DLG | 123 | Not defined | Not defined | 0 | 77 | 66,690,000 | 0 | 0 | Poor internal controls in management fo leased land |\n| 5 | | Total | 159 | 14.07 | 2 | 5.821 | 82 | 96,990,00 0 | 3 | 0 | |", "metadata": {"page": 302, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------|:------------|:---------------------------------------|:----------------|:----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 |\n| 1 | No | Entity | Directorate | Irregular Land Allocation by 2.1.1 DLB | nan | Causes |\n| 2 | nan | nan | nan | No of Pieces | Size (hectares) | nan |\n| 3 | 1 | Wakiso DLG | LA | 2 | Not stated | Lack of comprehensive database for Public Land by the DLB |\n| 4 | 2 | Gulu DLG | LA | 2 | Not stated | Lack of comprehensive database for Public Land by the DLB |", "metadata": {"page": 303, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Local Government | Cummulative Amount Disbursed | Cummulative Amount Recovered | Amount Due as at 30/June/2022 | %recovery |\n|---:|-----:|:-------------------|:-------------------------------|:-------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | 1 | ABIM | 558,430,320 | 29,764,500 | 528,665,820 | 5% |\n| 1 | 2 | ADJUMANI | 913,964,058 | 168,376,513 | 745,587,545 | 18% |\n| 2 | 3 | AGAGO | 1,060,342,500 | 289,800,000 | 770,542,500 | 27% |\n| 3 | 4 | ALEBTONG | 1,404,686,000 | 149,400,000 | 1,255,286,000 | 11% |\n| 4 | 5 | AMOLATAR | 1,258,384,200 | 199,630,000 | 1,058,754,200 | 16% |\n| 5 | 6 | AMUDAT | 1,136,319,670 | 58,450,000 | 1,077,869,670 | 5% |\n| 6 | 7 | AMURIA | 900,534,348 | 175,023,695 | 725,510,653 | 19% |\n| 7 | 8 | AMURU | 1,100,620,900 | 126,537,000 | 974,083,900 | 11% |\n| 8 | 9 | APAC | 485,983,900 | 69,562,880 | 416,421,020 | 14% |\n| 9 | 10 | APAC MC | 473,829,000 | 64,062,000 | 409,767,000 | 14% |\n| 10 | 11 | ARUA | 1,543,031,750 | 298,948,867 | 1,244,082,883 | 19% |\n| 11 | 12 | ARUA MC | 690,596,336 | 118,046,400 | 572,549,936 | 17% |\n| 12 | 13 | BUDAKA | 1,198,338,672 | 162,069,210 | 1,036,269,462 | 14% |\n| 13 | 14 | BUDUDA | 758,216,074 | 244,252,000 | 513,964,074 | 32% |\n| 14 | 15 | BUGIRI | 1,375,916,000 | 209,830,000 | 1,166,086,000 | 15% |\n| 15 | 16 | BUGIRI MC | 494,230,000 | 55,141,000 | 439,089,000 | 11% |\n| 16 | 17 | BUGWERI | 1,042,092,000 | 17,150,000 | 1,024,942,000 | 2% |\n| 17 | 18 | BUHWEJU | 984,435,400 | 202,906,000 | 781,529,400 | 21% |\n| 18 | 19 | BUIKWE | 529,541,000 | 173,057,121 | 356,483,879 | 33% |\n| 19 | 20 | BUKEDEA | 1,122,960,965 | 255,684,930 | 867,276,035 | 23% |\n| 20 | 21 | BUKOMANSIMBI | 804,758,000 | 160,756,500 | 644,001,500 | 20% |\n| 21 | 22 | BUKWO | 847,214,821 | 122,860,200 | 724,354,621 | 15% |\n| 22 | 23 | BULAMBULI | 1,037,707,856 | 338,122,562 | 699,585,294 | 33% |\n| 23 | 24 | BULIISA | 589,661,000 | 162,558,000 | 427,103,000 | 28% |\n| 24 | 25 | BUNDIBUGYO | 1,278,129,000 | 271,961,050 | 1,006,167,950 | 21% |\n| 25 | 26 | BUNYANGABU | 934,453,500 | 282,150,622 | 652,302,878 | 30% |\n| 26 | 27 | BUSHENYI | 1,216,325,590 | 517,576,630 | 698,748,960 | 43% |", "metadata": {"page": 303, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Local Government | Cummulative Amount Disbursed | Cummulative Amount Recovered | Amount Due as at 30/June/2022 | %recovery |\n|---:|-----:|:-------------------|:-------------------------------|:-------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | 28 | BUSHENYI0ISHAKA | 333,627,400 | 105,817,000 | 227,810,400 | 32% |\n| 1 | 29 | BUSIA | 1,117,921,963 | 123,051,733 | 994,870,230 | 11% |\n| 2 | 30 | BUSIA MC | 292,691,874 | 31,713,178 | 260,978,696 | 11% |\n| 3 | 31 | BUTALEJA | 768,440,957 | 120,280,000 | 648,160,957 | 16% |\n| 4 | 32 | BUTAMBALA | 630,640,978 | 80,890,321 | 549,750,657 | 13% |\n| 5 | 33 | BUTEBO | 641,022,700 | 34,277,000 | 606,745,700 | 5% |\n| 6 | 34 | BUVUMA | 746,271,980 | 112,575,000 | 633,696,980 | 15% |\n| 7 | 35 | BUYENDE | 2,043,535,000 | 255,547,200 | 1,787,987,800 | 13% |\n| 8 | 36 | DOKOLO | 1,307,323,000 | 324,721,750 | 982,601,250 | 25% |\n| 9 | 37 | ENTEBBE MC | 348,956,324 | 59,000,000 | 289,956,324 | 17% |\n| 10 | 38 | FORT PORTAL MC | 387,642,470 | 119,037,800 | 268,604,670 | 31% |\n| 11 | 39 | GOMBA | 838,593,022 | 173,900,093 | 664,692,929 | 21% |\n| 12 | 40 | GULU | 687,415,300 | 158,871,700 | 528,543,600 | 23% |\n| 13 | 41 | GULU MC | 526,738,000 | 139,545,384 | 387,192,616 | 26% |\n| 14 | 42 | HOIMA | 1,362,810,000 | 362,991,129 | 999,818,871 | 27% |\n| 15 | 43 | HOIMA MC | 417,807,612 | 133,007,900 | 284,799,712 | 32% |\n| 16 | 44 | IBANDA | 1,207,486,639 | 568,625,465 | 638,861,174 | 47% |\n| 17 | 45 | IBANDA MC | 509,101,000 | 278,628,000 | 230,473,000 | 55% |\n| 18 | 46 | IGANGA | 1,445,453,000 | 393,136,000 | 1,052,317,000 | 27% |\n| 19 | 47 | IGANGA MC | 737,703,281 | 61,220,842 | 676,482,439 | 8% |\n| 20 | 48 | ISINGIRO | 1,590,959,519 | 390,210,000 | 1,200,749,519 | 25% |\n| 21 | 49 | JINJA | 1,158,623,707 | 218,052,579 | 940,571,128 | 19% |\n| 22 | 50 | JINJA MC | 503,230,000 | 93,874,700 | 409,355,300 | 19% |\n| 23 | 51 | KAABONG | 1,363,036,915 | 430,667,771 | 932,369,144 | 32% |\n| 24 | 52 | KABALE | 965,256,145 | 341,558,100 | 623,698,045 | 35% |\n| 25 | 53 | KABALE MC | 215,500,500 | 55,303,000 | 160,197,500 | 26% |\n| 26 | 54 | KABAROLE | 1,550,962,456 | 604,631,533 | 946,330,923 | 39% |\n| 27 | 55 | KABERAMAIDO | 514,569,525 | 151,625,245 | 362,944,280 | 29% |\n| 28 | 56 | KAGADI | 1,575,484,122 | 467,322,640 | 1,108,161,482 | 30% |\n| 29 | 57 | KAKUMIRO | 743,270,500 | 178,212,000 | 565,058,500 | 24% |\n| 30 | 58 | KALAKI | 415,709,634 | 82,042,600 | 333,667,034 | 20% |\n| 31 | 59 | KALANGALA | 747,503,500 | 163,233,492 | 584,270,008 | 22% |\n| 32 | 60 | KALIRO | 1,128,449,600 | 161,710,000 | 966,739,600 | 14% |\n| 33 | 61 | KALUNGU | 877,348,800 | 255,160,200 | 622,188,600 | 29% |\n| 34 | 62 | KAMULI | 1,694,700,236 | 281,628,963 | 1,413,071,273 | 17% |\n| 35 | 63 | KAMULI MC | 194,730,747 | 33,725,200 | 161,005,547 | 17% |\n| 36 | 64 | KAMWENGE | 1,246,093,000 | 377,745,750 | 868,347,250 | 30% |", "metadata": {"page": 304, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Local Government | Cummulative Amount Disbursed | Cummulative Amount Recovered | Amount Due as at 30/June/2022 | %recovery |\n|---:|-----:|:-------------------|:-------------------------------|:-------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | 65 | KANUNGU | 1,393,173,400 | 272,560,000 | 1,120,613,400 | 20% |\n| 1 | 66 | KAPCHORWA | 469,971,751 | 69,495,000 | 400,476,751 | 15% |\n| 2 | 67 | KAPCHORWA MC | 508,972,000 | 56,621,196 | 452,350,804 | 11% |\n| 3 | 68 | KAPELEBYONG | 360,889,106 | 62,402,005 | 298,487,101 | 17% |\n| 4 | 69 | KARENGA | 364,008,064 | 84,604,000 | 279,404,064 | 23% |\n| 5 | 70 | KASESE | 2,986,384,150 | 1,015,351,135 | 1,971,033,015 | 34% |\n| 6 | 71 | KASESE MC | 674,304,680 | 197,189,556 | 477,115,124 | 29% |\n| 7 | 72 | KASSANDA | 964,655,000 | 84,891,000 | 879,764,000 | 9% |\n| 8 | 73 | KATAKWI | 991,688,017 | 120,580,040 | 871,107,977 | 12% |\n| 9 | 74 | KAYUNGA | 1,655,566,238 | 413,718,382 | 1,241,847,856 | 25% |\n| 10 | 75 | KAZO | 464,052,000 | 301,624,350 | 162,427,650 | 65% |\n| 11 | 76 | KIBAALE | 1,122,930,800 | 326,141,833 | 796,788,967 | 29% |\n| 12 | 77 | KIBOGA | 809,194,000 | 149,989,800 | 659,204,200 | 19% |\n| 13 | 78 | KIBUKU | 962,687,076 | 120,600,000 | 842,087,076 | 13% |\n| 14 | 79 | KIKUUBE | 1,077,008,125 | 285,373,626 | 791,634,499 | 26% |\n| 15 | 80 | KIRA MC | 686,970,000 | 140,053,067 | 546,916,933 | 20% |\n| 16 | 81 | KIRUHURA | 1,112,725,500 | 375,657,030 | 737,068,470 | 34% |\n| 17 | 82 | KIRYANDONGO | 1,176,794,226 | 203,594,715 | 973,199,511 | 17% |\n| 18 | 83 | KISORO | 1,374,493,000 | 517,000,000 | 857,493,000 | 38% |\n| 19 | 84 | KISORO MC | 459,066,000 | 90,156,150 | 368,909,850 | 20% |\n| 20 | 85 | KITAGWENDA | 641,411,200 | 166,004,250 | 475,406,950 | 26% |\n| 21 | 86 | KITGUM | 1,388,055,300 | 197,450,000 | 1,190,605,300 | 14% |\n| 22 | 87 | KITGUM MC | 450,846,000 | 31,162,335 | 419,683,665 | 7% |\n| 23 | 88 | KOBOKO | 887,932,898 | 213,074,409 | 674,858,489 | 24% |\n| 24 | 89 | KOBOKO MC | 455,052,960 | 113,350,000 | 341,702,960 | 25% |\n| 25 | 90 | KOLE | 997,144,700 | 167,464,965 | 829,679,735 | 17% |\n| 26 | 91 | KOTIDO | 1,049,044,396 | 701,350,000 | 347,694,396 | 67% |\n| 27 | 92 | KOTIDO MC | 1,193,020,136 | 360,890,000 | 832,130,136 | 30% |\n| 28 | 93 | KUMI | 801,804,654 | 184,000,000 | 617,804,654 | 23% |\n| 29 | 94 | KUMI MC | 409,137,000 | 134,127,605 | 275,009,395 | 33% |\n| 30 | 95 | KWANIA | 774,268,000 | 89,949,400 | 684,318,600 | 12% |\n| 31 | 96 | KWEEN | 986,832,727 | 195,179,150 | 791,653,577 | 20% |\n| 32 | 97 | KYANKWANZI | 583,793,000 | 365,794,200 | 217,998,800 | 63% |\n| 33 | 98 | KYEGEGWA | 1,164,039,300 | 652,734,400 | 511,304,900 | 56% |\n| 34 | 99 | KYENJOJO | 2,391,590,500 | 544,607,490 | 1,846,983,010 | 23% |\n| 35 | 100 | KYOTERA | 930,522,250 | 135,899,400 | 794,622,850 | 15% |\n| 36 | 101 | LAMWO | 1,597,171,000 | 71,578,000 | 1,525,593,000 | 4% |", "metadata": {"page": 305, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Local Government | Cummulative Amount Disbursed | Cummulative Amount Recovered | Amount Due as at 30/June/2022 | %recovery |\n|---:|-----:|:---------------------|:-------------------------------|:-------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | 102 | LIRA | 998,287,500 | 181,346,483 | 816,941,017 | 18% |\n| 1 | 103 | LIRA MC | 719,400,500 | 271,442,000 | 447,958,500 | 38% |\n| 2 | 104 | LUGAZI MC | 186,268,000 | 27,200,000 | 159,068,000 | 15% |\n| 3 | 105 | LUUKA | 1,270,470,500 | 127,477,000 | 1,142,993,500 | 10% |\n| 4 | 106 | LUWERO | 1,486,290,291 | 346,274,380 | 1,140,015,911 | 23% |\n| 5 | 107 | LWENGO | 890,277,450 | 214,146,958 | 676,130,492 | 24% |\n| 6 | 108 | LYANTONDE | 1,053,720,798 | 475,823,000 | 577,897,798 | 45% |\n| 7 | 109 | MADI0OKOLO | 699,387,900 | 63,368,198 | 636,019,702 | 9% |\n| 8 | 110 | MAKINDYE SABAGABO MC | 612,306,000 | 165,286,000 | 447,020,000 | 27% |\n| 9 | 111 | MANAFWA | 1,065,145,114 | 126,394,000 | 938,751,114 | 12% |\n| 10 | 112 | MARACHA | 925,734,700 | 304,167,452 | 621,567,248 | 33% |\n| 11 | 113 | MASAKA | 1,053,743,995 | 93,776,563 | 959,967,432 | 9% |\n| 12 | 114 | MASAKA MC | 870,343,056 | 60,007,820 | 810,335,236 | 7% |\n| 13 | 115 | MASINDI | 1,029,932,000 | 213,329,681 | 816,602,319 | 21% |\n| 14 | 116 | MASINDI MC | 534,611,172 | 136,375,259 | 398,235,913 | 26% |\n| 15 | 117 | MAYUGE | 2,223,544,045 | 323,612,803 | 1,899,931,242 | 15% |\n| 16 | 118 | MBALE | 1,136,326,112 | 217,000,000 | 919,326,112 | 19% |\n| 17 | 119 | MBALE MC | 423,934,681 | 51,259,000 | 372,675,681 | 12% |\n| 18 | 120 | MBARARA | 1,006,072,228 | 427,670,974 | 578,401,254 | 43% |\n| 19 | 121 | MBARARA MC | 556,021,100 | 132,217,546 | 423,803,554 | 24% |\n| 20 | 122 | MITOOMA | 1,208,180,500 | 368,442,050 | 839,738,450 | 30% |\n| 21 | 123 | MITYANA | 734,975,457 | 230,668,500 | 504,306,957 | 31% |\n| 22 | 124 | MITYANA MC | 189,623,350 | 62,403,396 | 127,219,954 | 33% |\n| 23 | 125 | MOROTO | 880,550,243 | 441,686,000 | 438,864,243 | 50% |\n| 24 | 126 | MOROTO MC | 268,738,681 | 99,734,835 | 169,003,846 | 37% |\n| 25 | 127 | MOYO | 894,175,800 | 102,499,600 | 791,676,200 | 11% |\n| 26 | 128 | MPIGI | 834,778,000 | 67,165,600 | 767,612,400 | 8% |\n| 27 | 129 | MUBENDE | 1,056,277,303 | 163,147,300 | 893,130,003 | 15% |\n| 28 | 130 | MUBENDE MC | 362,453,000 | 86,659,100 | 275,793,900 | 24% |\n| 29 | 131 | MUKONO | 972,755,500 | 188,775,000 | 783,980,500 | 19% |\n| 30 | 132 | MUKONO MC | 667,682,500 | 84,570,000 | 583,112,500 | 13% |\n| 31 | 133 | NABILATUK | 525,077,899 | 126,662,157 | 398,415,742 | 24% |\n| 32 | 134 | NAKAPIRIPIRIT | 1,038,485,500 | 75,788,418 | 962,697,082 | 7% |\n| 33 | 135 | NAKASEKE | 1,212,652,080 | 312,910,611 | 899,741,469 | 26% |\n| 34 | 136 | NAKASONGOLA | 739,457,000 | 220,953,000 | 518,504,000 | 30% |\n| 35 | 137 | NAMAYINGO | 1,166,593,750 | 222,680,000 | 943,913,750 | 19% |\n| 36 | 138 | NAMISINDWA | 626,045,000 | 86,300,000 | 539,745,000 | 14% |", "metadata": {"page": 306, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Local Government | Cummulative Amount Disbursed | Cummulative Amount Recovered | Amount Due as at 30/June/2022 | %recovery |\n|---:|-----:|:-------------------|:-------------------------------|:-------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | 139 | NAMUTUMBA | 1,376,411,000 | 166,904,000 | 1,209,507,000 | 12% |\n| 1 | 140 | NANSANA MC | 717,524,000 | 98,178,735 | 619,345,265 | 14% |\n| 2 | 141 | NAPAK | 1,392,853,326 | 249,371,430 | 1,143,481,896 | 18% |\n| 3 | 142 | NEBBI | 994,193,550 | 234,182,260 | 760,011,290 | 24% |\n| 4 | 143 | NEBBI MC | 254,455,000 | 36,107,650 | 218,347,350 | 14% |\n| 5 | 144 | NGORA | 1,089,212,532 | 137,623,841 | 951,588,691 | 13% |\n| 6 | 145 | NJERU MC | 321,075,400 | 186,040,690 | 135,034,710 | 58% |\n| 7 | 146 | NTOROKO | 1,020,711,500 | 346,147,706 | 674,563,794 | 34% |\n| 8 | 147 | NTUNGAMO | 1,265,443,350 | 290,764,025 | 974,679,325 | 23% |\n| 9 | 148 | NTUNGAMO MC | 549,417,000 | 315,379,503 | 234,037,497 | 57% |\n| 10 | 149 | NWOYA | 1,057,363,400 | 276,319,000 | 781,044,400 | 26% |\n| 11 | 150 | OBONG | 330,774,000 | 65,000,000 | 265,774,000 | 20% |\n| 12 | 151 | OMORO | 909,296,000 | 158,780,000 | 750,516,000 | 17% |\n| 13 | 152 | OTUKE | 1,241,198,900 | 349,577,750 | 891,621,150 | 28% |\n| 14 | 153 | OYAM | 1,420,240,000 | 298,812,370 | 1,121,427,630 | 21% |\n| 15 | 154 | PADER | 952,397,900 | 119,700,000 | 832,697,900 | 13% |\n| 16 | 155 | PAKWACH | 753,860,879 | 179,750,250 | 574,110,629 | 24% |\n| 17 | 156 | PALLISA | 1,784,396,870 | 191,719,400 | 1,592,677,470 | 11% |\n| 18 | 157 | RAKAI | 1,182,338,800 | 143,746,520 | 1,038,592,280 | 12% |\n| 19 | 158 | RUBANDA | 801,574,643 | 139,330,000 | 662,244,643 | 17% |\n| 20 | 159 | RUBIRIZI | 931,377,539 | 216,652,759 | 714,724,780 | 23% |\n| 21 | 160 | RUKIGA | 453,712,452 | 53,113,600 | 400,598,852 | 12% |\n| 22 | 161 | RUKUNGIRI | 1,369,976,400 | 230,000,000 | 1,139,976,400 | 17% |\n| 23 | 162 | RUKUNGIRI MC | 331,253,700 | 84,410,000 | 246,843,700 | 25% |\n| 24 | 163 | RWAMPARA | 687,828,688 | 241,863,060 | 445,965,628 | 35% |\n| 25 | 164 | SEMBABULE | 1,082,220,900 | 282,370,600 | 799,850,300 | 26% |\n| 26 | 165 | SERERE | 1,311,694,064 | 287,661,585 | 1,024,032,479 | 22% |\n| 27 | 166 | SHEEMA | 880,894,000 | 501,383,000 | 379,511,000 | 57% |\n| 28 | 167 | SHEEMA MC | 519,381,000 | 282,230,025 | 237,150,975 | 54% |\n| 29 | 168 | SIRONKO | 1,266,268,000 | 307,100,000 | 959,168,000 | 24% |\n| 30 | 169 | SOROTI | 990,736,418 | 251,777,690 | 738,958,728 | 25% |\n| 31 | 170 | SOROTI MC | 727,002,670 | 54,302,850 | 672,699,820 | 7% |\n| 32 | 171 | TEREGO | 711,898,000 | 132,942,955 | 578,955,045 | 19% |\n| 33 | 172 | TORORO | 1,426,247,993 | 339,218,047 | 1,087,029,946 | 24% |\n| 34 | 173 | TORORO MC | 841,180,000 | 40,800,000 | 800,380,000 | 5% |\n| 35 | 174 | WAKISO | 1,743,164,150 | 266,080,207 | 1,477,083,943 | 15% |\n| 36 | 175 | YUMBE | 2,315,784,900 | 296,269,650 | 2,019,515,250 | 13% |", "metadata": {"page": 307, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Local Government | Cummulative Amount Disbursed | Cummulative Amount Recovered | Amount Due as at 30/June/2022 | %recovery |\n|---:|:------|:--------------------------|:-------------------------------|:-------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | 176.0 | ZOMBO | 972,606,000 | 394,410,000 | 578,196,000 | 41% |\n| 1 | | UNTAGGED TRANSFERS BY LGs | 0 | 813,686,936 | 0 | |\n| 2 | | TOTAL | 164,992,797,049 | 38,018,366,215 | 127,788,117,770 | |", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | LOCAL GOVERNMENT | CUMM. AMOUNT DISBURSED (UGX) | CUMM0AMOUNT DUE (UGX) | CUMMULATIVE RECOVERIES AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | CUMMULATIVE AMOUNT DUE AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | % recovery |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------------------|:-------------------------------|:------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | 1 | ABIM DISTRICT LG | 381,779,585 | 128,621,963 | 21,923,000 | 106,698,963 | 17% |\n| 1 | 2 | ADJUMANI DISTRICT LG | 626,871,079 | 112,369,200 | 49,408,000 | 62,961,200 | 44% |\n| 2 | 3 | AGAGO DISTRICT LG | 833,187,600 | 130,334,523 | 119,000,000 | 11,334,523 | 91% |\n| 3 | 4 | ALEBTONG DISTRICT LG | 696,069,000 | 145,614,326 | 21,130,000 | 124,484,326 | 15% |\n| 4 | 5 | AMOLATAR DISTRICT LG | 738,072,500 | 110,676,115 | 82,624,934 | 28,051,181 | 75% |\n| 5 | 6 | AMUDAT DISTRICT LG | 513,728,500 | 62,652,523 | 26,360,000 | 36,292,523 | 42% |\n| 6 | 7 | AMURIA DISTRICT LG | 528,271,800 | 94,064,647 | 78,221,650 | 15,842,997 | 83% |\n| 7 | 8 | AMURU DISTRICT LG | 852,765,200 | 97,313,643 | 78,242,278 | 19,071,365 | 80% |\n| 8 | 9 | APAC DISTRICT LG | 614,758,800 | 165,958,623 | 83,000,000 | 82,958,623 | 50% |\n| 9 | 10 | APAC MUNICIPALITY | 521,809,269 | 145,705,365 | 100,737,000 | 44,968,365 | 69% |\n| 10 | 11 | ARUA CITY | 92,840,000 | 174,826,081 | 33,145,470 | 141,680,611 | 19% |\n| 11 | 12 | ARUA DISTRICT LG | 528,770,436 | 204,560,403 | 155,258,000 | 49,302,403 | 76% |\n| 12 | 13 | BUDAKA DISTRICT LG | 558,670,094 | 87,516,193 | 58,203,549 | 29,312,644 | 67% |\n| 13 | 14 | BUDUDA DISTRICT LG | 511,293,000 | 196,224,307 | 138,700,000 | 57,524,307 | 71% |\n| 14 | 15 | BUGIRI DISTRICT LG | 770,457,300 | 239,303,523 | 92,615,000 | 146,688,523 | 39% |\n| 15 | 16 | BUGIRI MUNICIPALITY | 326,712,000 | 102,649,282 | 82,053,000 | 20,596,282 | 80% |\n| 16 | 17 | BUGWERI DISTRICT LG | 442,946,000 | 41,665,025 | 17,550,000 | 24,115,025 | 42% |\n| 17 | 18 | BUHWEJU DISTRICT LG | 510,480,500 | 123,247,523 | 84,300,000 | 38,947,523 | 68% |\n| 18 | 19 | BUIKWE DISTRICT LG | 501,423,000 | 121,566,422 | 91,682,595 | 29,883,827 | 75% |\n| 19 | 20 | BUKEDEA DISTRICT LG | 946,184,104 | 558,736,363 | 407,000,000 | 151,736,363 | 73% |\n| 20 | 21 | BUKOMANSIMBI DISTRICT LG | 518,603,500 | 127,840,981 | 80,228,650 | 47,612,331 | 63% |\n| 21 | 22 | BUKWO DISTRICT LG | 508,995,000 | 137,959,123 | 72,519,000 | 65,440,123 | 53% |\n| 22 | 23 | BULAMBULI DISTRICT LG | 775,382,900 | 323,973,429 | 284,068,282 | 39,905,147 | 88% |\n| 23 | 24 | BULIISA DISTRICT LG | 618,802,800 | 95,211,943 | 69,950,000 | 25,261,943 | 73% |\n| 24 | 25 | BUNDIBUGYO DISTRICT LG | 794,588,000 | 131,271,074 | 110,971,738 | 20,299,336 | 85% |\n| 25 | 26 | BUNYANGABU DISTRICT LG | 637,018,148 | 234,530,081 | 210,916,000 | 23,614,081 | 90% |\n| 26 | 27 | BUSHENYI DISTRICT LG | 653,147,964 | 188,483,831 | 199,251,440 | 010,767,609 | 106% |\n| 27 | 28 | BUSHENYI ISHAKA MUNICIPALITY | 240,765,500 | 115,860,435 | 67,690,000 | 48,170,435 | 58% |", "metadata": {"page": 308, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | LOCAL GOVERNMENT | CUMM. AMOUNT DISBURSED (UGX) | CUMM0AMOUNT DUE (UGX) | CUMMULATIVE RECOVERIES AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | CUMMULATIVE AMOUNT DUE AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | % recovery |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------------|:-------------------------------|:------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | 29 | BUSIA DISTRICT LG | 877,436,200 | 130,470,017 | 45,710,000 | 84,760,017 | 35% |\n| 1 | 30 | BUSIA MUNICIPALITY | 255,040,500 | 82,873,381 | 22,660,000 | 60,213,381 | 27% |\n| 2 | 31 | BUTALEJJA DISTRICT LG | 589,399,981 | 108,645,044 | 60,410,000 | 48,235,044 | 56% |\n| 3 | 32 | BUTAMBALA DISTRICT LG | 222,005,000 | 83,791,608 | 24,460,000 | 59,331,608 | 29% |\n| 4 | 33 | BUTEBO DISTRICT LG | 413,556,983 | 71,834,523 | 15,695,000 | 56,139,523 | 22% |\n| 5 | 34 | BUVUMA DISTRICT LG | 324,932,876 | 56,295,691 | 24,294,000 | 32,001,691 | 43% |\n| 6 | 35 | BUYENDE DISTRICT LG | 742,856,800 | 130,571,476 | 81,880,000 | 48,691,476 | 63% |\n| 7 | 36 | DOKOLO DISTRICT LG | 483,795,552 | 212,248,095 | 140,750,000 | 71,498,095 | 66% |\n| 8 | 37 | ENTEBBE MUNICIPALITY | 524,609,760 | 53,858,481 | 44,300,000 | 9,558,481 | 82% |\n| 9 | 38 | FORT PORTAL CITY | 283,810,712 | 101,118,930 | 86,002,776 | 15,116,154 | 85% |\n| 10 | 39 | GOMBA DISTRICT LG | 609,138,000 | 120,927,647 | 90,410,000 | 30,517,647 | 75% |\n| 11 | 40 | GULU CITY | 279,191,000 | 93,359,170 | 39,739,000 | 53,620,170 | 43% |\n| 12 | 41 | GULU DISTRICT LG | 720,577,500 | 219,063,099 | 159,545,858 | 59,517,241 | 73% |\n| 13 | 42 | HOIMA CITY | 571,448,295 | 116,823,184 | 88,100,000 | 28,723,184 | 75% |\n| 14 | 43 | HOIMA DISTRICT LG | 823,518,800 | 145,047,542 | 131,700,000 | 13,347,542 | 91% |\n| 15 | 44 | IBANDA DISTRICT LG | 769,091,476 | 428,829,644 | 403,144,800 | 25,684,844 | 94% |\n| 16 | 45 | IBANDA MUNICIPALITY | 521,719,270 | 239,823,474 | 186,530,000 | 53,293,474 | 78% |\n| 17 | 46 | IGANGA DISTRICT LG | 639,396,000 | 132,957,043 | 60,685,000 | 72,272,043 | 46% |\n| 18 | 47 | IGANGA MUNICIPALITY | 371,019,547 | 88,323,643 | 55,250,000 | 33,073,643 | 63% |\n| 19 | 48 | ISINGIRO DISTRICT LG | 936,815,000 | 290,695,242 | 274,860,000 | 15,835,242 | 95% |\n| 20 | 49 | JINJA CITY | 412,187,200 | 237,855,722 | 49,156,360 | 188,699,362 | 21% |\n| 21 | 50 | JINJA DISTRICT LG | 891,665,000 | 295,490,454 | 242,523,009 | 52,967,445 | 82% |\n| 22 | 51 | KAABONG DISTRICT LG | 374,851,000 | 88,179,025 | 81,413,656 | 6,765,369 | 92% |\n| 23 | 52 | KABALE DISTRICT LG | 791,496,495 | 257,503,130 | 246,307,063 | 11,196,067 | 96% |\n| 24 | 53 | KABALE MUNICIPALITY | 277,961,224 | 103,351,523 | 78,380,000 | 24,971,523 | 76% |\n| 25 | 54 | KABAROLE DISTRICT LG | 841,227,642 | 291,572,229 | 273,759,000 | 17,813,229 | 94% |\n| 26 | 55 | KABERAMAIDO DISTRICT LG | 422,315,694 | 102,280,963 | 57,987,600 | 44,293,363 | 57% |\n| 27 | 56 | KAGADI DISTRICT LG | 1,127,690,096 | 373,226,132 | 259,232,430 | 113,993,702 | 69% |\n| 28 | 57 | KAKUMIRO DISTRICT LG | 689,973,693 | 243,007,573 | 218,250,000 | 24,757,573 | 90% |\n| 29 | 58 | KALAKI DISTRICT LG | 344,948,035 | 97,873,200 | 36,262,850 | 61,610,350 | 37% |\n| 30 | 59 | KALANGALA DISTRICT LG | 447,073,300 | 76,826,081 | 43,554,900 | 33,271,181 | 57% |\n| 31 | 60 | KALIRO DISTRICT LG | 794,576,000 | 128,217,134 | 116,493,754 | 11,723,380 | 91% |\n| 32 | 61 | KALUNGU DISTRICT LG | 585,465,000 | 196,827,230 | 167,160,000 | 29,667,230 | 85% |\n| 33 | 62 | KAMULI DISTRICT LG | 1,021,431,000 | 162,739,407 | 153,828,186 | 8,911,221 | 95% |\n| 34 | 63 | KAMULI MUNICIPALITY | 405,575,000 | 107,533,241 | 31,540,000 | 75,993,241 | 29% |", "metadata": {"page": 309, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | LOCAL GOVERNMENT | CUMM. AMOUNT DISBURSED (UGX) | CUMM0AMOUNT DUE (UGX) | CUMMULATIVE RECOVERIES AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | CUMMULATIVE AMOUNT DUE AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | % recovery |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------------|:-------------------------------|:------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | 64 | KAMWENGE DISTRICT LG | 809,623,000 | 418,104,523 | 350,957,000 | 67,147,523 | 84% |\n| 1 | 65 | KANUNGU DISTRICT LG | 859,570,180 | 225,479,662 | 197,030,000 | 28,449,662 | 87% |\n| 2 | 66 | KAPCHORWA DISTRICT LG | 669,008,191 | 145,223,523 | 105,356,700 | 39,866,823 | 73% |\n| 3 | 67 | KAPCHORWA MUNICIPALITY | 464,121,450 | 90,606,619 | 56,000,000 | 34,606,619 | 62% |\n| 4 | 68 | KAPELEBYONG DISTRICT LG | 382,835,500 | 98,062,200 | 33,570,000 | 64,492,200 | 34% |\n| 5 | 69 | KARENGA DISTRICT LG | 471,310,000 | 89,298,343 | 0 | 89,298,343 | 0% |\n| 6 | 70 | KASESE DISTRICT LG | 1,750,446,800 | 411,264,520 | 323,125,000 | 88,139,520 | 79% |\n| 7 | 71 | KASESE MUNICIPALITY | 415,580,300 | 212,191,923 | 139,550,000 | 72,641,923 | 66% |\n| 8 | 72 | KASSANDA DISTRICT LG | 361,456,000 | 172,335,423 | 11,279,400 | 161,056,023 | 7% |\n| 9 | 73 | KATAKWI DISTRICT LG | 676,070,200 | 175,271,863 | 145,126,385 | 30,145,478 | 83% |\n| 10 | 74 | KAYUNGA DISTRICT LG | 797,528,118 | 211,726,673 | 186,147,950 | 25,578,723 | 88% |\n| 11 | 75 | KAZO DISTRICT LG | 523,586,352 | 255,338,343 | 64,100,000 | 191,238,343 | 25% |\n| 12 | 76 | KIBAALE DISTRICT LG | 914,082,011 | 331,341,810 | 285,920,850 | 45,420,960 | 86% |\n| 13 | 77 | KIBOGA DISTRICT LG | 646,062,144 | 163,003,660 | 136,382,417 | 26,621,243 | 84% |\n| 14 | 78 | KIBUKU DISTRICT LG | 738,161,981 | 153,937,325 | 47,239,150 | 106,698,175 | 31% |\n| 15 | 79 | KIKUUBE DISTRICT LG | 618,079,000 | 154,804,527 | 136,751,923 | 18,052,604 | 88% |\n| 16 | 80 | KIRA MUNICIPALITY | 1,423,212,000 | 368,034,875 | 213,027,392 | 155,007,483 | 58% |\n| 17 | 81 | KIRUHURA DISTRICT LG | 828,932,000 | 581,956,000 | 457,599,050 | 124,356,950 | 79% |\n| 18 | 82 | KIRYANDONGO DISTRICT LG | 474,679,500 | 128,795,990 | 25,650,000 | 103,145,990 | 20% |\n| 19 | 83 | KISORO DISTRICT LG | 929,341,500 | 475,430,790 | 414,103,000 | 61,327,790 | 87% |\n| 20 | 84 | KISORO MUNICIPALITY | 479,761,230 | 145,415,323 | 95,050,000 | 50,365,323 | 65% |\n| 21 | 85 | KITAGWENDA DISTRICT LG | 496,544,700 | 116,454,543 | 94,554,100 | 21,900,443 | 81% |\n| 22 | 86 | KITGUM DISTRICT LG | 935,545,500 | 122,684,648 | 80,000,000 | 42,684,648 | 65% |\n| 23 | 87 | KITGUM MUNICIPALITY | 652,082,205 | 233,316,741 | 69,084,614 | 164,232,127 | 30% |\n| 24 | 88 | KOBOKO DISTRICT LG | 812,129,800 | 350,573,560 | 292,281,488 | 58,292,072 | 83% |\n| 25 | 89 | KOBOKO MUNICIPALITY | 423,780,004 | 214,725,623 | 125,634,000 | 89,091,623 | 59% |\n| 26 | 90 | KOLE DISTRICT LG | 770,191,493 | 438,873,000 | 348,000,000 | 90,873,000 | 79% |\n| 27 | 91 | KOTIDO DISTRICT LG | 740,758,556 | 122,860,621 | 67,200,000 | 55,660,621 | 55% |\n| 28 | 92 | KOTIDO MUNICIPALITY | 641,199,237 | 188,479,200 | 129,929,000 | 58,550,200 | 69% |\n| 29 | 93 | KUMI DISTRICT LG | 657,498,500 | 290,541,125 | 246,044,500 | 44,496,625 | 85% |\n| 30 | 94 | KUMI MUNICIPALITY | 412,001,000 | 211,033,123 | 153,734,700 | 57,298,423 | 73% |\n| 31 | 95 | KWANIA DISTRICT LG | 357,876,500 | 81,419,385 | 65,330,000 | 16,089,385 | 80% |\n| 32 | 96 | KWEEN DISTRICT LG | 624,522,226 | 190,160,074 | 161,907,150 | 28,252,924 | 85% |\n| 33 | 97 | KYANKWANZI DISTRICT LG | 580,235,550 | 249,957,134 | 261,129,500 | 011,172,366 | 104% |\n| 34 | 98 | KYEGEGWA DISTRICT LG | 865,954,000 | 389,581,439 | 362,150,000 | 27,431,439 | 93% |", "metadata": {"page": 310, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | LOCAL GOVERNMENT | CUMM. AMOUNT DISBURSED (UGX) | CUMM0AMOUNT DUE (UGX) | CUMMULATIVE RECOVERIES AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | CUMMULATIVE AMOUNT DUE AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | % recovery |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------------------------|:-------------------------------|:------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | 99 | KYENJOJO DISTRICT LG | 1,046,072,500 | 291,995,597 | 306,101,300 | 014,105,703 | 105% |\n| 1 | 100 | KYOTERA DISTRICT LG | 613,911,204 | 213,233,773 | 124,728,610 | 88,505,163 | 58% |\n| 2 | 101 | LAMWO DISTRICT LG | 596,943,500 | 111,150,523 | 76,561,000 | 34,589,523 | 69% |\n| 3 | 102 | LIRA CITY | 678,511,406 | 128,345,423 | 45,200,000 | 83,145,423 | 35% |\n| 4 | 103 | LIRA DISTRICT LG | 816,929,261 | 212,305,871 | 218,297,000 | 05,991,129 | 103% |\n| 5 | 104 | LUGAZI MUNICIPALITY | 316,341,670 | 90,430,081 | 71,800,000 | 18,630,081 | 79% |\n| 6 | 105 | LUUKA DISTRICT LG | 562,966,000 | 80,932,325 | 27,392,000 | 53,540,325 | 34% |\n| 7 | 106 | LUWERO DISTRICT LG | 848,820,716 | 185,323,965 | 233,047,450 | 047,723,485 | 126% |\n| 8 | 107 | LWENGO DISTRICT LG | 747,362,069 | 154,941,223 | 120,467,200 | 34,474,023 | 78% |\n| 9 | 108 | LYANTONDE DISTRICT LG | 586,866,500 | 214,359,912 | 204,652,177 | 9,707,735 | 95% |\n| 10 | 109 | MADI0OKOLLO DISTRICT LG | 259,376,700 | 62,298,343 | 8,430,000 | 53,868,343 | 14% |\n| 11 | 110 | MAKINDYE SSABAGABO MUNICIPALITY | 1,011,071,614 | 134,980,903 | 113,300,000 | 21,680,903 | 84% |\n| 12 | 111 | MANAFWA DISTRICT LG | 606,972,155 | 121,215,223 | 77,000,000 | 44,215,223 | 64% |\n| 13 | 112 | MARACHA DISTRICT LG | 622,960,050 | 145,222,523 | 105,900,000 | 39,322,523 | 73% |\n| 14 | 113 | MASAKA CITY | 217,266,207 | 160,030,150 | 14,514,786 | 145,515,364 | 9% |\n| 15 | 114 | MASAKA DISTRICT LG | 637,743,929 | 245,651,906 | 152,400,000 | 93,251,906 | 62% |\n| 16 | 115 | MASINDI DISTRICT LG | 615,674,000 | 222,475,523 | 203,049,600 | 19,425,923 | 91% |\n| 17 | 116 | MASINDI MUNICIPALITY | 242,561,224 | 68,963,525 | 57,400,000 | 11,563,525 | 83% |\n| 18 | 117 | MAYUGE DISTRICT LG | 1,052,114,000 | 212,887,340 | 124,941,950 | 87,945,390 | 59% |\n| 19 | 118 | MBALE CITY | 531,844,100 | 277,248,075 | 43,810,000 | 233,438,075 | 16% |\n| 20 | 119 | MBALE DISTRICT LG | 873,059,400 | 216,808,343 | 198,369,000 | 18,439,343 | 91% |\n| 21 | 120 | MBARARA CITY | 217,917,000 | 209,215,423 | 93,900,000 | 115,315,423 | 45% |\n| 22 | 121 | MBARARA DISTRICT LG | 828,110,125 | 198,423,643 | 187,247,800 | 11,175,843 | 94% |\n| 23 | 122 | MITOMA DISTRICT LG | 496,942,565 | 136,235,200 | 120,554,960 | 15,680,240 | 88% |\n| 24 | 123 | MITYANA DISTRICT LG | 888,815,328 | 315,412,538 | 287,950,000 | 27,462,538 | 91% |\n| 25 | 124 | MITYANA MUNICIPALITY | 357,822,947 | 165,470,698 | 98,869,300 | 66,601,398 | 60% |\n| 26 | 125 | MOROTO DISTRICT LG | 648,066,000 | 144,435,077 | 81,189,350 | 63,245,727 | 56% |\n| 27 | 126 | MOROTO MUNICIPALITY | 126,884,500 | 74,332,147 | 36,388,225 | 37,943,922 | 49% |\n| 28 | 127 | MOYO DISTRICT LG | 332,674,086 | 154,641,923 | 86,194,600 | 68,447,323 | 56% |\n| 29 | 128 | MPIGI DISTRICT LG | 280,530,000 | 77,185,148 | 51,200,000 | 25,985,148 | 66% |\n| 30 | 129 | MUBENDE DISTRICT LG | 542,425,000 | 127,623,843 | 104,900,000 | 22,723,843 | 82% |\n| 31 | 130 | MUBENDE MUNICIPALITY | 326,890,800 | 62,294,914 | 61,497,925 | 796,989 | 99% |\n| 32 | 131 | MUKONO DISTRICT LG | 1,362,525,050 | 172,564,533 | 144,396,000 | 28,168,533 | 84% |\n| 33 | 132 | MUKONO MUNICIPALITY | 1,106,525,000 | 160,091,081 | 121,197,460 | 38,893,621 | 76% |\n| 34 | 133 | NABILATUK DISTRICT LG | 276,452,379 | 66,125,906 | 37,547,000 | 28,578,906 | 57% |", "metadata": {"page": 311, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | LOCAL GOVERNMENT | CUMM. AMOUNT DISBURSED (UGX) | CUMM0AMOUNT DUE (UGX) | CUMMULATIVE RECOVERIES AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | CUMMULATIVE AMOUNT DUE AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | % recovery |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------------------|:-------------------------------|:------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | 134 | NAKAPIRIPIRIT DISTRICT LG | 633,660,996 | 106,243,140 | 63,712,000 | 42,531,140 | 60% |\n| 1 | 135 | NAKASEKE DISTRICT LG | 688,221,700 | 108,911,452 | 104,729,844 | 4,181,608 | 96% |\n| 2 | 136 | NAKASONGOLA DISTRICT LG | 381,872,100 | 140,922,474 | 110,922,600 | 29,999,874 | 79% |\n| 3 | 137 | NAMAYINGO DISTRICT LG | 600,527,200 | 144,409,191 | 71,217,600 | 73,191,591 | 49% |\n| 4 | 138 | NAMISINDWA DLG | 295,365,000 | 149,773,944 | 33,450,000 | 116,323,944 | 22% |\n| 5 | 139 | NAMUTUMBA DISTRICT LG | 752,775,500 | 64,321,699 | 31,070,978 | 33,250,721 | 48% |\n| 6 | 140 | NANSANA MUNICIPALITY | 676,032,215 | 451,645,643 | 360,515,341 | 91,130,302 | 80% |\n| 7 | 141 | NAPAK DISTRICT LG | 877,618,852 | 213,349,978 | 169,600,000 | 43,749,978 | 79% |\n| 8 | 142 | NEBBI DISTRICT LG | 704,433,441 | 172,495,729 | 193,942,800 | 021,447,071 | 112% |\n| 9 | 143 | NEBBI MUNICIPALITY | 383,845,000 | 104,638,831 | 86,516,370 | 18,122,461 | 83% |\n| 10 | 144 | NGORA DISTRICT LG | 622,722,000 | 169,998,648 | 78,873,375 | 91,125,273 | 46% |\n| 11 | 145 | NJERU MUNICIPALITY | 347,310,000 | 220,919,639 | 173,377,180 | 47,542,459 | 78% |\n| 12 | 146 | NTOROKO DISTRICT LG | 477,156,000 | 145,001,331 | 133,700,000 | 11,301,331 | 92% |\n| 13 | 147 | NTUNGAMO DISTRICT LG | 1,362,744,817 | 331,111,858 | 282,845,950 | 48,265,908 | 85% |\n| 14 | 148 | NTUNGAMO MUNICIPALITY | 408,983,001 | 386,709,914 | 161,103,950 | 225,605,964 | 42% |\n| 15 | 149 | NWOYA DISTRICT LG | 650,250,700 | 148,672,081 | 70,650,000 | 78,022,081 | 48% |\n| 16 | 150 | OBONGI DISTRICT LG | 359,960,000 | 103,379,300 | 0 | 103,379,300 | 0% |\n| 17 | 151 | OMORO DISTRICT LG | 581,518,500 | 220,864,533 | 103,070,000 | 117,794,533 | 47% |\n| 18 | 152 | OTUKE DISTRICT LG | 966,201,100 | 330,552,144 | 249,300,000 | 81,252,144 | 75% |\n| 19 | 153 | OYAM DISTRICT LG | 946,368,000 | 373,643,523 | 324,189,000 | 49,454,523 | 87% |\n| 20 | 154 | PADER DISTRICT LG | 740,634,600 | 61,930,340 | 41,500,000 | 20,430,340 | 67% |\n| 21 | 155 | PAKWACH DISTRICT LG | 676,689,000 | 143,557,223 | 119,400,000 | 24,157,223 | 83% |\n| 22 | 156 | PALLISA DISTRICT LG | 933,063,375 | 176,023,010 | 65,962,224 | 110,060,786 | 37% |\n| 23 | 157 | RAKAI DISTRICT LG | 705,036,098 | 143,852,446 | 54,871,090 | 88,981,356 | 38% |\n| 24 | 158 | RUBANDA DISTRICT LG | 607,189,720 | 156,612,523 | 127,760,000 | 28,852,523 | 82% |\n| 25 | 159 | RUBIRIZI DISTRICT LG | 509,568,345 | 115,930,081 | 101,541,634 | 14,388,447 | 88% |\n| 26 | 160 | RUKIGA DISTRICT LG | 573,200,033 | 220,184,719 | 162,190,000 | 57,994,719 | 74% |\n| 27 | 161 | RUKUNGIRI DISTRICT LG | 1,080,960,669 | 387,044,723 | 335,129,818 | 51,914,905 | 87% |\n| 28 | 162 | RUKUNGIRI MUNICIPALITY | 341,872,900 | 119,220,728 | 83,150,000 | 36,070,728 | 70% |\n| 29 | 163 | RWAMPARA DISTRICT LG | 243,901,000 | 150,873,780 | 50,215,832 | 100,657,948 | 33% |\n| 30 | 164 | SEMBABULE DISTRICT LG | 1,090,036,601 | 306,022,229 | 241,570,000 | 64,452,229 | 79% |\n| 31 | 165 | SERERE DISTRICT LG | 864,545,000 | 150,802,885 | 109,272,900 | 41,529,985 | 72% |\n| 32 | 166 | SHEEMA DISTRICT LG | 621,815,538 | 375,133,695 | 310,663,966 | 64,469,729 | 83% |\n| 33 | 167 | SHEEMA MUNICIPALITY | 510,300,400 | 137,688,747 | 141,751,674 | 04,062,927 | 103% |\n| 34 | 168 | SIRONKO DISTRICT LG | 736,228,086 | 144,214,523 | 147,800,000 | 03,585,477 | 102% |", "metadata": {"page": 312, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | LOCAL GOVERNMENT | CUMM. AMOUNT DISBURSED (UGX) | CUMM0AMOUNT DUE (UGX) | CUMMULATIVE RECOVERIES AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | CUMMULATIVE AMOUNT DUE AS AT 30TH JUNE02022 | % recovery |\n|---:|:------|:--------------------|:-------------------------------|:------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | 169.0 | SOROTI DISTRICT LG | 662,148,400 | 198,726,221 | 164,203,110 | 34,523,111 | 83% |\n| 1 | 170.0 | SOROTI MUNICIPALITY | 197,112,500 | 77,016,648 | 31,595,320 | 45,421,328 | 41% |\n| 2 | 171.0 | TEREGO DISTRICT LG | 360,712,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% |\n| 3 | 172.0 | TORORO DISTRICT LG | 1,256,906,633 | 273,422,460 | 218,163,925 | 55,258,535 | 80% |\n| 4 | 173.0 | TORORO MUNICIPALITY | 317,920,000 | 100,395,162 | 52,320,000 | 48,075,162 | 52% |\n| 5 | 174.0 | WAKISO DISTRICT LG | 2,403,828,950 | 250,030,081 | 280,390,000 | 030,359,919 | 112% |\n| 6 | 175.0 | YUMBE DISTRICT LG | 681,745,199 | 122,122,423 | 77,328,950 | 44,793,473 | 63% |\n| 7 | 176.0 | ZOMBO DISTRICT LG | 529,125,000 | 247,771,355 | 218,050,000 | 29,721,355 | 88% |\n| 8 | | Grand Total | 111,476,011,092 | 32,038,054,728 | 22,867,682,221 | 9,170,372,507 | 71% |\n| 9 | | | | Untagged | 1,193,646,295 | | |\n| 10 | | | | Total Amount Recovered | 24,061,328,516 | | |", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:--------------|:-------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:---------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | | | | Approved Budget | warrants | Uncollected | % collecte d | Approved Budget | warrants | Variance | %fu ndin g |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Adjumani DLG | Approved | 2,043,341,193 | 1,095,593,562 | 947,747,631 | 54% | 74,564,243,269 | 65,081,762,868 | 9,482,480,401 | 87% |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Agago DLG | Approved | 400,000,000 | 151,174,116 | 248,825,884 | 38% | 43,399,707,209 | 40,792,823,824 | 2,606,883,385 | 94% |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Alebetong DLG | Approved | 362,131,668 | 241,864,561 | 120,267,107 | 67% | 32,553,663,224 | 28,571,101,935 | 3,982,561,289 | 88% |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Amolatar DLG | Not approved | 676,169,000 | 199,455,600 | 476,713,400 | 29% | 27,359,836,125 | 25,384,435,037 | 1,975,401,088 | 93% |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Amudat DLG | Not approved | 46,873,389 | 49,352,875 | -2,479,486 | 105% | 14,855,634,258 | 12,678,870,958 | 2,176,763,300 | 85% |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Amuria DLG | Not approved | 418,898,685 | 220,374,599 | 198,524,086 | 53% | 32,688,127,068 | 25,871,491,395 | 6,816,635,673 | 79% |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Amuru DLG | Approved | 1,380,535,524 | 1,314,226,405 | 66,309,119 | 95% | 34,112,080,588 | 27,941,096,092 | 6,170,984,496 | 82% |\n| 8 | 8.0 | Apac DLG | Not approved | 528,543,081 | 171,236,241 | 357,306,840 | 32% | 33,226,695,265 | 30,551,450,807 | 2,675,244,458 | 92% |\n| 9 | 9.0 | Arua DLG | Approved | 426,145,850 | 334,609,880 | 91,535,970 | 79% | 41,911,273,158 | 36,447,355,523 | 5,463,917,635 | 87% |\n| 10 | 10.0 | Arua City | Not approved | 3,025,192,686 | 3,000,909,098 | 24,283,588 | 99% | 45,846,863,296 | 43,619,346,734 | 2,227,516,562 | 95% |\n| 11 | 11.0 | Budaka DLG | Approved | 254,770,000 | 172,631,000 | 82,139,000 | 68% | 34,352,643,835 | 28,161,355,946 | 6,191,287,889 | 82% |\n| 12 | 12.0 | Bugiri DLG | Approved | 294,107,000 | 155,733,750 | 138,373,250 | 53% | 49,425,746,135 | 46,894,446,208 | 2,531,299,927 | 95% |\n| 13 | 13.0 | Bugiri MC | Not approved | 547,118,000 | 114,341,325 | 432,776,675 | 21% | 5,291,047,387 | 4,848,252,669 | 442,794,718 | 92% |\n| 14 | 14.0 | Bugweri DLG | Not approved | 215,222,571 | 205,508,938 | 9,713,633 | 95% | 21,572,470,875 | 20,871,655,883 | 700,814,992 | 97% |\n| 15 | 15.0 | Buhweju DLG | Not approved | 155,201,000 | 109,982,114 | 45,218,886 | 71% | 23,015,986,480 | 17,672,156,781 | 5,343,829,699 | 77% |\n| 16 | 16.0 | Buikwe DLG | Approved | 1,335,227,000 | 620,532,502 | 714,694,498 | 46% | 44,233,191,603 | 29,338,056,822 | 14,895,134,781 | 66% |\n| 17 | 17.0 | Bukedea DLG | Not approved | 85,662,000 | 182,417,686 | -96,755,686 | 213% | 34,675,345,324 | 34,279,615,346 | 395,729,978 | 99% |", "metadata": {"page": 313, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:--------------|:---------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:---------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | | | | Approved Budget | warrants | Uncollected | % collecte d | Approved Budget | warrants | Variance | %fu ndin g |\n| 1 | 18.0 | Bukomansimbi DLG | Approved | 151,000,000 | 111,811,370 | 39,188,630 | 74% | 24,105,731,733 | 22,422,186,701 | 1,683,545,032 | 93% |\n| 2 | 19.0 | Bukwo DLG | Not approved | 374,939,000 | 157,463,974 | 217,475,026 | 42% | 30,297,321,491 | 29,549,392,248 | 747,929,243 | 98% |\n| 3 | 20.0 | Bulambuli DLG | Not approved | 228,801,500 | 147,321,464 | 81,480,036 | 64% | 32,147,524,085 | 30,753,299,409 | 1,394,224,676 | 96% |\n| 4 | 21.0 | Buliisa DLG | Approved | 1,087,180,080 | 262,035,121 | 825,144,959 | 24% | 20,645,789,080 | 18,294,791,160 | 2,350,997,920 | 89% |\n| 5 | 22.0 | Bundibugyo DLG | Not approved | 756,222,000 | 221,612,526 | 534,609,474 | 29% | 42,313,697,300 | 39,707,332,412 | 2,606,364,888 | 94% |\n| 6 | 23.0 | Bunyangabu DLG | Not approved | 487,597,963 | 211,601,973 | 275,995,990 | 43% | 26,641,666,138 | 24,862,898,691 | 1,778,767,447 | 93% |\n| 7 | 24.0 | Bushenyi DLG | Not approved | 679,805,428 | 319,574,800 | 360,230,628 | 47% | 38,112,899,845 | 36,980,426,746 | 1,132,473,099 | 97% |\n| 8 | 25.0 | Bushenyi- Ishaka MC | Approved | 1,110,440,813 | 682,780,216 | 427,660,597 | 61% | 11,707,367,527 | 11,684,719,691 | 22,647,836 | 100% |\n| 9 | 26.0 | Busia MC | Approved | 1,599,880,000 | 1,074,690,000 | 525,190,000 | 67% | 18,974,445,278 | 18,211,535,213 | 762,910,065 | 96% |\n| 10 | 27.0 | Busia DLG | Approved | 870,694,980 | 214,699,540 | 655,995,440 | 25% | 41,389,214,176 | 40,095,305,823 | 1,293,908,353 | 97% |\n| 11 | 28.0 | Butaleja DLG | Approved | 590,270,351 | 590,270,351 | 0 | 100% | 39,255,221,440 | 38,809,387,923 | 445,833,517 | 99% |\n| 12 | 29.0 | Butambala DLG | Not approved | 171,168,775 | 117,605,961 | 53,562,814 | 69% | 27,157,962,115 | 24,985,442,499 | 2,172,519,616 | 92% |\n| 13 | 30.0 | Butebo DLG | Not approved | 236,462,411 | 223,894,411 | 12,568,000 | 95% | 22,921,655,117 | 22,909,087,117 | 12,568,000 | 100% |\n| 14 | 31.0 | Buvuma DLG | Not approved | 190,468,832 | 190,468,674 | 158 | 100% | 19,575,623,876 | 17,877,060,899 | 1,698,562,977 | 91% |\n| 15 | 32.0 | Buyende DLG | Not approved | 384,306,000 | 240,714,750 | 143,591,250 | 63% | 28,178,460,604 | 26,829,931,702 | 1,348,528,902 | 95% |\n| 16 | 33.0 | Dokolo DLG | Approved | 418,898,884 | 163,985,184 | 254,913,700 | 39% | 32,291,055,177 | 23,524,159,956 | 8,766,895,221 | 73% |\n| 17 | 34.0 | Entebbe MC | Approved | 12,658,554,000 | 3,125,844,597 | 9,532,709,40 3 | 25% | 38,109,359,602 | 26,888,683,105 | 11,220,676,497 | 71% |\n| 18 | 35.0 | Fort Portal City | Not approved | 2,770,000,000 | 2,082,902,071 | 687,097,929 | 75% | 32,686,993,162 | 31,666,904,298 | 1,020,088,864 | 97% |\n| 19 | 36.0 | Gomba DLG | Not approved | 617,540,000 | 285,670,009 | 331,869,991 | 46% | 24,748,555,674 | 23,233,954,395 | 1,514,601,279 | 94% |\n| 20 | 37.0 | Gulu City | Approved | 3,884,884,200 | 2,063,169,856 | 1,821,714,34 4 | 53% | 51,960,870,117 | 49,386,722,617 | 2,574,147,500 | 95% |\n| 21 | 38.0 | Gulu DLG | Approved | 491,220,977 | 497,004,131 | -5,783,154 | 101% | 34,313,773,463 | 30,936,957,369 | 3,376,816,094 | 90% |\n| 22 | 39.0 | Hoima City | Not approved | 2,134,232,000 | 1,367,566,622 | 766,665,378 | 64% | 33,529,655,343 | 32,440,208,365 | 1,089,446,978 | 97% |\n| 23 | 40.0 | Hoima DLG | Approved | 1,345,235,000 | 731,588,383 | 613,646,617 | 54% | 37,842,767,262 | 31,749,623,696 | 6,093,143,566 | 84% |\n| 24 | 41.0 | Ibanda DLG | Approved | 818,369,250 | 894,184,277 | -75,815,027 | 109% | 28,725,984,832 | 27,336,202,032 | 1,389,782,800 | 95% |\n| 25 | 42.0 | Ibanda MC | Approved | 1,210,100,000 | 548,450,672 | 661,649,328 | 45% | 14,399,870,002 | 13,531,822,207 | 868,047,795 | 94% |\n| 26 | 43.0 | Iganga DLG | Approved | 630,290,000 | 286,871,529 | 343,418,471 | 46% | 44,564,346,054 | 42,585,220,806 | 1,979,125,248 | 96% |\n| 27 | 44.0 | Iganga MC | Not approved | 1,173,904,000 | 143,170,750 | 1,030,733,25 0 | 12% | 7,688,860,754 | 5,967,310,815 | 1,721,549,939 | 78% |\n| 28 | 45.0 | Isingiro DLG | Approved | 1,959,976,958 | 1,795,744,864 | 164,232,094 | 92% | 119,645,003,524 | 84,123,856,039 | 35,521,147,485 | 70% |", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:--------------|:---------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:--------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 46 | Jinja City | Approved | 10,528,738,497 | 3,688,588,746 | 6,840,149,75 1 | 35% | 58,090,748,734 | 50,969,290,015 | 7,121,458,719 | 88% |\n| 1 | 47 | Jinja DLG | Approved | 2,039,503,772 | 1,526,910,994 | 512,592,778 | 75% | 44,031,449,723 | 42,976,051,843 | 1,055,397,880 | 98% |", "metadata": {"page": 314, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:--------------|:---------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:---------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | | | | Approved Budget | warrants | Uncollected | % collecte d | Approved Budget | warrants | Variance | %fu ndin g |\n| 1 | 48.0 | Kabale DLG | Not approved | 481,087,998 | 306,504,190 | 174,583,808 | 64% | 45,945,517,499 | 45,921,136,512 | 24,380,987 | 100% |\n| 2 | 49.0 | Kabale MC | Not approved | 2,935,576,075 | 1,563,631,571 | 1,371,944,50 4 | 53% | 26,030,445,891 | 24,259,900,946 | 1,770,544,945 | 93% |\n| 3 | 50.0 | Kabarole DLG | Not approved | 829,853,000 | 745,522,932 | 84,330,068 | 90% | 33,074,418,736 | 31,780,524,335 | 1,293,894,401 | 96% |\n| 4 | 51.0 | Kaberamaido DLG | Not approved | 173,943,938 | 154,901,305 | 19,042,633 | 89% | 18,526,562,106 | 17,634,284,742 | 892,277,364 | 95% |\n| 5 | 52.0 | Kagadi DLG | Approved | 897,200,000 | 211,183,558 | 686,016,442 | 24% | 55,379,398,541 | 43,753,100,858 | 11,626,297,683 | 79% |\n| 6 | 53.0 | Kakumiro DLG | Approved | 461,508,846 | 124,740,567 | 336,768,279 | 27% | 37,535,412,241 | 34,040,505,106 | 3,494,907,135 | 91% |\n| 7 | 54.0 | Kalaki DLG | Not approved | 349,744,290 | 100,907,318 | 248,836,972 | 29% | 17,667,299,431 | 17,103,891,637 | 563,407,794 | 97% |\n| 8 | 55.0 | Kalangala DLG | Not approved | 624,837,273 | 515,843,345 | 108,993,928 | 83% | 22,894,657,653 | 19,255,578,562 | 3,639,079,091 | 84% |\n| 9 | 56.0 | Kaliro DLG | Approved | 187,672,253 | 172,120,402 | 15,551,851 | 92% | 38,169,054,973 | 35,901,144,843 | 2,267,910,130 | 94% |\n| 10 | 57.0 | Kalungu DLG | Not approved | 676,169,000 | 230,523,533 | 445,645,467 | 34% | 31,130,305,682 | 28,795,921,074 | 2,334,384,608 | 93% |\n| 11 | 58.0 | Kamuli DLG | Approved | 545,891,000 | 472,672,928 | 73,218,072 | 87% | 63,730,997,208 | 61,487,285,797 | 2,243,711,411 | 96% |\n| 12 | 59.0 | Kamuli MC | Not approved | 418,713,267 | 170,599,249 | 248,114,018 | 41% | 21,906,393,040 | 21,130,778,694 | 775,614,346 | 96% |\n| 13 | 60.0 | Kamwenge DLG | Not approved | 918,544,000 | 288,790,481 | 629,753,519 | 31% | 57,025,692,404 | 54,827,697,933 | 2,197,994,471 | 96% |\n| 14 | 61.0 | Kanungu DLG | Not approved | 1,766,840,753 | 568,305,566 | 1,198,535,18 7 | 32% | 48,137,689,731 | 44,030,676,812 | 4,107,012,919 | 91% |\n| 15 | 62.0 | Kapchorwa DLG | Not approved | 266,229,452 | 266,229,452 | 0 | 100% | 21,667,317,765 | 22,517,959,276 | -850,641,511 | 104% |\n| 16 | 63.0 | Kapchorwa MC | Approved | 301,000,000 | 173,046,718 | 127,953,282 | 57% | 8,646,096,869 | 8,395,473,308 | 250,623,561 | 97% |\n| 17 | 64.0 | Kapelebyong DLG | Approved | 287,353,782 | 201,344,966 | 86,008,816 | 70% | 16,088,411,706 | 15,569,721,601 | 518,690,105 | 97% |\n| 18 | 65.0 | Kasese MC | Not approved | 1,238,901,021 | 911,251,895 | 327,649,126 | 74% | 32,139,734,547 | 30,900,924,929 | 1,238,809,618 | 96% |\n| 19 | 66.0 | Kasese DLG | Approved | 3,955,789,049 | 907,750,076 | 3,048,038,97 3 | 23% | 93,976,496,887 | 81,918,725,603 | 12,057,771,284 | 87% |\n| 20 | 67.0 | Kassanda DLG | Not approved | 568,555,000 | 433,426,577 | 135,128,423 | 76% | 34,316,145,156 | 32,378,212,359 | 1,937,932,797 | 94% |\n| 21 | 68.0 | Katakwi DLG | Approved | 939,561,060 | 281,674,292 | 657,886,768 | 30% | 34,728,149,610 | 32,045,504,801 | 2,682,644,809 | 92% |\n| 22 | 69.0 | Kayunga DLG | Approved | 991,923,000 | 834,518,119 | 157,404,881 | 84% | 51,936,096,040 | 48,613,572,001 | 3,322,524,039 | 94% |\n| 23 | 70.0 | Kazo DLG | Approved | 824,355,800 | 543,403,991 | 280,951,809 | 66% | 20,680,903,925 | 20,798,136,942 | -117,233,017 | 101% |\n| 24 | 71.0 | Kibaale DLG | Approved | 209,023,387 | 370,896,191 | -161,872,804 | 177% | 31,638,859,347 | 30,224,714,785 | 1,414,144,562 | 96% |\n| 25 | 72.0 | Kiboga DLG | Not approved | 791,913,000 | 637,280,783 | 154,632,217 | 80% | 29,731,819,001 | 27,790,363,854 | 1,941,455,147 | 93% |\n| 26 | 73.0 | Kibuku DLG | Not approved | 306,708,460 | 306,708,460 | 0 | 100% | 31,508,971,145 | 28,753,665,289 | 2,755,305,856 | 91% |\n| 27 | 74.0 | Kikuube DLG | Not approved | 1,132,183,000 | 738,344,107 | 393,838,893 | 65% | 41,730,688,194 | 39,760,285,943 | 1,970,402,251 | 95% |\n| 28 | 75.0 | Kira MC | Approved | 11,495,000,000 | 8,951,100,810 | 2,543,899,19 0 | 78% | 30,980,655,310 | 27,879,646,471 | 3,101,008,839 | 90% |", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:--------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 76 | Kiruhura DLG | Not approved | 1,151,833,000 | 699,746,048 | 452,086,952 | 61% | 27,386,019,207 | 24,387,600,876 | 2,998,418,331 | 89% |\n| 1 | 77 | Kiryandongo DLG | Approved | 471,559,000 | 403,536,554 | 68,022,446 | 86% | 52,766,670,170 | 47,174,781,543 | 5,591,888,627 | 89% |", "metadata": {"page": 315, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|:------|:-----------------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:--------------|:---------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:---------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | | | | Approved Budget | warrants | Uncollected | % collecte d | Approved Budget | warrants | Variance | %fu ndin g |\n| 1 | 78.0 | Kisoro DLG | Not approved | 656,867,000 | 415,540,074 | 241,326,926 | 63% | 46,884,681,674 | 42,882,291,400 | 4,002,390,274 | 91% |\n| 2 | 79.0 | Kisoro MC | Approved | 847,953,750 | 437,549,299 | 410,404,451 | 52% | 4,847,827,515 | 4,326,154,385 | 521,673,130 | 89% |\n| 3 | 80.0 | Kitagwenda DLG | Not approved | 718,658,000 | 485,329,996 | 233,328,004 | 68% | 22,409,396,887 | 20,145,817,767 | 2,263,579,120 | 90% |\n| 4 | 81.0 | Kitgum DLG | Not approved | 246,456,410 | 209,159,099 | 37,297,311 | 85% | 39,622,382,728 | 33,271,306,168 | 6,351,076,560 | 84% |\n| 5 | 82.0 | Koboko MC | Not approved | 470,811,429 | 262,191,435 | 208,619,994 | 56% | 18,282,220,808 | 13,888,053,208 | 4,394,167,600 | 76% |\n| 6 | 83.0 | Koboko DLG | Approved | 600,020,900 | 458,581,155 | 141,439,745 | 76% | 40,917,533,218 | 35,409,866,711 | 5,507,666,507 | 87% |\n| 7 | 84.0 | Kole DLG | Not approved | 470,000,000 | 327,984,617 | 142,015,383 | 70% | 30,655,352,096 | 28,474,192,096 | 2,181,160,000 | 93% |\n| 8 | 85.0 | Kumi DLG | Not approved | 595,722,000 | 242,114,867 | 353,607,133 | 41% | 35,434,388,879 | 33,007,726,183 | 2,426,662,696 | 93% |\n| 9 | 86.0 | Kumi MC | Approved | 289,028,880 | 262,191,435 | 26,837,445 | 91% | 8,650,048,032 | 8,126,023,961 | 524,024,071 | 94% |\n| 10 | 87.0 | Kwania DLG | Not approved | 516,876,000 | 230,389,887 | 286,486,113 | 45% | 26,320,680,937 | 23,635,325,330 | 2,685,355,607 | 90% |\n| 11 | 88.0 | Kween DLG | Not approved | 245,249,248 | 245,249,248 | 0 | 100% | 25,314,638,065 | 24,080,850,750 | 1,233,787,315 | 95% |\n| 12 | 89.0 | Kyankwanzi DLG | Not approved | 550,906,000 | 486,333,433 | 64,572,567 | 88% | 33,524,306,692 | 29,961,018,886 | 3,563,287,806 | 89% |\n| 13 | 90.0 | Kyegegwa DLG | Not approved | 6,536,925,813 | 1,029,060,000 | 5,507,865,81 3 | 16% | 57,194,657,129 | 51,906,962,379 | 5,287,694,750 | 91% |\n| 14 | 91.0 | kyenjojo DLG | Not approved | 775,927,315 | 1,063,101,145 | -287,173,830 | 137% | 51,421,138,436 | 48,783,757,564 | 2,637,380,872 | 95% |\n| 15 | 92.0 | Kyotera DLG | Approved | 1,027,745,000 | 549,110,338 | 478,634,662 | 53% | 40,074,208,794 | 39,193,598,994 | 880,609,800 | 98% |\n| 16 | 93.0 | Lamwo DLG | Not approved | 657,100,000 | 481,152,000 | 175,948,000 | 73% | 59,156,122,224 | 48,320,085,318 | 10,836,036,906 | 82% |\n| 17 | 94.0 | Lira City | Approved | 2,182,903,000 | 2,293,751,035 | -110,848,035 | 105% | 54,602,635,918 | 42,012,644,858 | 12,589,991,060 | 77% |\n| 18 | 95.0 | Lira DLG | Not approved | 549,082,499 | 411,203,136 | 137,879,363 | 75% | 40,601,721,497 | 39,485,569,918 | 1,116,151,579 | 97% |\n| 19 | 96.0 | Lugazi MC | Approved | 1,379,000,000 | 1,026,641,138 | 352,358,862 | 74% | 27,466,324,729 | 27,142,890,168 | 323,434,561 | 99% |\n| 20 | 97.0 | Luuka DLG | Not approved | 152,792,782 | 131,992,675 | 20,800,107 | 86% | 31,893,366,224 | 30,651,591,016 | 1,241,775,208 | 96% |\n| 21 | 98.0 | Luwero DLG | Approved | 3,730,453,815 | 3,445,895,462 | 284,558,353 | 92% | 72,575,437,151 | 70,065,278,636 | 2,510,158,515 | 97% |\n| 22 | 99.0 | Lwengo DLG | Approved | 701,952,305 | 324,712,132 | 377,240,173 | 46% | 34,871,379,840 | 32,148,893,519 | 2,722,486,321 | 92% |\n| 23 | 100.0 | Lyantonde DLG | Not approved | 190,414,000 | 163,022,974 | 27,391,026 | 86% | 20,615,225,777 | 18,928,350,342 | 1,686,875,435 | 92% |\n| 24 | 101.0 | Madi Okollo DLG | Not approved | 400,000,000 | 399,950,000 | 50,000 | 100% | 43,238,262,670 | 30,882,287,746 | 12,355,974,924 | 71% |\n| 25 | 102.0 | Makindye- Ssabagabo MC | Not approved | 9,340,000,000 | 4,055,328,959 | 5,284,671,04 1 | 43% | 27,649,607,473 | 21,970,955,485 | 5,678,651,988 | 79% |\n| 26 | 103.0 | Manafwa DLG | Approved | 895,377,756 | 217,345,846 | 678,031,910 | 24% | 35,400,422,667 | 32,314,022,238 | 3,086,400,429 | 91% |\n| 27 | 104.0 | Maracha DLG | Approved | 183,194,659 | 231,876,627 | -48,681,968 | 127% | 32,902,368,842 | 30,589,523,882 | 2,312,844,960 | 93% |\n| 28 | 105.0 | Masaka DLG | Approved | 355,402,791 | 199,538,323 | 155,864,468 | 56% | 21,234,476,329 | 19,984,292,997 | 1,250,183,332 | 94% |", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:--------------|:---------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:--------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 106 | Masaka City | Approved | 4,625,254,101 | 2,077,839,249 | 2,547,414,85 2 | 45% | 42,593,236,710 | 39,377,424,934 | 3,215,811,776 | 92% |\n| 1 | 107 | Masindi MC | Not approved | 1,200,000,000 | 830,374,049 | 369,625,951 | 69% | 13,419,719,498 | 13,208,468,876 | 211,250,622 | 98% |\n| 2 | 108 | Masindi DLG | Not approved | 243,760,982 | 943,457,214 | -699,696,232 | 387% | 35,752,366,348 | 31,043,870,003 | 4,708,496,345 | 87% |", "metadata": {"page": 316, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|:------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:--------------|:---------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:---------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | | | | Approved Budget | warrants | Uncollected | % collecte d | Approved Budget | warrants | Variance | %fu ndin g |\n| 1 | 109.0 | Mayuge DLG | Approved | 724,322,519 | 456,810,854 | 267,511,665 | 63% | 53,568,618,370 | 50,196,940,048 | 3,371,678,322 | 94% |\n| 2 | 110.0 | Mbale DLG | Not approved | 800,000,000 | 686,232,207 | 113,767,793 | 86% | 46,450,291,143 | 44,800,253,897 | 1,650,037,246 | 96% |\n| 3 | 111.0 | Mbale City City | Not approved | 1,568,910,374 | 1,568,910,374 | 0 | 100% | 54,509,554,490 | 54,509,554,490 | 0 | 100% |\n| 4 | 112.0 | Mbarara City | Not approved | 8,566,518,000 | 3,398,240,515 | 5,168,277,48 5 | 40% | 62,491,147,300 | 56,163,575,756 | 6,327,571,544 | 90% |\n| 5 | 113.0 | Mbarara DLG | Approved | 1,007,858,860 | 954,417,054 | 53,441,806 | 95% | 33,082,716,235 | 31,389,570,562 | 1,693,145,673 | 95% |\n| 6 | 114.0 | Mitooma DLG | Not approved | 272,401,746 | 269,679,336 | 2,722,410 | 99% | 32,983,982,695 | 31,033,824,747 | 1,950,157,948 | 94% |\n| 7 | 115.0 | Mityana MC | Not approved | 995,000,000 | 779,374,454 | 215,625,546 | 78% | 10,826,159,234 | 10,286,862,838 | 539,296,396 | 95% |\n| 8 | 116.0 | Mityana DLG | Approved | 747,345,912 | 625,146,266 | 122,199,646 | 84% | 35,784,709,307 | 34,739,884,076 | 1,044,825,231 | 97% |\n| 9 | 117.0 | Moroto DLG DLG | Not approved | 243,760,982 | 342,226,155 | -98,465,173 | 140% | 20,613,541,507 | 17,127,913,866 | 3,485,627,641 | 83% |\n| 10 | 118.0 | Moroto MC MC | Not approved | 618,500,000 | 260,196,220 | 358,303,780 | 42% | 11,024,543,654 | 7,880,859,977 | 3,143,683,677 | 71% |\n| 11 | 119.0 | Moyo DLG | Approved | 829,500,000 | 411,237,981 | 418,262,019 | 50% | 44,584,616,735 | 29,195,416,011 | 15,389,200,724 | 65% |\n| 12 | 120.0 | Mpigi DLG | Approved | 957,989,671 | 865,631,127 | 92,358,544 | 90% | 37,272,189,134 | 34,682,719,605 | 2,589,469,529 | 93% |\n| 13 | 121.0 | Mubende DLG | Approved | 897,123,586 | 788,963,995 | 108,159,591 | 88% | 41,878,459,183 | 39,647,152,652 | 2,231,306,531 | 95% |\n| 14 | 122.0 | Mubende MC | Approved | 1,258,773,000 | 1,159,993,876 | 98,779,124 | 92% | 31,893,250,334 | 31,308,367,407 | 584,882,927 | 98% |\n| 15 | 123.0 | Mukono DLG | Not approved | 3,250,400,000 | 1,868,063,243 | 1,382,336,75 7 | 57% | 67,010,957,541 | 57,834,245,531 | 9,176,712,010 | 86% |\n| 16 | 124.0 | Mukono MC | Not approved | 4,651,046,000 | 4,018,792,123 | 632,253,877 | 86% | 25,270,241,648 | 22,502,726,784 | 2,767,514,864 | 89% |\n| 17 | 125.0 | Nakapiripit DLG | Not approved | 148,005,600 | 129,336,434 | 18,669,166 | 87% | 17,779,167,160 | 13,792,230,712 | 3,986,936,448 | 78% |\n| 18 | 126.0 | Nakaseke DLG | Not approved | 1,516,272,349 | 1,325,697,252 | 190,575,097 | 87% | 37,474,541,645 | 35,726,792,690 | 1,747,748,955 | 95% |\n| 19 | 127.0 | Nakasongola DLG | Approved | 1,100,421,788 | 1,155,000,000 | -54,578,212 | 105% | 32,965,788,169 | 31,387,140,337 | 1,578,647,832 | 95% |\n| 20 | 128.0 | Namayingo DLG | Not approved | 202,098,818 | 235,642,000 | -33,543,182 | 117% | 46,944,170,455 | 30,764,093,834 | 16,180,076,621 | 66% |\n| 21 | 129.0 | Namisindwa DLG | Not approved | 350,000,000 | 268,677,925 | 81,322,075 | 77% | 32,873,774,708 | 30,276,933,318 | 2,596,841,390 | 92% |\n| 22 | 130.0 | Namutumba DLG | Not approved | 294,000,000 | 165,355,470 | 128,644,530 | 56% | 35,419,977,308 | 33,545,828,238 | 1,874,149,070 | 95% |\n| 23 | 131.0 | Nansana MC | Approved | 6,444,898,000 | 5,366,264,000 | 1,078,634,00 0 | 83% | 30,743,976,884 | 28,771,493,569 | 1,972,483,315 | 94% |\n| 24 | 132.0 | Napal DLG DLG | Approved | 180,000,000 | 108,077,220 | 71,922,780 | 60% | 21,809,898,127 | 17,502,475,644 | 4,307,422,483 | 80% |\n| 25 | 133.0 | Nebbi DLG | Approved | 784,439,352 | 483,164,250 | 301,275,102 | 62% | 37,287,079,756 | 32,975,573,035 | 4,311,506,721 | 88% |\n| 26 | 134.0 | Nebbi MC | Not approved | 598,670,000 | 512,596,367 | 86,073,633 | 86% | 7,451,912,548 | 5,315,320,126 | 2,136,592,422 | 71% |\n| 27 | 135.0 | Ngora DLG | Approved | 647,768,999 | 110,233,463 | 537,535,536 | 17% | 26,819,375,753 | 22,984,373,307 | 3,835,002,446 | 86% |", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:--------------|:---------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:--------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 136 | Njeru MC | Not approved | 3,132,174,000 | 1,896,542,360 | 1,235,631,64 0 | 61% | 14,109,935,127 | 12,513,270,328 | 1,596,664,799 | 89% |\n| 1 | 137 | Ntoroko DLG | Not approved | 779,720,000 | 670,444,400 | 109,275,600 | 86% | 25,698,930,531 | 23,319,020,690 | 2,379,909,841 | 91% |\n| 2 | 138 | Ntugamo MC | Approved | 728,285,983 | 455,038,837 | 273,247,146 | 62% | 10,392,027,149 | 10,006,372,814 | 385,654,335 | 96% |", "metadata": {"page": 317, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|:------|:--------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:--------------|:---------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:---------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | | | | Approved Budget | warrants | Uncollected | % collecte d | Approved Budget | warrants | Variance | %fu ndin g |\n| 1 | 139.0 | Ntungamo DLG | Not approved | 841,044,993 | 781,601,039 | 59,443,954 | 93% | 67,695,637,954 | 65,955,356,867 | 1,740,281,087 | 97% |\n| 2 | 140.0 | Nwoya DLG | Not approved | 616,930,800 | 415,250,194 | 201,680,606 | 67% | 32,485,058,559 | 26,906,362,637 | 5,578,695,922 | 83% |\n| 3 | 141.0 | Obongi DLG | Approved | 700,000,000 | 597,490,077 | 102,509,923 | 85% | 41,986,862,000 | 36,016,551,508 | 5,970,310,492 | 86% |\n| 4 | 142.0 | Otuke DLG | Approved | 228,092,000 | 160,173,671 | 67,918,329 | 70% | 20,201,376,294 | 19,045,497,065 | 1,155,879,229 | 94% |\n| 5 | 143.0 | Oyam DLG | Not approved | 537,202,262 | 488,195,784 | 49,006,478 | 91% | 53,103,660,483 | 48,266,804,257 | 4,836,856,226 | 91% |\n| 6 | 144.0 | Pader DLG | Not approved | 680,000,000 | 578,854,267 | 101,145,733 | 85% | 35,994,962,265 | 32,381,009,380 | 3,613,952,885 | 90% |\n| 7 | 145.0 | Pakwach DLG | Approved | 1,200,000,000 | 614,926,770 | 585,073,230 | 51% | 25,731,940,711 | 23,874,245,553 | 1,857,695,158 | 93% |\n| 8 | 146.0 | Pallisa DLG | Not approved | 350,775,739 | 261,119,990 | 89,655,749 | 74% | 41,643,758,913 | 40,668,548,479 | 975,210,434 | 98% |\n| 9 | 147.0 | Rakai DLG | Approved | 603,561,000 | 333,191,190 | 270,369,810 | 55% | 46,186,954,555 | 43,948,336,253 | 2,238,618,302 | 95% |\n| 10 | 148.0 | Rubanda DLG | Approved | 626,742,225 | 281,418,195 | 345,324,030 | 45% | 35,214,425,831 | 32,450,904,042 | 2,763,521,789 | 92% |\n| 11 | 149.0 | Rubirizi DLG | Not approved | 380,678,744 | 739,400,228 | -358,721,484 | 194% | 24,006,401,278 | 23,166,794,758 | 839,606,520 | 97% |\n| 12 | 150.0 | Rukiga DLG | Approved | 285,067,000 | 163,908,112 | 121,158,888 | 57% | 24,314,101,132 | 23,721,798,107 | 592,303,025 | 98% |\n| 13 | 151.0 | Rukungiri DLG | Approved | 810,772,129 | 849,092,600 | -38,320,471 | 105% | 51,355,266,602 | 47,948,154,494 | 3,407,112,108 | 93% |\n| 14 | 152.0 | Rukungiri MC | Not approved | 1,335,227,000 | 668,893,017 | 666,333,983 | 50% | 10,272,380,835 | 9,588,610,221 | 683,770,614 | 93% |\n| 15 | 153.0 | Rwampara DLG | Approved | 745,234,192 | 533,385,539 | 211,848,653 | 72% | 24,175,275,736 | 23,245,993,216 | 929,282,520 | 96% |\n| 16 | 154.0 | Sembabule DLG | Approved | 627,023,378 | 340,394,556 | 286,628,822 | 54% | 37,545,800,141 | 34,093,818,966 | 3,451,981,175 | 91% |\n| 17 | 155.0 | Serere DLG | Approved | 1,025,011,000 | 546,946,847 | 478,064,153 | 53% | 38,607,615,248 | 36,425,484,861 | 2,182,130,387 | 94% |\n| 18 | 156.0 | Sheema DLG | Not approved | 420,769,091 | 353,075,957 | 67,693,134 | 84% | 31,452,986,897 | 30,512,174,022 | 940,812,875 | 97% |\n| 19 | 157.0 | Sheema MC | Approved | 619,400,000 | 546,913,248 | 72,486,752 | 88% | 15,355,009,702 | 14,776,377,415 | 578,632,287 | 96% |\n| 20 | 158.0 | Sironko DLG | Not approved | 591,585,500 | 465,233,872 | 126,351,628 | 79% | 43,715,442,166 | 40,673,330,239 | 3,042,111,927 | 93% |\n| 21 | 159.0 | Soroti City | Not approved | 1,649,003,857 | 358,525,368 | 1,290,478,48 9 | 22% | 32,245,918,630 | 27,191,436,469 | 5,054,482,161 | 84% |\n| 22 | 160.0 | Soroti DLG | Not approved | 540,790,750 | 310,871,016 | 229,919,734 | 57% | 34,283,509,969 | 32,154,680,153 | 2,128,829,816 | 94% |\n| 23 | 161.0 | Terego DLG | Approved | 297,285,815 | 246,155,248 | 51,130,567 | 83% | 53,145,429,300 | 51,009,048,929 | 2,136,380,371 | 96% |\n| 24 | 162.0 | Tororo MC | Not approved | 1,252,552,400 | 681,308,108 | 571,244,292 | 54% | 21,090,022,092 | 20,366,168,079 | 723,854,013 | 97% |\n| 25 | 163.0 | Tororo DLG | Approved | 1,956,905,259 | 990,626,970 | 966,278,289 | 51% | 75,686,836,586 | 71,852,450,728 | 3,834,385,858 | 95% |\n| 26 | 164.0 | Wakiso DLG | Not approved | 15,623,633,000 | 7,028,521,352 | 8,595,111,64 8 | 45% | 102,023,553,805 | 86,711,358,646 | 15,312,195,159 | 85% |\n| 27 | 165.0 | Yumbe DLG | Approved | 403,949,980 | 555,422,781 | -151,472,801 | 137% | 101,060,085,683 | 87,975,942,483 | 13,084,143,200 | 87% |\n| 28 | 166.0 | Zombo DLG | Approved | 1,123,200,000 | 1,123,200,000 | 0 | 100% | 30,237,259,913 | 30,237,259,913 | 0 | 100% |", "metadata": {"page": 318, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:--------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 167 | Omoro DLG | Approved | 518,437,999 | 186,431,384 | 332,006,615 | 36% | 30,896,907,475 | 26,863,805,127 | 4,033,102,348 | 87% |\n| 1 | 168 | Kitgum MC | Not approved | 1,035,307,000 | 166,223,778 | 869,083,222 | 16% | 18,339,777,183 | 17,240,456,470 | 1,099,320,713 | 94% |\n| 2 | 169 | Bududa DLG | Approved | 265,253,000 | 114,537,000 | 150,716,000 | 43% | 36,499,141,640 | 34,905,387,096 | 1,593,754,544 | 96% |", "metadata": {"page": 318, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Strategic plan | Local Revenue | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Overall budget performance | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------|:-----------------|:-----------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:-------------------|:-----------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | | | | Approved Budget | warrants | Uncollected | % collecte d | Approved Budget | warrants | Variance | %fu ndin g |\n| 1 | | Total | | 223,518,772, 109 | 131,349,888 ,815 | 92,168,883, 294 | 71% | 5,995,310,337, 537 | 5,426,900,787 ,092 | 568,409,550,4 45 | 91% |", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Absorption | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Excess release of wage | Transfer to LLGs | Off Budget Financing/Receipts |\n|---:|:-----|:-----------------|:---------------|:---------------|:--------------|:-------------|:-------------------------|:-------------------|:--------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | warrants | Expenditure | Unspent | % Absorbed | | | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Adjumani DLG | 65,081,762,868 | 55,863,018,510 | 9,218,744,358 | 86% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Agago DLG | 40,792,823,824 | 31,559,613,577 | 9,233,210,247 | 77% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Alebetong DLG | 28,571,101,935 | 25,297,831,543 | 3,273,270,392 | 89% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Amolatar DLG | 25,384,435,037 | 21,691,339,510 | 3,693,095,527 | 85% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Amudat DLG | 12,678,870,958 | 11,785,826,432 | 893,044,526 | 93% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Amuria DLG | 25,871,491,395 | 24,993,962,356 | 877,529,039 | 97% | 0.0 | 20,000,000 | 0.0 |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Amuru DLG | 27,941,096,092 | 25,663,369,367 | 2,277,726,725 | 92% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 8 | 8.0 | Apac DLG | 30,551,450,807 | 24,775,547,183 | 5,775,903,624 | 81% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 9 | 9.0 | Arua DLG | 36,447,355,523 | 31,687,629,736 | 4,759,725,787 | 87% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 10 | 10.0 | Arua City | 43,619,346,734 | 42,964,622,565 | 654,724,169 | 98% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 11 | 11.0 | Budaka DLG | 28,161,355,946 | 27,882,061,613 | 279,294,333 | 99% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 12 | 12.0 | Bugiri DLG | 46,894,446,208 | 42,395,130,251 | 4,499,315,957 | 90% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 13 | 13.0 | Bugiri MC | 4,848,252,669 | 4,479,742,910 | 368,509,759 | 92% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 14 | 14.0 | Bugweri DLG | 20,871,655,883 | 18,506,249,124 | 2,365,406,759 | 89% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 15 | 15.0 | Buhweju DLG | 17,672,156,781 | 17,382,765,587 | 289,391,194 | 98% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 16 | 16.0 | Buikwe DLG | 29,338,056,822 | 26,667,236,368 | 2,670,820,454 | 91% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 17 | 17.0 | Bukedea DLG | 34,279,615,346 | 34,278,449,788 | 1,165,558 | 100% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 18 | 18.0 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 22,422,186,701 | 20,735,843,588 | 1,686,343,113 | 92% | 0.0 | 41,557,219 | 0.0 |\n| 19 | 19.0 | Bukwo DLG | 29,549,392,248 | 23,245,791,632 | 6,303,600,616 | 79% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 20 | 20.0 | Bulambuli DLG | 30,753,299,409 | 26,959,482,154 | 3,793,817,255 | 88% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 21 | 21.0 | Buliisa DLG | 18,294,791,160 | 16,419,229,225 | 1,875,561,935 | 90% | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 |", "metadata": {"page": 319, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Absorption | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Excess release of wage | Transfer to LLGs | Off Budget Financing/Receipts |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------------|:---------------|:---------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-------------------------|:-------------------|:--------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | warrants | Expenditure | Unspent | % Absorbed | | | |\n| 1 | 22.0 | Bundibugyo DLG | 39,707,332,412 | 36,643,497,580 | 3,063,834,832 | 92% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 2 | 23.0 | Bunyangabu DLG | 24,862,898,691 | 20,561,778,975 | 4,301,119,716 | 83% | 2,052,937,854 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 3 | 24.0 | Bushenyi DLG | 36,980,426,746 | 34,439,580,522 | 2,540,846,224 | 93% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 4 | 25.0 | Bushenyi- Ishaka MC | 11,684,719,691 | 11,292,130,344 | 392,589,347 | 97% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 5 | 26.0 | Busia MC | 18,211,535,213 | 17,637,648,532 | 573,886,681 | 97% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 6 | 27.0 | Busia DLG | 40,095,305,823 | 19,196,790,749 | 20,898,515,07 4 | 48% | 0 | 20,078,498 | 0.0 |\n| 7 | 28.0 | Butaleja DLG | 38,809,387,923 | 34,243,631,347 | 4,565,756,576 | 88% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 8 | 29.0 | Butambala DLG | 24,985,442,499 | 22,376,845,377 | 2,608,597,122 | 90% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 9 | 30.0 | Butebo DLG | 22,909,087,117 | 22,478,362,026 | 430,725,091 | 98% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 10 | 31.0 | Buvuma DLG | 17,877,060,899 | 14,138,521,798 | 3,738,539,101 | 79% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 11 | 32.0 | Buyende DLG | 26,829,931,702 | 26,468,947,497 | 360,984,205 | 99% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 12 | 33.0 | Dokolo DLG | 23,524,159,956 | 23,288,388,774 | 235,771,182 | 99% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 13 | 34.0 | Entebbe MC | 26,888,683,105 | 22,048,720,146 | 4,839,962,959 | 82% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 14 | 35.0 | Fort Portal City | 31,666,904,298 | 24,431,286,453 | 7,235,617,845 | 77% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 15 | 36.0 | Gomba DLG | 23,233,954,395 | 20,882,997,994 | 2,350,956,401 | 90% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 16 | 37.0 | Gulu City | 49,386,722,617 | 45,917,881,177 | 3,468,841,440 | 93% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 17 | 38.0 | Gulu DLG | 30,936,957,369 | 23,679,289,662 | 7,257,667,707 | 77% | 4,001,598,220 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 18 | 39.0 | Hoima City | 32,440,208,365 | 25,077,585,804 | 7,362,622,561 | 77% | 2,101,550,903 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 19 | 40.0 | Hoima DLG | 31,749,623,696 | 30,024,039,766 | 1,725,583,930 | 95% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 20 | 41.0 | Ibanda DLG | 27,336,202,032 | 26,127,146,420 | 1,209,055,612 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 21 | 42.0 | Ibanda MC | 13,531,822,207 | 12,752,370,415 | 779,451,792 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 22 | 43.0 | Iganga DLG | 42,585,220,806 | 40,633,136,852 | 1,952,083,954 | 95% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 23 | 44.0 | Iganga MC | 5,967,310,815 | 5,957,338,084 | 9,972,731 | 100% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 24 | 45.0 | Isingiro DLG | 84,123,856,039 | 73,305,756,498 | 10,818,099,54 1 | 87% | 0 | 524,019,290 | 0.0 |\n| 25 | 46.0 | Jinja City | 50,969,290,015 | 45,789,531,939 | 5,179,758,076 | 90% | 0 | 124,937,495 | 0.0 |\n| 26 | 47.0 | Jinja DLG | 42,976,051,843 | 37,876,440,343 | 5,099,611,500 | 88% | 2,971,814,746 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 27 | 48.0 | Kabale DLG | 45,921,136,512 | 42,840,442,007 | 3,080,694,505 | 93% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 28 | 49.0 | Kabale MC | 24,259,900,946 | 18,754,562,405 | 5,505,338,541 | 77% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 29 | 50.0 | Kabarole DLG | 31,780,524,335 | 25,404,608,862 | 6,375,915,473 | 80% | 2,397,749,672 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 30 | 51.0 | Kaberamaido DLG | 17,634,284,742 | 16,893,157,922 | 741,126,820 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 31 | 52.0 | Kagadi DLG | 43,753,100,858 | 34,264,467,846 | 9,488,633,012 | 78% | 4,587,724,191 | 585,148,825 | 0.0 |\n| 32 | 53.0 | Kakumiro DLG | 34,040,505,106 | 28,100,149,304 | 5,940,355,802 | 83% | 4,022,406,792 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 33 | 54.0 | Kalaki DLG | 17,103,891,637 | 13,429,786,442 | 3,674,105,195 | 79% | 2,011,872,321 | 0 | 0.0 |", "metadata": {"page": 320, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Absorption | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Excess release of wage | Transfer to LLGs | Off Budget Financing/Receipts |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:---------------|:---------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-------------------------|:-------------------|:--------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | warrants | Expenditure | Unspent | % Absorbed | | | |\n| 1 | 55.0 | Kalangala DLG | 19,255,578,562 | 17,414,057,912 | 1,841,520,650 | 90% | 0 | 176,510,000 | 0 |\n| 2 | 56.0 | Kaliro DLG | 35,901,144,843 | 34,021,715,732 | 1,879,429,111 | 95% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 57.0 | Kalungu DLG | 28,795,921,074 | 27,148,879,609 | 1,647,041,465 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 58.0 | Kamuli DLG | 61,487,285,797 | 54,146,395,385 | 7,340,890,412 | 88% | 2,379,521,144 | 64,362,709 | 0 |\n| 5 | 59.0 | Kamuli MC | 21,130,778,694 | 14,046,495,603 | 7,084,283,091 | 66% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 60.0 | Kamwenge DLG | 54,827,697,933 | 43,687,085,450 | 11,140,612,48 3 | 80% | 0 | 209,067,094 | 0 |\n| 7 | 61.0 | Kanungu DLG | 44,030,676,812 | 42,369,401,889 | 1,661,274,923 | 96% | 0 | 38,504,645 | 0 |\n| 8 | 62.0 | Kapchorwa DLG | 22,517,959,276 | 19,748,553,077 | 2,769,406,199 | 88% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 63.0 | Kapchorwa MC | 8,395,473,308 | 7,997,225,401 | 398,247,907 | 95% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 64.0 | Kapelebyong DLG | 15,569,721,601 | 12,235,337,606 | 3,334,383,995 | 79% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 65.0 | Kasese MC | 30,900,924,929 | 28,458,875,148 | 2,442,049,781 | 92% | 0 | 64,733,154 | 0 |\n| 12 | 66.0 | Kasese DLG | 81,918,725,603 | 78,576,105,971 | 3,342,619,632 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 67.0 | Kassanda DLG | 32,378,212,359 | 30,930,307,115 | 1,447,905,244 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 68.0 | Katakwi DLG | 32,045,504,801 | 30,127,091,367 | 1,918,413,434 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 69.0 | Kayunga DLG | 48,613,572,001 | 46,099,338,233 | 2,514,233,768 | 95% | 0 | 0 | 773,412,069 |\n| 16 | 70.0 | Kazo DLG | 20,798,136,942 | 18,199,280,618 | 2,598,856,324 | 88% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 71.0 | Kibaale DLG | 30,224,714,785 | 25,820,356,610 | 4,404,358,175 | 85% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 72.0 | Kiboga DLG | 27,790,363,854 | 26,318,651,550 | 1,471,712,304 | 95% | 0 | 52,265,069 | 0 |\n| 19 | 73.0 | Kibuku DLG | 28,753,665,289 | 25,972,461,234 | 2,781,204,055 | 90% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 74.0 | Kikuube DLG | 39,760,285,943 | 36,404,274,857 | 3,356,011,086 | 92% | 2,089,356,961 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 75.0 | Kira MC | 27,879,646,471 | 26,368,296,040 | 1,511,350,431 | 95% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 76.0 | Kiruhura DLG | 24,387,600,876 | 23,043,919,729 | 1,343,681,147 | 94% | 0 | 1,140,291,802 | 0 |\n| 23 | 77.0 | Kiryandongo DLG | 47,174,781,543 | 38,282,883,956 | 8,891,897,587 | 81% | 2,595,952,499 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 78.0 | Kisoro DLG | 42,882,291,400 | 42,455,392,088 | 426,899,312 | 99% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 79.0 | Kisoro MC | 4,326,154,385 | 3,887,968,240 | 438,186,145 | 90% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 80.0 | Kitagwenda DLG | 20,145,817,767 | 18,803,315,637 | 1,342,502,130 | 93% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 81.0 | Kitgum DLG | 33,271,306,168 | 32,504,037,997 | 767,268,171 | 98% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 82.0 | Koboko MC | 13,888,053,208 | 10,699,321,135 | 3,188,732,073 | 77% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 29 | 83.0 | Koboko DLG | 35,409,866,711 | 33,272,440,212 | 2,137,426,499 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 30 | 84.0 | Kole DLG | 28,474,192,096 | 26,922,628,239 | 1,551,563,857 | 95% | 0 | 53,722,664 | 0 |\n| 31 | 85.0 | Kumi DLG | 33,007,726,183 | 31,841,309,685 | 1,166,416,498 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 32 | 86.0 | Kumi MC | 8,126,023,961 | 7,548,239,062 | 577,784,899 | 93% | 0 | 185,139,760 | 0 |\n| 33 | 87.0 | Kwania DLG | 23,635,325,330 | 19,196,790,749 | 4,438,534,581 | 81% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 34 | 88.0 | Kween DLG | 24,080,850,750 | 20,536,831,697 | 3,544,019,053 | 85% | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 321, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Absorption | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Excess release of wage | Transfer to LLGs | Off Budget Financing/Receipts |\n|---:|:------|:-----------------------|:---------------|:---------------|:----------------|:-------------|:-------------------------|:-------------------|:--------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | warrants | Expenditure | Unspent | % Absorbed | | | |\n| 1 | 89.0 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 29,961,018,886 | 27,044,826,001 | 2,916,192,885 | 90% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 2 | 90.0 | Kyegegwa DLG | 51,906,962,379 | 42,010,275,479 | 9,896,686,900 | 81% | 0 | 169,906,666 | 0.0 |\n| 3 | 91.0 | kyenjojo DLG | 48,783,757,564 | 42,013,520,258 | 6,770,237,306 | 86% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 4 | 92.0 | Kyotera DLG | 39,193,598,994 | 35,926,005,558 | 3,267,593,436 | 92% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 5 | 93.0 | Lamwo DLG | 48,320,085,318 | 41,646,778,955 | 6,673,306,363 | 86% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 6 | 94.0 | Lira City | 42,012,644,858 | 35,186,882,702 | 6,825,762,156 | 84% | 2,012,273,042 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 7 | 95.0 | Lira DLG | 39,485,569,918 | 32,066,592,440 | 7,418,977,478 | 81% | 0 | 300,110,546 | 0.0 |\n| 8 | 96.0 | Lugazi MC | 27,142,890,168 | 19,986,329,853 | 7,156,560,315 | 74% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 9 | 97.0 | Luuka DLG | 30,651,591,016 | 27,645,019,299 | 3,006,571,717 | 90% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 10 | 98.0 | Luwero DLG | 70,065,278,636 | 0 | 70,065,278,63 6 | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 11 | 99.0 | Lwengo DLG | 32,148,893,519 | 28,622,557,089 | 3,526,336,430 | 89% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 12 | 100.0 | Lyantonde DLG | 18,928,350,342 | 17,315,185,791 | 1,613,164,551 | 91% | 0 | 23,137,182 | 0.0 |\n| 13 | 101.0 | Madi Okollo DLG | 30,882,287,746 | 27,937,245,343 | 2,945,042,403 | 90% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 14 | 102.0 | Makindye- Ssabagabo MC | 21,970,955,485 | 0 | 21,970,955,48 5 | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 15 | 103.0 | Manafwa DLG | 32,314,022,238 | 28,143,462,499 | 4,170,559,739 | 87% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 16 | 104.0 | Maracha DLG | 30,589,523,882 | 26,104,276,925 | 4,485,246,957 | 85% | 2,540,902,310 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 17 | 105.0 | Masaka DLG | 19,984,292,997 | 18,413,164,851 | 1,571,128,146 | 92% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 18 | 106.0 | Masaka City | 39,377,424,934 | 35,434,227,386 | 3,943,197,548 | 90% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 19 | 107.0 | Masindi MC | 13,208,468,876 | 12,410,985,990 | 797,482,886 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 20 | 108.0 | Masindi DLG | 31,043,870,003 | 28,286,651,936 | 2,757,218,067 | 91% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 21 | 109.0 | Mayuge DLG | 50,196,940,048 | 45,670,547,383 | 4,526,392,665 | 91% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 22 | 110.0 | Mbale DLG | 44,800,253,897 | 43,021,470,498 | 1,778,783,399 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 23 | 111.0 | Mbale City City | 54,509,554,490 | 52,440,655,447 | 2,068,899,043 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 24 | 112.0 | Mbarara City | 56,163,575,756 | 37,529,896,173 | 18,633,679,58 3 | 67% | 2,497,489,578 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 25 | 113.0 | Mbarara DLG | 31,389,570,562 | 29,057,935,457 | 2,331,635,105 | 93% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 26 | 114.0 | Mitooma DLG | 31,033,824,747 | 28,534,656,313 | 2,499,168,434 | 92% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 27 | 115.0 | Mityana MC | 10,286,862,838 | 10,120,930,540 | 165,932,298 | 98% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 28 | 116.0 | Mityana DLG | 34,739,884,076 | 34,060,294,580 | 679,589,496 | 98% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 29 | 117.0 | Moroto DLG DLG | 17,127,913,866 | 14,133,470,694 | 2,994,443,172 | 83% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 30 | 118.0 | Moroto MC MC | 7,880,859,977 | 7,433,003,905 | 447,856,072 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 31 | 119.0 | Moyo DLG | 29,195,416,011 | 27,516,553,465 | 1,678,862,546 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 32 | 120.0 | Mpigi DLG | 34,682,719,605 | 32,974,065,081 | 1,708,654,524 | 95% | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |", "metadata": {"page": 322, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Absorption | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Excess release of wage | Transfer to LLGs | Off Budget Financing/Receipts |\n|---:|:------|:----------------|:---------------|:---------------|:--------------|:-------------|:-------------------------|:-------------------|:--------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | warrants | Expenditure | Unspent | % Absorbed | | | |\n| 1 | 121.0 | Mubende DLG | 39,647,152,652 | 34,923,221,857 | 4,723,930,795 | 88% | 0 | 1,138,791,914 | 0 |\n| 2 | 122.0 | Mubende MC | 31,308,367,407 | 26,727,376,138 | 4,580,991,269 | 85% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 123.0 | Mukono DLG | 57,834,245,531 | 55,901,318,197 | 1,932,927,334 | 97% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 124.0 | Mukono MC | 22,502,726,784 | 18,587,918,237 | 3,914,808,547 | 83% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 125.0 | Nakapiripit DLG | 13,792,230,712 | 12,945,450,637 | 846,780,075 | 94% | 0 | 148,785,780 | 0 |\n| 6 | 126.0 | Nakaseke DLG | 35,726,792,690 | 33,314,456,534 | 2,412,336,156 | 93% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 127.0 | Nakasongola DLG | 31,387,140,337 | 30,027,827,577 | 1,359,312,760 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 400,000,000 |\n| 8 | 128.0 | Namayingo DLG | 30,764,093,834 | 26,542,664,138 | 4,221,429,696 | 86% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 129.0 | Namisindwa DLG | 30,276,933,318 | 28,725,738,658 | 1,551,194,660 | 95% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 130.0 | Namutumba DLG | 33,545,828,238 | 31,116,858,743 | 2,428,969,495 | 93% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 131.0 | Nansana MC | 28,771,493,569 | 26,482,840,811 | 2,288,652,758 | 92% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 132.0 | Napal DLG DLG | 17,502,475,644 | 16,530,012,194 | 972,463,450 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 133.0 | Nebbi DLG | 32,975,573,035 | 31,506,692,387 | 1,468,880,648 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 134.0 | Nebbi MC | 5,315,320,126 | 4,846,497,885 | 468,822,241 | 91% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 135.0 | Ngora DLG | 22,984,373,307 | 22,162,388,727 | 821,984,580 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 136.0 | Njeru MC | 12,513,270,328 | 12,507,550,990 | 5,719,338 | 100% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 137.0 | Ntoroko DLG | 23,319,020,690 | 17,838,045,388 | 5,480,975,302 | 76% | 2,448,236,990 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 138.0 | Ntugamo MC | 10,006,372,814 | 6,421,172,764 | 3,585,200,050 | 64% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 139.0 | Ntungamo DLG | 65,955,356,867 | 59,053,809,204 | 6,901,547,663 | 90% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 140.0 | Nwoya DLG | 26,906,362,637 | 23,984,644,132 | 2,921,718,505 | 89% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 141.0 | Obongi DLG | 36,016,551,508 | 31,128,601,256 | 4,887,950,252 | 86% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 142.0 | Otuke DLG | 19,045,497,065 | 17,609,180,705 | 1,436,316,360 | 92% | 0 | 0 | 342,888,374 |\n| 23 | 143.0 | Oyam DLG | 48,266,804,257 | 42,073,370,843 | 6,193,433,414 | 87% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 144.0 | Pader DLG | 32,381,009,380 | 31,488,029,130 | 892,980,250 | 97% | 0 | 172,984,126 | 0 |\n| 25 | 145.0 | Pakwach DLG | 23,874,245,553 | 20,530,628,195 | 3,343,617,358 | 86% | 2,457,707,239 | 29,000,000 | 0 |\n| 26 | 146.0 | Pallisa DLG | 40,668,548,479 | 37,753,661,347 | 2,914,887,132 | 93% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 147.0 | Rakai DLG | 43,948,336,253 | 42,336,787,704 | 1,611,548,549 | 96% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 148.0 | Rubanda DLG | 32,450,904,042 | 30,989,097,975 | 1,461,806,067 | 95% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 29 | 149.0 | Rubirizi DLG | 23,166,794,758 | 20,530,176,600 | 2,636,618,158 | 89% | 0 | 0 | 350,890,654 |\n| 30 | 150.0 | Rukiga DLG | 23,721,798,107 | 20,362,927,389 | 3,358,870,718 | 86% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 31 | 151.0 | Rukungiri DLG | 47,948,154,494 | 46,890,746,619 | 1,057,407,875 | 98% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 32 | 152.0 | Rukungiri MC | 9,588,610,221 | 8,847,154,258 | 741,455,963 | 92% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 33 | 153.0 | Rwampara DLG | 23,245,993,216 | 19,456,469,037 | 3,789,524,179 | 84% | 2,542,813,461 | 0 | 0 |\n| 34 | 154.0 | Sembabule DLG | 34,093,818,966 | 32,559,068,877 | 1,534,750,089 | 95% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 35 | 155.0 | Serere DLG | 36,425,484,861 | 34,358,443,242 | 2,067,041,619 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 323, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Absorption | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Excess release of wage | Transfer to LLGs | Off Budget Financing/Receipts |\n|---:|:------|:--------------|:-------------------|:-------------------|:-----------------|:-------------|:-------------------------|:-------------------|:--------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | warrants | Expenditure | Unspent | % Absorbed | | | |\n| 1 | 156.0 | Sheema DLG | 30,512,174,022 | 27,211,027,636 | 3,301,146,386 | 89% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 157.0 | Sheema MC | 14,776,377,415 | 13,914,040,913 | 862,336,502 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 158.0 | Sironko DLG | 40,673,330,239 | 38,374,226,581 | 2,299,103,658 | 94% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 159.0 | Soroti City | 27,191,436,469 | 26,510,579,363 | 680,857,106 | 97% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 160.0 | Soroti DLG | 32,154,680,153 | 29,546,319,610 | 2,608,360,543 | 92% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 161.0 | Terego DLG | 51,009,048,929 | 0 | 51,009,048,92 9 | 0% | 6,426,650,108 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 162.0 | Tororo MC | 20,366,168,079 | 19,681,780,810 | 684,387,269 | 97% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 163.0 | Tororo DLG | 71,852,450,728 | 61,209,067,941 | 10,643,382,78 7 | 85% | 0 | 1,210,847,439 | 0 |\n| 9 | 164.0 | Wakiso DLG | 86,711,358,646 | 79,119,713,715 | 7,591,644,931 | 91% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 165.0 | Yumbe DLG | 87,975,942,483 | 74,669,888,209 | 13,306,054,27 4 | 85% | 2,447,372,714 | 0 | 1,803,548,082 |\n| 11 | 166.0 | Zombo DLG | 30,237,259,913 | 26,476,136,554 | 3,761,123,359 | 88% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 167.0 | Omoro DLG | 26,863,805,127 | 25,046,339,947 | 1,817,465,180 | 93% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 168.0 | Kitgum MC | 17,240,456,470 | 16,734,894,910 | 505,561,560 | 97% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 169.0 | Bududa DLG | 34,905,387,096 | 31,716,472,984 | 3,188,914,112 | 91% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | | Total | 5,426,900,787, 092 | 4,723,235,613, 153 | 703,665,173, 939 | 87% | 54,585,930,745 | 6,493,901,8 77 | 3,670,739,179 |", "metadata": {"page": 324, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------|:-----------------------------|:------------|:------------|:------------------------|:------------|:------------------------|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Misclassification | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unaccounted for funds | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n| 1 | SN | Entity Name | Salary, pension and gratuity | Irrigation | Exgratia | Other expenditure lines | Total | Administrative expenses | PDM | Support to Organized Groups for improvement of people\u2019s livelihood | Total |\n| 2 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 283,297,027 | 0 | 0 | 429,130,982 | 712,428,009 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 2 | Agago DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 56,193,109 | 0 | 56,193,109 |\n| 4 | 3 | Alebetong DLG | 7,952,644 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7,952,644 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 4 | Amolatar DLG | 70,075,090 | 0 | 0 | 67,447,800 | 137,522,890 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 5 | Amudat DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 6 | Amuria DLG | 17,066,509 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17,066,509 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 7 | Amuru DLG | 0 | 963,852,269 | 0 | 0 | 963,852,269 | 114,673,100 | 0 | 0 | 114,673,100 |\n| 9 | 8 | Apac DLG | 67,495,851 | 0 | 0 | 287,520,571 | 355,016,422 | 109,792,094 | 0 | 0 | 109,792,094 |\n| 10 | 9 | Arua DLG | 794,958,743 | 0 | 0 | 167,286,000 | 962,244,743 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 10 | Arua City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 187,258,150 | 187,258,150 | 47,314,916 | 0 | 0 | 47,314,916 |\n| 12 | 11 | Budaka DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 12 | Bugiri DLG | 280,574,190 | 0 | 227,015,000 | 103,525,024 | 611,114,214 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 13 | Bugiri MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 14 | Bugweri DLG | 41,833,700 | 0 | 12,939,800 | 41,833,700 | 96,607,200 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 15 | Buhweju DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 16 | Buikwe DLG | 0 | 600,773,617 | 0 | 0 | 600,773,617 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 17 | Bukedea DLG | 19,917,472 | 0 | 144,169,020 | 0 | 164,086,492 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 18 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 0 | 320,084,565 | 58,800,000 | 0 | 378,884,565 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 19 | Bukwo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27,449,000 | 0 | 0 | 27,449,000 |\n| 21 | 20 | Bulambuli DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 21 | Buliisa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 321,458,342 | 321,458,342 | 240,409,967 | 12,260,000 | 8,000,000 | 260,669,967 |\n| 23 | 22 | Bundibugyo DLG | 0 | 0 | 1,755,000 | 0 | 1,755,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 23 | Bunyangabu DLG | 15,870,937 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15,870,937 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 24 | Bushenyi DLG | 0 | 78,378,605 | 0 | 0 | 78,378,605 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 25 | Bushenyi- Ishaka MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 26 | Busia MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14,201,118 | 14,201,118 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|----:|:--------------|----:|:------------|----:|:------------|:------------|:-----------|----:|----:|:-----------|\n| 0 | 27 | Busia DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 264,035,358 | 264,035,358 | 54,448,772 | 0 | 0 | 54,448,772 |\n| 1 | 28 | Butaleja DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 29 | Butambala DLG | 0 | 221,610,994 | 0 | 0 | 221,610,994 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 30 | Butebo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38,526,000 | 0 | 0 | 38,526,000 |\n| 4 | 31 | Buvuma DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 325, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------|:-----------------------------|:------------|:-----------|:------------------------|:--------------|:------------------------|:------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Misclassification | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unaccounted for funds | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n| 1 | SN | Entity Name | Salary, pension and gratuity | Irrigation | Exgratia | Other expenditure lines | Total | Administrative expenses | PDM | Support to Organized Groups for improvement of people\u2019s livelihood | Total |\n| 2 | 32 | Buyende DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 33 | Dokolo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 34 | Entebbe MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 35 | Fort Portal City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 36 | Gomba DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 37 | Gulu City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 464,967,732 | 11,233,000 | 0 | 476,200,732 |\n| 8 | 38 | Gulu DLG | 41,648,614 | 0 | 0 | 146,888,000 | 188,536,614 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 39 | Hoima City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 40 | Hoima DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5,782,116,807 | 5,782,116,807 | 0 | 0 | 53,000,000 | 53,000,000 |\n| 11 | 41 | Ibanda DLG | 42,269,313 | 562,258,360 | 0 | 0 | 604,527,673 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 42 | Ibanda MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 43 | Iganga DLG | 0 | 293,479,474 | 0 | 0 | 293,479,474 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 44 | Iganga MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 45 | Isingiro DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 46 | Jinja City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 116,271,108 | 116,271,108 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 47 | Jinja DLG | 0 | 265,244,129 | 0 | 0 | 265,244,129 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 48 | Kabale DLG | 240,859,233 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 240,859,233 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 49 | Kabale MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 50 | Kabarole DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 51 | Kaberamaido DLG | 301,075,279 | 0 | 0 | 433,609,995 | 734,685,274 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 52 | Kagadi DLG | 26,145,379 | 0 | 0 | 425,128,812 | 451,274,191 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 53 | Kakumiro DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 54 | Kalaki DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19,191,575 | 19,191,575 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 55 | Kalangala DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120,800,452 | 0 | 120,800,452 |\n| 26 | 56 | Kaliro DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 57 | Kalungu DLG | 0 | 245,494,700 | 0 | 0 | 245,494,700 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|----:|:--------------|:------------|:------------|----:|----:|:------------|----:|----:|----:|-----:|\n| 0 | 58 | Kamuli DLG | 0 | 277,743,610 | 0 | 0 | 277,743,610 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 59 | Kamuli MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 60 | Kamwenge DLG | 113,533,667 | 422,241,549 | 0 | 0 | 535,775,216 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 61 | Kanungu DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 62 | Kapchorwa DLG | 96,353,925 | 41,395,400 | 0 | 0 | 137,749,325 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 63 | Kapchorwa MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 326, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------|:-----------------------------|:------------|:-----------|:------------------------|:------------|:------------------------|:------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Misclassification | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unaccounted for funds | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n| 1 | SN | Entity Name | Salary, pension and gratuity | Irrigation | Exgratia | Other expenditure lines | Total | Administrative expenses | PDM | Support to Organized Groups for improvement of people\u2019s livelihood | Total |\n| 2 | 64 | Kapelebyong DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39,863,133 | 39,863,133 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 65 | Kasese MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 66 | Kasese DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 67 | Kassanda DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 68 | Katakwi DLG | 132,328,151 | 0 | 0 | 50,959,223 | 183,287,374 | 341,474,505 | 0 | 0 | 341,474,505 |\n| 7 | 69 | Kayunga DLG | 0 | 789,024,134 | 0 | 0 | 789,024,134 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 70 | Kazo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 71 | Kibaale DLG | 243,808,456 | 343,540,164 | 0 | 248,884,954 | 836,233,574 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 72 | Kiboga DLG | 70,074,082 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70,074,082 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 73 | Kibuku DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 74 | Kikuube DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 75 | Kira MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 76 | Kiruhura DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 77 | Kiryandongo DLG | 44,741,863 | 0 | 0 | 89,110,097 | 133,851,960 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 78 | Kisoro DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 79 | Kisoro MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 80 | Kitagwenda DLG | 0 | 240,883,874 | 0 | 143,211,756 | 384,095,630 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 81 | Kitgum DLG | 0 | 0 | 334,000 | 91,922,468 | 92,256,468 | 0 | 241,516,100 | 0 | 241,516,100 |\n| 20 | 82 | Koboko MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 83 | Koboko DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11,300,040 | 0 | 11,300,040 |\n| 22 | 84 | Kole DLG | 138,070,066 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 138,070,066 | 59,029,970 | 0 | 0 | 59,029,970 |\n| 23 | 85 | Kumi DLG | 210,121,994 | 0 | 0 | 139,189,753 | 349,311,747 | 21,161,426 | 0 | 0 | 21,161,426 |\n| 24 | 86 | Kumi MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31,406,925 | 31,406,925 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 87 | Kwania DLG | 46,649,913 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 46,649,913 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 88 | Kween DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 89 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 5,461,304 | 0 | 0 | 152,595,184 | 158,056,488 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|----:|:-------------|:------------|:------------|----:|----:|:------------|:-----------|----:|----:|:-----------|\n| 0 | 90 | Kyegegwa DLG | 3,330,693 | 921,616,030 | 0 | 0 | 924,946,723 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 91 | kyenjojo DLG | 0 | 816,122,258 | 0 | 0 | 816,122,258 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 92 | Kyotera DLG | 0 | 206,116,680 | 0 | 0 | 206,116,680 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 93 | Lamwo DLG | 106,680,222 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 106,680,222 | 31,862,000 | 0 | 0 | 31,862,000 |\n| 4 | 94 | Lira City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 95 | Lira DLG | 98,046,752 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 98,046,752 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 327, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------------|:-----------------------------|:------------|:-----------|:------------------------|:------------|:------------------------|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Misclassification | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unaccounted for funds | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n| 1 | SN | Entity Name | Salary, pension and gratuity | Irrigation | Exgratia | Other expenditure lines | Total | Administrative expenses | PDM | Support to Organized Groups for improvement of people\u2019s livelihood | Total |\n| 2 | 96 | Lugazi MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 97 | Luuka DLG | 0 | 185,288,340 | 0 | 0 | 185,288,340 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 98 | Luwero DLG | 0 | 496,853,038 | 0 | 0 | 496,853,038 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 99 | Lwengo DLG | 0 | 349,181,500 | 0 | 0 | 349,181,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 100 | Lyantonde DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 101 | Madi Okollo DLG | 152,818,453 | 0 | 64,347,624 | 0 | 217,166,077 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 102 | Makindye- Ssabagabo MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 103 | Manafwa DLG | 0 | 178,080,000 | 0 | 0 | 178,080,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 104 | Maracha DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 105 | Masaka DLG | 0 | 191,012,556 | 0 | 0 | 191,012,556 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 106 | Masaka City | 0 | 0 | 1,050,000 | 0 | 1,050,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 107 | Masindi MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 724,089,374 | 724,089,374 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 108 | Masindi DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 274,546,863 | 274,546,863 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 109 | Mayuge DLG | 0 | 691,749,954 | 0 | 0 | 691,749,954 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 110 | Mbale DLG | 0 | 978,155,227 | 0 | 0 | 978,155,227 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 111 | Mbale City City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 112 | Mbarara City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 113 | Mbarara DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 114 | Mitooma DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 115 | Mityana MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 212,684,427 | 212,684,427 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 116 | Mityana DLG | 13,354,277 | 959,359,474 | 0 | 0 | 972,713,751 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 117 | Moroto DLG DLG | 61,218,062 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 61,218,062 | 32,121,000 | 0 | 0 | 32,121,000 |\n| 24 | 118 | Moroto MC MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 93,678,751 | 93,678,751 | 43,885,966 | 0 | 0 | 43,885,966 |\n| 25 | 119 | Moyo DLG | 0 | 0 | 6,700,766 | 90,047,094 | 96,747,860 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 120 | Mpigi DLG | 0 | 682,186,048 | 0 | 0 | 682,186,048 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 121 | Mubende DLG | 0 | 360,241,350 | 0 | 0 | 360,241,350 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|----:|:----------------|:------------|:--------------|----:|:------------|:--------------|:-----------|----:|----:|:-----------|\n| 0 | 122 | Mubende MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 123 | Mukono DLG | 0 | 1,192,689,171 | 0 | 0 | 1,192,689,171 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 124 | Mukono MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 123,531,970 | 123,531,970 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 125 | Nakapiripit DLG | 206,356,796 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 206,356,796 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 126 | Nakaseke DLG | 1,689,071 | 687,041,722 | 0 | 0 | 688,730,793 | 18,579,130 | 0 | 0 | 18,579,130 |", "metadata": {"page": 328, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------|:-----------------------------|:--------------|:-----------|:------------------------|:--------------|:------------------------|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Misclassification | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unaccounted for funds | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n| 1 | SN | Entity Name | Salary, pension and gratuity | Irrigation | Exgratia | Other expenditure lines | Total | Administrative expenses | PDM | Support to Organized Groups for improvement of people\u2019s livelihood | Total |\n| 2 | 127 | Nakasongola DLG | 41,613,733 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41,613,733 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 128 | Namayingo DLG | 36,843,688 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36,843,688 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 129 | Namisindwa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 130 | Namutumba DLG | 271,169,442 | 0 | 0 | 153,019,013 | 424,188,455 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 131 | Nansana MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 132 | Napal DLG DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 255,002,000 | 0 | 0 | 255,002,000 |\n| 8 | 133 | Nebbi DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 134 | Nebbi MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 135 | Ngora DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23,641,000 | 23,641,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 136 | Njeru MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36,732,050 | 36,732,050 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 137 | Ntoroko DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 138 | Ntugamo MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 139 | Ntungamo DLG | 15,020,229 | 229,477,125 | 0 | 0 | 244,497,354 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 140 | Nwoya DLG | 0 | 1,282,287,149 | 0 | 120,040,211 | 1,402,327,360 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 141 | Obongi DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 142 | Otuke DLG | 109,944,652 | 0 | 0 | 99,132,476 | 209,077,128 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 143 | Oyam DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 388,608,220 | 388,608,220 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 144 | Pader DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 157,329,446 | 157,329,446 | 65,770,718 | 0 | 0 | 65,770,718 |\n| 20 | 145 | Pakwach DLG | 0 | 0 | 5,500,000 | 0 | 5,500,000 | 14,670,200 | 0 | 0 | 14,670,200 |\n| 21 | 146 | Pallisa DLG | 0 | 0 | 2,427,469 | 115,027,538 | 117,455,007 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 147 | Rakai DLG | 0 | 450,270,049 | 0 | 0 | 450,270,049 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 148 | Rubanda DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 149 | Rubirizi DLG | 76,714,874 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 76,714,874 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 150 | Rukiga DLG | 2,673,536 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,673,536 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 151 | Rukungiri DLG | 0 | 1,182,235,981 | 0 | 0 | 1,182,235,981 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 152 | Rukungiri MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 329, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|----:|:--------------|----:|:------------|----:|:------------|:------------|----:|----:|----:|-----:|\n| 0 | 153 | Rwampara DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 154 | Sembabule DLG | 0 | 381,925,415 | 0 | 0 | 381,925,415 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 155 | Serere DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 275,490,964 | 275,490,964 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 156 | Sheema DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 157 | Sheema MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 158 | Sironko DLG | 0 | 244,992,927 | 0 | 0 | 244,992,927 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 329, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------|:------------|:------------------------|:---------------|:------------------------|:------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Misclassification | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unaccounted for funds | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n| 1 | SN | Entity Name | Salary, pension and gratuity | Irrigation | Exgratia | Other expenditure lines | Total | Administrative expenses | PDM | Support to Organized Groups for improvement of people\u2019s livelihood | Total |\n| 2 | 159 | Soroti City | 151,786,440 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 151,786,440 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 160 | Soroti DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 62,521,446 | 62,521,446 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 161 | Terego DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 107,769,500 | 107,769,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 162 | Tororo MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 163 | Tororo DLG | 241,169,147 | 421,412,670 | 0 | 0 | 662,581,817 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 164 | Wakiso DLG | 0 | 970,978,292 | 0 | 0 | 970,978,292 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 165 | Yumbe DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 166 | Zombo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 167 | Omoro DLG | 519,003,445 | 753,058,716 | 0 | 207,187,886 | 1,479,250,047 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 168 | Kitgum MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 169 | Bududa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | | Total | 5,461,616,914 | 20,478,337,116 | 525,038,679 | 13,059,125,064 | 39,524,117,773 | 1,981,138,496 | 453,302,701 | 61,000,000 | 2,495,441,197 |", "metadata": {"page": 330, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Funding of Ex-gratia for Councillors | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Underpayment of Councillors | Unnamed: 7 |\n|---:|:-----|:---------------|:---------------------------------------|:---------------|:---------------------|:-------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------|\n| 0 | | | Approved Estimate (UGX.) | Release (UGX.) | Under funding (UGX.) | % Variance | No. of councillors under/not paid | Amount not/underpaid |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Agago DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1,245,500 |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Amudat DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 24,000,000 |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Amuria DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 57,000,000 |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Apac DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 56,227,000 |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Bugiri DLG | 104,400,000 | - | 104,400,000 | 100% | 14 | 10,675,000 |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Bugweri DLG | 116,400,000 | 109,160,000 | 7,240,000 | 6% | 13 | 9,750,000 |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Buhweju DLG | 79,800,000 | 59,850,000 | 19,950,000 | 25% | 26 | 13,965,000 |\n| 8 | 8.0 | Bukedea DLG | 144,169,020 | | 144,169,020 | 100% | 380 | 28,500,000 |\n| 9 | 9.0 | Bukwo DLG | 105,900,000 | 88,436,274 | 17,463,726 | 16% | 56 | 6,720,000 |\n| 10 | 10.0 | Bunyangabu DLG | 212,160,000 | 179,744,319 | 32,415,681 | 15% | | |\n| 11 | 11.0 | Butambala DLG | 119,220,000 | 97,169,071 | 22,050,929 | 18% | 289 | 43,250,000 |\n| 12 | 12.0 | Buyende DLG | 229,020,000 | 199,783,352 | 29,236,648 | 13% | | |\n| 13 | 13.0 | Gomba DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 13,950,000 |\n| 14 | 14.0 | Jinja City | 269,040,000 | 97,074,000 | 171,966,000 | 64% | | |\n| 15 | 15.0 | Kaliro DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5,794,800 |", "metadata": {"page": 330, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Funding of Ex-gratia for Councillors | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Underpayment of Councillors | Unnamed: 7 |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:---------------------------------------|:---------------|:---------------------|:-------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------|\n| 0 | | | Approved Estimate (UGX.) | Release (UGX.) | Under funding (UGX.) | % Variance | No. of councillors under/not paid | Amount not/underpaid |\n| 1 | 16.0 | Kamuli DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 387 | 63,876,000 |\n| 2 | 17.0 | Kapelebyong DLG | 333,584,420 | 300,509,420 | 33,075,000 | 10% | 105 | 33,075,000 |\n| 3 | 18.0 | Kasese MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1,575,000 |\n| 4 | 19.0 | Katakwi DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 218 | 22,890,000 |\n| 5 | 20.0 | Kiboga DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 500,000 |\n| 6 | 21.0 | Kibuku DLG | 175,440,000 | 118,080,000 | 57,360,000 | 33% | | |\n| 7 | 22.0 | Kisoro DLG | 124,800,000 | 85,440,000 | 39,360,000 | 32% | 39 | 4,680,000 |\n| 8 | 23.0 | Kitagwenda DLG | 194,100,000 | 121,000,000 | 73,100,000 | 38% | 25 | 6,250,000 |\n| 9 | 24.0 | Kitgum DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 155,904,507 |\n| 10 | 25.0 | Kyegegwa DLG | 310,380,000 | 476,381,887 | -166,001,887 | -53% | | |\n| 11 | 26.0 | Lamwo DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 174 | 79,779,000 |\n| 12 | 27.0 | Lira City | 360,480,000 | 118,320,000 | 242,160,000 | 67% | | |\n| 13 | 28.0 | Luuka DLG | 187,680,000 | 144,416,000 | 43,264,000 | 23% | | |\n| 14 | 29.0 | Luwero DLG | 361,291,540 | 358,410,200 | 2,881,340 | 1% | 0 | - |\n| 15 | 30.0 | Maracha DLG | 321,960,000 | 200,000,000 | 121,960,000 | 38% | 507 | 158,100,000 |\n| 16 | 31.0 | Mbarara City | 258,480,000 | 219,413,000 | 39,067,000 | 15% | 65 | 66,600,000 |\n| 17 | 32.0 | Moyo DLG | 12,320,000 | 0 | 12,320,000 | 100% | 31 | 4,340,000 |\n| 18 | 33.0 | Mubende MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 525,000 |\n| 19 | 34.0 | Nakaseke DLG | 147,120,000 | 132,840,000 | 14,280,000 | 10% | 102 | 12,240,000 |\n| 20 | 35.0 | Nakasongola DLG | 234,780,000 | 196,157,000 | 38,623,000 | 16% | 28 | 7,429,800 |\n| 21 | 36.0 | Namutumba DLG | 250,260,000 | 124,697,919 | 125,562,081 | 50% | | 61,800,000 |\n| 22 | 37.0 | Napal DLG DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 95 | 53,200,000 |\n| 23 | 38.0 | Nebbi MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 10,000,000 |\n| 24 | 39.0 | Ngora DLG | 170,940,000 | 124,167,039 | 46,772,961 | 27% | 0 | 12,132,055 |\n| 25 | 40.0 | Ntoroko DLG | 174,660,000 | 147,793,407 | 26,866,593 | 15% | 5 | 5,890,000 |\n| 26 | 41.0 | Obongi DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 84 | 10,080,000 |\n| 27 | 42.0 | Pakwach DLG | 65,400,000 | 30,740,000 | 34,660,000 | 53% | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 43.0 | Pallisa DLG | 338,460,000 | 224,124,030 | 114,335,970 | 34% | 0 | 0 |\n| 29 | 44.0 | Serere DLG | 230,700,000 | 199,719,486 | 30,980,514 | 13% | 0 | 0 |\n| 30 | 45.0 | Sironko DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 60,000,000 |\n| 31 | 46.0 | Soroti City | 64,680,000 | 55,080,000 | 9,600,000 | 15% | 169 | 20,280,000 |\n| 32 | 47.0 | Yumbe DLG | 534,060,000 | 276,000,000 | 258,060,000 | 48% | 0 | 0 |\n| 33 | 48.0 | Omoro DLG | 58,800,000 | 58,800,000 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 46,600,000 |\n| 34 | | Total | 6,290,484,980 | 4,543,306,404 | 1,747,178,576 | 28% | 3,002 | 1,168,823,662 |", "metadata": {"page": 331, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|---------------------------:|-----------------------:|---------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Kagadi DLG | 151 | 0 | 151 | 0 | 2,625,752,313 | 1,638,280,159 | 987,472,154 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 1 | 2 | Kibaale DLG | 57 | 57 | 0 | 0 | 991,178,025 | 618,781,601 | 372,396,424 | 11,946,385 | 7,833,456 | 4,112,929 |\n| 2 | 3 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 119 | 117 | 2 | 0 | 2,069,301,492 | 1,241,761,074 | 827,540,418 | 11,946,385 | 9,584,569 | 2,361,816 |\n| 3 | 4 | Buliisa DLG | 37 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 643,396,262 | 378,223,568 | 265,172,694 | 11,946,385 | 6,097,127 | 5,849,258 |\n| 4 | 5 | Kiboga DLG | 58 | 58 | 0 | 0 | 1,008,567,113 | 793,049,020 | 215,518,093 | 11,946,385 | 11,614,600 | 331,785 |\n| 5 | 6 | Kiryandongo DLG | 43 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 777,773,770 | 475,060,913 | 302,712,857 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,909 | 4,840,476 |\n| 6 | 7 | Kayunga DLG | 57 | 71 | 0 | 0 | 1,234,625,259 | 703,992,280 | 530,632,979 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 7 | 8 | Kira MC | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 104,334,529 | 76,793,676 | 27,540,853 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 8 | 9 | Mukono DLG | 88 | 88 | 0 | 0 | 1,530,239,758 | 1,007,444,869 | 522,794,889 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,000 | 4,841,385 |\n| 9 | 10 | Nakaseke DLG | 72 | 72 | 0 | 0 | 1,234,625,259 | 681,238,785 | 553,386,474 | 11,946,385 | 8,628,335 | 3,318,050 |\n| 10 | 11 | Nansana MC | 29 | 13 | 16 | 0 | 507,132,026 | 286,736,255 | 220,395,771 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 11 | 12 | Wakiso DLG | 100 | 98 | 2 | 0 | 1,738,908,817 | 1,139,324,157 | 599,584,660 | 11,946,385 | 10,428,988 | 1,517,397 |\n| 12 | 13 | Buhweju DLG | 68 | 68 | 0 | 0 | 1,182,458,000 | 737,768,551 | 444,689,449 | 11,946,385 | 7,531,680 | 4,414,705 |\n| 13 | 14 | Kabale DLG | 67 | 67 | 0 | 0 | 1,165,068,887 | 702,794,039 | 462,274,848 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 14 | 15 | Kanungu DLG | 98 | 36 | 62 | 0 | 1,704,130,640 | 881,051,146 | 823,079,494 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 15 | 16 | Kisoro DLG | 58 | 58 | 0 | 0 | 1,000,332,478 | 652,450,147 | 347,882,331 | 11,946,385 | 7,600,000 | 4,346,385 |\n| 16 | 17 | Mbarara City | 23 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 399,949,028 | 249,539,361 | 150,409,667 | 11,946,385 | 6,609,316 | 5,337,069 |\n| 17 | 18 | Rubirizi DLG | 53 | 52 | 1 | 0 | 921,621,673 | 584,421,623 | 337,200,050 | 11,946,385 | 8,171,435 | 3,774,950 |\n| 18 | 19 | Rukungiri DLG | 57 | 39 | 18 | 0 | 1,304,181,582 | 853,987,586 | 450,193,996 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 19 | 20 | Rwampara DLG | 29 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 504,283,557 | 314,636,582 | 189,646,975 | 11,946,385 | 7,115,692 | 4,830,693 |\n| 20 | 21 | Bugiri DLG | 98 | 37 | 61 | 0 | 1,704,130,640 | 974,895,667 | 729,234,973 | 11,946,385 | 17,459,459 | 05,513,074 |\n| 21 | 22 | Bugiri MC | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 69,556,352 | 48,212,048 | 21,344,304 | 11,946,385 | 7,672,300 | 4,274,085 |\n| 22 | 23 | Bugweri DLG | 36 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 626,007,174 | 410,972,260 | 215,034,914 | 11,946,385 | 17,812,103 | 05,865,718 |\n| 23 | 24 | Iganga DLG | 42 | 21 | 21 | 0 | 730,341,703 | 436,031,002 | 294,310,701 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 24 | 25 | Iganga MC | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 191,279,969 | 117,785,902 | 73,494,067 | 11,946,385 | 7,272,727 | 4,673,658 |\n| 25 | 26 | Jinja City | 26 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 452,116,292 | 288,106,284 | 164,010,008 | 11,946,385 | 7,530,677 | 4,415,708 |\n| 26 | 27 | Jinja DLG | 34 | 30 | 4 | 0 | 591,228,997 | 371,671,768 | 219,557,229 | 11,946,385 | 7,187,894 | 4,758,491 |\n| 27 | 28 | Kamuli MC | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 219,456,294 | 89,860,982 | 129,595,312 | 11,946,385 | 8,505,497 | 3,440,888 |", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|---------------------------:|-----------------------:|---------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 29 | Luuka DLG | 64 | 30 | 34 | 0 | 1,112,901,643 | 694,385,933 | 418,515,710 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 1 | 30 | Mayuge DLG | 84 | 45 | 39 | 0 | 1,460,683,406 | 855,900,681 | 604,782,725 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 2 | 31 | Namayingo DLG | 50 | 22 | 28 | 0 | 869,454,408 | 532,276,091 | 337,178,317 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 3 | 32 | Nebbi MC | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 156,501,794 | 98,726,810 | 57,774,984 | 11,946,385 | 9,518,650 | 2,427,735 |\n| 4 | 33 | Butaleja DLG | 76 | 33 | 43 | 0 | 1,321,570,700 | 681,306,967 | 640,263,733 | 11,946,385 | 13,756,443 | 01,810,058 |", "metadata": {"page": 332, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------------|---------------------------:|:-----------------------|---------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 34 | Tororo DLG | 172 | 155.0 | 17 | 0 | 2,695,308,665 | 1,764,595,230 | 930,713,435 | 11,946,385 | 11,843,328 | 103,057 |\n| 1 | 35 | Kazo DLG | 28 | 28.0 | 0 | 0 | 962,600,000 | 533,000,000 | 429,600,000 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 2 | 36 | Kiruhura DLG | 56 | 30.0 | 26 | 0 | 973,788,937 | 608,122,913 | 365,666,024 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 3 | 37 | Mbale DLG | 90 | 67.0 | 23 | 0 | 1,558,108,934 | 966,351,955 | 591,756,979 | 11,946,385 | 9,766,538 | 2,179,847 |\n| 4 | 38 | Bududa DLG | 159 | 159.0 | 0 | 0 | 2,764,865,000 | 1,725,014,000 | 1,039,851,000 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,908 | 4,840,477 |\n| 5 | 39 | Mityana DLG | 75 | 72.0 | 3 | 0 | 1,304,181,612 | 801,359,558 | 502,822,054 | 11,946,385 | 7,398,362 | 4,548,023 |\n| 6 | 40 | Nakasongola DLG | 68 | 64.0 | 4 | 0 | 1,182,458,062 | 723,455,289 | 459,002,773 | 11,946,385 | 7,856,479 | 4,089,906 |\n| 7 | 41 | Mitooma DLG | 77 | 73.0 | 4 | 0 | 1,338,959,789 | 835,414,386 | 503,545,403 | 11,946,385 | 8,464,000 | 3,482,385 |\n| 8 | 42 | Rubanda DLG | 69 | 69.0 | 0 | 0 | 1,255,229,083 | 804,000,086 | 451,228,997 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 9 | 43 | Rukiga DLG | 30 | 13.0 | 17 | 0 | 510,000,000 | 213,177,269 | 296,822,731 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 10 | 44 | Sheema MC | 23 | | 23 | 0 | 399,949,028 | 246,994,197 | 152,954,831 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 11 | 45 | Bukedea DLG | 152 | 152.0 | 0 | 0 | 2,642,641,400 | 1,649,129,760 | 993,511,640 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,909 | 4,840,476 |\n| 12 | 46 | Katakwi DLG | 109 | 109.0 | 0 | 0 | 1,895,410,610 | 1,182,599,585 | 712,811,025 | 11,946,385 | 7,766,696 | 4,179,689 |\n| 13 | 47 | Soroti DLG | 54 | 54.0 | 0 | 0 | 939,010,765 | 591,913,215 | 347,097,550 | 11,946,385 | 7,217,727 | 4,728,658 |\n| 14 | 48 | Moroto DLG | 37 | 37.0 | 0 | 0 | 660,785,350 | 639,263,734 | 21,521,616 | 11,946,385 | 13,456,173 | 01,509,788 |\n| 15 | 49 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 35 | 0.0 | 35 | 0 | 608,618,080 | 382,504,853 | 226,113,227 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 16 | 50 | Mbale City | 58 | 47.0 | 11 | 0 | 915,367,114 | 503,124,372 | 412,242,742 | 11,946,385 | 8,178,944 | 3,767,441 |\n| 17 | 51 | Sironko DLG | 224 | 224.0 | 0 | 0 | 3,514,562,960 | 2,175,786,452 | 1,338,776,508 | 11,946,385 | 8,001,789 | 3,944,596 |\n| 18 | 52 | Butebo DLG | 61 | 61.0 | 0 | 0 | 1,060,734,379 | 637,888,975 | 422,845,404 | 11,946,385 | 4,446,599 | 7,499,786 |\n| 19 | 53 | Namisindwa DLG | 163 | 163.0 | 0 | 0 | 2,734,422,000 | 1,768,474,747 | 965,947,253 | 11,946,385 | 7,703,031 | 4,243,354 |\n| 20 | 54 | Makindye Ssabagabo MC | 11 | 8.0 | 3 | 0 | 134,520,000 | 78,296,547 | 56,223,453 | 11,946,385 | 9,233,905 | 2,712,480 |\n| 21 | 55 | Mityana MC | 15 | 5.0 | 10 | 0 | 260,836,322 | 162,743,063 | 98,093,259 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 22 | 56 | Mpigi DLG | 56 | 54.0 | 2 | 0 | 973,788,937 | 607,574,098 | 366,214,839 | 11,946,385 | 5,037,591 | 6,908,794 |\n| 23 | 57 | Ibanda DLG | 40 | 40.0 | 0 | 0 | 695,293,530 | 437,551,080 | 257,742,450 | 11,946,385 | 9,903,080 | 2,043,305 |\n| 24 | 58 | Mbarara DLG | 57 | 57.0 | 0 | 0 | 799,878,055 | 499,196,841 | 300,681,214 | 11,946,385 | 7,833,456 | 4,112,929 |\n| 25 | 59 | Sheema DLG | 51 | 51.0 | 0 | 0 | 817,287,144 | 504,972,175 | 312,314,969 | 11,946,385 | 6,548,582 | 5,397,803 |\n| 26 | 60 | Njeru MC | 16 | 16.0 | 0 | 0 | 278,225,411 | 161,665,675 | 116,559,736 | 11,946,385 | 9,050,000 | 2,896,385 |\n| 27 | 61 | Namutumba DLG | 111 | 53.0 | 58 | 0 | 1,930,188,786 | 1,204,298,661 | 725,890,125 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------------|---------------------------:|-----------------------:|---------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 62 | Lugazi MC | 20 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 347,781,763 | 216,024,740 | 131,757,023 | 11,946,385 | 7,057,608 | 4,888,777 |\n| 1 | 63 | Kamuli DLG | 80 | 77 | 3 | 0 | 1,391,127,054 | 858,276,431 | 532,850,623 | 11,946,385 | 9,780,894 | 2,165,491 |\n| 2 | 64 | Kaliro DLG | 86 | 86 | 0 | 0 | 1,512,850,670 | 968,119,291 | 544,731,379 | 11,946,385 | 7,759,998 | 4,186,387 |\n| 3 | 65 | Buyende DLG | 73 | 67 | 6 | 0 | 1,269,404,964 | 792,017,235 | 477,387,729 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,909 | 4,840,476 |\n| 4 | 66 | Bushenyi DLG | 56 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 991,178,025 | 618,423,636 | 372,754,389 | 11,946,385 | 8,928,596 | 3,017,789 |\n| 5 | 67 | Ishaka0 Bushenyi MC | 16 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 278,225,411 | 151,659,103 | 126,566,308 | 11,946,385 | 8,605,036 | 3,341,349 |", "metadata": {"page": 333, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|:---------------------------|:-----------------------|---------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 68 | Isingiro DLG | 131.0 | 131.0 | 0 | 0 | 2,277,970,559 | 1,421,290,075 | 856,680,484 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,914 | 4,840,471 |\n| 1 | 69 | Kabale MC | | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 2 | 70 | Kisoro MC | 7.0 | 7.0 | 0 | 0 | 121,723,618 | 71,710,564 | 50,013,054 | 11,946,385 | 7,129,561 | 4,816,824 |\n| 3 | 71 | Ntungamo DLG | 129.0 | 126.0 | 3 | 0 | 2,243,192,372 | 1,401,258,493 | 841,933,879 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 4 | 72 | Ntungamo MC | 6.0 | 0.0 | 6 | 0 | 187,559,595 | 50,468,190 | 137,091,405 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 5 | 73 | Rukungiri MC | 12.0 | 12.0 | 0 | 0 | 208,669,055 | 130,504,374 | 78,164,681 | 11,946,385 | 9,554,365 | 2,392,020 |\n| 6 | 74 | Hoima City | 16.0 | 16.0 | 0 | 0 | | | | 11,946,385 | 5,973,192 | 5,973,193 |\n| 7 | 75 | Masindi DLG | 46.0 | 45.0 | 1 | 0 | | | | 11,946,385 | 6,500,998 | 5,445,387 |\n| 8 | 76 | Masindi MC | 11.0 | 11.0 | 0 | 0 | 191,279,970 | 126,113,007 | 65,166,963 | 11,946,385 | 7,656,031 | 4,290,354 |\n| 9 | 77 | Kikuube DLG | 57.0 | 57.0 | 0 | 0 | 504,283,556 | 314,636,586 | 189,646,970 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,909 | 4,840,476 |\n| 10 | 78 | Hoima DLG | 55.0 | 51.0 | 4 | 0 | 956,399,849 | 630,266,756 | 326,133,093 | 11,946,385 | 7,217,678 | 4,728,707 |\n| 11 | 79 | Kakumiro DLG | 105.0 | 100.0 | 5 | 0 | 1,825,854,258 | 1,174,545,966 | 651,308,292 | 11,946,385 | 7,911,596 | 4,034,789 |\n| 12 | 80 | Kween DLG | 101.0 | 101.0 | 0 | 0 | 1,756,298,000 | 1,096,823,403 | 659,474,597 | 11,946,385 | 9,063,935 | 2,882,450 |\n| 13 | 81 | Bulambuli DLG | 122.0 | 121.0 | 1 | 0 | 2,121,468,756 | 1,262,609,025 | 858,859,731 | 11,946,385 | 9,656,027 | 2,290,358 |\n| 14 | 82 | Busia MC | 8.0 | 8.0 | 0 | 0 | 139,113,706 | 85,712,532 | 53,401,174 | 11,946,385 | 7,100,000 | 4,846,385 |\n| 15 | 83 | Kibuku DLG | 92.0 | 89.0 | 3 | 0 | 1,599,796,111 | 893,947,550 | 705,848,561 | 11,946,385 | 7,737,278 | 4,209,107 |\n| 16 | 84 | Manafwa DLG | 156.0 | 156.0 | 0 | 0 | 2,695,308,665 | 1,687,160,853 | 1,008,147,812 | 11,946,385 | 8,627,577 | 3,318,808 |\n| 17 | 85 | Budaka DLG | 76.0 | 76.0 | 0 | 0 | 1,320,670,500 | 827,661,650 | 493,008,850 | 11,946,385 | 8,400,000 | 3,546,385 |\n| 18 | 86 | Pallisa DLG | 80.0 | 45.0 | 35 | 0 | 1,412,724,851 | 951,539,734 | 461,185,117 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 19 | 87 | Kapchorwa DLG | 58.0 | 58.0 | 0 | 0 | 1,008,567,113 | 520,707,944 | 487,859,169 | 11,946,385 | 8,865,042 | 3,081,343 |\n| 20 | 88 | Kapchorwa MC | 27.0 | 27.0 | 0 | 0 | 469,505,000 | 292,933,042 | 176,571,958 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,850 | 4,840,535 |\n| 21 | 89 | Tororo MC | 8.0 | 8.0 | 0 | 0 | 139,112,706 | 110,307,847 | 28,804,859 | 11,946,385 | 9,250,000 | 2,696,385 |\n| 22 | 90 | Terego DLG | 42.0 | 42.0 | 0 | 0 | 730,341,703 | 398,064,374 | 332,277,329 | 11,946,385 | 7,977,723 | 3,968,662 |\n| 23 | 91 | Zombo DLG | 61.0 | 61.0 | 0 | 0 | 1,060,735,000 | 678,222,789 | 382,512,211 | 11,946,385 | 7,669,000 | 4,277,385 |\n| 24 | 92 | Moyo DLG | 47.0 | 45.0 | 2 | 0 | 706,051,014 | 439,531,469 | 266,519,545 | 11,946,385 | 6,380,000 | 5,566,385 |\n| 25 | 93 | Nebbi DLG | 60.0 | 60.0 | 0 | 0 | 1,043,345,290 | 651,559,810 | 391,785,480 | 11,946,385 | 10,124,343 | 1,822,042 |\n| 26 | 94 | Yumbe DLG | 196.0 | 90.0 | 106 | 0 | 3,425,652,368 | 2,137,360,883 | 1,288,291,485 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 27 | 95 | Pader DLG | 97.0 | 97.0 | 0 | 0 | 1,651,963,486 | 993,298,598 | 658,664,888 | 11,946,385 | 8,050,493 | 3,895,892 |\n| 28 | 96 | Koboko MC | 10.0 | 10.0 | 0 | 0 | 173,890,881 | 168,249,260 | 5,641,621 | 11,946,385 | 11,946,385 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|---------------------------:|-----------------------:|---------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 97 | Maracha DLG | 91 | 91 | 0 | 0 | 1,582,407,023 | 986,511,015 | 595,896,008 | 11,946,385 | 7,106,112 | 4,840,273 |\n| 1 | 98 | Pakwach DLG | 48 | 22 | 26 | 0 | 834,676,232 | 482,129,505 | 352,546,727 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 2 | 99 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 46 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 815,936,730 | 473,905,000 | 342,031,730 | 11,946,385 | 8,913,000 | 3,033,385 |\n| 3 | 100 | Koboko DLG | 49 | 49 | 0 | 0 | 852,065,320 | 527,025,427 | 325,039,893 | 11,946,385 | 8,347,641 | 3,598,744 |\n| 4 | 101 | Adjumani DLG | 56 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 973,788,936 | 973,788,936 | 0 | 11,946,385 | 14,000,000 | 02,053,615 |", "metadata": {"page": 334, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|---------------------------:|-----------------------:|---------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 102 | Arua City | 54 | 33 | 21 | 0 | 918,000,000 | 564,939,853 | 353,060,147 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 1 | 103 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 39 | 18 | 21 | 0 | 678,174,664 | 441,366,099 | 236,808,565 | 11,946,385 | 7,833,456 | 4,112,929 |\n| 2 | 104 | Rakai DLG | 73 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 1,269,403,436 | 849,807,364 | 419,596,072 | 11,946,385 | 8,937,000 | 3,009,385 |\n| 3 | 105 | Kalungu DLG | 37 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 642,899,262 | 353,131,018 | 289,768,244 | 11,946,385 | 7,692,038 | 4,254,347 |\n| 4 | 106 | Sembabule DLG | 65 | 65 | 0 | 0 | 1,216,761,518 | 737,217,307 | 479,544,211 | 11,946,385 | 7,365,870 | 4,580,515 |\n| 5 | 107 | Gomba DLG | 49 | 49 | 0 | 0 | 856,385,339 | 552,674,675 | 303,710,664 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,908 | 4,840,477 |\n| 6 | 108 | Kyotera DLG | 66 | 66 | 0 | 0 | 1,147,679,819 | 715,961,473 | 431,718,346 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,909 | 4,840,476 |\n| 7 | 109 | Lwengo DLG | 45 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 782,508,968 | 378,511,421 | 403,997,547 | 11,946,385 | 6,042,800 | 5,903,585 |\n| 8 | 110 | Lyantonde DLG | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 521,672,644 | 335,000,749 | 186,671,895 | 11,946,385 | 7,126,865 | 4,819,520 |\n| 9 | 111 | Mubende MC | 18 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 313,273,586 | 195,291,675 | 117,981,911 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,908 | 4,840,477 |\n| 10 | 112 | Bundibugyo DLG | 130 | 127 | 3 | 0 | 2,260,581,461 | 1,156,908,350 | 1,103,673,111 | 11,946,385 | 7,388,667 | 4,557,718 |\n| 11 | 113 | Kyegegwa DLG | 81 | 33 | 48 | 0 | 1,408,516,141 | 878,812,536 | 529,703,605 | 11,946,385 | 14,578,630 | 02,632,245 |\n| 12 | 114 | Kamwenge DLG | 62 | 62 | 0 | 0 | 1,078,123,466 | 681,449,903 | 396,673,563 | 11,946,385 | 7,247,499 | 4,698,886 |\n| 13 | 115 | Kasese DLG | 197 | 196 | 1 | 0 | 3,425,650,569 | 2,234,298,995 | 1,191,351,574 | 11,946,385 | 9,173,111 | 2,773,274 |\n| 14 | 116 | Kyenjojo DLG | 167 | 88 | 79 | 0 | 2,912,100,722 | 1,915,727,290 | 996,373,432 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 15 | 117 | Bunyangabu DLG | 49 | 48 | 1 | 0 | 852,065,320 | 559,378,893 | 292,686,427 | 11,946,385 | 7,975,809 | 3,970,576 |\n| 16 | 118 | Kabarole DLG | 52 | 52 | 0 | 0 | 904,232,592 | 510,884,500 | 393,348,092 | 11,946,385 | 9,215,895 | 2,730,490 |\n| 17 | 119 | Alebtong DLG | 69 | 36 | 33 | 0 | 1,199,847,083 | 753,177,270 | 446,669,813 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 18 | 120 | Gulu DLG | 47 | 46 | 1 | 0 | 817,287,145 | 509,928,262 | 307,358,883 | 11,946,385 | 7,051,875 | 4,894,510 |\n| 19 | 121 | Oyam DLG | 74 | 31 | 43 | 0 | 1,286,792,524 | 802,865,773 | 483,926,751 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 20 | 122 | Fort Portal City | 25 | 21 | 4 | 0 | 434,727,205 | 271,238,386 | 163,488,819 | 11,946,385 | 12,176,407 | 0230,022 |\n| 21 | 123 | Kole DLG | 54 | 54 | 0 | 0 | 904,232,585 | 492,856,334 | 411,376,251 | 11,946,385 | 6,842,727 | 5,103,658 |\n| 22 | 124 | Masaka DLG | 18 | 6 | 12 | 0 | 313,003,586 | 195,291,674 | 117,711,912 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 23 | 125 | Mubende DLG | 79 | 79 | 0 | 0 | 1,373,737,963 | 709,240,137 | 664,497,826 | 11,946,385 | 7,565,422 | 4,380,963 |\n| 24 | 126 | Masaka City | 25 | 11 | 14 | 0 | 434,727,204 | 271,238,436 | 163,488,768 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 25 | 127 | Lamwo DLG | 86 | 41 | 45 | 0 | 1,495,461,583 | 973,176,329 | 522,285,254 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 26 | 128 | Lira City | 49 | 46 | 3 | 0 | 852,065,320 | 824,313,762 | 27,751,558 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 27 | 129 | Kalaki DLG | 34 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 591,228,997 | 368,884,274 | 222,344,723 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,909 | 4,840,476 |", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|---------------------------:|-----------------------:|---------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 130 | Amuria DLG | 98 | 97 | 1 | 0 | 1,721,519,728 | 1,080,551,952 | 640,967,776 | 11,946,385 | 6,443,889 | 5,502,496 |\n| 1 | 131 | Amolatar DLG | 85 | 85 | 0 | 0 | 1,473,171,913 | 932,085,746 | 541,086,167 | 11,946,385 | 6,147,023 | 5,799,362 |\n| 2 | 132 | Soroti City | 25 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 434,727,185 | 236,951,161 | 197,776,024 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,732 | 4,840,653 |\n| 3 | 133 | Kumi DLG | 140 | 140 | 0 | 0 | 2,434,472,342 | 1,518,935,245 | 915,537,097 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,909 | 4,840,476 |\n| 4 | 134 | Ngora DLG | 73 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 1,269,102,956 | 791,716,071 | 477,386,885 | 11,946,385 | 7,100,068 | 4,846,317 |\n| 5 | 135 | Dokolo DLG | 71 | 34 | 37 | 0 | 1,234,625,269 | 672,938,455 | 561,686,814 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |", "metadata": {"page": 335, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|---------------------------:|-----------------------:|---------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 136 | Otuke DLG | 54 | 27 | 27 | 0 | 921,621,673 | 571,754,473 | 349,867,200 | 11,946,385 | 16,917,979 | 04,971,594 |\n| 1 | 137 | Kapelebyong DLG | 55 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 974,388,937 | 608,198,589 | 366,190,348 | 11,946,385 | 9,023,349 | 2,923,036 |\n| 2 | 138 | Kumi MC | 14 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 243,446,691 | 120,417,747 | 123,028,944 | 11,946,385 | 6,067,894 | 5,878,491 |\n| 3 | 139 | Serere DLG | 70 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 1,217,236,171 | 682,281,990 | 534,954,181 | 11,946,385 | 8,123,331 | 3,823,054 |\n| 4 | 140 | Napak DLG | 57 | 57 | 0 | 0 | 1,095,419,354 | 858,991,663 | 236,427,691 | 11,946,385 | 13,448,637 | 01,502,252 |\n| 5 | 141 | Moroto MC | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 69,556,352 | 61,907,248 | 7,649,104 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 6 | 142 | Bukwo DLG | 109 | 98 | 11 | 0 | 1,895,410,609 | 1,033,082,696 | 862,327,913 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,909 | 4,840,476 |\n| 7 | 143 | Arua DLG | 32 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 556,450,820 | 347,185,198 | 209,265,622 | 11,946,385 | 7,106,587 | 4,839,798 |\n| 8 | 144 | Gulu City | 32 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 556,450,823 | 313,381,643 | 243,069,180 | 11,946,385 | 4,917,440 | 7,028,945 |\n| 9 | 145 | Kaberamaido DLG | 29 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 504,283,556 | 290,995,752 | 213,287,804 | 11,946,385 | 7,672,267 | 4,274,118 |\n| 10 | 146 | Kitgum DLG | 72 | 10 | 62 | 0 | 1,252,014,348 | 682,239,439 | 569,774,909 | 11,946,385 | 5,256,000 | 6,690,385 |\n| 11 | 147 | Nwoya DLG | 44 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 765,119,880 | 477,379,649 | 287,740,231 | 11,946,385 | 2,365,097 | 9,581,288 |\n| 12 | 148 | Obongi DLG | 28 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 486,984,469 | 303,651,310 | 183,333,159 | 11,946,385 | 7,629,837 | 4,316,548 |\n| 13 | 149 | Agago DLG | 117 | 117 | 0 | 0 | 2,034,523,315 | 1,269,395,885 | 765,127,430 | 11,946,385 | 6,682,994 | 5,263,391 |\n| 14 | 150 | Apac DLG | 34 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 618,965,872 | 435,259,514 | 183,706,358 | 11,946,385 | 10,287,969 | 1,658,416 |\n| 15 | 151 | Busia DLG | 62 | 62 | 0 | 0 | 1,078,123,466 | 669,189,290 | 408,934,176 | 11,946,385 | 9,100,000 | 2,846,385 |\n| 16 | 152 | Buvuma DLG | 38 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 660,786,000 | 412,282,426 | 248,503,574 | 11,946,385 | 7,105,909 | 4,840,476 |\n| 17 | 153 | Kalangala DLG | 17 | 7 | 10 | 0 | 295,614,499 | 164,145,696 | 131,468,803 | 11,946,385 | 17,257,207 | 05,310,822 |\n| 18 | 154 | Kitagwenda DLG | 55 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 956,399,849 | 596,724,562 | 359,675,287 | 11,946,385 | 6,226,492 | 5,719,893 |\n| 19 | 155 | Kitgum MC | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 191,279,869 | 120,055,510 | 71,224,359 | 11,946,385 | 5,074,250 | 6,872,135 |\n| 20 | 156 | Mukono MC | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 156,501,794 | 89,661,841 | 66,839,953 | 11,946,385 | 4,000,000 | 7,946,385 |\n| 21 | 157 | Entebbe MC | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 69,556,352 | 43,398,149 | 26,158,203 | 11,946,385 | 7,833,456 | 4,112,929 |\n| 22 | 158 | Amuru DLG | 58 | 57 | 1 | 0 | 1,008,567,113 | 629,273,174 | 379,293,939 | 11,946,385 | 5,138,441 | 6,807,944 |\n| 23 | 159 | Kwania DLG | 49 | 49 | 0 | 0 | 852,065,320 | 476,124,221 | 375,941,099 | 11,946,385 | 7,106,101 | 4,840,283 |\n| 24 | 160 | Lira DLG | 58 | 58 | 0 | 0 | 1,008,567,305 | 741,506,271 | 267,061,034 | 11,946,385 | 11,784,032 | 162,353 |\n| 25 | 161 | Buikwe DLG | 52 | 31 | 21 | 0 | 539,061,733 | 336,335,896 | 202,725,837 | 11,946,385 | 0 | 11,946,385 |\n| 26 | 162 | Ibanda MC | 21 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 365,170,852 | 225,303,469 | 139,867,383 | 11,946,385 | 7,534,478 | 4,411,907 |\n| 27 | 163 | Butambala DLG | 25 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 434,727,205 | 210,284,125 | 224,443,080 | 11,946,385 | 8,274,000 | 3,672,385 |", "metadata": {"page": 336, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|---------------------------:|-----------------------:|---------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 164 | Amudat DLG | 44 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 765,119,880 | 476,971,254 | 288,148,626 | 11,946,385 | 7,094,582 | 4,851,803 |\n| 1 | 165 | Ntoroko DLG | 47 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 817,287,144 | 535,605,345 | 281,681,799 | 11,946,385 | 7,652,220 | 4,294,165 |\n| 2 | 166 | Kasese MC | 18 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 313,003,586 | 161,295,519 | 151,708,067 | 11,946,385 | 7,037,782 | 4,908,603 |\n| 3 | 167 | Kassanda DLG | 92 | 32 | 60 | 0 | 1,599,796,111 | 998,157,448 | 601,638,663 | 11,946,385 | 17,000,000 | 05,053,615 |\n| 4 | 168 | Omoro DLG | 65 | 65 | 0 | 0 | 1,130,290,730 | 705,219,936 | 425,070,794 | 11,946,385 | 7,313,254 | 4,633,131 |\n| 5 | 169 | Luwero DLG | 101 | 100 | 1 | 0 | 1,756,297,905 | 1,153,005,475 | 603,292,430 | 11,946,385 | 7,997,000 | 3,949,385 |", "metadata": {"page": 336, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | No. of gazetted parishes | No. of SACCOs funded | SACCO s not funded | SACCOs funded in un- gazetted parishes | Approved budget (UGX) | Release (UGX) | Variance (UGX) | Planned funding per SACCO (UGX) | Actual funding per SACCO (UGX) | Funding gap per PDM SACCO (UGX) |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------|:---------------------------|:-----------------------|:---------------------|-----------------------------------------:|:------------------------|:-----------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:----------------------------------|\n| 0 | | Total | 10,191 | 8,703 | 1,502 | 0 | 175,429,879, 581 | 108,857,715,3 67 | 66,572,164, 214 | | | |", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity name | Funds repurposed to the revolving fund | Funds diverted from the revolving fund | Failure to send funds directly to the PDM SACCO Amount | Number of unregistered SACCOs | Amount sent to unregistered SACCOS | Amount unaccounted for |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|:-----------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------|-------------------------:|\n| 0 | 1 | Kagadi DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 2 | Kibaale DLG | 139,623,956 | 0 | 446,506,992 | 57 | 446,506,992 | 0 |\n| 2 | 3 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 602,411,574 | 0 | 1,121,394,573 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 4 | Buliisa DLG | 4,585,581 | 0 | 225,593,699 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 5 | Kiboga DLG | 194,863,213 | 0 | 673,117,066 | 58 | 673,117,066 | 0 |\n| 5 | 6 | Kiryandongo DLG | 11,035,537 | 0 | 305,554,087 | 43 | 305,554,087 | 0 |\n| 6 | 7 | Kayunga DLG | 0 | 53,213,435 | 430,432,548 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 8 | Kira MC | 25,355,296 | 0 | 51,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 9 | Mukono DLG | 110,557,437 | 0 | 639,044,406 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 10 | Nakaseke DLG | 188,059,087 | 0 | 612,155,745 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 11 | Nansana MC | 19,648,782 | 0 | 217,536,255 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 12 | Wakiso DLG | 422,411,449 | 0 | 1,083,778,521 | 98 | 1,083,778,521 | 0 |\n| 12 | 13 | Buhweju DLG | 105,977,134 | 0 | 512,154,216 | 68 | 512,154,216 | 0 |\n| 13 | 14 | Kabale DLG | 75,892,014 | 0 | 476,095,903 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 15 | Kanungu DLG | 0 | 0 | 649,232,325 | 36 | 649,232,325 | 0 |\n| 15 | 16 | Kisoro DLG | 76,476,259 | 0 | 444,561,910 | 58 | 444,561,910 | 0 |\n| 16 | 17 | Mbarara City | 14,630,844 | 0 | 152,014,268 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 18 | Rubirizi DLG | 116,507,539 | 0 | 485,643,852 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 19 | Rukungiri DLG | 178,162,896 | 0 | 660,785,344 | 39 | 660,785,344 | 0 |\n| 19 | 20 | Rwampara DLG | 32,848,782 | 0 | 206,528,709 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 21 | Bugiri DLG | 148,986,153 | 0 | 646,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 22 | Bugiri MC | 6,796,300 | 0 | 34,290,630 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 23 | Bugweri DLG | 105,582,934 | 0 | 320,617,860 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 24 | Iganga DLG | 186,569,757 | 0 | 354,135,967 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 25 | Iganga MC | 14,294,884 | 0 | 80,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 26 | Jinja City | 40,494,619 | 0 | 195,797,611 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 337, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity name | Funds repurposed to the revolving fund | Funds diverted from the revolving fund | Failure to send funds directly to the PDM SACCO Amount | Number of unregistered SACCOs | Amount sent to unregistered SACCOS | Amount unaccounted for |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------|-------------------------:|\n| 0 | 27 | Jinja DLG | 38,512,366 | 0 | 244,388,400 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 28 | Kamuli MC | 0 | 0 | 85,054,970 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 29 | Luuka DLG | 127,715,688 | 0 | 510,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 30 | Mayuge DLG | 270,104,947 | 0 | 771,911,058 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 31 | Namayingo DLG | 56,635,832 | 0 | 359,176,351 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 32 | Nebbi MC | 31,902,007 | 0 | 85,667,800 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 33 | Butaleja DLG | 108,982,819 | 0 | 453,962,621 | 76 | 562,945,440 | 0 |\n| 7 | 34 | Tororo DLG | 258,488,000 | 0 | 1,184,332,817 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 35 | Kazo DLG | 76,000,000 | 0 | 476,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 36 | Kiruhura DLG | 185,754,545 | 0 | 520,802,132 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 37 | Mbale DLG | 102,005,164 | 0 | 756,363,187 | 67 | 756,363,187 | 0 |\n| 11 | 38 | Bududa DLG | 180,102,000 | 0 | 1,129,839,000 | 159 | 1,129,839,000 | 0 |\n| 12 | 39 | Mityana DLG | 208,132,547 | 0 | 594,967,852 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 40 | Nakasongola DLG | 77,024,730 | 0 | 534,240,626 | 6 | 47,138,879 | 0 |\n| 14 | 41 | Mitooma DLG | 191,792,187 | 0 | 651,728,000 | 73 | 651,728,000 | 0 |\n| 15 | 42 | Rubanda DLG | 78,157,447 | 0 | 490,307,721 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 43 | Rukiga DLG | 33,918,498 | 0 | 213,177,269 | 13 | 213,918,498 | 0 |\n| 17 | 44 | Sheema MC | 26,052,482 | 0 | 163,435,906 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 45 | Bukedea DLG | 172,172,948 | 0 | 1,080,098,233 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 46 | Katakwi DLG | 195,491,952 | 0 | 846,569,922 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 47 | Soroti DLG | 67,204,885 | 0 | 389,757,273 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 48 | Moroto DLG | 57,371,962 | 0 | 511,334,582 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 49 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 50 | Mbale City | 68,465,226 | 0 | 375,062,679 | 47 | 375,062,679 | 0 |\n| 24 | 51 | Sironko DLG | 765,170,964 | 0 | 1,792,400,736 | 224 | 1,792,400,736 | 0 |\n| 25 | 52 | Butebo DLG | 0 | 129,639,841 | 348,905,563 | 61 | 348,905,563 | 0 |\n| 26 | 53 | Namisindwa DLG | 281,963,611 | 0 | 1,255,594,106 | 163 | 1,255,594,106 | 0 |\n| 27 | 54 | Makindye0Ssabagabo MC | 8,863,749 | 0 | 74,294,282 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 55 | Mityana MC | 16,990,750 | 0 | 106,588,636 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 29 | 56 | Mpigi DLG | 6,786,926 | 0 | 341,285,699 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 30 | 57 | Ibanda DLG | 153,625,148 | 0 | 396,122,422 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 31 | 58 | Mbarara DLG | 52,104,966 | 0 | 326,989,932 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 32 | 59 | Sheema DLG | 52,705,304 | 0 | 333,977,728 | 51 | 333,977,728 | 0 |\n| 33 | 60 | Njeru MC | 0 | 0 | 144,800,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 34 | 61 | Namutumba DLG | 237,976,652 | 0 | 901,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 338, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity name | Funds repurposed to the revolving fund | Funds diverted from the revolving fund | Failure to send funds directly to the PDM SACCO Amount | Number of unregistered SACCOs | Amount sent to unregistered SACCOS | Amount unaccounted for |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------------|:-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------|:-------------------------|\n| 0 | 62 | Lugazi MC | 14,630,714 | 0 | 134,094,562 | 0 | 0 | 7,057,609 |\n| 1 | 63 | Kamuli DLG | 282,492,532 | 0 | 760,347,922 | 77 | 760,347,922 | 0 |\n| 2 | 64 | Kaliro DLG | 98,546,346 | 0 | 669,415,608 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 65 | Buyende DLG | 82,688,314 | 0 | 436,043,043 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 66 | Bushenyi DLG | 159,529,388 | 0 | 500,001,354 | 56 | 500,001,354 | 0 |\n| 5 | 67 | Ishaka0 Bushenyi MC | 18,134,466 | 0 | 135,560,041 | 16 | 135,650,041 | 0 |\n| 6 | 68 | Isingiro DLG | 507,727,681 | 0 | 1,290,215,882 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 69 | Kabale MC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 70 | Kisoro MC | 11,893,525 | 0 | 49,906,927 | 7 | 49,906,927 | 0 |\n| 9 | 71 | Ntungamo DLG | 177,397,292 | 0 | 1,401,258,493 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 72 | Ntungamo MC | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 73 | Rukungiri MC | 13,592,600 | 0 | 114,652,374 | 12 | 114,652,374 | 0 |\n| 12 | 74 | Hoima City | 0 | 0 | 95,571,078 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 75 | Masindi DLG | 52,104,965 | 0 | 326,871,814 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 76 | Masindi MC | 18,511,222 | 0 | 84,216,532 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 77 | Kikuube DLG | 32,848,782 | 0 | 206,071,361 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 78 | Hoima DLG | 33,428,795 | 0 | 368,101,668 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 79 | Kakumiro DLG | 214,674,248 | 0 | 841,859,446 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 80 | Kween DLG | 312,165,004 | 0 | 915,457,434 | 101 | 915,457,434 | 0 |\n| 19 | 81 | Bulambuli DLG | 449,305,824 | 0 | 1,178,035,294 | 121 | 1,168,379,267 | 0 |\n| 20 | 82 | Busia MC | 9,061,734 | 0 | 56,800,000 | 8 | 56,800,000 | 0 |\n| 21 | 83 | Kibuku DLG | 139,084,068 | 0 | 688,617,766 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 84 | Manafwa DLG | 414,574,586 | 0 | 1,345,901,947 | 156 | 1,345,901,947 | 0 |\n| 23 | 85 | Budaka DLG | 0 | 0 | 696,395,770 | 73 | 696,395,770 | 0 |\n| 24 | 86 | Pallisa DLG | 0 | 0 | 765,000,000 | 45 | 765,000,000 | 0 |\n| 25 | 87 | Kapchorwa DLG | 167,727,288 | 0 | 514,172,444 | 58 | 514,172,444 | 0 |\n| 26 | 88 | Kapchorwa MC | 30,583,000 | 0 | 191,860,042 | 27 | 191,860,042 | 0 |\n| 27 | 89 | Tororo MC | 0 | 0 | 74,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 90 | Terego DLG | 85,190,295 | 0 | 336,064,374 | 42 | 336,064,374 | 0 |\n| 29 | 91 | Zombo DLG | 467,809,017 | 0 | 467,809,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 30 | 92 | Moyo DLG | 0 | 0 | 287,100,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 31 | 93 | Nebbi DLG | 185,436,733 | 0 | 607,460,580 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 32 | 94 | Yumbe DLG | 313,042,456 | 0 | 1,526,761,354 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 33 | 95 | Pader DLG | 53,804,040 | 0 | 780,897,821 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 34 | 96 | Koboko MC | 0 | 0 | 119,463,847 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 339, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity name | Funds repurposed to the revolving fund | Funds diverted from the revolving fund | Failure to send funds directly to the PDM SACCO Amount | Number of unregistered SACCOs | Amount sent to unregistered SACCOS | Amount unaccounted for |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|:-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------|-------------------------:|\n| 0 | 97 | Maracha DLG | 103,095,772 | 0 | 646,656,278 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 98 | Pakwach DLG | 81,555,598 | 0 | 368,268,830 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 99 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 0 | 0 | 409,998,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 100 | Koboko DLG | 146,087,826 | 0 | 438,774,252 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 101 | Adjumani DLG | 115,002,455 | 0 | 784,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 102 | Arua City | 0 | 0 | 564,939,853 | 15 | 255,000,000 | 0 |\n| 6 | 103 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 0 | 0 | 305,995,370 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 104 | Rakai DLG | 124,032,471 | 0 | 652,429,223 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 105 | Kalungu DLG | 64,289,926 | 0 | 284,605,389 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 106 | Sembabule DLG | 128,462,780 | 0 | 478,781,550 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 107 | Gomba DLG | 35,529,540 | 0 | 348,215,767 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 108 | Kyotera DLG | 74,759,298 | 0 | 468,989,994 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 109 | Lwengo DLG | 3,132,343 | 0 | 271,926,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 110 | Lyantonde DLG | 34,564,119 | 0 | 213,759,890 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 111 | Mubende MC | 20,388,900 | 0 | 127,906,363 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 112 | Bundibugyo DLG | 298,410,307 | 0 | 960,057,188 | 127 | 960,115,919 | 0 |\n| 16 | 113 | Kyegegwa DLG | 91,750,048 | 0 | 575,578,630 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 114 | Kamwenge DLG | 79,007,003 | 0 | 449,344,938 | 62 | 449,344,938 | 0 |\n| 18 | 115 | Kasese DLG | 571,631,558 | 0 | 1,733,717,779 | 196 | 1,733,717,979 | 0 |\n| 19 | 116 | Kyenjojo DLG | 275,641,516 | 0 | 1,484,926,831 | 88 | 1,484,926,831 | 0 |\n| 20 | 117 | Bunyangabu DLG | 90,152,406 | 0 | 382,838,832 | 48 | 382,838,832 | 0 |\n| 21 | 118 | Kabarole DLG | 168,620,537 | 0 | 479,226,540 | 52 | 479,226,540 | 0 |\n| 22 | 119 | Alebtong DLG | 193,804,280 | 0 | 605,954,554 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 120 | Gulu DLG | 6,211,063 | 0 | 286,951,103 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 121 | Oyam DLG | 83,821,030 | 0 | 525,837,266 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 122 | Fort Portal City | 108,026,667 | 0 | 255,704,547 | 21 | 255,704,547 | 0 |\n| 26 | 123 | Kole DLG | 58,901,264 | 0 | 369,507,268 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 27 | 124 | Masaka DLG | 20,388,899 | 0 | 99,600,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 125 | Mubende DLG | 89,484,617 | 0 | 561,366,823 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 29 | 126 | Masaka City | 28,317,916 | 0 | 177,647,725 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 30 | 127 | Lamwo DLG | 183,305,456 | 0 | 697,000,000 | 41 | 697,000,000 | 0 |\n| 31 | 128 | Lira City | 196,098,471 | 0 | 781,471,322 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 32 | 129 | Kalaki DLG | 51,739,782 | 0 | 254,828,322 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 33 | 130 | Amuria DLG | 43,657,420 | 0 | 635,003,465 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 34 | 131 | Amolatar DLG | 137,475,698 | 0 | 659,972,691 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 340, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity name | Funds repurposed to the revolving fund | Funds diverted from the revolving fund | Failure to send funds directly to the PDM SACCO Amount | Number of unregistered SACCOs | Amount sent to unregistered SACCOS | Amount unaccounted for |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------|:-----------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------|:-------------------------|\n| 0 | 132 | Soroti City | 28,317,916 | 0 | 177,647,728 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 133 | Kumi DLG | 158,580,328 | 0 | 994,827,260 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 134 | Ngora DLG | 241,999,964 | 0 | 518,304,964 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 135 | Dokolo DLG | 153,903,341 | 0 | 578,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 136 | Otuke DLG | 140,206,260 | 0 | 456,785,456 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 137 | Kapelebyong DLG | 161,760,977 | 0 | 496,284,240 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 138 | Kumi MC | 18,880,705 | 0 | 84,950,521 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 139 | Serere DLG | 67,859,764 | 0 | 568,633,170 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 140 | Napak DLG | 0 | 0 | 766,572,309 | 57 | 766,572,309 | 0 |\n| 9 | 141 | Moroto MC | 6,000,000 | 0 | 46,136,435 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 142 | Bukwo DLG | 168,747,224 | 0 | 651,077,968 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 143 | Arua DLG | 36,246,932 | 0 | 227,389,088 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 144 | Gulu City | 0 | 93,782,026 | 157,358,080 | 0 | 0 | 11,233,000 |\n| 13 | 145 | Kaberamaido DLG | 49,273,173 | 0 | 222,495,752 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 146 | Kitgum DLG | 81,555,596 | 0 | 52,560,000 | 0 | 0 | 241,516,100 |\n| 15 | 147 | Nwoya DLG | 49,839,532 | 0 | 104,064,268 | 0 | 0 | 276,158,113 |\n| 16 | 148 | Obongi DLG | 16,723,001 | 0 | 213,635,452 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 149 | Agago DLG | 90,038,926 | 0 | 788,902,434 | 117 | 788,902,434 | 0 |\n| 18 | 150 | Apac DLG | 0 | 0 | 349,790,966 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 151 | Busia DLG | 165,624,265 | 0 | 564,200,000 | 62 | 564,200,000 | 0 |\n| 20 | 152 | Buvuma DLG | 43,043,234 | 0 | 270,024,544 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 21 | 153 | Kalangala DLG | 19,256,182 | 0 | 120,800,452 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 154 | Kitagwenda DLG | 13,931,479 | 0 | 342,457,060 | 55 | 342,457,060 | 0 |\n| 23 | 155 | Kitgum MC | 33,690,512 | 0 | 59,883,750 | 11 | 59,883,750 | 0 |\n| 24 | 156 | Mukono MC | 0 | 0 | 44,919,841 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 25 | 157 | Entebbe MC | 4,530,867 | 0 | 28,423,636 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 26 | 158 | Amuru DLG | 0 | 48,415,580 | 298,029,578 | 0 | 0 | 58,827,429 |\n| 27 | 159 | Kwania DLG | 111,010,105 | 0 | 348,198,967 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 28 | 160 | Lira DLG | 232,449,790 | 0 | 683,489,847 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 29 | 161 | Buikwe DLG | 20,279,133 | 0 | 220,290,991 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 30 | 162 | Ibanda MC | 32,787,050 | 0 | 158,224,038 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 31 | 163 | Butambala DLG | 60,953,556 | 0 | 210,284,125 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 32 | 164 | Amudat DLG | 0 | 33,018,689 | 312,161,601 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 33 | 165 | Ntoroko DLG | 76,300,139 | 0 | 359,654,807 | 48 | 382,838,832 | 0 |\n| 34 | 166 | Kasese MC | 53,158,768 | 0 | 128,680,076 | 18 | 126,680,076 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 341, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity name | Funds repurposed to the revolving fund | Funds diverted from the revolving fund | Failure to send funds directly to the PDM SACCO Amount | Number of unregistered SACCOs | Amount sent to unregistered SACCOS | Amount unaccounted for |\n|---:|:------|:--------------|:-----------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:-------------------------------------|:-------------------------|\n| 0 | 167.0 | Kassanda DLG | 104,209,930 | 0 | 544,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 168.0 | Omoro DLG | 87,104,006 | 0 | 475,361,510 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 169.0 | Luwero DLG | 300,181,433 | 0 | 807,697,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | | Total | 17,891,724,298 | 358,069,571 | 79,214,076,265 | 3,214 | 29,523,564,220 | 594,792,251 |", "metadata": {"page": 342, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Approved budget (UGX) | Warrants/ Release (UGX) | Under funding (UGX) | Transfers/ Expenditure (UGX) | Failure to fund subprojects | Unnamed: 7 |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:------------------------|:--------------------------|:----------------------|:-------------------------------|:------------------------------|:---------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | | | | | Unutilised warrants | Number of subprojects not funded |\n| 1 | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | 1.0 | Adjumani DLG | 26,629,455,734 | 20,112,227,243 | 6,517,228,491 | 20,112,227,243 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 2.0 | Arua DLG | 12,211,720,404 | 7,703,246,463 | 4,508,473,941 | 7,596,050,122 | 107,196,341 | 0 |\n| 4 | 3.0 | Hoima DLG | 11,402,789,340 | 7,886,733,487 | 3,516,055,853 | 7,886,733,487 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 4.0 | Isingiro DLG | 36,952,472,146 | 20,645,657,738 | 16,306,814,408 | 20,645,657,738 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 5.0 | Kamwenge DLG | 16,096,871,843 | 15,526,567,396 | 570,304,447 | 13,642,495,005 | 1,884,072,391 | 1 |\n| 7 | 6.0 | Kikuube DLG | 14,763,545,466 | 14,763,545,466 | 0 | 14,763,545,466 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 7.0 | Kiryandongo DLG | 13,147,932,451 | 11,153,517,611 | 1,994,414,840 | 11,153,517,611 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 8.0 | Koboko DLG | 12,972,115,413 | 10,398,654,382 | 2,573,461,031 | 10,397,654,382 | 1,000,000 | 0 |\n| 10 | 9.0 | Kyegegwa DLG | 13,158,909,516 | 12,952,563,516 | 206,346,000 | 1,519,174,433 | 11,433,389,083 | 45 |\n| 11 | 10.0 | Lamwo DLG | 24,133,897,361 | 20,214,341,243 | 3,919,556,118 | 20,214,341,243 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 11.0 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 18,612,180,000 | 8,727,243,898 | 9,884,936,102 | 8,727,243,898 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 12.0 | Moyo DLG | 12,353,082,000 | 4,377,696,778 | 7,975,385,222 | 4,377,684,416 | 12,362 | 0 |\n| 14 | 13.0 | Obongi DLG | 30,708,745,913 | 17,640,110,305 | 13,068,635,608 | 17,639,083,305 | 1,027,000 | 0 |\n| 15 | 14.0 | Terego DLG | 19,147,604,808 | 19,147,604,808 | 0 | 19,147,298,822 | 305,986 | 0 |\n| 16 | 15.0 | Yumbe DLG | 22,849,046,751 | 20,733,598,950 | 2,115,447,801 | 20,733,598,950 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | | Total | 285,140,369,146 | 211,983,309,284 | 73,157,059,862 | 198,556,306,121 | 13,427,003,163 | 46 |", "metadata": {"page": 342, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------|:-----------------------------------------------|:--------------------------|:------------------|:-----------------|:----------------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:-----------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Infrastructure subprojects funded in FY2021/22 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 |\n| 1 | SN | Entity Name | Total funds disbursed | Number of projects funded | Fully Implemented | nan | Partially implemented | nan | Not implemented | nan |\n| 2 | nan | nan | nan | nan | Number | Subproject Value | Number | Subproject Value | Number | Subproject value |\n| 3 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 17,327,580,369 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 17,327,580,369 |\n| 4 | 2 | Arua DLG | 7,420,864,349 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 410,864,349 | 10 | 7,010,000,000 |\n| 5 | 3 | Hoima DLG | 5,108,839,519 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 5,108,839,519 |\n| 6 | 4 | Isingiro DLG | 14,696,882,245 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 14,696,882,245 |\n| 7 | 5 | Kamwenge DLG | 8,281,650,800 | 9 | 4 | 5,347,500,000 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2,934,150,800 |\n| 8 | 6 | Kikuube DLG | 10,772,200,000 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 10,772,200,000 |\n| 9 | 7 | Kiryandongo DLG | 8,334,384,709 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 8,334,384,709 |\n| 10 | 8 | Koboko DLG | 5,881,538,969 | 10 | 2 | 707,000,000 | 1 | 989,800,000 | 7 | 4,184,738,969 |\n| 11 | 9 | Kyegegwa DLG | 1,005,487,006 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1,005,487,006 |\n| 12 | 10 | Lamwo DLG | 12,880,500,000 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12,880,500,000 |\n| 13 | 11 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 7,516,671,712 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 7,516,671,712 |\n| 14 | 12 | Moyo DLG | 2,292,750,000 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2,292,750,000 |\n| 15 | 13 | Obongi DLG | 11,191,012,386 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 11,191,012,386 |\n| 16 | 14 | Terego DLG | 13,421,816,827 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 13,421,816,827 |\n| 17 | 15 | Yumbe DLG | 16,734,700,000 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 16,734,700,000 |\n| 18 | nan | Total | 142,866,878,891 | 192 | 6 | 6,054,500,000 | 4 | 1,400,664,349 | 182 | 135,411,714,542 |", "metadata": {"page": 343, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Livelihoods Program FY2021/22 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------|:--------------------------------|:--------------------------|:------------------|:-----------------|:----------------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:-----------------|\n| 0 | SN | Entity Name | Total funds disbursed | Number of projects funded | Fully Implemented | | Partially implemented | | Not implemented | |\n| 1 | | | | | Number | Subproject Value | Number | Subproject Value | Number | Subproject Value |\n| 2 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 1,665,000,000 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 1,665,000,000 |\n| 3 | 2 | Arua DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 3 | Hoima DLG | 999,000,000 | 54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 999,000,000 |\n| 5 | 4 | Isingiro DLG | 3,567,700,000 | 11 | 11 | 3,567,700,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 5 | Kamwenge DLG | 3,424,850,000 | 170 | 165 | 3,147,350,000 | 5 | 277,500,000 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 6 | Kikuube DLG | 1,409,200,000 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 1,409,200,000 |\n| 8 | 7 | Kiryandongo DLG | 1,965,649,500 | 49 | 0 | | 24 | 786,149,500 | 25 | 1,179,500,000 |\n| 9 | 8 | Koboko DLG | 2,014,500,000 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 2,014,500,000 |\n| 10 | 9 | Kyegegwa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 343, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 10 | Lamwo DLG | 4,803,163,682 | 106 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 106.1 | 4,803,163,682.1 |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:----------------|------:|----:|:--------------|------:|:--------------|--------:|:------------------|\n| 0 | 11.0 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 610,500,000 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 610,500,000 |\n| 1 | 12.0 | Moyo DLG | 1,604,500,000 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 1,604,500,000 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 13.0 | Obongi DLG | 1,998,000,000 | 36 | 36 | 1,998,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 14.0 | Terego DLG | 2,301,831,152 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 2,135,331,152 | 3 | 166,500,000 |\n| 4 | 15.0 | Yumbe DLG | 3,420,300,000 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 56 | 3,420,300,000 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | | Total | 29,784,194,334 | 668 | 212 | 8,713,050,000 | 149 | 8,223,780,652 | 307 | 12,847,363,682 |", "metadata": {"page": 344, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Sustainable Environmental Management FY2021/22 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------|:-------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------|:------------------|:-----------------|:----------------------|:-----------------|:----------------|:-----------------|\n| 0 | SN | Entity Name | Total funds disbursed | Number of projects funded | Fully Implemented | | Partially implemented | | Not implemented | |\n| 1 | | | | | Number | Subproject Value | Number | Subproject Value | Number | Subproject Value |\n| 2 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 509,043,120 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 509,043,120 |\n| 3 | 2 | Arua DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 3 | Hoima DLG | 1,412,387,418 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 1,412,387,418 |\n| 5 | 4 | Isingiro DLG | 1,859,059,593 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 1,859,059,593 |\n| 6 | 5 | Kamwenge DLG | 1,406,893,658 | | | | | | 0 | 1,406,893,658 |\n| 7 | 6 | Kikuube DLG | 1,935,293,956 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 1,935,293,956 |\n| 8 | 7 | Kiryandongo DLG | 283,464,452 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 283,464,452 |\n| 9 | 8 | Koboko DLG | 1,985,681,487 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 1,985,681,487 |\n| 10 | 9 | Kyegegwa DLG | 1,322,186,276 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1,322,186,276 |\n| 11 | 10 | Lamwo DLG | 1,960,570,627 | 87 | 0 | 0 | | 0 | 87 | 1,960,570,627 |\n| 12 | 11 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 125,046,186 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 125,046,186 |\n| 13 | 12 | Moyo DLG | 58,628,518 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 58,628,518 |\n| 14 | 13 | Obongi DLG | 4,180,957,919 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 56 | 4,180,957,919 |\n| 15 | 14 | Terego DLG | 2,664,680,803 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 2,664,680,803 |\n| 16 | 15 | Yumbe DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | | Total | 19,703,894,013 | 309 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 309 | 19,703,894,013 |", "metadata": {"page": 344, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | No of subpro jects withou t ESN plans | Amount transferred to SACCOs without ESN plans | Procurements not cleared by the CPMCs | Unnamed: 5 | Failure to appoint contract managers from sector specialists or user groups | Unnamed: 7 | Idle Subprojects/not put to use | Unnamed: 9 | Closed subprojects with bank balances | Unnamed: 11 |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:----------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------|:----------------------------------|:-----------------|:----------------------------------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | | | | | Number of files for procurem ents not un cleared | Value of procurements not un cleared | Num ber | Amount | Numbe r | Subproject Value | Number of complet ed subproj ects | Bank balance |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Arua DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 13 | 491,001,312 | | | 1 | 510,000,000 | 17 | 613,102,573 |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Hoima DLG | 26.0 | 1,407,387,418 | | | 26 | 1,412,387,418 | 1 | 688,297,523 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Kamwenge DLG | 16.0 | 835,731,105 | | | | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Kiryandongo DLG | 11.0 | 7,327,345,726 | | | 5 | 283,464,450 | 14 | 1,070,510,393 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Kyegegwa DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 346,005,089 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Lamwo DLG | 1.0 | 1,010,000,000 | | | | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 0.0 | 0 | | | | | 1 | 511,378,045 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 8.0 | Moyo DLG | 3.0 | 1,705,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1,540,000,000 | 24 | 656,944,873 |\n| 9 | 9.0 | Obongi DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 49 | 1,392,416,899 | 36 | 20,164,999,998 | 3 | 2,577,000,000 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 10.0 | Terego DLG | 0.0 | 0 | 37 | 2,763,016,118 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 11.0 | Yumbe DLG | 0.0 | 0 | | | | | 8 | 4,203,990,984 | 25 | 1,481,757,510 |\n| 12 | | Total | 57.0 | 12,285,464,249 | 99 | 4,646,434,329 | 67 | 21,860,851,866 | 32 | 11,447,182,034 | 66 | 2,751,804,956 |", "metadata": {"page": 345, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Inspections of service delivery activities funded in 2019/20 and 2020/21 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 | Unnamed: 11 |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------|:-----------------------------------|:-----------------|:---------------------|:-----------------|:----------------------|:-----------------|:-------------------------------------|:-----------------|\n| 0 | SN | Entity Name | Infrastructure subprojects | | | | Livelihood Subgroups | | | | Sustainable Environmental Management | |\n| 1 | | | Fully implemented | | Stalled Infrastructure subprojects | | Fully implemented | | Partially implemented | | Stalled SENRM subprojects | |\n| 2 | | | Number | Subproject Value | Number | Subproject Value | Number | Subproject Value | Number | Subproject Value | Number | Subproject Value |\n| 3 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 4 | 4,203,784,747 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 70,100,000 | 10 | 542,077,962 |\n| 4 | 2 | Arua DLG | 4 | 1,847,159,741 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 112,541,568 |\n| 5 | 3 | Hoima DLG | 3 | | | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | |\n| 6 | 4 | Isingiro DLG | 6 | | 1 | 1,921,428,820 | | | | 3,567,700,000 | | |\n| 7 | 5 | Kamwenge DLG | 3 | | | | 3 | | 0 | | 10 | 646,977,898 |", "metadata": {"page": 345, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 6 | Kikuube DLG | 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:-----|:---------------|:------|:--------------|:------|:------------|:------|:--------------|:------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 7.0 | Kiryandongo DLG | 3.0 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | 8.0 | Koboko DLG | 3.0 | 1,578,500,000 | 0.0 | 0 | 1.0 | 18,500,000 | | | 6.0 | 277,286,100 |\n| 2 | 9.0 | Kyegegwa DLG | 12.0 | 8,614,602,139 | 1.0 | 1,800,000,000 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 10.0 | Lamwo DLG | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | 11.0 | Madi0Okollo DLG | 2.0 | | 0.0 | 0 | 4.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 12.0 | Moyo DLG | 1.0 | 580,000,000 | 0.0 | 0 | 1.0 | 55,500,000 | 3.0 | 55,500,000 | 1.0 | 54,285,664 |\n| 6 | 13.0 | Obongi DLG | 2.0 | 1,300,000,000 | 1.0 | 419,597,795 | 3.0 | 59,500,000 | | | 88.0 | 4,836,949,177 |\n| 7 | 14.0 | Terego DLG | | | | | 2.0 | | 0.0 | | 32.0 | 2,174,274,965 |\n| 8 | 15.0 | Yumbe DLG | 23.0 | 12,862,999,998 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | | 19.0 | 1,572,500,000 | 30.0 | 1,304,714,817 |\n| 9 | | Total | 66.0 | 30,987,046,625 | 3.0 | 4,141,026,615 | 14.0 | 133,500,000 | 25.0 | 5,265,800,000 | 179.0 | 9,949,108,151 |", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |\n|---:|:----|:---------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------|:-----------------|:-------------|:-----------------------------|:---------------------------------|:-----------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | sn | Entity | Capital Development (micro scale irrigation equipment) (75%) | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Complementary services (25%) | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 |\n| 1 | nan | nan | Revised budget | % Allocation of the total budget | Ideal allocation | Variance (%) | Revised budget | % Allocation of the total budget | Ideal allocation | Variance (%) |\n| 2 | 1.0 | Mpigi DLG | 734,989,017 | 71% | 780,482,882 | 4% | 305,654,825 | 29% | 260,160,961 | 04% |\n| 3 | 2.0 | Kibaale DLG | 577,722,783 | 71% | 613,342,078 | 4% | 240,066,654 | 29% | 204,447,359 | 04% |\n| 4 | 3.0 | Rakai DLG | 878,113,973 | 71% | 932,467,475 | 4% | 365,175,993 | 29% | 310,822,492 | 04% |\n| 5 | 4.0 | Kitagwenda DLG | 514,158,151 | 70% | 548,259,404 | 5% | 216,854,388 | 30% | 182,753,135 | 05% |\n| 6 | 5.0 | Kapchorwa DLG | 200,000,000 | 71% | 212,649,000 | 4% | 83,532,000 | 29% | 70,883,000 | 04% |\n| 7 | 6.0 | Manafwa DLG | 472,853,078 | 71% | 502,121,624 | 4% | 196,642,420 | 29% | 167,373,875 | 04% |\n| 8 | 7.0 | Omoro DLG | 546,269,790 | 71% | 580,080,380 | 4% | 227,170,716 | 29% | 193,360,127 | 04% |\n| 9 | 8.0 | Amuru DLG | 916,444,429 | 74% | 933,446,948 | 1% | 328,151,502 | 26% | 311,148,983 | 01% |\n| 10 | nan | Total | 4,840,551,221 | 71% | 5,102,849,789 | 4% | 1,963,248,498 | 29% | 1,700,949,930 | 04% |", "metadata": {"page": 346, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | % perform ance of the budget | Budget | Warrants/ Release | Total expenditure | Unspent | % total absor ption | % absorp tion of irrigati on equip ment funds | Farme rs who expre ssed intere st and passe d the selecti on criteri a | Num ber of farm ers who co0f unde d | Numb er of farme rs who receiv ed equip ment | Co0fu nded but didn't receiv e equip ment | Recei ved equip ment but did not co0fu nd |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|:-------------------------------|:--------------|:--------------------|:--------------------|:--------------|:----------------------|:------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------:|--------------------------------------:|-----------------------------------------------:|--------------------------------------------:|--------------------------------------------:|\n| 0 | 1 | Amuru DLG | 100% | 1,244,595,931 | 1,244,595,931 | 963,852,269 | 280,743,662 | 77% | 66% | 145 | 57 | 57 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 2 | Bududa DLG | 100% | 1,261,452,695 | 1,261,452,695 | 244,992,927 | 1,016,459,768 | 19% | 0% | 108 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |\n| 2 | 3 | Buikwe DLG | 100% | 600,773,619 | 600,773,617 | 600,773,617 | 0 | 100% | 100% | 123 | 15 | 0 | 15 | 0 |\n| 3 | 4 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 100% | 576,697,948 | 576,697,948 | 320,084,565 | 256,613,383 | 56% | 41% | 65 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 5 | Bushenyi DLG | 100% | 714,525,040 | 714,525,040 | 78,378,605 | 636,146,435 | 11% | 2% | 55 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 0 |\n| 5 | 6 | Butambala DLG | 100% | 387,484,208 | 387,484,208 | 221,610,994 | 165,873,214 | 57% | 47% | 180 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 7 | Ibanda DLG | 92% | 627,600,529 | 574,758,360 | 562,258,360 | 12,500,000 | 98% | 97% | 115 | 21 | 21 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 8 | Iganga DLG | 100% | 1,329,616,690 | 1,329,616,690 | 293,479,474 | 1,036,137,216 | 22% | 13% | 133 | 15 | 7 | 8 | 0 |\n| 8 | 9 | Jinja DLG | 100% | 903,060,636 | 903,060,636 | 265,244,129 | 637,816,507 | 29% | 6% | 507 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0 |\n| 9 | 10 | Kalungu DLG | 100% | 664,507,456 | 664,507,456 | 245,494,700 | 419,012,756 | 37% | 16% | 68 | 14 | 6 | 8 | 0 |\n| 10 | 11 | Kamuli DLG | 82% | 2,516,077,965 | 2,070,086,405 | 277,743,610 | 1,792,342,795 | 13% | 0% | 447 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 |\n| 11 | 12 | Kamwenge DLG | 100% | 1,233,481,824 | 1,233,481,824 | 422,241,549 | 811,240,275 | 34% | 14% | 380 | 26 | 19 | 7 | 0 |\n| 12 | 13 | Kapchorwa DLG | 100% | 283,532,000 | 283,532,004 | 41,395,400 | 242,136,604 | 15% | 0 | 51 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 14 | Kayunga DLG | 100% | 1,586,903,581 | 1,587,307,162 | 789,024,134 | 798,283,028 | 50% | 33% | 194 | 19 | 19 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 15 | Kibaale DLG | 97% | 817,789,437 | 793,504,089 | 343,540,164 | 449,963,925 | 43% | 100% | 275 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 |\n| 15 | 16 | Kitagwenda DLG | 96% | 731,012,539 | 701,940,707 | 240,883,874 | 461,056,833 | 34% | 7% | 43 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0 |\n| 16 | 17 | Kyegegwa DLG | 100% | 1,668,838,687 | 1,668,838,687 | 921,616,030 | 747,222,657 | 55% | 42% | 120 | 32 | 32 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 18 | Kyenjojo DLG | 95% | 1,968,068,801 | 1,873,486,962 | 816,122,258 | 1,057,364,704 | 44% | 27% | 257 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 0 |\n| 18 | 19 | Kyotera DLG | 100% | 1,000,840,870 | 1,000,840,870 | 206,116,680 | 794,724,190 | 21% | 0% | 624 | 16 | 5 | 11 | 0 |\n| 19 | 20 | Luuka DLG | 100% | 1,098,808,508 | 1,098,808,508 | 185,288,340 | 913,520,168 | 17% | 0% | 103 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 20 | 21 | Luwero DLG | 97% | 1,884,516,915 | 1,827,314,725 | 496,853,038 | 1,330,461,687 | 27% | 3% | 222 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 |\n| 21 | 22 | Lwengo DLG | 97% | 1,008,665,475 | 983,179,605 | 349,181,500 | 633,998,105 | 36% | 10% | 40 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 |\n| 22 | 23 | Manafwa DLG | 100% | 669,495,498 | 669,495,598 | 178,080,000 | 491,415,598 | 27% | 0% | 119 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |\n| 23 | 24 | Masaka DLG | 100% | 460,800,276 | 460,800,276 | 191,012,556 | 269,787,720 | 41% | 22% | 123 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 0 |\n| 24 | 25 | Mayuge DLG | 100% | 2,406,225,383 | 2,406,225,383 | 691,749,954 | 1,714,475,429 | 29% | 6% | 657 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | % perform ance of the budget | Budget | Warrants/ Release | Total expenditure | Unspent | % total absor ption | % absorp tion of irrigati on equip ment funds | Farme rs who expre ssed intere st and passe d the selecti on criteri a | Num ber of farm ers who co0f unde d | Numb er of farme rs who receiv ed equip ment | Co0fu nded but didn't receiv e equip ment | Recei ved equip ment but did not co0fu nd |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------|:-------------------------------|:------------|:--------------------|:--------------------|----------:|:----------------------|:------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------:|--------------------------------------:|-----------------------------------------------:|--------------------------------------------:|--------------------------------------------:|\n| 0 | 26 | Mbale DLG | 100% | 978,155,227 | 978,155,227 | 978,155,227 | 0 | 100% | 100% | 250 | 9 | 29 | 0 | 20 |", "metadata": {"page": 347, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 27 | Mityana DLG | 100% | 982,194,028 | 982,194,028.1 | 959,359,474 | 22,834,554 | 98% | 98%.1 | 197 | 52 | 52.1 | 0 | 0.1 |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------|:--------------|:----------------|:----------------|:----------------|:----------------|:------|:--------|:------|-----:|-------:|----:|:------|\n| 0 | 28 | Mpigi DLG | 97% | 1,040,643,842 | 1,008,928,121 | 682,186,048 | 326,742,073 | 68% | 53% | 82 | 12 | 19 | 0 | 7.0 |\n| 1 | 29 | Mubende DLG | 101% | 1,785,183,070 | 1,805,183,070 | 360,241,350 | 1,444,941,720 | 20% | 0% | 113 | 30 | 13 | 17 | 0.0 |\n| 2 | 30 | Mukono DLG | 97% | 1,860,330,289 | 1,810,490,757 | 1,192,689,171 | 617,801,586 | 66% | 56% | 603 | 84 | 56 | 28 | 0.0 |\n| 3 | 31 | Nakaseke DLG | 100% | 1,104,507,315 | 1,104,507,315 | 687,041,722 | 417,465,593 | 62% | 50% | 877 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 4 | 32 | Ntungamo DLG | 94% | 1,848,548,683 | 1,740,797,344 | 229,477,125 | 1,511,320,219 | 13% | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 5 | 33 | Nwoya DLG | 100% | 1,506,270,774 | 1,506,270,774 | 1,282,287,149 | 223,983,625 | 85% | 80% | 120 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0.0 |\n| 6 | 34 | Omoro DLG | 100% | 773,440,506 | 773,440,506 | 753,058,716 | 20,381,790 | 97% | 98% | 55 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 7 | 35 | Rakai DLG | 98% | 1,243,289,966 | 1,212,437,391 | 450,270,049 | 762,167,342 | 37% | 10% | 170 | 16 | 3 | 13 | 0.0 |\n| 8 | 36 | Rukungiri DLG | 97% | 1,222,690,787 | 1,182,235,981 | 1,182,235,981 | 0 | 100% | 100% | 554 | 42 | 42 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 9 | 37 | Sembabule DLG | 99% | 1,321,944,507 | 1,312,934,328 | 381,925,415 | 931,008,913 | 29% | 4% | 143 | 18 | 3 | 15 | 0.0 |\n| 10 | 38 | Sironko DLG | 100% | 960,526,097 | 960,526,097 | 244,992,927 | 715,533,170 | 26% | 0% | 224 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |\n| 11 | 39 | Tororo DLG | 97% | 2,146,943,614 | 2,082,453,632 | 421,412,670 | 1,661,040,962 | 20% | 0% | 17 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 0.0 |\n| 12 | Wakiso DLG | 100% | 3,661,748,235 | 3,661,748,235 | 970,978,292 | 2,690,769,943 | 27% | 2% | 222 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 0 | |\n| 13 | | | 98% | 50,081,789,4 51 | 49,038,618,1 92 | 20,723,330,0 43 | 28,315,288,1 49 | 42% | | 8,781 | 642 | 479 | 190 | 27.0 |", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | sn | Entity name | Total value of the equipment co-funded | Required co- funding | Total Amount co- funded | Partial co- funding | Co-funded but didn\u2019t receive amount | Nu mbe r insp ecte d | Numb er instal led and functi onal | Num ber insta lled and not funct ional | Nu mb er not inst alle d | Co- funding amount for inspected projects | Planne d Numb er of irrigati on equip ment | Numbe r Sensitiz ed |\n|---:|-----:|:-----------------|:-----------------------------------------|:-----------------------|:--------------------------|:----------------------|:--------------------------------------|-----------------------:|-------------------------------------:|-----------------------------------------:|---------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------:|:----------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Amuru DLG | 605,071,628 | 151,267,907 | 151,267,907 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 140 | NS |\n| 1 | 2 | Bududa DLG | 0 | 0 | 4,349,650 | 0 | 4,349,650 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NP | 108 | NS |\n| 2 | 3 | Buikwe DLG | 224,115,393 | 56,028,848 | 58,804,360 | 0 | 58,804,360 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5,414,418 | 123 | 1508 |\n| 3 | 4 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 175,340,064 | 43,835,016 | 43,835,016 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | NP | 23 | 1436 |\n| 4 | 5 | Bushenyi DLG | 13,911,600 | 3,477,900 | 3,477,175 | 0 | 2,980,436 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3,477,900 | 55 | 4291 |\n| 5 | 6 | Butambala DLG | 124,801,000 | 31,200,250 | 30,989,750 | 210,500 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 21,389,250 | 30 | 920 |\n| 6 | 7 | Ibanda DLG | 451,851,264 | 112,962,816 | 120,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 16,535,172 | 34 | 356 |\n| 7 | 8 | Iganga DLG | 131,101,400 | 32,775,350 | 32,775,350 | 0 | 17,480,187 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 20,972,725 | 133 | NS |\n| 8 | 9 | Jinja DLG | 72,400,500 | 18,100,125 | 20,000,875 | 0 | 20,000,875 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 1708 |\n| 9 | 10 | Kalungu DLG | 79,449,700 | 19,862,425 | 19,862,425 | 0 | 11,349,957 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | NP | 68 | 212 |", "metadata": {"page": 348, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 11 | Kamuli DLG | 159,154,380 | 39,788,595 | 39,788,595.1 | 0 | 39,788,595.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | NP | 88 | NS |\n|---:|-----:|:---------------|:--------------|:-------------|:---------------|:-----------|:---------------|------:|:------|------:|------:|:-----------|-----:|:-----|\n| 0 | 12 | Kamwenge DLG | 257,199,816 | 64,299,954 | 78,447,943 | 0 | 21,120,600 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 0 | 18,639,250 | 45 | 800 |\n| 1 | 13 | Kapchorwa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 500 |\n| 2 | 14 | Kayunga DLG | 235,175,004 | 58,793,751 | 35,988,804 | 22,804,947 | 0 | 19 | 5.0 | 0 | 14 | 26,503,400 | 194 | 1450 |\n| 3 | 15 | Kibaale DLG | 103,473,510 | 25,868,378 | 25,868,375 | 0 | 3,695,482 | 4 | 2.0 | 0 | 2 | 4,418,350 | 60 | NS |\n| 4 | 16 | Kitagwenda DLG | 0 | 0 | 30,555,000 | 0 | 30,555,000 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | NP | 43 | NS |\n| 5 | 17 | Kyegegwa DLG | 621,067,534 | 155,266,884 | 164,315,300 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 0 | 20,906,578 | 85 | 200 |\n| 6 | 18 | Kyenjojo DLG | 398,210,612 | 99,552,653 | 99,552,653 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | 11,303,350 | 78 | 2034 |\n| 7 | 19 | Kyotera DLG | 71,550,500 | 17,887,625 | 17,887,625 | 0 | 12,297,742 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | 8,821,750 | 60 | 2054 |\n| 8 | 20 | Luuka DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 60 | NS |\n| 9 | 21 | Luwero DLG | 37,458,628 | 9,364,657 | 7,936,150 | 1,428,507 | 0 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | 17,673,400 | 100 | NS |\n| 10 | 22 | Lwengo DLG | 74,389,000 | 18,597,250 | 18,597,250 | 0 | 5,313,500 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | 11,175,000 | 40 | 1478 |\n| 11 | 23 | Manafwa DLG | 472,853,178 | 118,213,295 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | NP | 67 | NS |\n| 12 | 24 | Masaka DLG | 75,808,490 | 18,952,123 | 24,661,850 | 0 | 4,110,308 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | 9,312,194 | 50 | 450 |\n| 13 | 25 | Mayuge DLG | 93,296,396 | 23,324,099 | 23,324,401 | 0 | 23,324,401 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 259 | 1795 |\n| 14 | 26 | Mbale DLG | 731,116,421 | 182,779,105 | 123,475,656 | 59,303,449 | (274,390,347) | 2 | 0.0 | 2 | 0 | NP | 29 | NS |\n| 15 | 27 | Mityana DLG | 736,645,518 | 184,161,380 | 189,710,836 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2.0 | 1 | 0 | NP | 52 | NS |\n| 16 | 28 | Mpigi DLG | 242,976,116 | 60,744,029 | 29,967,904 | 30,776,125 | (17,481,277) | 12 | 8.0 | 0 | 4 | 21,552,821 | 56 | NS |\n| 17 | 29 | Mubende DLG | 549,606,541 | 137,401,635 | 132,383,729 | 5,017,906 | 75,017,446 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 0 | NP | 113 | 783 |\n| 18 | 30 | Mukono DLG | 842,077,809 | 210,519,452 | 122,920,051 | 87,599,401 | 40,973,350 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 0 | 25,040,290 | 171 | NS |\n| 19 | 31 | Nakaseke DLG | 412,390,242 | 103,097,561 | 110,919,223 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 0 | 21,340,750 | 60 | 3498 |\n| 20 | 32 | Nwoya DLG | 37,636,769 | 9,409,192 | 18,662,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 | NS |\n| 21 | 33 | Omoro DLG | 133,915,000 | 33,478,750 | 36,983,750 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 480 |\n| 22 | 34 | Rakai DLG | 85,094,056 | 21,273,514 | 21,273,514 | 0 | 17,284,730 | 3 | | 0 | 3 | | 127 | 549 |\n| 23 | 35 | Rukungiri DLG | 874,541,222 | 218,635,306 | 254,095,279 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 42.0 | 0 | 3 | NP | 60 | 44 |\n| 24 | 36 | Sembabule DLG | 38,966,500 | 9,741,625 | 9,741,625 | 0 | 8,118,021 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | 6,299,125 | 145 | 652 |", "metadata": {"page": 349, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 11 | Kamuli DLG | 159,154,380 | 39,788,595 | 39,788,595.1 | 0 | 39,788,595.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | NP | 88 | NS |\n|---:|:-----|:-------------|:---------------|:---------------|:---------------|:-------------|:---------------|------:|------:|------:|------:|:-------------|:------|:-------|\n| 0 | 37.0 | Sironko DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NP | 224 | NS |\n| 1 | 38.0 | Tororo DLG | 200,411,950 | 50,102,988 | 45,964,915 | 4,138,073 | 45,964,915 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NP | 215 | NS |\n| 2 | 39.0 | Wakiso DLG | 30,695,563 | 7,673,891 | 64,219,332 | 0 | 17,514,363 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 17,929,213 | 200 | 4289 |\n| 3 | | | 9,393,753,30 4 | 2,348,438,32 7 | 2,212,604,76 8 | 211,278,9 08 | 168,172,295 | 153 | 117 | 4 | 32 | 288,704,9 36 | 3,681 | 31,487 |", "metadata": {"page": 349, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Budget performance | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Delayed disbursement of funds | Unnamed: 8 | Unaccounted funds disbursed to groups |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:---------------------|:-----------------|:------------------|:-------------------|:--------------|:-----------------------------------------------|:-----------------------|:----------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | Approved budget | Warrant/ Release | %age performan ce | Transfer to groups | % Absorptio n | Number of groups that delayed to receive funds | Average delay (Months) | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Bukedea DLG | 250,000,000 | 64,200,000 | 26% | 60,000,000 | 93% | 9 | 2.5 | 0 |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Buliisa DLG | 36,750,000 | 30,700,000 | 84% | 30,000,000 | 98% | 11 | 5.5 | 8,000,000 |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Butambala DLG | 225,750,000 | 95,900,000 | 42% | 90,500,000 | 94% | 3 | 9 | 0 |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Hoima City | 42,000,000 | 39,590,000 | 94% | 27,590,000 | 70% | 8 | 2.3 | 0 |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Hoima DLG | 56,710,000 | 56,710,000 | 100% | 53,000,000 | 93% | 20 | 2 | 53,000,000 |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Kabarole DLG | 288,180,385 | 21,000,000 | 7% | 20,000,000 | 95% | 1 | 5 | 0 |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Kakumiro DLG | 70,620,000 | 70,620,000 | 100% | 65,980,000 | 93% | 24 | 3.9 | 0 |\n| 8 | 8.0 | Kaladi DLG | 120,000,000 | 120,000,000 | 100% | 61,000,000 | 51% | 13 | 3 | 0 |\n| 9 | 9.0 | Kapelebyong DLG | 128,400,000 | 128,400,000 | 100% | 128,400,000 | 100% | 16 | 1.5 | 0 |\n| 10 | 10.0 | Kasese DLG | 350,000,000 | 21,000,000 | 6% | 20,000,000 | 95% | 4 | 5 | 0 |\n| 11 | 11.0 | Kayunga DLG | 400,000,000 | 111,720,000 | 28% | 95,000,000 | 85% | 7 | 5.7 | 95,000,000 |\n| 12 | 12.0 | Kibaale DLG | 100,500,000 | 22,470,000 | 22% | 21,000,000 | 93% | 9 | 7 | 21,000,000 |\n| 13 | 13.0 | Kikuube DLG | 36,750,000 | 23,540,000 | 64% | 22,000,000 | 93% | 8 | 2 | 0 |\n| 14 | 14.0 | Kyenjojo DLG | 526,228,220 | 10,500,000 | 2% | 10,500,000 | 100% | 1 | 3 | 10,500,000 |\n| 15 | 15.0 | Luwero DLG | 175,000,000 | 175,000,000 | 100% | 175,000,000 | 100% | 11 | 3 | 0 |\n| 16 | 16.0 | Masindi DLG | 191,904,000 | 23,540,000 | 12% | 22,000,000 | 93% | 7 | 3.5 | 13,000,000 |\n| 17 | 17.0 | Masindi MC | 344,123,000 | 300,707,293 | 87% | 277,000,000 | 92% | 8 | 2 | 0 |\n| 18 | 18.0 | Mityana DLG | 0 | 52,500,000 | | 0 | 0% | 0 | 1.5 | 0 |\n| 19 | 19.0 | Mukono DLG | 72,450,000 | 47,200,000 | 65% | 45,000,000 | 95% | 4 | 1 | 0 |\n| 20 | 20.0 | Nakaseke DLG | 270,000,000 | 124,575,000 | 46% | 122,742,000 | 99% | 2 | 2.5 | 48,010,000 |\n| 21 | 21.0 | Nakasongola DLG | 63,000,000 | 71,000,000 | 113% | 71,000,000 | 100% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 22 | 22.0 | Ngora DLG | 270,000,000 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 23.0 | Soroti DLG | 124,200,000 | 118,200,000 | 95% | 118,200,000 | 100% | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 24.0 | Wakiso DLG | 1,287,000,000 | 742,190,000 | 58% | 733,800,000 | 99% | 2 | 5 | 0 |\n| 25 | | Total | 5,429,565,605 | 2,471,262,293 | 46% | 2,269,712,000 | 92% | 168 | | 248,510,000 |", "metadata": {"page": 350, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Funding of groups above the maximum threshold | Unnamed: 3 | Physical Inspection of supported micro projects | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 |\n|---:|:-----|:----------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | | Number of groups funded above threshold | Amount of excess disbursement | Number of groups inspected | Amount of funds disbursed to projects inspected | Number of projects that were in existence | Number of groups that implemented the approved project | Number of groups that implemented un-approved projects |\n| 1 | 1.0 | Bukedea DLG | 0 | 0 | 5 | 24,300,000 | 5 | 3 | 2 |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Buliisa DLG | 0 | 0 | 4 | 8,000,000 | 4 | 1 | 3 |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Butambala DLG | 2 | 1,000,000 | 4 | 40,000,000 | 4 | 4 | 0 |\n| 4 | 4.0 | Hoima City | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6,000,000 | 2 | 1 | 1 |\n| 5 | 5.0 | Hoima DLG | 0 | 0 | 4 | 26,000,000 | 4 | 3 | 1 |\n| 6 | 6.0 | Kabarole DLG | 0 | 0 | 2 | 20,000,000 | 2 | 1 | 1 |\n| 7 | 7.0 | Kakumiro DLG | 0 | 0 | 8 | 22,000,000 | 8 | 6 | 2 |\n| 8 | 8.0 | Kaladi DLG | 0 | 0 | 3 | 14,000,000 | 3 | 3 | 0 |\n| 9 | 9.0 | Kapelebyong DLG | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18,500,000 | 3 | 3 | 0 |\n| 10 | 10.0 | Kasese DLG | 0 | 0 | 2 | 10,000,000 | 2 | 2 | 0 |\n| 11 | 11.0 | Kayunga DLG | 2 | 25,000,000 | 2 | 20,000,000 | 2 | 2 | 0 |\n| 12 | 12.0 | Kibaale DLG | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8,500,000 | 3 | 3 | 0 |\n| 13 | 13.0 | Kikuube DLG | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5,000,000 | 2 | 2 | 0 |\n| 14 | 14.0 | Kyenjojo DLG | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10,000,000 | 1 | 1 | 0 |\n| 15 | 15.0 | Luwero DLG | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 6 | 1 |\n| 16 | 16.0 | Masindi DLG | 0 | 0 | 5 | 16,000,000 | 5 | 3 | 2 |\n| 17 | 17.0 | Masindi MC | 0 | 0 | 5 | 12,000,000 | 5 | 2 | 3 |\n| 18 | 18.0 | Mityana DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 19 | 19.0 | Mukono DLG | 1 | 5,000,000 | 3 | 45,000,000 | 3 | 3 | 0 |\n| 20 | 20.0 | Nakaseke DLG | 1 | 8,000,000 | 6 | 59,500,000 | 6 | 6 | 0 |\n| 21 | 21.0 | Nakasongola DLG | 0 | 0 | 4 | 50,000,000 | 2 | 2 | 2 |\n| 22 | 22.0 | Ngora DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 23 | 23.0 | Soroti DLG | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8,000,000 | 2 | 2 | 0 |\n| 24 | 24.0 | Wakiso DLG | 27 | 182,000,000 | 7 | 80,000,000 | 7 | 7 | 0 |\n| 25 | | Total | 33 | 221,000,000 | 84 | 502,800,000 | 82 | 66 | 18 |", "metadata": {"page": 351, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |\n|---:|:-----|:------------|:-------------------|:-------------------|:---------------|:---------------|:--------------------------------|:-------------------------------|:------------------|:---------------------|\n| 0 | SN | Entity Name | Budget Performance | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Local revenue sharing | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 |\n| 1 | nan | nan | Approved budget | Actual collections | Shortfall | %age shortfall | Expected remittance to Division | Actual remittance to Divisions | Under- remittance | %age Under- remitted |\n| 2 | 1.0 | Jinja | 58,090,748,734 | 50,969,290,015 | 7,121,458,719 | 12% | 1,844,294,373 | 1,593,317,055 | 250,977,318 | 14% |\n| 3 | 2.0 | Mbarara | 62,491,147,300 | 56,163,575,756 | 6,327,571,544 | 10% | 1,699,120,258 | 1,583,212,950 | 115,907,308 | 7% |\n| 4 | 3.0 | Mbale | 54,509,554,490 | 54,509,554,490 | 0 | 0% | 784,455,187 | 594,895,194 | 189,559,993 | 24% |\n| 5 | 4.0 | Hoima | 33,529,655,343 | 32,440,208,365 | 1,089,446,978 | 3% | 875,092,462 | 654,869,681 | 220,222,781 | 25% |\n| 6 | 5.0 | Soroti | 32,245,918,630 | 27,191,436,469 | 5,054,482,161 | 16% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% |\n| 7 | 6.0 | Fort portal | 32,686,993,162 | 31,666,904,298 | 1,020,088,864 | 3% | 1,041,451,036 | 1,041,451,036 | 0 | 0% |\n| 8 | 7.0 | Lira | 54,602,635,918 | 42,012,644,858 | 12,589,991,060 | 23% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% |\n| 9 | 8.0 | Masaka | 42,593,236,710 | 39,377,424,934 | 3,215,811,776 | 8% | 1,038,919,625 | 1,079,682,076 | (40,762,452) | 04% |\n| 10 | 9.0 | Arua | 45,846,863,296 | 43,619,346,734 | 2,227,516,562 | 5% | 1,500,454,549 | 1,454,515,574 | 45,938,975 | 3% |\n| 11 | 10.0 | Gulu | 51,960,870,117 | 49,386,722,617 | 2,574,147,500 | 5% | 1,246,807,408 | 1,619,093,938 | (372,286,531) | 030% |\n| 12 | nan | Total | 468,557,623,700 | 427,337,108,536 | 41,220,515,164 | 9% | 10,030,594,896 | 9,621,037,504 | 409,557,393 | 4% |", "metadata": {"page": 352, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN. | Entity Name | Approved budget (UGX) | Warrants/ Release (UGX) | Expenditure (UGX) | Unspent balance |\n|---:|------:|:-----------------|:------------------------|:--------------------------|:--------------------|:------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 5,042,542,567 | 3,431,050,296 | 1,555,597,275 | 1,875,453,021 |\n| 1 | 2 | Amolatar DLG | 3,225,212,064 | 3,225,212,064 | 779,510,361 | 2,445,701,703 |\n| 2 | 3 | Amuria DLG | 1,230,500,000 | 1,230,500,000 | 123,050,000 | 1,107,450,000 |\n| 3 | 4 | Arua DLG | 1,159,389,000 | 1,159,389,000 | - | |\n| 4 | 5 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 2,105,522,000 | 2,105,522,000 | 2,105,522,000 | - |\n| 5 | 6 | Bundibugyo DLG | 1,658,409,128 | 1,658,409,128 | 291,525,179 | 1,366,883,949 |\n| 6 | 7 | Bunyangabu DLG | 679,204,564 | 679,204,564 | | 679,204,564 |\n| 7 | 8 | Bushenyi DLG | 1,166,331,649 | 1,166,331,649 | - | 1,166,331,649 |\n| 8 | 9 | Dokolo DLG | 295,105,891 | 295,105,891 | 110,919,587 | 184,186,304 |\n| 9 | 10 | Gomba DLG | 1,155,460,496 | 1,155,460,496 | 220,859,367 | 934,601,129 |\n| 10 | 11 | Ibanda DLG | 649,939,000 | 649,939,000 | 396,510,597 | 253,428,403 |\n| 11 | 12 | Jinja City | 900,000,000 | 900,000,000 | 520,510,899 | 379,489,101 |\n| 12 | 13 | Kabale DLG | 1,185,000,000 | 1,185,000,000 | 272,474,121 | 912,525,879 |\n| 13 | 14 | Kabale MC | 1,163,014,383 | 1,163,014,383 | - | 1,163,014,383 |\n| 14 | 15 | Kabarole DLG | 3,681,530,094 | 3,681,530,094 | 1,972,555,923 | 1,708,974,171 |\n| 15 | 16 | Kagadi DLG | 613,326,018 | 613,326,018 | 552,095,741 | 61,230,277 |\n| 16 | 17 | Kakumiro DLG | 3,740,035,424 | 3,740,035,424 | 3,035,355,266 | 704,680,158 |\n| 17 | 18 | Kalaki DLG | 1,360,330,000 | 1,360,330,000 | - | 1,360,330,000 |\n| 18 | 19 | Kanungu DLG | 1,823,747,325 | 1,823,747,325 | 832,671,749 | 991,075,576 |\n| 19 | 20 | Kasese DLG | 2,162,414,030 | 2,129,103,023 | 1,792,954,268 | 590,609,829 |", "metadata": {"page": 352, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 21 | Katakwi DLG | 2,136,162,000 | 2,136,162,000.1 | 553,271,620 | 1,582,890,380 |\n|---:|:-----|:---------------|:----------------|:------------------|:---------------|:----------------|\n| 0 | 22.0 | Kazo DLG | 1,234,328,086 | 1,234,328,086 | 370,298,425 | 864,029,661 |\n| 1 | 23.0 | Kiruhura DLG | 3,626,296,934 | 3,626,296,934 | 883,171,494 | 2,743,125,440 |\n| 2 | 24.0 | Kitagwenda DLG | 1,004,760,793 | 1,004,760,793 | 63,609,236 | 941,151,557 |\n| 3 | 25.0 | Koboko | 617,500,000 | 617,500,000 | 185,250,000 | 432,250,000 |\n| 4 | 26.0 | Koboko DLG | 1,339,266,988 | 1,339,266,988 | - | 1,339,266,988 |\n| 5 | 27.0 | Kole DLG | 1,124,587,408 | 1,124,587,408 | - | 1,124,587,408 |\n| 6 | 28.0 | Kumi DLG | 1,209,407,573 | 1,209,407,573 | - | 1,209,407,573 |\n| 7 | 29.0 | Kyenjojo DLG | 5,645,295,808 | 5,645,295,808 | 2,687,505,537 | 2,957,790,271 |\n| 8 | 30.0 | Lwengo DLG | 1,920,374,181 | 1,572,093,781 | - | 1,572,093,781 |\n| 9 | 31.0 | Maracha DLG | 5,081,827,353 | 3,616,146,706 | 3,068,469,875 | 547,676,831 |\n| 10 | 32.0 | Mitooma DLG | 1,968,827,575 | 1,968,827,575 | 504,649,000 | 1,464,178,575 |\n| 11 | 33.0 | Moyo DLG | 606,966,721 | 606,966,721 | 299,368,912 | 307,597,809 |\n| 12 | 34.0 | Nakaseke DLG | 1,331,654,302 | 1,331,654,302 | 552,634,095 | 779,020,207 |\n| 13 | 35.0 | Nebbi DLG | 4,903,975,634 | 4,903,975,634 | 2,343,750,153 | 2,560,225,481 |\n| 14 | 36.0 | Pakwach DLG | 2,880,993,432 | 2,880,993,432 | 2,079,770,185 | 801,223,247 |\n| 15 | 37.0 | Rubanda DLG | 2,685,000,000 | 2,550,461,621 | 1,107,668,839 | 1,442,792,782 |\n| 16 | 38.0 | Rubirizi DLG | 2,078,380,811 | 2,078,380,811 | 8,800,000 | 2,069,580,811 |\n| 17 | 39.0 | Rukungiri DLG | 2,090,390,500 | 2,090,390,500 | 1,505,081,159 | 585,309,341 |\n| 18 | 40.0 | Sheema DLG | 2,165,067,757 | 2,165,067,757 | 972,196,519 | 1,192,871,238 |\n| 19 | 41.0 | Sironko DLG | 1,658,859,727 | 1,658,859,727 | 500,642,362 | 1,158,217,365 |\n| 20 | 42.0 | Wakiso DLG | 1,373,169,216 | 1,373,169,216 | 314,651,999 | 1,058,517,217 |\n| 21 | 43.0 | Zombo DLG | 1,553,346,819 | 1,553,346,819 | 481,192,683 | 1,072,154,136 |\n| 22 | | Total | 85,233,453,251 | 81,640,150,547 | 33,044,094,426 | 47,691,128,195 |", "metadata": {"page": 353, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Sector | Num ber of proje cts | Contract price | Start date | End date | Amount paid | Projec t status (Base d on payme nt) | Project status (Based on audit inspecti on, project manage r\u2019s report and paymen t certifica tes) | Total contr act perio d | Cont ract perio d at end of FY | Delay in contr act imple ment ation in mont hs |\n|---:|-----:|:---------------|:----------|-----------------------:|:-----------------|:-------------|:-----------|:--------------|:---------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------:|---------------------------------:|-------------------------------------------------:|\n| 0 | 1 | Nakaseke DLG | Health | 1 | 657,828,203 | 23/04/2021 | 23/01/2022 | 141,753,982 | 22% | | 9 | 14 | 5 |\n| 1 | 2 | Gomba DLG | Health | 2 | 147,425,167 | 07/02/2022 | 07/06/2022 | 132,682,650 | 90% | | 4 | 5 | 1 |\n| 2 | 3 | Gomba DLG | Health | 2 | 147,241,887 | 07/02/2022 | 07/06/2022 | 71,390,952 | 48% | | 4 | 5 | 1 |\n| 3 | 4 | Sironko DLG | Health | 1 | 641,353,154 | 17/12/2019 | 30/06/2020 | 500,642,362 | 78% | | 7 | 31 | 24 |\n| 4 | 5 | Bududa DLG | Health | 3 | 641,353,154 | 17/12/2019 | 30/06/2020 | | 0% | | 7 | 31 | 24 |\n| 5 | 6 | Dokolo DLG | Health | 2 | 145,114,777 | 28/11/2021 | 30/05/2022 | - | 0% | 35% | 6 | 7 | 1 |\n| 6 | 7 | Kanungu DLG | Health | 1 | 795,282,480 | 06/04/2021 | 24/05/2022 | 561,273,723 | 71% | 90% | 14 | 15 | 1 |\n| 7 | 8 | Kasese DLG | Health | 1 | 518,372,154 | 13/03/2021 | 13/09/2021 | 469,315,435 | 91% | 90% | 6 | 16 | 10 |\n| 8 | 9 | Kasese DLG | Health | 1 | 654,136,098 | 04/03/2021 | 30/05/2022 | 383,929,312 | 59% | 75% | 15 | 16 | 1 |\n| 9 | 10 | Kiruhura DLG | Health | 1 | 1,229,877,542 | 30/03/2021 | 30/11/2021 | 642,116,001 | 52% | 70% | 8 | 15 | 7 |\n| 10 | 11 | Kiruhura DLG | Health | 1 | 299,935,634 | 16/04/2021 | 16/11/2021 | 250,154,636 | 83% | 70% | 7 | 15 | 8 |\n| 11 | 12 | Bunyangabu DLG | Health | 1 | 679,204,564 | 19/05/2021 | 14/10/2021 | - | 0% | 70% | 5 | 14 | 9 |\n| 12 | 13 | Kabale DLG | Health | 1 | 150,000,000 | 15/03/2022 | 15/06/2022 | 50,982,711 | 34% | 33% | 3 | 4 | 1 |\n| 13 | 14 | Sheema DLG | Health | 1 | 159,730,098 | 07/04/2022 | 07/06/2022 | 34,216,971 | 21% | | 2 | 3 | 1 |\n| 14 | 15 | Nakaseke DLG | Education | 1 | 657,828,203 | 23/04/2021 | 23/01/2022 | - | 0% | 0% | 9 | 14 | 5 |\n| 15 | 16 | Kanungu DLG | Education | 1 | 2,081,740,500 | 09/01/2019 | 15/10/2021 | 1,494,594,766 | 72% | 87% | 34 | 42 | 9 |\n| 16 | 17 | Rukungiri DLG | Education | 1 | 2,090,390,500 | 29/09/2019 | 05/06/2021 | 1,505,081,159 | 72% | 90% | 21 | 34 | 13 |\n| 17 | 18 | Kyenjojo DLG | Education | 1 | 2,150,170,030 | 28/03/2019 | 30/08/2020 | 2,000,047,945 | 93% | 78% | 17 | 40 | 22 |\n| 18 | 19 | Bunyangabu DLG | Education | 1 | 1,949,557,600 | 30/04/2019 | 30/04/2021 | 1,730,754,431 | 89% | 85% | 24 | 39 | 14 |\n| 19 | 20 | Adjumani DLG | Education | 1 | 721,236,662 | 14/05/2019 | 14/11/2021 | 648,243,471 | 90% | 90% | 31 | 38 | 8 |\n| 20 | 21 | Adjumani DLG | Education | 1 | 820,105,237 | 23/12/2019 | 23/06/2020 | 705,843,593 | 86% | 85% | 6 | 31 | 25 |\n| 21 | 22 | Adjumani DLG | Education | 1 | 252,938,204 | 26/04/2021 | 25/06/2021 | 201,510,211 | 80% | 77% | 2 | 14 | 12 |\n| 22 | 23 | Nebbi DLG | Education | 1 | 2,101,789,485 | 22/05/2019 | 22/05/2022 | 1,879,791,406 | 89% | 89% | 37 | 38 | 1 |\n| 23 | 24 | Maracha DLG | Education | 1 | 1,924,805,491 | 29/04/2020 | 30/04/2022 | 1,910,739,849 | 99% | 85% | 24 | 26 | 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 354, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | PROJECT NAME | PROJECT LOCATION | PROJECT COST (UGX) | AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ENGRS BDE (UGX) | AMOUNT RELEASED TO THE PROJECT (UGX) | AVAILABLE BALANCE (UGX) | FINANCIAL PERFORMANC E | PHYSICAL PERFORMAN CE | REMAR KS |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------|:---------------------|:-------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------|:--------------------------|:-------------------------|:------------------------|:-----------|\n| 0 | 1 | Functionalisation of Butebo HC IV | Butebo District | 1,431,451,245 | 1,431,451,24 5 | 715,725,623 | 715,725,622 | 50% | 30% | WIP |\n| 1 | 2 | Constrn of General Ward & 4 stance VIP Latrine | | 280,553,154 | 280,553,154 | 140,276,577 | 140,276,577 | | | |\n| 2 | 3 | Constrtn Works Of Medical Store with 02 Office Rooms at District HQs | Kiruhura District | 133,722,679 | 133,722,679 | 66,861,340 | 66,861,340 | 50% | 68% | WIP |\n| 3 | 4 | Constrn Works at Bufumbo HC IV | Mbale District | 247,555,361 | 219,670,404 | 109,835,202 | 109,835,202 | 44% | 62% | WIP |\n| 4 | 5 | Maternity Ward At Kinoni Health Centre III in Kinoni Sub-county | Nakaseke District | 450,166,992 | 292,870,556 | 146,435,278 | 146,435,278 | 33% | 52% | WIP |\n| 5 | 6 | Construction Of Maternity Ward At Mifunya Health CentreIII in Nakaseke Sub-County | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | 7 | Construction of an incinerator at Ntara Health Centre IV | Kitagwenda District | 107,928,535 | 107,928,535 | 53,964,268 | 53,964,268 | 50% | 60% | WIP |\n| 7 | 8 | Construction of a laboratory at Kikyenkye Health Centre III | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | 9 | Refurbishment of Medicine Stores at Pallisa Gen Hospital | Pallisa District | 318,788,531 | 318,788,531 | 97,095,755 | 221,692,776 | 30% | 40% | WIP |\n| 9 | 10 | Construction of a new Maternity Ward at Kazo HC IV | Kazo | 437,298,176 | 796,323,012 | 469,601,865 | 326,721,147 | 59% | 67% | WIP |\n| 10 | 11 | Completion of a maternity ward Phase II for Kazo HC IV | | 119,848,338 | | | | | | |\n| 11 | 12 | Construction of 2 in 1 Staff Houses at Kijuma HC II | | 71,951,187 | | | | | | |\n| 12 | 13 | Construction of 2 in 1 Staff Houses at Rwigi HC II | | 71,951,187 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | 14 | Renovation of OPD at Kaicumu HC II | | 21,716,102 | | | | | | |", "metadata": {"page": 355, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | PROJECT NAME | PROJECT LOCATION | PROJECT COST (UGX) | AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ENGRS BDE (UGX) | AMOUNT RELEASED TO THE PROJECT (UGX) | AVAILABLE BALANCE (UGX) | FINANCIAL PERFORMANC E | PHYSICAL PERFORMAN CE | REMAR KS |\n|---:|------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------|:---------------------|:-------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------|:--------------------------|:-------------------------|:------------------------|:-----------|\n| 0 | 15 | Extra works Kazo DLG | Unnamed: 2 | 73,558,022 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 |\n| 1 | 16 | Labour suit remodelling at Budaka HC IV | Budaka District | 42,495,075 | 52,300,000 | 48,639,000 | 3,661,000 | 38% | 52% | WIP |\n| 2 | 17 | Construction of Pit Latrine at Lyama HC III | | 18,014,500 | | | | | | |\n| 3 | 18 | Construction of a Placenta Pit at Naboa HC III | | 15,430,275 | | | | | | |\n| 4 | 19 | Repair of House at Kameruka HC III | | 18,726,225 | | | | | | |\n| 5 | 20 | Fencing Facility at Kerekerene HC III | | 15,372,000 | | | | | | |\n| 6 | 21 | Fencing at Mugiti HC III | | 17,350,000 | | | | | | |\n| 7 | 22 | Construction Of A General Maternity Ward At Ossi Health Centre- Phase-I | Nebbi District | 305,941,656 | 305,941,656 | 284,525,740 | 21,415,916 | 93% | 60% | WIP |\n| 8 | 23 | Renovation Of Kikobe Health Centre II OPD | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | 24 | Renovation Of Jupangira Health Centre II OPD | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | 25 | Construction Of 2 Stance Washroom At Jupangira Health Centre II OPD | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | 26 | Construction Of 4stance VIP Latrine In Erussi Health Centre II | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | 27 | Fencing Of Nyaravur Health Centre III | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | 28 | Construction of Staff house at Mulehe HC | Kisoro District | 507,616,737 | 507,616,737 | 253,808,369 | 253,808,369 | 50% | 58% | WIP |\n| 14 | 29 | Construction of Bunagana Gen Ward | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | 30 | Construction of Bukuya HC IV | Kasanda District | 1,358,143,675 | 950,000,000 | 703,635,255 | 246,364,745 | 52% | 40% | WIP |\n| 16 | 31 | Expnsion and remodelling of the OPD at Buwama HC III | Mpigi District | 59,228,805 | 319,709,326 | 228,592,168 | 91,117,158 | 68% | 60% | WIP |\n| 17 | 32 | General repairs, remodelling, partitioning, re-roofing & electrical installation of the olf staff hous at Kampiringisa HC III | | 88,005,475 | | | | | | |\n| 18 | 33 | General Renovation of Kafumu HC II | | 17,376,108 | | | | | | |\n| 19 | 34 | General Renovation of MCH Block at Bunjanko HC III | | 19,882,233 | | | | | | |\n| 20 | 35 | Installation of 10,000 litre tank at Ggolo HC III | | 5,217,250 | | | | | | |", "metadata": {"page": 356, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | PROJECT NAME | PROJECT LOCATION | PROJECT COST (UGX) | AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ENGRS BDE (UGX) | AMOUNT RELEASED TO THE PROJECT (UGX) | AVAILABLE BALANCE (UGX) | FINANCIAL PERFORMANC E | PHYSICAL PERFORMAN CE | REMAR KS |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------|:---------------------|:-------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------|:--------------------------|:-------------------------|:------------------------|:-----------|\n| 0 | 36 | Second phase of renovation of health department Block (Tiling of DHO Block) | Unnamed: 2 | 41,686,750 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 |\n| 1 | 37 | Construction of a Placenta Pit at Ggolo HC III | | 7,123,340 | | | | | | |\n| 2 | 38 | 3 stance waternourne toilet with a bathroom at Butooro HC III | | 30,902,520 | | | | | | |\n| 3 | 39 | 3 Stance waterbourne toilet with bathroom at Mpigi health dep | | 30,576,775 | | | | | | |\n| 4 | 40 | Waiting shade at Kituntu HC III | | 37,325,375 | | | | | | |\n| 5 | 41 | Waterbourne toilet/bathroom at Kamuli Gen Hosp | Kamuli District | 23,261,576 | 256,314,453 | 156,700,453 | 99,614,000 | 61% | 50% | WIP |\n| 6 | 42 | Antenental Shade at Kamuli Gen Hosp | | 20,121,200 | | | | | | |\n| 7 | 43 | Expansion of Labaratory at Nawendwa HC IV | | 57,323,858 | | | | | | |\n| 8 | 44 | Two in one Staff House at Kawaaga HC II | | 41,134,100 | | | | | | |\n| 9 | 45 | Renovation of Maternity Ward at Nawankofu HC II | | 34,709,000 | | | | | | |\n| 10 | 46 | Renovation of OPD at Nawankofu HC II | | 18,499,500 | | | | | | |\n| 11 | 47 | Fencing Kasambira HC II | | 24,965,823 | | | | | | |\n| 12 | 48 | Fencing Kasambira Balawoli HC III | | 19,638,180 | | | | | | |\n| 13 | 49 | Placenta Pit at Namaira HC II | | 8,330,608 | | | | | | |\n| 14 | 50 | Placenta Pit at Kasambira HC II | | 8,330,608 | | | | | | |\n| 15 | 51 | Construction of Nsotoka Health Centre III | Kayunga District | 980,494,263 | 143,813,882 | 446,077,126 | -302,263,244 | 45% | 43% | WIP |\n| 16 | 52 | Construction of DHO's Staff house at Nsotoka HC III | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | 53 | Renovation of an OPD at Bisina HC II | Katakwi District | 115,444,090 | 115,444,090 | 57,722,045 | 57,722,045 | 50% | 56% | WIP |\n| 18 | 54 | Renovation of OPD at Kapujan HC III | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | 55 | Renovation of Olilim HC II | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | 56 | Renovation of DHO's Office | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | 57 | Construction of Semi Detached staff house at Bulele HC III | Buhweju District | 38,313,488 | 38,313,488 | 19,156,744 | 19,156,744 | 50% | 50% | WIP |\n| 22 | 58 | Construction of a 2 stance VIP Latrine with urinal at Kalungu HC III | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | 59 | Fencing at Busabaga HC III | | 130,647,169 | 210,909,726 | 105,454,863 | 105,454,863 | 50% | 68% | |", "metadata": {"page": 357, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | PROJECT NAME | PROJECT LOCATION | PROJECT COST (UGX) | AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ENGRS BDE (UGX) | AMOUNT RELEASED TO THE PROJECT (UGX) | AVAILABLE BALANCE (UGX) | FINANCIAL PERFORMANC E | PHYSICAL PERFORMAN CE | REMAR KS |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------|:---------------------|:-------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------|:--------------------------|:-------------------------|:------------------------|:-----------|\n| 0 | 60 | Renovation of the OPD at Kizigo HC II | Lugazi Municipality | 39,935,444 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 |\n| 1 | 61 | Renovation of Najjembe HC III Staff Quarters | | 23,500,253 | | | | | | |\n| 2 | 62 | Construction of an incenerator at Najjembe HC III | | 16,581,902 | | | | | | |\n| 3 | 63 | Construction of OPD Block & 2 stance latrine at Kigara HC II | Isingiro District | 210,664,767 | 1,285,941,18 6 | 642,970,593 | 642,970,593 | 50% | 48% | WIP |\n| 4 | 64 | Construction of OPD Block & 2 stance latrine at Kagaga HC II | | 188,306,650 | | | | | | |\n| 5 | 65 | Construction of OPD Blockk & 2 stance latrine at Kyabahesi HC II | | 181,644,150 | | | | | | |\n| 6 | 66 | Construction of OPD Block & 2 stance linned latrine at Burunduma | | 178,124,150 | | | | | | |\n| 7 | 67 | Construction of OPD Block & 2 stance latrine at Rwantaha | | 180,722,150 | | | | | | |\n| 8 | 68 | Construction of OPD Block & a 2 stance lined latrine atWanjojera | | 187,884,025 | | | | | | |\n| 9 | 69 | Repairs & maintainence of Health office block at District HQs | | 50,147,600 | | | | | | |\n| 10 | 70 | Construction of a 2 bedroomed twin staff house & a 2 stance lined latrine at Kyarumunga HC II | | 158,462,300 | | | | | | |\n| 11 | 71 | Construction of a 2 Bedroom twin staff house & a 2 stance lined latrined at Rwakakwenda HC II | | 157,179,800 | | | | | | |\n| 12 | 72 | Construction Works at Female Ward at Kityerera HC IV | Mayuge District | 344,197,767 | 337,448,791 | 153,992,434 | 183,456,357 | 45% | 38% | WIP |\n| 13 | 73 | Construction of a maternity ward at Buwambo HC IV | Nansana Municipality | 567,886,800 | 307,984,868 | 30,000,000 | 277,984,868 | 5% | 15% | WIP |\n| 14 | 74 | Construction Works at Muwangi HC II | Kyankwanzi District | 370,235,033 | 370,235,033 | 185,000,000 | 185,235,033 | 50% | 48% | WIP |\n| 15 | 75 | Functionalisation of Kachumbala HC IV | Bukedea District | 1,773,095,134 | 1,773,095,13 4 | 822,000,000 | 951,095,134 | 46% | 33% | WIP |\n| 16 | 76 | Constrn of Operation Theatre at Bitereko HC III | Mitooma District | 1,031,793,148 | 309,537,944 | 287,870,288 | 21,667,656 | 28% | 35% | WIP |\n| 17 | 77 | Constrn of Operation Theatre & Mortury at Rutete HC III | Kabarole District | 326,245,846 | 311,778,181 | 97,540,822 | 214,237,359 | 30% | 48% | WIP |", "metadata": {"page": 358, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 78 | Renovation of maternity ward at Nambieso Health Centre III | Kwania District | 77,895,965 | 148,499,903 | 106,152,432 | 42,347,472 | 50% | 65% | WIP |\n|---:|:-----|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------|:----------------|:----------------|:---------------|:---------------|:------|:------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 79.0 | Construction of mortuary at Aduku Health Centre III | | 70,603,938 | | | - | | | |\n| 1 | 80.0 | Construction of a theatre at Kataraka HC IV | Fortportal City | 685,000,000 | 685,000,000 | 316,812,500 | 368,187,500 | 46% | 20% | WIP |\n| 2 | 81.0 | Construction of a maternity ward at Karambi HC III | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | 82.0 | Fencing Magada HC III | Namutumba | 157,217,180 | 157,217,180 | 73,105,988 | 84,111,192 | 46% | 10% | Mobilizati on |\n| 4 | 83.0 | Partial Fencing Bulange HC III | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | 84.0 | Renovation of Kiranga HC II | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | 85.0 | Renovation of ADHO's Office at District HQs | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | 86.0 | Renovation of Kisumu HC II | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | 87.0 | Construction of Placenta Pit at Nagonde HC II | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | 88.0 | Construction of Placenta Pit at Kiranga HC II | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | Total | | 14,901,441,74 8 | 12,168,409 ,694 | 6,819,552, 726 | 5,348,856, 968 | | | |", "metadata": {"page": 359, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------|:--------------|:--------------------|:------------|:--------------|:---------------|:------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Rehabilitation and Construction of infrastructure investments | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | USMID-AF Operations | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Total | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n| 1 | SN | Entity Name | Release | Expenditure | % absorp tion | Release | Expenditure | % absorp tion | Release | Expenditure (UGX) | % absorption |\n| 2 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 4,853,248,410 | 338,536,708 | 7% | 0 | 0 | 0% | 4,853,248,410 | 338,536,708 | 7% |\n| 3 | 2 | Arua DLG | 1,463,289,437 | 0 | 0% | 300,000,000 | 41,849,600 | 14% | 1,763,289,437 | 41,849,600 | 2% |\n| 4 | 3 | Isingiro DLG | 9,434,605,852 | 0 | 0% | 1,048,178,428 | 10,165,005 | 1% | 10,482,784,280 | 10,165,005 | 0% |\n| 5 | 4 | Kamwenge DLG | 4,914,506,357 | 0 | 0% | 29,765,500 | 29,765,500 | 100% | 4,944,271,857 | 29,765,500 | 1% |\n| 6 | 5 | Kiryandongo DLG | 5,544,916,324 | 0 | 0% | 32,200,200 | 32,200,200 | 100% | 5,577,116,524 | 32,200,200 | 1% |\n| 7 | 6 | Lamwo DLG | 3,350,000,000 | 635,586,050 | 19% | 325,725,859 | 40,525,300 | 12% | 3,675,725,859 | 676,111,350 | 18% |\n| 8 | 7 | Madi Okollo DLG | 2,991,756,515 | 727,705,114 | 24% | 95,000,000 | 93,941,000 | 99% | 3,086,756,515 | 821,646,114 | 27% |\n| 9 | 8 | Moyo DLG | 1,095,371,099 | 675,680,828 | 62% | 0 | 0 | 0% | 1,095,371,099 | 675,680,828 | 62% |\n| 10 | 9 | Obongi DLG | 1,947,326,000 | 1,477,193,598 | 76% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,947,326,000 | 1,477,193,598 | 76% |\n| 11 | 10 | Terego DLG | 3,570,661,110 | 1,132,137,519 | 32% | 396,740,124 | 244,909,502 | 62% | 3,967,401,234 | 1,377,047,021 | 35% |\n| 12 | 11 | Yumbe DLG | 8,317,933,336 | 2,400,868,250 | 29% | 408,272,902 | 408,272,902 | 100% | 8,726,206,238 | 2,809,141,152 | 32% |", "metadata": {"page": 359, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------|:---------------|:------------------------------|:----------------------|:---------------|:---------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Rehabilitation and Construction of Infrastructure Investments 2020/21 | Unnamed: 3 | Rehabilitation and Construction of Infrastructure Investments 2021/22 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 | Unnamed: 11 |\n| 1 | SN | Entity Name | Amount Released | Numb er of planne d projec ts | Amount Released | Amount spent | Un-utilised | Num ber of plan ned proje cts | Partially implemented | nan | Un-implemented | nan |\n| 2 | 1 | Adjumani DLG | 12,347,521,704 | 8 | 4,853,248,410 | 338,536,708 | 4,514,711,702 | 3 | 3 | 4,853,248,410 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 2 | Arua DLG | 15,399,557,319 | 8 | 1,463,289,437 | 0 | 1,463,289,437 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1,463,289,437 |\n| 4 | 3 | Isingiro DLG | 6,947,343,000 | 6 | 9,434,605,852 | 0 | 9,434,605,852 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 9,434,605,852 |\n| 5 | 4 | Kamwenge DLG | 6,970,678,105 | 6 | 4,944,271,857 | 29,765,500 | 4,914,506,357 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4,944,271,857 |\n| 6 | 5 | Kiryandongo DLG | 4,747,486,820 | 9 | 5,544,916,324 | 0 | 5,544,916,324 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 5,544,916,324 |\n| 7 | 6 | Lamwo DLG | 0 | 0 | 3,350,000,000 | 635,586,050 | 2,714,413,950 | 4 | 2 | 3,350,000,000 | 2 | 2,200,000,000 |\n| 8 | 7 | Madi Okollo DLG | 0 | 0 | 2,990,756,515 | 727,705,114 | 2,263,051,401 | 8 | 5 | 2,991,756,515 | 3 | 0 |\n| 9 | 8 | Moyo DLG | 1,162,000,000 | 1 | 1,095,371,099 | 675,680,828 | 419,690,271 | 1 | 1 | 1,095,371,099 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 9 | Obongi DLG | 2,365,018,000 | 3 | 1,947,326,000 | 1,477,193,000 | 470,133,000 | 3 | 3 | 1,947,326,000 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 10 | Terego DLG | 0 | 0 | 3,570,661,110 | 1,132,137,519 | 2,438,523,591 | 4 | 3 | 3,570,661,110 | 1 | 0 |\n| 12 | 11 | Yumbe DLG | 10,671,408,000 | 5 | 8,317,933,336 | 2,809,141,152 | 5,508,792,184 | 5 | 5 | 8,317,933,336 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | nan | Total | 60,611,012,948 | 46 | 47,512,379,940 | 7,825,745,871 | 39,686,634,069 | 53 | 22 | 26,126,296,470 | 31 | 23,587,083,470 |", "metadata": {"page": 360, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |\n|---:|:-----|:-----------------|:--------------------------------|:------------------------|:------------------|:---------------|:-----------------|:--------------------------------|:-------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------|:-----------------------------------------|:--------------------|\n| 0 | S N | Entity Name | Funding and absorption of funds | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Delayed contract implementation | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 | Unreleased previous year committed funds | Unnamed: 12 |\n| 1 | nan | nan | Approved budget (UGX) | Warrants/ Release (UGX) | Expenditure (UGX) | % abso rptio n | Unutilized Funds | Start date | Con trac t peri od in FY | Status (Complet ed, Partially complete d, Not started) | Unspent balance FY 2020/2021 | Amount re- voted FY 2021/2022 | Amount un- re-voted |\n| 2 | 1.0 | Arua City | 11,136,490,022 | 11,136,490,022 | 11,133,069,900 | 100% | 3,420,122 | Jan-22 | 5 | Partial | - | - | - |\n| 3 | 2.0 | Fort Portal City | 9,147,407,697 | 9,147,407,697 | 4,634,251,113 | 51% | 4,513,156,584 | Apr-22 | 2 | Partial | - | - | - |\n| 4 | 3.0 | Hoima City | 17,436,501,888 | 17,436,501,888 | 12,832,857,565 | 74% | 4,603,644,323 | nan | nan | Partial | 30,153,131,886 | - | 30,153,131,88 6 |\n| 5 | 4.0 | Jinja City | 14,018,316,913 | 14,018,316,913 | 9,489,145,161 | 68% | 4,529,171,752 | 02/03/2022 | 3 | Not started | 1,714,473,110 | - | 1,714,473,110 |\n| 6 | 5.0 | Kamuli MC | 13,148,341,701 | 13,148,341,701 | 7,000,932,883 | 53% | 6,147,408,818 | 0 | 0 | Not started | nan | nan | - |\n| 7 | 6.0 | Lugazi MC | 18,019,273,284 | 18,019,273,284 | 11,032,843,665 | 61% | 6,986,429,619 | 0 | 0 | Not started | nan | nan | - |\n| 8 | 7.0 | Masaka City | 14,445,481,454 | 14,445,481,454 | 13,845,481,453 | 96% | 600,000,001 | 12/05/2021 | 13 | Partial | 19,529,858,900 | 14,445,481,454 | 5,084,377,446 |\n| 9 | 8.0 | Mbale City | 18,797,865,000 | 18,797,865,000 | 18,684,130,139 | 99% | 113,734,861 | 20/11/2020 | 19 | Partial | - | - | - |\n| 10 | 9.0 | Mubende MC | 19,123,795,715 | 19,123,795,715 | 15,277,674,152 | 80% | 3,846,121,563 | 08/05/2021 | 13 | Partial | 26,879,987,744 | 19,123,795,715 | 7,756,192,029 |\n| 11 | 10.0 | Soroti City | 10,860,092,650 | 10,860,092,650 | 10,798,602,908 | 99% | 61,489,742 | 19/10/2020 | 20 | Partial | - | - | - |\n| 12 | 11.0 | Tororo City | 10,187,945,000 | 10,187,945,000 | 10,167,009,589 | 100% | 20,935,411 | 28/01/2021 | 17 | Partial | - | - | - |\n| 13 | nan | Total | 156,321,511,324 | 156,321,511,324 | 124,895,998,528 | nan | 31,425,512,796 | nan | nan | nan | 78,277,451,640 | 33,569,277,169 | 44,708,174,471 |", "metadata": {"page": 361, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Infrastructure Projects, including Physical Planning and land titling | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Performance Improvement | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Investment Servicing and Monitoring | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------|:--------------------|:----------------------------------------|:--------------------|:--------------------|:----------------------------------------|:-------------------|:--------------------|\n| 0 | | | Actual expenditure per Expenditure item | Actual Allocat ion | Allocation variance | Actual expenditure per Expenditure item | Actu al Alloc ation | Allocation variance | Actual expenditure per Expenditure item | Actual Allocat ion | Allocation variance |\n| 1 | 1 | Bundibugyo DLG | 268,592,000 | 74% | Outside threshold | 51,674,000 | 14% | Outside threshold | 41,900,000 | 12% | Outside threshold |\n| 2 | 2 | Kyenjojo DLG | 407,749,461 | 76% | Outside threshold | 47,000,000 | 9% | Within threshold | 80,756,838 | 15% | Outside threshold |\n| 3 | Wakiso DLG | 225,000,000 | 52% | Outside threshold | 15,000,000 | 3% | Within threshold | 189,356,091 | 44% | Outside threshold | |\n| 4 | 4 | Bunyangabu DLG | 233,216,284 | 79% | Outside threshold | 30,237,300 | 10% | Outside threshold | 32,442,400 | 11% | Outside threshold |\n| 5 | 5 | Nakasongola DLG | 266,052,402 | 75% | Outside threshold | 53,210,480 | 15% | Outside threshold | 35,473,654 | 10% | Outside threshold |\n| 6 | 6 | Mityana DLG | 348,107,461 | 72% | Outside threshold | 53,493,203 | 11% | Outside threshold | 84,676,617 | 17% | Outside threshold |\n| 7 | 7 | Ntoroko DLG | 122,978,000 | 64% | Outside threshold | 49,175,000 | 26% | Outside threshold | 19,023,000 | 10% | Within threshold |\n| 8 | | Total | 1,871,695,608 | 70% | | 299,789,983 | 13% | | 483,628,600 | 17% | |", "metadata": {"page": 362, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------|:--------------|:--------------|:--------------|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------|:----------------|:------------------------------------|\n| 0 | SN | Entity Name | Total Funding | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Infrastructure Projects, including Physical Planning and Land Titling | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 |\n| 1 | nan | nan | Budget | Released | Expenditure | % Absorption | Planned activities | Actual activities implemented | Un- implemented | Value of un- implemented activities |\n| 2 | 1 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 1,267,741,700 | 1,267,741,700 | 1,266,623,782 | 100% | 12 | 12 | 0 | nan |\n| 3 | 2 | Kyegegwa DLG | 1,931,586,000 | 1,931,586,000 | 1,918,767,748 | 99% | nan | nan | 0 | nan |\n| 4 | 3 | Bundibugyo DLG | 1,038,426,579 | 1,038,426,579 | 1,038,426,579 | 100% | 15 | 15 | 0 | nan |\n| 5 | 4 | Kasese DLG | 2,321,758,202 | 2,285,424,852 | 2,285,424,852 | 100% | 6 | 6 | 0 | nan |\n| 6 | 5 | Kyenjojo DLG | 2,143,515,541 | 2,143,525,541 | 1,867,516,712 | 87% | 6 | 5 | 1 | 152,101,471 |\n| 7 | 6 | Mukono DLG | 1,944,284,484 | 1,944,284,484 | 1,944,284,484 | 100% | 6 | 6 | 0 | nan |\n| 8 | Wakiso DLG | 1,234,586,967 | 1,234,586,967 | 1,124,586,967 | 91% | 3 | 2 | 1 | 100,000,000 | nan |\n| 9 | 8 | Nakaseke DLG | 943,169,464 | 933,178,464 | 933,178,464 | 100% | 5 | 5 | 0 | nan |\n| 10 | 9 | Kayunga DLG | 1,952,328,754 | 1,952,418,754 | 1,952,328,754 | 100% | 18 | 18 | 0 | nan |\n| 11 | 10 | Kabarole DLG | 1,178,354,709 | 1,178,354,709 | 1,148,825,103 | 97% | 5 | 5 | 0 | nan |\n| 12 | 11 | Bunyangabu DLG | 867,098,000 | 867,098,000 | 833,928,841 | 96% | 7 | 3 | 4 | 109,344,522 |\n| 13 | 12 | Nakasongola DLG | 994,681,700 | 994,681,700 | 994,681,700 | 100% | 4 | 2 | 2 | 66,796,861 |\n| 14 | 13 | Mityana DLG | 1,234,868,818 | 1,231,058,816 | 1,230,755,506 | 100% | 5 | 5 | 0 | nan |\n| 15 | 14 | Kiboga DLG | 819,532,000 | 819,532,000 | 819,532,000 | 100% | nan | nan | 0 | nan |\n| 16 | 15 | Mubende DLG | 1,989,903,534 | 1,989,903,534 | 1,989,903,534 | 100% | nan | nan | 0 | nan |\n| 17 | 16 | Kassanda DLG | 1,353,538,052 | 1,353,538,052 | 1,353,538,052 | 100% | 4 | 4 | 0 | nan |", "metadata": {"page": 362, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 17 | Luwero DLG | 1,917,397,000 | 1,917,397,000.1 | 1,916,857,000 | 100% | 11 | 11.1 | 0 | Unnamed: 9 |\n|---:|:-----|:-------------|:----------------|:------------------|:----------------|:-------|-----:|-------:|----:|:-------------|\n| 0 | 18.0 | Ntoroko DLG | 494,183,000 | 494,183,000 | 495,138,000 | 100% | 2 | 1 | 1 | 92,978,000 |\n| 1 | | Total | 25,626,954,504 | 25,576,920,152 | 25,114,298,078 | 98% | 109 | 100 | 9 | 521,220,854 |", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Performance Improvement Activities | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Investment Servicing and Monitoring | Unnamed: 7 | Transfers of LRDP funds to the LLGs | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------|:-------------------------------------|:----------------------------|:----------------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:--------------------------------------|:--------------------------|:--------------------------------------|:-------------------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | | | Number of planned activities | Number of actual activities | Implementation of ineligible activities | | No. of planne d activiti es | No. of actual activiti es | Expected transfer to LLGs 65% | Actual transfers to LLGs | Variance |\n| 1 | | | | | No. of ineligible Activities | Amount of ineligible activities | | | | | |\n| 2 | 1 | Kyankwanzi DLG | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 824,032,105 | 819,274,368 | 4,757,737 |\n| 3 | 2 | Kyegegwa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,255,530,900 | 1,131,346,000 | 124,184,900 |\n| 4 | 3 | Bundibugyo DLG | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3,000,000 | 5 | 5 | 674,977,276 | 674,977,276 | 0 |\n| 5 | 4 | Kasese DLG | 1 | 1 | | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1,485,526,154 | 1,479,319,000 | 6,207,154 |\n| 6 | 5 | Kyenjojo DLG | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 1,393,291,602 | 1,332,010,413 | 61,281,189 |\n| 7 | 6 | Mukono DLG | 9 | 9 | | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1,263,784,915 | 1,081,481,484 | 182,303,431 |\n| 8 | Wakiso DLG | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 802,481,529 | 695,230,876 | 107,250,653 | |\n| 9 | 8 | Nakaseke DLG | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 606,566,002 | 606,566,002 | 0 |\n| 10 | 9 | Kayunga DLG | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 1,269,072,190 | 1,147,877,991 | 121,194,199 |\n| 11 | 10 | Kabarole DLG | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 765,930,561 | 615,990,709 | 149,939,852 |\n| 12 | 11 | Bunyangabu DLG | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 563,613,700 | 538,032,857 | 25,580,843 |\n| 13 | 12 | Nakasongola DLG | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 646,543,105 | 639,945,164 | 6,597,941 |\n| 14 | 13 | Mityana DLG | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 800,188,230 | 744,478,225 | 55,710,005 |\n| 15 | 14 | Kiboga DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 532,695,800 | 531,532,000 | 1,163,800 |\n| 16 | 15 | Mubende DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,293,437,297 | 1,129,817,468 | 163,619,829 |\n| 17 | 16 | Kassanda DLG | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 879,799,734 | 871,639,052 | 8,160,682 |\n| 18 | 17 | Luwero DLG | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 1,246,308,050 | 1,137,134,046 | 109,174,004 |\n| 19 | 18 | Ntoroko DLG | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 321,218,950 | 303,962,000 | 17,256,950 |\n| 20 | | Total | 70 | 70 | 1 | 3,000,000 | 53 | 53 | 16,624,998,099 | 15,480,614,931 | 1,144,383,168 |", "metadata": {"page": 363, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Total amount received | Amount transferred to LLGS | Retained at the HLG | Budget (HLG roads) | Variance | % performance |\n|---:|-----:|:-------------------|:------------------------|:-----------------------------|:----------------------|:---------------------|:------------|:----------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Alebtong DLG | 336,463,117 | 124,730,908 | 211,732,209 | 402,031,328 | 190,299,119 | 53% |\n| 1 | 2 | Amolatar DLG | 331,885,110 | 155,277,564 | 176,607,546 | 336,224,000 | 159,616,454 | 53% |\n| 2 | 3 | Amuria DLG | 345,774,755 | 161,699,571 | 184,075,184 | 424,535,000 | 240,459,816 | 43% |\n| 3 | 4 | Arua DLG | 164,956,449 | 31,696,000 | 133,260,449 | 253,613,790 | 120,353,341 | 53% |\n| 4 | 5 | Bududa DLG | 670,148,414 | 519,111,845 | 151,036,569 | 287,444,480 | 136,407,911 | 53% |\n| 5 | 6 | Buhweju DLG | 221,095,000 | 101,762,000 | 119,333,000 | 227,111,000 | 107,778,000 | 53% |\n| 6 | 7 | Buikwe DLG | 1,013,737,880 | 695,936,777 | 317,801,103 | 628,820,218 | 311,019,115 | 51% |\n| 7 | 8 | Bukedea DLG | 345,774,755 | 161,699,571 | 184,075,184 | 350,321,032 | 166,245,848 | 53% |\n| 8 | 9 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 282,957,645 | 95,773,000 | 187,184,645 | 356,644,352 | 169,459,707 | 52% |\n| 9 | 10 | Bukwo DLG | 191,405,988 | 69,698,405 | 121,707,583 | 231,391,410 | 109,683,827 | 53% |\n| 10 | 11 | Bulambuli DLG | 288,278,571 | 166,331,220 | 121,947,351 | 232,083,000 | 110,135,649 | 53% |\n| 11 | 12 | Bundibugyo DLG | 589,482,682 | 367,288,018 | 222,194,664 | 422,868,000 | 200,673,336 | 53% |\n| 12 | 13 | Bushenyi Ishaka MC | 470,031,981 | 0 | 470,031,981 | 673,951,000 | 203,919,019 | 70% |\n| 13 | 14 | Busia MC | 363,873,000 | 0 | 363,873,000 | 549,347,000 | 185,474,000 | 66% |\n| 14 | 15 | Butaleja DLG | 294,837,449 | 142,399,303 | 152,438,146 | 329,792,000 | 177,353,854 | 46% |\n| 15 | 16 | Butambala DLG | 269,818,545 | 104,590,271 | 165,228,274 | 348,326,000 | 183,097,726 | 47% |\n| 16 | 17 | Butebo DLG | 164,796,294 | 44,503,138 | 120,293,156 | 228,934,839 | 108,641,683 | 53% |\n| 17 | 18 | Entebbe MC | 936,074,161 | 0 | 936,074,161 | 1,342,581,000 | 406,506,839 | 70% |\n| 18 | 19 | Fort Portal City | 571,923,518 | 0 | 571,923,518 | 819,436,000 | 247,512,482 | 70% |\n| 19 | 20 | Gomba DLG | 316,809,711 | 97,468,502 | 219,341,209 | 417,437,000 | 198,095,791 | 53% |\n| 20 | 21 | Hoima DLG | 277,889,791 | 94,092,354 | 183,797,437 | 378,930,000 | 195,132,563 | 49% |\n| 21 | 22 | Ibanda DLG | 714,470,171 | 533,639,854 | 180,830,317 | 344,145,543 | 163,315,226 | 53% |\n| 22 | 23 | Iganga DLG | 227,293,000 | 66,048,000 | 161,245,000 | 330,317,000 | 169,072,000 | 49% |\n| 23 | 24 | Iganga MC | 465,029,000 | 0 | 465,029,000 | 670826000 | 205,797,000 | 69% |\n| 24 | 25 | Kabarole DLG | 398,231,897 | 197,296,987 | 200,934,910 | 393,371,000 | 192,436,090 | 51% |\n| 25 | 26 | Kaberamaido DLG | 165,457,780 | 78,979,290 | 86,478,490 | 164,599,980 | 78,121,490 | 53% |\n| 26 | 27 | Kakumiro DLG | 376,143,290 | 160,955,323 | 215,187,967 | 409,540,126 | 194,352,159 | 53% |\n| 27 | 28 | Kalaki DLG | 124,741,409 | 47,729,421 | 77,011,988 | 146,564,673 | 69,552,685 | 53% |\n| 28 | 29 | Kamwenge DLG | 704,213,234 | 115,885,008 | 588,328,226 | 733,613,100 | 145,284,874 | 80% |\n| 29 | 30 | Kapelebyong DLG | 130,310,301 | 36,051,561 | 94,258,740 | 179,388,000 | 85,129,260 | 53% |\n| 30 | 31 | katakwi DLG | 258,936,063 | 89,328,293 | 169,607,770 | 322,787,501 | 153,179,731 | 53% |\n| 31 | 32 | Kayunga DLG | 535,752,747 | 140,083,934 | 395,668,813 | 703,764,575 | 308,095,762 | 56% |\n| 32 | 33 | Kibuku DLG | 253,694,989 | 88,566,494 | 165,128,495 | 314,267,000 | 149,138,505 | 53% |\n| 33 | 34 | Kikuube DLG | 289,941,000 | 116,958,000 | 172,983,000 | 341,822,000 | 168,839,000 | 51% |\n| 34 | 35 | Kira MC | 1,308,862,577 | 0 | 1,308,862,577 | 1,876,701,000 | 567,838,423 | 70% |", "metadata": {"page": 364, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Total amount received | Amount transferred to LLGS | Retained at the HLG | Budget (HLG roads) | Variance | % performance |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------------|:------------------------|:-----------------------------|:----------------------|:---------------------|:--------------|:----------------|\n| 0 | 36 | Kiruhura DLG | 334,138,515 | 177,017,321 | 157,121,194 | 299,023,788 | 141,902,594 | 53% |\n| 1 | 37 | Kisoro DLG | 285,040,000 | 72,449,000 | 212,591,000 | 406,545,000 | 193,954,000 | 52% |\n| 2 | 38 | Kisoro MC | 278,913,239 | 0 | 278,913,239 | 399,917,226 | 121,003,987 | 70% |\n| 3 | 39 | Koboko DLG | 221,203,822 | 49,348,567 | 171,855,255 | 327,064,728 | 155,209,473 | 53% |\n| 4 | 40 | Koboko MC | 315,231,787 | 0 | 315,231,787 | 451,992,245 | 136,760,458 | 70% |\n| 5 | 41 | Kole DLG | 266,810,620 | 98,770,321 | 168,040,299 | 319,804,000 | 151,763,701 | 53% |\n| 6 | 42 | Kumi DLG | 340,670,714 | 48,678,744 | 291,991,970 | 555,701,892 | 263,709,922 | 53% |\n| 7 | 43 | Kumi MC | 262,813,204 | 0 | 262,813,204 | 376,832,336 | 114,019,132 | 70% |\n| 8 | 44 | Kyegegwa DLG | 305,905,886 | 119741701 | 186,164,185 | 354,296,695 | 168,132,510 | 53% |\n| 9 | 45 | Kyenjojo DLG | 655,459,000 | 358,566,020 | 296,892,980 | 565,029,847 | 268,136,867 | 53% |\n| 10 | 46 | Kyotera DLG | 1,294,908,115 | 1,039,408,115 | 255,500,000 | 487,513,000 | 232,013,000 | 52% |\n| 11 | 47 | Lamwo DLG | 898,740,497 | 195,289,497 | 703,451,000 | 1,040,789,000 | 337,338,000 | 68% |\n| 12 | 48 | Lira City | 703,934,000 | 0 | 703,934,000 | 884,859,000 | 180,925,000 | 80% |\n| 13 | 49 | Lira DLG | 266,810,620 | 98,770,321 | 168,040,299 | 319,804,000 | 151,763,701 | 53% |\n| 14 | 50 | Lugazi MC | 329,904,000 | 0 | 329,904,000 | 483,982,449 | 154,078,449 | 68% |\n| 15 | 51 | Luuka DLG | 373,970,000 | 119,134,000 | 254,836,000 | 300,249,000 | 45,413,000 | 85% |\n| 16 | 52 | Lwengo DLG | 406,657,359 | 175,573,010 | 231,084,349 | 467,436,757 | 236,352,408 | 49% |\n| 17 | 53 | Lyantonde DLG | 276,150,182 | 77,387,884 | 198,762,298 | 333,344,000 | 134,581,702 | 60% |\n| 18 | 54 | Makindye Ssabagabo MC | 1,812,621,000 | 0 | 1,812,621,000 | 2,910,073,000 | 1,097,452,000 | 62% |\n| 19 | 55 | Manafwa DLG | 238,699,614 | 135,707,239 | 102,992,375 | 196,009,013 | 93,016,638 | 53% |\n| 20 | 56 | Masaka City | 730,096,205 | 0 | 730,096,205 | 1,012,331,246 | 282,235,041 | 72% |\n| 21 | 57 | Masaka DLG | 251,898,601 | 35,185,601 | 216,713,000 | 452,981,732 | 236,268,732 | 48% |\n| 22 | 58 | Masindi MC | 384,358,750 | 0 | 384,358,750 | 551,109,000 | 166,750,250 | 70% |\n| 23 | 59 | Mitooma DLG | 285,542,278 | 104,181,130 | 181,361,148 | 345,212,490 | 163,851,342 | 53% |\n| 24 | 60 | Mityana MC | 365,845,634 | 0 | 365,845,634 | 530,846,654 | 165,001,020 | 69% |\n| 25 | 61 | Moroto DLG | 171,024,000 | 35,091,000 | 135,933,000 | 258,699,000 | 122,766,000 | 53% |\n| 26 | 62 | Moroto MC | 292,886,720 | 0 | 292,886,720 | 419,953,000 | 127,066,280 | 70% |\n| 27 | 63 | Moyo DLG | 321,375,836 | 141,092,832 | 180,283,004 | 389,738,585 | 209,455,581 | 46% |\n| 28 | 64 | Mpigi DLG | 443,564,870 | 149,974,506 | 293,590,364 | 558,781,000 | 265,190,636 | 53% |\n| 29 | 65 | Mubende DLG | 987,718,000 | 711,899,000 | 275,819,000 | 527,562,000 | 251,743,000 | 52% |\n| 30 | 66 | Mubende MC | 412,454,688 | 0 | 412,454,688 | 579785757 | 167,331,069 | 71% |\n| 31 | 67 | Mukono DLG | 859,766,863 | 418,935,863 | 440,831,000 | 844,611,000 | 403,780,000 | 52% |\n| 32 | 68 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 220,769,575 | 80,586,457 | 140,183,118 | 266,788,243 | 126,605,125 | 53% |\n| 33 | 69 | Nakaseke DLG | 781,653,176 | 512,027,528 | 269,625,648 | 519,464,464 | 249,838,816 | 52% |\n| 34 | 70 | Nakasongola DLG | 503,391,000 | 216,672,000 | 286,719,000 | 545,669,090 | 258,950,090 | 53% |\n| 35 | 71 | Namisindwa DLG | 330,423,565 | 145,949,746 | 184,473,819 | 349,275,000 | 164,801,181 | 53% |", "metadata": {"page": 365, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | SN | Entity Name | Total amount received | Amount transferred to LLGS | Retained at the HLG | Budget (HLG roads) | Variance | % performance |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------|:------------------------|:-----------------------------|:----------------------|:---------------------|:---------------|:----------------|\n| 0 | 72.0 | Namutumba DLG | 310,009,220 | 115,018,105 | 194,991,115 | 371,095,590 | 176,104,475 | 53% |\n| 1 | 73.0 | Nansana MC | 5,081,443,000 | 0 | 5,081,443,000 | 6,134,779,000 | 1,053,336,000 | 83% |\n| 2 | 74.0 | Napak DLG | 169,812,995 | 0 | 169,812,995 | 328,345,000 | 158,532,005 | 52% |\n| 3 | 75.0 | Nebbi MC | 287,592,164 | 0 | 287,592,164 | 415,520,484 | 127,928,320 | 69% |\n| 4 | 76.0 | Ngora DLG | 250,713,080 | 85,576,530 | 165,136,550 | 236,767,000 | 71,630,450 | 70% |\n| 5 | 77.0 | Njeru MC | 494,711,006 | 0 | 494,711,006 | 709,336,904 | 214,625,898 | 70% |\n| 6 | 78.0 | Ntoroko DLG | 409,144,738 | 272,346,920 | 136,797,818 | 248,545,000 | 111,747,182 | 55% |\n| 7 | 79.0 | Ntungamo MC | 327,470,000 | 0 | 327,470,000 | 474,662,000 | 147,192,000 | 69% |\n| 8 | 80.0 | Otuke DLG | 112,053,000 | 31,704,000 | 80,349,000 | 212,721,000 | 132,372,000 | 38% |\n| 9 | 81.0 | Oyam DLG | 365,420,462 | 140,076,084 | 225,344,378 | 428,862,000 | 203,517,622 | 53% |\n| 10 | 82.0 | Oyam DLG | 365,420,462 | 140,076,084 | 225,344,378 | 428,862,000 | 203,517,622 | 53% |\n| 11 | 83.0 | Pakwach DLG | 525,378,571 | 374,035,156 | 151,343,415 | 288,771,487 | 137,428,072 | 52% |\n| 12 | 84.0 | Pallisa DLG | 312,392,594 | 141,054,394 | 171,338,200 | 326,139,455 | 154,801,255 | 53% |\n| 13 | 85.0 | Rubanda DLG | 327,104,128 | 114,229,570 | 212,874,558 | 405,130,299 | 192,255,741 | 53% |\n| 14 | 86.0 | Rubirizi DLG | 280,690,311 | 128,143,181 | 152,547,130 | 290,437,607 | 137,890,477 | 53% |\n| 15 | 87.0 | Rukiga DLG | 290,952,317 | 67,482,482 | 223,469,835 | 164,170,000 | 059,299,835 | 136% |\n| 16 | 88.0 | Rukungiri DLG | 504,582,056 | 167,339,704 | 337,242,352 | 513,877,491 | 176,635,139 | 66% |\n| 17 | 89.0 | Rwampara DLG | 584,691,500 | 39,661,500 | 545,030,000 | 738,419,000 | 193,389,000 | 74% |\n| 18 | 90.0 | Sembabule DLG | 658,750,762 | 347,546,954 | 311,203,808 | 592,264,729 | 281,060,921 | 53% |\n| 19 | 91.0 | Serere DLG | 407,662,982 | 234,635,349 | 173,027,633 | 295,038,000 | 122,010,367 | 59% |\n| 20 | 92.0 | Sironko DLG | 399,815,539 | 165,809,536 | 234,006,003 | 484,106,602 | 250,100,599 | 48% |\n| 21 | 93.0 | Soroti DLG | 305,981,778 | 54,124,908 | 251,856,870 | 479,319,040 | 227,462,170 | 53% |\n| 22 | 94.0 | Tororo DLG | 570,502,278 | 211,125,748 | 359,376,530 | 702,216,000 | 342,839,470 | 51% |\n| 23 | 95.0 | Tororo MC | 369,649,141 | 0 | 369,649,141 | 530,031,000 | 160,381,859 | 70% |\n| 24 | 96.0 | Zombo DLG | 367,531,172 | 186,470,394 | 181,060,778 | 344,613,652 | 163,552,874 | 53% |\n| 25 | | Total | 45,691,919,465 | 13,139,474,615 | 32,552,444,851 | 51,950,635,524 | 19,398,190,673 | 63% |", "metadata": {"page": 366, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |\n|---:|:-----|:-------------------|:---------------------------|:--------------------|:---------------------------|:-------------------|:-------------------------------|:--------------------|:---------------------------|:-------------------|:---------------------|:--------------------|:---------------------------|:-------------------|\n| 0 | SN | Unnamed: 1 | Routine Manual Maintenance | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Routine Mechanized Maintenance | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Periodic maintenance | Unnamed: 11 | Unnamed: 12 | Unnamed: 13 |\n| 1 | nan | Entity Name | Planne d Length (Kms) | Actual length (Kms) | Planned Annual Expenditure | Actual Expenditure | Planne d Length (Kms) | Actual length (Kms) | Planned Annual Expenditure | Actual Expenditure | Planned Length (Kms) | Actual length (Kms) | Planned Annual Expenditure | Actual Expenditure |\n| 2 | 1.0 | Alebtong DLG | 175.2 | 16 | 87,031,913 | 28,050,603 | 29.4 | 28.4 | 133,511,898 | 121,836,093 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 2.0 | Amolatar DLG | 284.4 | 0 | 35,446,000 | 0 | 67 | 56 | 220,663,000 | 134,971,776 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 3.0 | Amuria DLG | 66.2 | 39.6 | 41,630,000 | 20,042,000 | 58.4 | 22.8 | 62,409,000 | 27,495,000 | 15.9 | 0 | 71,800,000 | 0 |\n| 5 | 4.0 | Arua DLG | 146.88 | 146.88 | 31,493,000 | 26,825,000 | 8 | 5.2 | 52,291,000 | 28,001,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 5.0 | Bududa DLG | 150.8 | 150.8 | 179,075,990 | 78,367,650 | 45.5 | 23.5 | 52,316,810 | 37,894,050 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 6.0 | Buhweju DLG | 240 | 150 | 33,643,000 | 23,589,000 | 62 | 42 | 92,876,000 | 64,704,000 | 7 | 1 | 74,737,000 | 14,279,000 |\n| 8 | 7.0 | Buikwe DLG | 140 | 140 | 144,545,000 | 128,243,200 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 42 | 17.8 | 384,104,218 | 132,772,695 |\n| 9 | 8.0 | Bukedea DLG | 40 | 21.3 | 35,500,000 | 18,637,500 | 63.5 | 33.7 | 184,421,032 | 96,821,041 | 15.9 | 8.63 | 25,000,000 | 13,125,000 |\n| 10 | 9.0 | Bukomansimbi DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 68.9 | 38.5 | 286,766,352 | 151,700,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 10.0 | Bukwo DLG | 62 | 13.4 | 50,200,000 | 38,091,500 | 24 | 26 | 70,200,000 | 55,350,000 | 59 | 0 | 65,870,000 | 0 |\n| 12 | 11.0 | Bulambuli DLG | 10.5 | 2 | 6,100,000 | 4,000,000 | 67.6 | 44.7 | 71,423,000 | 65,195,000 | 6.6 | 0 | 110,000,000 | 0 |\n| 13 | 12.0 | Bundibugyo DLG | 50 | 50 | 60,600,000 | 31,750,000 | 40.2 | 38.5 | 159,400,000 | 88,516,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 13.0 | Bushenyi Ishaka MC | 10 | 4 | 51,000,000 | 15,800,000 | 51 | 45 | 274,600,000 | 246,507,981 | 36 | 17 | 130,000,000 | 46,000,000 |\n| 15 | 14.0 | Busia MC | 58 | 55.9 | 113,124,000 | 112,128,000 | 3.2 | 4 | 307,023,000 | 170,776,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 15.0 | Butaleja DLG | 193 | 0 | 40,724,000 | 0 | 65.3 | 46 | 219,960,000 | 85,580,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 17 | 16.0 | Butambala DLG | 201.9 | 137 | 43,646,000 | 9,508,000 | 105.5 | 52 | 168,990,000 | 137,795,000 | 58 | 0 | 66,900,000 | 0 |\n| 18 | 17.0 | Butebo DLG | 143.5 | 116.4 | 48,000,000 | 38,269,081 | 19.2 | 12.5 | 72,259,090 | 48,259,090 | 4 | 0 | 40,000,000 | 0 |\n| 19 | 18.0 | Entebbe MC | 36.81 | 36.81 | 156,339,000 | 172,103,000 | 1,649 | 1,710 | 129,680,000 | 123,690,000 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 916,180,000 | 496,431,000 |\n| 20 | 19.0 | Fort Portal City | 91.95 | 91.95 | 182,000,000 | 172,280,000 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 118,243,000 | 117,675,000 | 4.8 | 1 | 435,668,000 | 251,219,000 |\n| 21 | 20.0 | Gomba DLG | 93.9 | 93.9 | 85,000,000 | 65,890,000 | 35 | 12.4 | 241,677,000 | 86,524,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |\n|---:|----:|:----------------|-------:|-------:|:------------|:-----------|-------:|-------:|:------------|:------------|------:|-------:|:------------|:------------|\n| 0 | 21 | Hoima DLG | 342.4 | 333.1 | 119,200,000 | 29,200,000 | 33 | 28 | 119,870,000 | 87,651,437 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 22 | Ibanda DLG | 135.6 | 45.5 | 130,680,000 | 30,033,000 | 72.6 | 72.6 | 139,589,000 | 111,791,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 23 | Iganga DLG | 128.14 | 128.14 | 120,400,000 | 66,249,000 | 8.89 | 8.89 | 10,374,000 | 10,337,000 | 12.66 | 12.66 | 147,571,000 | 62,431,000 |\n| 3 | 24 | Iganga MC | 47.2 | 47.2 | 95,800,000 | 61,806,000 | 11.74 | 12 | 22,443,000 | 22,378,000 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 431,583,000 | 269,442,000 |\n| 4 | 25 | Kabarole DLG | 174.9 | 109.3 | 101,700,000 | 22,368,598 | 112.3 | 106 | 147,000,000 | 134,085,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 26 | Kaberamaido DLG | 310 | 0 | 34,326,000 | 1,400,000 | 10 | 10 | 92,544,000 | 53,486,490 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 6 | 27 | Kakumiro DLG | 192 | 192 | 65,101,000 | 41,228,508 | 41 | 38 | 249,450,000 | 125,367,366 | 0 | nan | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 28 | Kalaki DLG | 960 | 50 | 45,800,000 | 20,736,000 | 14 | 8.1 | 61,206,550 | 31,741,956 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 29 | Kamwenge DLG | 164.3 | 0 | 96,976,000 | 0 | 51 | 50.5 | 197,708,000 | 179,198,100 | 48.4 | 48.4 | 318,689,000 | 318,689,000 |\n| 9 | 30 | Kapelebyong DLG | 86 | 0 | 20,000,000 | 0 | nan | nan | nan | nan | 4 | 4 | 100,000,000 | 41,623,200 |\n| 10 | 31 | katakwi DLG | 167 | 0 | 70,500,000 | 0 | 17.5 | 17.5 | 155,000,000 | 129,893,397 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 32 | Kayunga DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 105.5 | 52.6 | 488,450,000 | 251,466,345 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 33 | Kibuku DLG | 89.3 | 37.6 | 103,000,000 | 43,374,000 | 51.9 | 26.4 | 141,858,000 | 72,220,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 34 | Kikuube DLG | 449 | 287 | 72,400,000 | 41,466,000 | 34 | 11 | 181,353,000 | 58,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 367, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 35 | Kira MC | 47 | 44 | 248,960,000 | 195,893,000 | 66 | 58 | 484,500,000 | 390,652,000 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 480,041,000 | 299,414,000 |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------------|--------:|-------:|:--------------|:--------------|-------:|-------:|:--------------|:--------------|-------:|------:|:--------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 36 | Kiruhura DLG | 180 | 19 | 30,000,000 | 3,600,000 | 39.9 | 49.3 | 108,000,000 | 88,572,600 | 24 | 9 | 73,000,000 | 35,466,429 |\n| 1 | 37 | Kisoro DLG | 307.2 | 142 | 164,775,000 | 72,633,000 | 145 | 73 | 145,000,000 | 99,383,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 2 | 38 | Kisoro MC | 31.8 | 40.77 | 73,800,000 | 73,350,900 | 12.37 | 12.37 | 35,000,000 | 32,274,000 | 4.55 | 2.35 | 174,099,121 | 55,485,689 |\n| 3 | 39 | Koboko DLG | 323.7 | 323.7 | 110,200,000 | 27,550,000 | 68.7 | 47 | 82,440,000 | 56,400,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 40 | Koboko MC | 82 | 82 | 53,200,000 | 49,600,000 | 16 | 16 | 72,000,000 | 72,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 41 | Kole DLG | 49 | 2 | 29,000,000 | 10,000,000 | 88 | 28 | 88,000,000 | 29,706,560 | 22 | 15.5 | 140,443,000 | 86,086,739 |\n| 6 | 42 | Kumi DLG | 1242.4 | 621.2 | 125,553,000 | 72,720,000 | 24 | 10 | 175,072,892 | 55,738,752 | 104.4 | 40.6 | 146,160,000 | 103,905,000 |\n| 7 | 43 | Kumi MC | 216 | 85 | 72,000,000 | 21,495,000 | 25.2 | 12 | 65,000,000 | 31,130,000 | 6 | 5 | 157,833,000 | 143,191,000 |\n| 8 | 44 | Kyegegwa DLG | 300 | 60 | 57,940,224 | 12,300,000 | 94 | 47 | 224,160,118 | 131,645,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 45 | Kyenjojo DLG | 410.6 | 0 | 133,000,272 | 9,750,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55.6 | 31 | 321,848,813 | 197,393,854 |\n| 10 | 46 | Kyotera DLG | 222.6 | 14 | 135,271,000 | 14,000,000 | 91.7 | 41 | 242,867,000 | 215,713,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 47 | Lamwo DLG | 105.1 | 0 | 44,816,000 | 0 | 129 | 91.7 | 157,384,000 | 142,680,000 | 15.7 | 0 | 120,000,000 | 0 |\n| 12 | 48 | Lira City | 60.92 | 80.77 | 267,000,000 | 195,892,000 | 25.1 | 31 | 386,839,000 | 337,060,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 13 | 49 | Lira DLG | 49 | 2 | 29,000,000 | 10,000,000 | 88 | 28 | 88,000,000 | 29,706,560 | 22 | 15.5 | 140,443,000 | 86,086,739 |\n| 14 | 50 | Lugazi MC | 30 | 30 | 41,400,000 | 41,400,000 | 32 | 32 | 395,680,000 | 395,680,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 51 | Luuka DLG | 175.58 | 0 | 45,150,000 | 0 | 25.6 | 24.2 | 112,661,000 | 98,734,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 52 | Lwengo DLG | 187 | 0 | 21,990,987 | 0 | 115 | 62.9 | 332,036,824 | 180,851,865 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |\n| 17 | 53 | Lyantonde DLG | 316 | 0 | 44,000,000 | 0 | 34.4 | 26 | 126,000,000 | 85,512,298 | 6 | 6 | 30,000,000 | 30,000,000 |\n| 18 | 54 | Makindye Ssabagabo MC | 25 | 10 | 90,000,000 | 25,404,000 | 0 | 10.2 | 0 | 79,996,000 | 7 | 8.2 | 760,000,000 | 366,549,000 |\n| 19 | 55 | Manafwa DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 10 | 41,700,003 | 30,325,855 | 3 | 1 | 87,900,000 | 42,349,420 |\n| 20 | 56 | Masaka City | 44.6 | 44.6 | 166,773,000 | 136,465,102 | 43.8 | 43.8 | 216,153,567 | 212,811,703 | 12 | 12 | 529,404,679 | 288,559,400 |\n| 21 | 57 | Masaka DLG | 81.57 | 0 | 47,963,160 | 4,718,000 | 98.59 | 47.89 | 275,108,990 | 134,443,000 | 4 | 4 | 36,892,215 | 36,752,000 |\n| 22 | 58 | Masindi MC | 218.7 | 115 | 215,980,000 | 117,043,850 | 42 | 39.7 | 117,600,000 | 109,053,000 | 3.7 | 3 | 76,899,000 | 49,996,000 |\n| 23 | 59 | Mitooma DLG | 69 | 5 | 60,400,000 | 700,000 | 200.5 | 116 | 216,500,490 | 137,024,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 24 | 60 | Mityana MC | 53.8 | 53.8 | 31,804,000 | 29,051,000 | 38.2 | 12.7 | 375,063,000 | 252,785,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 35 | Kira MC | 47 | 44 | 248,960,000 | 195,893,000 | 66 | 58 | 484,500,000 | 390,652,000 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 480,041,000 | 299,414,000 |\n|---:|-----:|:------------------|-------:|-------:|:--------------|:--------------|-------:|-------:|:--------------|:--------------|------:|------:|:--------------|:--------------|\n| 0 | 61 | Moroto DLG | 110 | 110 | 67,699,000 | 25,161,000 | 26 | 12 | 128,798,000 | 39,183,744 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 1 | 62 | Moroto MC | 56.8 | 56.8 | 54,200,000 | 54,200,000 | 2.93 | 2.93 | 42,855,000 | 42,855,000 | 1.22 | 0.88 | 217,000,000 | 99,232,000 |\n| 2 | 63 | Moyo DLG | 77.7 | 46.03 | 147,398,206 | 87,314,028 | 84 | 9.1 | 147,139,682 | 17,215,780 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 3 | 64 | Mpigi DLG | 60.5 | 60.5 | 49,500,000 | 35,700,000 | 97 | 40 | 377,819,000 | 193,430,250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 4 | 65 | Mubende DLG | 350 | 185 | 86,333,000 | 30,471,000 | 272.5 | 121.5 | 318,245,000 | 158,245,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 5 | 66 | Mubende MC | 113 | 113 | 55,714,000 | 55,714,000 | 75 | 75 | 127,621,757 | 106,830,190 | 12 | 12 | 234,750,000 | 90,710,498 |\n| 6 | 67 | Mukono DLG | 471.17 | 0 | 141,345,000 | 0 | 96.17 | 91.8 | 411,608,000 | 325,149,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 68 | Nakapiripirit DLG | 61 | 61 | 74,000,000 | 42,340,000 | 1 | 8 | 128,798,000 | 42,860,918 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 69 | Nakaseke DLG | 410.8 | 205.4 | 258,313,415 | 56,333,500 | 94.8 | 53 | 159,768,385 | 131,398,678 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 70 | Nakasongola DLG | 371.1 | 150.2 | 94,784,090 | 18,153,000 | 47 | 32.5 | 362,885,000 | 213,421,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 71 | Namisindwa DLG | 103 | 0 | 104,968,000 | 0 | 61.6 | 47.1 | 61,663,000 | 102,061,049 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 72 | Namutumba DLG | 263.8 | 0 | 94,723,907 | 0 | 36.7 | 30.73 | 151,367,950 | 134,013,203 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 12 | 73 | Nansana MC | 96.9 | 96.9 | 194,807,100 | 175,250,000 | 64.4 | 48.9 | 703,258,600 | 475,588,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |", "metadata": {"page": 368, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 74 | Napak DLG | 28.2 | 13.2 | 39,150,000 | 18,370,800 | 9 | 7 | 24,004,000 | 18,582,000 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 |\n|---:|:-----|:--------------|:-------|:-------|:---------------|:---------------|:------|:------|:----------------|:----------------|------:|------:|:---------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | 75.0 | Nebbi MC | 162.2 | 161.4 | 147,458,648 | 143,430,859 | 19.4 | 11.4 | 69,360,000 | 34,420,485 | 5.2 | 3.2 | 64,212,870 | 33,720,468 |\n| 1 | 76.0 | Ngora DLG | 168 | 115.9 | 190,000,000 | 94,205,000 | 50.2 | 46 | 31,400,000 | 30,103,700 | 0.6 | 0 | 15,367,000 | 0 |\n| 2 | 77.0 | Njeru MC | 148.6 | 102.6 | 167,240,000 | 156,496,313 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 31.6 | 453,529,855 | 264,080,658 |\n| 3 | 78.0 | Ntoroko DLG | 39 | 33 | 46,700,000 | 19,513,000 | 15 | 0 | 23,391,000 | 0 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 110,000,000 | 78,166,000 |\n| 4 | 79.0 | Ntungamo MC | 31 | 31 | 55,520,000 | 53,080,000 | 27 | 34 | 135,000,000 | 209,546,000 | 1 | 0 | 183,000,000 | 7,500,000 |\n| 5 | 80.0 | Otuke DLG | 150 | 0 | 101,033,000 | 0 | 28.5 | 28.5 | 55,321,000 | 54,520,000 | 2 | 1.2 | 56,367,000 | 8,870,000 |\n| 6 | 81.0 | Oyam DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.75 | 14.95 | 312,280,000 | 122,906,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 7 | 82.0 | Oyam DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.75 | 14.95 | 312,280,000 | 122,906,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 8 | 83.0 | Pakwach DLG | 268 | 22 | 84,135,524 | 11,164,179 | 26 | 22 | 130,200,000 | 108,759,076 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 9 | 84.0 | Pallisa DLG | 230 | 145.5 | 106,855,420 | 39,440,000 | 10.5 | 8.5 | 132,478,960 | 59,721,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 10 | 85.0 | Rubanda DLG | 60 | 51.7 | 49,820,000 | 38,914,400 | 72.8 | 10.7 | 140,852,689 | 26,592,512 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 11 | 86.0 | Rubirizi DLG | 128 | 35 | 48,802,000 | 14,800,000 | 36 | 31.6 | 160,000,000 | 104,417,602 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |\n| 12 | 87.0 | Rukiga DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 75 | 81,000,000 | 81,000,000 | 5 | 5 | 36,000,000 | 36,000,000 |\n| 13 | 88.0 | Rukungiri DLG | 100 | 25.9 | 136,598,000 | 39,874,738 | 183 | 28.2 | 186,208,820 | 119,761,098 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 14 | 89.0 | Rwampara DLG | 60 | 0 | 70,500,000 | 0 | 26 | 26 | 86,000,000 | 80,249,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 15 | 90.0 | Sembabule DLG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 86.64 | 41.25 | 380,790,000 | 150,000,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\n| 16 | 91.0 | Serere DLG | 379.21 | 240.1 | 173,643,000 | 70,540,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14.7 | 19.5 | 65,368,000 | 62,217,500 |\n| 17 | 92.0 | Sironko DLG | 242 | 242 | 129,511,602 | 66,204,000 | 52 | 37 | 78,000,000 | 44,033,000 | 14 | 14 | 205,795,000 | 93,321,000 |\n| 18 | 93.0 | Soroti DLG | 168.2 | 168.2 | 123,000,000 | 77,499,880 | 38.1 | 25.5 | 104,000,000 | 70,289,400 | 10.2 | 0 | 82,000,000 | 0 |\n| 19 | 94.0 | Tororo DLG | 529 | 535.3 | 215,122,000 | 72,662,000 | 128.7 | 123.1 | 183,692,000 | 175,419,370 | 114 | 0 | 170,000,000 | 0 |\n| 20 | 95.0 | Tororo MC | 72.6 | 48.4 | 172,000,000 | 92,400,000 | 28 | 30.65 | 82,000,000 | 68,221,141 | 11.2 | 18.2 | 168,000,000 | 114,378,000 |\n| 21 | 96.0 | Zombo DLG | 288 | 58 | 172,300,000 | 34,924,053 | 26 | 19 | 76,000,000 | 56,068,841 | 2 | 2 | 21,113,990 | 21,113,990 |\n| 22 | | Total | 16,067 | 7,385 | 8,494,132, 458 | 4,089,157, 242 | 6,720 | 4,924 | 15,394,408 ,459 | 10,306,553 ,352 | 845 | 378 | 8,675,569,7 61 | 4,376,557, 279 |", "metadata": {"page": 369, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Name of Entity | Status |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------|:---------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Bank of Uganda | Consolidated |\n| 1 | 2 | Electricity Regulatory Authority | Consolidated |\n| 2 | 3 | Enterprise Uganda | Consolidated |\n| 3 | 4 | Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda | Consolidated |\n| 4 | 5 | National Enterprises Corporation | Consolidated |\n| 5 | 6 | National Drug Authority | Consolidated |\n| 6 | 7 | National Water & Sewerage Corporation | Consolidated |\n| 7 | 8 | Uganda Civil Aviation Authority | Consolidated |\n| 8 | 9 | Uganda Communications Commission | Consolidated |\n| 9 | 10 | Uganda Development Corporation | Consolidated |\n| 10 | 11 | Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation | Consolidated |\n| 11 | 12 | Uganda Railways Corporation | Consolidated |\n| 12 | 13 | Uganda Wildlife Authority | Consolidated |\n| 13 | 14 | Uganda Wildlife Conservation Education Centre | Consolidated |\n| 14 | 15 | Kiira Motors Corporation Limited | Consolidated |\n| 15 | 16 | Mandela Stadium Limited | Consolidated |\n| 16 | 17 | The Micro Finance Support Centre Ltd | Consolidated |\n| 17 | 18 | Post Bank Uganda Limited | Consolidated |\n| 18 | 19 | Pride Micro Finance Limited | Consolidated |\n| 19 | 20 | Uganda Post Limited | Consolidated |\n| 20 | 21 | Uganda Broadcasting Corporation Limited | Consolidated |\n| 21 | 22 | Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited | Consolidated |\n| 22 | 23 | Uganda Electricity Generation Company Limited | Consolidated |\n| 23 | 24 | Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited | Consolidated |\n| 24 | 25 | Uganda National Airlines Company Limited | Consolidated |\n| 25 | 26 | Uganda National Oil Company Limited | Consolidated |\n| 26 | 27 | Uganda Property Holdings Limited | Consolidated |\n| 27 | 28 | Uganda Seeds Limited | Consolidated |\n| 28 | 29 | Kilembe Mines Limited | Consolidated |\n| 29 | 30 | New Vision Printing & Publishing Company Limited | Consolidated |\n| 30 | 31 | National Housing & Construction Company Limited | Consolidated |\n| 31 | 32 | Housing Finance Bank Ltd | Consolidated |\n| 32 | 33 | Deposit Protection Fund Uganda | Consolidated |\n| 33 | 34 | Uganda Development Bank Limited | Consolidated |\n| 34 | 35 | Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium | Did not submit |\n| 35 | 36 | Uganda Air Cargo Corporation | Did not submit |\n| 36 | 37 | Dairy Corporation Limited | Did not submit |", "metadata": {"page": 370, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | S/N | Name of Entity | Status |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------|\n| 0 | 38 | Uganda Crane Industries Limited | Did not submit |\n| 1 | 39 | Uganda Livestock Industries Limited | Did not submit |\n| 2 | 40 | Uganda Refinery Holding Company Limited | Did not submit |\n| 3 | 41 | Production Enterprises Corporations Limited | Did not submit |\n| 4 | 42 | Uganda Fisheries Enterprises Limited | Did not submit |\n| 5 | 43 | Kampala Industrial and business park Ltd | Did not submit |\n| 6 | 44 | Science and Technology Equipment Production (unit) Ltd | Did not submit |\n| 7 | 45 | UGMA Engineering Corporation Limited | Did not submit |\n| 8 | 46 | Housing Finance Investments | Did not submit |\n| 9 | 47 | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalization Company Limited (UECCCL) | Not Consolidated and not disclosed |\n| 10 | 48 | Nile Hotel International Limited | Not Consolidated and not disclosed |\n| 11 | 49 | Uganda Hotel and Tourism Training Institute | Not Consolidated and not disclosed |\n| 12 | 50 | National Pipeline Company (NPC) | Not Consolidated and not disclosed |", "metadata": {"page": 371, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | SECTOR AND ENTITY | SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS |\n|---:|:------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | AGRICULTURE SECTOR | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | The Agriculture Cluster Development Project (ACDP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.196.099Bn expected from the Donors, UGX.145.885Bn was available for spending, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.50.214Bn (26%). Further, of the expected UGX.0.700Bn GOU co-funding, UGX. 0.699Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.001Bn representing 99.8% performance. \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds of UGX.145.885Bn, UGX. 84.520Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.61.365Bn representing an absorption level of 57.93%. This affected implementation of activities. \uf0b7 I sampled four (4) activities worth UGX 63.061Bn and assessed the extent to which these had been implemented. Out of the 4 activities; two (2) activities were partially implemented, while 2 activities were not implemented. This affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted a number of shortcomings from my inspections such as delayed works, incomplete structures, un-utilised agro processing facilities all of which affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted avoidable expenditure on the procurement of M-Cash Uganda Limited as an E-Voucher management agency at a cost of UGX.6.8Bn. In addition, there was delayed operationalization of the M-cash electronic payment platform for eight (8) months due to the failure by MAAIF to integrate this financial inclusion system to the NITA\u2018s payment gateway in time leading to farmers and agro dealers failure to transact during this period. \uf0b7 There was failure to refund unutilized balances to farmers, Agro-dealers and MAAIF by UBA to the tune UGX.8.8Bn on termination of their contract. |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Seed Certification Project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Project had six objectives which were supposed to have been fully achieved by 30th June 2022. As of this date, one (1) had been fully implemented, three (3) were partially implemented and two (2) had not been implemented at all. \uf0b7 At the beginning of the year under audit (1st July 2021), the Project had a balance of UGX.938,133,721 from the previous financial year 2020-2021 which was not utilized during the year. By 30th June 2022, all the funds were still on the Project account. |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Agriculture Vector Control Project (AVCP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Project planned to receive UGX.3.5Bn GOU counterpart funding, out of which UGX.3.44Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX0.06Bn (1.7%). Further, out of the budgeted UGX.39.8Bn donor funding, UGX.39.71Bn was availed for spending, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.09Bn (0.2%). |", "metadata": {"page": 372, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | SECTOR AND ENTITY | SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds for the financial year of UGX.39.71Bn, only UGX.38.33Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.38Bn representing an absorption level of 97%. Out of the 64 activities worth UGX.39.8Bn sampled; 28 activities representing 44% were fully implemented, 29 activities representing 45% were partially implemented while 7 activities representing 11% were not implemented. \uf0b7 Physical inspection of three (3) construction projects worth UGX.22Bn namely; Irrigation Scheme in Acomai, National Metrology Laboratory at UNBS and holding grounds at Gwot Apwoyo Zonal Animal Disease control center revealed that works were behind schedule which will result in delayed service delivery to the citizens. \uf0b7 There was only one Multi-sectoral Steering committee sitting during the year out of the mandatory two (2) which is a major internal control weakness and exposes the Project to performance challenges such as delays in project implementation and unsatisfactory quality of works among others |", "metadata": {"page": 373, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | No. | SECTOR AND ENTITY | SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS |\n|---:|------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 4 | National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 NARO budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.834Bn during the year, however, UGX.3.097Bn was collected, representing a performance of 109% which was partly attributed to the low NTR projections set for the entity by MoFPED \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.110.608Bn, UGX.109.089Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX1.519Bn (1.37%) which affected the implementation of activities. All the warrants given to the entity were utilized. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of seven (7) outputs with a total of sixteen (16) activities worth UGX.50.655Bn. Out of the seven out-puts 3 outputs with four (4) activities and expenditure worth UGX.2.158Bn were fully implemented and 4 outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX.48.497Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.0.093Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I undertook field inspections and noted that a number of project works were behind schedule which resulted into delayed service delivery. \uf0b7 90 pieces of land owned by the entity were not recorded in the fixed assets register on IFMS while 17 pieces had encumbrances. In addition, 14 pieces lacked titles, while titles for 4 pieces had not been transferred from the previous owners. Similarly, titles for 15 pieces of land had not been transferred in joint custody of ULC. \uf0b7 The entity had unsettled domestic arrears as at 30th June 2022 amounting to UGX 2.58Bn. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff structure of 995 staff, only 836 positions were filled leaving a balance of 159 (16%) vacant. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings i.e. lack of specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation, inadequately filled ICT staff establishment (58%), limited awareness of the approved ICT policy and guidelines by staff and lack of documented systematic business continuity or disaster recovery testing, reporting and maintenance procedures. |", "metadata": {"page": 373, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 5. | Coordinating Office for Control of Trypanosomiasis in Uganda (COCTU) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX. 2.4Bn, UGX. 2.1Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.3Bn (11.6%). \uf0b7 I sampled out twelve out-puts and noted that eleven (11) outputs worth UGX.1.5Bn were fully implemented while one (1) output worth 0.6Bn was partially implemented. \uf0b7 The entity received off-budget financing to a tune of UGX.0.513Bn which was never declared to the PSST. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff structure of 37 staff, only 19 positions were filled leaving a balance of 18 (49%) vacant. |\n|---:|-----:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 6 | Resilience Project (RPLRP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted UGX.23.9Bn for donor project activities, only UGX.14Bn was available, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.9.8Bn representing 41% of the budget. Further, only UGX.0.65Bn was warranted out of the UGX.1.0Bn GOU co-funding resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.35Bn representing 35% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds of UGX.14.03Bn; UGX.13.22Bn was spent by the Project resulting in an unspent balance of UGX0.81Bn representing an absorption level of 94.2%. \uf0b7 Of the 4 quantified activities worth UGX.12.4Bn assessed; 2 activities representing 50% were fully implemented while 2 activities representing 50% were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted inadequacies in service delivery in form of delayed works and incomplete livestock marketing and production infrastructure i.e. handover for construction of four (4) sites was delayed between 8 to 16 months and two (2) sites were yet to be completed despite project closure, hence requiring GOU funding interventions. \uf0b7 Out of the total expected loan amount of USD 40Mn only USD. 36.297Mn was received during the project life cycle resulting in un-disbursed loan proceeds of USD 3.703Mn (UGX.13.9Bn) representing 9.3% of the loan amount and as a result Government of Uganda will have to pay back the loan in full including funds that were never disbursed for Project activities which reflects a loss to Government. |\n| 1 | 7 | Uganda Multi-Sectoral Food Security and Nutrition Project (UMFSNP) \u2013 Grant NO. P149286 | \uf0b7 The approved project budget for donor funds was UGX.24.23Bn however UGX.25.13Bn was availed for spending, resulting in an excess of UGX 0.908Bn (3.7%). On the other hand, the approved GOU budget was 0.5Bn out of which UGX.0.398Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX0.102Bn which was 20% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total funds available from both donors and Gou of UGX 25.52Bn, UGX 8.897 was absorbed resulting in unspent balances of UGX 16.62Bn. This represents absorption of only 35% of the funds available. \uf0b7 I observed that out of the 34 activities worth UGX.5.327Bn assessed; 14 activities- 41% were fully implemented, 15 activities-44% were partially implemented, while 5 activities-15% were not implemented. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings that affect service delivery for the citizens such as; failure to maintain demonstration gardens, delayed approval of District Nutrition Action plans, delayed release of funds to Districts, and unutilised funds at the Districts. |", "metadata": {"page": 374, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 5. | Coordinating Office for Control of Trypanosomiasis in Uganda (COCTU) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX. 2.4Bn, UGX. 2.1Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.3Bn (11.6%). \uf0b7 I sampled out twelve out-puts and noted that eleven (11) outputs worth UGX.1.5Bn were fully implemented while one (1) output worth 0.6Bn was partially implemented. \uf0b7 The entity received off-budget financing to a tune of UGX.0.513Bn which was never declared to the PSST. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff structure of 37 staff, only 19 positions were filled leaving a balance of 18 (49%) vacant. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 There was no meeting held by the inter-ministerial Project Steering Committee during the year. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 375, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 5. | Coordinating Office for Control of Trypanosomiasis in Uganda (COCTU) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX. 2.4Bn, UGX. 2.1Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.3Bn (11.6%). \uf0b7 I sampled out twelve out-puts and noted that eleven (11) outputs worth UGX.1.5Bn were fully implemented while one (1) output worth 0.6Bn was partially implemented. \uf0b7 The entity received off-budget financing to a tune of UGX.0.513Bn which was never declared to the PSST. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff structure of 37 staff, only 19 positions were filled leaving a balance of 18 (49%) vacant. |\n|---:|-----:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 8 | National Animal Genetic Resources Centre & Data Bank (NAGRIC & DB) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.1.56Bn, UGX.2.629Bn was realised, representing a performance of 169%. This was attributed to the entity NTR budget projections way below probable revenue sources. \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted UGX.73.362Bn, UGX.72.762Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX0.6Bn representing 0.82% of the budget. The Shortfall affected implementation of activities \uf0b7 I reviewed the implementation of a sample of two outputs with a total of four (4) activities worth UGX.7.5Bn. I noted that; 1 output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.2Bn was fully implemented while 1 output with 3 activities worth UGX.5.5Bn was partially implemented. As a result, the entity did not finalise establishment of fish feed plant and animal feed production, processing, packaging and storage facilities on Centre farms. \uf0b7 UGX.0.470Bn was irregularly diverted from the activities on which it was budgeted for and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted challenges in regard to service delivery mainly resulting from delays and non-performing contracts. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of land owned by the entity which included encumbrances on 5 pieces of land, lack of land titles for all 16 entity pieces of land, failure to transfer all the sixteen (16) land titles into the name and custody of the Uganda Land Commission, unutilized pieces of land. \uf0b7 The entity had outstanding arrears to the tune of UGX.1.31Bn which was an increment of 4.5% from the prior year arrears balance of UGX.1.25Bn \uf0b7 There was loss of 920 cattle, 521 goats and 1 pig estimated at UGX.0.33Bn through death and theft leading to loss of government biological assets and thus Government revenues. \uf0b7 I observed that letters of credit opened as far back as 2018/2019 had not performed which continued to affect progress of works and service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity management was not adhering to the approved staff structure during recruitment. Some of the positions were over filled while others were under-filled. In addition, 17 staff had been in acting positions for more than six months which was irregular. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of IT Investments i.e. delays to implement the procured IT system, failure to dispose IT hardware equipment, inadequate Internal Audit review of the ICT systems that produce financial statements, lack of an approved IT risk management framework/policy and lack of a business continuity plan. \uf0b7 Withholding tax to the tune of UGX.0.33Bn from payments worth UGX.6.25Bn was not recovered from service providers. |", "metadata": {"page": 375, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 9. | National Oil Palm Project (NOPP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the Donor budget of UGX.39.29Bn, only UGX.21.15Bn was availed for spending resulting in a shortfall of UGX.18.14Bn representing 46%. Further, of the UGX.4.897Bn GOU co-funding, only UGX.4.647Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.25Bn representing 5.1%. \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds for the year of UGX.26.659Bn, only UGX.15.366Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.11.293Bn representing an absorption level of 58.5%. As a result of under-absorption, a number of planned activities were not implemented by the project which affected service delivery. \uf0b7 Out of the sampled 88 activities worth UGX.9.67Bn assessed; 15 activities representing 17% were fully implemented, 22 activities representing 25% were partially implemented, while 51 activities representing 58% were not implemented. Failure to fully implement activities affects service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted inadequacies in service delivery in form of delayed review of consultancy reports to enable approval of new hubs for oil palm growing by IFAD and delayed hand over of Land for the nucleus estates for oil palm development due to delays in transferring of titles for the acquired land. \uf0b7 I noted non-remittance of loan recoveries to the UCF worth UGX.18.4Bn thus delaying implementation of critical government programs. Further, there was non-utilization of reflows to a tune of UGX.29.1bn to fund the National Oil Palm Project (NOPP) in contravention of the tripartite agreement thus denying the citizens benefits accruing. |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 10 | Cotton Development Organization (CDO) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted NTR of UGX. 4.62Bn, only UGX. 2.15Bn was collected, representing a performance of 46.5% of the target. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 13.017Bn, only UGX. 13.017Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 0.024Bn representing absorption level of 99.99%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the three (3) sampled quantified outputs with a total of four (4) activities worth UGX 1.63Bn; 1 output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.0.199Bn was fully implemented and 2 outputs with three (3) activities worth UGX.1.43Bn were partially implemented. Out of the 3 activities, the entity fully implemented 1 activity while 2 activities were partially implemented. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX. 28.4 Million were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff structure of 47 staff, only 37 positions were filled leaving a balance of 10 (21.3%) vacant. Key among the vacant posts is Classifier and Agronomy Officers. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings; such as lack of specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation and lack of an IT structure \uf0b7 One (1) piece of land out of the entity total of 3 pieces was not being utilised by the entity. |\n| 1 | 11 | Dairy Development Authority (DDA). Opinion | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.0.56Bn, only UGX.0.45Bn was collected, representing a performance of 79.7% of the target. |", "metadata": {"page": 376, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.11.6Bn, UGX.11.4Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.2Bn (1.7%). \uf0b7 I sampled one out-put that was quantified with a total of two (2) activities worth UGX 0.17Bn and noted that this output was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.0.031Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The entity had outstanding domestic arrears to a tune of 283Mn, of which, UGX.186Mn were incurred during the year under review. \uf0b7 Out of the 55 pieces of land measuring approximately 20.887 hectares owned by the Authority, 35 pieces of DDA land did not have land titles while 20 titled pieces of land had not yet been transferred in the names of Uganda Land Commission. I further noted that 1 piece of land was not recorded in the entity\u2019s land register and the IFMS fixed assets module, while records for 2 pieces of land were scanty. 30 pieces of land were also not utilized by the entity at the time of Audit. \uf0b7 Out of the approved one hundred and thirty-nine (139) posts only eighty-six (86) are filled and fifty-three (53) were vacant representing 38% understaffing. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings for instance; 5 IT Systems worth UGX.226Mn had no clearance from NITA-U and MoFPED, IT assets and systems procured at a cost of UGX.218.9Mn were not planned for, one IT system was not being utilised among others. \uf0b7 I noted that DDA was not levying and collecting Cess on Milk or Milk products and neither did the Authority receive due compensation from the Ministry of Finance. |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 12 | National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 NAADS budgeted to collect NTR of UGX. 0.06Bn during the year however; UGX. 0.03Bn was collected, representing a performance of 50%. This was partly attributed to the unrealistic NTR projections due to the non-participation of the entity during the estimation of NTR by MoFPED. \uf0b7 Out of the budget of UGX.104.49Bn, UGX. 88.73Bn was warranted resulting in a short fall of UGX.1.519Bn (15.1%). Out of the total warrants of 88.73Bn, UGX 88.45Bn was absorbed representing an absorption level of 99.7%. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.0.173Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 Field inspections and document review revealed several shortcomings in service delivery in form of delays for construction works and utilisation of completed facilities. \uf0b7 The entity had unsettled domestic arrears as at 30th June 2022 amounting to UGX. 14.353Bn. In addition, the entity had Letters of Credit worth UGX.21.2Bn which did not perform for more than two years. \uf0b7 I noted challenges in the progress of the Atyak sugarcane production project in Northern Uganda due to a number of challenges such as adverse weather and field conditions at the Atiak Site, shortage of seed cane within the |", "metadata": {"page": 377, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.11.6Bn, UGX.11.4Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.2Bn (1.7%). \uf0b7 I sampled one out-put that was quantified with a total of two (2) activities worth UGX 0.17Bn and noted that this output was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.0.031Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The entity had outstanding domestic arrears to a tune of 283Mn, of which, UGX.186Mn were incurred during the year under review. \uf0b7 Out of the 55 pieces of land measuring approximately 20.887 hectares owned by the Authority, 35 pieces of DDA land did not have land titles while 20 titled pieces of land had not yet been transferred in the names of Uganda Land Commission. I further noted that 1 piece of land was not recorded in the entity\u2019s land register and the IFMS fixed assets module, while records for 2 pieces of land were scanty. 30 pieces of land were also not utilized by the entity at the time of Audit. \uf0b7 Out of the approved one hundred and thirty-nine (139) posts only eighty-six (86) are filled and fifty-three (53) were vacant representing 38% understaffing. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings for instance; 5 IT Systems worth UGX.226Mn had no clearance from NITA-U and MoFPED, IT assets and systems procured at a cost of UGX.218.9Mn were not planned for, one IT system was not being utilised among others. \uf0b7 I noted that DDA was not levying and collecting Cess on Milk or Milk products and neither did the Authority receive due compensation from the Ministry of Finance. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | proximity of the sites, fire outbreaks destroying substantial acreage of the plantation and the decision to temporarily halt the operations in a bid to mechanise the process. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff structure of 56 staff, only 50 positions were filled leaving a balance of 6 (10.7%) vacant. Key among the vacant posts is Manager Finance and Administration and Zonal Agricultural Development Officer. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings such as lack of specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation, delayed implementation of 1 IT project, un integrated Agri-monitoring Monitoring System (NAMS) that is not interfaced with other systems, lack of clearance for procurement of 12 IT systems/equipment worth UGX 0.146Bn by NITA-U and lack of specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. In addition, NAADS lacked an approved IT staff structure in place despite ICT prioritisation in NDP III. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 378, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.11.6Bn, UGX.11.4Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.2Bn (1.7%). \uf0b7 I sampled one out-put that was quantified with a total of two (2) activities worth UGX 0.17Bn and noted that this output was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.0.031Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The entity had outstanding domestic arrears to a tune of 283Mn, of which, UGX.186Mn were incurred during the year under review. \uf0b7 Out of the 55 pieces of land measuring approximately 20.887 hectares owned by the Authority, 35 pieces of DDA land did not have land titles while 20 titled pieces of land had not yet been transferred in the names of Uganda Land Commission. I further noted that 1 piece of land was not recorded in the entity\u2019s land register and the IFMS fixed assets module, while records for 2 pieces of land were scanty. 30 pieces of land were also not utilized by the entity at the time of Audit. \uf0b7 Out of the approved one hundred and thirty-nine (139) posts only eighty-six (86) are filled and fifty-three (53) were vacant representing 38% understaffing. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings for instance; 5 IT Systems worth UGX.226Mn had no clearance from NITA-U and MoFPED, IT assets and systems procured at a cost of UGX.218.9Mn were not planned for, one IT system was not being utilised among others. \uf0b7 I noted that DDA was not levying and collecting Cess on Milk or Milk products and neither did the Authority receive due compensation from the Ministry of Finance. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 13 | Ministry of Agriculture, Animal, Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.254.12Bn, UGX.201.35Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.52.66Bn representing a 21% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.201.35Bn, only UGX.196.54Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.4.81Bn representing an absorption level of 97.6%. As a result of failure to utilize warrants; Pension and gratuity arrears continued to accumulate, 0.29Mn cashew Nut seedlings were not procured and Staff houses at FTI and BAC were not renovated. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 30 outputs sampled with a total of 83 activities worth UGX.55.7Bn; 18 outputs with 49 activities and expenditure worth UGX.23.1Bn were fully implemented; 10 outputs with 32 activities worth UGX.31.9Bn were partially implemented that is; 20 activities were fully implemented, 11 activities were partially implemented while 1 activity remained unimplemented and 2 outputs with 2 activities worth 0.7Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 UGX.1.36Bn was irregularly diverted from the activities on which it was budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approval. \uf0b7 There was inadequate delivery of services to the citizens as highlighted by delays in construction of infrastructure projects (Dams, valley tanks, irrigation schemes), delayed delivery of vaccines and tractors, delayed distribution of tractors and failure to utilise well drilling rigs. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of Public Land for instance; failure to record land pieces in the assets register and GFMIS fixed asset module, encumbrances on 27 pieces of land through encroachment, lack of land titles for 59 pieces of land, non-quantification of planned land for acquisition, non-involvement of ULC in land acquisition, failure to transfer 4 land titles into the name and custody of the ULC, unutilised pieces of land, lack of land lease register and Irregular allocation of Land by District Land Boards. \uf0b7 The entity had outstanding arrears to the tune of UGX.11.46Bn which was an increment of 4.% from the prior year arrears balance of UGX.11.03Bn. |", "metadata": {"page": 378, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.11.6Bn, UGX.11.4Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.2Bn (1.7%). \uf0b7 I sampled one out-put that was quantified with a total of two (2) activities worth UGX 0.17Bn and noted that this output was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.0.031Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The entity had outstanding domestic arrears to a tune of 283Mn, of which, UGX.186Mn were incurred during the year under review. \uf0b7 Out of the 55 pieces of land measuring approximately 20.887 hectares owned by the Authority, 35 pieces of DDA land did not have land titles while 20 titled pieces of land had not yet been transferred in the names of Uganda Land Commission. I further noted that 1 piece of land was not recorded in the entity\u2019s land register and the IFMS fixed assets module, while records for 2 pieces of land were scanty. 30 pieces of land were also not utilized by the entity at the time of Audit. \uf0b7 Out of the approved one hundred and thirty-nine (139) posts only eighty-six (86) are filled and fifty-three (53) were vacant representing 38% understaffing. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings for instance; 5 IT Systems worth UGX.226Mn had no clearance from NITA-U and MoFPED, IT assets and systems procured at a cost of UGX.218.9Mn were not planned for, one IT system was not being utilised among others. \uf0b7 I noted that DDA was not levying and collecting Cess on Milk or Milk products and neither did the Authority receive due compensation from the Ministry of Finance. |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted loss of inventory worth UGX.2.36Bn due to a fire outbreak in stores of 34 items out of the 62 items kept in the stores. \uf0b7 The Ministry spent UGX.0.233Bn on PDM activities which was not provided for in the approved work plan. Further, as a result of failure to fund PDM, a number of activities necessary before the full roll out to ensure that the Pillar objectives are achieved were not undertaken. \uf0b7 Review of the performance of the Agriculture extension function revealed Lack of Performance Indicators to measure the performance of the extension workers in line with the PDM modality and inadequate extension workers; 57% gaps of the required 9,275 \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of IT Investments for instance procurements of IT systems without NITA-U clearance, failure to optimally use acquired IT systems, non-recording of IT systems and IT hardware in the assets register and in the format prescribed by the Accountant General, failure to dispose of IT equipment recommended for disposal, failure to undertake system upgrades, lack of specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation, inadequate IT staff structure, failure to follow-up issues raised regarding ICT weaknesses, lack of an IT risk management framework/policy and lack of a business continuity plan. \uf0b7 An assessment of the management of Court Awards and Compensations revealed failure to adequately budget for liabilities arising, lack of criteria for their management, delayed settlement for outstanding cases and failure to develop and maintain a detailed register of cases. \uf0b7 Review of the Ministry\u2019s staff establishment revealed that out of 945 approved positions, only 652 were filled and (293 were still vacant representing 31% staffing gap. Notably, it was observed that the core departments of crop resources, animal and Fisheries directorates are significantly affected. \uf0b7 Management of Pension and Gratuity at the Ministry revealed several anomalies i.e. Failure to budget for Pension arrears, delayed access of pensioners to the pension Payroll, Unreconciled Pension payroll register and pension interface file and Payment of unverified Residual Pension Arrears. \uf0b7 Review of the \u201cDevelopment of a Sustainable Cashew Nut Value Chain Project\u201d revealed incomplete Project approvals thus irregular implementation by the ministry and non-alignment to the Public Investment Plan. As a result, there was noted failure to achieve the Project Mandate despite availability of Funds. \uf0b7 Shortcomings were noted in the Asset Management Structure at the Ministry for instance poor state of stores. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 14.0 | Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.22.43Bn during the year under review but realized UGX.31.64Bn representing a performance of 141% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that the Authority had a budget of UGX.87.3Bn, out of which UGX.86.07Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 1.23Bn. Out of the total warrants of UGX. 86.07Bn received, only UGX.76.79Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.9.28Bn representing an absorption level of 89%. |", "metadata": {"page": 379, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.11.6Bn, UGX.11.4Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.2Bn (1.7%). \uf0b7 I sampled one out-put that was quantified with a total of two (2) activities worth UGX 0.17Bn and noted that this output was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.0.031Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The entity had outstanding domestic arrears to a tune of 283Mn, of which, UGX.186Mn were incurred during the year under review. \uf0b7 Out of the 55 pieces of land measuring approximately 20.887 hectares owned by the Authority, 35 pieces of DDA land did not have land titles while 20 titled pieces of land had not yet been transferred in the names of Uganda Land Commission. I further noted that 1 piece of land was not recorded in the entity\u2019s land register and the IFMS fixed assets module, while records for 2 pieces of land were scanty. 30 pieces of land were also not utilized by the entity at the time of Audit. \uf0b7 Out of the approved one hundred and thirty-nine (139) posts only eighty-six (86) are filled and fifty-three (53) were vacant representing 38% understaffing. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings for instance; 5 IT Systems worth UGX.226Mn had no clearance from NITA-U and MoFPED, IT assets and systems procured at a cost of UGX.218.9Mn were not planned for, one IT system was not being utilised among others. \uf0b7 I noted that DDA was not levying and collecting Cess on Milk or Milk products and neither did the Authority receive due compensation from the Ministry of Finance. |\n|---:|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 A review of four (4) sampled quantified outputs with a total of forty-three (43) activities worth UGX. 52.8Bn revealed that all the four (04) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 Funds amounting to UGX 0.183Bn was irregularly diverted from the activities on which it was budgeted for and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The Authority received off-budget financing worth UGX.3.3Bn which was never declared to the PS/ST. \uf0b7 Field inspections and document review revealed several short comings in service delivery such as delayed installation of wet mills, failure to establish demonstration gardens despite spending funds among others. \uf0b7 The entity had unsettled domestic arrears as at 30th June 2022 amounting to UGX 15.9Bn. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff structure of 224 staff, only 138 (61%) positions were filled leaving 86 (39%) positions vacant. Among the vacant posts are key positions of managers. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of ICT systems such as failure to integrate systems and absence of an approved ICT structure and an IT business continuity plan. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | | JUSTICE, LAW AND ORDER SECTOR | |\n| 2 | 1.0 | The Industrial Court of Uganda Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Court did not have a strategic plan to facilitate preparation of annual work plans and the achievement of the NDP objectives. \uf0b7 I noted that all the three (03) quantified activities assessed worth UGX.2.095Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 A review of the financial statements revealed that the Court reported under the statement of financial position payables amounting to UGX. 247,000,000. These related to unpaid sundry creditors in the period under review. \uf0b7 There are conflicting provisions between the Employment Act, 2006 and the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, 2006 on period taken by labour officers to handle labour disputes, the qualifications of both the Labour officers and the Court panellists and their role as quasi-judicial officers were not standardised. \uf0b7 I also noted delayed implementation of the Court structure resulting into increased case backlogs from 2,524 to 2,722 cases (8%) as at 30th June 2022. |", "metadata": {"page": 380, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.11.6Bn, UGX.11.4Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.2Bn (1.7%). \uf0b7 I sampled one out-put that was quantified with a total of two (2) activities worth UGX 0.17Bn and noted that this output was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.0.031Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The entity had outstanding domestic arrears to a tune of 283Mn, of which, UGX.186Mn were incurred during the year under review. \uf0b7 Out of the 55 pieces of land measuring approximately 20.887 hectares owned by the Authority, 35 pieces of DDA land did not have land titles while 20 titled pieces of land had not yet been transferred in the names of Uganda Land Commission. I further noted that 1 piece of land was not recorded in the entity\u2019s land register and the IFMS fixed assets module, while records for 2 pieces of land were scanty. 30 pieces of land were also not utilized by the entity at the time of Audit. \uf0b7 Out of the approved one hundred and thirty-nine (139) posts only eighty-six (86) are filled and fifty-three (53) were vacant representing 38% understaffing. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings for instance; 5 IT Systems worth UGX.226Mn had no clearance from NITA-U and MoFPED, IT assets and systems procured at a cost of UGX.218.9Mn were not planned for, one IT system was not being utilised among others. \uf0b7 I noted that DDA was not levying and collecting Cess on Milk or Milk products and neither did the Authority receive due compensation from the Ministry of Finance. |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 2 | Directorate of Government Analytical Laboratory (DGAL). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.25.83Bn, only UGX.19.31Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.6.52Bn representing an absorption level of 75%. As a result, I noted that out of the ten (10) quantified outputs worth UGX.12.51Bn assessed; three (3) outputs were fully implemented, while seven (7) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that whereas DGAL acquired a Laboratory Information Management System in the financial year 2020/2021 at a cost of \u20ac58,146.60 (equivalent to UGX.250,000,000), the system was not fully utilised. |", "metadata": {"page": 380, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.11.6Bn, UGX.11.4Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.2Bn (1.7%). \uf0b7 I sampled one out-put that was quantified with a total of two (2) activities worth UGX 0.17Bn and noted that this output was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.0.031Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The entity had outstanding domestic arrears to a tune of 283Mn, of which, UGX.186Mn were incurred during the year under review. \uf0b7 Out of the 55 pieces of land measuring approximately 20.887 hectares owned by the Authority, 35 pieces of DDA land did not have land titles while 20 titled pieces of land had not yet been transferred in the names of Uganda Land Commission. I further noted that 1 piece of land was not recorded in the entity\u2019s land register and the IFMS fixed assets module, while records for 2 pieces of land were scanty. 30 pieces of land were also not utilized by the entity at the time of Audit. \uf0b7 Out of the approved one hundred and thirty-nine (139) posts only eighty-six (86) are filled and fifty-three (53) were vacant representing 38% understaffing. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings for instance; 5 IT Systems worth UGX.226Mn had no clearance from NITA-U and MoFPED, IT assets and systems procured at a cost of UGX.218.9Mn were not planned for, one IT system was not being utilised among others. \uf0b7 I noted that DDA was not levying and collecting Cess on Milk or Milk products and neither did the Authority receive due compensation from the Ministry of Finance. |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of the case backlog reduction strategy by DGAL and noted that despite the goal of clearing all backlog cases by June 2021, the backlog had only reduced by 63.97%, implying that the zero-backlog goal was not achieved. I also noted that despite various efforts, the case turnaround time has remained stagnant at 30 days for over four financial years with no improvement. \uf0b7 I observed that DGAL prioritises new cases over older cases. As a result, backlog cases which have remained unresolved for five (5) years or longer constitute 50% of all the backlog cases of DGAL. \uf0b7 Although the Directorate spent UGX.1.05Bn on the operations of the regional laboratories, I noted that the regional laboratories are not sufficiently equipped for forensic analysis and are currently used by Scene of Crime Officers as temporary collection points for samples and exhibits before transferring them to the main laboratory for analysis. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of public land and noted that the entity did not maintain a land register or capture the owned land in the assets register in the Government\u2019s Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT systems and noted that DGAL had a number of IT Governance shortfalls. For instance, there were no structures to oversee ICT implementation, no approved IT staff structure, internal audit did not review ICT systems, and the entity did not have an approved IT risk management framework. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 381, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.11.6Bn, UGX.11.4Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX 0.2Bn (1.7%). \uf0b7 I sampled one out-put that was quantified with a total of two (2) activities worth UGX 0.17Bn and noted that this output was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.0.031Bn were mischarged from the activities on which they were budgeted to other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The entity had outstanding domestic arrears to a tune of 283Mn, of which, UGX.186Mn were incurred during the year under review. \uf0b7 Out of the 55 pieces of land measuring approximately 20.887 hectares owned by the Authority, 35 pieces of DDA land did not have land titles while 20 titled pieces of land had not yet been transferred in the names of Uganda Land Commission. I further noted that 1 piece of land was not recorded in the entity\u2019s land register and the IFMS fixed assets module, while records for 2 pieces of land were scanty. 30 pieces of land were also not utilized by the entity at the time of Audit. \uf0b7 Out of the approved one hundred and thirty-nine (139) posts only eighty-six (86) are filled and fifty-three (53) were vacant representing 38% understaffing. \uf0b7 Review of management of IT investments revealed several shortcomings for instance; 5 IT Systems worth UGX.226Mn had no clearance from NITA-U and MoFPED, IT assets and systems procured at a cost of UGX.218.9Mn were not planned for, one IT system was not being utilised among others. \uf0b7 I noted that DDA was not levying and collecting Cess on Milk or Milk products and neither did the Authority receive due compensation from the Ministry of Finance. |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3 | Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS- SWAP). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds for the financial year of UGX.106.3Bn, only UGX.76Bn was spent by the Project resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.30.3Bn, representing an absorption level of 71.5%. As a result, I noted that of the 370 activities, ninety (96) were fully implemented, 219 were partially implemented, and 73 were not implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that NIRA issued birth certificates to 42,216 children born to refugees out of the planned 50,000. Whereas NIRA had planned to cover six (6) refugee sites, the issuance was only done in three (3) refugee sites. This affected service delivery. \uf0b7 Whereas a sum of UGX.86,754,847 was spent on reviewing stalled cases to enable the affected citizens to obtain national IDs, only 2,498 cases were reviewed out of the planned 7,122 cases. \uf0b7 The Judicial Service Commission procured furniture and a motorcycle worth UGX.35,842,000 for use by the regional offices of Arua and Mbarara. At the time of audit these offices had not been operationalised, implying that the equipment was not used for the intended purpose. \uf0b7 I reviewed the clearance of case backlog by the Judiciary using the JLOS SWAP funding and observed that 2,632 cases which had been part of the backlog were handled to completion and 6,035 cases remain as part of the backlog. \uf0b7 The Judiciary spent a sum of UGX.160,000,000 on installing a wide and local area network in court stations, and only 2 out of the 20 court stations were covered. The failure to establish networks may negatively impact the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) rollout. |", "metadata": {"page": 381, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Under the JLOS SWAP project, MoLG planned to print 100,000 copies of the local council register and to undertake training of Local Council I, II, and III Courts in 30 Local Governments. Only 48,000 copies out of the 100,000 copies were printed, while training was only 53% (7,980) of the target number of training were conducted. \uf0b7 I noted a misalignment in the construction of prisons. Whereas the JLOS SWAP project provides funding for the construction of prison wards, there is no concurrent funding for the construction of staff quarters, even when prisons cannot operate without staff. \uf0b7 I noted cumulative and persistent underfunding of the project. Over a period of three (3) years, the total approved budget has been UGX.337Bn however, UGX.219Bn has been availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.118Bn. \uf0b7 I further noted that of the availed UGX.219Bn in the last three financial years, the entities have failed to absorb UGX.43Bn. Under absorption affects the timely delivery of services. \uf0b7 I noted that the project does not have a detailed risk assessment policy, risk-management guidelines and risk register as required under the Treasury Instructions. As a result, all project-specific risks may not be assessed in time, and robust risk management and mitigation measures implemented. In addition, risk management procedures may not be well coordinated and consistently applied across all of the JLOS SWAP implementing entities. \uf0b7 I noted delays in completing construction projects in eight (8) implementing entities. The Accounting Officers attributed the delays to late or partial release of funds, failure to complete procurement processes on time and disruptions due to the Covid pandemic in some cases. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 4 | Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS- SWAP). 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted revenue of UGX.127.64Bn for the financial year 2020/2021, only UGX.73.03Bn (57.2%) was released, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.54.60Bn (42.8%). \uf0b7 A comparison of the disbursement of JLOS SWAP funds to implementing entities and the actual expenditure revealed that out of the available sum of UGX. 123Bn, only UGX. 73Bn was spent, and Letters of Credit amounting to UGX.1.2Bn performed, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.48.7Bn. \uf0b7 I reviewed the extent of quantification of outputs and activities by management and noted that all of the programme activities were quantified in the annual work plans. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of 507 outputs/activities for the Programme that were fully quantified worth UGX.74.267Bn for the year under audit. I noted the 165 outputs/activities worth UGX.17.327Bn were fully implemented. The entities implemented the activities (100%) within these outputs, 220 outputs/activities worth UGX. 37.945Bn were partially implemented, 122 outputs/activities worth UGX.18.9952Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 During the financial year 2020/2021, the JLOS SWAP project provided funding amounting to UGX. 8,507,209,099 for constructing twenty-two (22) infrastructural development projects across the entire sector and country. A review of the project progress revealed that four (4) projects for which UGX. 2,570,000,000 was released during the year have experienced delays or stalled. |", "metadata": {"page": 383, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Under the JLOS SWAP project, MoLG planned to print 100,000 copies of the local council register and to undertake training of Local Council I, II, and III Courts in 30 Local Governments. Only 48,000 copies out of the 100,000 copies were printed, while training was only 53% (7,980) of the target number of training were conducted. \uf0b7 I noted a misalignment in the construction of prisons. Whereas the JLOS SWAP project provides funding for the construction of prison wards, there is no concurrent funding for the construction of staff quarters, even when prisons cannot operate without staff. \uf0b7 I noted cumulative and persistent underfunding of the project. Over a period of three (3) years, the total approved budget has been UGX.337Bn however, UGX.219Bn has been availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.118Bn. \uf0b7 I further noted that of the availed UGX.219Bn in the last three financial years, the entities have failed to absorb UGX.43Bn. Under absorption affects the timely delivery of services. \uf0b7 I noted that the project does not have a detailed risk assessment policy, risk-management guidelines and risk register as required under the Treasury Instructions. As a result, all project-specific risks may not be assessed in time, and robust risk management and mitigation measures implemented. In addition, risk management procedures may not be well coordinated and consistently applied across all of the JLOS SWAP implementing entities. \uf0b7 I noted delays in completing construction projects in eight (8) implementing entities. The Accounting Officers attributed the delays to late or partial release of funds, failure to complete procurement processes on time and disruptions due to the Covid pandemic in some cases. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Despite the strategic goal of clearing all backlogs, various entities still report outstanding/pending cases of backlog, and in some instances, the backlog has increased rather than reduced. \uf0b7 The JLOS SWAP project depends on development partners to finance most of the budgeted activities. In the financial year 2020/2021, Development Partners directly contributed a total of UGX.16.5Bn. Of this, UGX.14.1Bn or 85% was contributed by the Embassy of Netherlands,1.69Bn by UNFPA, 0.52Bn by UNICEF, and 0.15Bn by DGF. Also, some donors contributed through budget support. For instance, EUR. 2,000,000 by Austria, EUR. 6,000,000 by European Union, EUR. 6,500,000 through Dutch support, which approximately totaled UGX. 55.8Bn. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 384, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Under the JLOS SWAP project, MoLG planned to print 100,000 copies of the local council register and to undertake training of Local Council I, II, and III Courts in 30 Local Governments. Only 48,000 copies out of the 100,000 copies were printed, while training was only 53% (7,980) of the target number of training were conducted. \uf0b7 I noted a misalignment in the construction of prisons. Whereas the JLOS SWAP project provides funding for the construction of prison wards, there is no concurrent funding for the construction of staff quarters, even when prisons cannot operate without staff. \uf0b7 I noted cumulative and persistent underfunding of the project. Over a period of three (3) years, the total approved budget has been UGX.337Bn however, UGX.219Bn has been availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.118Bn. \uf0b7 I further noted that of the availed UGX.219Bn in the last three financial years, the entities have failed to absorb UGX.43Bn. Under absorption affects the timely delivery of services. \uf0b7 I noted that the project does not have a detailed risk assessment policy, risk-management guidelines and risk register as required under the Treasury Instructions. As a result, all project-specific risks may not be assessed in time, and robust risk management and mitigation measures implemented. In addition, risk management procedures may not be well coordinated and consistently applied across all of the JLOS SWAP implementing entities. \uf0b7 I noted delays in completing construction projects in eight (8) implementing entities. The Accounting Officers attributed the delays to late or partial release of funds, failure to complete procurement processes on time and disruptions due to the Covid pandemic in some cases. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 5 | Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.53.62Bn, only UGX.53.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.47Bn representing an absorption level of 99.12%. As a result, I noted that out of the six (6) quantified outputs worth UGX.32.127Bn assessed; two (2) outputs were fully implemented, three (3) outputs were partially implemented, while one (1) was not implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and I noted that three field offices in Namutumba, Kazo and Ntoroko districts were not established as planned. I also observed that the PROCAMIS system was only extended to ten (10) out of the twelve (12) offices and only a small number of staff were utilizing the system. I noted delays to complete the construction of Soroti, Mbale and Mbarara regional offices. \uf0b7 I assessed the management of cases by ODPP and noted that there was an increase in cases of backlog by 35% in the year under audit. I also noted inconsistencies in the data kept on an outstanding number of cases. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of public land and noted that the entity maintained a land register however it did not include the values of the land owned. ODPP\u2019s land in Kibuku and Kapchorwa was encumbered while the entity did not have land titles for 70 pieces of land. \uf0b7 I observed that ODPP had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.1,250,916,876 as at 30th June 2022. The arrears have remained outstanding for over two (2) financial years. \uf0b7 I assessed the management of court awards and noted that there was inadequate budget provision made for court awards and hence a delayed settlement of court awards for concluded cases. \uf0b7 I reviewed the staffing structure of ODPP and noted that out of the approved staffing level of 1,486, only 602 positions were filled (40.5%) leaving a staffing gap of 884 positions (59.5%). \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT systems and noted that sixty-five (65) IT assets were recommended for disposal however, none of these assets had been disposed of, the Prosecution Case Management System (PROCAM) was decommissioned without following procedures for data protection, the entity did not have specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation, there was no approved IT risk management framework/policy and there was no business continuity plan for the entity. |\n| 1 | 6 | Uganda Human Rights Commission Opinion | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.20.845Bn, UGX.20.239Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.455Bn representing an absorption level of 97.8%. As a result, I noted that of the |", "metadata": {"page": 384, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | thirteen (13) quantified outputs worth UGX.18.3Bn assessed; eight (8) outputs were fully implemented and five (5) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Commission received off-budget financing totalling to UGX.1.15Bn from five (5) development partners during the year. \uf0b7 I noted significant delays in the investigation of cases hence affecting the disposal rate of human rights cases. \uf0b7 I carried out inspections of regional offices of Jinja and Mbarara and noted that in the last two years, only one (1) tribunal meeting was held in Jinja and none in Mbarara. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of land and noted that all five (5) pieces of land owned by the entity were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed assets module, the entity did not have a land tiltle for one piece of land for Gulu regional office, titles for four (4) pieces of land had not been transferred into the custody of the Uganda Land Commission and one piece of land in Masaka (Old Kumbu, Masaka Municipality) measuring approximately 0.0620 hectares belonging to the Commission was not in use. \uf0b7 UHRC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.290,507,036 as at 30th June 2022 \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of ICT and noted that the Commission has failed to dispose off old IT items for 4 to 10 years. \uf0b7 The Commission had no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 7 | Uganda Law Reform Commission. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.11.490Bn, only UGX.10.788Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.934Bn representing an absorption level of 92%. As a result, I noted that of the six (6) quantified outputs worth UGX.7.382Bn assessed; six(6) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted delays in the development of a number of publications which included lunyole versions of the constitution, development of the Braille version of the Local Government Act, translation of the Local Council Courts Act (LCCA) into five (5) languages, development and printing of the 7th revised edition of the principal laws, Development of the Electronic Document Management System for the management of digitised records of the entity. \uf0b7 I observed that ULRC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.9.86Bn as at 30th June 2022. Included in this debt is UGX.9,49Bn in respect to unremitted contributions, interest and a 10% penalty arising from the failure by the Law Reform Commission to remit the ten per cent (10%) employer\u2019s contributions to NSSF for the period from 1st July 1996 to 30th June 2022 as required by the NSSF Act. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that staff and system users were not consulted when developing specifications or deciding on the kind of system to acquire. I noted that two (2) IT systems worth UGX.0.20Bn were acquired outside the planned procurements, and they were delays in the development of the Electronic Document Management System. |", "metadata": {"page": 385, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 8. | Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.11.429Bn, only UGX.10.788Bn was spent by the Judicial Service Commission, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.640Bn representing an absorption level of 94.6%%. As a result, I noted that of the ten (10) quantified outputs worth UGX.10.815Bn assessed; three (3) outputs were fully implemented, and seven (7) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the Mbarara, Arua and Masaka offices had not been occupied for over two (2) years, while the Moroto regional office operated for less than a year till it ceased operations in 2021. Judicial Service Commission continued to meet the expenses for water, electricity and imprest for the regional offices even when they were not operational. I also noted that the staffing structure does not provide for staff for the regional offices. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the Commission in regard to complaint and case management and noted delays in concluding complaints/cases lodged and non-utilisation of the case management system. \uf0b7 I observed that JSC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.138,219,093 as at 30th June 2022. The arrears have remained outstanding for over two (2) financial years. \uf0b7 I reviewed the staffing structure of JSC and noted that out of the approved staffing level of 143, only 97 positions were filled (68%), leaving a staffing gap of 42 positions (32%). |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 9 | Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.164.83Bn, UGX.160.68Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.4.143Bn representing an absorption level of 97.49%. As a result, I noted that of the thirty-two (32) quantified outputs worth UGX.90.2Bn assessed; twelve (12) outputs were fully implemented, nineteen (19) outputs were partially implemented, while four (4) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted significant delays in the construction of the JLOS house. There were also substantial delays experienced in the review of agreements and limited supervision and approval of chambers of advocates. I also reviewed the ongoing compensation of war claimants and noted that there was limited funding for the compensation of war claimants and no clear criteria for payment of minors; hence a number of minors remained unpaid. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of Land of MoJCA and observed that the ministry did not have land titles for four (4) pieces of land, and five (5) pieces of land in Mbale, Naguru, Moroto, Gulu, and Arua were not transferred into the custody of the Uganda Land Commission, two (2) pieces of land located at Old Mbale Road, Akisim Ward, Soroti municipality, measuring approximately 0.651 hectares (14.3%) valued at UGX. 1,100,000,000 were not utilised, and land located at Kamukuzi Mbarara City had encumbrances. \uf0b7 I observed that domestic arrears increased from UGX.381,258,505,803 in the previous year to UGX.531,295,341,706, representing an increase in arrears by 60.6%. \uf0b7 I noted underfunding of liabilities arising from court awards and compensations, which stood at UGX.377,429,099,424 as at the period ending 30th June 2021. I observed that only UGX.19,160,000,000 was |", "metadata": {"page": 386, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 8. | Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.11.429Bn, only UGX.10.788Bn was spent by the Judicial Service Commission, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.640Bn representing an absorption level of 94.6%%. As a result, I noted that of the ten (10) quantified outputs worth UGX.10.815Bn assessed; three (3) outputs were fully implemented, and seven (7) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the Mbarara, Arua and Masaka offices had not been occupied for over two (2) years, while the Moroto regional office operated for less than a year till it ceased operations in 2021. Judicial Service Commission continued to meet the expenses for water, electricity and imprest for the regional offices even when they were not operational. I also noted that the staffing structure does not provide for staff for the regional offices. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the Commission in regard to complaint and case management and noted delays in concluding complaints/cases lodged and non-utilisation of the case management system. \uf0b7 I observed that JSC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.138,219,093 as at 30th June 2022. The arrears have remained outstanding for over two (2) financial years. \uf0b7 I reviewed the staffing structure of JSC and noted that out of the approved staffing level of 143, only 97 positions were filled (68%), leaving a staffing gap of 42 positions (32%). |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | budgeted for, and these cases continue to accrue interest which was standing at UGX.115,667,496,357 at the end of the Financial year 2021/22. \uf0b7 I noted gaps in the criteria for management of court awards and compensations, including lack of guidance to other MDAs and LGs on settlement of the awards, prioritisation of high-interest cases, estimation of contingent liabilities etc. \uf0b7 I reviewed 88 court awards worth UGX.227,100,829,847 and noted that 44 cases with a total debt of UGX.208,996,489,066 have remained outstanding for more than ten years. Of these, 24 cases are accumulating interest at an average annual rate of 7%. \uf0b7 I noted the ministry lacked a comprehensive and accurate record of all cases. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the approved staffing level of 421, only 345 positions were filled (82%), leaving a staffing gap of 76 positions (18%). \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT systems and noted that the entity doesnot record the IT systems in the assets register. There were limited upgrades of IT systems and I noted a failure to operationalise interfaces for systems integration, delayed disposal of IT assets and limited utilisation of systems. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 387, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 8. | Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.11.429Bn, only UGX.10.788Bn was spent by the Judicial Service Commission, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.640Bn representing an absorption level of 94.6%%. As a result, I noted that of the ten (10) quantified outputs worth UGX.10.815Bn assessed; three (3) outputs were fully implemented, and seven (7) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the Mbarara, Arua and Masaka offices had not been occupied for over two (2) years, while the Moroto regional office operated for less than a year till it ceased operations in 2021. Judicial Service Commission continued to meet the expenses for water, electricity and imprest for the regional offices even when they were not operational. I also noted that the staffing structure does not provide for staff for the regional offices. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the Commission in regard to complaint and case management and noted delays in concluding complaints/cases lodged and non-utilisation of the case management system. \uf0b7 I observed that JSC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.138,219,093 as at 30th June 2022. The arrears have remained outstanding for over two (2) financial years. \uf0b7 I reviewed the staffing structure of JSC and noted that out of the approved staffing level of 143, only 97 positions were filled (68%), leaving a staffing gap of 42 positions (32%). |\n|---:|-----:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 10 | The Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.101.30Bn, UGX.99.0Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.4Bn representing an absorption level of 98.6%. As a result, I noted that out of the sixteen (16) planned outputs worth UGX.98.87Bn assessed; five (5) outputs were fully implemented, while eleven (11) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the average time taken to issue passports increased to 22 days from 15 days in the prior year, 2020/2021. In addition, the processing and issuance of passports is more congested in the central region of Kampala compared to regional passport offices. There is a need to devise strategies to decongest Kampala Offices. \uf0b7 I analysed data for 20,924 unissued passports and noted that 760 passports were still held at quality control, 2,435 passports had not been picked up for over six (6) months while 1,200 passports carried a status that showed that they were not ready for pickup, such as \u201cfor approval\u201d, \u201cfor order generation\u201d or for deferred capture. Such delays should be investigated and addressed to avoid discouraging applicants from picking up their passports. \uf0b7 Only 32% of applicants who pay for express processing get their passports within two (2) days. Most applicants who pay for express services get their passports within 15 or more days. \uf0b7 I assessed the extent of utilisation of smart gates at Entebbe International airport and observed only 0.05% of travellers in the financial year 2021/2022 were cleared using the smart gates. The underutilisation implies that the gates are not delivering the intended services to the citizens. \uf0b7 I reviewed public land management and noted that NCIC\u2019s annual land acquisition budgets were inconsistent with its strategic plans. The land acquisition processes did not comply with the PPDA laws, and some of the entity\u2019s land was untitled. In addition, NCIC did not maintain a land register or capture the owned land in the asset\u2019s |", "metadata": {"page": 387, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 8. | Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.11.429Bn, only UGX.10.788Bn was spent by the Judicial Service Commission, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.640Bn representing an absorption level of 94.6%%. As a result, I noted that of the ten (10) quantified outputs worth UGX.10.815Bn assessed; three (3) outputs were fully implemented, and seven (7) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the Mbarara, Arua and Masaka offices had not been occupied for over two (2) years, while the Moroto regional office operated for less than a year till it ceased operations in 2021. Judicial Service Commission continued to meet the expenses for water, electricity and imprest for the regional offices even when they were not operational. I also noted that the staffing structure does not provide for staff for the regional offices. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the Commission in regard to complaint and case management and noted delays in concluding complaints/cases lodged and non-utilisation of the case management system. \uf0b7 I observed that JSC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.138,219,093 as at 30th June 2022. The arrears have remained outstanding for over two (2) financial years. \uf0b7 I reviewed the staffing structure of JSC and noted that out of the approved staffing level of 143, only 97 positions were filled (68%), leaving a staffing gap of 42 positions (32%). |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | register in the Government\u2019s Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), and the manual land register maintained does not comply with the format prescribed by the Accountant General. \uf0b7 I reviewed IT systems management and noted that NCIC\u2019s systems are not fully integrated, and the entity\u2019s ICT governance had a number of shortfalls. For instance, there were no structures to oversee ICT implementation; no approved IT staff structure, internal audit did not review ICT systems and the entity\u2019s business continuity policy, and the plan was not comprehensive enough to ensure the seamless continuation of business operations in the event of a disaster. \uf0b7 I noted that the execution of the Turnkey contract for supplying an e-passports system and booklets did not fully comply with the contract terms. For instance, the construction of the NCIC personalisation building and a security printing factory has not yet commenced, migration of legacy data has not been done. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 388, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 8. | Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.11.429Bn, only UGX.10.788Bn was spent by the Judicial Service Commission, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.640Bn representing an absorption level of 94.6%%. As a result, I noted that of the ten (10) quantified outputs worth UGX.10.815Bn assessed; three (3) outputs were fully implemented, and seven (7) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the Mbarara, Arua and Masaka offices had not been occupied for over two (2) years, while the Moroto regional office operated for less than a year till it ceased operations in 2021. Judicial Service Commission continued to meet the expenses for water, electricity and imprest for the regional offices even when they were not operational. I also noted that the staffing structure does not provide for staff for the regional offices. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the Commission in regard to complaint and case management and noted delays in concluding complaints/cases lodged and non-utilisation of the case management system. \uf0b7 I observed that JSC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.138,219,093 as at 30th June 2022. The arrears have remained outstanding for over two (2) financial years. \uf0b7 I reviewed the staffing structure of JSC and noted that out of the approved staffing level of 143, only 97 positions were filled (68%), leaving a staffing gap of 42 positions (32%). |\n|---:|-----:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 11 | The Court of Judicature (The Judiciary). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.378.2Bn, only UGX.337Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.41.24Bn representing an absorption level of 89.12%. As a result, from the twelve (12) quantified outputs worth UGX.90.2Bn assessed; two (2) outputs were fully implemented, and ten (10) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that clearance rates had greatly improved; however, I noted that the set targets were still low even with the increasing number of Judicial officers and funding. \uf0b7 I noted that the outstanding cases increased by 16%, and the average case disposal rate stood at 41%. I observed that the small claims procedures attained a high success rate, and on the other hand, a review of mediation activities revealed a very low success rate. I reviewed the construction works and noted delays in the construction works with some projects like the Court of appeal buildings of Gulu, Mbarara, and the Court circuits of Luwero and Soroti, with no progress at all. \uf0b7 The Judiciary had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.1,184,607,569 as at 30th June 2022. \uf0b7 Judiciary has an old fleet of vehicles. I sampled 26 vehicles and observed that each vehicle visited the garage an average of eight (8) times in the year, while the annual average cost of repairs was UGX.26,486,047 per vehicle. I reviewed the Board of survey report and observed that none of the vehicles had been earmarked for disposal. \uf0b7 I noted delays in the roll-out of the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) in seven of the nineteen courts, the new set timelines of September 2022 was not met. \uf0b7 I noted that the interconnection of ECCMIS with other Government agencies like the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Directorate of Prosecution\u2019s Prosecutor Case Management Information System (PROCAMIS) for the exchange of data and cases had not been implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that all 111 pieces of land measuring approximately 42.783 hectares were not recorded in the entity\u2019s land and assets register. |", "metadata": {"page": 388, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 8. | Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.11.429Bn, only UGX.10.788Bn was spent by the Judicial Service Commission, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.640Bn representing an absorption level of 94.6%%. As a result, I noted that of the ten (10) quantified outputs worth UGX.10.815Bn assessed; three (3) outputs were fully implemented, and seven (7) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the Mbarara, Arua and Masaka offices had not been occupied for over two (2) years, while the Moroto regional office operated for less than a year till it ceased operations in 2021. Judicial Service Commission continued to meet the expenses for water, electricity and imprest for the regional offices even when they were not operational. I also noted that the staffing structure does not provide for staff for the regional offices. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the Commission in regard to complaint and case management and noted delays in concluding complaints/cases lodged and non-utilisation of the case management system. \uf0b7 I observed that JSC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.138,219,093 as at 30th June 2022. The arrears have remained outstanding for over two (2) financial years. \uf0b7 I reviewed the staffing structure of JSC and noted that out of the approved staffing level of 143, only 97 positions were filled (68%), leaving a staffing gap of 42 positions (32%). |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Judiciary did not have land titles for ninety-five (95) pieces of land measuring approximately 34.468 hectares. \uf0b7 The titles for 11 pieces of land measuring approximately 6.705 hectares were not transferred into the custody of the Uganda Land Commission. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not utilise five (5) pieces of land measuring approximately 6.963 hectares | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 389, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 8. | Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.11.429Bn, only UGX.10.788Bn was spent by the Judicial Service Commission, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.640Bn representing an absorption level of 94.6%%. As a result, I noted that of the ten (10) quantified outputs worth UGX.10.815Bn assessed; three (3) outputs were fully implemented, and seven (7) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the Mbarara, Arua and Masaka offices had not been occupied for over two (2) years, while the Moroto regional office operated for less than a year till it ceased operations in 2021. Judicial Service Commission continued to meet the expenses for water, electricity and imprest for the regional offices even when they were not operational. I also noted that the staffing structure does not provide for staff for the regional offices. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the Commission in regard to complaint and case management and noted delays in concluding complaints/cases lodged and non-utilisation of the case management system. \uf0b7 I observed that JSC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.138,219,093 as at 30th June 2022. The arrears have remained outstanding for over two (2) financial years. \uf0b7 I reviewed the staffing structure of JSC and noted that out of the approved staffing level of 143, only 97 positions were filled (68%), leaving a staffing gap of 42 positions (32%). |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 12 | The Uganda Prisons Service. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.101.30Bn, UGX.99.0Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.4Bn representing an absorption level of 98.6%. As a result, I noted that out of the sixteen (16) planned outputs worth UGX.98.87Bn assessed; five (5) outputs were fully implemented, while eleven (11) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted that the average time taken to issue passports increased to 22 days from 15 days in the prior year, 2020/2021. In addition, the processing and issuance of passports is more congested in the central region of Kampala compared to regional passport offices. There is a need to devise strategies to decongest Kampala Offices. \uf0b7 I analysed data for 20,924 unissued passports and noted that 760 passports were still held at quality control, 2,435 passports had not been picked up for over six (6) months while 1,200 passports carried a status that showed that they were not ready for pickup, such as \u201cfor approval\u201d, \u201cfor order generation\u201d or for deferred capture. Such delays should be investigated and addressed to avoid discouraging applicants from picking up their passports. \uf0b7 Only 32% of applicants who pay for express processing get their passports within two (2) days. Most applicants who pay for express services get their passports within 15 or more days. \uf0b7 I assessed the extent of utilisation of smart gates at Entebbe International airport and observed only 0.05% of travellers in the financial year 2021/2022 were cleared using the smart gates. The underutilisation implies that the gates are not delivering the intended services to the citizens. \uf0b7 I reviewed public land management and noted that NCIC\u2019s annual land acquisition budgets were inconsistent with its strategic plans. The land acquisition processes did not comply with the PPDA laws, and some of the entity\u2019s land was untitled. In addition, NCIC did not maintain a land register or capture the owned land in the asset\u2019s register in the Government\u2019s Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), and the manual land register maintained does not comply with the format prescribed by the Accountant General. \uf0b7 I reviewed IT systems management and noted that NCIC\u2019s systems are not fully integrated, and the entity\u2019s ICT governance had a number of shortfalls. For instance, there were no structures to oversee ICT implementation; no approved IT staff structure, internal audit did not review ICT systems and the entity\u2019s business continuity policy, and the plan was not comprehensive enough to ensure the seamless continuation of business operations in the event of a disaster. \uf0b7 I noted that the execution of the Turnkey contract for supplying an e-passports system and booklets did not fully comply with the contract terms. For instance, the construction of the NCIC personalisation building and a security printing factory has not yet commenced, migration of legacy data has not been done. |", "metadata": {"page": 389, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 13. | Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Funds Managed By Uganda Prisons Service (UPS) | \uf0b7 I noted that management had not understood the internal control procedure of using serially numbered payment vouchers. Manually written references have the inherent risk of human errors. When payments are not properly referenced, it becomes difficult to trace them to their supporting documentation. \uf0b7 I noted variances between the expenditure recorded in the cashbook and the expenditure reported in the quarterly financial reports for the year ended 30th September 2021. \uf0b7 I noted that the bank reconciliations from June 2021 to September 2021 were not correctly done. There were un- reconciling differences between the cashbook and the bank statement balances. In addition to this, the bank reconciliations provided for my review lacked evidence of review and approval by senior management. \uf0b7 I noted that the project field staff allowances were not charged PAYE tax. Non-compliance with Income Tax Act may precipitate tax penalties from Uganda Revenue Authority, leading to financial loss for the project. \uf0b7 I noted quarterly reports were not submitted to CDC on time. Late submission of reports may delay reporting, monitoring and evaluation of the project by the development partners. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 14 | The Law Development Centre (LDC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.28.663Bn, only UGX.28.640Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.023Bn representing an absorption level of 99.9%%. As a result, I noted that of the five (5) quantified outputs worth UGX.28.64Bn assessed, all five (5) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the delivery of services from implemented activities and noted delays in the construction of the multi- storeyed administration building and modification of the LDC printer building to accommodate a printery and store units. I also noted delays in the delivery of equipment like the production machines, tools and desktops for Lira campus. \uf0b7 I noted delays in the marking of exams while a review of the completion rate of the Bar-course for students at LDC revealed that, on average, 92% of students admitted for the Bar Course successfully enrolled to study the course. I also noted that, on average, only 48% of students enrolled for the Bar Course completed the course within the one-year duration of study of the course. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of land and noted that LDC did not have land titles for seven (7) pieces of land. LDC did not utilise the five acres of land leased to LDC for 99 years to construct the Lira campus. There were significant encumbrances on the land located on Plots 1 and 4 Block 213, Kyadondo - Bukoto Mulimira Zone, Bukoto Parish, Nakawa Division, Kampala District, measuring approximately four (4) acres, which was fully occupied by squatters. \uf0b7 I observed that domestic arrears increased by 95.3% from UGX.1.99Bn in the previous year to UGX.3.89 Bn as at 30th June 2022. \uf0b7 I observed that LDC did not submit reports on their ongoing court cases to the Ministries of Justice and Finance as required by set guidelines. As a result, the nineteen (19) cases in which LDC is a litigant do not form part of the database and record of ongoing cases maintained by the Ministry of Justice. |", "metadata": {"page": 390, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 15. | The Uganda Registration Services Bureau \u2013Liquidation. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.24.83Bn, only UGX.24.51Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.32Bn representing an absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that all the four (4) quantified outputs worth UGX.20.2Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of URSB\u2019s mandate and noted that the Bureau was experiencing challenges in storage space on the servers to support the entity\u2019s IT systems, affecting service delivery. Whereas the Bureau requires a storage size of 69 terabytes, only nine terabytes were available for allocation. It was further revealed that the available space is approximated to only serve until June 2023, given the current demand for storage space, after which the Bureau will be out of space. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the National Marriage Registration System and noted several changes affecting service delivery. These included; Clients can only make payments through the bank, the filling of civil marriage returns by the Chief Administrative Officers is not enabled, the system doesnot provide alerts or real-time updates of an application for marriage to intending couples, hence making the follow up of any progress difficult. In addition, the replacement of lost certificates is not catered for in the system, and the system allows filing of marriages from ungazetted churches. \uf0b7 A trend analysis of the Bureau\u2019s domestic arrears position for the past three years showed that arrears increased by 335% from UGX.1.47Bn in 2019/2020 to UGX.6.38Bn in 2021/2022. No budgetary provision was made to settle domestic arrears totalling UGX.4,516,077,833 in the year under audit. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that the entity receives insufficient funds to maintain IT hardware. In addition, the Bureau has no maintenance plan for IT systems, and routine maintenance of systems is not carried out. Instead, the Bureau relies on corrective maintenance of IT systems and equipment in response to user requests or when systems break down. \uf0b7 A review of the Board of survey reports and the assets register revealed that 301 IT equipment had been used for periods exceeding ten (10) years and are due for disposal. |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 16 | The Uganda Registration Services Bureau -Operations. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.24.83Bn, only UGX.24.51Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.32Bn representing an absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that all the four (4) quantified outputs worth UGX.20.2Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of URSB\u2019s mandate and noted that the Bureau was experiencing challenges in storage space on the servers to support the entity\u2019s IT systems, affecting service delivery. Whereas the Bureau requires a storage size of 69 terabytes, only nine terabytes were available for allocation. It was further revealed that the available space is approximated to only serve until June 2023, given the current demand for storage space, after which the Bureau will be out of space. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the National Marriage Registration System and noted several changes affecting service delivery. These included; Clients can only make payments through the bank, the filling of civil marriage returns by the Chief Administrative Officers is not enabled, the system doesnot provide alerts or real-time updates of an application for marriage to intending couples, hence making the follow up of any progress difficult. In addition, |", "metadata": {"page": 391, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 15. | The Uganda Registration Services Bureau \u2013Liquidation. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.24.83Bn, only UGX.24.51Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.32Bn representing an absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that all the four (4) quantified outputs worth UGX.20.2Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of URSB\u2019s mandate and noted that the Bureau was experiencing challenges in storage space on the servers to support the entity\u2019s IT systems, affecting service delivery. Whereas the Bureau requires a storage size of 69 terabytes, only nine terabytes were available for allocation. It was further revealed that the available space is approximated to only serve until June 2023, given the current demand for storage space, after which the Bureau will be out of space. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the National Marriage Registration System and noted several changes affecting service delivery. These included; Clients can only make payments through the bank, the filling of civil marriage returns by the Chief Administrative Officers is not enabled, the system doesnot provide alerts or real-time updates of an application for marriage to intending couples, hence making the follow up of any progress difficult. In addition, the replacement of lost certificates is not catered for in the system, and the system allows filing of marriages from ungazetted churches. \uf0b7 A trend analysis of the Bureau\u2019s domestic arrears position for the past three years showed that arrears increased by 335% from UGX.1.47Bn in 2019/2020 to UGX.6.38Bn in 2021/2022. No budgetary provision was made to settle domestic arrears totalling UGX.4,516,077,833 in the year under audit. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that the entity receives insufficient funds to maintain IT hardware. In addition, the Bureau has no maintenance plan for IT systems, and routine maintenance of systems is not carried out. Instead, the Bureau relies on corrective maintenance of IT systems and equipment in response to user requests or when systems break down. \uf0b7 A review of the Board of survey reports and the assets register revealed that 301 IT equipment had been used for periods exceeding ten (10) years and are due for disposal. |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | the replacement of lost certificates is not catered for in the system, and the system allows filing of marriages from ungazetted churches. \uf0b7 A trend analysis of the Bureau\u2019s domestic arrears position for the past three years showed that arrears increased by 335% from UGX.1.47Bn in 2019/2020 to UGX.6.38Bn in 2021/2022. No budgetary provision was made to settle domestic arrears totalling UGX.4,516,077,833 in the year under audit. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that the entity receives insufficient funds to maintain IT hardware. In addition, the Bureau has no maintenance plan for IT systems, and routine maintenance of systems is not carried out. Instead, the Bureau relies on corrective maintenance of IT systems and equipment in response to user requests or when systems break down. \uf0b7 A review of the Board of survey reports and the assets register revealed that 301 IT equipment had been used for periods exceeding ten (10) years and are due for disposal. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 392, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 15. | The Uganda Registration Services Bureau \u2013Liquidation. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.24.83Bn, only UGX.24.51Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.32Bn representing an absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that all the four (4) quantified outputs worth UGX.20.2Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of URSB\u2019s mandate and noted that the Bureau was experiencing challenges in storage space on the servers to support the entity\u2019s IT systems, affecting service delivery. Whereas the Bureau requires a storage size of 69 terabytes, only nine terabytes were available for allocation. It was further revealed that the available space is approximated to only serve until June 2023, given the current demand for storage space, after which the Bureau will be out of space. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the National Marriage Registration System and noted several changes affecting service delivery. These included; Clients can only make payments through the bank, the filling of civil marriage returns by the Chief Administrative Officers is not enabled, the system doesnot provide alerts or real-time updates of an application for marriage to intending couples, hence making the follow up of any progress difficult. In addition, the replacement of lost certificates is not catered for in the system, and the system allows filing of marriages from ungazetted churches. \uf0b7 A trend analysis of the Bureau\u2019s domestic arrears position for the past three years showed that arrears increased by 335% from UGX.1.47Bn in 2019/2020 to UGX.6.38Bn in 2021/2022. No budgetary provision was made to settle domestic arrears totalling UGX.4,516,077,833 in the year under audit. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that the entity receives insufficient funds to maintain IT hardware. In addition, the Bureau has no maintenance plan for IT systems, and routine maintenance of systems is not carried out. Instead, the Bureau relies on corrective maintenance of IT systems and equipment in response to user requests or when systems break down. \uf0b7 A review of the Board of survey reports and the assets register revealed that 301 IT equipment had been used for periods exceeding ten (10) years and are due for disposal. |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 17 | The Ministry of Internal Affairs. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.67.55, UGX.67.08Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unutilised warrant of UGX.0.48Bn representing an absorption level of 99.3%. As a result, I noted that out of the twenty-three (23) planned outputs worth UGX.26.77Bn assessed; eight (8) outputs were fully implemented, while fifteen (15) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted a 97% increase in the number of reported incidents of trafficking in persons from 214 in the year 2021 to 421 in the year 2022. In addition, only 78% of the victims are rescued and freed. The increase poses a security threat to the citizens and increases public outcry. \uf0b7 The Ministry does not maintain a centralised database with statistics and detailed information relating to trafficking in persons despite receiving a donation of the software from the IOM. This makes it difficult to design interventions, plan for victims\u2019 support and link trafficking cases across different regions of the country. \uf0b7 There are currently no reception shelters for accommodating the victims of trafficking in persons in the country, which renders the reintegration process difficult for returning victims and may reduce the chances of registering success in prosecuting trafficking in persons \uf0b7 I reviewed IT systems management; the Ministry\u2019s ICT governance had several shortfalls. For instance, there were no structures to oversee ICT implementation, no approved IT staff structure, and no IT risk management framework and business continuity policy. |\n| 1 | 18 | NGO Bureau Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted revenue of UGX.5Bn, only UGX.4.85Bn was received, representing a performance of 97% of the target. All funds received were fully absorbed. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of the Bureau\u2019s ten (10) outputs and noted that; five (5) were fully implemented, three (3) were partially implemented, and two (2) were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I reviewed the Bureau\u2019s salary payments and noted that PAYE taxes amounting to UGX.255,190,100 were deducted from employee emoluments but were not remitted to URA. |", "metadata": {"page": 392, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 15. | The Uganda Registration Services Bureau \u2013Liquidation. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.24.83Bn, only UGX.24.51Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.32Bn representing an absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that all the four (4) quantified outputs worth UGX.20.2Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of URSB\u2019s mandate and noted that the Bureau was experiencing challenges in storage space on the servers to support the entity\u2019s IT systems, affecting service delivery. Whereas the Bureau requires a storage size of 69 terabytes, only nine terabytes were available for allocation. It was further revealed that the available space is approximated to only serve until June 2023, given the current demand for storage space, after which the Bureau will be out of space. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the National Marriage Registration System and noted several changes affecting service delivery. These included; Clients can only make payments through the bank, the filling of civil marriage returns by the Chief Administrative Officers is not enabled, the system doesnot provide alerts or real-time updates of an application for marriage to intending couples, hence making the follow up of any progress difficult. In addition, the replacement of lost certificates is not catered for in the system, and the system allows filing of marriages from ungazetted churches. \uf0b7 A trend analysis of the Bureau\u2019s domestic arrears position for the past three years showed that arrears increased by 335% from UGX.1.47Bn in 2019/2020 to UGX.6.38Bn in 2021/2022. No budgetary provision was made to settle domestic arrears totalling UGX.4,516,077,833 in the year under audit. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that the entity receives insufficient funds to maintain IT hardware. In addition, the Bureau has no maintenance plan for IT systems, and routine maintenance of systems is not carried out. Instead, the Bureau relies on corrective maintenance of IT systems and equipment in response to user requests or when systems break down. \uf0b7 A review of the Board of survey reports and the assets register revealed that 301 IT equipment had been used for periods exceeding ten (10) years and are due for disposal. |\n|---:|:-----------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I observed that the NGO Bureau did not have a fully constituted and operational board of directors to oversee the operations of the Bureau during the year under review. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 393, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 15. | The Uganda Registration Services Bureau \u2013Liquidation. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.24.83Bn, only UGX.24.51Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.32Bn representing an absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that all the four (4) quantified outputs worth UGX.20.2Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of URSB\u2019s mandate and noted that the Bureau was experiencing challenges in storage space on the servers to support the entity\u2019s IT systems, affecting service delivery. Whereas the Bureau requires a storage size of 69 terabytes, only nine terabytes were available for allocation. It was further revealed that the available space is approximated to only serve until June 2023, given the current demand for storage space, after which the Bureau will be out of space. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the National Marriage Registration System and noted several changes affecting service delivery. These included; Clients can only make payments through the bank, the filling of civil marriage returns by the Chief Administrative Officers is not enabled, the system doesnot provide alerts or real-time updates of an application for marriage to intending couples, hence making the follow up of any progress difficult. In addition, the replacement of lost certificates is not catered for in the system, and the system allows filing of marriages from ungazetted churches. \uf0b7 A trend analysis of the Bureau\u2019s domestic arrears position for the past three years showed that arrears increased by 335% from UGX.1.47Bn in 2019/2020 to UGX.6.38Bn in 2021/2022. No budgetary provision was made to settle domestic arrears totalling UGX.4,516,077,833 in the year under audit. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that the entity receives insufficient funds to maintain IT hardware. In addition, the Bureau has no maintenance plan for IT systems, and routine maintenance of systems is not carried out. Instead, the Bureau relies on corrective maintenance of IT systems and equipment in response to user requests or when systems break down. \uf0b7 A review of the Board of survey reports and the assets register revealed that 301 IT equipment had been used for periods exceeding ten (10) years and are due for disposal. |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 19 | Uganda Police Force. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 UPF budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.24.50Bn but realised a total of UGX.33.01Bn representing a performance of 135% of the target. \uf0b7 Out of the total budgeted GoU receipts for the financial year of UGX.980.67Bn, UGX.977.63Bn (99.9%) was collected and fully utilised during the year. I sampled sixteen (16) outputs worth UGX.673.89Bn for assessment and noted that seven (7) outputs worth UGX.168.09Bn were fully implemented, while nine (9) outputs worth 245.97Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 A total of UGX.3.05Bn was diverted from activities for which they were budgeted and spent on the settlement of arrears. \uf0b7 I assessed the performance of the police Canine unit and noted that; the police dogs are concentrated in the Kampala region despite statistics indicating a significant number of crimes reported in rural areas. \uf0b7 I noted that the dogs\u2019 medical requirements are not sufficiently addressed due to an insufficient number of veterinary staff, insufficient transportation facilities and poor housing for the dogs. \uf0b7 I assessed the performance of the forensics unit and noted that the unit does not have a Laboratory Information Management System and an automated exhibit tracking system. Analysis shows that there was an increase in the backlog of cases in the Forensic unit. \uf0b7 I observed overcrowding at the UPF\u2019s enrolment and distribution centre for Certificates of Good Conduct. This was attributed to the increased demand for the certificates. For instance, the number of certificates issued increased by 170% from 31,671 in 2020 to 85,664 in 2021. There is need to establish more enrolment centres and decentralise the operations. \uf0b7 I reviewed the performance of investigation by the CID and noted that only 56% of cases were investigated and concluded, leaving a backlog of 316,667 cases. This was partly attributed to low levels of automation in the investigation process, limited technical and financial support, and human resource challenges such as insufficient training. \uf0b7 I reviewed the performance of the Express Penalty Scheme and noted an increasing trend of unpaid tickets for fines issued over three (3) years. The analysis revealed that out of the 1.77 million tickets issued in the last three financial years, 700,000 tickets worth UGX.94Bn were still unpaid at the time of audit. This was attributed to weaknesses in the enforcement of payment of traffic fines. Some offenders are untraceable, with no permanent addresses; others are foreigners, and yet there is no policy on enforcement procedures, especially for such defaulters. |", "metadata": {"page": 393, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 15. | The Uganda Registration Services Bureau \u2013Liquidation. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.24.83Bn, only UGX.24.51Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.32Bn representing an absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that all the four (4) quantified outputs worth UGX.20.2Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of URSB\u2019s mandate and noted that the Bureau was experiencing challenges in storage space on the servers to support the entity\u2019s IT systems, affecting service delivery. Whereas the Bureau requires a storage size of 69 terabytes, only nine terabytes were available for allocation. It was further revealed that the available space is approximated to only serve until June 2023, given the current demand for storage space, after which the Bureau will be out of space. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the National Marriage Registration System and noted several changes affecting service delivery. These included; Clients can only make payments through the bank, the filling of civil marriage returns by the Chief Administrative Officers is not enabled, the system doesnot provide alerts or real-time updates of an application for marriage to intending couples, hence making the follow up of any progress difficult. In addition, the replacement of lost certificates is not catered for in the system, and the system allows filing of marriages from ungazetted churches. \uf0b7 A trend analysis of the Bureau\u2019s domestic arrears position for the past three years showed that arrears increased by 335% from UGX.1.47Bn in 2019/2020 to UGX.6.38Bn in 2021/2022. No budgetary provision was made to settle domestic arrears totalling UGX.4,516,077,833 in the year under audit. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that the entity receives insufficient funds to maintain IT hardware. In addition, the Bureau has no maintenance plan for IT systems, and routine maintenance of systems is not carried out. Instead, the Bureau relies on corrective maintenance of IT systems and equipment in response to user requests or when systems break down. \uf0b7 A review of the Board of survey reports and the assets register revealed that 301 IT equipment had been used for periods exceeding ten (10) years and are due for disposal. |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 There was a fire outbreak at Uganda Police\u2019s Garment Factory in Lugogo along Jinja Road, which damaged both equipment and materials, causing an estimated loss of UGX.1.95Bn. An investigation into the cause and extent of the fire's damage is yet to be concluded. \uf0b7 I reviewed public land management and noted that UPF land at Kabalagala, Nakawa and Pallisa is encumbered, which poses a risk of loss of land. A number of land parcels owned by UPF are not titled. \uf0b7 There is unclear ownership of Police land in Naguru arising from a claim for the same land by M/s Oscar Industries Ltd. \uf0b7 Whereas the Government leased land to UNAFRI for setting up their operations, the agency has since failed to develop the land and has subleased the land to Yuasa and Future group car bonds while the structures are being rented out to individuals for revenue. \uf0b7 I noted deficiencies in the ICT Governance structures. The ICT department is understaffed, and there is no IT risk management framework, risk register and business continuity plan. \uf0b7 I noted that UPF does not adequately budget for liabilities arising from compensations and court awards. There were delays in the settlement of court awards, with some not settled for over 10 years. UPF does not maintain a comprehensive and detailed register of all cases for compensation and court awards. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 394, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 15. | The Uganda Registration Services Bureau \u2013Liquidation. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.24.83Bn, only UGX.24.51Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.32Bn representing an absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that all the four (4) quantified outputs worth UGX.20.2Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of URSB\u2019s mandate and noted that the Bureau was experiencing challenges in storage space on the servers to support the entity\u2019s IT systems, affecting service delivery. Whereas the Bureau requires a storage size of 69 terabytes, only nine terabytes were available for allocation. It was further revealed that the available space is approximated to only serve until June 2023, given the current demand for storage space, after which the Bureau will be out of space. \uf0b7 I reviewed the operations of the National Marriage Registration System and noted several changes affecting service delivery. These included; Clients can only make payments through the bank, the filling of civil marriage returns by the Chief Administrative Officers is not enabled, the system doesnot provide alerts or real-time updates of an application for marriage to intending couples, hence making the follow up of any progress difficult. In addition, the replacement of lost certificates is not catered for in the system, and the system allows filing of marriages from ungazetted churches. \uf0b7 A trend analysis of the Bureau\u2019s domestic arrears position for the past three years showed that arrears increased by 335% from UGX.1.47Bn in 2019/2020 to UGX.6.38Bn in 2021/2022. No budgetary provision was made to settle domestic arrears totalling UGX.4,516,077,833 in the year under audit. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of IT investments and noted that the entity receives insufficient funds to maintain IT hardware. In addition, the Bureau has no maintenance plan for IT systems, and routine maintenance of systems is not carried out. Instead, the Bureau relies on corrective maintenance of IT systems and equipment in response to user requests or when systems break down. \uf0b7 A review of the Board of survey reports and the assets register revealed that 301 IT equipment had been used for periods exceeding ten (10) years and are due for disposal. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 20 | National Identification and Registration Authority (NIRA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.62.62Bn, only UGX.57.27Bn was spent by NIRA resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.34Bn representing an absorption level of 91.46%. \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted funds of UGX.75.02Bn, only UGX.62.62Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX12.4Bn, which represents 16.5% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total approved NTR estimates of UGX.15Bn, only UGX5.3Bn was collected, representing a performance of only 35%. \uf0b7 I sampled ten (10) outputs that had been fully quantified worth UGX.22Bn and noted that two outputs worth UGX.3.1Bn were fully implemented, and seven outputs worth UGX.18.9Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I reviewed the progress of enrolment and registration of citizens and noted that approximately 4.3 million Ugandans are still unregistered, and 419,055 have applied, but their applications are still under data processing. It takes an average of 21 days to process an application instead of the expected seven days if NIRA is working efficiently, indicating delays in the process. \uf0b7 I noted that about 1.6 million cards were printed but not issued, and 1.5M of these have been unissued for a period exceeding six months. In addition, about 1.3 million applications were rejected for inaccurate data and errors that need rectification, but NIRA has not notified these clients. |", "metadata": {"page": 394, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that there was no strategy and plan regarding the transfer and migration of processed and stored data, process flows, biometric data scope and timing, which may lead to interruptions in the normal operations in the production of IDs, security and preservation of data integrity and delayed delivery of expected outputs under the Joint venture \uf0b7 I noted that the entity is understaffed, with only 423 positions filled out of an approved structure of 865 staff, resulting in a shortfall of 442 (representing 49%). Key positions like Director ICT, manager Human Resources, Manager Public Relations and Senior Accountant were vacant at the year-end. This leads to the underachievement of planned activities due to an overload of existing staff. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 21.0 | Amnesty Commission Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted revenue of UGX.3.3Bn, only UGX.3.01Bn was received, representing a performance of 93% of the target. All funds received were fully absorbed. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of the Commission\u2019s four outputs and noted that; one (1) output was fully implemented, while three (3) were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I reviewed the entity\u2019s payments and noted that UGX.81,898,396 related to prior year invoices that were not declared as arrears in the financial statements for the year ended 30th June 2021 and thus not budgeted to be paid in the year under audit. |\n| 1 | | SECURITY SECTOR | |\n| 2 | 1.0 | Ministry of Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs (MKCC&MA) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry had a budget of UGX4.5bn which was all warranted. Out of this UGX.4.16Bn was utilized representing an absorption level of 92%. The un-utilized funds UGX.34Bn were meant for recruitment of staff. \uf0b7 I noted that that the entity did not provide performance indicators in the work plans and as a result it was not possible to assess the extent to which planned activities were implemented. \uf0b7 The Ministry had challenges of office space and significant staffing gaps. During the year the ministry was only housed by the Office of the president. \uf0b7 In regard to staffing, out of the approved staff establishment of 50 employees, 23 positions were filled leaving 27 vacancies unfilled representing a staffing gap of 54%. |\n| 3 | 2.0 | National Enterprise Corporation (NEC) Agro SMSC LTD Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 NEC AGRO SMC LTD had an operating margin of 7.4% which is below the 15% recommended threshold. This performance was also below the 8.3% realized in the previous year 2020/21. \uf0b7 For the year under review, NEC Agro SMC LTD posted a return on assets of 19% down from 21.6% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 12%. \uf0b7 I noted that the company had a current ratio of 10.7 for the year under review which was above the desirable ratio of 1.5. This implies that the company is not facing liquidity problems. I further noted that the current ratio for the year increased by 51% from a ratio of 7.1 recorded in the previous year. |", "metadata": {"page": 396, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that there was no strategy and plan regarding the transfer and migration of processed and stored data, process flows, biometric data scope and timing, which may lead to interruptions in the normal operations in the production of IDs, security and preservation of data integrity and delayed delivery of expected outputs under the Joint venture \uf0b7 I noted that the entity is understaffed, with only 423 positions filled out of an approved structure of 865 staff, resulting in a shortfall of 442 (representing 49%). Key positions like Director ICT, manager Human Resources, Manager Public Relations and Senior Accountant were vacant at the year-end. This leads to the underachievement of planned activities due to an overload of existing staff. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.1,638,416,786 in the year under review and UGX.1,470,968,482 in the previous financial year, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment. I further noted that the Company has not paid any dividends to Government for the previous years. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 3.0 | Kiira Motors Corporation. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 KMC had an approved budget of UGX.218,200,839,000 which was all availed during the year. Out of this, the entity absorbed UGX.65,215,742,112 which was only 30% of the funds availed. This affected the implementation of planned activities (all the three outputs planned for the year were partially implemented). \uf0b7 The entity had an un-recovered long outstanding receivable of UGX.8,489,374,688 from Makerere University which remained outstanding for more than eight years. \uf0b7 The entity bought 518 hectares of land without notifying Uganda Land Commission and without obtaining approval for purpose of the land from the Uganda land Commission which contravened Section 49 (b) of the Land Act. I further observed that part of this land had encumbrances in form of squatters. \uf0b7 KMC does not have adequate ICT business continuity and disaster recovery measures in the event of ICT systems failure and disruptions. |", "metadata": {"page": 397, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that there was no strategy and plan regarding the transfer and migration of processed and stored data, process flows, biometric data scope and timing, which may lead to interruptions in the normal operations in the production of IDs, security and preservation of data integrity and delayed delivery of expected outputs under the Joint venture \uf0b7 I noted that the entity is understaffed, with only 423 positions filled out of an approved structure of 865 staff, resulting in a shortfall of 442 (representing 49%). Key positions like Director ICT, manager Human Resources, Manager Public Relations and Senior Accountant were vacant at the year-end. This leads to the underachievement of planned activities due to an overload of existing staff. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 4 | Presidential Initiative on Banana Industrial Development (PIBID). 2020/2021 Opinion Disclaimer | \uf0b7 Whereas a Trial Balance was presented in the financial statements as the basis for the account balances disclosed, I noted that the ledgers required to show the build-up of figures in the Trial Balance were incomplete. I further noted that the expenditure ledgers for Government subvention funds were inconsistent with the ones used to record expenditure of revenue from sales. I was therefore unable to confirm the correctness of the build-up of the figures in the Trial Balance, which was the basis for preparation and presentation of the financial statements. \uf0b7 I reviewed the statement of cash flows and noted figures in several account areas totalling to UGX.11Bn that were inconsistent with the statement of financial performance and were not supported with ledgers. I could not carry out reconciliations between the figures in the Statement of Financial Performance and those in the statement of cash flows due lack of proper underlying records. As a result, I could not verify the accuracy of the figures reported in the statement of cash flows and the statement of financial performance. \uf0b7 A review of the summary of Budget Performance and the Statement of Appropriation Account (Based on Nature of Expenditure) indicates that the company spent UGX.1.213Bn on fixed assets during the financial year. However, a review of the additions in the schedule of fixed assets, indicated that UGX.2.025Bn was spent on asset additions during the year. This led to a discrepancy of UGX.812Mn between the summary of budget performance and the statement of appropriation, and the fixed asset schedule amount in respect of asset additions. I was not provided with ledgers to enable reconciliations of the amounts. These inconsistencies cast doubt on the accuracy of the information presented concerning the expenditure on fixed assets. \uf0b7 I reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources, and rates charged at the entity level for the financial year 2020/2021 and noted that out of the UGX.2.757Bn budgeted to be collected in the year under review, only UGX.0.295Bn was collected during the year representing 11% of the budget. Such a performance on NTR collection |", "metadata": {"page": 397, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that there was no strategy and plan regarding the transfer and migration of processed and stored data, process flows, biometric data scope and timing, which may lead to interruptions in the normal operations in the production of IDs, security and preservation of data integrity and delayed delivery of expected outputs under the Joint venture \uf0b7 I noted that the entity is understaffed, with only 423 positions filled out of an approved structure of 865 staff, resulting in a shortfall of 442 (representing 49%). Key positions like Director ICT, manager Human Resources, Manager Public Relations and Senior Accountant were vacant at the year-end. This leads to the underachievement of planned activities due to an overload of existing staff. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | implies a significant failure of revenue collection strategies employed by the institution which may impact its sustainability. \uf0b7 It was further allocated supplementary funding of UGX.527.8Mn for the PRESIDE research project, of which UGX.343.9Mn was received during the financial year and the balance received shortly after the close the financial year as a result, out of the 23 outputs assessed, 14 outputs representing 61% were fully implemented and 6 outputs representing 26% were partially implemented and 3 outputs representing 13% were not implemented. Failure tp fully implement planned activities may lead to inability to attain the intended project objectives. \uf0b7 PBID has a secondary processing plant, which turns matooke chips into matooke flour with a capacity of 1 tonne per hour. During the audit, I was not provided with details of output during the period, but my anaysis of revenue reported during the year shows only UGX.295Mn was attained against a budget of UGX.2.757Bn. This implies the plant is grossly under utilised. \uf0b7 Of the UGX.295Mn that was reported as collections from operations, only UGX.99Mn was banked. Out of the unbanked revenue of UGX.196Mn, only UGX.153.9Mn was accounted for in form of cash payments leaving a balance of UGX.42Mn unaccounted for. There is a risk that this amount was not put to proper use. \uf0b7 PIBID lacked land titles for its land at Sanga (approximately 50 acres) and land located at Kyamuhanga (approximately 4 acres) exposing the land to the risk of encroachment and land grabbing. \uf0b7 PIBID does not have an approved salary structure on which it pays individual staff. It should be noted that this issue has been re-occurring and Management has not taken action. \uf0b7 Contracts totalling UGX.1.228Bn were signed by the entity without the approval of the Solicitor General contrary to Article 119 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (as amended). This exposes government to risks of unfavaourable contractual terms and potential loss. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 398, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that there was no strategy and plan regarding the transfer and migration of processed and stored data, process flows, biometric data scope and timing, which may lead to interruptions in the normal operations in the production of IDs, security and preservation of data integrity and delayed delivery of expected outputs under the Joint venture \uf0b7 I noted that the entity is understaffed, with only 423 positions filled out of an approved structure of 865 staff, resulting in a shortfall of 442 (representing 49%). Key positions like Director ICT, manager Human Resources, Manager Public Relations and Senior Accountant were vacant at the year-end. This leads to the underachievement of planned activities due to an overload of existing staff. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 5 | Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I reviewed the approved budget for the financial year 2021/2022 and noted that the entity had a revenue budget of UGX.43.14Bn during the year under review. By the end of the year only UGX.29.10Bn had been realized, representing a performance of 32.9% of the target \uf0b7 I noted that the entity only had a budget of UGX5.5bn for land purchase during the period under review, but went ahead and spent UGX.8.5bn resulting in an irregular over payment of UGX.3bn. \uf0b7 The Uganda Land Commission was not involved in the procurement of the land since the entity did not obtain any approvals from ULC as required. Similarly, the title of the land was not transferred to the names of ULC by Management as required by the land Act. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff structure of 70 positions, 55 were filled leaving 15 positions unfilled. |\n| 1 | 6 | National Enterprise Corporation (NEC) Farm Katonga. Opinion | \uf0b7 I noted that the Company has an operating margin of 7.1%, which is below 15% which is generally recommended. The current year operating ratio however is 5.9% above the ratio of the previous year 2020/2021. |", "metadata": {"page": 398, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity made profits of UGX. 253,263,582 after tax in the year under review up from UGX.32,789,541 realized in the previous year representing a rise in profits of 672.4%. Despite the performance, the entity still had negative retained earnings of UGX. 1,558,748,753 as at the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 Return on Assets; Although the return on assets for the entity increased to 2.6% from 0.4% recorded in the previous year, the return was still very low. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 7 | National Enterprise Corporation (NEC) Headquarter Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the National Enterprise Corporation had not fully automated its financial production and reporting processes. Financial Statements were still being produced in a manual form. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 26 staffs the entity has twenty-two (22) staffs only leaving a balance of four (4) positions unfilled. The four unfilled positions included key positions such as the Chief Accountant. |\n| 1 | 8 | National Enterprise Corporation (NEC) Luwero Industries Limited. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Included in the statement of financial position is a long-term outstanding trade debtors total of UGX.4,319,714,000 expected from NEC Uzima being an advance for acquisition and installation of a new watering line. However, I was not availed a plan of recovery or any initiatives taken by management to recover the funds. \uf0b7 I noted that the company had a current ratio of 20.3 for the year under review which was above the desirable ratio of 1.5. I further noted that the current ratio for the year increased by 71% from a ratio of 11.9 recorded in the previous year. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.7.882BN in the current year and UGX.3.682BN in the previous financial year, the company did not propose any dividend pay-outs as a form of return on Government investment. I further noted that the Enterprise/Company has not paid any dividends to government for the previous years. |\n| 2 | 9 | National Enterprise Corporation (NEC) Uzima Ltd Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Company has an operating margin of 6.2% which is below 15% and below the 32% realized in the previous year 2020/21 \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |", "metadata": {"page": 399, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity made profits of UGX. 253,263,582 after tax in the year under review up from UGX.32,789,541 realized in the previous year representing a rise in profits of 672.4%. Despite the performance, the entity still had negative retained earnings of UGX. 1,558,748,753 as at the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 Return on Assets; Although the return on assets for the entity increased to 2.6% from 0.4% recorded in the previous year, the return was still very low. |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 10 | National Enterprise Corporation - Construction, Works and Engineering Ltd 2020/21 | \uf0b7 The Company has an operating margin of 6.2% which is below 15% and below the 32% realized in the previous year 2020/21 |", "metadata": {"page": 399, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 11 | Uganda Air Cargo Corporation (UACC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Corporation has long outstanding receivables amounting to UGX.21,530,187,266. Of this, over UGX.8,267,011,797 representing 38.4% has been outstanding for a period of more than five (5) years. \uf0b7 The Corporation continued to make losses posting a loss of UGX 9.04Bn in the current year. Similarly, the Corporation\u2019s liquidity and gearing position were below the desirable level which is an indicator that the Corporation is still not performing well financially. \uf0b7 The Corporation currently has no Board to oversee its operations after the old Board expired on 30th June 2022. |\n| 1 | 12 | State House. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Entity planned to collect NTR of 0.12Bn however by the end of the year 0.24Bn had been realised. I further noted that the entity had a budget for GOU funds of UGX 653Bn which was all warranted and absorbed. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of fourteen (14) outputs with a total of forty-six (46) activities worth UGX.408.6Bn and noted that nine (9) outputs with nineteen (19) activities worth UGX.149.2Bn were fully implemented, while five (5) outputs with twenty-seven (27) activities worth UGX.259.4Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that State House had un-titled properties for eighteen 18 (State lodges) under its ownership. \uf0b7 A review of the Board of survey reports for the period ending June 2021, and the assets register revealed that various assorted ICT Equipment exceeded the recommended useful life and should have been disposed of which was not done. \uf0b7 The entity did not have an approved IT Risk Management Framework/Policy and Risk Register which affects the entity\u2019s ability to identify or detect IT related risks which can lead to failures of information systems. |\n| 2 | 13 | Office of the President Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity was supposed to receive UGX.559,045,484,390 out of which UGX.555,960,866,639 was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.3,084,617,751. The shortfall represents 0.55% of the approved budget. Out of the total warrants of UGX.555,960,866,639 received during the financial year UGX.554,639,945,166 was absorbed by the Entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1,320,921,473 representing an absorption level of 99.9%. |", "metadata": {"page": 400, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|:-------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I sampled ten (10) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of fifty-five (55) activities worth UGX.79.38Bn and noted that Four (4) outputs worth UGX.42.08Bn were fully implemented, five (5) outputs worth UGX.32.7Bn were partially implemented while one (1) output with two (2) activities worth 1.56Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that 46 out of the 62 pieces of land owned by the entity did not have titles while titles for 10 Pieces of land measuring approximately 6.82589 hectares were not transferred into the names of the Uganda Land Commission. \uf0b7 I noted that at the end of the year the entity had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.31.8Bn. \uf0b7 A review of the Entity\u2019s current staffing levels revealed that out of the total of 737 positions, 298 were filled leaving 439 positions vacant representing 40% staffing levels. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of the entities ICT function which included failure to dispose of obsolete assets, Non-compliance with NITAU requirements among others. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 401, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 14 | Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs (MoDVA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity had an NTR estimate of UGX 0.70Bn and by the end of the year UGX. 1.2Bn had been collected representing a performance of 175% \uf0b7 The entity had a total budget of UGX.4,168,226,754,316 which was all warranted. Out of this, UGX. 4.167Tn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1,236,047,040 representing an absorption level of 99.9%. \uf0b7 I was not able to confirm the extent to which planned activities were implemented since the work plans did not have KPIs to facilitate measurement of performance. \uf0b7 I noted that all land measuring approximately 7,562.072 hectares were not recorded in the entity land/assets register. I further noted that all land measuring approximately 7,562.0722 hectares were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed assets module of IFMS as required by the Treasury Instructions. \uf0b7 I noted that 20 pieces of land measuring approximately 12,534.378 hectares had encumbrances in the form of encroachment. In addition, 31 pieces of land measuring approximately 15,585.337 hectares did not have land titles. \uf0b7 The entity had domestic arrears amounting to UGX 314,062,612,228 as at 30th June 2022. \uf0b7 I reviewed the Management of ICT systems and noted shortcomings for example; 13 IT systems/equipment were procured at a cost of UGX. 0.872,786,264 without clearance from NITA-U, the entity signed contracts worth 0.711Bn without clearance from Attorney General, and 5 IT projects worth 0.872Bn were not implemented within the required timelines, lack of business continuity plan, lack of ICT steering committee among others. \uf0b7 I noted delayed completion of the UPDF National Referral Hospital at Lower Mbuya which resulted in delayed service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted delayed compensation of court awards where in some cases the ministry had taken more than five (5) years to effect compensations. In addition, the Ministry did not have a comprehensive register of court awards and compensations made and outstanding. |", "metadata": {"page": 401, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT SECTOR | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 402, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Development Response to Displacement Impact Project(DRDIP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.245.88Bn received during the financial year, the project submitted invoices totalling UGX.237.83Bn resulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX.8.05Bn representing an absorption level of 96.72%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of eighteen (18) activities worth UGX.237.8Bn and noted that; One (1) output with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.13.799Bn were fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with eleven (11) activities worth UGX.224Bn were partially implemented. Out of the eleven (11) activities, the entity fully implemented seven (7) activities; two (2) activities were partially implemented, while three (3) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the project continued to cumulatively withdraw and disburse funds to the different subgroups in the implementing districts. This currently stands at UGX.536.62Bn. However, only UGX.363.19Bn (67.6%) has been utilised and accounted for. The balance of UGX.173.43Bn (32%) remained unutilised and on the bank accounts for the different subgroups. \uf0b7 I reviewed the project's performance against the results framework and observed that the project had achieved year four performance targets for nineteen (19) of the twenty-six (26) performance indicators representing 95%. However, seven (7) performance indicators in the project year three targets were not achieved. \uf0b7 I noted that the implementing partners lacked tangible achievement in implementing their target activities in component 2 across all the districts due to the late engagement process of the implementing partners by DRDIP management and the six months suspension by the IGG. Additionally, the funds to the implementing partners only covered the labour training arrangements but did not consider the operational costs like fuel/ transport logistics. \uf0b7 The project had an indicative planning figure of UGX.6.4Bn for implementing traditional and non-traditional livelihoods but did not disburse funds to appraised micro-projects for the year under review. I also noted that the project had not embarked on the procurement/ engagement process of the Capacity-Building Partners (CBPs) \uf0b7 I noted that the project had outstanding commitments to the tune of UGX. 62,171,493 at the year-end. \uf0b7 I noted that the DRDIP MIS was not yet integrated with other IT systems as required by the Project Implementation Manual. The un-integrated systems include; the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), OPM Geographical MIS used for monitoring and evaluation of government interventions across the country and the beneficiary registry in the Ministry of Gender. |\n| 1 | 2 | The New Vision printing and Publishing company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 New Vision Printing and Publishing Company Limited market capitalisation of UGX 12,240 million was significantly lower than the carrying amount of the company\u2019s net assets of UGX 65,039 million as at 30th June 2021 which is an indicator of impairment of the Company\u2019s tangible non-current assets. In accordance with IAS 36 Impairment of Assets, an impairment assessment was done on the company\u2019s non-current assets and no reportable exception was found. |", "metadata": {"page": 402, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The company had trade and other receivables of UGX 32.8 billion as at 30th June 2022 compared to UGX 32.4 billion of the previous period (2021) and expected credit losses of UGX 3.37 billion (2021: UGX 3.2 billion) as at 30th June 2022. Management performed the impairment assessment of trade receivables and other receivables using its own expected credit loss model. I however noted challenges with the expected credit loss model, like a lack of integration of the risk management framework into the financial reporting system, the different users of the model, were not trained on how to use the model and there were inconsistencies in the source of data for the model. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 403, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3 | Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation Opinion Qualified | \uf0b7 The Statement of Financial Position as at 30th June, 2022 reported the UPPC Investment in the Joint Venture (Uganda Security Printing Company Limited) at a cost of UGX.9.097Bn as valued by 30th June, 2020 but did not use the equity method as required by IFRS 11- Joint arrangements implying that the statement is misstated and misleading to the users. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas the Tax records as per URA revealed a tax liability figure of UGX.1.609Bn, the Financial Statements disclosed only UGX.1.148Bn resulting in a variance of UGX.0.461Bn \uf0b7 I noted that debtors worth UGX.3.76Bn have been outstanding for a period ranging between 361 days to 1800 days contrary to best practice thus limiting the availability of funds for UPPC activities. \uf0b7 Review of the Corporation financial performance revealed a fall in profits of 64.4% from profits of UGX.3.38Bn realized in the previous year, a reduction of 21% on Return on Assets from 26% posted in the previous year, a liquidity ratio of 2.8 implying the Corporation is not efficiently using its current assets and failure to pay any dividend to government for the previous (3) years despite making profits. \uf0b7 I noted that the Corporation did not have a functional Board of directors during the year under review since the tenure for the previous Board had elapsed in October 2021. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff establishment of 120 staff, only 69 were filled representing 57.5% thereby leaving a staffing gap of 51. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in regard to procurement and utilization of IT equipment i.e. IT systems/equipment procured without clearance by NITA-U and neither recorded in the Assets register, failure to accurately record (35) IT assets worth UGX.0.256Bn in the right format, failure to allocate and engrave 25 IT assets to staff in the assets register, lack of specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation, non-representation of ICT in top management, lack of an approved IT staff structure, failure by internal Audit to review the various ICT systems and lack of rights to some of the systems, unapproved draft ICT policy, lack of a risk register and lack of a business continuity plan. \uf0b7 I noted that (01) piece of land measuring 1.778 Hectares was disposed of as a contribution to the joint venture with USPC at UGX.9.091Bn below the Chief Government Valuer valuation of UGX.10.6Bn hence causing a financial loss of UGX.1.509Bn to Government and all the 5 pieces of land measuring approximately 1.256 hectares held by the entity valued at UGX4.151Bn were not fully utilized. |", "metadata": {"page": 403, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that the Corporation does not have an approved outsourcing policy/framework for received work orders. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 4.0 | Markets and Agricultural Trade Improvement Project (MATIP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 There was a shortfall in GoU funding amounting to UGX.0.81Bn representing 81% of the budget. Similarly, the programme had a shortfall in releases from external financing amounting to UGX.32.10Bn representing 45% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 The programme failed to absorb UGX.0.27Bn, representing an absorption level of 99%. As a result, I noted that out of the three (3) outputs with nineteen (19) activities worth UGX.37Bn planned for execution, one (1) activity was fully implemented, seven (7) activities were partially implemented, while eleven (11) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the programme experienced several challenges in implementing several activities, such as delays in completing some markets/facilities and operationalising constructed markets/facilities activities, which delayed the delivery of services to the citizens. |", "metadata": {"page": 404, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 5 | Ministry of Public Service Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources and rates charged at vote level for the financial year 2021/2022 and noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.14Bn during the year under review; however, UGX.0.37Bn was collected, representing a performance of 264% of the target. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.34.4Bn, out of which UGX.33.3Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.1.1Bn. The shortfall represents 3.2% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.33.3Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling to UGX.31.045Bn resulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX. 2.259Bn representing an absorption level of 93.2%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of twenty-two (22) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of one hundred forty-six (146) activities worth UGX.23.63Bn and noted that; three (3) outputs with twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.10.02Bn were fully implemented. Nineteen (19) outputs with one hundred thirty-four (134) activities worth UGX.13.6Bn were partially implemented. Out of the one hundred thirty-four (134) activities, the entity fully implemented fifty-five (55) activities; fifty-five (55) activities were partially implemented, while twenty- four (24) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I undertook physical inspections to establish if works/services were delivered. I noted performance gaps and delays in the renovation of Ministry premises; operationalisation of new cities; operations of the civil service college; compliance with service delivery standards; harmonisation of salaries in Government and roll out and implementation of the Human Capital Management System (HCM). \uf0b7 I noted that though the second phase of implementation of the pay policy was scheduled for FYR 2019/20, the MoPS failed to secure a budget allocation with MoFPED for financing pay enhancement. Also, there was no uniform percentage enhancement of the Public officers to benefit from salary enhancement. Additionally, selective enhancement of salaries for cadres like science teachers executing the same job as artisan teachers in public service has further demotivated the workforce. |", "metadata": {"page": 404, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that with the demand for wages outpacing the current growth rate of the economy, there is a risk that Government would fall short of: \uf0b7 Servicing the financial implication of the increased pension liability as a result of salary enhancement since pension liability is calculated upon the final salary at retirement; \uf0b7 Delivering quality services in the different sectors to the citizens as a substantial portion of the resources available would be reallocated to servicing the wage requirement. \uf0b7 I noted that the expiry of the five years approved pay targets and principles would elapse in the FYR ended 2022/23. Yet, with the recently concluded budget cycle, no funds were appropriated to enhance the salaries of technical officers in the Public Service in both Central and Local Governments. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 6.0 | Local Government Finance Commission Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Commission did not budget for NTR but collected UGX.2,360,000. \uf0b7 There was a shortfall in releases from GoU amounting to UGX.0.44Bn representing 7.57% of the budget. \uf0b7 The Commission failed to spend UGX.0.01Bn, representing an absorption level of 96.81%. As a result, I noted that out of the six (6) outputs with twenty-seven (27) activities worth UGX.1.71Bn assessed; twenty-four (24) activities were fully implemented, three (3) activities were partially implemented while no activity remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 The Commission had outstanding domestic arrears amounting to UGX.349,024,808 at the end of the financial year relating to unremitted cash limits for rent in 2020/2021. \uf0b7 The Commission did not carry out its functions of revenue distribution, revenue maximisation for LGs and budget allocation for LGs for the FYR 2021/2022. \uf0b7 I observed that the Commission failed to coordinate the automation of Revenue management systems in LGs. \uf0b7 I noted that although the Commission had an approved staff structure of sixty-four (64) officers and employees, only thirty-six (36) positions, representing 56%, were filled, leaving twenty-eight (28) positions representing 44%, vacant. |", "metadata": {"page": 405, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 7 | City Wide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I observed that the program work plans and budgets were never approved by Parliament, contrary to the PFMA. \uf0b7 The programme received all the anticipated funds from the donors; however, GoU counterpart funding was less than expected by USD 0.02 Million. \uf0b7 The program absorbed USD USD.1,141,876, which is 53% of the funds availed to the project for implementation of activities. \uf0b7 I noted that the project substantially quantified all its activities. Out of the sixty-eight (68) activities assessed, forty-four (44) \u2013 65% of activities worth USD 975,602 were fully implemented, fourteen (14)- 21% of activities worth USD 116,816 were partially implemented, while ten (10)- 15% of activities worth USD 49,457 were not implemented at all. |", "metadata": {"page": 405, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Inspection of the progress of the project works at four (4) sites revealed that; works at Kyanja had stalled, delayed completion of works at Kalerwe and inadequate contract management at Nakawa, City Square and Kalerwe. This affects service delivery. \uf0b7 The project had accumulated arrears amounting to USD 340,298 at the end of the financial year. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 406, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|-------------:|:------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 8 | National Planning Authority Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.37.60Bn, only UGX.37.60Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.004Bn representing an absorption level of 99.9%. As a result, I noted that out of the 6 quantified activities worth UGX.8.62Bn assessed; 3 activities representing 50% were fully implemented, 3 activities representing 50% were partially implemented and no activity was not implemented. \uf0b7 The Authority experienced implementation challenges of some activities within the planned time frames, affecting service delivery. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staffing level of 181, only 126 positions were filled (69.6%), leaving a staffing gap of 55 positions (19.3%). \uf0b7 I noted inadequate top-level support in the transition from sector to program approaches to planning and budgeting as only the P/Ss\u2019 of the convening Ministries attend the programme working group (PWG) meetings. The rest were lower cadre officers, which lowered the level of the technical discussions. Program Working Groups were generally not functional and had not played their coordination roles basically due to lack of human, financial, and logistical resources. \uf0b7 I noted that at the sub-programme level, the coordination arrangements amongst the development partners, the private sector, and the civil society groups were sluggish over the first half of the NDPIII. \uf0b7 There was delayed approval of strategic plans at only 86% due to non-compliance and delays in responding by the respective MDAs\u2019 and LGs\u2019 to the various review comments raised by NPA. \uf0b7 I noted delayed realignment of the CNDPF to program planning approach, which affected the proper guidance of entities in undertaking planning activities. \uf0b7 I noted that there was a lack of a follow-up mechanism for ensuring that NPA recommendations on CoC issues are implemented to improve budget compliance in the subsequent years. \uf0b7 I noted that there was lack of programme planning capacity in both MDAs and LGs as, by the time of the MTR, LGs were yet to produce programme-based BFPs despite being allowed to undertake budget expenditure. \uf0b7 I observed that there was no adjustment or risk mitigation strategy which allowed Government to adjust the plan throughout the implementation period in line with the available financial resources and the external environment while keeping the broad focus constant. |", "metadata": {"page": 406, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|:-------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted weaknesses regarding the reporting and performance evaluation on the implementation of NDP III i.e. failure by LGs to produce the annual performance reports, only 4 (20%) out of the 20 programs had been able to produce annual performance reports and the lack of follow-up mechanisms for proper compliance to the respective guidelines. \uf0b7 The MTR highlighted that the PWG processes have not materialized as most programmes (16 out 20) are not operational, and their respective secretariats are not visible. \uf0b7 There was slow progress in implementing NDP III Monitoring and Evaluation reforms. \uf0b7 I noted that there was no current 10-year national development plan informing the formulation of the NDP III and NDP IV. Additionally, the Authority only had a 5-year human resource development plan as opposed to the thirty- year and 10-year long-term development plans as required by the regulations. \uf0b7 The Authority lacked a National research agenda. \uf0b7 I noted that the oversight and coordination mandate or research in different institutions was originally conducted by UNCST and was now duplicated in the Authority. \uf0b7 I noted absence of representation of ICT governance structures at top management and absence of ICT assets in the asset management strategic plan of the Authority. \uf0b7 I reviewed the staff exits from the Authority in the last five financial years and noted a total of 24 staff had left the authority outside the jurisdiction of mandatory retirement or death. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 407, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The company posted a return on assets of only 1.9% from 12.1% posted in the previous year, representing a reduction in ROA of 10% \uf0b7 The company had a debt ratio of 55% as at the end of the financial year. In comparison with the previous year, the debt ratio was 53.5% indicating a rise of 1.5% in the debt ratio over the one-year period. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the company making a profit of UGX.191 million during the year under review with a positive retained earnings totalling to UGX.103 million, the company did not propose any dividend pay-out as a form of return on Government investment |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 9 | Public Service Commission (PSC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Commission did not budget for NTR however; UGX.1,420,000 was collected. \uf0b7 The Commission failed to spend UGX.0.41Bn representing an absorption level of 97%. As a result, I noted that of the six (6) outputs with fifty-one (51) activities worth UGX.1.65Bn assessed; twenty-three (23) activities were fully implemented, fifteen (15) activities were partially implemented while thirteen (13) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the Commission\u2019s audit tool lacked a section for following up on prior supervision recommendations made to DSCs before the current assessment. \uf0b7 The revised PSC Guidelines to DSCs and the Assessment tool for Minimum Conditions and Performance Standards have not yet been approved by the Commission awaiting the approval of the PSC Regulations. \uf0b7 I noted that several stakeholders particularly the Ministry of Public Service, Ministry of Local Government, Education Service Commission, and Health Service Commission are undertaking similar and complementary roles with the DSCs however, a review of the existing coordination arrangements revealed weaknesses in how PSC coordinates with other players. The relationship of PSC with other stakeholders needs to be harmonized. |", "metadata": {"page": 407, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 10. | Office of The Prime Minister Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.178.515Bn, only UGX.176.036Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.2.279Bn representing an absorption level of 98.6%. As a result, I noted that of the 123 quantified activities worth UGX.163.119Bn assessed; 74 activities representing 60.1%, were fully implemented, 32 activities representing 26.1%, were partially implemented, and 17 activities representing 13.8% were not implemented. \uf0b7 The Ministry experienced challenges in implementing some of its activities within the planned time frames, affecting service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted that all the two pieces of land measuring approximately 161.8 hectares acquired by the Ministry were recorded in the entity land/assets register. However, they were not captured in the fixed assets module of the GFMIS, thus affecting the accuracy of the non-produced assets reported in the financial statements. \uf0b7 I also noted that the titles for two pieces of land measuring approximately 161.8 hectares were not transferred from the previous owners' names. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity accumulated domestic arrears of UGX.111,434,060. I further noted that the entity did not budget for prior year arrears of UGX.70,701,127. \uf0b7 UGX.2.5Bn meant for the resettlement of victims of Apaa land was still held in the Office of the Prime Minister Compensation Account in Centenary Bank. \uf0b7 I observed that despite the training, the district disaster management committees were non-functional in the trained districts as there was no evidence of regular meetings and community sensitization on disasters. \uf0b7 M/S Inspire Africa (U) Ltd was paid UGX.1,906,556,240 for setting up coffee shops and the attendant infrastructure in Arua, Mbale, Lira, Gulu and Tororo; however, except for Gulu, the coffee shops were either non-existent or non-operational. |\n|---:|------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 11 | German Refugee Response Fund project \u2013the scaled-up sustainable domestic water supply and sanitation service infrastructure in rhino camp refugee settlement, Arua district, Northern Uganda Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No reportable issues |\n| 1 | 12 | Uganda Refuge response fund -OPM Opinion | \uf0b7 No reportable issues |", "metadata": {"page": 408, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 10. | Office of The Prime Minister Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.178.515Bn, only UGX.176.036Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.2.279Bn representing an absorption level of 98.6%. As a result, I noted that of the 123 quantified activities worth UGX.163.119Bn assessed; 74 activities representing 60.1%, were fully implemented, 32 activities representing 26.1%, were partially implemented, and 17 activities representing 13.8% were not implemented. \uf0b7 The Ministry experienced challenges in implementing some of its activities within the planned time frames, affecting service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted that all the two pieces of land measuring approximately 161.8 hectares acquired by the Ministry were recorded in the entity land/assets register. However, they were not captured in the fixed assets module of the GFMIS, thus affecting the accuracy of the non-produced assets reported in the financial statements. \uf0b7 I also noted that the titles for two pieces of land measuring approximately 161.8 hectares were not transferred from the previous owners' names. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity accumulated domestic arrears of UGX.111,434,060. I further noted that the entity did not budget for prior year arrears of UGX.70,701,127. \uf0b7 UGX.2.5Bn meant for the resettlement of victims of Apaa land was still held in the Office of the Prime Minister Compensation Account in Centenary Bank. \uf0b7 I observed that despite the training, the district disaster management committees were non-functional in the trained districts as there was no evidence of regular meetings and community sensitization on disasters. \uf0b7 M/S Inspire Africa (U) Ltd was paid UGX.1,906,556,240 for setting up coffee shops and the attendant infrastructure in Arua, Mbale, Lira, Gulu and Tororo; however, except for Gulu, the coffee shops were either non-existent or non-operational. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 13.0 | German Refugee Response Fund project \u2013education infrastructure enhancement for South Sudanese refugees and host communities in Bidi bidi Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No reportable issues |\n| 2 | 14.0 | Enhancing National Food Security Through Increased Rice Production Project (ENRP) June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The budget absorption rate for the project during the year under review was 3%, which is considerably low, despite the fact that the project is about to end. This implies that most activities budgeted for were not carried out, which may lead to failure to complete the project in the planned time frame. However, I note that management sought and obtained a no-cost extension for two years from the Islamic development bank, which will enable the project to complete all the planned activities, including the major activity of the dam construction that caters for over 90% of the total project expenditure. |\n| 3 | 15.0 | Project for The Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 There was a shortfall in releases from external financing amounting to UGX.1.07Bn representing 4.3% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 The project had an unspent balance of UGX.1.45Bn representing an absorption level of 94%. As a result, out of the eight (8) outputs with one hundred Twenty-six (126) activities worth UGX.24.10Bn assessed, one hundred and four (104) activities were fully implemented, nine (9) activities were partially implemented while thirteen (13) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 The project is experiencing challenges in implementing its planned activities which affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted sustainability issues regarding maintenance of the roads constructed by the project when it eventually closes. \uf0b7 I assessed the level of cumulative absorption of funds and noted that USD 47.3M representing 66% had been absorbed as at 30th June 2022. \uf0b7 During the year under review, the beneficiaries\u2019 contribution to the project was not valued, and therefore not reported on in the annual performance report and the financial statements. \uf0b7 Ominut of the planned five satellite markets, only two markets, namely Opit in Omoro District and Lukole in Agago District, were procured and were under construction. \uf0b7 During the financial year, the Programme Policy Committee only met once and not every six months as required by the project detailed design report of 2014. |", "metadata": {"page": 409, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 16. | Ministry of Local Government Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.106.75Bn, only UGX.80.65Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.26.1Bn representing an absorption level of 75.6%. As a result, I noted that of the 40 quantified activities worth UGX.23.51Bn assessed; 16 activities representing 40% were fully implemented, 18 activities representing 45% were partially implemented, and 6 activities representing 15% were not implemented. \uf0b7 The Ministry experienced challenges and delays in the implementation of some activities which affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I observed that the MoLG did not make a budgetary provision for the settlement of court awards and compensation liabilities. \uf0b7 I noted that the Ministry did not have approved selection criteria and allocation guidelines for the allocation of start-up funds to the beneficiary Local Governments. Consequently, the Ministry allocated an arbitrary start-up amount of UGX.50 million to each of the beneficiary local Governments irrespective of the differences in the requirements and size of the newly created administrative units. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the Government commitment to co-fund projects to the tune of USD 22.89 million, only USD 8.03 million was paid, leaving USD 14.86 million outstanding. \uf0b7 I noted that the Ministry delayed operationalizing the Busega Market which delayed service delivery to the citizens. \uf0b7 I noted that the Ministry did not carry out the induction of newly elected Local Government leaders in 110 Districts and 19 Municipalities with their Lower Local Governments; only 10 Cities and 2 Districts of Mpigi and Mityana were inducted using USMID and KOICA funding, while 23 Districts had induction of only the Higher Local Government Councils \uf0b7 I noted that despite the submission of the cost implication two years after approval of the creation of cities, the cities are still operating on the budgets of Municipal Councils because they have not yet received funding for city status which hinders service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted that several Districts and Cities had not constituted Service Commissions, while others were functional but not fully constituted. \uf0b7 I noted that the Ministry did not have specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. There was no approved IT risk management framework/policy, and risk register and there was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 17 | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I reviewed the budget performance for the project for the year and noted that out of the planned expenditure of UGX.53,057,264,072, only UGX 19,072,116,523 was spent, resulting in an absorption level of 36%. There is a risk that some key project activities may not be implemented by the end of the implementation period, which is 31st August 2023, resulting in repetitive project extensions. Ultimately impacting the achievement of the project objectives |", "metadata": {"page": 410, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 19 | Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.313.67Bn, only UGX.303.11Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.13.56Bn representing an absorption level of 95.7%. However, I could not assess the implementation of all the forty-six (46) outputs worth UGX.316Bn with 137 activities since they were not quantified. \uf0b7 The Authority had a long-term liability of UGX.42Bn on its balance sheet from a development credit agreement entered. In addition, the entity had outstanding commitments to the tune of UGX.24.98Bn at the year-end and unremitted statutory deductions amounting to UGX.4.107Bn \uf0b7 The Authority delayed the commencement of the Kampala Rehabilitation project by eleven (11) months after the intended effectiveness date. \uf0b7 The entity incurred Nugatory expenditure -Interest on delayed payments worth UGX.94m \uf0b7 The Authority managed to recover only UGX.1.46Bn out of UGX.4.628Bn YLP funds disbursed to the youth groups since the programme\u2019s inception. \uf0b7 I noted that the Authority had not yet come up with the regulations to operationalize the 2019 outdoor ordinance as such, could not collect revenue from outdoor advertising activities. \uf0b7 I noted that 928 schools out of 1,927 were not registered with KCCA representing 48%, while provisional licenses for 102 schools out of the 134 schools with provisional licenses had expired, implying that the schools were operating illegally. \uf0b7 I noted that Capital City Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had not been established, as I was not provided evidence of its existence and functionality. \uf0b7 Despite 2022 being the final year (expiry of the ten years) of implementing the Consultancy recommendations on KPDP, the Authority had not prepared an implementation and evaluation report to evaluate the plan\u2019s performance. |", "metadata": {"page": 411, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted gaps in the implementation of the Parish Development Model, such as the absence of work plans, failure to fund SACCOs and contradicting PDM implementation guidelines. \uf0b7 The Authority did not provide a sufficient budget for the settlement of court compensation/liabilities, and there were no criteria to guide the settlement of the arrears. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 20.0 | Kampala Institutional and Infrastructure Development Project (KIIDP). 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the available funds of UGX.121.3Bn, UGX.101.8Bn was spent, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.19.5.Bn representing an absorption level of 84%. As a result, two outputs assessed with twelve (12) activities were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the project experienced challenges in implementing its activities which affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 459 titles bought by KCCA, only 64 land titles, representing 14%, had been processed and ownership transferred to KCCA. \uf0b7 Out of 871 PAPs due for compensation under the KIIDP II Project, only 695 PAPs (80% on average) had so far been fully compensated as at the time of audit. \uf0b7 The Project Management spent UGX.558,001,750 to settle interest accrued on delayed payment of Interim Payment Certificates (IPC) without justification. |\n| 2 | | PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SECTOR | |", "metadata": {"page": 412, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Uganda Embassy in Abu Dhabi. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.1.59Bn during the financial year under review but realized UGX.0.044Bn only representing a performance of 3% of the target. The poor performance in NTR was partly attributed to unrealistic NTR projections due to the non-participation of the Embassy during the estimation of NTR by MoFPED. \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.9.99Bn out of which UGX.9.38Bn was warranted resulting into 94% release of the budgeted funds. All the total warrants received were spent representing an absorption level of 100%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of five (5) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of nine (9) activities worth UGX.9.30Bn and noted that three (3) outputs with four (4) activities and expenditure worth UGX.4.93Bn were fully implemented. \uf0b7 Two (2) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX.4.37Bn were partially implemented. Out of the five (5) activities, the Embassy fully implemented two (2) activities and three (3) activities were partially implemented. \uf0b7 Funds totaling to AED 40,300.42 (UGX.40,300,420) were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The Embassy incurred a total expenditure on rescue accommodation of AED 201,000 (UGX.201,000,000). I noted that the Embassy is liable for any damage caused to the premises and for any nuisance acts that would arise following the admission of the distressed Ugandans and or any sickness which poses threats of potential contingent liabilities against GOU. This expenditure could have been avoided had the memorandum of understanding between |", "metadata": {"page": 412, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | the GOU and the Government of the United Arab Emirates in the Field of manpower and Domestic Worker Protocol been implemented and observed. \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission is developing a data base of Ugandans working and resident in the UAE as stated in the Strategic plan. \uf0b7 The Mission is renting the chancery premises at a total cost of UGX.500 million per annum which is very costly to Government in the long run. \uf0b7 The embassy established a Consulate in Dubai where rent is charged at a cost of AED 460,000 (UGX.460Mn) per annum. This is to facilitate the quick consular services needed to the many Ugandans. \uf0b7 The Consulate lacks adequate budget provision for the smooth operations of a consulate. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Uganda Embassy in Abu Dhabi. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.1,593,934,550 during the Financial year 2021/2021 however; only UGX.53,465,766 was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.1,540,468,784 representing a 3.4% performance. Shortfall in revenue collections affects implementation of planned activities. \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX. 6.112Bn which was all warranted. \uf0b7 Out of the three (3) outputs with a total of seven (7) activities and expenditure of UGX.6.14Bn sampled for assessment, I noted that all the three (3) outputs with a total of Seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.6.14Bn were fully quantified. \uf0b7 I noted that 3 outputs with 7 activities worth UGX.6.14Bn were partially implemented. Out of 7 activities, the entity fully implemented 1 activity (14%) while 6 activities were partially implemented (71%) and 1 activity (14%) remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.10,964,532 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. |", "metadata": {"page": 413, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3 | The Embassy of Republic of Uganda, Cairo Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not budget for NTR collection despite a communication from the PS/ST which projected the Entity\u2019s NTR at UGX.1.3Bn. However, only UGX.0.226Bn was collected. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.4.75Bn which was all warranted/released 100%. \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission received UGX.4.75Bn during the financial year which was all spent, representing an absorption level of 100%. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy took a decision to directly purchase two motor vehicles, at AED. 376,094 (Approximately USD. 102,000 or UGX. 387,600,000) which had not been delivered at the time of concluding the audit exercise (December, 2022). |", "metadata": {"page": 413, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 A comparison of the approved structure (07 staff) of the Mission with the staff on the ground (10 staff) indicated a non-alignment of staff to the approved and communicated structure by the Ministry of Public Service. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 4.0 | The Embassy of Republic of Uganda, Cairo 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.125Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX.0.101Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX UGX.2.024Bn which represents 4.75% performance. \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.3.59Bn and all of it was warranted. \uf0b7 I noted that three (3) outputs with a total of Seventeen (17) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.29Bn were fully quantified, while One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure of UGx.0.3BN was not quantified to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX. 740,634,774 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 A review of the approved staff establishment of the Embassy revealed that the Embassy had an approved staff structure of 6 staff positions which were all filled. However, the Embassy had four (4) extra Staff. |\n| 2 | 5.0 | The Embassy of Republic of Uganda, Rome Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission did not budget for NTR collection despite a communication from the PS/ST which projected the Entity\u2019s NTR at UGX.0.14Bn. However, only UGX.0.013Bn was collected from processing of documents and other miscellaneous revenues. \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission was supposed to receive UGX5.032Bn, of which UGX.4.784Bn was warranted/released, thus representing 95.1% budget performance. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.4.784Bn received by the Mission during the financial year, UGX.4.246Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.538Bn, representing an absorption level of 88.8%. \uf0b7 I noted that three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of Fifteen (15) activities worth UGX.4.57Bn were partially implemented |", "metadata": {"page": 414, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 6 | The Embassy of Republic of Uganda, Rome 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.1.594Bn during the year under review. However, this amount was not indicated in the Mission\u2019s Statement of Appropriation. Out of the estimated NTR, UGX.0.019Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.1.575Bn which represents 1.19% performance. \uf0b7 Of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.5.032Bn, a sum of UGX.4.22Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.812Bn representing an absorption level of 84%. \uf0b7 Out of the four (4) outputs with a total of twenty-nine (29) activities and expenditure of UGX.4.22Bn sampled for assessment, two (2) outputs with a total of Eleven (11) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.14Bn were fully quantified. Two (2) output with Eighteen (18) activity and expenditure worth UGX.4.08Bn were not quantified to enable assessment of performance. |", "metadata": {"page": 414, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted two (2) outputs with Eleven (11) activities worth UGX.0.14Bn were partially implemented. Out of the Eleven (11) activities, the entity partially implemented Five (5) activities (45%) while six (6) activities (55%) were not implemented. No activities were fully implemented. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 7.0 | The Uganda Embassy, Ottawa Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Although the Mission received all the funds amounting to UGX5.03Bn during the year, none of the outputs were fully achieved. Two (2) Outputs with six (6) activities worth UGX.4.73Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity submitted all the Quarterly performance reports beyond the deadlines \uf0b7 Contrary to the PFMA 2015, I noted that the Mission collected revenue amounting to UGX. 195,916,665 during the period and only remitted UGX. 65,522,902 leaving the balance of UGX. 130,393,763 un-remitted. Similarly, in prior period ending 30th June 2020, the Mission collected UGX.13,091,885 and only remitted UGX.5,196,911 \uf0b7 I noted that outstanding commitments had increased from UGX.435,764,018 to UGX.693,780,172 at closure of the financial year most of which related to unpaid taxes and deduction on properties owned by the mission \uf0b7 Out of the approved 6 staff positions, 5 were filled leaving 1 vacant. |\n| 2 | 8.0 | The Uganda Embassy, Ottawa 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Although the Mission received all the funds amounting to UGX5.03Bn during the year, none of the outputs were fully achieved. Two (2) Outputs with six (6) activities worth UGX.4.73Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity submitted all the Quarterly performance reports beyond the deadlines \uf0b7 Contrary to the PFMA 2015, I noted that the Mission collected revenue amounting to UGX. 195,916,665 during the period and only remitted UGX. 65,522,902 leaving the balance of UGX. 130,393,763 un-remitted. Similarly, in prior period ending 30th June 2020, the Mission collected UGX.13,091,885 and only remitted UGX.5,196,911 \uf0b7 I noted that outstanding commitments had increased from UGX.435,764,018 to UGX.693,780,172 at closure of the financial year most of which related to unpaid taxes and deduction on properties owned by the mission \uf0b7 Out of the approved 6 staff positions, 5 were filled leaving 1 vacant. |", "metadata": {"page": 415, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 9 | Uganda Embassy in Abuja Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A sum of UGX.245,782,986 relating to foreign exchange gain was not transferred to the UCF contrary to section 30 (1) of PFMA, 2015. The funds were spent on the movement of 5 officers arising from posting and transfer and recalls which happened in one year. \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to receive UGX.5.609Bn out of which only UGX.5.406Bn was received leaving a balance of UGX.0.195Bn thus affecting implementation of planned activities. \uf0b7 I noted that four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of twelve (12) activities worth UGX.5.628Bn had 6 activities that were full implemented, 5 activities were partially implemented and 1 activity that was not implemented during the year non or partial implementation of activities affected some delivery. |", "metadata": {"page": 415, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 UGX.18,600,672 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The Embassy only paid UGX.3,095,724,757 (12.5%) and not UGX.4,820,729,056 (20%) agreed in signed contract as advance payment to a firm for construction works at Abuja Chancery plot. If this is to continue, this is likely to result into litigation and financial loss. \uf0b7 A review of the asset register, Board of Survey report and inspection of HOM residential house revealed that there were 18 unserviceable items that were not disposed as required. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded yet UGX1.35Bn is urgently needed to procure various items to fund urgent operations. \uf0b7 E-Visa approval for travelers to Uganda was handled by Immigration office in Kampala without the input of Embassy of Uganda in Nigeria. This poses various risks to Uganda and Nigeria Governments on security issues. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 416, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 18. | Local Economic Growth Support (LEGS) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project is yet to recover outstanding advances of US$ 1,208,100 in respect of ineligible payments made by the Microfinance Support Centre. \uf0b7 The Project Steering Committee did not conduct any meeting during the year under review contrary to the requirements of the project appraisal document that requires the committee to meet on a biannual basis. \uf0b7 The project procured coffee and vanilla seedlings worth UGX.1,499,000,000 which were not included in the procurement/work plan for the year ended 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 Through field inspection in Alebtong district, I observed that some farmers received less coffee seedlings than those indicated in the distribution records held by Alebtong district local government. From a total of 12,100 seedlings sampled from the distribution lists, only 2670 seedlings where acknowledged as received by the farmers and 9,430 seedlings not accounted for. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 10 | Uganda Embassy in Abuja, 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.20.845Bn, UGX.20.239Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.455Bn representing an absorption level of 97.8%. As a result, I noted that of the thirteen (13) quantified outputs worth UGX.18.3Bn assessed; eight (8) outputs were fully implemented and five (5) outputs were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Commission received off-budget financing totalling to UGX.1.15Bn from five (5) development partners during the year. \uf0b7 I noted significant delays in the investigation of cases hence affecting the disposal rate of human rights cases. \uf0b7 I carried out inspections of regional offices of Jinja and Mbarara and noted that in the last two years, only one (1) tribunal meeting was held in Jinja and none in Mbarara. \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of land and noted that all five (5) pieces of land owned by the entity were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed assets module, the entity did not have a land tiltle for one piece of land for Gulu regional office, titles for four (4) pieces of land had not been transferred into the custody of the Uganda Land Commission and one piece of land in Masaka (Old Kumbu, Masaka Municipality) measuring approximately 0.0620 hectares belonging to the Commission was not in use. \uf0b7 UHRC had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.290,507,036 as at 30th June 2022 \uf0b7 I reviewed the management of ICT and noted that the Commission has failed to dispose off old IT items for 4 to 10 years. \uf0b7 The Commission had no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n| 1 | 11 | Uganda Embassy in Ankara | \uf0b7 The Embassy had an approved NTR budget of UGX.0.02Bn but only UGX.0.011Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.009Bn which represents a performance of 55% thus affecting the entity\u2019s activities. |", "metadata": {"page": 416, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to receive UGX.5.877Bn, UGX. 5.418Bn was released resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.459Bn representing a shortfall of 8% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of nine (9) activities worth UGX.5.363Bn had 5 activities that were full implemented,2 activities were partially implemented and 2 activities that was not implemented during the year non or partial implementation of activities affected service delivery. \uf0b7 The Embassy submitted performance report for Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports contrary to the circular standing instruments thus affecting timely evaluation of performance.. \uf0b7 Out of approved staff structure of 8 staff positions, only 6 were filled leaving 2 positions vacant thus overloading the available staff time. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded. \uf0b7 The Embassy has not procured a Chancery despite having planned to procure one. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 12 | Uganda Embassy in Ankara 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy had an approved NTR budget of UGX.1.594Bn but only UGX.0.0162Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.UGX.1.5778 which represents 1.02% performance thus affecting the entity\u2019s activities. \uf0b7 I noted that three (3) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of eight (8) activities worth UGX.4.13Bn had 4 activities that were fully implemented, 1 activity was partially implemented and 3 activities that were not implemented during the year the embassy may fail to achieve the purpose for which it exists. \uf0b7 UGX.38,516,920 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The Embassy submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports contrary to the circular standing instruments thus affecting timely evaluation of performance. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy\u2019s diplomatic activities were inadequately funded leaving a number of activities unimplemented. \uf0b7 Out of approved staff structure of 8 staff positions, only 6 were filled leaving two positions vacant thus overloading the available staff time. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded and this has affected activities that require constant travels. |\n| 1 | 13 | Uganda Embassy in China, Beijing Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR amounting to UGX. 0.19Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.014Bn was collected, representing a performance of 7.4% of the target. |", "metadata": {"page": 417, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to receive UGX.5.877Bn, UGX. 5.418Bn was released resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.459Bn representing a shortfall of 8% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of nine (9) activities worth UGX.5.363Bn had 5 activities that were full implemented,2 activities were partially implemented and 2 activities that was not implemented during the year non or partial implementation of activities affected service delivery. \uf0b7 The Embassy submitted performance report for Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports contrary to the circular standing instruments thus affecting timely evaluation of performance.. \uf0b7 Out of approved staff structure of 8 staff positions, only 6 were filled leaving 2 positions vacant thus overloading the available staff time. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded. \uf0b7 The Embassy has not procured a Chancery despite having planned to procure one. |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.6.280Bn out of which UGX.5.860Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.420Bn. The shortfall represents 6.7% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of all the four (4) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of twenty (20) activities worth UGX.6.280Bn and noted that; One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX. 0.3Bn was fully implemented. Three (3) outputs with nineteen (19) activities worth UGX.5.98Bn were partially implemented. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 14.0 | Uganda Embassy in China, Beijing 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review but collected UGX.9.831 million during the year. \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.98Bn out of which UGX.4.98Bn was warranted, implying 100% release of the budget. All the funds received were absorbed. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of three (3) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of 7 activities worth UGX.4.981bn and noted that out of 7 activities, the entity fully implemented 1 activity (14%), 3 activities were partially implemented (43%) while 3 activities (43%) remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |", "metadata": {"page": 418, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to receive UGX.5.877Bn, UGX. 5.418Bn was released resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.459Bn representing a shortfall of 8% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of nine (9) activities worth UGX.5.363Bn had 5 activities that were full implemented,2 activities were partially implemented and 2 activities that was not implemented during the year non or partial implementation of activities affected service delivery. \uf0b7 The Embassy submitted performance report for Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports contrary to the circular standing instruments thus affecting timely evaluation of performance.. \uf0b7 Out of approved staff structure of 8 staff positions, only 6 were filled leaving 2 positions vacant thus overloading the available staff time. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded. \uf0b7 The Embassy has not procured a Chancery despite having planned to procure one. |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 15 | Uganda Embassy in Berlin Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that several Out puts in the Strategic plan are not included in the Annual work plan and vice versa. In addition some annualised targets in the strategic plan were different from those in the annual work plan. \uf0b7 I noted that although the Mission had not budgeted to collect NTR during the year under review, an amount of UGX.39,346,556 was recognized in the financial statements \uf0b7 One (1) output (HIV/AIDS Mainstreaming) with a total of nineteen (19) activities and expenditure worth UGX. 0.566Bn were insufficiently quantified. I observed that out of the nineteen (19) activities, five (5) activities (26%) were quantified while fourteen (14) activities (74%) were not clearly quantified to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 Out of 25 quantified activities, 7 activities (28%) were fully implemented, 9 activities (36%) were partially implemented while 9 activities (36%) remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I noted that \u20ac202,700 had been diverted to implement activities other than the activities for which they were budgeted. \uf0b7 the Mission has not had any approved Charter by the Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2014. This is despite the fact that the finance committee meeting held on 24th February 2022 agreed on development of a Mission Charter. \uf0b7 Despite the Mission in Berlin being mandated to promote and protect Uganda\u2019s national interests in Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, the Vatican, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania and with the United Nations |", "metadata": {"page": 418, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to receive UGX.5.877Bn, UGX. 5.418Bn was released resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.459Bn representing a shortfall of 8% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of nine (9) activities worth UGX.5.363Bn had 5 activities that were full implemented,2 activities were partially implemented and 2 activities that was not implemented during the year non or partial implementation of activities affected service delivery. \uf0b7 The Embassy submitted performance report for Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports contrary to the circular standing instruments thus affecting timely evaluation of performance.. \uf0b7 Out of approved staff structure of 8 staff positions, only 6 were filled leaving 2 positions vacant thus overloading the available staff time. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded. \uf0b7 The Embassy has not procured a Chancery despite having planned to procure one. |\n|---:|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Agencies in Bonn, Hamburg and Vienna, by the time of audit the Ambassador had only been accredited in Germany alone. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 16.0 | Uganda Embassy in Berlin 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Although all the funds were received during, the Mission did not achieve all the outputs. Five (5) out of seven (7) strategic outputs from the strategic plan were partially achieved \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 5.77Bn, UGX.5.72Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.05Bn \uf0b7 One (1) output with a total of four (4) activities and expenditure worth UGX.1.17Bn were insufficiently quantified. I observed that out of the four (4) activities, three (3) activities (75%) were quantified while one (1) activity (25%) were not clearly quantified to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 2 outputs with 13 activities worth UGX. 4.55Bn were partially implemented. Out of 13 activities, 3 activities were partially implemented (23%) while 10 activities (76.9%) remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 From a sample I noted that UGX.221,106,545 had been diverted from other activities to pay medical expenses. \uf0b7 I noted that the fixed assets register maintained by the entity was not updated. A number of assets in the BoS Report such as the saloon cars, desktop computers, laptops, printers, servers, photocopiers were not included in the Assets register. \uf0b7 A review of the approved staff establishment of the mission in Germany revealed that although the Mission had an approved staff structure of 6 staff positions the actual staff positions filled were 9 (150%) resulting in an excess of 3 \uf0b7 Contrary to the Public standing orders, the Mission paid EUR 14,921 (UGX.63,352,611) in respect to educational allowances to staff without children accompanying them at the Mission. \uf0b7 Although the entity had an approved Procurement Plan, procurements worth UGX.286,095,641 for Medical Insurance, were undertaken outside the approved procurement plan. \uf0b7 I noted that 2 procurements for Heating Oil were undertaken using the request for quotation, and direct procurement method, without a clear justification for the direct procurement method. |", "metadata": {"page": 419, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to receive UGX.5.877Bn, UGX. 5.418Bn was released resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.459Bn representing a shortfall of 8% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of nine (9) activities worth UGX.5.363Bn had 5 activities that were full implemented,2 activities were partially implemented and 2 activities that was not implemented during the year non or partial implementation of activities affected service delivery. \uf0b7 The Embassy submitted performance report for Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports contrary to the circular standing instruments thus affecting timely evaluation of performance.. \uf0b7 Out of approved staff structure of 8 staff positions, only 6 were filled leaving 2 positions vacant thus overloading the available staff time. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded. \uf0b7 The Embassy has not procured a Chancery despite having planned to procure one. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 17 | Uganda Embassy in Brussels Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.4Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.0085Bn was collected, representing a performance of 2.1% of the target. \uf0b7 The budgets for four (4) outputs assessed were not supported by individual activity costings/budgets. \uf0b7 I assessed the four (4) outputs that had been fully quantified with 19 activities worth UGX.1.130Bn and noted that; One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.0.170Bn were fully implemented; One (1) output with sixteen (16) activities worth UGX.0.80Bn were partially implemented. All the sixteen (16) activities, were partially implemented, while Two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth 0.160Bn was not implemented at all. |", "metadata": {"page": 419, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to receive UGX.5.877Bn, UGX. 5.418Bn was released resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.459Bn representing a shortfall of 8% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of nine (9) activities worth UGX.5.363Bn had 5 activities that were full implemented,2 activities were partially implemented and 2 activities that was not implemented during the year non or partial implementation of activities affected service delivery. \uf0b7 The Embassy submitted performance report for Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports contrary to the circular standing instruments thus affecting timely evaluation of performance.. \uf0b7 Out of approved staff structure of 8 staff positions, only 6 were filled leaving 2 positions vacant thus overloading the available staff time. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded. \uf0b7 The Embassy has not procured a Chancery despite having planned to procure one. |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 the Mission did not maintain a detailed risk register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities as detailed in the approved work plans and budget. \uf0b7 the mission had an accumulated unspent balance of UGX. 170,862,053 which had not been transferred to the consolidated fund. \uf0b7 funds to the tune of Euro. 14,238.10 (equivalent to UGX 56,952,400) were irregularly diverted from allowances and paid for installation of a gate at the official residence without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 State of the embassy Assets ; the Official residence requires more repairs ;an empty plot of land within the prime area of the city in Brussels measuring approximately more than 1.0 acres needs to redevelop to save on the high annual rental expenses incurred on staff accommodation | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 18.0 | Uganda Embassy in Brussels 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.1.594 Bn during the year. However only UGX.0.387 Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.1.207Bn which represents 2.43% performance. \uf0b7 3 outputs with 7 activities worth UGX.5.423Bn which were fully quantified, were partially implemented. Out of 7 activities, the entity fully implemented 1 activity (14.3%), 2 activities were partially implemented (28.6%) while 4 activities (57.1%) remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 UGX. 31,521,823 (Euro 8,168.18) were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 Embassy land measuring approximately 1 acre is un-occupied and not under use. However, the mission incurred costs to a tune of approximately UGX. 29,254,486 (Euro 7,580.65) on its maintenance during the year without any returns. |", "metadata": {"page": 420, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to receive UGX.5.877Bn, UGX. 5.418Bn was released resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.459Bn representing a shortfall of 8% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of nine (9) activities worth UGX.5.363Bn had 5 activities that were full implemented,2 activities were partially implemented and 2 activities that was not implemented during the year non or partial implementation of activities affected service delivery. \uf0b7 The Embassy submitted performance report for Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports contrary to the circular standing instruments thus affecting timely evaluation of performance.. \uf0b7 Out of approved staff structure of 8 staff positions, only 6 were filled leaving 2 positions vacant thus overloading the available staff time. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy\u2019s capital development budget was inadequately funded. \uf0b7 The Embassy has not procured a Chancery despite having planned to procure one. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 19 | Uganda Embassy in Juba Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not budget for NTR during the year under review, however UGX.453,110,497 was collected as NTR during the period. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.9.31Bn out of which UGX.9.31Bn was warranted, resulting in 100% funding of the budget. Out of the total warrants of UGX.9.311Bn received during the financial year, UGX.9.01Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.3Bn representing an absorption level of 96.7%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of four (4) activities worth UGX.0.85Bn and noted that; One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.0.3Bn were fully implemented, two (2) outputs with three (3) activities worth UGX.55Bn were partially implemented. Out of the three activities, two (2) activities were partially implemented and one (1) activity was not implemented. \uf0b7 I reviewed the financial statements and affairs of the Embassy for the underlying period, and noted a balance of UGX.335,754,842 as cash in transit which has been in the books of the embassy for more than five financial years. |", "metadata": {"page": 420, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 20. | Uganda Embassy in Juba 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.3.188Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.416Bn was realized, representing a performance of 13% of the target. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.13.759Bn, out of which UGX. UGX.13.759Bn was warranted, resulting in 100% funding. \uf0b7 I observed that all the four (4) outputs with a total of eighteen (18) activities and expenditure worth UGX.13.77Bn were fully quantified. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of 18 activities worth UGX..13.77Bn and noted that; One (1) output with 1 activity worth UGX.9.08Bn was fully implemented, two (2) outputs with 14 activities worth UGX.0.796Bn were partially implemented while one (1) output with a total of three (3) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.89Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 21 | Uganda Embassy in Bujumbura Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission had an NTR budget of UGX.0.5Bn for the financial year however UGX 0.8Bn was realised above the target. \uf0b7 The Mission had a budget for GoU funding of UGX. 9.2Bn for the year however UGX 9.6Bn was warranted which was over and above the budget. All the warranted funds were utilized. \uf0b7 I observed that the budgets for three (3) out of the eight (8) outputs assessed were not supported by individual activity costing/budgets. \uf0b7 The Mission had challenges in setting clear and appropriate performance indicators in the approved work plans and budgets. Some of the indicators used were generic and in some cases activities did not have performance indicators at all. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy did not maintain a detailed register of risks and as such, there were no strategies and officers responsible for ensuring risks did not materialize. |\n| 1 | 22 | Uganda Embassy in Bujumbura 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of a sample of eight (8) strategic activities/targets for the year from the strategic plan, five (5) targets were partially achieved, and three (3) targets were not achieved by the end of the year. \uf0b7 The entity collected only UGX.250,911,619 out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.3.188 Bn during the year under review, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.2,937,088,381, which represents 8% performance. \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.3.286Bn, which was all warranted/released. This reflects a performance of 100% of the budget. |", "metadata": {"page": 421, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 20. | Uganda Embassy in Juba 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.3.188Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.416Bn was realized, representing a performance of 13% of the target. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.13.759Bn, out of which UGX. UGX.13.759Bn was warranted, resulting in 100% funding. \uf0b7 I observed that all the four (4) outputs with a total of eighteen (18) activities and expenditure worth UGX.13.77Bn were fully quantified. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of 18 activities worth UGX..13.77Bn and noted that; One (1) output with 1 activity worth UGX.9.08Bn was fully implemented, two (2) outputs with 14 activities worth UGX.0.796Bn were partially implemented while one (1) output with a total of three (3) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.89Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The embassy did not fully implement the four planned outputs. Out of the four (4), only one (1) output with one activity worth UGX.0.5Bn was fully implemented, and the three (3) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX.2.75Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The embassy did not remit unutilised end-of-year balances amounting to UGX.31,649,399 to the Treasury for onward transfer to the Consolidated Fund. \uf0b7 The entity irregularly paid UGX.402,208,624 (BIF.223,797,365) out of imprest on activities such as air tickets, salaries, rent, security deposits and purchase of capital items, which are not small incidental expenditures such as postage and other office costs as guided by the Treasury Instructions 2017. And did not prepare a reconciliation of the Petty Cashbook and a Petty Cash Replenishment Request form. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 23.0 | Uganda High Commission Canberra Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Contrary to the requirements of the circular, the Uganda High Commission, Canberra had a Mission Chatter for 2021/2022 which was not aligned to the Mission\u2019s Strategic Plan 2020/21 - 2025. As a result the budget for the same financial year was also not aligned to the strategic objectives in the Strategic Plan. \uf0b7 I noted that according to the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) projections, only UGX.23.08 was allocated to the High Commission over the five years, mainly for wage and non-wage (recurrent) spending \uf0b7 The approved structure of the High Commission considers only the Head of Mission and the graded as Foreign Service Officers. Other officers who are posted and work at the High Commission such as the Financial and the Administrative Attaches were not included in the approved structure of the High Commission. \uf0b7 I established that the High Commission paid a total of AUD 48,551.57 during the financial without separating what related to normal power use and the portion meant for cooling/heating. This is irregular and affects implementation of other planned activities of the High commission. \uf0b7 I noted that MOFA released AUD.1,068,219.79 (UGX.3.00Bn) to the High Commission in excess of the required commitment of AUD 320,000 for the Acquisition of the Chancery by Government of Uganda. The excess of AUD 748,219.79 was deposited with Lawyers under an Escrow Account in the bank. However, this excess amount was wrongly expensed during the year instead of recognizing it as cash and cash equivalents on the escrow Account. |", "metadata": {"page": 422, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 20. | Uganda Embassy in Juba 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.3.188Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.416Bn was realized, representing a performance of 13% of the target. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.13.759Bn, out of which UGX. UGX.13.759Bn was warranted, resulting in 100% funding. \uf0b7 I observed that all the four (4) outputs with a total of eighteen (18) activities and expenditure worth UGX.13.77Bn were fully quantified. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of 18 activities worth UGX..13.77Bn and noted that; One (1) output with 1 activity worth UGX.9.08Bn was fully implemented, two (2) outputs with 14 activities worth UGX.0.796Bn were partially implemented while one (1) output with a total of three (3) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.89Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|------:|:------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 24 | Uganda High Commission Canberra 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the mission finalised the preparation of the strategic plan for the period 2020/2021-2024/2025. However, the strategic plan was approved on 27th September 2021 after the end of the financial year under audit. \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of AUD.10081.38 (UGX.27, 161,455) were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission spent UGX.171, 287,858 on medical refunds and other medical expenses to its staff during the financial year. Out of the total refunds paid, the insurance refunded only the qualifying amount of UGX.72,880,522 |", "metadata": {"page": 422, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 20. | Uganda Embassy in Juba 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.3.188Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.416Bn was realized, representing a performance of 13% of the target. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.13.759Bn, out of which UGX. UGX.13.759Bn was warranted, resulting in 100% funding. \uf0b7 I observed that all the four (4) outputs with a total of eighteen (18) activities and expenditure worth UGX.13.77Bn were fully quantified. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of 18 activities worth UGX..13.77Bn and noted that; One (1) output with 1 activity worth UGX.9.08Bn was fully implemented, two (2) outputs with 14 activities worth UGX.0.796Bn were partially implemented while one (1) output with a total of three (3) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.89Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 During the audit, I noted that the Mission spent UGX.82, 251,459 on electricity/gas expenses for Staff. However, I could not determine personal bills for officers and bills accruing to the government. I was therefore unable to establish the actual expenses spent on electricity for government business. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 25.0 | Uganda Embassy in Algiers Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity collected NTR of UGX. 11,623,722 out of the budgeted UGX. 210m during the financial year under review representing a performance of 5.5% of the target. \uf0b7 The entity received warrants amounting to UGX.4.4098Bn out of the budgeted UGX.4.886Bn resulting in a shortfall of UGX. 0.477Bn representing a 9.7% of the approved budget. All the funds received were however fully absorbed. \uf0b7 I assessed the extent of implementation of the only output that was well quantified and noted that this out-put was partially implemented. Out of the nine (9) activities, the mission fully implemented two (2) activities (22%), while seven (7) activities (77%) were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that the signatories to the Mission Accounts were not as per the guidelines given by the Accountant General. |\n| 2 | 26.0 | Uganda Embassy in Algiers 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the review, I noted that the Mission did not have a strategic plan that was well aligned to the NDP-III \uf0b7 The Mission had an NTR budget of UGX2.125Bn out of which only UGX. 939,989 was collected representing a performance of 0.04%. Shortfalls in NTR performance affect service delivery. \uf0b7 I assessed a sample of three outputs with 28 activities worth UGX 3.89Bn. Two of the outputs with 17 activities were fully quantified while one output with 11 activities was partially quantified. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of the two quantified outputs and noted that all of them were partially implemented. |", "metadata": {"page": 423, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 20. | Uganda Embassy in Juba 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.3.188Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.416Bn was realized, representing a performance of 13% of the target. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.13.759Bn, out of which UGX. UGX.13.759Bn was warranted, resulting in 100% funding. \uf0b7 I observed that all the four (4) outputs with a total of eighteen (18) activities and expenditure worth UGX.13.77Bn were fully quantified. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of 18 activities worth UGX..13.77Bn and noted that; One (1) output with 1 activity worth UGX.9.08Bn was fully implemented, two (2) outputs with 14 activities worth UGX.0.796Bn were partially implemented while one (1) output with a total of three (3) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.89Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|------:|:------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 27 | Uganda Embassy in Tehran, 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the mission did not budget for NTR for year under review and as such no NTR was collected. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the mission was supposed to receive UGX.4.14Bn out of which UGX 3.66Bn was received. All the funds that were received were absorbed. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of eighteen (18) activities worth UGX.4.14bn and noted that all the out-puts were partially implemented. Out of the 18 activities worth 4.14 Bn assessed, 8 (44%) activities were fully implemented while 10 (66%) activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Mission accumulated domestic arrears of UGX 157,418,581 during the year contrary to the Treasury Instructions. \uf0b7 During the year under review, the mission spent UGX.1,296,080,389, on rent which is 34.2% of the total expenditure for the year of UGX.3, 795,208,084. |", "metadata": {"page": 423, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 28. | Uganda Embassy in Tehran, 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The mission did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review. However, the entity collected UGX. 825,385. \uf0b7 The mission budgeted to receive UGX.3.84Bn all of which was warranted and absorbed \uf0b7 I noted that the mission had sufficiently quantified all the outputs and activities for year. I assessed the implementation of these out-puts and noted that One output with five activities (5) was worth UGX 0.76Bn was fully implemented while two outputs worth 3.068Bn with sixteen (16) activities were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 however there was no evidence for submission before elapse of the deadline. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 29 | Uganda High Commission in Dar es Salaam. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.5,301Bn, UGX.5,758Bn was spent by the entity resulting in over-expenditure of UGX.0.457Bn representing an absorption level of 109%. As a result, I noted that of the 21 quantified activities worth 5.76Bn assessed; 2 activities representing 6%, were fully implemented, and 19 activities representing 94 %, were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission did not return to the consolidated fund unspent balances for the prior year, totalling to USD.63,345.76, an equivalent of UGX.222,343,617.6. Management instead used the funds for meeting extra-budgetary expenditures. |\n| 1 | 30 | Uganda High Commission in Dar es Salaam. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.5.32Bn, UGX.5.01Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 0.31, representing absorption level of 94.7%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of four (4) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities worth UGX. 4.41Bn and noted that one (1) output with three (3) activities worth 3.75Bn was fully implemented, and one (1) output with six (6) activities worth UGX.0.410Bn was partially implemented (i.e Out of the six activities, the entity fully implemented two (2) activities, and four (4) activities remained unimplemented) and two (2) outputs with three activities worth 0.24Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The entity procured several items that were not on the Mission\u2019s approved procurement plan. Out of the seven (7) procurements sampled, there was no evidence of evaluation done and there were no contract managers. \uf0b7 The embassy spent USD 4.877.00 (UGX. 17,308,814.4) on refunds for medical expenses to its officers yet the Public Service Standing Orders, 2010, requires Foreign Service Officers to be covered by full medical insurance. \uf0b7 The Embassy paid UGX.78,079,540 to its officials for educational allowances instead of paying educational Institutions or Schools. |\n| 2 | 31 | Uganda High Commission in Doha. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year under review of 3.183Bn, UGX 3.026Bn was warranted, representing an absorption rate of 95.06 % of the approved budget. |", "metadata": {"page": 424, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 28. | Uganda Embassy in Tehran, 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The mission did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review. However, the entity collected UGX. 825,385. \uf0b7 The mission budgeted to receive UGX.3.84Bn all of which was warranted and absorbed \uf0b7 I noted that the mission had sufficiently quantified all the outputs and activities for year. I assessed the implementation of these out-puts and noted that One output with five activities (5) was worth UGX 0.76Bn was fully implemented while two outputs worth 3.068Bn with sixteen (16) activities were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 however there was no evidence for submission before elapse of the deadline. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Three (3) outputs with thirteen (13) activities worth. 3,183Bn were partially implemented. Out of the thirteen (13) activities, the entity fully implemented two (2) activities; nine (9) activities were partially implemented, while two (2) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 The embassy did not have a substantive Contracts committee during the year under review. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 32.0 | Uganda High Commission in Doha. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.3.18Bn, UGX.2.99Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.19Bn, representing an absorption level of 94.02%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of three (3) outputs with a total of eleven (11) activities worth UGX.2.99Bn and noted that three (3) outputs with eleven (11) activities worth UGX.2.99Bn assessed were partially implemented. Out of the eleven (11) activities, the entity fully implemented five (5) activities, four (4) activities were partially implemented, and two (2) activities were not implemented. \uf0b7 The embassy submitted its performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. \uf0b7 The embassy did not populate the summary statement of stores and other assets as required by the PFMA 2015. \uf0b7 I noted that some procurements carried out were not included in the procurement plan. \uf0b7 The Mission did not have a substantive Contracts committee in place during the year under review. \uf0b7 The embassy has an approved structure of 15 positions, out of which 9 were filled, resulting in a shortfall of 6 (representing 40%). |", "metadata": {"page": 425, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 28. | Uganda Embassy in Tehran, 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The mission did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review. However, the entity collected UGX. 825,385. \uf0b7 The mission budgeted to receive UGX.3.84Bn all of which was warranted and absorbed \uf0b7 I noted that the mission had sufficiently quantified all the outputs and activities for year. I assessed the implementation of these out-puts and noted that One output with five activities (5) was worth UGX 0.76Bn was fully implemented while two outputs worth 3.068Bn with sixteen (16) activities were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 however there was no evidence for submission before elapse of the deadline. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 33 | Uganda High Commission in Geneva. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the receipts of UGX.8,306,181,223 from the consolidated fund, UGX.7,818,929,021 was spent implying absorption rate of 94%. UGX.487,252,202 (6%) was an unspent and subsequently returned to the consolidated fund. \uf0b7 Out of seven priority areas prescribed in the mission charter only three (3) areas were quantified. Failure to quantify activities constrained evaluation of performance. \uf0b7 The Geneva mission incurred a total of CHF 259,200 (UGX.1,015,690,752) on annual rent comprising CHF 157,200 for the chancery and CHF 102,000 for the official Residence. Mortgage financing could help the mission acquire its own property if well negotiated and hence minimize rental costs. \uf0b7 Whereas the staffing structure provides for the position of Foreign Service Officer (FSO) Grade III, it was not filled. It was further noted that there is no provision for FSO II and yet it is filled while three (3) FSOIV are in place and yet the structure provides for only one(I). Unharmonized staffing presents a challenge for budget management. |\n| 1 | 34 | Uganda High Commission in Geneva. 2020/21 Opinion | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.7.24Bn, UGX.6.83Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.41Bn representing an absorption level of 94.3%. |", "metadata": {"page": 425, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of USD.17,463.62 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 Out of the three (3) outputs with a total of nine (9) activities and expenditure of UGX.7.24Bn sampled for assessment, I observed that all the activities were not clearly quantified to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff positions, 4 (57%) were filled leaving 3 (43%) vacant. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 35 | Uganda Consulate in Guangzhou, China Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.0.04Bn for the year, only UGX.0.004Bn, was collected, representing a performance of 10% of the target. \uf0b7 The entity budget was UGX.7.71Bn out of which UGX.7.18Bn was received, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.53Bn. The shortfall represents 6.9% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds of UGX.7.181Bn received during the financial year, UGX.3.785Bn was spent resulting in unspent balance of UGX.3.396Bn, an absorption level of 52.7%%. Some of the unspent funds are still held on the Consulate account. \uf0b7 Out of the five (5) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of eight (18) activities worth UGX.7.71Bn, one (1) output with one (1) activity worth UGX.0.151Bn was fully implemented, while three (3) outputs with eighteen (18) activities worth UGX.4.539Bn were partially implemented and one (1) output with two (2) activities worth 3.0Bn was not implemented at all. |\n| 1 | 36 | Uganda Consulate in Guangzhou, China 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.09Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX. 0.024Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.2.026Bn which represents 1.2% performance. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.545Bn, UGX.4.286Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.26Bn representing an absorption level of 94.3%. \uf0b7 All the three (3) outputs with a total of seventeen (17) activities and expenditure worth UGX.4.34Bn were fully quantified. \uf0b7 Three (3) outputs with 17 activities worth UGX.4.34Bn were partially implemented. Out of the seventeen (17) activities, the entity fully implemented eight (8) activities (47%), 2 activities (11.7%) were partially implemented and seven (7) activities (41.1)% were not implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n| 2 | 37 | Uganda Embassy in Khartoum. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.02Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX.0.158Bn was collected, representing a performance of 790% of the target. \uf0b7 The embassy was supposed to receive UGX.4.129Bn from the Treasury out of which UGX.3.95Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.179Bn which represents 95.6% of the approved budget. |", "metadata": {"page": 426, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of USD.17,463.62 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 Out of the three (3) outputs with a total of nine (9) activities and expenditure of UGX.7.24Bn sampled for assessment, I observed that all the activities were not clearly quantified to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff positions, 4 (57%) were filled leaving 3 (43%) vacant. |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Out of the five (5) outputs, one (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.0.17Bn were fully implemented; two (2) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX.0.83Bn were partially implemented; and two (2) outputs with three (3) activities worth 2.95Bn were not implemented. \uf0b7 During the year, USD.16,222.90 (equivalent to UGX.60,835,875) were charged wrongly on other expenditure item codes without obtaining the necessary approvals. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 38.0 | Uganda Embassy in Khartoum. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Management partially implemented all eight (8) strategic activities/targets from the strategic plan by the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.3.14Bn, only UGX.0.039Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX. 3.11Bn, which represents 1.24% performance. \uf0b7 All three outputs with a total of nine (9) activities and expenditure worth UGX. 3.96Bn were fully quantified. That is, all nine (9) activities (100%) within these outputs were clearly quantified to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 All three (3) outputs with nine (9) activities worth UGX.3.96Bn were partially implemented. Out of the nine (9) activities, the entity fully implemented three (3) activities (33%), One activity was partially implemented (11%), while five (5) activities (56%) remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 The entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports as indicated in the table below; \uf0b7 The Embassy did not transfer end-of-year balances amounting to UGX.69,209,601 to the Treasury for onward transfer to the Consolidated Fund. |", "metadata": {"page": 427, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of USD.17,463.62 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 Out of the three (3) outputs with a total of nine (9) activities and expenditure of UGX.7.24Bn sampled for assessment, I observed that all the activities were not clearly quantified to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff positions, 4 (57%) were filled leaving 3 (43%) vacant. |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 39 | Uganda Embassy in Kigali. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.80Mn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX. 46.7Mn was collected, representing a performance of 58% of the target. \uf0b7 The Mission had a budget or UGX.3.3Bn which was all received and absorbed. \uf0b7 None of the output was fully implemented. All the three outputs sampled were all partially implemented. \uf0b7 During the year under review, the Mission paid rent amounting to UGX.599,992,260 which is 17.5% of the total expenditure for the year of UGX.3,300,783,813, in regard to rent which is very high. \uf0b7 During the year, UGX 599.9Mn was spent on rent for the official residence for the Ambassador and five other Mission staff. This constitutes 17.5% of the total mission expenditure of UGX 3.30Bn. The high administrative costs in rent reduce the amount of funds available in the budget for implementation of other activities and service delivery. |\n| 1 | 40 | Uganda Embassy in Kigali 2020/21 | \uf0b7 The Mission budgeted to collect NTR worth 3.188Bn out of which UGX 42.0million was collected translating into a performance of 1.3%. \uf0b7 The mission had an approved budget of UGX 3.3Bn which was all warranted and absorbed. |", "metadata": {"page": 427, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I sampled three (3) outputs with a total of ten (10) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.239Bn for assessment and noted that all the outputs were fully quantified. Out of the three out-puts, one output with 5 activities worth UGX.0.68Bn was partially implemented while the remaining two outputs with 5 activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|-------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 41 | Uganda Embassy in Kinshasa. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission had an NTR budget of UGX.0.5Bn for the financial year however UGX 0.8Bn was realised above the target. \uf0b7 The Mission had a budget for GoU funding of UGX. 9.2Bn for the year however UGX 9.6Bn was warranted which was over and above the budget. All the warranted funds were utilized. \uf0b7 I observed that the budgets for three (3) out of the eight (8) outputs assessed were not supported by individual activity costing/budgets. \uf0b7 The Mission had challenges in setting clear and appropriate performance indicators in the approved work plans and budgets. Some of the indicators used were generic and in some cases activities did not have performance indicators at all. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy did not maintain a detailed register of risks and as such, there were no strategies and officers responsible for ensuring risks did not materialize. |\n| 1 | 42 | Uganda Embassy in Kinshasa. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission finalized the preparation of the strategic plan for the period 2020/2021-2024/2025. However, this had not yet been approved by the National Planning Authority. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.125Bn during the year under review, out of this, UGX.0.669 was collected representing 31.48%, resulting in a shortfall in performance of UGX. 1.456Bn (68.52%). \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.7.46Bn and all of it was warranted resulting into 100% budget release. Out of these releases UGX.7.26Bn was absorbed leaving unspent balance of UGX.0.199Bn. \uf0b7 I reviewed the extent of quantification of the seven (7) outputs with a total of thirty-four (34) activities and expenditure of UGX.7.46Bn and noted that none of the outputs was fully quantified. \uf0b7 I noted that reports for Q1, Q2 and Q3 quarters were submitted after the lapse of the deadline for submission. |\n| 2 | 43 | Uganda High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year under review; the Mission had an approved budget of UGX.3.712Bn out of which UGX.3.56Bn was warranted and all the funds spent. \uf0b7 The Mission budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.9,843,762 which was fully realized representing a performance of 100% of the target. |", "metadata": {"page": 428, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I sampled three (3) outputs with a total of ten (10) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.239Bn for assessment and noted that all the outputs were fully quantified. Out of the three out-puts, one output with 5 activities worth UGX.0.68Bn was partially implemented while the remaining two outputs with 5 activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | \uf0b7 The Mission planned to receive UGX.3.712Bn out of which UGX.3.562 was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.150M that represents 4% of the approved budget. The unwarranted funds were meant for Presentation of credentials to Cambodia, Laos-PDR and Myanmar and Commercial diplomacy activities. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not seek a revision of its budget, and the work plan as provided for by section 17 (3) of the PFMA 2015. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.3.562Bn received during the financial year under review, UGX.3.53Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an absorption level of 99%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of four (4) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of fifteen (15) activities worth UGX.3.557Bn and noted that all the four (4) outputs with fifteen (15) activities worth UGX.3.557Bn were partially implemented. Out of the fifteen (15) activities, the entity fully implemented eight (8) activities; six (6) activities were partially implemented, while one (1) activity remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 The Mission did not implement some planned activities such as Presentation of Credentials to Cambodia, Laos-PDR and Myanmar, FDI of US $ 27.3M was not attracted to Uganda against the set target of USD 100M, One (1) Bench marking study visit was not coordinated while 10 out of 12 official delegations were not coordinated. \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission did not maintain a detailed risk register of risks which may affect the implementation of activities as detailed in the approved work plans and budgets. There were no strategies and officers responsible to mitigate the occurrence of such risks. \uf0b7 The approved staff Structure of the Mission provides for five (5) staff however, I noted that the Mission is understaffed with a Human Resource capacity of three (3) (60%) Home-based Staff while (2) (40%) positions of FSO 111 and FSO V were not filled. I also noted that the position of FSO 11 that was not provided for in the structure was filled. |", "metadata": {"page": 429, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I sampled three (3) outputs with a total of ten (10) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.239Bn for assessment and noted that all the outputs were fully quantified. Out of the three out-puts, one output with 5 activities worth UGX.0.68Bn was partially implemented while the remaining two outputs with 5 activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 44 | Uganda High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Mission had an approved budget of UGX.3.54 Bn that was all released for the financial year 2020/2021. The Embassy planned to achieve its deliverables through implementation of three (03) main outputs worth UGX.3.51Bn, representing 99% of the total budget. \uf0b7 The mission did not achieve all the targets set in the mission statement for the period under review. Out of eight (8) strategic activities/targets; four (4) objectives were fully implemented, three (3) were partially achieved while one (1) was not achieved at all by the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.11.8Million which was all realized representing a performance of 100%. \uf0b7 The Mission budgeted to receive UGX.3,542,140,000 out of which UGX.3,542,139,217Bn was warranted representing 99.9% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the year of UGX.3.542,Bn, UGX.3.390Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.151Bn representing an absorption level of 96%. The unspent balance of UGX.45,545,945 (MYR 55,065.88) |", "metadata": {"page": 429, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I sampled three (3) outputs with a total of ten (10) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.239Bn for assessment and noted that all the outputs were fully quantified. Out of the three out-puts, one output with 5 activities worth UGX.0.68Bn was partially implemented while the remaining two outputs with 5 activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | was returned to the Consolidated Fund while foreign exchange loss of UGX.115,988,734 was incurred during the period. \uf0b7 Three (03) outputs with a total of fourteen (14) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.51 were clearly and fully quantified to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 I noted that three (03) outputs with a total of fourteen (14) activities worth UGX.3.51Bn were partially implemented. Out of fourteen (14) activities, six (6) representing 43% of the activities were fully implemented; three (3) activities (21%) were partially implemented while five (5) activities (36%) were not implemented. \uf0b7 The activities that were not fully implemented included; 10 planned scholarships, Presentation of Credentials to Cambodia, Laos-PDR and Myanmar, 3 bilateral engagements and 12 planned official delegations. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2 and Q3 after the deadline given for submission of the reports and the level of performance was consistent with my review of other comparative information and reports. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 430, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I sampled three (3) outputs with a total of ten (10) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.239Bn for assessment and noted that all the outputs were fully quantified. Out of the three out-puts, one output with 5 activities worth UGX.0.68Bn was partially implemented while the remaining two outputs with 5 activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 45 | Uganda High Commission in London. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Mission continues to experience funding challenges, with several of its planned activities in the strategic plan not adequately funded as planned. Of specific concern is the absence of funding to undertake urgent repairs on the Mission properties (Chancery, Official residence and the Rentable structure on Wardour Street), which continue to increase the eventual repair costs given that they continue to further degenerate with severe weather conditions. The continued underfunding implies that the Mission will face challenges in implementing all the planned activities which may in turn impact on the attainment of the intended goals. \uf0b7 The Mission did not budget to collect any Non-Tax Revenue (NTR) during the year under review, although a total of UGX.769.6Mn was collected. Failure to budget for such NTR implies that there was no target upon which the Mission\u2019s performance could be evaluated. \uf0b7 The Accounting Officer did not appoint contract managers for the procurements worth GBP.113,788 (equivalent to UGX.522Mn) during the year under review. Failure to appoint contract managers is irregular and may lead to challenges in contract implementation going un detected by management, in the absence of close supervision of the performance of such contracts. \uf0b7 The Mission did not procure a medical insurance provider during the year under review, and mission staff would obtain treatment from health facilities and claim refunds upon presentation of receipts. This practice is contrary to the requirements by the public service standing orders. |\n| 1 | 46 | Uganda High Commission in London. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Accounting Officer did not appoint contract managers for the procurements worth GBP.58,231 (equivalent to UGX.287Mn) during the year under review. Failure to appoint contract managers is irregular and may lead to challenges in contract implementation going un detected by management, in the absence of close supervision of the performance of such contracts. \uf0b7 The Mission did not procure a medical insurance provider during the year under review, and mission staff would obtain treatment from health facilities and claim refunds upon presentation of receipts. I further noted some payments for medical bills were not supported by prescriptions from a doctor, as required by the Public Service |", "metadata": {"page": 430, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I sampled three (3) outputs with a total of ten (10) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.239Bn for assessment and noted that all the outputs were fully quantified. Out of the three out-puts, one output with 5 activities worth UGX.0.68Bn was partially implemented while the remaining two outputs with 5 activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Standing Orders. This practice exposes the Mission to a risk of misuse, since there are no controls regarding the kind of medical attention provided to staff, eligibility, as well as receipts presented by staff. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 47.0 | Uganda Embassy in Mogadishu. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity did not budget to collect any NTR during the year under review however they were able to collect UGX. 1,127,805. \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.876Bn out of which UGX. 4.743Bn was warranted, resulting in under funding of UGX.0.133Bn. This represents 2.73% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of the one output that had been fully quantified worth UGX.2.546Bn and noted that the output was partially implemented. |\n| 2 | 48.0 | Uganda Embassy in Mogadishu. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review and as such there was no collection \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.3.786Bn, UGX.3.696Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.09Bn representing an absorption level of 97.6%. \uf0b7 Out of the three (3) outputs with a total of four (4) activities and expenditure of UGX.3.87Bn sampled for assessment, I reviewed the extent of quantification of outputs and activities and noted that all the out-puts were quantified. \uf0b7 One (1) Output with one (1) activity and expenditure of UGX 1Bn was fully implemented, while the balance of two out-puts were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the given deadline for submission of the reports. |\n| 3 | 49.0 | Uganda Consulate in Mombasa. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR amounting to UGX.0.09Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX.0.0002Bn was collected, representing a performance of 0.2%of the target. \uf0b7 The entity was supposed to receive UGX.4.085Bn all of which was warranted representing a 100% performance of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I observed that the budgets for three (3) out of the five (5) outputs assessed were not supported by individual activity costing/budgets. \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission did not maintain a detailed register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities as detailed in the approved work plans and budgets. |", "metadata": {"page": 431, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I sampled three (3) outputs with a total of ten (10) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.239Bn for assessment and noted that all the outputs were fully quantified. Out of the three out-puts, one output with 5 activities worth UGX.0.68Bn was partially implemented while the remaining two outputs with 5 activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Consulate received the used utility vehicle from the High Commission in Nairobi (formerly used by the then High Commissioner) in the year 2015, when the Consulate was opened. The condition of the utility vehicle is particularly dire and has on numerous occasions been recommended for boarding off by our board of survey. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 50.0 | Uganda Consulate in Mombasa. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I sampled Ten (10) strategic activities/targets from the strategic plan for review Six (6) strategic activities/targets were fully achieved, one(1) strategic activity/target was partially achieved and three(3) strategic activities/targets were not achieved. \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.125Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX. 116,709 was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.2,124,883,291 which represents 0.005% performance. \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.2.967Bn out of which UGX.2.967Bn was warranted and released which was 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.2.967Bn, UGX.3.008Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an over expenditure of UGX.0.041Bn representing an absorption level of 101.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. \uf0b7 I noted that a sum of KES.695,000 (equivalent to UGX.23,630,000) was paid to Mission staff as working from home and risk allowances during the financial year 2020/2021. \uf0b7 Mission has an approved staff structure of 17 staff positions. Out of which 15 positions were filled representing 88% fulfillment. |", "metadata": {"page": 432, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I sampled three (3) outputs with a total of ten (10) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.239Bn for assessment and noted that all the outputs were fully quantified. Out of the three out-puts, one output with 5 activities worth UGX.0.68Bn was partially implemented while the remaining two outputs with 5 activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 51 | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX. 80,000,000 during the year under review. Out of this UGX. 31,650,301 was realized, representing a performance of 40% of the target. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.5,606,341,048, out of which UGX.5,253,940,545 was warranted, resulting in a shortfall UGX:352,400,503. The shortfall represents 4% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds of UGX. 5,253,940,545 received during the financial year, UGX. 5,047,157,896 was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.206,782,649, representing an absorption level of 96.%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of sixteen (16) activities worth UGX.5.61Bn and noted that; One (1) output with six (6) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.01 had been fully implemented, one (1) output with five (5) activities worth UGX.1.81Bn had been partially implemented and the other out-put was not implemented at all. |", "metadata": {"page": 432, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 52. | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of 100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed representing 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \uf0b7 All the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully quantified. \uf0b7 One (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 53 | Uganda High Commission in Nairobi. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to collect NTR amounting to UGX.0.4Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX.0.2Bn was collected, representing a performance of 50% of the target. \uf0b7 The entity was supposed to receive UGX.16.242Bn out of which UGX.15.621Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.621Bn. The shortfall represents 3.8% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.15.621Bn received during the financial year UGX.15.211Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.41Bn representing an absorption level of 97%. \uf0b7 I observed that the budgets for three (3) out of the six (6) outputs assessed were not supported by individual activity costing/budgets. \uf0b7 I reviewed the performance indicators in the approved work plans and observed that the indicators used to measure performance for some activities would not provide the most appropriate measure of performance. In some cases, the indicators were generic and not specific to the activity while in other cases, management did not provide indicators. \uf0b7 I noted that the High Commission did not maintain a detailed register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities as detailed in the approved work plans and budgets. As such, there were no strategies and officers responsible to mitigate the occurrence of such risks or to minimise the impact in the event that these risks materialised. \uf0b7 A review of the statement of arrears of revenues on page 33 of the financial statements revealed that the Mission had cumulative arrears of revenue as at 30 June 2022 of UGX.112,630,169 however the same was not disclosed in the statement of financial position as receivables. |", "metadata": {"page": 433, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 52. | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of 100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed representing 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \uf0b7 All the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully quantified. \uf0b7 One (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of KES.1,435,892 (equivalent to UGX.44,512,665) were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 54.0 | Uganda High Commission in Nairobi. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I sampled eight (8) strategic activities/targets from the strategic plan for review and noted that One (1) strategic activity was fully achieved, one (1) strategic activity/target was partially achieved and six (6) strategic activities/targets were not achieved. \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.3,188,000,000Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.239,009,234 was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.2,948,990,766 which represents 8% performance. \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 after the deadline given for submission. \uf0b7 I noted that the cumulative total expenditure reported in the performance reports of UGX.3.43Bn was different from the total reported in the financial statements of UGX.3.352Bn. \uf0b7 The Mission has an approved staff structure of 8 staff positions. Out of these 7 positions were filled representing 88% fulfillment |\n| 2 | 55.0 | Uganda Embassy in New Delhi. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Mission budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.34Bn during the year under review however only UGX.0.012Bn was collected, representing a performance of 4% of the target. \uf0b7 The entity was supposed to receive UGX.4,834,538,951 which was all warranted representing 100% performance. \uf0b7 The entity\u2019s performance could not be measured since the work plans and budgets did not have clear performance indicators. \uf0b7 I noted that the rent for the mission consumed more that 10% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that the mission faces challenges in handling cases of human trafficking since no facilitation has been provided to the Mission for this purpose. |\n| 3 | 56.0 | Uganda Embassy in New Delhi. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Mission budgeted to collect NTR during the year under review of UGX 2.65Bn. However, UGX. 0.07Bn was realised reflecting a revenue shortfall of 99.8% \uf0b7 The Mission budgeted to receive UGX.4.55Bn all of which was warranted and absorbed \uf0b7 I noted that the Mission did not have any fully quantified output as such I was unable to assess the extent of implementation. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline set by the Treasury Instructions. |", "metadata": {"page": 434, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 52. | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of 100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed representing 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \uf0b7 All the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully quantified. \uf0b7 One (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Mission is under staffed by 18%. Out of the approved staff structure of 22 staff positions. Only 18 positions were filled representing 82% fulfilment | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 57.0 | The Uganda Embassy in New York. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Mission strategic plan was approved by NPA on 22/November/2021 after close of the financial year. Therefore, the activities implemented during financial year 2020/2021 were not based on the approved strategic plan. \uf0b7 The Mission planned to implement four (4) outputs with a total of eight (8) activities and expenditure of UGX.16.43Bn. I noted that all the four (4) outputs were not quantified to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 The Mission had receivables amounting to UGX.7.452Bn at the close of the financial year, including six (6) tenants who had not paid amounts due for rent totalling USD.0.597Mn. Delayed collection may lead to default and eventual loss of funds. \uf0b7 The Mission had deposits amounting to UGX.0.909Bn. Whereas the funds are transferred to the Consolidated Fund for Government revenue, the funds are a liability, returnable to the tenants and need to be secured as such. |\n| 2 | 58.0 | The Uganda Embassy in New York. 2020/2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Mission strategic plan was approved by NPA on 22nd November 2021, after close of the financial year. Therefore, the activities implemented during financial year 2020/2021 were not based on the approved strategic plan. \uf0b7 The Mission planned to implement four (4) outputs with a total of eight (8) activities and expenditure of UGX.17.08Bn. I noted that all the four (4) outputs were not quantified to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 The Mission had receivables amounting to UGX.4.681Bn at the close of the financial year including six (6) tenants who had not paid amounts due for rent totalling USD.896,381 as at the end of the financial year. Delayed collection may lead to default and eventual loss of funds. \uf0b7 The Mission had deposits amounting to UGX.0.862Bn. Whereas at the time of collection of rental payments by tenants (which include the refundable deposits) are transferred to the Consolidated Fund as Government revenue, the funds are a liability, returnable to the tenants at the time of expiry of their rental periods, and therefore need to be secured as such. |", "metadata": {"page": 435, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 52. | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of 100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed representing 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \uf0b7 All the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully quantified. \uf0b7 One (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 59 | Uganda Embassy in Paris. 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas the mission targeted to handle 200 visa applications, certify 80 documents and hold 5 meetings to coordinate payment of subscription arrears regarding the bureau for international exhibitions, it was only able to handle 124 visa applications, certify 54 documents and coordinate 4 meetings implying variances of 76 applications, 26 certifications and 1 meeting. Failure to achieve the targets implies that the goal of generating revenue through promoting tourism may not be achieved. \uf0b7 Although the Mission charter provides for acquisition of property annually, it was noted that no property had been acquired. Instead, the Mission spent Euros 9,000 on rent of the Official residence monthly. \uf0b7 At the time of audit inspection the renovation works for the chancery had stalled due to delayed payments dating back to February 2022,and this exposed the Mission to extra monthly costs such as; rent for new |", "metadata": {"page": 435, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 52. | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of 100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed representing 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \uf0b7 All the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully quantified. \uf0b7 One (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Chancery;Euros.21,750, rent for Warehouse; Euros 1,571, security costs and remobilization of workers. Delayed payments may also attract penalties from the Contractor and Consultant. \uf0b7 Whereas the country subscribes to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it has incurred subscription arrears dating as far back as 2014 amounting to Euros 25,0139.34 an equivalent of UGX.101,183,684 as at 31 December 2021. There is a risk of prevention of certification and/or embargo on Uganda Seed exports to the European and other markets. \uf0b7 Review of the board of survey report and physical inspection of the mission representation car, utility van and the ICT equipment revealed that though they are due for replacement due to high maintenance costs, this had not been effected. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 60.0 | Uganda Embassy in Paris. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.8.849Bn, UGX.8.203Bn was spent by the embassy resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.669Bn representing an absorption level of 93%. The unspent balance at the end of the financial year was subsequently swept back to the consolidated fund account. \uf0b7 I observed that the mission did not have an approved and certified five-year strategic plan as required. There is a risk that activities implemented during the financial year 2020/2021 were not aligned to the NDP-III, which negatively affects the achievement of NDP-III objectives. \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.37,684,240 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. |", "metadata": {"page": 436, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 52. | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of 100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed representing 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \uf0b7 All the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully quantified. \uf0b7 One (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 61 | Uganda Embassy in Pretoria. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Although the Mission did not budget for None Tax Revenue (NTR) during the financial year 2021/2022, I noted that the Mission collected UGX.86.2Mn. Failure to budget for such NTR implies that there was no target upon which the Mission\u2019s performance could be evaluated. \uf0b7 Out of the appropriated budgeted of UGX.6.923Bn, only UGX.3.465Bn (representing 50% of the budget) was warranted leading to inability by the Mission to undertake the majority of the planned activities. I observed that the released funds could barely cover employee costs and the majority of the planned activities were not funded. \uf0b7 I observed that although the Mission in Pretoria has over the years been employing local staff, there was no social security/gratuity scheme for such staff. It was further observed that although a local consultant was engaged, who compiled a valuation of how much is due for all staff (both current and those who exited), the current staff contracts have not been amended to cater for staff gratuity/social security, going forward. Such an omission exposes the Mission to risks of costly litigation and potential sanctions by the host nation. |\n| 1 | 62 | Uganda Embassy in Pretoria. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Although the Mission did not budget for None Tax Revenue (NTR) during the financial year 2020/2021, I noted that the Mission collected UGX.86Mn. Failure to budget for such NTR implies that there was no target upon which the Mission\u2019s performance could be evaluated. \uf0b7 I observed that although the Mission in Pretoria has over the years been employing local staff, there was no social security/gratuity scheme for such staff. It was further observed that although a local consultant was engaged, who compiled a valuation of how much is due for all staff (both current and those who exited), the current staff |", "metadata": {"page": 436, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 52. | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of 100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed representing 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \uf0b7 All the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully quantified. \uf0b7 One (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | contracts have not been amended to cater for staff gratuity/social security, going forward. Such an omission exposes the Mission to risks of costly litigation and potential sanctions by the host nation. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 63.0 | Uganda Embassy in Riyadh Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to collect NTR amounting to UGX.0.02Bn during the year under review but realized UGX.1.249Bn above the target by 1.23Bn \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds of UGX.5.278Bn received during the financial year UGX.5.062Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.216Bn representing an absorption level of 96%. The unspent funds were returned to the consolidated fund. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of all the three (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of twelve (12) activities worth UGX.5.21Bn and noted that; all three (3) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX.5.21Bn were partially implemented. Out of the twelve (12) activities, the entity fully implemented seven (7) activities and five (5) activities were partially implemented. |\n| 2 | 64.0 | Uganda Embassy in Riyadh 2020/2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources and rates charged at vote level for the financial year 2020/2021 and noted that the embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.2.125Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX.0.645Bn was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX UGX.1.48Bn which represents 30% performance. \uf0b7 The mission\u2019s budget was revised from UGX 4.15Bn to 4.36Bn which was all warranted \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.36Bn, UGX.4.26Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an absorption level of 97.7%. \uf0b7 I sampled three out-puts and reviewed the work plans for quantification and observed that two (2) outputs with a total of five (5) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.06Bn were fully quantified, one (1) output with a total of five (5) activities and expenditure worth UGX.1.08Bn were insufficiently quantified. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2 and Q3, after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |", "metadata": {"page": 437, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 52. | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of 100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed representing 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \uf0b7 All the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully quantified. \uf0b7 One (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 65 | Uganda Embassy in Tokyo Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX: 20m during the year out of which UGX.5.5m was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.14.5m. \uf0b7 The Mission budgeted to receive UGX.5.8Bn and UGX:5.8Bn was warranted. Out of this UGX 5.3Bn was spent resulting in unspent balances of 0.3Bn \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of the three (3) outputs that had been insufficiently quantified with a total of twenty-four (24) activities worth UGX.5.5Bn and noted that all outputs were partially implemented. |\n| 1 | 66 | Uganda Embassy in Tokyo 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX. 1,594,000,000 during the year, out of this, UGX. 8,182,199 was collected, resulting in a shortfall of UGX UGX. 1,585,817,801. |", "metadata": {"page": 437, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 52. | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of 100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed representing 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \uf0b7 All the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully quantified. \uf0b7 One (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Mission budgeted to receive UGX.6.04Bn which was all warranted representing 100% performance on GoU receipts. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts of UGX.6.04Bn, UGX.5.86Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.18Bn representing an absorption level of 97%. \uf0b7 All the three outputs were insufficiently quantified and as a result I could not assess the extent of implementation of these activities. \uf0b7 The entity submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 438, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 52. | Uganda Embassy in Moscow. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted and collected NTR of 0.035Bn during the year under review, representing a performance of 100% of the target. In addition, the entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.66Bn of GoU funds, all of which was availed representing 100% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.66Bn, UGX.3.15Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.51Bn representing an absorption level of 68%. \uf0b7 All the three (03) outputs with a total of twelve (12) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.66n were fully quantified. \uf0b7 One (01) output with a total of five (05) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.07Bn was fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditure worth UGX.3.6Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission submitted performance reports for Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 after the deadline given for submission of the reports. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 67 | Uganda Embassy in Washington Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Mission delayed to remit cash balances to the Consolidated Fund. I noted that the Mission had total collections including unspent balances in the current year and balance brought forward from previous year totalling to UGX.1.679Bn. At the closur1e of the period, UGX.1.348Bn had been transferred to the Treasury for onward transfer to the Consolidated Fund leaving a balance UGX.0.331Bn. The practice amounts to a violation of regulations and could lead to misallocation of the Embassy\u2019s funds. \uf0b7 I noted that the Assets Register maintained by the Mission was not in the format prescribed in the Treasury Instructions, and several asset details were missing. I also noted a number of unserviceable items recommended for disposal in the prior financial year but still remained undisposed at the end of 2020/2021. \uf0b7 The Mission owns two chancery buildings in Washington DC. The Board of Survey and an engineering assessment on the buildings disclosed the following among other issues; o The back porch of one of the buildings continued to disintegrate due to an unstable foundation. o The Chancery buildings on plots 5909 and 5911 had shown serious structural cracks ranging from 1mm to 7mm. The landing rear porch of building on plot 5909 had completely failed. o The buildings were susceptible to storm water, which was disastrous to their integrity given that the interior of the buildings was made of wood. The incomplete splash aprons were noted to be allowing water in the buildings. \uf0b7 My inspection of the buildings revealed structural issues including corrosion of water pipes, cracks in the buildings, detached chimney on building on 5911 and detached porch on building on plot 5909. The buildings are likely to deteriorate further if no urgent civil works are undertaken, which renders their occupancy by Mission staff and their clients unsafe. Delayed works may also render the repairs more costly. |\n| 1 | 68 | Uganda Embassy in Washington. 2020/21 Opinion | \uf0b7 The Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) provided for a total of UGX.3.719Bn in NTR from the Embassy during the year under review, as per MOFPED NTR Estimates for 2020/2021. However, UGX.0.0797Bn was collected which represents a paltry 2.14% performance, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.3.64Bn. |", "metadata": {"page": 438, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts from the Consolidated Fund for the financial year of UGX.8.033Bn, UGX.6.681Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.352Bn representing an absorption level of 83%. As a result, several activities of the Mission were not implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission delayed to remit cash balances to the Consolidated Fund. The Mission had revenue collections including unspent balances in the current year and balance brought forward from previous year totalling to UGX.1.776Bn. At the closure of the period, UGX.0.334Bn had been transferred to the Treasury for onward transfer to the Consolidated Fund leaving a balance of UGX.1.442Bn. The practice amounts to a violation of the PFMA/R and could lead to misallocation of the Embassy\u2019s funds. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 69 | Uganda Embassy in Addis Ababa. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The mission budgeted to collect NTR during the year under review of UGX 0.04Bn. However, the entity collected UGX. 0.009Bn. This represents revenue performance of 0.22% \uf0b7 The mission budgeted to receive UGX.3.902Bn all of which was warranted. Out of the UGX. 3.902Bn that was warranted, UGX.3.60Bn was absorbed resulting in absorption level of 92% \uf0b7 I noted that the mission did not have performance indicates for all the outputs in the work plan and as such I was not able to assess the extent of implementation. \uf0b7 I inspected the status of the Ambassador\u2019s residence and noted that the building needs urgent repairs and renovations. |\n| 1 | 70 | Uganda Embassy in Addis Ababa. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Mission had an NTR budget of 0.0078Bn which was all realized. \uf0b7 The mission budgeted to receive UGX.3.44Bn all of which was warranted. Out of this the mission absorbed UGX.3.15Bn representing an absorption level of 92% \uf0b7 I assessed the extent to which out-puts were quantified and noted that out of the three outputs sampled, two (02) outputs with a total of nineteen (19) activities and expenditure worth UGX.1Bn were fully quantified. One (01) output with a total of nine (09) activities and expenditure worth UGX.2.32Bn, was insufficiently quantified. In regard to implementation, the two outputs were all partially implemented. \uf0b7 A review of the approved staff establishment of the Embassy revealed that the Mission had an approved staff structure of eight (08) staff positions. Out of this, five (62.5%) were filled leaving three (3) vacant. |\n| 2 | 71 | Uganda Embassy in Copenhagen. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.22Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.033Bn was collected, representing a performance of 15% of the target. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX. 6.141Bn received during the financial year UGX. 6.00Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.141Bn representing an absorption level of 98%. \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of to UGX 850,596,700 (equivalent to DKK 1,701,193.4) were irregularly charged on wrong item codes without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals |", "metadata": {"page": 439, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts from the Consolidated Fund for the financial year of UGX.8.033Bn, UGX.6.681Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.352Bn representing an absorption level of 83%. As a result, several activities of the Mission were not implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission delayed to remit cash balances to the Consolidated Fund. The Mission had revenue collections including unspent balances in the current year and balance brought forward from previous year totalling to UGX.1.776Bn. At the closure of the period, UGX.0.334Bn had been transferred to the Treasury for onward transfer to the Consolidated Fund leaving a balance of UGX.1.442Bn. The practice amounts to a violation of the PFMA/R and could lead to misallocation of the Embassy\u2019s funds. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Assessment of implementation of the one (1) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of four (4) activities worth UGX.0.604Bn and noted that; One (01) activity was fully implemented; while Three (03) activities were partially implemented. \uf0b7 the Mission did not maintain a detailed risk register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities as detailed in the approved work plans and budgets. \uf0b7 status of the embassy Assets; o The Chancery- the building requires a total overhaul; the windows are too old even to replace broken glass is a challenge. The basement has signs of water entering through the walls, there are signs that the building is slowly sinking in and needs immediate reinforcement right from the basement, though the heating system was repaired, with the damaged or worn out insulation it\u2019s not effective. o Official residence; The residence is not occupied though some repairs had been done during the past few year covering the kitchen, the toilets, there is leakage on the external walls possibly due to drainage problem, there is need for remodelling to fix a 2nd bathroom for the master bedroom to be self-contained, there is dampness in some part of the basement that requires reinforcement/ fixing urgently before occupancy. o Furniture \u2013very old furniture, requires replacement o A vehicle Toyota Hiace van 2.5 Combi model 2009 is not in use and parked due to the very high costs of maintenance. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 440, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts from the Consolidated Fund for the financial year of UGX.8.033Bn, UGX.6.681Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.352Bn representing an absorption level of 83%. As a result, several activities of the Mission were not implemented. \uf0b7 The Mission delayed to remit cash balances to the Consolidated Fund. The Mission had revenue collections including unspent balances in the current year and balance brought forward from previous year totalling to UGX.1.776Bn. At the closure of the period, UGX.0.334Bn had been transferred to the Treasury for onward transfer to the Consolidated Fund leaving a balance of UGX.1.442Bn. The practice amounts to a violation of the PFMA/R and could lead to misallocation of the Embassy\u2019s funds. |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 72 | Uganda Embassy in Copenhagen. 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Embassy budgeted to collect NTR of UGX UGX. 1,585,166,839 during the year. However, UGX.8,767,711 was collected, representing 0.5% performance. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.6.54Bn, UGX.4.92Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.62Bn representing an absorption level of 75.2%. \uf0b7 Out of the four (4) outputs with a total of twenty-five (25) activities, one (1) output with a total of two (2) activities were fully quantified. Two (2) outputs with a total of twenty-two (22) activities were insufficiently quantified. One (1) output with a total of one (1) activity was not quantified at all to enable assessment of performance. \uf0b7 One (1) output with two (2) activities which was fully quantified worth UGX.4.37Bn was partially implemented. Out of the two (2) activities, the 2 activities were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Uganda Embassy Chancery building requires very urgent renovation \uf0b7 The official residence building also requires complete and total renovation \uf0b7 Two mission vehicles are very old and need replacement |", "metadata": {"page": 440, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 73. | Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry had an approved budget of UGX.70,982,930,947, out of which UGX.64,457,203,544 was warranted resulting in a budget shortfall of UGX 6.5Bn. This shortfall negatively affected implementation of activities. \uf0b7 Out of UGX 64.45 received, UGX.62.45 was absorbed resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2Bn. The failure to absorb all warrants as availed affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I assessed the extent of implementation of a sample of 14 outputs worth UGX.52 Bn and observed that 2 outputs worth 34Bn were fully implemented, 7 outputs worth 18.4 Bn were partially implemented and 5 out-puts were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that funds totaling to UGX.32, 812,431 were mischarged/diverted to pay for activities for which it was not budgeted. \uf0b7 The entity had domestic arrears totaling to UGX.37Bn most of which related to unpaid contributions to International organizations. \uf0b7 I noted that the Medical Insurance provided to staff of the Missions abroad was inadequate and did not cover some of the illnesses suffered by the Mission staff abroad. I further observed that the current abridged PPDA guidelines for missions abroad were not applicable in most host countries which resulted in non-compliance with the same. \uf0b7 There was no mechanism to follow up and track promises and offers made by other governments to the Government of Uganda which resulted in loss of opportunities for Ugandans. \uf0b7 I also noted that missions were significantly underfunded in regard to capital budgets which affected their ability to undertake any activity of a capital nature. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of the entities IT systems which included; failure to obtain NITA-U approvals for IT systems, lack of a steering Committee for ICT activities, lack of source codes for the Ministry\u2019s IT systems and limited integration of the various IT systems. |\n|---:|------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 74 | Ministry of East African Community Affairs 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.02Bn during the year however, no collections were made by the Ministry. \uf0b7 The approved budget of the ministry was UGX.38.043Bn out of which UGX.37.604Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.438Bn, which is 1.15% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.37.605Bn received during the financial year, UGX.36.661Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.944Bn representing an absorption level of 97.5%. \uf0b7 I reviewed the extent to which a sample of 9 outputs were implemented and noted that all the nine (9) outputs with their fourteen (14) activities and expenditure of UGX.26.6Bn were fully implemented. |", "metadata": {"page": 441, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 73. | Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry had an approved budget of UGX.70,982,930,947, out of which UGX.64,457,203,544 was warranted resulting in a budget shortfall of UGX 6.5Bn. This shortfall negatively affected implementation of activities. \uf0b7 Out of UGX 64.45 received, UGX.62.45 was absorbed resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2Bn. The failure to absorb all warrants as availed affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I assessed the extent of implementation of a sample of 14 outputs worth UGX.52 Bn and observed that 2 outputs worth 34Bn were fully implemented, 7 outputs worth 18.4 Bn were partially implemented and 5 out-puts were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that funds totaling to UGX.32, 812,431 were mischarged/diverted to pay for activities for which it was not budgeted. \uf0b7 The entity had domestic arrears totaling to UGX.37Bn most of which related to unpaid contributions to International organizations. \uf0b7 I noted that the Medical Insurance provided to staff of the Missions abroad was inadequate and did not cover some of the illnesses suffered by the Mission staff abroad. I further observed that the current abridged PPDA guidelines for missions abroad were not applicable in most host countries which resulted in non-compliance with the same. \uf0b7 There was no mechanism to follow up and track promises and offers made by other governments to the Government of Uganda which resulted in loss of opportunities for Ugandans. \uf0b7 I also noted that missions were significantly underfunded in regard to capital budgets which affected their ability to undertake any activity of a capital nature. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of the entities IT systems which included; failure to obtain NITA-U approvals for IT systems, lack of a steering Committee for ICT activities, lack of source codes for the Ministry\u2019s IT systems and limited integration of the various IT systems. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted delayed service delivery due to the fact that the achievement of Uganda\u2019s EAC commitments is dependent on the corroboration of the other member states. \uf0b7 I observed that although the trend of domestic arrears over the past three (3) years shows a reduction in arrears, the Ministry had outstanding arrears totalling to UGX.1.665Bn as at 30th June 2022. \uf0b7 Out of the approved 103 staff positions, 72 positions representing 70% were filled while 31 positions representing 30% were vacant. Further, the Ministry planned to recruit eight (8) staff to fill some of the vacant positions, however this was not implemented. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 442, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 73. | Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry had an approved budget of UGX.70,982,930,947, out of which UGX.64,457,203,544 was warranted resulting in a budget shortfall of UGX 6.5Bn. This shortfall negatively affected implementation of activities. \uf0b7 Out of UGX 64.45 received, UGX.62.45 was absorbed resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2Bn. The failure to absorb all warrants as availed affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I assessed the extent of implementation of a sample of 14 outputs worth UGX.52 Bn and observed that 2 outputs worth 34Bn were fully implemented, 7 outputs worth 18.4 Bn were partially implemented and 5 out-puts were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that funds totaling to UGX.32, 812,431 were mischarged/diverted to pay for activities for which it was not budgeted. \uf0b7 The entity had domestic arrears totaling to UGX.37Bn most of which related to unpaid contributions to International organizations. \uf0b7 I noted that the Medical Insurance provided to staff of the Missions abroad was inadequate and did not cover some of the illnesses suffered by the Mission staff abroad. I further observed that the current abridged PPDA guidelines for missions abroad were not applicable in most host countries which resulted in non-compliance with the same. \uf0b7 There was no mechanism to follow up and track promises and offers made by other governments to the Government of Uganda which resulted in loss of opportunities for Ugandans. \uf0b7 I also noted that missions were significantly underfunded in regard to capital budgets which affected their ability to undertake any activity of a capital nature. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of the entities IT systems which included; failure to obtain NITA-U approvals for IT systems, lack of a steering Committee for ICT activities, lack of source codes for the Ministry\u2019s IT systems and limited integration of the various IT systems. |\n|---:|:------|:-----------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 75.0 | The Independent Electoral Commission. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Commission budgeted to collect NTR amounting to UGX.0.19Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.11Bn was collected, representing a performance of 58% of the target. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.230.16Bn out of which UGX.227.59Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.2.57Bn. The shortfall represents 1.12% of the approved budget. Out of the total warrants of UGX.227.59Bn received during the financial year UGX.161.32Bn was utilized by the entity resulting in un-utilized warrants to the tune UGX.66.27Bn. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of six (6) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of sixteen (16) activities worth UGX.79.14Bn and noted that; two (2) outputs were fully implemented, three (3) outputs were partially implemented and one (1) output was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.556,130,140 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the commission had undertaken activities towards the conduct of women council elections however; the exercise was never completed due to inadequate funding. \uf0b7 I noted that payables worth UGX. 2,744,317,391 relate to fines and penalties levied against the commission by Uganda Revenue Authority and these date back to more than five financial years. \uf0b7 The Commission delayed to vacate the current location of its offices in order to pave way for the construction of the Kampala express way. \uf0b7 I noted short comings in the management of the ICT function at the commission such as failure to obtain NITA U approvals of the Commission\u2019s system, failure to dispose of obsolete ICT items and absence of structures to steer ICT within the Commission. |\n| 1 | | WORKS AND TRANSPORT SECTOR | |\n| 2 | 1.0 | Ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.215.63Bn but only UGX.209.00Bn was collected, representing a performance of 97% of the target. |", "metadata": {"page": 442, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 73. | Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry had an approved budget of UGX.70,982,930,947, out of which UGX.64,457,203,544 was warranted resulting in a budget shortfall of UGX 6.5Bn. This shortfall negatively affected implementation of activities. \uf0b7 Out of UGX 64.45 received, UGX.62.45 was absorbed resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2Bn. The failure to absorb all warrants as availed affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I assessed the extent of implementation of a sample of 14 outputs worth UGX.52 Bn and observed that 2 outputs worth 34Bn were fully implemented, 7 outputs worth 18.4 Bn were partially implemented and 5 out-puts were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that funds totaling to UGX.32, 812,431 were mischarged/diverted to pay for activities for which it was not budgeted. \uf0b7 The entity had domestic arrears totaling to UGX.37Bn most of which related to unpaid contributions to International organizations. \uf0b7 I noted that the Medical Insurance provided to staff of the Missions abroad was inadequate and did not cover some of the illnesses suffered by the Mission staff abroad. I further observed that the current abridged PPDA guidelines for missions abroad were not applicable in most host countries which resulted in non-compliance with the same. \uf0b7 There was no mechanism to follow up and track promises and offers made by other governments to the Government of Uganda which resulted in loss of opportunities for Ugandans. \uf0b7 I also noted that missions were significantly underfunded in regard to capital budgets which affected their ability to undertake any activity of a capital nature. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of the entities IT systems which included; failure to obtain NITA-U approvals for IT systems, lack of a steering Committee for ICT activities, lack of source codes for the Ministry\u2019s IT systems and limited integration of the various IT systems. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Ministry was supposed to receive UGX.836.61Bn, out of which UGX.767.1Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.69.51Bn. As a result some key activities like PAPs are not paid, Railway infrastructure rehabilitation not undertaken and EACAA School is not rehabilitated. \uf0b7 MOWT was responsible for making payments under the contract for civil works for the Rehabilitation of the Tororo- Gulu Railway. However, the contractor terminated the contract due to failure by the Government of Uganda to meet its obligations but an advance payment of EUR.8,854,839.68 remained un recovered from the contractor. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of twenty (22) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of one hundred and ten (110) activities worth UGX.693Bn and noted that; five (5) outputs with eight (8) activities and expenditure worth UGX.294.6Bn were fully implemented, fifteen (15) outputs with ninety seven (97) activities worth UGX.390.4Bn were partially implemented and two (2) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX.8.1Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 UGX.3,577,035,246 was irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 An inspection of the regional mechanical workshops established that 23 District road equipment remained in the Workshops\u2019 yards for a period of between one to five years without repair. They are thus not serving their purpose \uf0b7 An inspection of the East African civil Aviation Academy (Soroti Flying School) indicated that all its nine (9) training aircrafts were grounded due to the expiry of their insurance and/or being faulty. I further noted that three aircrafts involved in accidents during the year under review had not been repaired due to the delayed compensation by the insurance service provider. \uf0b7 Land acquired under the SGR project, measuring approximately 1,305.886 acres costing UGX.99,343,193,128 was not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module thus affecting the accuracy of the non-produced assets in the financial statements. \uf0b7 I observed that a total of two (2) IT systems/equipment with a total cost of UGX.200,780,000 were implemented without business cases and approval by NITA-U. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 443, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 73. | Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry had an approved budget of UGX.70,982,930,947, out of which UGX.64,457,203,544 was warranted resulting in a budget shortfall of UGX 6.5Bn. This shortfall negatively affected implementation of activities. \uf0b7 Out of UGX 64.45 received, UGX.62.45 was absorbed resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2Bn. The failure to absorb all warrants as availed affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I assessed the extent of implementation of a sample of 14 outputs worth UGX.52 Bn and observed that 2 outputs worth 34Bn were fully implemented, 7 outputs worth 18.4 Bn were partially implemented and 5 out-puts were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that funds totaling to UGX.32, 812,431 were mischarged/diverted to pay for activities for which it was not budgeted. \uf0b7 The entity had domestic arrears totaling to UGX.37Bn most of which related to unpaid contributions to International organizations. \uf0b7 I noted that the Medical Insurance provided to staff of the Missions abroad was inadequate and did not cover some of the illnesses suffered by the Mission staff abroad. I further observed that the current abridged PPDA guidelines for missions abroad were not applicable in most host countries which resulted in non-compliance with the same. \uf0b7 There was no mechanism to follow up and track promises and offers made by other governments to the Government of Uganda which resulted in loss of opportunities for Ugandans. \uf0b7 I also noted that missions were significantly underfunded in regard to capital budgets which affected their ability to undertake any activity of a capital nature. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of the entities IT systems which included; failure to obtain NITA-U approvals for IT systems, lack of a steering Committee for ICT activities, lack of source codes for the Ministry\u2019s IT systems and limited integration of the various IT systems. |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 2 | Uganda Road Fund. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Due to Government reforms to rationalize Government agencies and public expenditure, there exists a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt that the Council shall remain a Going Concern in the foreseeable future. \uf0b7 Out of the revised approved budget for the financial year of UGX.509.42Bn, only UGX.387.89Bn was warranted resulting into a shortfall of UGX.121.53Bn representing 24% of the revised approved budget. As a result, UNRA and Local Governments were underfunded by UGX.69,891,747,788 and UGX.47,820,884,749 for the routine and periodic maintenance of roads respectively. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of four (4) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty seven (47) activities worth UGX.386.20Bn and noted that: one (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.10.80Bn was fully implemented; three (3) outputs with forty six (46) activities worth UGX.375.40Bn |", "metadata": {"page": 443, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 73. | Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry had an approved budget of UGX.70,982,930,947, out of which UGX.64,457,203,544 was warranted resulting in a budget shortfall of UGX 6.5Bn. This shortfall negatively affected implementation of activities. \uf0b7 Out of UGX 64.45 received, UGX.62.45 was absorbed resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2Bn. The failure to absorb all warrants as availed affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I assessed the extent of implementation of a sample of 14 outputs worth UGX.52 Bn and observed that 2 outputs worth 34Bn were fully implemented, 7 outputs worth 18.4 Bn were partially implemented and 5 out-puts were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that funds totaling to UGX.32, 812,431 were mischarged/diverted to pay for activities for which it was not budgeted. \uf0b7 The entity had domestic arrears totaling to UGX.37Bn most of which related to unpaid contributions to International organizations. \uf0b7 I noted that the Medical Insurance provided to staff of the Missions abroad was inadequate and did not cover some of the illnesses suffered by the Mission staff abroad. I further observed that the current abridged PPDA guidelines for missions abroad were not applicable in most host countries which resulted in non-compliance with the same. \uf0b7 There was no mechanism to follow up and track promises and offers made by other governments to the Government of Uganda which resulted in loss of opportunities for Ugandans. \uf0b7 I also noted that missions were significantly underfunded in regard to capital budgets which affected their ability to undertake any activity of a capital nature. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of the entities IT systems which included; failure to obtain NITA-U approvals for IT systems, lack of a steering Committee for ICT activities, lack of source codes for the Ministry\u2019s IT systems and limited integration of the various IT systems. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | were partially implemented and out of the forty six (46) activities, the entity fully implemented nineteen (19) activities; twenty two (22) activities were partially implemented, while five (5) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.963,052,641 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 Some Designated Agencies had not submitted accountability statements in respect of UGX.3,153,732,552 of the Fund released to them in the fourth quarter, which ended on 30th June 2022 contrary to the financial regulations. \uf0b7 URF and PPDA jointly constructed their offices known as the PPDA-URF Towers and agreed to equally share the cost of land and construction of the twin tower building. I however, noted the following; o The land title had not been transferred from PPDA into the joint owners\u2019 names. o Level 1 and 6 of the building including the day care were not used as intended because they have not yet been equipped. o URF did not involve PPDA in running the shared facilities and incurred UGX.291,424,050 during the year under review. \uf0b7 Contracts totalling to UGX.323,913,112 entered into were over and above the market estimated value of UGX.263,090,000, resulting into a variance of UGX.60,823,112. There was no evidence that the Accounting Officer reconfirmed whether the market price was still valid. \uf0b7 I observed that a total of five (5) IT systems/equipment procured at UGX.639,534,325 were not cleared by NITA- U. In addition, 192 IT hardware equipment valued at UGX.112,038,842 that were recommended for decommissioning by board of survey report were not disposed of. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 444, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 73. | Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry had an approved budget of UGX.70,982,930,947, out of which UGX.64,457,203,544 was warranted resulting in a budget shortfall of UGX 6.5Bn. This shortfall negatively affected implementation of activities. \uf0b7 Out of UGX 64.45 received, UGX.62.45 was absorbed resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2Bn. The failure to absorb all warrants as availed affected service delivery. \uf0b7 I assessed the extent of implementation of a sample of 14 outputs worth UGX.52 Bn and observed that 2 outputs worth 34Bn were fully implemented, 7 outputs worth 18.4 Bn were partially implemented and 5 out-puts were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that funds totaling to UGX.32, 812,431 were mischarged/diverted to pay for activities for which it was not budgeted. \uf0b7 The entity had domestic arrears totaling to UGX.37Bn most of which related to unpaid contributions to International organizations. \uf0b7 I noted that the Medical Insurance provided to staff of the Missions abroad was inadequate and did not cover some of the illnesses suffered by the Mission staff abroad. I further observed that the current abridged PPDA guidelines for missions abroad were not applicable in most host countries which resulted in non-compliance with the same. \uf0b7 There was no mechanism to follow up and track promises and offers made by other governments to the Government of Uganda which resulted in loss of opportunities for Ugandans. \uf0b7 I also noted that missions were significantly underfunded in regard to capital budgets which affected their ability to undertake any activity of a capital nature. \uf0b7 I noted shortcomings in the management of the entities IT systems which included; failure to obtain NITA-U approvals for IT systems, lack of a steering Committee for ICT activities, lack of source codes for the Ministry\u2019s IT systems and limited integration of the various IT systems. |\n|---:|------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3 | Multinational Lake Victoria Maritime Communications and Transport (MLVMCT) Project \u2013 Ministry of Works and Transport. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Project expected to receive UGX.26,592,490,000 and UGX.2,500,000,000 from ADB/F and GoU respectively. However, the Project received only UGX.2,988,851,679 from ADB/F in form of cash (UGX.1,192,269,000) and direct payments (UGX.1,796,582,679) and UGX.2,438,300,000 from GoU. This resulted into a combined revenue shortfall of UGX.23,665,338,321 representing 81.3% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the available funds of UGX.6,050,869,770.9, a total of UGX.5,514,951,020 was spent resulting into an unspent balance of UGX.535,918,750.90 representing an absorption level of 91.14%. The unspent funds from the Fund amounting to UGX. 491,942,262 (Equivalent USD.129,458.49) remained on the Loan Special Account as at 30/06/2022 while that from GoU amounting to UGX. 43,976,488.90 was transferred back to the GoU Consolidated Fund. \uf0b7 The Loan is equivalent to USD.14.35 Million and became effective on 20th April 2018. The last outstanding disbursement is expected on 30th April 2023. Audit established that a total of only USD.2,164,354.69 had been disbursed by 30/06/2022. |", "metadata": {"page": 444, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | o I observed unjustified application of foreign currency correction factor which resulted into a total overpayment of UGX.94,887,347. o I established that for Mpigi town roads project, the contractor was paid partly in foreign currency despite a PSST directive against the practice for solely Government of Uganda funded projects. USD 11,153,986.05 was paid out to the Contractor at an exchange rate of 1USD at UGX.2,282.1, which meant that Government incurred an extra cost of over UGX.15,448,939,920.88 to acquire this amount of dollars considering the average USD exchange rate was UGX.3667.16 during the contract execution period. o I established that for Mpigi town roads project, a total amount of UGX.2,319,823,581.79 was advanced to the contractor in payment certificates (01 to 07) in regards to materials on site without any contractual basis. \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.1,567.84Bn for land acquisition, UGX.1,292.13Bn was warranted / availed to the entity during the period under review representing 82.4% performance. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 2,080 land titles that the entity obtained during the financial years 2018/19 to 2021/22, only 102 land titles had been transferred into UNRA\u2019s name resulting into the balance of 1,978 (95%) land titles to still have been in the names of PAPs by the end of the year under review. \uf0b7 During the review of implementation of ICT activities, I noted that the entity did not have a business continuity and disaster recovery plan. \uf0b7 There was delayed completion of 22 road with a total contract value of UGX.82,177,512,239. \uf0b7 There were abandoned Road Works for mechanised maintenance on Busolwe \u2013 Nabumali Junction that had been contracted at UGX.1,486,162,399. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 5 | Upgrading of Rwenkunye \u2013Apac \u2013 Lira - Acholibur Road Project (252.5 Kms) implemented by Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) for the financial year ended 30th June, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Contrary to the requirements of the Public Finance Management regulations 2016, I noted that out of the release of UGX 119,673,517,241. for the project activities during the year only UGX 114,253,192, 241. was used on the Upgrading of Rwenkunye \u2013Apac \u2013 Lira - Acholibur project activities and the balance totalling UGX 5,420,325,000. was relocated to other projects without the Ministers approval. \uf0b7 In spite extension of the project closure date now planned as 12 October 2024 from 30th April 2020 as per the approved extension, a review of the monthly June 2021 Progress report, established that the cumulative physical progress as at 30th June 2021 was only 1.5% against 11.5% planned, resulting in an overall slippage of 13%. The contractors delayed to mobilize heavy machinery and equipment for works, slow progress by management to secure a right of way due to slow compensation to people affected by the road project (PAPs) and COVID-19 pandemic whereby the Contractors could not carry out the activities as planned due to restricted movements both local and international. \uf0b7 I noted that acquisition of titles (i.e. legal ownership) for the acquired for the entire road having a total length of 191 Km for which compensation had been made is still in process. However, it was not clear how far the process had reached and when it would end, in spite of UNRA Management engaging Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban development (MoLHUD) on this matter. |", "metadata": {"page": 446, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 6. | Uganda Civil Aviation Authority. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Authority budgeted to receive UGX.3Bn from GOU, out of which UGX.1.13Bn was received, resulting in a shortfall of UGX1.87Bn. This affected maintenance activities in the upcountry aerodromes \uf0b7 For a sample of twelve (12) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty seven (47) activities, one (1) output with three (1) activities and expenditure worth UGX.41.8m was fully implemented, three (3) outputs with seventeen (17) activities and expenditure worth UGX.2.65bn were partially implemented and eight (8) outputs with twenty nine (29) planned activities with no expenditure were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 23.913 hectares in Entebbe had encumbrances of approximately 8.92 hectares in the form of encroachment by the local population. \uf0b7 Out of 36 pieces of land measuring approximately 1662.94 hectares the Authority held, 18 pieces of land measuring approximately 496.184 hectares (30%) did not have land titles. \uf0b7 Government entities owed UCAA a total of UGX.137.2Bn representing 77% of the total debtors of the Authority of UGX.177.72Bn. Most of these debts have been outstanding for more than 5 years \uf0b7 The Authority made irregular Payment of salary to former staff of UGX.107,788,492. \uf0b7 I inspected the functionality of Kisoro aerodrome and observed that the runway tarmac had started stripping off and developing potholes which may be potentially dangerous. \uf0b7 I carried out financial analysis of financial information and noted that the Authority has continuously made losses for the previous two years. However, the ratios computed indicate that UCAA is making significant improvements in profitability and its ability to sustain provision of services. \uf0b7 Although management implemented the Point of Sale system in 2013 to track revenue reported, I noted that only 16 out of the 25 concessionaire shops have POS terminals installed while some concessionaires use the POS terminals selectively. The Authority has failed to implement a Cargo Handling IT System to track revenues from Cargo. \uf0b7 A review of ICT activities implemented revealed that a total of six (6) IT systems procured of UGX.5.54Bn were not cleared by NITA-U and a total of eight (8) systems were not integrated to share information with other systems. This can result in inefficiencies. |\n|---:|:-----|:------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | Uganda National Airlines Company Ltd (UNACL). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total expected revenue collection during the financial year of UGX.348.384Bn, only UGX.141.750Bn was realized by the entity representing only 40.7% performance. This under collection affects service delivery \uf0b7 UGX.22.825Bn collected in respect of airport tax from passengers through Entebbe International Airport had remained un-remitted to UCAA for over two years. \uf0b7 The Company failed to transfer USD.1,233,318 collected during the year from the Republic of Burundi due to forex transfer restrictions. |", "metadata": {"page": 447, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 6. | Uganda Civil Aviation Authority. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Authority budgeted to receive UGX.3Bn from GOU, out of which UGX.1.13Bn was received, resulting in a shortfall of UGX1.87Bn. This affected maintenance activities in the upcountry aerodromes \uf0b7 For a sample of twelve (12) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty seven (47) activities, one (1) output with three (1) activities and expenditure worth UGX.41.8m was fully implemented, three (3) outputs with seventeen (17) activities and expenditure worth UGX.2.65bn were partially implemented and eight (8) outputs with twenty nine (29) planned activities with no expenditure were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 23.913 hectares in Entebbe had encumbrances of approximately 8.92 hectares in the form of encroachment by the local population. \uf0b7 Out of 36 pieces of land measuring approximately 1662.94 hectares the Authority held, 18 pieces of land measuring approximately 496.184 hectares (30%) did not have land titles. \uf0b7 Government entities owed UCAA a total of UGX.137.2Bn representing 77% of the total debtors of the Authority of UGX.177.72Bn. Most of these debts have been outstanding for more than 5 years \uf0b7 The Authority made irregular Payment of salary to former staff of UGX.107,788,492. \uf0b7 I inspected the functionality of Kisoro aerodrome and observed that the runway tarmac had started stripping off and developing potholes which may be potentially dangerous. \uf0b7 I carried out financial analysis of financial information and noted that the Authority has continuously made losses for the previous two years. However, the ratios computed indicate that UCAA is making significant improvements in profitability and its ability to sustain provision of services. \uf0b7 Although management implemented the Point of Sale system in 2013 to track revenue reported, I noted that only 16 out of the 25 concessionaire shops have POS terminals installed while some concessionaires use the POS terminals selectively. The Authority has failed to implement a Cargo Handling IT System to track revenues from Cargo. \uf0b7 A review of ICT activities implemented revealed that a total of six (6) IT systems procured of UGX.5.54Bn were not cleared by NITA-U and a total of eight (8) systems were not integrated to share information with other systems. This can result in inefficiencies. |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Financial analysis using rations indicated that the Company is not performing well in terms of profitability and ability to sustain provision of services. \uf0b7 I noted delayed Certification of an Air Maintenance Organization and delayed Membership to IATA. Such delays affect the Company\u2019s operations \uf0b7 The Company lacks an IT Cargo Management System and uses a manual system, which is open to abuse and is difficult to monitor. \uf0b7 Although the Company procured Oracle Fusion IT System with a financial management module, at the time of preparation of financial statements, its only schedules and ledgers that are extracted and the financial statements produced manually. This exposed the financial statements to manipulation. \uf0b7 Management used direct procurement method and entered into a contract with M/S Kiira Motor Corporation to supply one (1) unit of Kayoola Diesel Coach at a contract price of UGX.519,687,420 on 28th February 2022. The contract provided for the bus to be delivered within 120 days but it had not been delivered at the time of reporting in December 2022. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 448, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 6. | Uganda Civil Aviation Authority. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Authority budgeted to receive UGX.3Bn from GOU, out of which UGX.1.13Bn was received, resulting in a shortfall of UGX1.87Bn. This affected maintenance activities in the upcountry aerodromes \uf0b7 For a sample of twelve (12) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty seven (47) activities, one (1) output with three (1) activities and expenditure worth UGX.41.8m was fully implemented, three (3) outputs with seventeen (17) activities and expenditure worth UGX.2.65bn were partially implemented and eight (8) outputs with twenty nine (29) planned activities with no expenditure were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 23.913 hectares in Entebbe had encumbrances of approximately 8.92 hectares in the form of encroachment by the local population. \uf0b7 Out of 36 pieces of land measuring approximately 1662.94 hectares the Authority held, 18 pieces of land measuring approximately 496.184 hectares (30%) did not have land titles. \uf0b7 Government entities owed UCAA a total of UGX.137.2Bn representing 77% of the total debtors of the Authority of UGX.177.72Bn. Most of these debts have been outstanding for more than 5 years \uf0b7 The Authority made irregular Payment of salary to former staff of UGX.107,788,492. \uf0b7 I inspected the functionality of Kisoro aerodrome and observed that the runway tarmac had started stripping off and developing potholes which may be potentially dangerous. \uf0b7 I carried out financial analysis of financial information and noted that the Authority has continuously made losses for the previous two years. However, the ratios computed indicate that UCAA is making significant improvements in profitability and its ability to sustain provision of services. \uf0b7 Although management implemented the Point of Sale system in 2013 to track revenue reported, I noted that only 16 out of the 25 concessionaire shops have POS terminals installed while some concessionaires use the POS terminals selectively. The Authority has failed to implement a Cargo Handling IT System to track revenues from Cargo. \uf0b7 A review of ICT activities implemented revealed that a total of six (6) IT systems procured of UGX.5.54Bn were not cleared by NITA-U and a total of eight (8) systems were not integrated to share information with other systems. This can result in inefficiencies. |\n|---:|-----:|:-------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 7 | Uganda Railways Corporation. Opinion Qualified | \uf0b7 1,946 stolen railway materials equivalent to UGX.12,391,542,000 were recovered from a Steels factories in Lugazi. Similarly, 750 meters of the railway line estimated at UGX.1,100,961,000 were vandalised and the railway materials were traced to another steel factory in Mukono. However, URC entered into an out of court settlement and was compensated only UGX.735,757,503,000 resulting into a loss of UGX.12,757,503,000. \uf0b7 A review of a contract for Civil works for rehabilitation of Tororo-Gulu Railway undertaken at contract price of EUR.39,337,756 (excluding VAT/other taxes) revealed that the contractor terminated the contract due to delays in payment by the Government of Uganda but never handed over the re-usable materials for reconstruction of the line. As a result, most of the materials were stolen and the Supervisor Consultant reports indicated that by 30th July, 2022, URC had lost 136,416 of the re-usable items equivalent to Euro.3,083,846.54. \uf0b7 Management made a provision for bad debts worth UGX.4,414,665,000 against a total figure of UGX.7,228,231,000 resulting into a net receivables of UGX.2,813,566,000. I was not provided with the justification and computation of the provision \uf0b7 The Corporation had a total of UGX.1,130,149,381 relating to VAT receivable which was not supported. \uf0b7 I established that total rental revenue of UGX. UGX.757,490,969 was not disclosed in the financial statements. The revenue for the year under audit is misstated. \uf0b7 UGX.509,300,000 was paid to two suppliers as fuel deposits but lacked supporting documents. \uf0b7 URC has 521 wagons located in different parts of Kenya as per its assets register. However, only 243 wagons were confirmed in existence leaving a balance of 393 wagons un-accounted for. \uf0b7 Loan amount of UGX.22,067,482,000 and interest payable of UGX.9,511,880,000 disclosed in the financial statements were not supported and did not show any movement from last financial year. |", "metadata": {"page": 448, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | o There was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \uf0b7 There was an irregular contract variation of UGX.29,535,900 (203% of the contract sum) for construction of 2- stance toilet and provision of mobile toilet services at Nalukolongo Workshop contrary to Regulation 55(4) of PPDA, 2014. \uf0b7 Staff with the same salary scales were earning different gross amounts while some staff with low scales were earning higher than those staff in higher positions. \uf0b7 76 residential tenants in stations lacked tenancy agreements from which the monthly rental charges were determined, 5 tenants were occupying the Corporation\u2019s premises with no valid tenancy agreements, the total outstanding arrears in relation to tenants with expired tenancy agreement stood at UGX.618,256,896 as at 30/06/2022 and 15 tenants had accumulated arrears worth UGX.808,890,455 as at 30/06/2022 even though contracts required them to make rental and lease fees payments in advance. \uf0b7 There was failure by the entity to dispose of about 21,993 unusable sleepers that had been collected from the dismantled line along the Tororo-Gulu line. These are exposed to theft and loss of value | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 8 | Upgrading of Kapchorwa Suam and Eldoret Bypass Roads Project (Uganda)implemented by Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that UNRA delayed to pay the Contractor\u2019s Interim Payment Certificate (IPC) within the stipulated days in the contract thereby incurring UGX.609,061,148 and USD.130,733.97 in finance charges \uf0b7 UNRA signed contracts with three companies to relocate utilities along the project road for a total cost of UGX. 5,887,444,880 against a budget amount of UGX. 3 Billion thereby resulting into an additional amount of UGX.2,887,444,880. This is an increase of 96% beyond the budgeted amount for this activity casting doubt to the comprehensiveness of the feasibility studies undertaken by the UNRA and the Contractor before BoQs were made. \uf0b7 I noted that the progress of work did not match the remaining period to the completion date. The road works were estimated to be at 68%, the OSBP at 25% and Suam Bridge at 70% with just few months to reach contract completion date. \uf0b7 I further noted that some of the project components had not been implemented at the time of audit these include; Training in labor based construction techniques, Refurbishment of a post-crash care center and procurement of theatre equipment. \uf0b7 I noted that the contracts signed by the consultants required them to provide the Professional liability insurance of 110% of the contract value but those provided did not cover the entire period \uf0b7 If there is no Insurance cover as per the PPDA regulations, UNRA will not have a fallback position in case the consultants do not meet their contractual obligations. |\n| 1 | 9 | Road Sector Support Project 4 (RSSP\u20134), for the upgrading of Kigumba \u2013 Masindi \u2013 Hoima \u2013 Kabwoya Road Project implemented by UNRA | \uf0b7 I noted during various grievances relating with the resettlement of PAPs for Lot 1. Nine PAPs had their access roads blocked, ninety-seven complained of damaged houses, nine complained of flooding and water contamination |", "metadata": {"page": 451, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | and thirty-one were disputing compensation amounts paid to them. The cases, reported between September 2018 and August 2021, had not been resolved by the time of our audit, 2 years later. \uf0b7 I noted that while the contractor was making payments towards obligations in regard to Pay as you earn tax (PAYE) and NSSF, they did not make returns to the relevant statutory bodies as required by law. In some instances the payments were lower than the required amounts. Unpaid taxes deprive government of revenue, while staff deprived of their NSSF savings may resort to legal action. \uf0b7 While UNRA obtained a certificate of no objection for the construction and construction supervision of Hoima Town roads, certificate of no-objection was not obtained for the construction and construction supervision of Masindi and Kigumba Town roads due to delays in approvals by the funders. By the time of audit in September 2022, the contractor was on site and the reported levels of completion for Masindi and Kigumba town roads was 77% roads 21% respectively. The contractor had issued a notice of intention to close the site over non-payment for works due to delays in approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the consultant was yet to complete the designs for the OSBP due to non-harmonization of the designs with those of Rwanda and the DRC at time of audit and there was no proof of communication between the MOFA and authorities in Rwanda and the DRC to that effect.The OSBP consultant\u2019s scope of activities was supposed to be covered in nine months (ending January 2022 with contract deliverable including an Inception Report, Monthly Progress Reports, Draft Feasibility Report, Final Feasibility Report, Draft Engineering Architectural Design Report and The Final Engineering Architectural Design. However by the time of our audit in September 2022, only the draft feasibility study had been delivered, pending URA comments and UNRA approval. The contract delivery date has been extended to 24th March 2023. |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 10 | Upgrading of Muyembe-Nakapiripirit Road Project implemented by Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Contrary to the requirements of the Public Finance Management regulations 2016, I noted that, although there were surplus funds amounting to UGX.9,526,145,971 for the Muyembe - Nakapiripirit Road project, management reallocated the funds to another Project to pay its debts without the Ministers approval. \uf0b7 I noted delays in project implementation with cumulative physical progress as at 30th June 2021 at only 2.71% against 15.59% planned, resulting in an overall slippage of 12.88%. \uf0b7 Contrary to the requirements of Clause 2.1 of the Contract Agreement between UNRA and the Contractor I noted that there were still some sections of the road that had pending land acquisition issues that needed to be addressed. \uf0b7 I noted that acquisition of titles (i.e. legal ownership) for the acquired land (Muyembe-Nakapiripirit road having a total length of 92 Km) for which compensation had been made is still in process. However, it was not clear how far the process had reached and when it would end. |\n| 1 | 11 | Albertine Regional Sustainable Development Project (ARSDP) (Uganda National Roads Authority). Opinion | \uf0b7 I noted the following during the audit in relation to land acquisition: |", "metadata": {"page": 452, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Compensation for PAPs in ROW on the entire completed road Section (Km 100.4) stands at 99.7% with 0.3% represented by six (6) PAPs (according to UNRA Compensation Status Report dated 8th July 2022) outstanding as these still have unresolved issues like court cases and family disputes. \uf0b7 The land acquired has not been transferred in the names of The Government of Uganda (UNRA) and the titles have not been returned to the owners. \uf0b7 On the other hand, there are PAPs who were injuriously affected by the ongoing road construction activities. The total number as per the contractor\u2019s records is 148 which had all not been addressed by 30th June 2022. \uf0b7 I noted that although the salaries and 5% NSSF contribution for the two individual local consultants ware paid in July 2021 the 10% NSSF contribution was paid on 22nd April 2022. \uf0b7 I noted that UNRA did not comply with the requirements of the NSSF Act and maybe penalized by the NSSF \uf0b7 I noted that all consultants had Interim Extensions of Time (EOT) and were on duty but had outstanding payments. The supervision consultant had invoices No. 69 to No. 76 totalling USD 920,421.4. The individual consultants for the Social Development Specialist, Environmental Safeguards Specialist and Project Management Specialist were only paid for field facilitations totalling UGX 24,460,000 not monthly allowances in the year of audit. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 12 | Road Sector Support Project 5 (Upgrading of Rukungiri-Kihihi- Ishasha/Kanungu and Bumbobi- Lwakhakha Roads (Uganda National Roads Authority). 2022 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Contrary to the requirements of the Regulation 16 of the Public Finance Management regulations 2016, I noted that UGX.4,526,512,477 (50%) of the available GoU counterpart funds for FY 2021/22 was reallocated to fund expenditures for Civil works of Kapchorwa-Suam road Project. This action overrides established budgeting procedures without the Minister\u2019s approval. \uf0b7 I reviewed the financing charges on the ADF loan and noted that total charges of UGX.3,357,809,609 were accrued on the disbursed and undisbursed loan balances with ADF during FY 2021/22. Furthermore, due to delayed procurement, prolonged acquisition of the Project right-of-way, and slow execution of works by the Contractors, the initial disbursement deadline of 31st December 2020 was extended to 31st December 2024. The implication is that the project is exposed to higher avoidable interest charges accruing from undisbursed loan balance due to loan under-utilization and hence delayed implementation of Project activities. \uf0b7 The upgrade of the Rukungiri-Kihihi-Ishasha/Kanungu 78.5 km stretch attained 25.75% physical progress during the FY 2021/22. Cumulatively, since the Project\u2019s inception, 68.35% physical progress had been attained, against the planned progress of 84.30% as of 30th June 2022. The slippage of 15.95% recorded was attributed to encumbrances on land on sections that required extra land take beyond the 30m standard Right of Way, excessive rainfall in the region, and the Contractors restricted access to Ishasha Bridge.Time elapsed as of 30th June 2022 was 43.8 months representing 88.3% of the total extended civil works contract duration of (49.6 months). Cumulative financial progress recorded was 55.23% against the planned 76.25%. \uf0b7 There was a delay in conducting consultancy services procurement processes from initiation to contract signature; The procurement to conduct gender awareness took 1,513 days (equivalent to 4 years and 2 months) |", "metadata": {"page": 453, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 13. | Upgrading of Tirinyi-Pallisa-Kumi/Pallisa- Kamonkoli Road Project (111kms) i (Uganda National Roads Authority). 2022 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the Interim payment certificates (IPCs) established that there was delayed certification of contractor\u2019s IPCs and subsequently delayed payments beyond the stipulated time period of 56 days with a time lag ranging from 23-122 days for GOU portion and 44-101 days for IsDB portion. These delays have attracted interest charges amounting to UGX.4,858,216,355. This is wasteful as it should have been avoided had the Supervising Consultant approved the IPCs in time. \uf0b7 Audit noted that there were delays, by the Bank, ranging from 100 to 157 days to release funds requested by UNRA for payment of contractor\u2019s certificates to be remitted to the contractor\u2019s bank account. \uf0b7 Contrary to the requirements of the Regulation 16 of the Public Finance Management regulations 2016, I noted that, although there were surplus funds amounting to UGX.3,687,491, 470 for Tirinyi Palisa Kumi Kamonkoli road project that should have been returned to the consolidated fund at year end, management reallocated these funds to the Nakalama Tirinyi-Mbale project to pay debts owed to the contractor without the Minister\u2019s approval. \uf0b7 I noted that a total of UGX.4,563,236,836 for Lot 1 and UGX.1,075,035,660 for Lot 2 was paid to the contractor as costs due to the approved Extension of Time amounting to 215 days and 45 days respectively beyond the original completion dates. This was attributed to delayed compensation of project affected persons. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 14 | North Eastern Road-Corridor Asset Management Project (NERAMP) by UNRA Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 By the end of the year 2021/22, the project had incurred total financial charges of USD. 1,020,775.068 on delayed absorption of disbursed project amount worth USD. 10,964,141.51 \uf0b7 I noted that the project is slow and has resulted into an under-utilization of the signed loan amount thus incurring commitment charges of USD. 785,248.3 on the unwithdrawn principle Loan Amount. \uf0b7 Interest payment of UGX. 20,152,565,660 due to delayed payment of claims under the contract for Provision of works and Services. \uf0b7 Contrary to the requirements of the Regulation 16 of the Public Finance Management regulations 2016, I noted that UGX. 26,580,590 (USD 7,056.24) of the funds available from GOU counterpart funding was re-allocated to funding civil works without evidence of approval. \uf0b7 Although the OPRC Consultancy Agreement between UNRA and the consultant had the contract price agreed of USD. 9,463,248 and UGX. 2,370,533,211 inclusive of all applicable taxes, withholding tax due from project consultant was erroneously charged to the Project account USD. 187,438 instead of the consultant. |\n| 1 | 15 | Upgrading Masaka \u2013 Bukakata Road Project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the financing agreements expired on 30th June 2022 when the funders had not yet disbursed a total of USD.1,047,693.84, which was equivalent to UGX.3,952,948,858. It may therefore be difficult to settle the Project outstanding obligations amounting to UGX.5,046,437,929. \uf0b7 The Project cost increased by UGX.340,948,885 in respect of interest paid and interest payable during the year under review alone. This figure was likely to increase in the subsequent year if the outstanding certificates of works worth UGX.4,864,209,954 were not settled at the beginning of the following year. |", "metadata": {"page": 454, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 16. | National Building Review Board (NBRB) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted UGX.9.428Bn a total of UGX.8.259Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.1.169Bn. The shortfall represents 12% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total of UGX.8.727Bn that was available during the financial year, only UGX.5.819Bn was spent by the entity resulting into an unspent balance of UGX.2.907Bn representing an absorption level of 67%. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the approved staffing level of 101, only 29 positions were filled (28%) leaving a staffing gap of 72 positions (72%). \uf0b7 A review of the ICT governance structure of the entity revealed that despite the deployment of the Building Industry Management System (BIMS) countrywide, there are no specific structures that steer and oversee IT implementation, no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity and no business continuity plan contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n|---:|:------|:---------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 17.0 | National Building Review Board (NBRB) 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that, whereas NBRB had an approved five year strategic plan by the Board, it had not been reviewed and approved by NPA to facilitate compliance to national planning requirements and its alignment to the NDP III infrastructure sector priorities. There is a risk that some activities implemented during the financial year 2020/2021 were not aligned to the NDP-III, which negatively affects the full realization of NDP-III sector objectives. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX. 5.99 Bn received during the financial year, UGX. 5.36 Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 0.638 Bn representing absorption level of 89.36%. These funds were meant for activities that were not fully implemented by the end of the financial year, and these include; Procurement of ICT equipment, Procurement of a healthcare insurance scheme for staff, Advertising and marketing campaigns. \uf0b7 PAYE amounting to UGX 23,400,000 was not recovered from the Executive Secretary\u2019s monthly benefits contrary to the Income Tax Act 1997 (As amended) \uf0b7 Although 49 positions were required to be filled during the year under audit, I noted that by the end of the year only 20 (40.8 percent) had been filled resulting into a staffing gap of 29 (59.1 percent). A further analysis of vacant positions revealed that the Board lacked key top management personnel including Directors, Managers for all the 4 Directorates and a Senior Internal Auditor. Understaffing stresses the existing staff and affects effective implementation of all planned activities |\n| 1 | | LANDS SECTOR | |\n| 2 | 1.0 | National Physical Planning Board (NPPB) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.4.469Bn, UGX.4.469Bn was spent by the entity representing an absorption level of 100%. I noted that of the 06 quantified activities worth UGX.0.768Bn assessed; five (5) activities representing 83% were partially implemented while one (1) activity representing 17% was not implemented. I observed that the budgets for the six outputs assessed were not supported by individual activity costings/budgets and the Board did not submit performance reports for the year under review. |", "metadata": {"page": 455, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 16. | National Building Review Board (NBRB) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted UGX.9.428Bn a total of UGX.8.259Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.1.169Bn. The shortfall represents 12% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total of UGX.8.727Bn that was available during the financial year, only UGX.5.819Bn was spent by the entity resulting into an unspent balance of UGX.2.907Bn representing an absorption level of 67%. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the approved staffing level of 101, only 29 positions were filled (28%) leaving a staffing gap of 72 positions (72%). \uf0b7 A review of the ICT governance structure of the entity revealed that despite the deployment of the Building Industry Management System (BIMS) countrywide, there are no specific structures that steer and oversee IT implementation, no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity and no business continuity plan contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that the board did not have substantive staff despite having an approved staff structure of 35 positions. The board had only three (3) staff on secondment and twenty (26) on assignment of duties. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | National Housing and Construction Company Limited (NHCCL) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Company included a gain on fair valuation of investment property undertaken amounting to UGX.18 billion basing on the valuation undertaken in the financial year ended 30th June 2022. However, there was revaluation of the investment property as required under IAS 40 at the end the accounting period ended 30th June 2021 due to the prevailing COVID 19 lock down during the year. \uf0b7 As at close of business 30 June 2021, the Company had unremitted statutory obligations of UGX. 5.9 billion which related to Value Added Tax (UGX. 2.5 billion), Pay as you Earn (UGX. 2.0 billion) and National Social Security Fund (UGX. 1.5 billion). \uf0b7 As at close of business on 30 June 2021, the Company did not have a governance structure in place to influence how the company's objectives are set and achieved as well as monitoring and addressing risk to optimize performance. |", "metadata": {"page": 456, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 16. | National Building Review Board (NBRB) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted UGX.9.428Bn a total of UGX.8.259Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.1.169Bn. The shortfall represents 12% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total of UGX.8.727Bn that was available during the financial year, only UGX.5.819Bn was spent by the entity resulting into an unspent balance of UGX.2.907Bn representing an absorption level of 67%. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the approved staffing level of 101, only 29 positions were filled (28%) leaving a staffing gap of 72 positions (72%). \uf0b7 A review of the ICT governance structure of the entity revealed that despite the deployment of the Building Industry Management System (BIMS) countrywide, there are no specific structures that steer and oversee IT implementation, no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity and no business continuity plan contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3 | Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The ministry was supposed to receive UGX. 159,525,734,214 out of which UGX.143,686,352,595 was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX. 15,839,381,619 The shortfall represents 11% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX. 143.6 Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling UGX. 142.7 Bn resulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX 0.948Bn representing an absorption level of 99.3%. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the fifty-five (55) activities worth UGX.24.244Bn assessed, twenty-seven (27) activities were partially implemented, while seventeen (17) remained unimplemented. I noted that a total of UGX. 131.9m was irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities. \uf0b7 Whereas payables reduced from UGX 249Bn in the previous financial year to UGX 203Bn I noted that the payables figure remains significant. \uf0b7 The entity made payments amounting to UGX 19Bn to acquire 4 pieces of land (Ranches) measuring 2339.04 Hectares for ranches which had been fully compensated. Out of the 31 pieces of land measuring approximately 21 hectares held, 25 pieces of titled land measuring approximately 17 hectares were not recorded in the entity land/assets register and GIFMS fixed asset module. \uf0b7 The ministry is understaffed, with only 513 out of the 1,050 approved staff establishment, leaving 537 (51%) vacant. \uf0b7 The ministry did not provide an adequate budgetary provision for settlement of liabilities relating to court awards and compensations amounting to UGX.165Bn. |", "metadata": {"page": 456, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 4. | Albertine Region Sustainable Development Project (ARSDP) \u2013 MoLHUD Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted IDA disbursement of UGX.28,056,477,734 for the year 2021/2022, only UGX.27,026,553,795 (96%) was disbursed, leading to a shortfall of UGX.1,029,923,940 (4%). \uf0b7 Out of the available funds to the project in the year of UGX.43,970,076,060 (Disbursement in the year and balance brought forward UGX.16,943,522,266), only UGX.24,827,886,040 (56%) was spent, leaving unspent balance of UGX.19,142,190,020. \uf0b7 I noted that the project had thirty-five (35) unresolved environment and social related grievances and yet the project was left with approximately two (2) months to close. |\n|---:|:-----|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 5.0 | Uganda Land Commission. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The ULC had an approved budget of UGX.93.65bn out of which 76.5bn was received resulting in a shortfall of UGX17.51Bn. This represented a receipt percentage of 82%. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.76.51Bn received during the financial year UGX. 75.42Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.08Bn representing an absorption level of 98.6%. \uf0b7 The ULC continued to accumulate payables with the balance as at 30th June 2022 being UGX.138.737Bn which is 22% lower than the balance reported at 30th June 2021. Most of the payables had been outstanding for more than 10 years. \uf0b7 Out of the approved establishment of 80 staff, the commission had 35 officers implying staffing gaps of 45(56%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Commission operated with only 35 staff which is inadequate to implement the new strategic plan yet the new approved structure of 80 staff had not been operationalised. \uf0b7 The outstanding court wards and compensations of UGX. 5.53Bn for the year were not adequately budgeted for. Besides the commission lacks guidelines for settlement of the said liabilities. |\n| 1 | | ACCOUNTABILITY SECTOR | |\n| 2 | 1.0 | Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 PPDA had an approved budget of UGX.23.28Bn out of which UGX.19.52Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.3.76Bn which represents 16.15% of the approved budget. The deficit in the budget negatively impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n| 3 | 2.0 | Competitiveness and Enterprise Development Project (CEDP) Component 1- Land administration IDA CREDIT | \uf0b7 A total of UGX.17.786Bn was received to be spent on different outputs during the year under review, and only UGX.9.155Bn (51%) was utilized leading to under-absorption of UGX.8.634Bn (49%). As a result, several planned activities were not implemented. |", "metadata": {"page": 457, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | AGREEMENT CR 52690-UG PROJECT ID P130471-2022 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the contract for the production of base maps for land administration in Uganda awarded to a firm at a contract price of Euros 4,712,135 revealed a contract performance of 89% despite having paid Euros 4,294,439 (91.1%) of the contract price. |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3 | Competitiveness and Enterprise Development Project (CEDP) COMPONENT 2-5 IDA CREDITS CR 52690-UG AND 65380-UG PROJECT ID P130471-2022 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The CEDP 2-5 project had budgeted for UGX.46.9Bn for the FY 2021/2022 to be spent on various outputs, however, only UGX.21.7Bn (46%) was utilised leading to under-absorption of UGX.25.2Bn (54%). Management attributed the poor absorption to the impact of COVID-19 restrictions and disruptions in the supply chain that affected the implementation of planned activities and deliveries relating to procurements that had been undertaken. \uf0b7 A total of USD.7,417,107 was spent by the project on various procurements for which there was no market price assessment. This was in contravention of Section 26 (4) of the PPDA Act. As a result, I was unable to confirm the basis on which the contract prices were determined. \uf0b7 Project management awarded contracts to various suppliers for the supply of Motor Vehicles at a cost of USD.1,322,779 (equivalent to UGX.4.765Bn). A total of UGX.552.8Mn was paid to the suppliers as 20% advance payment while UGX.3.5Bn was used to secure letters of credit from Bank of Uganda in respect of the supplies. Contrary to the delivery schedules stated in the bidding documents of between 90 days to 120 days, the bidder quoted 3-6 months for the delivery of vehicles. After signing the contract, the delivery schedule was revised to 6- 7 months due to disruptions in the supply chain caused by COVID-19. The vehicles had not been delivered by the time of reporting in December 2022. Failure to emphasise the delivery schedule could have disadvantaged other potential suppliers, who could have delivered earlier. \uf0b7 CEDP set out to procure a Boat for the Uganda Wildlife Education Centre at a contract price of USD.695,000 (equivalent to UGX.2.5Bn). As at the end of the year, the contract for the supply had expired, the final design had not yet been agreed on and no delivery had been made. The contract had consequently not been performed, leading to delayed service delivery. \uf0b7 The Project effected payments amounting to USD.998,634 (equivalent to UGX.3.55Bn) in respect of the supply, installation and maintenance of the Uganda Wildlife Authority Integrated Financial Management System for which it was observed the contract implementation was marred by irregularities. Several modules purchased including payroll batch processing, recruitment, leave management, and time management were not fully functional and some were never utilized by the Authority. Lapses were noted in technical support management and failure by the system to integrate with the banks. It was also noted that consequently, the Authority abandoned the system and purchased another system to perform the same functionalities. No value for money was achieved in the procurement. |\n| 1 | 4 | Microfinance Support Centre Limited 2020/21 Opinion | \uf0b7 MSC did not have a strategic plan aligned to NDPIII contrary to Section 13(6) of the PFMA, which requires that the annual budget shall be consistent with the National Development Plan, the Charter of Fiscal Responsibility |", "metadata": {"page": 458, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 A review of the draft financial statements revealed that a total of UGX.600,000,000 was reported held on a suspense account. The funds relate to unresolved receipts and disbursements \uf0b7 An audit of the fixed assets registers indicated that a total of UGX.4,582,946,000 was reported as the value of Plant property and Equipment as at 30th June 2021 for which a total of 554 fixed assets were carried at zero Netbook Value, while they were still in use by the company hence understating the asset values in the financial statements. \uf0b7 MSCL wage and other staff-related costs have increased to UGX.11,117,980,000 over the years, representing 211% variance from the approved Government wage ceiling. \uf0b7 I observed that during the period under review, a total of UGX.57,667,906,500 was disbursed to various beneficiaries in the form of special Grants without a grant management policy. \uf0b7 The Government of Uganda debt stock as of 30th June 2021 revealed that the Islamic Development Bank had disbursed USD.3,950,000 to the GOU of which only 39.5% had absorbed. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 5 | Enterprise Uganda Foundation Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Foundation does not have a comprehensive database for all MSMEs in Uganda contrary to Clause 3.3(A) of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development to promote the development of Medium Small and Micro Enterprises (MSMEs) in Uganda. There is a risk that some MSMEs missed out the opportunities provided by the Foundation. \uf0b7 One of the objectives of the Foundation is to create and nurture special interest groups like Women and Youth to become effective entrepreneurs and enhance the productivity, growth and competitiveness of MSMEs in Uganda. However, the criterion utilized in selection of these beneficiaries was not in place. There is a likelihood of deserving MSMEs missing out the opportunities of services delivered by the Foundation. |\n| 1 | 6 | Privatization and utility sector reform project (operations account) FY 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 There was unauthorized Over Expenditure on Wages of UGX. 1,884,571,00. Whereas UGX. 1,500,000,000 had been appropriated, UGX. 3,344,571,000 was spent. \uf0b7 I established that the Unit did not have any quantified outputs, and as such, no assessment as to the extent of implementation was undertaken. I was therefore unable to establish the reasonableness of individual activity costs for each planned output \uf0b7 I noted that the Government had entered into concessions with various Government and private organizations for the provisions of different services, but the Accounting Officer had failed to recognize the same in the statement of financial. The organizations include; Dairy Corporation Ltd, Kilembe Mines Limited, Nile Hotel International Limited, Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Uganda Electricity Generation Company Limited, Uganda Railways Corporation, Uganda seeds Limited (Nyakatonzi cooperative Union), Uganda Seeds Limited (Farm Input Care Centre Limited [FICA}), Uganda Livestock Industries Limited (Kiryana Ranch), Uganda Livestock Industries Limited (Kyempisi Ranch) and Uganda Livestock Industries Limited (Aswa Ranch-Partial Sale of 297 Hectares). \uf0b7 During the year under review, I observed that PU had down sized affecting several operations of the Unit that include among others, non-renewal of contracts for most staff (current staff are only 3), reduction of staff salaries |", "metadata": {"page": 460, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 A review of the draft financial statements revealed that a total of UGX.600,000,000 was reported held on a suspense account. The funds relate to unresolved receipts and disbursements \uf0b7 An audit of the fixed assets registers indicated that a total of UGX.4,582,946,000 was reported as the value of Plant property and Equipment as at 30th June 2021 for which a total of 554 fixed assets were carried at zero Netbook Value, while they were still in use by the company hence understating the asset values in the financial statements. \uf0b7 MSCL wage and other staff-related costs have increased to UGX.11,117,980,000 over the years, representing 211% variance from the approved Government wage ceiling. \uf0b7 I observed that during the period under review, a total of UGX.57,667,906,500 was disbursed to various beneficiaries in the form of special Grants without a grant management policy. \uf0b7 The Government of Uganda debt stock as of 30th June 2021 revealed that the Islamic Development Bank had disbursed USD.3,950,000 to the GOU of which only 39.5% had absorbed. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | due to non-availability of budget to fund the unit operations and non-renewal of the rent agreement for the units office premises among others. \uf0b7 I noted that Privatization Unit had continued to irregularly accumulate domestic arrears. The value of arrears grew up to UGX.10,377,057,000 from UGX.10,278,272,000 of the previous year. A review of the composition of the payables revealed that UGX.9,984,335,000 (96% of the total payables) relates to Pay as You Earn (PAYE). \uf0b7 I also established that currently, the Unit has a DRIC committee that is fully constituted in accordance with the applicable laws. It was, however noted the appointments of the members to the committee were never time- bound, and as such, some members had served for over 10 years. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 7.0 | Unfpa Funded Programme Component of Data and Population Dynamics Implemented by National Planning Authority (NPA) Dec 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that NPA paid VAT amounting to UGX.2,023,200 on its supplies contrary to Clause 9.1.3 of the general terms and conditions of the agreement between NPA and UNFPA which considers such expenditure ineligible unless the IP can satisfy the UNFPA that it is unable to recover the VAT. \uf0b7 I noted that payments to some consultants amounting to UGX.3,881,400 were made basing on budgeted figures which were higher than the contract/invoice prices, of which, UGX.1,995,000 was recovered and refunded to UNFPA, leaving the balance of UGX.1,886,400 outstanding. \uf0b7 I noted that NPA paid UGX.5,464,900 as reimbursable costs claimed by a consultant without evidence of any addendum to the service provider\u2019s contract. \uf0b7 I noted a payment of UGX.4,770,000 reimbursed to different participants of a virtual meeting deposited on one bank account lacked support payment schedules. \uf0b7 I noted that the NPA did not withhold UGX.9,279,123 from payments made to service providers who are not exempted from WHT. The non-compliance impacts Government efforts to raise revenue for provision of public services. |\n| 2 | 8.0 | UNFPA funded programme component of data and population dynamics Implemented by Uganda Bureau of Statistics December 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No Significant matter to report on. |", "metadata": {"page": 461, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 A review of the draft financial statements revealed that a total of UGX.600,000,000 was reported held on a suspense account. The funds relate to unresolved receipts and disbursements \uf0b7 An audit of the fixed assets registers indicated that a total of UGX.4,582,946,000 was reported as the value of Plant property and Equipment as at 30th June 2021 for which a total of 554 fixed assets were carried at zero Netbook Value, while they were still in use by the company hence understating the asset values in the financial statements. \uf0b7 MSCL wage and other staff-related costs have increased to UGX.11,117,980,000 over the years, representing 211% variance from the approved Government wage ceiling. \uf0b7 I observed that during the period under review, a total of UGX.57,667,906,500 was disbursed to various beneficiaries in the form of special Grants without a grant management policy. \uf0b7 The Government of Uganda debt stock as of 30th June 2021 revealed that the Islamic Development Bank had disbursed USD.3,950,000 to the GOU of which only 39.5% had absorbed. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 9 | The Project for Financial Inclusion in Rural Areas (PROFIRA) Opinion | \uf0b7 There were delays in disbursement of project funds by Government of Uganda (GoU), for counterpart funding. As at 30th June 2022, counterpart funding received amounted to UGX.3.28 Billion against a budgeted amount of UGX.3.67 Billion for the year. This represents 89% of the projected commitments. The Government funding was |", "metadata": {"page": 461, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | meant to cater for contract renewal of the Government-funded staff until project closure, costs for conducting project completion activities and operating costs. \uf0b7 I observed that there was no exit strategy in place. During the last implementation support mission, PROFIRA Management agreed to work closely with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) and the Parish Development Model (PDM) Secretariat to develop a clear proposal for MoFPED to consider scaling up PROFIRA\u2019s expertise and knowledge in the current Government programmes of Financial Inclusion. Furthermore, PROFIRA was to develop a proposal for the deployment of revolving funds to Community Savings and Credit Groups (CSCGs)/Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) and other SACCOs already in existence for consideration under PDM. \uf0b7 I observed that the GoU and IFAD agreed to offer additional contracts to two contracted Service Providers till November 2022, to ensure that grant funds are fully and properly utilized, and that outcome measurement of the grant is facilitated. During audit examination, I however noted that the contracts have not been signed and implemented. \uf0b7 Whereas there were set standards for the financial management and monitoring of performance of the grant, to a tune of UGX.4,728,805,337, the project is coming to an end without proper modalities for monitoring and supervision. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 10 | The Project for Financial Inclusion in Rural Areas (PROFIRA) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that, as reported in my report for the year ended 30th June 2020, Government of Uganda has not yet honored its obligation of UGX.5.6Bn as co-funding for the Project. The project entirely depended on the IFAD funding in implementing its activities \uf0b7 I observed that the project has been supporting SACCO\u2019s that were not registered by Uganda Microfinance Regulatory Authority (UMRA). Un-registered SACCO\u2019s are unregulated and this could result into loss of member deposits and endanger the sustainability of the Project-supported SACCOs. |\n| 1 | 11 | Resource Enhancement and Accountability Programme (REAP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No reportable issues. |\n| 2 | 12 | Directorate for Ethics and Integrity (DEI) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.10.833Bn received during the financial year UGX.10.562Bn was utilized by the Directorate resulting into unutilized warrants of UGX.0.562Bn, representing absorption level of 97.5%. Un utilised warrants signify failure to utilise availed funds which negatively impacts service delivery. \uf0b7 Out of the domestic arrears balance of UGX.442Mn at the beginning of the year, only UGX.122Mn (28%) was paid, while the balance of UGX.319Mn still remained outstanding during the Financial Year 2021/2022. Delayed settlement of arrears could lead to costly litigation and loss to government. |", "metadata": {"page": 462, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | meant to cater for contract renewal of the Government-funded staff until project closure, costs for conducting project completion activities and operating costs. \uf0b7 I observed that there was no exit strategy in place. During the last implementation support mission, PROFIRA Management agreed to work closely with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) and the Parish Development Model (PDM) Secretariat to develop a clear proposal for MoFPED to consider scaling up PROFIRA\u2019s expertise and knowledge in the current Government programmes of Financial Inclusion. Furthermore, PROFIRA was to develop a proposal for the deployment of revolving funds to Community Savings and Credit Groups (CSCGs)/Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) and other SACCOs already in existence for consideration under PDM. \uf0b7 I observed that the GoU and IFAD agreed to offer additional contracts to two contracted Service Providers till November 2022, to ensure that grant funds are fully and properly utilized, and that outcome measurement of the grant is facilitated. During audit examination, I however noted that the contracts have not been signed and implemented. \uf0b7 Whereas there were set standards for the financial management and monitoring of performance of the grant, to a tune of UGX.4,728,805,337, the project is coming to an end without proper modalities for monitoring and supervision. |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Directorate of Ethics and Integrity (DEI) has an approved staff structure of 122, but only 54 (44.3%) were filled leaving 68 (55.7%) positions unfilled. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Directorate. \uf0b7 Management spent a total of UGX.248.883Mn on micro procurements without use of request for quotations, contrary to the PPDA Act Section 79 (1) Subsection 5(C) and 7(C) Fourth Schedule, that specifies the conditions for use of Procurement Methods for Micro Procurement and Quotation and proposal method. This could lead to uncompetitive prices and failure to maximize value for money. \uf0b7 The Directorate irregularly used direct procurement for the purchase of vehicles at a cost of UGX.1.046Bn, contrary to PPDA Guidelines 2014 Paragraph 1, Thresholds for Procurement of supplies and non-consultancy services, method. This could also lead to uncompetitive prices and failure to maximize value for money. \uf0b7 A review of the governance structures indicated that there was neither specific structure that steers and oversees ICT implementation nor an approved IT staff structure while at the same time the expected ICT Unit of two staff, only one position had been filled. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 13.0 | Privatization and utility sector reform project (divesture and redundancy account) FY 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I observed that for the period under review, there was no evidence that a report was submitted to Parliament by the Minister on the steps taken to implement the Act. |", "metadata": {"page": 463, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | meant to cater for contract renewal of the Government-funded staff until project closure, costs for conducting project completion activities and operating costs. \uf0b7 I observed that there was no exit strategy in place. During the last implementation support mission, PROFIRA Management agreed to work closely with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) and the Parish Development Model (PDM) Secretariat to develop a clear proposal for MoFPED to consider scaling up PROFIRA\u2019s expertise and knowledge in the current Government programmes of Financial Inclusion. Furthermore, PROFIRA was to develop a proposal for the deployment of revolving funds to Community Savings and Credit Groups (CSCGs)/Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) and other SACCOs already in existence for consideration under PDM. \uf0b7 I observed that the GoU and IFAD agreed to offer additional contracts to two contracted Service Providers till November 2022, to ensure that grant funds are fully and properly utilized, and that outcome measurement of the grant is facilitated. During audit examination, I however noted that the contracts have not been signed and implemented. \uf0b7 Whereas there were set standards for the financial management and monitoring of performance of the grant, to a tune of UGX.4,728,805,337, the project is coming to an end without proper modalities for monitoring and supervision. |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 14 | National Lotteries and Gaming Regulatory Board (NLGB) 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.8.370Bn, a total of UGX.8.310Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.06Bn representing 0.72% of the approved budget. I further noted that of the total warrants of UGX.8.310Bn, the Board spent a total of UGX.7.528Bn resulting into unspent warrants of UGX.0.782Bn. Unreleased and unutilised funds signify failure to implement all the planned activities which negatively impacts service delivery. \uf0b7 The Board remained understaffed with only had 36 positions out of 51 approved positions leaving a gap of 15 positions, representing 30% of the approved structure. Understaffing constrains effective service delivery. \uf0b7 The Board failed to prepare 4 Statutory Regulations to regulate the industry contrary to the provision of Section 70 of the Lotteries and Gaming Act, 2015. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity failed to prepare a National Register of gaming or betting machines and devices, as provided for under Section 36 of the Lotteries and Gaming Act, 2015. Absence of a register of machines and equipment being used in the industry, complicates monitoring and renewal of licences and also exposes the industry players to risks of using inappropriate machinery and equipment. \uf0b7 I carried out a review of management of IT investments at the entity and noted that; o 138 IT assets (100%) inspected over the period under review were not accurately recorded in the Assets register. |", "metadata": {"page": 463, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | meant to cater for contract renewal of the Government-funded staff until project closure, costs for conducting project completion activities and operating costs. \uf0b7 I observed that there was no exit strategy in place. During the last implementation support mission, PROFIRA Management agreed to work closely with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) and the Parish Development Model (PDM) Secretariat to develop a clear proposal for MoFPED to consider scaling up PROFIRA\u2019s expertise and knowledge in the current Government programmes of Financial Inclusion. Furthermore, PROFIRA was to develop a proposal for the deployment of revolving funds to Community Savings and Credit Groups (CSCGs)/Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) and other SACCOs already in existence for consideration under PDM. \uf0b7 I observed that the GoU and IFAD agreed to offer additional contracts to two contracted Service Providers till November 2022, to ensure that grant funds are fully and properly utilized, and that outcome measurement of the grant is facilitated. During audit examination, I however noted that the contracts have not been signed and implemented. \uf0b7 Whereas there were set standards for the financial management and monitoring of performance of the grant, to a tune of UGX.4,728,805,337, the project is coming to an end without proper modalities for monitoring and supervision. |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | o The Board\u2019s IT department was inadequately staffed, with only one staff out of the required three. o The Board did not have a business continuity plan in place. \uf0b7 Such weaknesses negatively impact on the capacity of IT to effectively facilitate the management of the entity\u2019s operations. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 15.0 | Bank of Uganda 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n| 2 | 16.0 | Capital Markets Authority 2020/2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n| 3 | 17.0 | COVID-19 Economic Recovery And Resilience Response Program (CERRRP) 22nd May 2020 to 30th April 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n| 4 | 18.0 | Deposit Protection Fund Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n| 5 | 19.0 | Housing Finance Bank Limited for the year ended 31st December, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n| 6 | 20.0 | Housing Finance Bank Limited - Pool Houses Collection Account Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n| 7 | 21.0 | Housing Finance Bank Limited - Pool Houses Collection Account Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |", "metadata": {"page": 464, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 23 | Pride Microfinance Limited (MDI) 31st December, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n| 1 | 24 | The Resource Enhancement and Accountability Programme (REAP) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n| 2 | 25 | Uganda Development Bank (UDBL) 31st December, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n| 3 | 26 | Uganda Seeds Limited 2020/21 Opinion Qualified | \uf0b7 I noted that in the Statement of Financial Position, the company reported a current account balance of UGX.1.221Bn which was not backed by any schedule and/or supporting documents. I was unable to confirm the correctness of the current account balance reported in the financial statements. \uf0b7 A total of UGX.110Mn in outstanding receivables was not supported by any documentation or schedule to enable independent confirmation of the value. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas the Company reported net cash flows of UGX.13.77Mn as per statement of cash flows (page 11), this was not reported in the statement of financial position. \uf0b7 I observed a reduction in capital reserves of UGX.57.6Mn in the statement of changes in equity, however, the change in the capital reserves was not in line with the reported net loss in the statement of profit or loss of UGX.62.6Mn, thereby occasioning an unexplained variance of UGX.5Mn. \uf0b7 The Company did not have any quantified outputs, and as such, no assessment as to the extent of implementation was undertaken. \uf0b7 Uganda Seeds Limited did not have an approved strategic plan and budget to guide and support the company's Management undertaking its stewardship roles. |", "metadata": {"page": 465, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that whereas the board had leased property to a private firm for a period of 30 years, over the years the firm had used the properties to secure loan facilities from different funders and created mortgages over the same without authorisation from the Board. \uf0b7 UNRA is in the process of tarmacking the Masindi-Kinyara-Biiso Road which would affect some of the land currently subleased to the concessionaire however no disclosure was made in the financial statements in regard to the over 3 acres of land to be taken over by UNRA upon compensation. \uf0b7 Physical inspections conducted revealed that there was gross mismanagement of the assets and abandonment of most of the buildings. Many assets were obsolete and were observed not to be maintained as agreed upon. I further noted that most buildings lacked a roof and were uninhabitable. \uf0b7 I noted that there was no evidence of any board meetings. I also noted that the company last filed a board resolution in 2005 and that the company file at Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) lacked any resolution of the AGM appointing the directors and no evidence that AGM had ever been held. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 27.0 | Young Africa Works Uganda \u2013 Lead Firm Structure Project 5th November, 2019 to 31st December, 2020 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |", "metadata": {"page": 466, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 28 | Uganda Microfinance Regulatory Authority (UMRA) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 UMRA had an approved budget of UGX.7Bn out of which UGX.6.75Bn was warranted leading to a shortfall of UGX.0.25Bn (0.04% of the budget). As a result, some planned activities could not be implemented. \uf0b7 There is an apparent conflict between Section 28 of the Tier-4-Microfinance-Institutions-Money-Lenders Act, 2016 and Section 51 of the Public Finance Management Act, 2015 with regard to the period for submission of financial Statements to the Auditor General. The former prescribes three months while the later provides 2 months after the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 I noted the following matters in the management of the licensing mandate of the Authority over SACCOs and Money lenders; \uf0b7 Challenges in licensing of SACCOs arising out of a conflict of laws between the Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money lenders Act and the Cooperative Societies Act 2020 resulting in low registrations. \uf0b7 Failure by the Minister to put in place the maximum interest chargeable by the different money lenders contrary to the requirements of the Act. \uf0b7 Absence of clear guidelines for the determination of \u2018fit and proper persons\u2019 for purposes of money lenders. |", "metadata": {"page": 466, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Failure to constitute the SACCO Stabilisation Fund and the SACCO Savings Protection Fund contrary to the law. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 29.0 | Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the MoFPED had an approved budget of UGX.815.5Bn out of which UGX.792.8Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.22.7Bn, which represents 2.8% of the approved budget. Budget shortfalls constrain management is implementing fully, the approved activities and hence service delivery. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.792.8Bn received during the financial year, UGX.782.4Bn was utilised by the Ministry resulting in unutilized warrants of UGX.10.34Bn representing absorption level of 98.7%. As a result, I noted that of the 64 outputs that I sampled, Eighteen (18) outputs were fully implemented, thirty-six (36) outputs were partially implemented, Seven (7) out puts were not implemented, while Three (3) out puts could not be assessed. Failure to fully implement all planned activities negatively impacts service delivery. \uf0b7 The Ministry did not have a running strategic plan to facilitate achievement of the NDP III objectives. This poses a risk of non-attainment of NDP III objectives since the strategic plan that would serve as basis for the annual plan and budget that is being implemented is non-existent. \uf0b7 Domestic arrears stock was reported as UGX.473Bn as at the end of the financial year 2021/22 up from UGX.268.9Bn in F/Y 2020/21 representing 76% increase. The Domestic arrears are not given appropriate budget provision hence accumulation of the stock. Failure to budget and pay arrears negatively impacts the creditworthiness of the Ministry and could result into penalties and costly litigations. \uf0b7 The Ministry did not disclose contingent liabilities worth UGX2.839Bn in the memorandum statement of Contingent liabilities. This denies end users of the Financial Statements useful information for decision making. \uf0b7 The Ministry has seven (7) IT systems which were not integrated or not automatically sharing information with other systems. This could lead to duplication of functionalities, procurement of non-compatible solutions and equipment, and general deviation from Government\u2019s efforts to rationalize resources for better service delivery. |\n| 2 | 30.0 | Contingencies Fund Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The approved budget for the previous financial year (FY2020/21) was UGX.45.49Trillion, which would have translated into UGX.227.47Bn funding for the Contingencies Fund in the year under review, in accordance with the formula provided in the PFMA, 2015. I however noted the following; |", "metadata": {"page": 467, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | o Parliament appropriated UGX.62.07Bn out of UGX.227.47Bn (27.3%) to the Contingencies Fund, leading to a deficit of UGX.165.40Bn (72.7%). o Due to an upsurge of COVID-19, additional funds were appropriated via a supplementary budget of UGX.228.30Bn, making a total of UGX.290.37Bn. o Out of the total warrants of UGX.290.37Bn, only UGX.72.06Bn (24.8%) was released to the MDAs for emergencies, leading to a total deficit of UGX.219.33Bn (75.5%). \uf0b7 The continued failure to appropriate funds in accordance with the formula provided in the PFMA, 2015 (as amended), is an indicator of noncompliance and defeats the intentions of the law. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 31.0 | Treasury Operations Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Treasury Operations had an initial approved budget of UGX.15.094Tn which was later revised to UGX.17.863Tn. Out of the revised Budget, UGX.17.391Tn was warranted, out of which, UGX.13.959Tn was utilized by the entity resulting into an unutilized balance of UGX.3.432Tn representing a performance level of 80.26%. Audit however noted that the entity remained with a total of UGX.4.661Tn as payables at year end. \uf0b7 There are was a significant change of the reported payables from UGX.2.345Tn to UGX.4.583Tn resulting into an increase of UGX.2.238Tn representing 95%. The significant increment in the liabilities was due to the International Court of Justice ruling in favour of Democratic Republic of Congo to a tune of UGX.1.228Tn and the assumption of Uganda Telcom liabilities of UGX.0.028Tn. \uf0b7 Audit noted that as regards the management of Boards for Corporations and companies in which Government has shareholding, there were no clear guidelines, policies or regulations for the management, appointment, evaluation or determination of such Boards. \uf0b7 The government is defaulting on the payment of an outstanding balance of USD.889,411.24 (UGX.3,343Bn) out of a total USD.1,659,450.22 as a 10th Instalment for 51 callable shares from African Development Bank (ADB). Failure to pay-up on callable shares puts the country at a risk of losing paid up shares and the corresponding callable shares in the Bank. |", "metadata": {"page": 468, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 32 | Microfinance SupportCenter (MSC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.154.18Bn for capital expenditure, Emyooga grant and other recurrent expenditures, UGX.146.85Bn was realized and UGX.125.65Bn was spent, leaving UGX.21.2Bn unspent which represents 14.4% of the realized funds. Unspent funds represent services not delivered. \uf0b7 A total of UGX.1.44Bn was disbursed as additional capitalization to the existing EMYOGA SACCOs when they had not made recoveries of above 70% of the first seed capital disbursed, as evidenced by the loan disbursement and recovery schedules submitted by the respective SACCOs. This can lead to disbursements to SACCOs that are already at default. \uf0b7 The loan portfolio of the company has grown from UGX.105Bn in 2020 to UGX.146Bn over the three years representing a 39% growth. However, a total of UGX.3.7Bn was disbursed to several clients without undertaking adequate loan appraisal documentation, hence an increase in default risk exposure as well as potential loss to government. |", "metadata": {"page": 468, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I reviewed the loan portfolio and noted that an average of 53% and 52% of impaired loans was registered in the financial years 2019/20 and 2020/21 respectively, while there has been a progressive increase to 71% in the financial year ended 30th June 2022. Such increases imply that there are more loans that are likely to become uncollectable and therefore leading to loss to government. \uf0b7 I noted weaknesses in the IT systems which include; o There was no evidence of systems ownership o The two systems operated by the entity were not integrated or not automatically sharing information with other systems. o There were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. o There was no approved IT risk management framework/policy and risk register at the entity. o There was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 33.0 | National Population Council (NPC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity was supposed to receive UGX.16.191Bn out of which UGX.12.742Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.3.449Bn. The shortfall represents 21.3% of the approved budget. As a result some activities planned for the year, were not implemented, which negatively impacts on service delivery. \uf0b7 The entity had an approved staff structure of 97 positions, out of which 74 (76%) positions were filled, leaving 23 (23.7%) positions not yet filled. Staffing gaps constrain the entity in implementing its mandate effectively. \uf0b7 NPC staff were paid a salaries amounting to UGX.4.01Bn for the F/Y 2021/2022 off the IPPS and yet the human resource system was procured for payroll management. This creates an opportunity for payment of ineligible staff and creation of non-existent staff/pensioners. \uf0b7 I carried out a review of management of IT investments at the entity and noted that; \uf0b7 Three (3) IT systems /equipment acquired at UGX.415Mn had no clearance from NITA-U, while IT systems/equipment costing UGX.342Mn did not have clearance from MoFPED. \uf0b7 Two (2) Multi-year system implementation projects worth total of UGX.342Mn did not have approval from Parliament. \uf0b7 The National population data bank and the KMIS systems costing UGX.342Mn were not being utilized by NPC. \uf0b7 Absence of ICT governance structures hampers formulation of appropriate ICT policies, strategies and may lead to misalignment of IT investments with the overall strategic objectives. |", "metadata": {"page": 469, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 34 | Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 PPDA had an approved budget of UGX.23.28Bn out of which UGX.19.52Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.3.76Bn which represents 16.15% of the approved budget. The deficit in the budget negatively impacted service delivery. |", "metadata": {"page": 469, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 35.0 | Uganda Property Holdings Limited (UPHL) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to collect UGX.11.16Bn revenue and collected UGX.10.88Bn resulting into an underperformance of UGX.0.28, which was 2.6% of the budget. The underperformance in NTR collections was partly attributed to the depreciating value of the Uganda shilling against the Kenyan shilling and the Great Britain Pound. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity had receivables from UGX.4.7Bn in the statement of financial position at year-end implying that these were not honoured within the 15 working days as required by regulations thereby holding up funds which would have been used to implement planned activities. \uf0b7 A review of the properties owned by the Government of Uganda within and outside the country revealed that several commercial properties are not owned and managed by UPHL, yet the company was established majorly to hold, invest in and control the real estate properties of the Government of Uganda. The properties risk being condemned because of poor management. \uf0b7 The company procured IT systems which were not integrated thereby not meeting the intended objective of shared information. |", "metadata": {"page": 470, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 36 | Uganda Property Holdings Limited (UPHL) 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that Uganda Property Holdings Limited did not manage some Government Commercial properties. This company was established principally to own, invest in and control the real estate Properties of the Government of Uganda. As a result, some commercial buildings in Nairobi, Kinshasa, and London are not well maintained to the extent of being at risk of condemnation by the relevant city authorities, like the Commercial Building in Nairobi. Management explained that the cabinet is handling the issue, and I am waiting for the cabinet's decision. \uf0b7 Uganda Property Holding has 39 properties comprising of 23 in Mombasa, 12 in Uganda, and 4 in the UK. I reviewed all ownership documents for the said properties and found that two properties did not have certificates of title, namely, Plot M82, Masese, Jinja, and Plot KRC Mbaraki, Mombasa. I advised management to follow up on the above properties and secure their ownership by obtaining the certificate of titles. |\n| 1 | 37 | Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.67.52Bn, the Bureau utilized warrants amounting to UGX.60.12Bn resulting in unutilized warrants of UGX.7.4Bn representing an absorption level of 89.2%. As a result, I noted that of the 124 quantified activities worth UGX.23.6Bn assessed, 90 activities representing 72.6% were fully implemented, 22 activities representing 21.8% were partially implemented, while 7 activities representing 5.6% were not implemented. Failure to fully implement planned activities negatively impacts service delivery. \uf0b7 A review of the staffing structure for UBOS revealed that out of the total approved staff establishment of 413 staff, only 285 (69%) positions were filled, leaving 128 (31%) positions vacant. Understaffing negatively impacts on the Bureau\u2019s capacity to deliver services. |", "metadata": {"page": 470, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that the buildings located at UBOS Entebbe Office were in a poor state, and are were due for demolition. Although UBOS has an architectural plan for redevelopment of the UBOS office into the East African Bureau of Statistics and a training centre, funding for the construction works has not yet been secured. \uf0b7 I noted that Parish Development Model (PDM) baseline data collection exercise had only commenced in 169 out of 181 Higher Local Governments (HLGs) and the exercise was incomplete and behind schedule at a completion rate of 41%. The data processing at the Bureau had also been affected by limited access granted by the Ministry of ICT and National Guidance (MOICT&NG) to the data collected from the local governments which is affecting the initial implementation of Parish Development Model. \uf0b7 I noted that several procurements to the tune of UGX.1.08Bn were not executed as of 30th June 2022. As a result, implementation of critical government programs was delayed. \uf0b7 I noted inadequate management of grants from development partners relating to three projects under the Bureau; o I observed that the Bureau received UGX.5.15Bn from the Ministry of Education and Sports for the Baseline Education Census Project funded by World Bank. However, I noted that the exercise was delayed and only UGX.1.2Bn had been utilized by the time of audit (November 2022) for the recruitment, procurement of tools for the census, and training of project staff. o During the FY 2021/2022, the Bureau received UGX.2.14Bn for the project: Support of the Advancement of the Uganda Annual Agricultural Survey (AAS). However, the Bureau failed to absorb part of the funds and refunded UGX.1.87Bn to the FAO International Representative. \uf0b7 Failure to absorb project funds leads to delayed service delivery. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 471, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 38 | URA Corporate Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Authority had a revenue collection target of UGX.22,802.62Bn, out of which UGX.22,098.06Bn (96.9%) was collected. Under-collection of revenue affects the overall delivery of Public services by the Government. \uf0b7 Out of the planned 493 compliance audits, only 227 (46%) were carried out, implying that the corrective actions that would have been undertaken to enhance tax compliance were impeded. This negatively affected revenue collection. \uf0b7 Despite several tax heads having 0 (zero) budgeted revenue, a total of UGX.370.58Bn was collected from the tax heads in question - contrary to the provisions in Paragraph 4.19.3 of the Treasury Instructions, 2017 and Section 45(3) of the PFMA, 2015. \uf0b7 URA did not have documented step-wise processes on the importation and exportation of precious minerals. As result, the Gold exports were not being captured in the customs systems \u2013 ASYCUDA and Taxes arising out of Gold exportation to the tune of UGX.340.56Bn were not collected. |", "metadata": {"page": 471, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 URA was not able to receive and reconcile taxes amounting to UGX.182.9Bn which was received by BOU from MDAs, arising from missing IFMS details on the amounts. This resulted in the misstatement of revenue collected per tax head and taxpayers' accounts. \uf0b7 A total of 13,555 customs entry declarations with assessed taxes of UGX.133.16Bn had not been paid as of the end of the year. This implies delayed or lost Government revenue and distorts the Government\u2019s cashflow planning and management. \uf0b7 Some companies were importing rice from an EAC partner state free of VAT, potentially causing a revenue loss of UGX.240.62Bn. \uf0b7 | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 39.0 | URA Revenue Collection Account Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Authority had a revenue collection target of UGX.22,802.62Bn, out of which UGX.22,098.06Bn (96.9%) was collected. Under-collection of revenue affects the overall delivery of Public services by the Government. \uf0b7 Out of the planned 493 compliance audits, only 227 (46%) were carried out, implying that the corrective actions that would have been undertaken to enhance tax compliance were impeded. This negatively affected revenue collection. \uf0b7 Despite several tax heads having 0 (zero) budgeted revenue, a total of UGX.370.58Bn was collected from the tax heads in question - contrary to the provisions in Paragraph 4.19.3 of the Treasury Instructions, 2017 and Section 45(3) of the PFMA, 2015. \uf0b7 URA did not have documented step-wise processes on the importation and exportation of precious minerals. As result, the Gold exports were not being captured in the customs systems \u2013 ASYCUDA and Taxes arising out of Gold exportation to the tune of UGX.340.56Bn were not collected. \uf0b7 URA was not able to receive and reconcile taxes amounting to UGX.182.9Bn which was received by BOU from MDAs, arising from missing IFMS details on the amounts. This resulted in the misstatement of revenue collected per tax head and taxpayers' accounts. \uf0b7 A total of 13,555 customs entry declarations with assessed taxes of UGX.133.16Bn had not been paid as of the end of the year. This implies delayed or lost Government revenue and distorts the Government\u2019s cashflow planning and management. \uf0b7 Some companies were importing rice from an EAC partner state free of VAT, potentially causing a revenue loss of UGX.240.62Bn. |", "metadata": {"page": 472, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 40 | Uganda Retirement Benefits Regulatory Authority. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.14Bn during the year, but only received UGX.12.72Bn which resulted into a shortfall of UGX.1.28Bn which represents 9.1% of the approved budget. As a result, some planned activities such as; Board capacity development, Trustee certification programme and Sector players\u2019 workshops were not implemented. This impacts negatively, on service delivery. |", "metadata": {"page": 472, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|:-----------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The approved structure for URBRA provides a staff ceiling of 73, however, I observed that only 42 positions (57.5%) were filled, hence a staffing gap of 31 positions (42.5%) which includes key positions such as one Director and eight (8) manager positions. This limits the Authority\u2019s capacity to duly implement all its mandate. \uf0b7 A review of the Authority\u2019s procurement plan, procurement files and the annual procurement report/register, indicated that procurements worth UGX.0.114Bn were not implemented. This in turn leads to delayed delivery of services. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 41.0 | Financial Intelligence Authority. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not budget to collect NTR during the year but collected UGX.13Mn. Failure to budget for revenue leads to unauthorized collections and makes it impossible to measure performance. \uf0b7 Review of the entity\u2019s staffing structures revealed that out of the total approved structure of 86 staff, only 41 (48.8%) positions were filled and 45 (51.2%) positions had not yet been filled. These included the key posts of; Director Legal, Inspection and Compliance, Director Audit, Director Finance and Administration among others. Understaffing contrains the entity\u2019s capacity to effectively deliver its mandate. \uf0b7 The Authority made procurements for a total of UGX0.551Mn without conducting market assessments. Lack of market surveys is not only irregular, but also implies procurements could have been executed at uncompetitive prices, hence impacting on value for money. |\n| 2 | 42.0 | Insurance Training College (ITC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 ITC had an approved budget of UGX.9.177Bn of which UGX.8.325Bn was realized, leading to a shortfall of UGX.0.852Bn representing 9.9%% of the budget. I further noted that out of the total receipts for the year, only UGX.6.332Bn was expensed, leading to a surplus of UGX.1.992Bn representing 69% absorption. Also noted was that out of the eleven (11) planned activities, the entity fully implemented five (5) activities, while four (4) activities were partially implemented, and two (2) activities remained unimplemented. Failure to fully implement all planned activities negatively impacts service delivery. \uf0b7 ITC acquired fourteen (14) IT assets worth UGX.326.9Mn without clearance from NITA-U. Such non-compliance with the government policies and guidelines may lead to duplication of acquisition, non-compatible solutions which can lead to loss to government. |", "metadata": {"page": 473, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 43 | Tax Appeals Tribunal. 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted for UGX.7.6Bn, out of which UGX.7.4Bn was received, resulting into a deficit of UGX.240Mn. The deficit represents 3.2% of the approved budget. The deficit in the budget negatively impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The entity had an ambitious plan of one hundred fifty thousand and nine hundred twenty (150,920) planned activities worth UGX.2.8Bn, out of which, only seven hundred and eighteen (1,718) activities were fully implemented, hence limiting delivery of the entity\u2019s mandate and service delivery. \uf0b7 A total of 163 tax appeal cases worth UGX.882.6Bn were pending, resulting into locking potential government revenue in dispute. |", "metadata": {"page": 473, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Out of the 40 approved posts, only 23 were filled leaving a balance of 17 vacant, which represents 43% of the required manpower for the Tribunal. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Tribunal. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 44.0 | The Inspectorate of Government (IG). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A total of UGX.17.786Bn was received to be spent on different outputs during the year under review, and only UGX.9.155Bn (51%) was utilized leading to under-absorption of UGX.8.634Bn (49%). As a result, several planned activities were not implemented. \uf0b7 A review of the contract for the production of base maps for land administration in Uganda awarded to a firm at a contract price of Euros 4,712,135 revealed a contract performance of 89% despite having paid Euros 4,294,439 (91.1%) of the contract price. |\n| 2 | 45.0 | PPDA Tribunal. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The budget for the Tribunal was not aligned to its strategic plan creating a risk of the entity not achieving its long term objectives. \uf0b7 The Tribunal did not maintain a detailed risk register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities as detailed in the approved work plans and budgets. \uf0b7 I noted that there was no segregation of duties between the function of the Board of the Tribunal and the Administrative Function. This is because the members of the Tribunal execute both functions. |\n| 3 | 46.0 | Insurance Regulatory Authority. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Authority collected revenue UGX.20.02Bn out of a budget of UGX.21.55Bn. This was in addition to balance brought forward of UGX.7.69Bn resulting in total funds available amounting to UGX.27.71Bn. I reviewed the Authority\u2019s budget implementation and noted that out of the 67 quantified activities assessed worth UGX.2.314Bn; 36 activities representing 54% were fully implemented, 18 activities representing 27% were partially implemented, while 13 activities representing 19% were not implemented. Failure to fully implement all planned activities delays service delivery. \uf0b7 IRA has a staffing structure totaling to one hundred and nine (109) staff of which eighty-six (86) staff positions (i.e. 78% of the approved structure) filled, leaving a balance of twenty-three (23) positions (22%) vacant. Understaffing impacts on the entity\u2019s capacity to effectively execute their mandate. \uf0b7 Procurements to the tune of UGX.5.822Bn were not undertaken as of 30th June 2022. As a result, implementation of critical planned programs was delayed. |", "metadata": {"page": 474, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Postbank Uganda Limited 31st Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 47 | Public Procurment And Disposal of Public (PPDA) Opinion | \uf0b7 PPDA had an approved budget of UGX.23.28Bn out of which UGX.19.52Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.3.76Bn which represents 16.15% of the approved budget. The deficit in the budget negatively impacted service delivery. |", "metadata": {"page": 474, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 48.0 | Capital Markets Authority. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.6.894Bn, UGX.6.237Bn was warranted and the entity spent UGX.5.246Bn resulting into un-utilized warrants of UGX.975Bn representing an absorption level of 84.32%. As a result, some of the Authority planned activities remained unimplemented, due to failure to absorb all the availed funding, which in turn, negatively impacts service delivery. \uf0b7 The entity paid mandatory (10%) contributions to the National Social Security Fund worth UGX.301.66Mn, and also paid an extra UGX.446.04Mn to a second standard contribution scheme operated by the Authority. This resulted into a double payment of gratuity contributions contrary to the requirements of the Public Service Standing Orders. \uf0b7 The responsible Minister had not constituted the Capital Markets Tribunal to handle disputes arising out of disputes in the sector. The entity also lacked some critical regulations necessary for the management of the activities of the Authority. \uf0b7 The audit of the licensing function revealed that: The Authority conducted irregular licensing without prescribed fees being paid, the entity failed to follow up licensees with expired licenses, the entity failed to collect security deposit from Brokers dealers licensed, lacked evidence of proper due diligence, and also failed to license primary dealers of Government Bonds. Such weaknesses point to challenges in execution of its mandate which could lead to failure to collect all potential revenues. \uf0b7 In the audit of Human Resource management, I noted that the Authority lacked an approved staff and salary structure, contrary to the standing orders. There were also no comprehensive annual performance plans and Job Descriptions for the staff during the year under review. This complicates assessment of staff performance at year end. |\n| 1 | 49.0 | Capital Markets Authority (CMA) - Investor Compensation Fund 2022 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 In spite of the Board approving the Capital Markets Authority (Investor Compensation Fund) Regulations, 2018, there was no evidence that the same were gazetted as required under the Interpretation Act Cap 3. This implies that the Fund is being operated with unauthorized legislation. |\n| 2 | | INFORMATION COMMUNICATION SECTOR | |\n| 3 | 50.0 | Ministry of ICT and National Guidance (MoICT) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry budgeted to receive UGX.90Bn from Treasury but received UGX.74.5Bn resulting into a shortfall of UGX.15.5Bn (17%). Revenue shortfall affected the implementation of planned activities. |", "metadata": {"page": 475, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.74.5Bn, only UGX.72Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.2.5Bn representing an absorption level of 97%. As a result, some planned activities were not implemented. \uf0b7 The entity has outstanding payables of UGX.320.471Bn in the statement of financial position of which UGX.320.033Bn is an unpaid pension for former UPTC and UTL staff. Unpaid pension not only exposes government to risks of costly litigation but also denies the pensioners their right to live a decent life. \uf0b7 The Ministry-approved establishment has 103 positions of which 63 positions are filled (61.2%) leaving a staffing gap of 40 positions (38.8%). Understaffing negatively affects the overall service delivery. \uf0b7 I reviewed ICT investment initiatives and noted; o There were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. o The entity has 7 (53.8%) out of 13 positions of ICT staff establishment. All have the required qualifications. o There was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. o There was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \uf0b7 One system, the Academic Information Management System (AIMS), costing UGX.3.0Bn was developed using Innovators and adopted by Government, however, the source codes were yet to be handed over to evidence Government Ownership. \uf0b7 The Ministry budgeted for UGX.12.4Bn for PDM activities, out of which, UGX.9.4Bn was released resulting in a budget shortfall of UGX.3Bn (25%). As a result, planned PDM activities were not fully implemented. |", "metadata": {"page": 476, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 51 | Uganda Communications Employees Contributory Pension Scheme [UCECPS] 2020/21 Opinion Qualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Actuary/ Asset Consultant did not conduct an actuarial valuation of the scheme for the year under review, and the existing one was done in 2019. \uf0b7 There were unsupported payables of UGX.3.904 Bn, of which Administrative fees of UGX.2.022Bn and Actuarial fees of UGX.442Mn. Under the circumstances, it was difficult to provide assurance that the amounts in question are genuine liabilities to the Scheme. I further noted that the amounts have not changed over the years implying Scheme\u2019s inability to settle its obligations. \uf0b7 Disclosed under Note 15 to the Financial Statements on page 22, are receivables recognised by the Scheme amounting to UGX.4.171Bn, up from UGX.4.038Bn the previous year, arising from amounts due from employers (UTL In-Administration). However, these receivables were not supported with any documentation and schedule to confirm the amounts and authenticity, which renders the receivables doubtful. \uf0b7 I further noted that as reported in the previous year, according to UTL in-administration, only UGX.2.466Bn was due to UCECPS, implying a variance of UGX.1.705Bn. |", "metadata": {"page": 476, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 During the FY 2020/21, UCECPS realised only UGX.0.311Bn but expended UGX.0.332Bn, representing 106.74% of the realised monies. I noted that the expenditure exceeded the cash collection, and payments were made using the cash balances carried forward from FY 2019/2020. \uf0b7 I established from the statement of Net Assets Available for Benefits on page 14 of the financial statements that the current assets amounting to UGX.4,550,343,000 was due from government. This arose after management on the advice of government, diverted money from the Defined Contributions (DC) active members Fund to pay the increased monthly pensions to the Defined Benefits members, thus creating a deficit/Liability to the scheme. \uf0b7 PS/ST directed that UCECPS transfer the files of all pensioners of UPTC to the line Ministry of Information Communication Technology and National Guidance (MoICT&NG) to facilitate the payment of the pensioners effective FY 2020/2021 in accordance with the decentralisation policy. I noted however that, the decision to streamline pension payments has created uncertainty on the continuity of UCECPSs. \uf0b7 During the year under review, the scheme expected a total sum of UGX.331,340,796 from the Employer (UTL) as a contribution to the members. However, only UGX.310,962,857 was remitted relating to arrears which in turn led to the monthly interest which accumulated to UGX.112,119,561. The total amounts due from the employers (UTL) had accumulated to UGX.4,171,050,819 as of 30th June 2021. \uf0b7 PAYE of UGX.44,867,514 withheld from employees as required during the year was never remitted to URA by the year end. I further noted that the accumulated PAYE arrears stood at UGX.241,677,000. \uf0b7 I noted that the board was not fully constituted as the Government (Founder) had only appointed one representative as of 30th June 2021 | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 477, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 52 | Uganda Institute of Communication Technology (UICT). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget for the financial year of UGX.11.4Bn, only UGX.6.1Bn was collected by the entity resulting into an under-collection of UGX.5.3Bn representing a performance level of 53.5%. As a result, I noted that of the 15 quantified activities worth UGX.3.95Bn assessed; no activities were fully implemented, while 15 activities representing 100% were partially implemented. Failure to fully implement planned activities negatively impacts service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted that the staff establishment showed that only thirty-seven (37) positions (38%) were filled out of the established ninety-seven (97) positions leaving sixty (60) positions vacant (62%). Most of the vacant positions were key positions that are required to achieve the mandate of the Institute. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Institute. \uf0b7 The Institute was among the 11 entities selected for implementation of Electronic Government Procurement (EGP) system, and hence was required to conduct all its procurement process on the EGP system effective 1/July/2021. However, I noted that the Institute faced a number operational challenges that affected the timely implementation of planned procurements. These included; \u2022 The system was unable to update the procurement file directory where; procurement is retendered, where a requisition is rejected before final approval, where procurement is reinstated due to inadequate statement of requirements and where procurement is cancelled. |", "metadata": {"page": 477, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \u2022 The system network connectivity was noted to be unstable and this delayed implementation of various procurements, which greatly affected service delivery at the Institute. \uf0b7 I noted that several procurements to the tune of UGX.1.06Bn were not initiated as of 30th June 2022. As a result, implementation of critical institute programs was delayed. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 53.0 | Uganda Institute of Communication Technology (UICT). 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX. 3.5 Bn, out of which UGX.2.38 Bn was availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.1.11 Bn, which is 31.7% of the budget. Revenue shortfalls affect the implementation of planned activities. \uf0b7 The Institute has total receivables of UGX.440,038,625 in the statement of financial position, which includes an amount of UGX.343,855,528 relating to student debtors. The student-related receivables grew by 11% from UGX.308,954,465 (2019/20) to UGX.343,855,528 (2020/2021). \uf0b7 The institute and staff who were in acting position for more than 6 months, contrary to Section 3.3.5.1 of the UICT Human Resource Manual 2018 that requires that acting appointments not to exceed six (6) months, save for special circumstances approved by the Governing Council. In addition, a review of the staff establishment showed 107 (61%) positions were filled, 68 (38.9%) positions vacant. Unfilled postilions negatively impact the Institute\u2019s capacity to have effective service delivery. |", "metadata": {"page": 478, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 54 | Uganda Post Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Receivables were reported at UGX.8.71Bn by close of the financial year, contrary to paragraph 4.2.1 of Posta Uganda\u2019s debt management policy 2016, which stipulates that standard terms for sundry debtors are 30 days from the date of invoice. Accumulation of receivables denies the company the cash flows which are vital for service delivery. \uf0b7 The financial statements revealed that UPL\u2019s payables increased by UGX.1.9Bn from UGX.14.79Bn as at 30th June 2021 to UGX.16.69Bn in financial year 30th June 2022. Accumulation of payables creates a risk of litigation that may lead to payment of penalties and fines for delayed settlement to possible aggrieved parties in future. \uf0b7 A review of UPL\u2019s staff list as at 30th June 2022 and the approved Organisation Structure revealed that out of the staff establishment of 247, only 172 positions were filled, leading to a staffing gap of 75 (30.4%). Inadequacy in staffing leads to inability to fully carry out the mandate hence negatively negatively impacting on staff performance, service delivery and attainmant of company objectives. \uf0b7 The following aspects were noted in regard to management land by UPL; \uf0b7 The Company did not renew leases for three (3) pieces of land. The entity has taken an average of 14 years from the time of expiry of the lease term without having them renewed. This exposes such land to a risk of loss. \uf0b7 I noted that 10 pieces of land did not have their sizes recorded in the land register either in acres or hectares as required. I also noted that 8 pieces of land did not have a value attached to them in form of cost of valuation amount. \uf0b7 I noted that 1 piece of land measuring approximately 0.464 hectares (5.8%) valued at UGX.1.147Bn was not being utilized by the entity. |", "metadata": {"page": 478, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that 1 piece of land measuring 0.612 hectares (7.5 %) valued at UGX 0.465Bn out of the 8.06798 hectares of land owned by the entity had encumbrances in the form of court injunctions. \uf0b7 It was observed that Uganda Post was paid UGX.2.81Bn as compensation for the land and building. However, I did not obtain the details of the application of these monies after the asset was sold off. \uf0b7 \uf0b7 There was no revaluation carried out over the past eight years. Non-asset revaluation implies the carrying amounts of the assets in the financial statements may be misstated. \uf0b7 \uf0b7 | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 479, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 55 | Uganda Communications Commission. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total funds available of 200.537Bn, only UGX. 147.082Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 53.455Bn representing an absorption level of 73.33%. Un utilised funds imply that some planned activities may not have been implemented, leading to delayed service delivery. \uf0b7 The Commission irregularly paid UGX.228Mn for extra civil works on the installation of Lifts at Communications House. The additional works were not part of the original contract and were not approved by the Commission\u2019s Contract Committee, contrary to the procurement regulations. \uf0b7 The Commission did not charge 2% Gross Annual Revenue for Registered Television Stations and FM Radio stations as required by the UCC New License framework on fees and fines under General Notice No. 977 of 2017. This deprives the Commission of revenue. \uf0b7 The Commission does not have procedures on management of confiscated equipment. This may lead to misuse of the confiscated equipment and may deepen disputes and cause financial losses to Government. \uf0b7 The Commission has delayed completion of the National E-commerce Platform aimed at supporting SMEs in the informal sectors of the Agriculture, Retail and Services industry in Uganda, in order to promote access to online sales, overcome challenges in delivering to too hard-to-reach communities and to spur economic growth. As a result, the informal sector is losing out on the benefits of E-commerce. \uf0b7 Eight (8) IT systems/equipment procured at UGX.9.8Bn were not cleared by NITA-U contrary to current guidelines. Besides, six (6) IT systems developed in-house were not being optimally utilized by the entity, while three (3) systems were not integrated or not automatically sharing information with other systems. Such weaknesses reduce the expected efficiencies ICT is supposed to bring in the business processes of the Commission. |\n| 1 | 56 | Uganda Communications Universal Service Access Fund (UCUSAF) \u2013 UCC Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Uganda Communications (Universal Service and Access Fund) Regulations, 2019 do not provide the sharing ratio and/or details against which the sharing of Fund revenue should be based. During the year under review, the Commission budgeted to transfer UGX.6.5Bn to MoICT&NG for its share from the information and communication |", "metadata": {"page": 479, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | technology development fund, but the basis for arriving at this figure could not be supported. The lack of these ratios creates uncertainty in funding and may lead to inter-institutional funding conflicts. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 57.0 | Regional Communications Infrastructure Program, Phase 5 \u2013 Uganda Project, IDA LOAN NO.5635-UG Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.58.41Bn, only UGX.53.75Bn was spent by the entity resulting into unutilized funds of UGX.4.655Bn representing an absorption level of 92.02%. I noted that of the 19 outputs that I sampled, 12 outputs with 14 activities were fully implemented, 15 quantified activities of the 5 outputs were not implemented. 2 outputs could not be assessed due to lack of performance targets and indicators. Failure to fully implement all planned outputs negatively impacts service delivery. \uf0b7 The Project remained with outstanding payables totalling to UGX.5.08Bn by the end of year, which were as a result of completion works for the last mile project whose payments were not made to the contractors. World Bank/IDA cautioned and notified NITAU and MoFPED that it would not pay or take on any project liabilities after 31st December 2022. This implies that Government may have to bear the burden of paying the respective suppliers. \uf0b7 A total of USD.249,500 was spent without obtaining a no objection from the World Bank in accordance with the funding guidelines. This caused the PS/ST to instruct the Accounting Officer of NITAU to refund the money to abate the risk of affecting funding of other ongoing World Bank Projects. \uf0b7 The Project failed to upgrade the service desk due to the limited time to procure and implement the works before project closure in December 2022. Consequently, a total of USD.664,160.64 was reallocated from the IT service desk budget to upgrade the Data centre. |", "metadata": {"page": 480, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the staff establishment, the approved number of positions for PPDA is 140, out of which only 103 positions were filled, leaving 37 positions vacant, which is 26% of the workforce. Failure to fill the staff establishment hampers service delivery and adversely affects the day-to-day running of the Authority. |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 58 | National Information Technology Authority \u2013 Uganda (NITA-U) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.30.24Bn, only UGX.28.678Bn was spent by the entity resulting in unutilized funds of UGX.1.559Bn representing an absorption level of 94.84%. As a result, I noted that some of the planned activities for the year were not implemented, which negatively impacts on service delivery. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables and payables to a tune of UGX.28.5Bn and UGX.21.85Bn respectively. The accumulation of receivables was a result of non-consolidation of MDA and LG IT budgets with NITA-U while the payables was a result of the budget cuts on the IT consolidated Budget of MDAs and LGs. \uf0b7 The Authority did not have a fully constituted Board which may lead to NITA failing to have effective oversight functions appropriately undertaken. \uf0b7 I noted a delay in reduction of the cost of internet to USD.20 per MBPS in order to promote connectivity in provision of Government services in the country. Failure to reduce the internet cost will deny service delivery such as affordable communication and electronic learning in both public and private institutions country wide. \uf0b7 The Authority was registering professionals and the training institutions without a prescribed standards or regulations. Over 62 applicants for individual Service Provider and IT institutions applications were received since 2017, 13 of the applicants were certified and only 2 Individual Service Providers have updated certificates while the 11 are expired. |", "metadata": {"page": 480, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 59. | Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Corporations Trade and other Payables increased to UGX.84Bn from UGX.75.119 (i.e. an increase of \u2026%). Further analysis on trade and other payables revealed that some payables had remained outstanding for more than eight years old without any movements. The increased payables expose the Corporation to a risk of costly litigation as well as penalties and fines from statutory bodies. \uf0b7 The Corporation has contingent liabilities outstanding as of 30th June 2022 of UGX.6.252Bn. This figure significantly increased by 300% from UGX.1.827Bn as at 30th June 2021. This figure will worsen the liability position if it materialises. \uf0b7 The Corporations\u2019 strategic plan running for the period 2017-2022 had expired and Management was in process of designing a new one aligned to NDPIII. It implies the organisastion is being managed without a strategic direction. \uf0b7 The Corporation has an approved staff establishment for 353 positions of which 99 (28%) positions remained vacant due to indequate wage. This undermines service delivery. \uf0b7 The Corporation does not have Land titles for 36 pieces of land it currently owns. Further, the Corporation owns 80 acres of land as per Vesting Order at Bobi-Gulu and the land is not being utilized and hosts equipment that is not on air. Lack of Land titles may result in encroachment, disputes and even loss of public land. \uf0b7 The Corporation has land titles for 19 pieces of land which were leased out, however there were no lease agreements for 10 of these pieces of land. In addition, out of 19 pieces of land leased out, 6 pieces had expired leases. This exposes such land to a risk of loss. \uf0b7 I reviewed Uganda Broad Casting Corporation IT systems and noted the following; o The systems were not intergrated, o no systems maintenance strategy and policy was in place, o SONAPS system used for studios production chain for ingesting media from various sources onto UBC computing storage, editing content, archiving and storage, playout, scheduling of adverts and announcements, and monitoring became unusable after 3 years in use. o The entity did not have an approved IT staff structure in place despite ICT prioritization in NDP III. o There was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. \uf0b7 There was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 60 | Uganda Post Limited. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Receivables were reported at UGX.8.71Bn by close of the financial year, contrary to paragraph 4.2.1 of Posta Uganda\u2019s debt management policy 2016, which stipulates that standard terms for sundry debtors are 30 days from the date of invoice. Accumulation of receivables denies the company the cash flows which are vital for service delivery. |", "metadata": {"page": 481, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 59. | Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Corporations Trade and other Payables increased to UGX.84Bn from UGX.75.119 (i.e. an increase of \u2026%). Further analysis on trade and other payables revealed that some payables had remained outstanding for more than eight years old without any movements. The increased payables expose the Corporation to a risk of costly litigation as well as penalties and fines from statutory bodies. \uf0b7 The Corporation has contingent liabilities outstanding as of 30th June 2022 of UGX.6.252Bn. This figure significantly increased by 300% from UGX.1.827Bn as at 30th June 2021. This figure will worsen the liability position if it materialises. \uf0b7 The Corporations\u2019 strategic plan running for the period 2017-2022 had expired and Management was in process of designing a new one aligned to NDPIII. It implies the organisastion is being managed without a strategic direction. \uf0b7 The Corporation has an approved staff establishment for 353 positions of which 99 (28%) positions remained vacant due to indequate wage. This undermines service delivery. \uf0b7 The Corporation does not have Land titles for 36 pieces of land it currently owns. Further, the Corporation owns 80 acres of land as per Vesting Order at Bobi-Gulu and the land is not being utilized and hosts equipment that is not on air. Lack of Land titles may result in encroachment, disputes and even loss of public land. \uf0b7 The Corporation has land titles for 19 pieces of land which were leased out, however there were no lease agreements for 10 of these pieces of land. In addition, out of 19 pieces of land leased out, 6 pieces had expired leases. This exposes such land to a risk of loss. \uf0b7 I reviewed Uganda Broad Casting Corporation IT systems and noted the following; o The systems were not intergrated, o no systems maintenance strategy and policy was in place, o SONAPS system used for studios production chain for ingesting media from various sources onto UBC computing storage, editing content, archiving and storage, playout, scheduling of adverts and announcements, and monitoring became unusable after 3 years in use. o The entity did not have an approved IT staff structure in place despite ICT prioritization in NDP III. o There was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. \uf0b7 There was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | \uf0b7 The financial statements revealed that UPL\u2019s payables increased by UGX.1.9Bn from UGX.14.79Bn as at 30th June 2021 to UGX.16.69Bn in financial year 30th June 2022. Accumulation of payables creates a risk of litigation that may lead to payment of penalties and fines for delayed settlement to possible aggrieved parties in future. \uf0b7 A review of UPL\u2019s staff list as at 30th June 2022 and the approved Organisation Structure revealed that out of the staff establishment of 247, only 172 positions were filled, leading to a staffing gap of 75 (30.4%). Inadequacy in staffing leads to inability to fully carry out the mandate hence negatively negatively impacting on staff performance, service delivery and attainmant of company objectives. \uf0b7 The following aspects were noted in regard to management land by UPL; o The Company did not renew leases for three (3) pieces of land. The entity has taken an average of 14 years from the time of expiry of the lease term without having them renewed. This exposes such land to a risk of loss. o I noted that 10 pieces of land did not have their sizes recorded in the land register either in acres or hectares as required. I also noted that 8 pieces of land did not have a value attached to them in form of cost of valuation amount. o I noted that 1 piece of land measuring approximately 0.464 hectares (5.8%) valued at UGX.1.147Bn was not being utilized by the entity. o I noted that 1 piece of land measuring 0.612 hectares (7.5 %) valued at UGX 0.465Bn out of the 8.06798 hectares of land owned by the entity had encumbrances in the form of court injunctions. o It was observed that Uganda Post was paid UGX.2.81Bn as compensation for the land and building. However, I did not obtain the details of the application of these monies after the asset was sold off. o There was no revaluation carried out over the past eight years. Non-asset revaluation implies the carrying amounts of the assets in the financial statements may be misstated. |\n| 1 | | TRADE SECTOR | |", "metadata": {"page": 482, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 59. | Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Corporations Trade and other Payables increased to UGX.84Bn from UGX.75.119 (i.e. an increase of \u2026%). Further analysis on trade and other payables revealed that some payables had remained outstanding for more than eight years old without any movements. The increased payables expose the Corporation to a risk of costly litigation as well as penalties and fines from statutory bodies. \uf0b7 The Corporation has contingent liabilities outstanding as of 30th June 2022 of UGX.6.252Bn. This figure significantly increased by 300% from UGX.1.827Bn as at 30th June 2021. This figure will worsen the liability position if it materialises. \uf0b7 The Corporations\u2019 strategic plan running for the period 2017-2022 had expired and Management was in process of designing a new one aligned to NDPIII. It implies the organisastion is being managed without a strategic direction. \uf0b7 The Corporation has an approved staff establishment for 353 positions of which 99 (28%) positions remained vacant due to indequate wage. This undermines service delivery. \uf0b7 The Corporation does not have Land titles for 36 pieces of land it currently owns. Further, the Corporation owns 80 acres of land as per Vesting Order at Bobi-Gulu and the land is not being utilized and hosts equipment that is not on air. Lack of Land titles may result in encroachment, disputes and even loss of public land. \uf0b7 The Corporation has land titles for 19 pieces of land which were leased out, however there were no lease agreements for 10 of these pieces of land. In addition, out of 19 pieces of land leased out, 6 pieces had expired leases. This exposes such land to a risk of loss. \uf0b7 I reviewed Uganda Broad Casting Corporation IT systems and noted the following; o The systems were not intergrated, o no systems maintenance strategy and policy was in place, o SONAPS system used for studios production chain for ingesting media from various sources onto UBC computing storage, editing content, archiving and storage, playout, scheduling of adverts and announcements, and monitoring became unusable after 3 years in use. o The entity did not have an approved IT staff structure in place despite ICT prioritization in NDP III. o There was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. \uf0b7 There was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Soroti Fruit Factory 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Company had an approved revenue budget of UGX.17.9Bn, for the year under review, out of which UGX.9.5Bn (comprising of UGX.1.27Bn sales revenue, UGX.0.014Bn other income and UGX.8.252Bn capitalized grants from UDC) was realized, leaving UGX.8.4Bn unrealized. Revenue shortfalls impact negatively on the company\u2019s capacity to implement planned activities. \uf0b7 A review of the financial statements revealed an operating loss margin of UGX.5.496Bn resulting from low sales of UGX.1.285Bn during the year against the expenses of UGX.6.781Bn (comprised of UGX.1.263Bn cost of sales and UGX.5.518Bn operating expenses). This implies that the company has continued to make losses. \uf0b7 I inspected the inventory stores at the facility and established huge volumes of orange concentrate in the cold room stores. The factory did not have a recognizable packaging line for ready-to-drink juices in PET bottles leading to choking in the Cooling Rooms. The inability to transform Concentrate into marketable juice because of lack of |", "metadata": {"page": 482, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 59. | Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Corporations Trade and other Payables increased to UGX.84Bn from UGX.75.119 (i.e. an increase of \u2026%). Further analysis on trade and other payables revealed that some payables had remained outstanding for more than eight years old without any movements. The increased payables expose the Corporation to a risk of costly litigation as well as penalties and fines from statutory bodies. \uf0b7 The Corporation has contingent liabilities outstanding as of 30th June 2022 of UGX.6.252Bn. This figure significantly increased by 300% from UGX.1.827Bn as at 30th June 2021. This figure will worsen the liability position if it materialises. \uf0b7 The Corporations\u2019 strategic plan running for the period 2017-2022 had expired and Management was in process of designing a new one aligned to NDPIII. It implies the organisastion is being managed without a strategic direction. \uf0b7 The Corporation has an approved staff establishment for 353 positions of which 99 (28%) positions remained vacant due to indequate wage. This undermines service delivery. \uf0b7 The Corporation does not have Land titles for 36 pieces of land it currently owns. Further, the Corporation owns 80 acres of land as per Vesting Order at Bobi-Gulu and the land is not being utilized and hosts equipment that is not on air. Lack of Land titles may result in encroachment, disputes and even loss of public land. \uf0b7 The Corporation has land titles for 19 pieces of land which were leased out, however there were no lease agreements for 10 of these pieces of land. In addition, out of 19 pieces of land leased out, 6 pieces had expired leases. This exposes such land to a risk of loss. \uf0b7 I reviewed Uganda Broad Casting Corporation IT systems and noted the following; o The systems were not intergrated, o no systems maintenance strategy and policy was in place, o SONAPS system used for studios production chain for ingesting media from various sources onto UBC computing storage, editing content, archiving and storage, playout, scheduling of adverts and announcements, and monitoring became unusable after 3 years in use. o The entity did not have an approved IT staff structure in place despite ICT prioritization in NDP III. o There was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. \uf0b7 There was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | a commercial packaging line for Ready to Drink Juice, has meant that the company keeps huge volumes of Concentrate which are kept in cold rooms, thus increasing costs of production and inadequate products in the market. \uf0b7 Of the 71 approved regular positions, only 31 were filled leaving 40(56.3%) vacant. By the time of audit, the entity had lost 4 members of senior management namely the Chief Executive Officer, the Assistant Manager of Technical Services and the Assistant Manager of production. Staffing gaps negatively impact on the company\u2019s capacity to do business. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Soroti Fruit Factory 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of sales, costs and production documents coupled with physical inspections revealed that the factory is loss making as the sales figure was only UGX.818m compared to the cost of sales of UGX.2.1Bn. This indicates that the profitability of the product is very low. In the year under review the company made a loss of UGX.6.833Bn. \uf0b7 I noted that the factory still had, in store, concentrate and pulp that had been produced close to two years ago and indication of limited market for the juice produced |", "metadata": {"page": 483, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 59. | Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Corporations Trade and other Payables increased to UGX.84Bn from UGX.75.119 (i.e. an increase of \u2026%). Further analysis on trade and other payables revealed that some payables had remained outstanding for more than eight years old without any movements. The increased payables expose the Corporation to a risk of costly litigation as well as penalties and fines from statutory bodies. \uf0b7 The Corporation has contingent liabilities outstanding as of 30th June 2022 of UGX.6.252Bn. This figure significantly increased by 300% from UGX.1.827Bn as at 30th June 2021. This figure will worsen the liability position if it materialises. \uf0b7 The Corporations\u2019 strategic plan running for the period 2017-2022 had expired and Management was in process of designing a new one aligned to NDPIII. It implies the organisastion is being managed without a strategic direction. \uf0b7 The Corporation has an approved staff establishment for 353 positions of which 99 (28%) positions remained vacant due to indequate wage. This undermines service delivery. \uf0b7 The Corporation does not have Land titles for 36 pieces of land it currently owns. Further, the Corporation owns 80 acres of land as per Vesting Order at Bobi-Gulu and the land is not being utilized and hosts equipment that is not on air. Lack of Land titles may result in encroachment, disputes and even loss of public land. \uf0b7 The Corporation has land titles for 19 pieces of land which were leased out, however there were no lease agreements for 10 of these pieces of land. In addition, out of 19 pieces of land leased out, 6 pieces had expired leases. This exposes such land to a risk of loss. \uf0b7 I reviewed Uganda Broad Casting Corporation IT systems and noted the following; o The systems were not intergrated, o no systems maintenance strategy and policy was in place, o SONAPS system used for studios production chain for ingesting media from various sources onto UBC computing storage, editing content, archiving and storage, playout, scheduling of adverts and announcements, and monitoring became unusable after 3 years in use. o The entity did not have an approved IT staff structure in place despite ICT prioritization in NDP III. o There was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. \uf0b7 There was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3 | Nile Hotel International Ltd ( NHIL ) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity did not have a strategic plan that is aligned to the NDP III in terms of time scope. Further noted was that the entity\u2019s strategic plan is not aligned to that of UDC as their parent shareholder. This creates a risk of non- alignment of the entity\u2019s strategic objectives to the national priorities as envisaged in the Vision 2040 and the NDP III. \uf0b7 A review of the Company\u2019s Board Charter reeled the following short comings; o The charter did not specify which committees are to be put in place as per Section 2.4 in addition to Section 7.1 which further mentions permanent and adhoc committees. o No general rules and procedures on members\u2019 conduct and vacation of office were included. o The charter was not signed/approved by the Board or its representation through a resolution. \uf0b7 Absence of an up-to-date Board charter may reduce the powers of the Board and hinder good governance of the company. \uf0b7 The Board members continued to be involved in the day to day management/activities of the Company including approval of accounting transactions. This practice contradicts with good corporate governance, which encourages separation of roles between the Management and the Board. |\n| 1 | 4 | Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF) Opinion Unqualiified | \uf0b7 No significant findings. |\n| 2 | 5 | Uganda Export Promotions Board | \uf0b7 The Government has decided to merge the Uganda Export Promotion Board with the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives due next financial year to reduce public expenditure to facilitate efficient and effective service |", "metadata": {"page": 483, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 6 | Uganda Freezones Authority (UFZA) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the UGX.13.964Bn approved budget, only UGX.12.231Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.1.732Bn which represented 14.16% of the budget. As a result, three (3) outputs were partially implemented, hence negatively affecting public service delivery. \uf0b7 The Authority did not have Land titles for four (4) pieces of land measuring 173.1 Acres in various parts of the country. This increases the risk of exposure to land grabbing and encroachment. \uf0b7 I noted that contrary to Section 76 of UFZA Act 2014, which requires the Authority, in each year, within two months after the end of the financial year, to submit to the Minister, a statement of its activities in the preceding financial year, indicating any particular problems experienced by the Authority in that year in carrying out its objects and functions and making recommendations for resolving those problems and containing such other information as the Minister may direct, at the time of the audit in October 2022, the Authority had not prepared the report to the Minister for the financial year 2021/2022. Failure to produce and submit the required reports implies that the Minister and eventually Parliament to whom the annual report should be submitted by the Minister, did not assess the Authority\u2019s performance. |\n| 1 | 7 | Uganda Warehouse Receipt System Authority (UWRSA) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.15,066,500,000 out of which UGX.13,374,785,874 was warranted, resulting into a deficit of UGX.1,691,714,126. The deficit represents 11% of the approved budget. Unreleased funds affect public service delivery. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.13,374,785,874 received during the financial year UGX.10,236,743,800 was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.3,138,042,074 representing absorption level of 76.5 %. Unabsorbed funds negatively affected delivery of services to the beneficiaries. |", "metadata": {"page": 484, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The vote had accumulated domestic arrears of UGX.380, 245,920 relating to acquisition of IT system. Accumulation of domestic arrears indicates non-compliance to the commitment control system and stifles the private sector growth and may lead to unnecessary ligation costs. \uf0b7 I review the IT investment and not that; o The IT investment projects were behind schedule o Three systems with an acquisition cost of UGX.642,797,920 did not meet the user requirements and did not have any automated mechanisms to share information (integrated) which may lead to duplication of system and defeating rationalisation policy. o There was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014 which may lead to loss of data in case of disaster. o The entity was preparing financial statements off the system rendering the financial statements prone to errors. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 485, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 8 | Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry charged wrong expenditure codes leading to mischarge of UGX.5.3Bn. I observed that, although the PS/ST authorized the change in the Ministry\u2019s workplan to enable the Accounting Officer to utilize the funds requested, for renovation of premises as opposed to rent, the ministry has not recorded the resulting prepayment, since the amount is question is to be recovered through rental deductions, following an MoU signed with Uganda Property Holdings Limited, who own the premises that were renovated. \uf0b7 Four (4) pieces of land measuring approximately 3.107 hectares (100%) costing UGX.0.822Bn were not recorded in the Ministry\u2019s land register. In addition, Property comprised in Plots 9, 11 and 13 Corporation rise - Bukoto Kampala, valued at UGX.1.935Bn (Land - UGX.1.77Bn and Developments UGX.159.8 Mn) had no land title and was not disclosed in the memorandum Statement. Failure to properly record all public land could cpmplicate proper follow up of such land. \uf0b7 Four (4) pieces of land measuring approximately 3.107 hectares held by the Ministry did not have Land titles, yet they were acquired over 16 years ago. This exposes such land to a risk of loss through encroachment and land grabbing. \uf0b7 Five (5) plots acquired by Government of Uganda to resettle the metal fabricators previously operating along Katwe road under their association Katwe Small Scale Industrial Development Association (KSIDA), measuring approximately 0.435 hectares (14%) and costing UGX.0.505Bn was irregularly transferred to KSIDA as the user under Uganda Land Commission instead of Ministry of Trade as the rightful user. \uf0b7 Land measuring 1.462 hectares (47%) acquired at UGX.0.217Bn out of the 3.107 hectares of land owned by the Ministry, had encumbrances in the form of court injunctions and encroachment as there was a legal challenge with a private company. \uf0b7 I observed that the Ministry disclosed domestic arrears as at 30th June 2022 of UGX.4.2Bn (2020/2021: UGX.16.4Bn). I noted that although the ministry settled a total of UGX.12.3Bn in lieu of subscription fees to |", "metadata": {"page": 485, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | international organisations, the Ministry was not able to fully settle the opening domestic arrears due to insufficient budgetary provisions. This exposes government to a risk of litigation and possible unnecessary litigation costs. \uf0b7 A total of UGX.27.9Bn was paid to 13 Cooperative Societies, yet these were not in the original Ministry\u2019s work plan. This creates unfairness and lack of transparency in the settlement of the outstanding compensation funds. \uf0b7 War claims compensation of UGX.29.09Bn was made to third parties but not directly to the beneficiary Cooperative societies for onward remittance to beneficiary Cooperative members. I found the practice of payment through third parties both inconveniencing and exposing government to a risk of loss of public funds to non-bonafide members, given the lack of participation of members of the cooperative societies. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 9.0 | Uganda National Bureau of Standards. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.65.04Bn out of which UGX.64.08Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.96Bn, representing 1.4% of the approved budget. Under release of funds undermines service delivery since not all the planned outputs could be produced, given the available funds. \uf0b7 The Digital Conformity Stamps had not yet been implemented by the entity despite the service provider\u2019s readiness. As a result, UGX.19.88 Bn was not remitted by the service provider to UNBS since it is dependent on UNBS\u2019s implementation of Digital Conformity Stamps. \uf0b7 The Bureau had a staff presence at only 27 out of the 170 border entry points. There is a risk that sub-standard goods are entering the Ugandan market through border points where the Bureau staffs are not present. \uf0b7 The entity had accrued pension and gratuity of UGX.1.29Bn contrary to regulations. Non-payment of pension leads to the accumulation of arrears and affects the livelihood of the pensioners. \uf0b7 There was no particular budget line for destroying substandard commodities that come into the country and those seized from market surveillance activities. As a result, warehouses in the Bureau were filled with substandard products that were not yet destroyed. \uf0b7 Procurements amounting to UGX.1.32Bn that were initiated during the financial year had not been completed by the close of the financial year. This leads to delays in service delivery. |", "metadata": {"page": 486, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 10 | Uganda Development Corporation (UDC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the UGX.243.62Bn total funds available for spending, only UGX.33.14 (13%) was spent by the Corporation leaving a balance of UGX.210.48Bn representing 87% under absorption. The low absorption was attributed to the supplementary funding that was approved during the financial year and only availed towards year-end. Delayed receipt and utilization resulted into delays in service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted that there is slow progress on the takeover of Government interests as listed in Schedule 2 of the UDC Act 2016, which identified seven Government undertakings that were to be taken over. I noted that only two companies (i.e. Phoenix Logistics and Tri-Star Apparels Ltd) had been transferred to UDC. The remaining five, namely; Amber House Limited, Embassy House, Development House, Munyonyo Commonwealth Resort and Nile Hotel International Limited were still outstanding. Delays undermine the implementation of the UDC Act 2016 and undermine the public policy of streamlining the management of these corporations |", "metadata": {"page": 486, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Corporation has been holding 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 6.932 hectares without land titles for a long time without justification, exposing the corporation to the risk of loss of land thru land grabbing and encroachment. \uf0b7 Uganda Development Corporation (UDC) entered into a number of contracts worth UGX.2.7Bn with various suppliers without conducting market price assessments. This was contrary to the procurement law and exposed the entity to a risk of obtaining services at uncompetitive prices. \uf0b7 Out of the 70 established posts in the UDC structure, only 49 are filled (70% staffing level) and 21 positions were vacant representing 30%. I further noted that among the vacant positions were significant/priority positions such as the Director of Internal Audit, Manager Investment (mining and manufacturing), and Manager Investments Appraisal among others. Inadequate staffing levels affect the level and quality of service delivery by the Corporation and may compromise the principle of segregation of duties. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 11.0 | Great Lakes Trade Facilitation Project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No reportable findings |", "metadata": {"page": 487, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 12 | Uganda Investment Authority. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity did not budget for NTR during the year under review as reflected in the statements of appropriation, although UGX.0.435Bn was collected. Failure to budget for NTR implies that there was no target upon which the Authority\u2019s performance could be evaluated. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants received of UGX.28.3Bn during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling UGX.25.36Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2.94Bn representing an absorption level of 90%, consequently some activities were either partially or not implemented at all, which negatively impacts service delivery. \uf0b7 The Authority did not maintain a detailed risk register of risks that may affect the implementation of activities as detailed in the approved work plans and budgets, as a result, there were no strategies and officers responsible for mitigating such risks or minimizing the impact in the event these risks materialized. \uf0b7 Most pieces of land measuring approximately 11,931.343 hectares held by the entity were recorded in the entity land/assets register. However, 6 pieces of land measuring approximately 14.407 hectares were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module thus affecting the accuracy of the non-produced assets in the financial statements. \uf0b7 The entity has outstanding payables of UGX.3.596Bn in the statement of financial position, a decrease by UGX.1.1140Bn from UGX.4.736Bn reported in the previous financial year. Although there was a decrease in domestic arrears, the entity accumulated new domestic arrears of UGX.966.425Mn. Continued accumulation of domestic arrears is contrary to the commitment control system of government, and also exposes government to risks of costly litigation. \uf0b7 The authority had receivables of UGX.21.396Bn in the statement of financial position relating to rent, the sale of goods and services and administrative fees at the end of the financial year, a reduction by UGX.50.589Mn (0.24%) |", "metadata": {"page": 487, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | from the previous year. Slow recovery of accrued revenue denies Government the much needed funds for service delivery. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staffing level of 124 employees, the Authority has only 75 positions filled (60.5%) leaving a staffing gap of 49 positions (39.5%). Understaffing negatively affects service delivery. \uf0b7 A total of five (05) IT systems/equipment worth UGX.297.68Mn were procured without obtaining clearance by NITA-U and one system was not being utilised. This is irregular and could lead to duplication and wastage of resources. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | | TOURISM SECTOR | |\n| 2 | 1.0 | Uganda Hotel and Tourism Training Institute (UHTTI) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX 7.633Bn, the Institute spent UGX 7.165Bn resulting in an unspent balance of UGX 0.468Bn representing an absorption level of 98.9%. As a result, I noted that of the 24 quantified activities worth UGX 2.649Bn assessed; 14 activities representing 58.3% were fully implemented, 7 activities representing 29.2% were partially implemented, while 3 activities representing 12.5% was not implemented \uf0b7 A review of the staffing structure for UHTTI revealed that out of the total approved staff establishment of 175 staff, only 124 (71%) positions were filled, leaving 51 (29%) positions vacant. \uf0b7 The receivables amount for the Institute declined from prior year balance of UGX 0.547 to UGX 0.274Bn in the current year arising from recovery of student debts of UGX 0.257Bn and bad debt provision of UGX 0.145Bn in line with the Institute\u2019s debt recovery policy. Out of the total outstanding balance of UGX 0.274Bn; UGX 0.149Bn were due from to student debtors, UGX 0.12Bn were for hotel trade debtors and balance of UGX 0.0006Bn were staff loans. |", "metadata": {"page": 488, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 2 | Uganda Wildlife Research and Training Institute (UWRTI). Opinion Unqualified \uf0b7 | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts of UGX.3.85Bn received during the financial year, UGX.3.522Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.328Bn representing an absorption level of 91%. As a result, some planned activities were not implemented. The unspent funds were held in the Institute\u2019s bank account. \uf0b7 The Uganda Wildlife Authority donated 30 acres of land in Rwenjubu Kasese District, to Uganda Wildlife Research and Training Institute but there was no land title to confirm ownership. This land was not being utilised by the Institution although Management indicated that UWRTI had secured funding through CEDP for the construction of a centre for excellence. In the absence of a land title, the land is prone to encroachment. |\n| 1 | 3 | Harnessing Nature and Digital Technology to Stimulate Recovery and Build A Resilient Tourism Industry in Uganda Dec 2021 | \uf0b7 No significant matter to report on. |", "metadata": {"page": 488, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-----------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Implemented by MoTWA Opinion Unqualified | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 489, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | delivery. This situation indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Board\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. \uf0b7 UEPB budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.04Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.0.01Bn was collected, representing a performance of 25% of the target. The poor performance negatively affects the revenue collection efforts of the country. \uf0b7 The entity failed to implement a number of activities duing the year. These included; included media coverage (TV, Radio and social media, press releases and Expo Week Magazine) and purchase of furniture. This directly impacted service delivery. \uf0b7 The term of office for the previous board expired on 5th October 2019 and no replacement Board has been appointed to date. The lack of the Board impedes oversight and governance. \uf0b7 UEPB has not exercised its mandate of levying the 0.5% on designated imports as well as receipt of monies paid for goods or services provided by the Board, contrary to the Act leading to a loss of revenues and undermining the intention of the provisions. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 4 | Uganda Wildlife Authority. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of a total budget of UGX.119.469Bn, UWA received a total of UGX124.820Bn, representing 105% of the budget. However, the Authority spent only UGX.88.607Bn, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.30.862Bn representing an absorption level of 74.17%. As a result, I noted that of the 114 quantified activities worth UGX.54.37Bn that I assessed during the audit, 70 activities representing 61.4% were fully implemented, 23 activities representing 20.2% were partially implemented, while 21 activities representing 18.4% was not implemented. Under absorption of availed funds implies failure to fully implement all planned activities which negatively impacts service delivery. \uf0b7 It was observed that the Authority had outstanding payables of UGX.25.454Bn, reported in the statement of financial position, out of which UGX.8.111Bn were gratuity for staff not yet due and balance of UGX.17.343Bn relates to trade payables, insurance claims payable, Gorilla levy payable and revenue share to the communities. This despite the fact that the Authority had the cash resources which could have been utilized to settle the payables. Delayed settlement of outstanding payables exposes government to a risk of costly litigation. \uf0b7 I noted that there were several ongoing cases of claims on land in the gazetted areas under the management of Uganda Wildlife Authority, as evidenced by active court cases in some of the National Parks namely: Lake Mburo National Park, Mt. Elgon National Park, Semiliki National Park and Matheniko Bokora. This was attributed to increased encroachment to the National park land. There is urgent need to resolve these cases to prevent loss of gazetted land areas that could affect wildlife conservation. \uf0b7 I noted that the Authority did not have an approved comprehensive management plan to manage the invasive and exotic plant species problem that has covered an average of 30% of the surface areas of Queen Elizabeth, Lake Mburo Park, Murchison Falls, and Kidepo Valley National Parks. The invasive species contracts the grazing areas for herbivores animals and affect the rangeland and environmental quality that consequently reduce wildlife population of grazers such as hippos, buffalos, zebras, topis, and Uganda Kobs. \uf0b7 I noted that several procurements to the tune of UGX.61.169Bn were not executed as of 30th June 2022. This was attributed to delays in procurement processes and partly due to effects of COVID-19 that affected the implementation by the Authority that was operating a contingency budget that had scaled down on the capital investments. Failure to implement planned procurements leads to non-provision of planned services. \uf0b7 Over the last three years, UWA procured and installed three (03) different Accounting Systems, namely: The Sun System, Microsoft Dynamics GP and the Microsoft Business Central System. The frequency of change of systems was unjustifiably high and costly to Government. I observed that there were weaknesses in systems change over, since management did not properly identify challenges that would require a switch to a new accounting package. Such a practice leads to wasteful expenditure on systems acquisition and no value for money. |", "metadata": {"page": 489, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 5. | UWA-IFPA-CD Project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the received grant of USD.4.5Mn, only USD.0.744Mn (UGX.2,710Bn) was expended reflecting unspent funds of UGX.8,889,891,079 and USD.1,191,819.40 held in the BOU UGX and USD bank accounts respectively, resulting into underperformance of 83.7%. This resulted into partial or non-implementation of planned activities, which in turn delays service delivery. \uf0b7 The project implementation had been delayed and some planned project activities such as Procurement of firefighting and personal protection equipment, undertaking studies on Invasive species and developing their respective management plans, and Procurement of road construction equipment (3 graders, 2 excavators, 2 bulldozers, 2 water bowsers, 2 tippers) were not implemented. Failure to absorb Development Partner funds implies project objectives have not been met. |\n|---:|-----:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 6 | UWA-SIDA Project 2022 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the received grant of USD.860,299 only UGX.557,053,138 (USD.135,324.7) was expended leading to unspent funds of UGX.2,317,274,301 and USD.39,857.23 held in the UGX and USD bank accounts respectively, resulting in underperformance of 82.3%. The failure to utilize the released funds resulted into non-implementation of several planned activities. \uf0b7 The project implementation had been delayed and by 31st of May 2022, the project was not fully implemented with various planned activities such as Procurement and installation of Guard observation towers in Queen Elizabeth National Park (QENP), procurement of drones and IPADs for overhead surveillances and supporting of community livelihoods around Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP), QENP and Toro-Semiliki wildlife Reserve (TSWR) not completed. This led to a no cost extension by the funder to a new expiry date of 30th June 2023. Failure to absorb Development Partner funds implies project objectives have not been met. |\n| 1 | 7 | Wildlife Research and Training Institute Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts of UGX.3.85Bn received during the financial year, UGX.3.522Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.328Bn representing an absorption level of 91%. As a result some planned activities were not implemented. The unspent funds were held in the Institute\u2019s bank account. \uf0b7 The Uganda Wildlife Authority donated 30 acres of land in Rwenjubu Kasese District, to Uganda Wildlife Research and Training Institute but there was no land title to confirm ownership. This land was not being utilised by the Institution although Management indicated that UWRTI had secured funding through CEDP for the construction of a centre for excellence. In the absence of a land title, the land is prone to encroachment. |\n| 2 | 8 | Uganda Wildlife Education Conservation Centre (UWEC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Centre received total revenue of UGX.14.369Bn (including self-generated revenue of UGX.2RC.169Bn) during the financial year. Out of the total available funds for the year, the Centre spent UGX.10.9Bn resulting into an unspent balance of UGX.3.469Bn representing an absorption level of 75.86%. As a result, I noted that of the 59 quantified activities worth UGX.5.87Bn that I assessed, 25 activities representing 42.4% were fully implemented, 27 activities representing 45.8% were partially implemented, while 7 activities representing 11.9% were not implemented. Failure to fully implement all planned activities negatively impacts service delivery. |", "metadata": {"page": 490, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 5. | UWA-IFPA-CD Project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the received grant of USD.4.5Mn, only USD.0.744Mn (UGX.2,710Bn) was expended reflecting unspent funds of UGX.8,889,891,079 and USD.1,191,819.40 held in the BOU UGX and USD bank accounts respectively, resulting into underperformance of 83.7%. This resulted into partial or non-implementation of planned activities, which in turn delays service delivery. \uf0b7 The project implementation had been delayed and some planned project activities such as Procurement of firefighting and personal protection equipment, undertaking studies on Invasive species and developing their respective management plans, and Procurement of road construction equipment (3 graders, 2 excavators, 2 bulldozers, 2 water bowsers, 2 tippers) were not implemented. Failure to absorb Development Partner funds implies project objectives have not been met. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that the Centre had total payables of UGX.2.51Bn, of which UGX 1.36Bn was due to the Consolidated Fund, while the balance of UGX.1.15Bn was due to other creditors as at 30th June 2022. Delays in settlement of outstanding liabilities could lead to costly litigation, in the event creditors decide to take such options. \uf0b7 A review of management of IT investments at the Centre revealed that; o There were no approved specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. o There was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. o There was no approved business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \uf0b7 Absence of ICT governance structures hampers formulation of appropriate ICT policies, strategies and real time upgrade of ICT interventions. In addition, it may lead to misalignment of IT investments with the overall entity strategic objectives. \uf0b7 I noted that Government has taken a decision to merge Uganda Wildlife Conservation Education Centre with Uganda Wildlife Authority with the aim of reducing public expenditure to facilitate efficient and effective service delivery. This process is in its final stages pending advice from Ministry of Public Service and Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities. This situation, along with other matters as set forth in Note 8.2.11, indicates the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Agency\u2019s ability to continue as a going concern. Management was advised to engage with the Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities and Uganda Wildlife Authority to adequately prepare for this transition. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 491, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 5. | UWA-IFPA-CD Project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the received grant of USD.4.5Mn, only USD.0.744Mn (UGX.2,710Bn) was expended reflecting unspent funds of UGX.8,889,891,079 and USD.1,191,819.40 held in the BOU UGX and USD bank accounts respectively, resulting into underperformance of 83.7%. This resulted into partial or non-implementation of planned activities, which in turn delays service delivery. \uf0b7 The project implementation had been delayed and some planned project activities such as Procurement of firefighting and personal protection equipment, undertaking studies on Invasive species and developing their respective management plans, and Procurement of road construction equipment (3 graders, 2 excavators, 2 bulldozers, 2 water bowsers, 2 tippers) were not implemented. Failure to absorb Development Partner funds implies project objectives have not been met. |\n|---:|-----:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 9 | Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities (MoTWA). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.126.68 Bn during the year under review out of which only UGX.68.22 was collected, representing a performance of 54% of the target. Management attributed the low performance to the long period of closure and economic slowdown due to COVID-19. NTR/revenue shortfalls at the Treasury level, negatively affect the implementation of planned activities by the Government. \uf0b7 The Ministry accumulated payables of UGX.4.3Bn of which UGX.3.1Bn relate to contributions to International Organisations and have been outstanding for over two financial years, exposing the Ministry to risks of not benefiting from membership and also being expelled from the organisation. \uf0b7 The Ministry did not implement five planned procurements worth UGX.1.576Bn. This adversely affects service delivery. \uf0b7 The Ministry developed a strategic plan for 2020/21 \u2013 2024/25, but at the time of the audit, the plan had not been approved by the National Planning Authority, implying that the activities being implemented may not be aligned with NDP III. |\n| 1 | 10 | Uganda Tourism Board. Opinion | \uf0b7 Uganda Tourism Board did not budget for NTR but MoFPED allocated NTR budget for the entity to collect of UGX.0.28Bn during the year under review. However, UTB was only able to collect UGX.0.043Bn, representing a |", "metadata": {"page": 491, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | performance of 15.35% of the target. Shortfall in NTR collections negatively affect the implementation of planned activities by Government. \uf0b7 A total of UGX.500Mn was paid to an athlete to promote Tourism Board activities without deducting 6% withholding tax amounting to UGX.30Mn, contrary to the requirements of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act. \uf0b7 Uganda Tourism Board (UTB) entered into a number of contracts worth UGX.5.989Bn with both local and international service providers and supplies without conducting market price assessments. This was contrary to the procurement law and exposed the entity to a risk of obtaining services at uncompetitive prices. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | WATER AND ENVIRONMENT SECTOR | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | DRESS EA Project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Project received UGX 0.58Bn (62.59%) against the estimated budget of UGX.0.925Bn. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds of UGX.0.579Bn received, UGX.0.157Bn was spent representing an absorption level of 27%. The unspent funds were still held on the Project Bank accounts to continue funding project activities. \uf0b7 I noted that three (3) outputs with eight (8) activities worth UGX.0.116Bn were partially implemented. The project fully implemented four (4) activities; four (4) activities were not implemented, while eight (8) outputs with fourteen (14) activities remained unimplemented. |\n| 2 | 2.0 | Investing in Forests and Protected Areas for Climate Smart Development (IFPA- CD) MoWE Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Project received 100% of its donor budget of USD 1,446,010(UGX.5.08Bn) and USD774,331(UGX.2.62Bn) (100%) of its GoU counterpart funds. \uf0b7 Of the USD 1,446,010 disbursed by the donor, only USD 145,945.13 (10%) was spent while 100% (UGX 2,301,718,612) of the Gou receipts were spent. \uf0b7 I assessed twenty-nine (29) activities and noted that five (5) activities were fully implemented; four (4) activities were partially implemented while Twenty (20) activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Management did not apply the risk mitigation measures identified in the Project Appraisal Document to respond to the materialising risk of delay in procurement and approval processes. |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Investing in Forests and Protected Areas for Climate Smart Development (IFPA- CD) NFA Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entire USD 3.87Bn that had been budgeted for the period under review (2021/2022) was disbursed by World Bank, representing 100% performance. \uf0b7 I noted that the entire USD 3.87Bn that was available for spending was not spent representing 0% performance. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of the Thirty-seven (37) activities that were fully quantified with a budget of USD 2.29Bn and noted that all the Thirty seven (37) activities were not implemented at all. |", "metadata": {"page": 492, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | performance of 15.35% of the target. Shortfall in NTR collections negatively affect the implementation of planned activities by Government. \uf0b7 A total of UGX.500Mn was paid to an athlete to promote Tourism Board activities without deducting 6% withholding tax amounting to UGX.30Mn, contrary to the requirements of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act. \uf0b7 Uganda Tourism Board (UTB) entered into a number of contracts worth UGX.5.989Bn with both local and international service providers and supplies without conducting market price assessments. This was contrary to the procurement law and exposed the entity to a risk of obtaining services at uncompetitive prices. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 4.0 | The Integrated Water Management and Development Project (IWMDP) - MOWE Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project had an approved budget of USD.34,469,308.17 out of which USD.15,041,655 was received, resulting in a shortfall of USD.19,427,653.17. The shortfall represents 56.4% of the approved budget. I further noted that a total amount of USD 8,232,148 had been rolled over from the previous financial year implying that a total amount of USD.23,273,803.83 was available for spending during the F/Y under review. \uf0b7 Out of the total funds of USD.23,273,802.83 available during the financial year, USD 8,868,133.20 was spent by the project resulting in under-absorption of USD 14,405,669.63 representing an absorption level of 38.1%. \uf0b7 Out of the total available amount of USD.23,273,802.83, a total amount of USD.14,405,669.63 was spent resulting in an unspent balance of USD 8,868,133.2 representing absorption level of 61.9%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 56 quantified activities worth USD.8,225,143.33 assessed; 7 activities representing 12.7% were fully implemented, 6 activities representing 11% were partially implemented and 42 activities representing 76% were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Mid-term review report revealed that slow achievement of the project targets. Failure to implement the project within the contract period resulted into the slow disbursement rate from the bank which stood at 29% as at 30/06/2022. |\n| 2 | 5.0 | The Integrated Water Management and Development Project \u2013 NWSC Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No reportable matter. |\n| 3 | 6.0 | Support to Preparation of Priority Irrigation Investments (SPPII) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project had a total budget of USD.831,947.58 which was based on the rolled over balances from the previous financial year. \uf0b7 I was not provided with evidence to show that detailed Design reports for Matanda and Kabuyanda Environment Social Impact Assessment and additional surveys were critically evaluated by a competent authority and approved. Evidence of an approved report on assessment of knowledge gap for targeted stakeholders was also not availed for verification. |", "metadata": {"page": 493, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | performance of 15.35% of the target. Shortfall in NTR collections negatively affect the implementation of planned activities by Government. \uf0b7 A total of UGX.500Mn was paid to an athlete to promote Tourism Board activities without deducting 6% withholding tax amounting to UGX.30Mn, contrary to the requirements of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act. \uf0b7 Uganda Tourism Board (UTB) entered into a number of contracts worth UGX.5.989Bn with both local and international service providers and supplies without conducting market price assessments. This was contrary to the procurement law and exposed the entity to a risk of obtaining services at uncompetitive prices. |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 7 | Strategic Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Project (STWSSP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project had a total budget of UGX.30.82Bn for the F/Y under review. I further noted that total receipts totalled to UGX 62.69Bn representing 203.4% performance. The over performance was attributed to outstanding commitment for that previous financial years that were affected by the effects of Covid-19. \uf0b7 The project had GOU counterpart budget of UGX 11.01Bn a sum of which only UGX 9.56Bn (86.8%) was released leading to a shortfall of UGX 1.45Bn (13.2%). |", "metadata": {"page": 493, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | performance of 15.35% of the target. Shortfall in NTR collections negatively affect the implementation of planned activities by Government. \uf0b7 A total of UGX.500Mn was paid to an athlete to promote Tourism Board activities without deducting 6% withholding tax amounting to UGX.30Mn, contrary to the requirements of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act. \uf0b7 Uganda Tourism Board (UTB) entered into a number of contracts worth UGX.5.989Bn with both local and international service providers and supplies without conducting market price assessments. This was contrary to the procurement law and exposed the entity to a risk of obtaining services at uncompetitive prices. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds for financial year of UGX.72.27 Bn UGX.72.23 Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX 0.04Bn representing in an absorption level of 99.9%. \uf0b7 I noted that out of Ten (10) activities with a budget of UGX 27.41Bn assessed, Two (02) activities worth UGX 3.45 Bn were fully implemented, Six (06) activities worth UGX.20.33Bn were partially implemented, and Two (02) activities worth UGX.3.6BN activities were not implemented. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 8.0 | Water Supply and Sanitation Programme II (WSSP II) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project had a total amount of UGX.7.62bn on the JPF account that was available for spending during the year under review. This amount is comprised of UGX.7.61bn rolled over from the previous financial year and interest income of 6.16m. \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted amount of UGX.21.02Bn, Government of Uganda released UGX.20.48Bn representing a performance of 97.4%. \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds for spending of UGX.28.15Bn from both JPF and GOU component, UGX.27.44Bn was spent leaving unspent balance of UGX.0.73Bn representing an absorption level of 97.5%. The balance of UGX.0.73Bn remained on the Account at the closure of the project on the 30th of June 2022. \uf0b7 I conducted an assessment of the achievement of the project targets/objectives and noted that out of the planned six (6) project objectives/targets, all the targets were partially achieved. |\n| 2 | 9.0 | Adapting to Climate Change in Lake Victoria Basin (ACC-LVB) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of approved budget of USD 274,903.71 (UGX.1.00Bn) for the financial year 2021/2022, USD.200,000 (UGX.0.73Bn) was disbursed, representing a performance of 72.8%. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds for spending of UGX.1.57Bn, a total amount of UGX 1.06Bn was spent during the financial year representing an absorption level of 67.98%. The table below refers; \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of the two (2) planned outputs with six (6) activities and noted that Two (2) activities (33.33%) were fully implemented while Four (4) activities (66.67%) were partially implemented. |", "metadata": {"page": 494, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | performance of 15.35% of the target. Shortfall in NTR collections negatively affect the implementation of planned activities by Government. \uf0b7 A total of UGX.500Mn was paid to an athlete to promote Tourism Board activities without deducting 6% withholding tax amounting to UGX.30Mn, contrary to the requirements of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act. \uf0b7 Uganda Tourism Board (UTB) entered into a number of contracts worth UGX.5.989Bn with both local and international service providers and supplies without conducting market price assessments. This was contrary to the procurement law and exposed the entity to a risk of obtaining services at uncompetitive prices. |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 10 | Securing Uganda\u2019s Natural Resource Base in Protected Areas Project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that all the amount of USD 946,168 that was budgeted for in the financial year under review (2021/2022) were received representing 100% performance. \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds for the financial year of USD 946,168, only USD 110,911 was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of USD 835,257 representing an absorption level of 11.7%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 60 quantified activities worth USD 2,294,046 that were assessed; Thirty-one (31) activities were fully implemented; One (1) activity was partially implemented and Twenty eight (28) activities were not implemented at all. |\n| 1 | 11 | National Forestry Authority Opinion | \uf0b7 Out of the approved NTR estimate of UGX 12.88 billion, the Authority collected UGX 12.035Bn billion representing a performance of 93.4% of the target. |", "metadata": {"page": 494, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved GoU budget of UGX. 36.88 billion, UGX. 25.44 billion (75.3%) was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX11.44 billion (31.02%). Of the total warrants of received during the financial year, UGX. 25.023Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.413Bn representing an absorption level of 98.38%. \uf0b7 Out of the seven (7) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of Sixteen (16) activities budgeted at UGX 34.8 Bn, Seven (7) outputs with nine (9) activities were fully implemented while Seven (7) activities were partially implemented with expenditure totalling t0 UGX 24.61. \uf0b7 I noted that 86 pieces of land whose value could not be established had encumbrances in the form of caveats, court injunctions and encroachment. I further noted that 36 pieces of land on which NFA offices sit did not have land titles, and approximately 241,604 ha (22%) on average of the total area of the CFR of 1,088,430 ha gazetted as forest reserves are encroached with agriculture, settlements, mining among others. \uf0b7 I noted a significant balance of receivables of UGX UGX.9.44Bn at close of the financial year which impacts on the liquidity capacity of the Authority when not collected. \uf0b7 I noted irregularities in management of IT investments including; procurement of systems without NITA-U clearance; E-recruitment module was not optimally utilised was not being utilized; I further noted inefficiencies in ICT governance and lack of ownership of the existing ICT systems among others. \uf0b7 I noted irregularities in land management like irregular allocation of Central Forest Reserves by both the Uganda Land Commission and District Land Boards and encroachment on forest reserves. Uganda Land Commission irregularly issued 19 titles in the Central Forest reserves while the District Land Boards had irregularly issued 26 titles in the in forest reserves. I further noted that some of the titles were later cancelled resulting in a number of court cases. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 12 | Uganda National Meteorological Authority (UNMA). Opinion Qualified | \uf0b7 The Authority collected NTR of UGX 0.392Bn out of the estimated UGX 2.2Bn representing a performance of 17.8%. \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted revenue of UGX.25.755Bn only UGX.18.931Bn (73.5%) was warranted. Of these warrants, UGX. 18.64Bn was absorbed by the Authority leaving unspent balance of UGX 0.29Bn. Of the 9 outputs with 65 fully quantified activities, 2 activities (3%) were fully implemented, 61 activities (93.8%) were partially implemented, while 2 activities (3%) remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 7 of the 9 pieces of the Authority\u2019s land did not have land titles. \uf0b7 The Authority had receivables totalling to UGX.3.13Bn at the closure of the financial year under review. This comprised outstanding of letter credit UGX.699,777,683 and pre-payments totalling to UGX 2,428,702,532 \uf0b7 The Authority collected NTR amounting to UGX 153Mn, however it had not been remitted to the Consolidated Fund by end of the financial year. \uf0b7 I noted that a total of UGX 74Mn transferred to the National Meteorological Training School (NMTS) as subvention was not accounted for by the school. |", "metadata": {"page": 495, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved GoU budget of UGX. 36.88 billion, UGX. 25.44 billion (75.3%) was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX11.44 billion (31.02%). Of the total warrants of received during the financial year, UGX. 25.023Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.413Bn representing an absorption level of 98.38%. \uf0b7 Out of the seven (7) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of Sixteen (16) activities budgeted at UGX 34.8 Bn, Seven (7) outputs with nine (9) activities were fully implemented while Seven (7) activities were partially implemented with expenditure totalling t0 UGX 24.61. \uf0b7 I noted that 86 pieces of land whose value could not be established had encumbrances in the form of caveats, court injunctions and encroachment. I further noted that 36 pieces of land on which NFA offices sit did not have land titles, and approximately 241,604 ha (22%) on average of the total area of the CFR of 1,088,430 ha gazetted as forest reserves are encroached with agriculture, settlements, mining among others. \uf0b7 I noted a significant balance of receivables of UGX UGX.9.44Bn at close of the financial year which impacts on the liquidity capacity of the Authority when not collected. \uf0b7 I noted irregularities in management of IT investments including; procurement of systems without NITA-U clearance; E-recruitment module was not optimally utilised was not being utilized; I further noted inefficiencies in ICT governance and lack of ownership of the existing ICT systems among others. \uf0b7 I noted irregularities in land management like irregular allocation of Central Forest Reserves by both the Uganda Land Commission and District Land Boards and encroachment on forest reserves. Uganda Land Commission irregularly issued 19 titles in the Central Forest reserves while the District Land Boards had irregularly issued 26 titles in the in forest reserves. I further noted that some of the titles were later cancelled resulting in a number of court cases. |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Authority did not have a fully constituted board, with only 5 of the 6 stipulated members in place. \uf0b7 Three IT valued at UGX 1.2 Bn were not implemented within the required timelines as specified in the inception reports/contracts. There were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation/governance. In addition, the Authority did not have a business continuity plan. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 13.0 | Investment plan preparation grant for the strategic plan for climate resilience. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project had no approved budget during the financial year under review. I further noted that there was an outstanding balance rolled over from the previous financial year of USD.129,834.39 which was utilised during the F/Y under review (2021/2022). \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds of USD 129,834.39 during the financial year, USD 121,976.08 was spent resulting in an unspent balance of USD. 7,858.31 representing absorption level of 93.95%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of three (03 outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of six (06) activities worth USD 121,976.08 and noted that all the three (3) outputs with six (6) activities and expenditure worth UGX. 0.45Bn were fully implement \uf0b7 Outstanding payables totaling to USD.16,194.21(UGX0.06Bn ) as at the closure of the financial year under review which was 20% reduction from USD.20,772.39(UGX 0.077Bn) recorded in financial year 2020/2021. |\n| 2 | 14.0 | Integrated Water Management and Development Project- NWSC 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No material findings to report. |\n| 3 | 15.0 | National Water and Sewerage Corporation- Kampala Water Lake Victoria Water and Sanitation (KW-LV WATSAN I) PROJECT Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No reportable matter. |\n| 4 | 16.0 | National Water and Sewerage Corporation-Kampala Water Lake Victoria Water and Sanitation (KW-LV WATSAN II) \u2013June 2022 | \uf0b7 I noted that whereas the project Package 4B KWTP was completed and handed over to Government and the Defect Liability Periods ended in September 2022 and October 2022 for Katozi and Gaba projects, respectively, there were still outstanding snags in both projects. |\n| 5 | 17.0 | National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) | \uf0b7 The Authority collected NTR of UGX 5.93Bn (66.1%) against the estimated UGX 8.98Bn as projected by Ministry of MOFPED. However, there were no NTR estimates indicated in the statement of appropriation. Out of the |", "metadata": {"page": 496, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 18 | Irrigation for Climate Resilience Project (ICRP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the project\u2019s budget of USD.4,334,366 for the year under review, USD 3,339,866 (77%) was released resulting in a shortfall of USD. 994,500Bn (23%). \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds for the financial year of USD 9,645,763, USD 339,783.65 was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of USD 9,305,979.35 representing an absorption level of 4%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 81 quantified activities worth USD 831,947.58 w, Fifteen (15) activities representing 18.5% were fully implemented; Seven (7) activities representing 8.6% were partially implemented, while Fifty nine (59) activities representing 72.8% were not implemented. |\n| 1 | 19 | Enhancing Resilience of Communities to Climate Change (EURECCCA) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project had a budget of UGX. 12.56Bn (USD 3,462,844) out of which UGX. 6.11Bn was disbursed resulting in a short fall of UGX 6.45Bn (51.4%). \uf0b7 Out of the total amount available during the financial year, UGX.5.89Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.36Bn representing an absorption level of 5.8%. |", "metadata": {"page": 497, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|:-------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of ten (10) out of seventeen (17) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of twenty-six (26) activities worth USD.2,522,858 (UGX 9.15Bn) and noted that; Nine (9) outputs with twenty-four (24) activities and expenditure worth USD 2,366,682 (UGX. 8.58Bn) were partially implemented. Four (4) activities worth USD 352,020 (UGX 1.29Bn) were fully implemented and Twenty (20) activities worth USD 2,009,667 (UGX 7.29Bn) were partially implemented. \uf0b7 One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth USD 156,171 (UGX 0.57Bn) were not implemented. \uf0b7 | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 20.0 | Nyabyeya Forestry College (NFC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The College budgeted to collect NTR of UGX 0.483Bn during the year under review. Out of this, UGX 0.626Bn was collected, representing a performance of 129.5% of the target. \uf0b7 The College received UGX 1.49Bn Government support out of the budgeted amount of UGX 2.72Bn, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 1.23Bn. The shortfall represents 45.1% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds of UGX 2.383Bn, a sum of UGX 2.375Bn was spent representing an absorption level of 99.7%. \uf0b7 I noted that seven (7) outputs with nine (9) activities worth UGX 1.44Bn were fully implemented while one (1) output with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.002Bn was partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the College strategic plan was still in draft form as it lacked approval by both the Governing Council and National Planning Authority. \uf0b7 A review of the approved establishment structure revealed that out of the 83 approved positions, only 46 had been filled leaving 46 positions vacant. |\n| 2 | 21.0 | Farm Income Enhancement and Forestry Conservation Project (FIEFOC ). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Project received UGX 52.15Bn (62.5%) against a budgeted amount of UGX 83.43Bn. Given the opening balance of UGX 1.12Bn from previous year, the total project funds available for the year totaled UGX 53.27Bn. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds of UGX 53.27Bn, a sum of UGX 52.44Bn was spent representing an absorption level of 98.4%. The unspent funds were still held on the Project Bank accounts to continue funding future project activities. \uf0b7 I noted that three (3) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX 16.34Bn were fully implemented while six (6) outputs with thirty-seven (37) activities worth UGX 34.21Bn were partially implemented. The project fully |", "metadata": {"page": 498, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | implemented twenty-five (25) activities; five (5) activities were partially implemented, while seven (7) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the total amount of UGX 2,244,572,384 was due from the Enable Youth Project beneficiaries (Principal + Interest), of which UGX 1,479,980,097 was due by 30/06/2022 in the year under review. However, only UGX 159,827,501 (10.8%) was recovered by 30/06/2022, leaving a balance of UGX 1,320,152,596 outstanding. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 22.0 | Northern Uganda Resilience Initiative Project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total rolled over funds of UGX.429,703,797 from the previous financial year, the project spent UGX.428,792,000 (99.7%) leaving an unspent balance of UGX 911,797 at the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 The project did not fully implement all the 16 activities as planned. I noted that 12 (75%) were fully implemented while 4(25%) were partially implemented. |\n| 2 | 23.0 | Third National Communication (TNC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total approved budget of USD 170,174 for the period, USD.140,000 was received representing a performance level of 82.27% of the target. \uf0b7 Out of the total amount of US$178,440.50 available for spending, the project spent US$ 147,196.88 (82.8%) leaving an unspent balance of US$ 31,243.62. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of the 80 planned activities under the four components and noted that 36 activities (45%) were fully implemented, 38 activities (47.5%) were partially implemented and 6 activities (7.5%) were not implemented at all. |\n| 3 | 24.0 | Water Supply and Sanitation on Refugee Hosting Communities in Northern Uganda Funded by (KFW) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project received UGX.20.24Bn of the UGX.23.6Bn that had been budgeted for, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.3.36Bn. The shortfall represents 16% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.20.241Bn only UGX.10.016Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. UGX.10.492Bn representing absorption level of 48.8%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of two (2) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of eleven (11) activities worth UGX 10.016Bn and noted that; no outputs was fully implemented while Two (2) outputs with eleven (11) activities worth UGX 10.016Bn were partially implemented. I further noted that out of the eleven (11) activities, the project fully implemented five (5) activities and six (6) activities were partially implemented. |", "metadata": {"page": 499, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I assessed service delivery and noted that there were delays in project completion which results in delayed benefit of water supply to the intended beneficiaries. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 25.0 | Ministry of Water, and Environment (MoWE) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry collected NTR of UGX 1.643Bn (196.1%) against the estimated UGX 0.838Bn as projected by Ministry of MOFPED. \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 536.2Bn by the Ministry, only UGX 456.1Bn was warranted representing performance of 85% of the target. I noted that out of the UGX 456.1 warranted to the Ministry, only UGX 448.2Bn was spent representing an absorption level of 98.3%. Subsequently, the unspent funds amounting to UGX 7.7Bn were swept back to the Consolidated Fund. \uf0b7 I noted that Forty-six (46) outputs with seventy-three (73) activities worth UGX.259.77Bn were partially implemented. Out of the seventy-three (73) activities, two (2) activities were fully implemented, seventy (70) activities were partially implemented, while one (1) activity remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I noted that a register of land owned by the Ministry in different areas was not updated, with some land pieces lacking acreage, cost of acquisition and others lacking dates of acquisition. All the 372 pieces of land were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module. I noted that out of the 372 pieces of land held, 221 pieces do not have land titles. \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to acquire land at a cost of UGX 31.06Bn in the financial years 2018/19-2021/22 but did not indicate the acreage in the Ministerial Policy statements. The Ministry acquired 113 pieces of land measuring 4481.9 hectares of land at UGX 10.39Bn using direct procurement without the approval of the Contracts Committee contrary to Section 85 (2) of the PPDA Act, 2003. I further noted that the said land was acquired without confirmation of funding by the Accounting Officer contrary to Section 59(2) of the PPDA Act 2003. \uf0b7 The Ministry acquired 113 pieces of land measuring 4481.9 hectares of land at a cost of UGX 10.39Bn without notifying Uganda Land Commission. \uf0b7 I noted accumulated interest expenditure of UGX. 553.03m resulting from non-payment of VAT and delayed payment. \uf0b7 Out of the approved staff structure of 709 staff, only 370 (52.2%) were filled leaving a staffing deficit of 339 (47.8%) positions. |", "metadata": {"page": 500, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|:-------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I reviewed documents relating to the procurement/development of 3 (three) IT systems and noted that the systems are not owned by the entity which increases the risk of exposure to vendor manipulation. I noted that the Ministry has no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. \uf0b7 The Ministry has no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. I also noted that the Ministry has no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \uf0b7 I noted that the Ministry does not prepare all components of financial statements on the system for example the Cash flow statement and Financial statements for donor funded projects but rather, does it off the system using the financial statements templates provided by the Accountant General. \uf0b7 Review of the e-Government Procurement (e-GP) system revealed that the Ministry approved a procurement plan for 1420 procurements estimated at a cost of UGX. 406.77Bn, but none of the procurement was completed on the system. I was not provided with contract management files for contract management files for 3 projects that were sampled for audit review. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 26.0 | Building Resilient Communities, Wetland Ecosystems and Associated Catchments in Uganda-Project Dec 2021 Implemented by MoWE Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No significant matter to report on. |\n| 2 | 27.0 | Enhancing Conjunctive Management of Surface and Groundwater Resources in Selected Transboundary Aquifers July 2020 to 31 December 2021 Implemented by the Nile Basin Initiative Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No significant matter to report on. |\n| 3 | 28.0 | South Western Cluster Water and Sanitation Project \u2013 NWSC | \uf0b7 No material issues to report on |", "metadata": {"page": 501, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 29.0 | National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The financial statements under Note 28 include a Financial Asset in form of Trade Receivables. Management has estimated the fair value of the net financial asset receivable to be UGX 159.87 billion as at 30th June 2022. However, I was not provided with a periodic assessment and documentation of the risk and parameters leading to the expected trade loss of UGX.8.47Bn as required under IFRS 9. \uf0b7 I noted incidents where NWSC possessed land that had expired land leases; some titles were yet to be transferred in the company names; some land housing NWSC infrastructure and which was given by other government agencies had no MoUs signed; and some land was encroached on. |\n| 2 | 30.0 | Multinational Lakes Edward and Albert Integrated Fisheries and Water Resources Management Project (LEAF) II Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A total of seven (7) strategic outputs (58.3%) were fully achieved, while 5 outputs were partially achieved and still on-going (41.7%). \uf0b7 Out of the approved budgeted revenue of USD 333,824.97, USD 320,930.55 was realised representing performance of 96% of the target. The project absorbed 99.99% of the total available funds for spending. \uf0b7 Out of the eleven (11) planned activities, ten (10) representing 90.9% were fully implemented; one (1) activity representing 9% was partially implemented. \uf0b7 I assessed five key deliverables (construction of a surveillance station, 3 landing sites, and supply of a research vessel) and noted that they were not undertaken in a timely manner. This was as a result of rising water levels and delays in GoU counterpart funding that affected works. |\n| 3 | | ENERGY SECTOR | \uf0b7 |", "metadata": {"page": 502, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA) 2022/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the budgeted revenue of UGX 30.432Bn, a sum of UGX.30.046Bn was realised representing a performance of 99%. The received funds were fully absorbed. \uf0b7 Out of the fifty-two (52) outcomes under the six (6) core focus areas, twenty (20) outcomes had been fully achieved, thirty-one (31) were partially achieved while one (1) outcome under accelerating electricity access was not achieved. Out of a total of 342 activities planned to be implemented, 263 activities (76.9%) were completed, 73 activities (21.3%) were still in progress while 6 activities (1.8%) were not executed. Non-implementation of activities affects achievement of intended service delivery outcomes. \uf0b7 The total staff establishment was at 92 persons and only 63 (68%) positions had been filled. |", "metadata": {"page": 502, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The average annual quality of service performance for the distribution companies, especially those operating in rural areas was 60%, while that of UMEME was 90%. \uf0b7 There are inadequacies in the awareness of the existence of the rebate policy, which has resulted in only two (2) rebate applications being processed, with an expected installed capacity addition of 9.1 MVA. \uf0b7 A review of the management of IT investments revealed inadequacies including; failure to seek clearance from NITA(U) on acquisitions, non-integration of IT systems and applications, lack of a specific structure to steer and oversee ICT implementation, staffing gap and failure by Internal audit to review the ICT systems that produce financial statements. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | Grid Extension and Reinforcement Project- Ministry of Energy and Minerals Development (MEMD) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted Loan disbursements and GoU funds of USD.1.08Mn and USD.0.053Mn, only USD.0.85Mn and USD 0.044Mn was received, resulting into revenue performance of 78.7% and 83.48% respectively. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the available funds for the year totalling to USD.1.549Mn comprising an opening balance of USD.0.655Mn and USD 0.894Mn received during the year, only a total of USD 0.82Mn was utilised during the year, leaving a balance of USD.0.73Mn, representing an absorption rate of only 52.9%. \uf0b7 As at 30th June 2022, 5 years into implementation, it was noted that only USD.2.815Mn (80.4%) had been released to the project of which only USD.2.085Mn (74.1%) had been spent hence putting the overall loan absorption at 59.6% by 30th June 2022. The project was expected to close on 31st October 2022 but has since been granted an extension of up to 30th April 2024. \uf0b7 I noted delays in project implementation with several activities still in progress under; Safeguard Supervision and Monitoring consultant, Consultancy services for Gender Based Violence/Violence against Children, Consultancy services for Social Safeguards specialist and Power Subsector Sector Strengthening. |", "metadata": {"page": 503, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3 | Hydropower Operations and Maintenance Excellence (HOME) Project Dec 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project Statement of Financial Position included an amount of UGX 17.71 billion, being the Project cash balance as at 31st December 2021. However, management did not open a separate bank account for the project as required by the Grant Agreement (Clause 5.6) and Chapter 13 of UEGCL\u2019s Finance Regulations Manual. Co-mingling of grant funds with other funds makes them susceptible to misuse, and it renders it difficult to easily ascertain the accuracy of the project balances. \uf0b7 In the period under review, I noted that the absorption of budgeted funds was only NOK.2.274m of the budgeted NOK.30.278m, representing a 7.5% absorption level. Low funds absorption leads to delayed implementation of critical project activities, which may hinder project effectiveness. |\n| 1 | 4 | Fuel Marking Quality Programme (FMQP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX 9.684Bn out of which, UGX 9.288Bn was realised, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.396Bn. The shortfall represents 4.08% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of five (5) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of twelve (12) activities worth UGX.2.590Bn and noted that one (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth |", "metadata": {"page": 503, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|:-------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | UGX.1.493Bn were fully implemented. Four (4) outputs with ten (10) activities worth UGX.1.097Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 Review of the compliance assessment results of 3,132 fuel stations assessed in Central, Eastern and Western regions against the different clauses of US 947-1:2019 standards revealed that a total of 1,773(57%) of the fuel stations contravened the required standards. \uf0b7 Fuel marking laboratory established in 2009 and as at June 2022, the laboratory had not yet attained ISO accreditation as at June 2022. \uf0b7 I noted that the Programme uses uncertified service providers in conducting the calibration exercise of laboratory equipment. This could lead to equipment breakdown or invalid test results leading to loss of customer confidence. \uf0b7 There are inadequate working and safety conditions at Malaba and Mutukula petroleum laboratories. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 5.0 | Energy for Rural Transformation III PSFU Project (ERT III). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity did not receive any funding for the period under review. The funds amounting to USD 254,802 carried from prior year were available for spending during the period. Out of this, USD. 230,234 was spent by the entity and USD. 7,810 lost in foreign exchange resulting in an unspent balance of USD. 16,758 representing absorption level of 93% for the year. \uf0b7 I noted that UGX. 7,412,500 related to an outstanding payment to Comboni Technical Institute for training fees has remained unpaid having bounced several times. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the project cumulative receipts of USD. 1,747,860, only USD. 1,726,531 was absorbed by the project representing an absorption level of 98.7% over the project life. \uf0b7 As at 31st December, 2021; 860 trainees had qualified for the electrical installation permit, grade D, exceeding the objective target of 850 certified wiremen. However, objective of developing six Community Based Micro Hydro Power Generation Schemes in the districts of Kabarole and Kasese was not achieved. There was no Pico /micro scheme developed at the time of project closure. |", "metadata": {"page": 504, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 6 | Uganda Rural Electricity Access Project (UREAP). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that, for the financial year 2021/22 the project had a Budget of UGX.112,283,563,000, out of which UGX.72,711,272,991 was disbursed representing a shortfall 39,572,290,009, which is 35.2% of the Budget. \uf0b7 I also noted that as at 1st July 2021, the project had an opening balance of UGX.564,461,546. During the year UGX. 72,711,272,991 was released, thus leading to total available funds of UGX.73,275,734,537. Out of which, UGX. 71,218,963,281 was utilised representing an absorption level of 97.2%. \uf0b7 I noted that as at 30th June 2022, the Bank had disbursed USD 64.19Million and Euros 9.23Million against the Loan credit facility of USD 100 Million and Grant of Euros 11.205 million representing 64.19% and 82.35%, respectively. I further noted that the deadline for disbursements for the loan funding (project closure) was revised to 31st December, 2023 from 31st December 2020 and that of the grant maintained at 31st December, 2022 after a number of projects lagged behind. |", "metadata": {"page": 504, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted delays in implementation of the works and the overall project completion for the lots-1-7 was at 83% and Lots-10-13 at 59.84%. Notably, under Lots 10 and 13, Medium Voltage stringing, and Low Voltage (LV) stringing had not yet commenced and so has customer connections in all the lots. Under Lot 7 Low Voltage Pole erection was at 61% and stringing at 9.9%. \uf0b7 Supplies in the Lot 9A category (supply of pre-paid energy metres) at the time of audit had not yet been delivered due to divergent views and on-going negotiations on the understanding of the technical requirements for the prepaid energy meters between MEMD and the supplier (XJ Group), discussions were yet to be concluded as at year end. \uf0b7 Out of 7 batches submitted by UMEME for connections from supplies under lot 8A and 8B, only batch 1 and 2 had been verified by MEMD causing a delay in the necessary funding for completion of the exercise; A total of 16,518 verified eligible connections had been invoiced by UMEME but not paid for L&T and inspection fees for no pole services amounting to UGX.1,404,030,000 (VAT exclusive). | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 505, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 7 | Gulu \u2013 Agago Transmission Line project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted Donor and GoU funds of USD.15.69Mn and USD.1.99Mn, only USD.3.92Mn and USD.0.56Mn was received resulting into revenue performance of 25% and 28% respectively. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the available funds for the year totalling to USD. 6.26Mn, only USD.1.38Mn was utilized, leaving a balance of USD.4.88Mn, representing an absorption rate of only 22%. \uf0b7 I noted that UGX 217.34Mn of the prior year outstanding receivables related to funds due from a Contractor, whose contract for construction of PAPs resettlement houses had been terminated. Construction of only 7 houses out of the 17 had commenced. In addition, out of the 472 PAPs set for cash compensations, 463 disclosures had been made representing 98%. Of these, 459 (97%) agreements were obtained from the disclosures, out of which 2 (0.4%) disputes arose, and payments to 455 (96.4%) PAPs were made by year end. \uf0b7 I noted delays in project implementation with; Tower structures at 37.5% against a planned target of 77% and Substations and HPP switchyard station at 17.49% against a planned target of 48.4%. Major Project works such as; Survey, Design, Supply and Installations works had not yet commenced as at 30th June 2022. |\n| 1 | 8 | Energy for Rural Transformation III (ERT III) \u2013REA Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that as at 1st July 2021, the Project had an opening balance of UGX 41.24Bn. During the year UGX.86.35Bn was disbursed. The available funds totaled to UGX.127.59Bn, out of which, UGX.62.02Bn was utilized on grid intensification and extension projects and Last Mile Consumer Connections, leaving an unutilized balance of UGX.65.5Bn, representing an absorption level of 51.3%. \uf0b7 I observed that the total amount of credit for the project was USD 143.2 Million (USD 135M IDA Credit and USD 8.2M GEF grant). Of which, USD 116.1 Million relates to REA. By the end of the financial year, the Bank had only disbursed USD 76.9 Million, representing 66% of the total credit to REA. \uf0b7 I noted that Fast Track 1 Kiganda-Mile 16 was completed and commissioned on 5th February, 2021, while Fast track 2 Ruhumba-Kashwa was completed and commissioned on 28th August 2021. The Projects were handed over |", "metadata": {"page": 505, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | to respective utilities for operation and maintenance. However, there are outstanding PAPs under these projects that have not been identified and paid. The compensatory funds lie on an escrow account \uf0b7 I noted that Fast Track 3&4 Line contracts were signed on January 2020, and were expected to be completed within 15 months. However, although the commissioning dates had been extended to 25th/Sept/2022 and 27th/Aug/2022 for lines 3 and 4 respectively, by October 2022, both lines had not yet been commissioned. \uf0b7 I noted that Lines 11-21 under lots B, C and D experienced delays and compensation of PAPs was cited as the major reason for delayed erection of poles and line stringing. Particularly, none of the PAPs under the rerouted line 18 had been compensated although the valuation report had been submitted to the CGV. \uf0b7 I noted that the schemes under grid intensification and associated connections were largely delayed due to to delays in compensation of PAPs as well as non-conformance of the transformers to the approved specification at the time of Factory Acceptance Tests under Umeme Scheme, Batch 1. \uf0b7 To-date, out of 48,152 PAPs approved for compensation, only 34,722 PAPs have been paid. Out of the approved compensation amount of UGX.34,207,862,587, only UGX. 23,138,699,477 was paid leaving a balance of UGX.11,069,163,110 as the outstanding compensation amount. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 9.0 | Masaka-Mbarara Transmission Line and extension of substations project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted GoU funds and Loan disbursements of USD 3.40Mn and USD 1.71Mn, respectively, only USD 1.01Mn was received under GOU. There were no donor funds received due to low absorption capacity of the donor funding, resulting into revenue performance of only 29.8%. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the available funds for the year totalling to USD 15.66Mn, only USD 9.07Mn was utilized, leaving a balance of USD 6.59Mn, representing an absorption rate of only 58%. \uf0b7 I noted that implementation of the project was lagging behind the planned timelines, notably the construction had not commenced as planned. \uf0b7 I noted delays and challenges in implementation of RAP. Out of 2,654 PAPs approved for compensation, only 847 PAPs had been paid, leaving 1,807 (32%) PAPs not paid. . I further noted that out of the 2,654 PAPs, 1,704 disclosures had been made representing 64% and 1,617 (61%) agreements were obtained from disclosures. |", "metadata": {"page": 506, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | budgeted GoU revenue of UGX 17.88Bn by the Authority, only UGX 14.18Bn was warranted representing performance of 79% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.14.18Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX.13.38Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.8Bn representing an absorption level of 94.4%. \uf0b7 I noted that two (2) outputs with two (2) activities worth UGX 0.25Bn were fully implemented, nine (9) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX 0.93Bn were partially implemented and one output (1) with one (1) activity worth UGX 0.1Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 The Authority accumulated receivables totalling to UGX. 12.08Bn which remained uncollected as at 30thJune 2022. Out of the outstanding amount, UGX10.84bn related to Government institutions while 1.24Bn was from the private sector. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 32 (1) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Fund, I noted that the fund was not operational, and a sum of UGX. 5,933,507,497 was collected and deposited into the Consolidated Fund by Uganda Revenue Authority, thus denying the authority access to statutory funds \uf0b7 I noted that whereas Section 25(1)) of the National Environment Act, 2019 requires the establishment of the National Environment Protection Force and governing Regulations, this was done. The Authority depends on the services of the Environment Police Protection Unit of the Uganda Police Force which faces structural and logistical challenges. \uf0b7 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 10 | Uganda National Refinery Company Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Entity budgeted to receive UGX 6.97Bn, out of which UGX 5.61Bn was availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 1.36Bn which represents 20% of the budget. \uf0b7 Various construction projects at Kabaale Industrial Park had progressed to significant stages. However, the Refinery FID was extended to mid-2023, crude oil export hub was not undertaken, Kabaale airport construction was 85% complete, and road construction and other amenities were on-going. \uf0b7 The construction of the Refinery had not commenced. Agreements such as; Implementation Agreement, Crude Supply Agreement, and Shareholders Agreement were not in place although negotiations had commenced. In addition, the resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was not completed. |", "metadata": {"page": 506, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 11. | Kampala Metropolitan Transmission System Improvement Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted under Donor funding that the Entity budgeted to receive USD 585,915, out of which USD.127,317.33 was released, resulting in a shortfall of USD 458,597.66 representing 78% of the Budget. Under Gou Funding USD. 1,900,000 was budgeted, Out of which USD. 1,047,848.46 was released, resulting in a shortfall of USD 852,151.5 representing 45% of the Budget. \uf0b7 Out of the available funds of USD.7,628,745.3 for the period under review, USD 2,409,128.47 was utilised, leaving a balance of USD. 5,219,616.83, representing an absorption rate of 31.5%. \uf0b7 There are significant delays in project implementation. The initial project completion date was February 2022. However, by November 2022, UETCL was still undertaking the procurement process of the EPC contractor. \uf0b7 Out of 129 Project Affected Persons (PAPs), 115 (89%) had been compensated |\n|---:|------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 12 | Strengthening Management of Oil and Gas Sector in Uganda Programme (SMOGU) | \uf0b7 The Programme budgeted to receive USD 738,078 for the period under review, and only USD 551,358.46 was realized representing, 75% of the budget. \uf0b7 During the financial year, USD 551,358.46 was available for spending on the Local account, out of which, USD 429,604 was spent by the project resulting in an unspent balance of USD 121,754.46, representing an absorption level of 77.9%. \uf0b7 The counterpart funding for the program from GoU amounting to MNOK 12,401. (USD 1.256 Million) was not realized. |\n| 1 | 13 | Petroleum Authority of Uganda (PAU). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.65.22Bn out of which UGX. 55.22Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX. 10Bn. The shortfall represents 15.3% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX. 55.22Bn, only UGX.54.68Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.54Bn, representing an absorption level of 99.02%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 7 quantified activities worth UGX.27.59Bn assessed; none of the activities was fully implemented, 37 activities representing 94.87% were partially implemented, while 2 activities representing 5.13% were not implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that out of 277 total staff establishment, only 202 (73%) positions had been filled, leaving 75 (27%) positions still vacant. This adversely affects the implementation of the Authorities Operations. \uf0b7 I noted during the review of the ICT investment that the Authority had total warrants for the financial years for IT investment of UGX. 13.111Bn and only UGX. 12.611Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.54Bn representing an absorption level of 96%. |\n| 2 | 14 | Grid Expansion and Reinforcement Project (GERP)-UETCL. | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted Donor and GoU funds of USD. 30,311,916 and USD 714,286, only USD. 25,773,250 and USD 216,497 was received resulting into revenue performance of 85% and 30% respectively. |", "metadata": {"page": 507, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds for the year of USD. 54,992,890, only USD. 16,203,439 was utilized, leaving a balance of USD. 38,789,451, representing an absorption rate of only 29.4%. \uf0b7 Out of the total amount of credit for the Project of USD 127.3 Million (USD 100M IDA Credit and USD 27.3M GoU counterpart funding), only USD 55,230,250 (55.2%) and USD 8,161,920 (28.8%) had been disbursed under IDA funds and GOU funds respectively. \uf0b7 Out of the annual target of 95% progress, under Lot 1; -Construction of 132kv Double Circuit Transmission Lines, only 68% was achieved. Out of the annual target of 99% progress under Lot 2- construction of Substations, only 56.8% was achieved. \uf0b7 Out of 3,364 identified PAPs under Kole-Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, only 2,952 (87.8%) had been compensated. Significant delays were noted under the Arua Section, out of 633 PAPs, 160 (25%) had not been compensated under the Arua section, while out of 2,351 under Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, payment to 386 PAPs (17%) remained outstanding. Construction of PAP houses was yet to be completed. |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 15 | Uganda Petroleum Fund (UPF). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, funds amounting to UGX.10,945,470,241 were not transferred by Uganda Revenue Authority to the Petroleum fund account Contrary to Section 56 (2) and (3) of the PFMA, 2015. This affects timely disbursement of funds to the Consolidated Fund. \uf0b7 I noted that, funds were neither appropriated nor transferred to the Reserve despite the establishment of the Petroleum Revenue Investment framework/Policy. The net cash and bank balance on the Fund of UGX.110,238,744,342, as at June 30th 2022, remained unutilized. \uf0b7 I noted that the Investment Advisory Committee to the Minister was faced with challenges of inadequate funding of its planned activities. Activities such as benchmarking with oil producing countries and some trainings, among others, were not undertaken |\n| 1 | 16 | Uganda Electricity Generation Company Limited (UEGCL) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the planned revenue of UGX.259.3Bn, the Company realized UGX.210.9 Billion representing a performance of 81.4% of the target. \uf0b7 Un \u2013 implemented activities/Projects of UGX. 522,000,000 under Nyagak III HPP \uf0b7 Delayed implementation of projects of Isimba HPP at 99.5% completion, Karuma HPP at 96.7%, Muzizi HPP at 55.4%, Nyagak HPP at 82.6% \uf0b7 Out of the total funds available in the year of the Norwegian Grant of UGX. 20,116,425,000, only UGX 1,395,157,000, was spent resulting into an under absorption of UGX. 17,653,567,000. The company returned UGX 1,067,701,350 in the year under review relating to previous activities not undertaken. |", "metadata": {"page": 508, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds for the year of USD. 54,992,890, only USD. 16,203,439 was utilized, leaving a balance of USD. 38,789,451, representing an absorption rate of only 29.4%. \uf0b7 Out of the total amount of credit for the Project of USD 127.3 Million (USD 100M IDA Credit and USD 27.3M GoU counterpart funding), only USD 55,230,250 (55.2%) and USD 8,161,920 (28.8%) had been disbursed under IDA funds and GOU funds respectively. \uf0b7 Out of the annual target of 95% progress, under Lot 1; -Construction of 132kv Double Circuit Transmission Lines, only 68% was achieved. Out of the annual target of 99% progress under Lot 2- construction of Substations, only 56.8% was achieved. \uf0b7 Out of 3,364 identified PAPs under Kole-Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, only 2,952 (87.8%) had been compensated. Significant delays were noted under the Arua Section, out of 633 PAPs, 160 (25%) had not been compensated under the Arua section, while out of 2,351 under Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, payment to 386 PAPs (17%) remained outstanding. Construction of PAP houses was yet to be completed. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Long outstanding Payables of UGX 985,000,000 relating to penal interest charged by URA, resulting from late payment of WHT on consultancy services for the period 2001-2009. \uf0b7 Delayed commissioning of Karuma Dam, completion date was extended to 22nd January 2023, resulting in a delay of 3 years and 6 months from the initial planned completion date. \uf0b7 Non-conformances (NC) in relation to electrical, mechanical and civil works components that required rectification before commissioning of the Karuma dam. \uf0b7 Delayed completion of Project snags at Isimba HPP. The Defects Liability Period was extended from 1st April 2022 to 30th September 2022 \uf0b7 Pending activities after Final Loan draw down for Isimba HPP. Although, the final loan drawdown date was 21st December 2021, certain activities were outstanding, for instance; the floating boom installation and access road construction. \uf0b7 Damaged equipment after the flooding of Isimba HPP. The Company spent UGX 1.3Bn to fix the damage, but other repairs and replacements were yet to be undertaken. The flooding was attributed to the contractor\u2019s failure to fix all the snags. \uf0b7 Revenue loss due to Irregular Energy Billing at Isimba HPP: UGX 56 Billion. This is because the Company bills energy sold and not the available capacity. \uf0b7 Payments to owner\u2019s Engineer Isimba HPP: UGX. 1,494,332,008, resulting from delay in completion of rectifications by contractor \uf0b7 Rehabilitation of the Nalubaale \u2013 Kiira hydropower plants. I noted that with concern the withdrawal of KfW from the funding of the proposed rehabilitation of the Nalubaale \u2013 Kiira hydropower plants \uf0b7 Expired final drawdown period of KfW Loan worth Euros 40 Million for Muzizi HPP (44.7MW) of 30th December, 2021, without any evidence availed to confirm that the entity applied for an extension from the lender in regard to extending the final drawdown date. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 17.0 | Mutundwe-Entebbe 132kv Double Circuit Transimssion Line Project - UETCL June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that a total of 79 land titles that project affected persons handed over to UETCL were physically missing from the UETCL archives. \uf0b7 I noted delays in transfer of land titles, out of 346 titles received from PAPs only 3 were processed. |", "metadata": {"page": 509, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds for the year of USD. 54,992,890, only USD. 16,203,439 was utilized, leaving a balance of USD. 38,789,451, representing an absorption rate of only 29.4%. \uf0b7 Out of the total amount of credit for the Project of USD 127.3 Million (USD 100M IDA Credit and USD 27.3M GoU counterpart funding), only USD 55,230,250 (55.2%) and USD 8,161,920 (28.8%) had been disbursed under IDA funds and GOU funds respectively. \uf0b7 Out of the annual target of 95% progress, under Lot 1; -Construction of 132kv Double Circuit Transmission Lines, only 68% was achieved. Out of the annual target of 99% progress under Lot 2- construction of Substations, only 56.8% was achieved. \uf0b7 Out of 3,364 identified PAPs under Kole-Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, only 2,952 (87.8%) had been compensated. Significant delays were noted under the Arua Section, out of 633 PAPs, 160 (25%) had not been compensated under the Arua section, while out of 2,351 under Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, payment to 386 PAPs (17%) remained outstanding. Construction of PAP houses was yet to be completed. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | \uf0b7 I noted that whereas the compensation process started in December 2015, as at 30 June 2021, out of 1,053 project affected persons, only 880 had been compensated |\n| 1 | 18.0 | Uganda Electricity Distribution Company- UEDCL Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the planned revenue of UGX.89.35Bn, the Company realized UGX.73.32 Billion representing a performance of 82% of the target. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts of UGX 73.32Bn, only UGX 66.091Bn was absorbed representing absorption rate of 90%. \uf0b7 Out of the one hundred (100) key initiatives implemented under six (6) sampled departments and Units ,47(47%) tasks had been fully implemented, 45(45%) were partially implemented while 7(7%) were not implemented during the year. \uf0b7 I noted outstanding receivables for energy bills by Government entities of UGX. 68,333,895,572, and this resulted into withdrawal of the sum from the escrow Account. \uf0b7 The Company had recognized payables of UGX 9.258 arising from Power Evacuation Losses stemming from absence of adequate and appropriate transmission lines to evacuate generated electricity from Kikagati, Nkusi, Mpanga and Siti Power Plants. \uf0b7 I noted delays in connection of New Service Customers within the stipulated timelines and several Faulty Meter Complaints from customers. The delays ranged between 10 to 500 days. |", "metadata": {"page": 510, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds for the year of USD. 54,992,890, only USD. 16,203,439 was utilized, leaving a balance of USD. 38,789,451, representing an absorption rate of only 29.4%. \uf0b7 Out of the total amount of credit for the Project of USD 127.3 Million (USD 100M IDA Credit and USD 27.3M GoU counterpart funding), only USD 55,230,250 (55.2%) and USD 8,161,920 (28.8%) had been disbursed under IDA funds and GOU funds respectively. \uf0b7 Out of the annual target of 95% progress, under Lot 1; -Construction of 132kv Double Circuit Transmission Lines, only 68% was achieved. Out of the annual target of 99% progress under Lot 2- construction of Substations, only 56.8% was achieved. \uf0b7 Out of 3,364 identified PAPs under Kole-Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, only 2,952 (87.8%) had been compensated. Significant delays were noted under the Arua Section, out of 633 PAPs, 160 (25%) had not been compensated under the Arua section, while out of 2,351 under Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, payment to 386 PAPs (17%) remained outstanding. Construction of PAP houses was yet to be completed. |\n|---:|-------------:|:------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 19 | Uganda National Oil Company Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive funding from government and internally generated resources amounting to UGX 130.67Bn, out of which UGX 48.29Bn was received, representing a budget performance of only 37%, it was also noted that the funding gap was majorly from less Gou funds warranted. \uf0b7 Out of the total budget of UGX. 129.10Bn expected to be funded by government, only 46.59Bn was actually received, creating a funding gap of UGX. 93.16Bn. \uf0b7 Out of the received government funds, UGX. 35.93Bn was actually spent, representing an absorption level of 77% and an expenditure \uf0b7 I noted that annual work plans are not harmonized with the budget estimates, and as a result the work plan and activity performance are monitored separately and are not quantified. It is difficult to harmonize funds spent in relation to budget, work plans and actual performance. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the twenty-four (24) KPI\u2019s sampled under the four (4) core focus areas and fifteen (15) objectives, thirteen (13) KPI\u2019s had been fully achieved, nine (9) were partially achieved while two (2) KPI\u2019s under Maximize Shareholder Value and increasing profitability were not achieved as summarized in the tables below. |", "metadata": {"page": 510, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds for the year of USD. 54,992,890, only USD. 16,203,439 was utilized, leaving a balance of USD. 38,789,451, representing an absorption rate of only 29.4%. \uf0b7 Out of the total amount of credit for the Project of USD 127.3 Million (USD 100M IDA Credit and USD 27.3M GoU counterpart funding), only USD 55,230,250 (55.2%) and USD 8,161,920 (28.8%) had been disbursed under IDA funds and GOU funds respectively. \uf0b7 Out of the annual target of 95% progress, under Lot 1; -Construction of 132kv Double Circuit Transmission Lines, only 68% was achieved. Out of the annual target of 99% progress under Lot 2- construction of Substations, only 56.8% was achieved. \uf0b7 Out of 3,364 identified PAPs under Kole-Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, only 2,952 (87.8%) had been compensated. Significant delays were noted under the Arua Section, out of 633 PAPs, 160 (25%) had not been compensated under the Arua section, while out of 2,351 under Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, payment to 386 PAPs (17%) remained outstanding. Construction of PAP houses was yet to be completed. |\n|---:|:-------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 A review of the Land held by the entity revealed that the entity did not have Land titles for two (2) pieces of land measuring approximately 2,221.839 hectares. \uf0b7 I noted through land inspection, document review and inquiries with management that Plot 7 in Namuwabula Estate Mpigi District measuring approximately 121 hectares (5.4%) out of the total entity land measuring of 2,223.339 hectares had encumbrances in the form of encroachment and was not utilized by the entity at the time of Audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the implementation of key interventions under the UNOC Flagship Projects is behind schedule. These activities include construction under the EACOP Project, the Refinery Project, Kabaale Industrial Park, construction of the oil Jetty and Pipeline at JST, as well as undertaking the Engineering Procurement and Construction activities at the Kampala Storage Terminal. \uf0b7 A review of the approved structure and the staff list revealed that out of the 261 approved posts for the company, only 114 (44%) were filled leaving 145 (56%) posts vacant. \uf0b7 Internal Audit did not review the ICT systems that produce financial statements. There is a risk that internal control weaknesses related to ICT system may not be detected timely. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 20.0 | Uganda Refinery Holding Company Ltd Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Entity budgeted to receive UGX 6.97Bn, out of which UGX 5.61Bn was availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 1.36Bn which represents 20% of the budget. \uf0b7 Various construction projects at Kabaale Industrial Park had progressed to significant stages. However, the Refinery FID was extended to mid-2023, crude oil export hub was not undertaken, Kabaale airport construction was 85% complete, and road construction and other amenities were on-going. \uf0b7 The construction of the Refinery had not commenced. Agreements such as; Implementation Agreement, Crude Supply Agreement, and Shareholders Agreement were not in place although negotiations had commenced. In addition, the resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was not completed. |", "metadata": {"page": 511, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds for the year of USD. 54,992,890, only USD. 16,203,439 was utilized, leaving a balance of USD. 38,789,451, representing an absorption rate of only 29.4%. \uf0b7 Out of the total amount of credit for the Project of USD 127.3 Million (USD 100M IDA Credit and USD 27.3M GoU counterpart funding), only USD 55,230,250 (55.2%) and USD 8,161,920 (28.8%) had been disbursed under IDA funds and GOU funds respectively. \uf0b7 Out of the annual target of 95% progress, under Lot 1; -Construction of 132kv Double Circuit Transmission Lines, only 68% was achieved. Out of the annual target of 99% progress under Lot 2- construction of Substations, only 56.8% was achieved. \uf0b7 Out of 3,364 identified PAPs under Kole-Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, only 2,952 (87.8%) had been compensated. Significant delays were noted under the Arua Section, out of 633 PAPs, 160 (25%) had not been compensated under the Arua section, while out of 2,351 under Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, payment to 386 PAPs (17%) remained outstanding. Construction of PAP houses was yet to be completed. |\n|---:|-------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 21 | Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL) 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted Tariff revenue and GoU funding of UGX.1.447Tn and UGX.85.46 Bn respectively, UGX.1.546Tn and UGX.28.186 Bn was realised, respectively, representing a performance of 6.85% surplus above the Tariff Budget target and a budget shortfall of 67% under GoU Funding. \uf0b7 I sampled twelve (12) activities under two (2) projects worth UGX.76.173Bn and three (3) activities under the key performance indicators (KPIs) for the FY 2021/22. I noted that two (2) projects and nine (9) activities in relation to construction works were partially implemented while one activity in regards to Karuma project was not implemented. \uf0b7 Included under Note 23, trade and other receivables is an amount of UGX.647 Bn, relating to trade receivables. UGX. 88.8Bn relates to outstanding energy sales for the period which was over 90 days over due. |", "metadata": {"page": 511, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds for the year of USD. 54,992,890, only USD. 16,203,439 was utilized, leaving a balance of USD. 38,789,451, representing an absorption rate of only 29.4%. \uf0b7 Out of the total amount of credit for the Project of USD 127.3 Million (USD 100M IDA Credit and USD 27.3M GoU counterpart funding), only USD 55,230,250 (55.2%) and USD 8,161,920 (28.8%) had been disbursed under IDA funds and GOU funds respectively. \uf0b7 Out of the annual target of 95% progress, under Lot 1; -Construction of 132kv Double Circuit Transmission Lines, only 68% was achieved. Out of the annual target of 99% progress under Lot 2- construction of Substations, only 56.8% was achieved. \uf0b7 Out of 3,364 identified PAPs under Kole-Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, only 2,952 (87.8%) had been compensated. Significant delays were noted under the Arua Section, out of 633 PAPs, 160 (25%) had not been compensated under the Arua section, while out of 2,351 under Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, payment to 386 PAPs (17%) remained outstanding. Construction of PAP houses was yet to be completed. |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Out of the staff structure of 491 staff only 357 positions were filled, resulting in a staffing gap of 134 (27%) of the staff structure. \uf0b7 I noted that UETCL o the Rural Electrification Fund evacuates power over weak third-party grids, The entity relies on 33KV infrastructure of UEDCL, REA and UMEME as wheelers, to evacuate power. The lines are faced with various faults and outages making it unreliable. I further noted that there were no formal wheeling agreements imposing duties and obligations for the third-party wheelers. \uf0b7 I noted non-remittance of the 5% Rural Electrification Levy by UETCL, amounting to UGX.131,958,754,535, contray to the electricity (establishment and management of Rural electrification fund) instrument No. 75 of 2001 and instrument number 29 of 2021. \uf0b7 I noted termination of the contract for the construction of houses for Project Affected Persons, due to submission of false extensions of advance payment guarantee by contractors amounting to UGX. 256,455,705 and performance bond guarantee amounting to UGX. 128,227,852. \uf0b7 The progress of execution of work by the new contractor under LOT A (Uganda- Kenya Overhead transmission line) was at only 30%, 60% of the works were affected by court injunctions and 10% by failure to procure materials to cover the vandalized sections. \uf0b7 I noted cases of increased vandalism of UETCL\u2019s installations specifically the transmission lines and substations. The theft of Capacitor banks at Namanve substation, the theft of copper cables at Queen\u2019s way substation, theft of transformer oil from the Soroti substation tower vandalism at NELSAP and many others, resulted in a Loss of UGX. 184,206,894 \uf0b7 The ICT systems such as Sun system, Payroll System, Geographical Information System and Budget Information System were not properly integrated to enable sharing of information. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 512, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds for the year of USD. 54,992,890, only USD. 16,203,439 was utilized, leaving a balance of USD. 38,789,451, representing an absorption rate of only 29.4%. \uf0b7 Out of the total amount of credit for the Project of USD 127.3 Million (USD 100M IDA Credit and USD 27.3M GoU counterpart funding), only USD 55,230,250 (55.2%) and USD 8,161,920 (28.8%) had been disbursed under IDA funds and GOU funds respectively. \uf0b7 Out of the annual target of 95% progress, under Lot 1; -Construction of 132kv Double Circuit Transmission Lines, only 68% was achieved. Out of the annual target of 99% progress under Lot 2- construction of Substations, only 56.8% was achieved. \uf0b7 Out of 3,364 identified PAPs under Kole-Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, only 2,952 (87.8%) had been compensated. Significant delays were noted under the Arua Section, out of 633 PAPs, 160 (25%) had not been compensated under the Arua section, while out of 2,351 under Gulu-Nebbi-Arua Section, payment to 386 PAPs (17%) remained outstanding. Construction of PAP houses was yet to be completed. |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 22 | National Pipeline Company Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Entity budgeted to receive UGX 10.43Bn, out of which UGX 6.29Bn was availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 4.14Bn which represents 39.6% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that the consortium managing the Jinja Storage Tanks had expressed challenges in the stocking of the expected twelve (12) Million litres as the minimum National Strategic Reserve and has since communicated its intention to opt out of the JV partnership in FY 2022/23. \uf0b7 I noted that the construction of an oil jetty and connecting pipeline to Jinja Storage Tanks had not commenced, as expected. \uf0b7 I noted that the Company was unable to secure a Joint Venture Partner for the planned Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) of the Kampala Storage Terminal. As a result, the activities under the Terminal were not undertaken as planned. |", "metadata": {"page": 512, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 23. | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalisation Company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 24 | The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The ministry budgeted to receive UGX. 622.775Bn out of which UGX. 480.146Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.142.63Bn. The shortfall is 23% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX. 54.27Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX. 32.689Bn was collected, representing a performance of 60% of the target. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 480.146Bn, a sum of UGX. 479.284Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 0.863Bn, representing an absorption level of 99.8%. \uf0b7 I noted that One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX. 0.054Bn was fully implemented, Twenty-five (25) outputs with ninety-nine (99) activities worth UGX. 289.953Bn were partially implemented while Fourteen (14) outputs with twenty-eight (28) activities worth 0.496Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted delays in titling of the acquired land under the major dam projects despite having started the processes as early as 2013. For instance;23 titles out of 137 titles have been processed under the Isimba Dam project, while no titles had been transferred into the ULCs name for the benefit of MEMD under the Karuma dam project. \uf0b7 In addition, although UGX. 1,666,421,984, was paid out as Mineral Royalties during the year, UGX. 674,446,095 remained outstanding. \uf0b7 Furthermore, the Ministry had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX 8.2Bn. This amount related to outstanding, debenture payment on Isimba and Karuma HPPs, Corporation Tax Obligation of Amber House Ltd as well as Contributions to International Organizations. \uf0b7 Management planned to distribute 200,000 Promotional cylinder Kits annually for 5 years. However, only 6,000 kits were acquired and distributed during the year due to inadequate funding. |\n| 1 | 25 | Kilembe Mines Ltd (KML) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity budgeted to receive UGX.4.47Bn out of which, UGX.1.83Bn was realised, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.2.64Bn which is 59% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that the Company had an outstanding receivable of UGX.2.31Bn as at 30th June 2022, 54% of the amount relates to unpaid rent from Tibet Hima Mining Co. Ltd. \uf0b7 The Company had outstanding payables of UGX.2.36Bn. The amount increased from UGX.2.28Bn to UGX.2.36Bn resulting into an increase of UGX.75,672,320 (3%) as at 30th June 2022. |", "metadata": {"page": 513, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 23. | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalisation Company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The company had a total outstanding statutory obligation of UGX.310,173,160 attributed to URA and NSSF. The delayed payment of statutory deductions may attract fines and penalties. \uf0b7 Five (5) years have elapsed without an investor/operator being identified to take over Kilembe Mines operations, following the termination of the Tibet Hima Concession Agreement. \uf0b7 A review of the monthly Energy sales of Mubuku HPP for the FY 2021/2022 revealed that the plant evacuated 5,446.09 MWh, which translated into UGX.471,702,475. The plant\u2019s annual available capacity is 21,960.00MWh which would result into revenue of UGX.1,927,690,934.This implies that the company was failing to generate revenue amounting to UGX.1,455,988,459 annually. \uf0b7 I noted that the Company had not undertaken an environment Audit, contrary to Section 4.5.6 of the Generation license that requires the Licensee to provide to the Regulatory a detailed environmental audit on an annual basis. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 26.0 | Atomic Energy Council Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the planned revenue of UGX.40.4Bn, the Council realized UGX.12.5 Billion representing a performance of 69% of the target. \uf0b7 Out of the seven (7) sampled activities worth UGX 24.6Bn, four (4) activities were partially implemented worth UGX. 11,810,138,800 while 3 (three) activities worth UGX. 12,767,593,500 were not implemented at all. In addition, management did not execute all procurements planned for the period under review worth UGX. 5.9Bn \uf0b7 I noted that AEC does not have quality Assurance Laboratories required for proper functioning and execution of council mandate. In addition, AEC does not have sufficient Inspection Equipment thus compromising on the required frequency of inspections. \uf0b7 Due to inadequate space, management did not utilise the radiation detection, environmental monitoring and emergency preparedness and response equipment which was procured by Council. Construction of the UGX 1.5 Bn technical block at Mpoma was yet to commence. \uf0b7 Out of the approved structure of seventy (70), only forty-one (41) positions (58.6%) were filled leaving twenty- nine (29) positions vacant \uf0b7 |", "metadata": {"page": 514, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 23. | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalisation Company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 27 | Energy for Rural Transformation Project (ERT III)-PCU Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity did not receive any funding for the period under review. The funds amounting to USD 254,802 carried from prior year were available for spending during the period. Out of this, USD. 230,234 was spent by the entity and USD. 7,810 lost in foreign exchange resulting in an unspent balance of USD. 16,758 representing absorption level of 93% for the year. \uf0b7 I noted that UGX. 7,412,500 related to an outstanding payment to Comboni Technical Institute for training fees has remained unpaid having bounced several times. |", "metadata": {"page": 514, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 23. | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalisation Company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the project cumulative receipts of USD. 1,747,860, only USD. 1,726,531 was absorbed by the project representing an absorption level of 98.7% over the project life. \uf0b7 As at 31st December, 2021; 860 trainees had qualified for the electrical installation permit, grade D, exceeding the objective target of 850 certified wiremen. However, objective of developing six Community Based Micro Hydro Power Generation Schemes in the districts of Kabarole and Kasese was not achieved. There was no Pico /micro scheme developed at the time of project closure. \uf0b7 | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 28.0 | Opuyo- Moroto 132kv Transmission Line Project - (UETCL) Dec 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project receivables decreased from USD.4,116,412 (2020) to USD.56,741 (2021). The outstadnig receivables related to funds due from UETCL (USD.53,135) and advances to staff of USD.3,606. There is a risk that these funds may never be recovered, yet the project was closing. \uf0b7 I noted that despite the project being closed, out of 1,360 PAPs, only 1,333 had been compensated leaving a balance of 27 (3%) by 31st December 2021. There is a risk that the outstanding compensation to PAPs may not be completed due to project closure. |\n| 2 | 29.0 | Energy for Rural Transformation III Implemented by Uganda Energy Credit Capitalization Company Limited (ERT III- UECCCL) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n| 3 | | EDUCATION SECTOR | |", "metadata": {"page": 515, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 23. | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalisation Company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Ministry of Education and Sports Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Ministry budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.6.3Bn during the year under review out of which, only UGX.0.064Bn was realized, representing a performance of only 1% of the target. The entity further budgeted for GOU receipts of UGX.535.284Bn of which UGX.415.72Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX. 119.56Bn which is 22.33% % of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 415.72Bn, a sum of UGX. 412.98Bn was spent by the Ministry resulting into an unspent balance of UGX. 2.7Bn representing an absorption level of 99.3%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of sixty-one (61) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of one hundred thirty-four (134) activities worth UGX.411.48Bn and noted that; Fifteen (15) outputs with twenty-one |", "metadata": {"page": 515, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 23. | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalisation Company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | (21) activities and expenditure worth UGX.63.71Bn were fully implemented. Twenty-nine (29) outputs with eighty (80) activities worth UGX.320.27Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 3 pieces of land measuring approximately 9.749 hectares the entity held, 1 piece of land measuring approximately 3.77 hectares (39%) did not have a land title. \uf0b7 I also noted that the title for 1 piece of land measuring approximately 1.935 hectares was not transferred from the previous owners \uf0b7 I noted that advances to various Education Institutions for Infrastructure development amounting to UGX. 2,348,930,185 remained outstanding. \uf0b7 I noted that payables increased from UGX. 39,452,425,980 in the FY2021/22 to UGX.78, 254,703,720 in the financial year under review representing an increment of UGX.38,802,277,740 (98%) \uf0b7 I noted that the contract duration of 5 constructions under implementation had expired before completion. In addition, out of a combined contract sum of UGX.2,966,331,534, only UGX.1,014,245,153 (34%) had been paid to the respective contractors. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Education and Sports did not provide an adequate budgetary provision for the settlement of liabilities relating to court awards and compensations of UGX.22,881,496,579 \uf0b7 This amount would have been avoided had the Ministry settled her obligation in time. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 2.0 | CASH-IN: Privately Managed Cash Transfers in Africa Project Dec, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the Project funding revealed that out of the received grant of DKK306,394 (US $49,730.41) only DKK202,954.07 (US $32,947.09) was expended reflecting unspent funds of DKK103,439.93 (US $16,783.32) resulting into underperformance of 33.75% \uf0b7 I noted that management deducted overheads in access of DKK8,531.55 (US $1,392.30). The actual project expenditure was US $26,295.66 (DKK161,981.27) but management charged administrative fees of US $6,651.43 (DKK40,972) representing 25.3% of actual expenditure contrary to Article 5 of the Partnership Agreement on research collaboration for CASH IN Research Programme which requires overheads to be deducted at 20% on actual spending (and not budgeting). \uf0b7 I however noted that Makerere University, being the partner institution did not return unspent amounts worth US $16,783.32 (DKK103,439.93) to the coordinating institution. \uf0b7 From the review of the bank statements, I noted that Project funds were placed on a general college account in Standard Chartered Bank contrary to the requirements of the agreement. |", "metadata": {"page": 516, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 23. | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalisation Company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 3 | ARSDP (MOES Component) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that there was no approved budget or supplementary budget for the IDA Donor funding, and the project was not included in the PIP. The Project funding of UGX.57.20Bn for the year under audit was not included in the Vote\u2019s approved estimates for the year, hence off-budget financing. |", "metadata": {"page": 516, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 23. | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalisation Company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | \uf0b7 A review of the ARSDP Project Financing Agreement signed on the 24th August, 2015 indicated that the project which was supposed to end on 30th June, 2019 had its completion date revised thrice to 31st December 2022 due to delayed commencement. \uf0b7 I noted that the mid-Term Bursary Scheme Review Report had not been produced hindering timely remedial actions which may affect the Project\u2019s ability to achieve its intended objectives. \uf0b7 I noted that there were some Bursary scheme management activities which were not achieved, such as the development of a framework for transfer of knowledge to the client staff and the design of a tracking system to monitor training providers and trainees. |\n| 1 | 4.0 | CASJET Project for the Year Ended 31st December, 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the project would commence on 1st January 2021, the project funds were released on 8th October, 2021, thus occasioning a delay of 7 months in the implementation of project activities in the year. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. |\n| 2 | 5.0 | CIDIMOH MAK Project Dec, 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project was supposed to commence on 1st January 2021, however, funds were released on 28th October 2021, thus delaying the project for 8 months. This delayed implementation of project activities. \uf0b7 I noted that the project requisitioned funds to undertake different activities during the year. However, out of the NOK 735,552 (USD.87,464) received, only NOK 596,058 (USD.70,877), representing 81% was spent. |\n| 3 | 6.0 | CIDIMOH UBG Project Dec, 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No significant matter to report on |\n| 4 | 7.0 | COLOCAL Project Dec, 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project approved financial need request of USD.78,717 which was disbursed, but only USD.16,696 (21%) was spent during the period under review, leaving USD.62,021 unspent (79%). This affected implementation of planned activities. |", "metadata": {"page": 517, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 23. | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalisation Company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Whereas the Partnership Agreement stated that the project would commence on 1st January 2022, I noted that the project funds were released on 15th November, 2022, thus occasioning a project delay of almost 11 months. This affected implementation of project activities. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 8.0 | ECARESA Project Dec, 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that funds were disbursed to the project late towards the year end on 21st October 2021 which was in contravention of the Partnership agreement which required funds to be disbursed on 1st January, 2021. This occasioned a delay of almost 10 months, thus affecting timely implementation of project activities. |\n| 2 | 9.0 | Climate Smart Agriculture in Sub- Saharan Africa (CSA) Project Dec 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project requisitioned for funds as per its budget of NOK 500,216 (USD.54,371) and out of that, USD.58,382 was received during the year. The funds remained unutilized throughout the year due to COVID-19 pandemic challenges. |\n| 3 | 10.0 | Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that EPRC received UGX.4,388,749,097 from GOU through Ministry of Planning and Economic Development in the financial year under review. The grant was not enough to finance the entities planned activities. \uf0b7 I further noted the GOU grant financed research activities worth UGX.256,095,782 during the year under review which represents 13% of the total research costs. |\n| 4 | 11.0 | Economic Policy Research Centre Jun 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No significant findings to report on |\n| 5 | 12.0 | GENDIG Project Jun 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion | \uf0b7 There was no reportable issue noted. |", "metadata": {"page": 518, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 23. | Uganda Energy Credit Capitalisation Company Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year, Government provided only UGX 500 million, out of the allocation of UGX 8 billion for the Orio Mini Hydro Power grant project. Cumulatively, only UGX .32.6 billion (29.6%) of the total budgeted cost of UGX.110.06 billion has been provided by the Government of Uganda as counterpart funding. The inadequate release of counter funding is affecting project part effectiveness. |\n|---:|:-----------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 13.0 | UNFPA Funded Programme Ref; UGA08CMH/HIV/GBV/UFP/AYP/FGM implemented by the Ministry of Education and Sports, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No significant matters to report on. |\n| 2 | 14.0 | MATHSD Project Dec, 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the project would commence on 1st January 2021, the project funds were released on 13th September,2021, thus occasioning a delay of 8 months of implementing project activities in the year. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the planned implementation of project activities. |\n| 3 | 15.0 | Makerere Institute of Social Research Carnegie Corporation Grant Number G- 16-54073 Support Project April 2021 to March 2022 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 There were no material or reportable issues |\n| 4 | 16.0 | Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR) on Decolonization, Humanities, Disciplines and the University for the Period 1st January, 2021 to 31st December, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that during the year under review, a total sum of USD 38,516.64 was not accounted for by project management. Failure to account for funds could imply that the funds in question might not have been put to the intended use. \uf0b7 I noted an over expenditure of USD.6,724 resulting from an expenditure of USD.11,024 against a budget of USD.4,300. |", "metadata": {"page": 519, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 17. | Uganda Covid 19 Emergency Education Response Project (UCEERP) \u2013 Ministry of Education and Sports (Grant No.TF0B3597) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total funds received during the financial year under review of USD. 9.31Bn, a sum of USD.9.2 Bn was spent by the Project resulting into an unspent balance of USD. 0.102Bn, representing absorption level of only 98%. |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 18 | Strengthening Public Investment Management - Center of Excellence for PIM training P16990B-GRANT NO. TF0B1422 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the work plans, the project planned to receive US $558,252.76 out of which US $536,728.00 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $21,524.76 The shortfall represents 3.9% of the approved work plan. \uf0b7 Out of the available funds of US $536,728.00 only US $438,226.38 was spent resulting into unspent balance of US $98,501.62 (18%). \uf0b7 Four (4) outputs with forty three (43) activities worth US $558,252.76 were partially implemented. |\n| 1 | 19 | Strengthening Public Investment Management - Center of Excellence for PIM training P16990B-GRANT NO. TF0B1422 August,2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the work plans, the project planned to receive US $809,999 out of which US $626,453 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $183,546. The shortfall represents 22.6% of the approved work plan. \uf0b7 Out of the disbursed funds of US $626,453 only US $272,777.92 was spent resulting into unspent balance of US $353,675.08 representing under absorption level of 56.5%. \uf0b7 Four (4) outputs with forty-three (43) activities worth US $442,304.54 were partially implemented. Out of the forty-three (43) activities, the project fully implemented twenty-five (25) activities; sixteen (16) activities were partially implemented, while two (2) activities were not implemented at all. |\n| 2 | 20 | African Centre for Agro ecology and Livelihood Systems (ACALISE) Project \u2013 UMU Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the available funds amounting to USD 1,596,155 (receipt of USD 1,485,162 and balance brought forward of USD 110,993) for the project operations for the financial year, only USD 891,615 was spent, leaving an unspent balance of USD 704,540. This represents approximately 56% absorption rate. \uf0b7 A review of the Results Framework Indicators specifically for the year under review revealed that some indicators did not perform as expected or targeted. There were no admissions for masters students. \uf0b7 A review of the revenue generated by the farm and the corresponding farm expenses for the year 2021/2022 revealed that the farm made a deficit of USD. 2,148. \uf0b7 A visit to the Soil Laboratory revealed two (2) challenges of lack of a Laboratory Technologist and lack of distilled water in the laboratory resulting from lack of an electric plug to connect the water distillation unit to the 3-phase electricity supply point. |", "metadata": {"page": 520, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 228.96 hectares held, 1piece of land measuring approximately 44.6 hectares (19.51%) valued at UGX. 81,480,000,000 were not utilized by the entity at the time of audit because of the ongoing court process. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 22 | Busitema University. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the projected NTR of UGX.7.53Bn, a sum of UGX.7.39Bn was collected, representing a performance of 98% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the approved budget of UGX.59.24Bn, a sum of UGX.51.84bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.7.4Bn. The shortfall represents 12.5% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I noted that the University had off budget financing from development partners to a tune of UGX. 2,616,726,500 and USD. 815,318.45 for implementation of various projects. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total warrants of UGX.51.89Bn received during the financial year UGX.51.84Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.05Bn, representing an absorption level of 99.9% \uf0b7 I noted that all the six (6) outputs that had been fully quantified with total of (16) activities worth UGX.38.74Bn were partially implemented. Out of the (16) activities, the entity fully implemented ten (10) activities; four (4) activities were partially implemented while two (2) activities were not implemented at all \uf0b7 I noted that the University had outstanding receivables amounting to UGX. 2,093,054,875 an increase of UGX. 789,091,874 (37.7%) from UGX. 1,303,963,001 in the prior year. The prior figure of UGX. 1,031,855,860 had been outstanding for over one year. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas the University received funds amounting to UGX.33.66bn to cater for wage from the Central Government, the University did not receive the corresponding wage allocation for Social benefits of UGX3.36bn (10% of the approved wage) \uf0b7 I noted that only 63 of the University\u2019s 216 lecturers were PhD holders while 136 staff had Master's degrees giving the University only 30.1% of PhD holders. \uf0b7 I noted that the University had only 500 staff in post as opposed to the approved staff establishment of 2800 staff hence a staffing level of 18%. \uf0b7 I noted that the University had substantive heads of departments for only 42 (55%) of its 62 departments across all its Faculties with the remaining 20 having heads of department in acting Capacity. |\n| 1 | 23 | Gulu University. Opinion | \uf0b7 The University budgeted to receive UGX 59.79Bn from Government support out of which UGX 56.10Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 3.69Bn. The shortfall represents 6.2% of the approved budget. |", "metadata": {"page": 522, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 All the warranted amount of UGX56.091Bn was spent by the University, representing an absorption level of 100%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 12 quantified activities worth UGX45.64Bn assessed; 6 activities representing 50% were fully implemented, 4 activities representing 33.3% were partially implemented, while 2 activity representing 16.7% was not implemented. \uf0b7 The University acquired one (1) piece of land measuring 318 hectares. Out of the agreed purchase price of UGX 6,539,395,190 only UGX 2,356,590,768 was paid leaving a balance of UGX 4,182,804,422 outstanding. \uf0b7 I noted that three Gulu University Constituent College task force members irregularly received gratuity worth UGX 82,932,099. \uf0b7 I noted that all thirteen (13) pieces of land measuring approximately 2,532 hectares were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module. In addition, 8 pieces of titled land measuring approximately 2,186 hectares were not recorded in the land/assets register, of the university; Four (4) pieces measuring approximately 961 hectares had encumbrances in the form of encroachment by the local population; and Five (5) pieces of land measuring approximately 346 hectares (14%) did not have land titles. \uf0b7 Included in the Universities payables of UGX6.98Bn are two interim certificates worth UGX2.606Bn for payment of the construction of the Business Development Center (Teaching Facility) at Gulu University. Due to the long outstanding Payables, the contractor stopped working and the fate of the project has remained unclear. \uf0b7 A review of the ICT governance structure of the University revealed that; there was no approved IT risk management framework/policy and there was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \uf0b7 During the audit of Gulu University, I observed that total of four (4) IT systems/equipment developed were not cleared by NITA-U. |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 24 | The Higher Education Students' Financing Board (HESFB) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.26.19Bn, only UGX. 24.05Bn was spent representing an absorption level of 91.83%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation a total of fifty four (54) activities worth UGX.19.99Bn and noted that; twenty eight (28) activities were fully implemented representing 52%; seventeen (17) activities were partially implemented representing 31%, while nine (9) activities remained unimplemented representing 17%. \uf0b7 The Board accumulated payables totalling to UGX. 15.33Bn compared to the previous year payables position of UGX.1.42Bn accounting for an increase of 977% out of which 99.4% relates to Loan disbursements to beneficiary institutions. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas the cumulative outstanding loan amount due for recovery from 3,025 beneficiaries by the closure of the financial year under review stood at UGX.4.305Bn, only UGX.0.308Bn representing 7% for the current financial year and a cumulative of UGX.0.609Bn had been recovered. |", "metadata": {"page": 523, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 All the warranted amount of UGX56.091Bn was spent by the University, representing an absorption level of 100%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 12 quantified activities worth UGX45.64Bn assessed; 6 activities representing 50% were fully implemented, 4 activities representing 33.3% were partially implemented, while 2 activity representing 16.7% was not implemented. \uf0b7 The University acquired one (1) piece of land measuring 318 hectares. Out of the agreed purchase price of UGX 6,539,395,190 only UGX 2,356,590,768 was paid leaving a balance of UGX 4,182,804,422 outstanding. \uf0b7 I noted that three Gulu University Constituent College task force members irregularly received gratuity worth UGX 82,932,099. \uf0b7 I noted that all thirteen (13) pieces of land measuring approximately 2,532 hectares were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module. In addition, 8 pieces of titled land measuring approximately 2,186 hectares were not recorded in the land/assets register, of the university; Four (4) pieces measuring approximately 961 hectares had encumbrances in the form of encroachment by the local population; and Five (5) pieces of land measuring approximately 346 hectares (14%) did not have land titles. \uf0b7 Included in the Universities payables of UGX6.98Bn are two interim certificates worth UGX2.606Bn for payment of the construction of the Business Development Center (Teaching Facility) at Gulu University. Due to the long outstanding Payables, the contractor stopped working and the fate of the project has remained unclear. \uf0b7 A review of the ICT governance structure of the University revealed that; there was no approved IT risk management framework/policy and there was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \uf0b7 During the audit of Gulu University, I observed that total of four (4) IT systems/equipment developed were not cleared by NITA-U. |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Board reported a Loan Portfolio/investment of UGX.127.83Bn but I noted that there were analysis reports made to ascertain the risks status and aging analysis of the loan portfolio. \uf0b7 I observed that out of the approved establishment of 65 staff only 28 positions were filled (43%) leaving 37 positions vacant (58%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Board\u2019s term expired in March 2022 and there was no Board for the last quarter of the financial year 2021/2022. \uf0b7 Contrary to the Higher Educating Students Financing Board Act, 2014 which requires centralization of management of scholarships, it was observed that part of this mandate was managed by other government agencies such as Ministry of Education and Sports and Uganda Missions abroad. \uf0b7 There were gaps in risk management because of absence of fraud Prevention Mechanisms and Risk Assessment and Management Policies. \uf0b7 I noted gaps in the monitoring and Evaluation of the Board activities due to absence of joint Monitoring Team and Data Quality Control Strategy as required by Section 3.4.1 and 3.4.6 of the HESFB Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures Manual, 2022. \uf0b7 I noted that, the Board failed to charge 7% Value Retention Fee Interest on the annual students outstanding loans and delayed to operationalization the 5 year Resource Mobilization Strategy (RSM) for 2019/2020-2023-2024 | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 524, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 All the warranted amount of UGX56.091Bn was spent by the University, representing an absorption level of 100%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 12 quantified activities worth UGX45.64Bn assessed; 6 activities representing 50% were fully implemented, 4 activities representing 33.3% were partially implemented, while 2 activity representing 16.7% was not implemented. \uf0b7 The University acquired one (1) piece of land measuring 318 hectares. Out of the agreed purchase price of UGX 6,539,395,190 only UGX 2,356,590,768 was paid leaving a balance of UGX 4,182,804,422 outstanding. \uf0b7 I noted that three Gulu University Constituent College task force members irregularly received gratuity worth UGX 82,932,099. \uf0b7 I noted that all thirteen (13) pieces of land measuring approximately 2,532 hectares were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module. In addition, 8 pieces of titled land measuring approximately 2,186 hectares were not recorded in the land/assets register, of the university; Four (4) pieces measuring approximately 961 hectares had encumbrances in the form of encroachment by the local population; and Five (5) pieces of land measuring approximately 346 hectares (14%) did not have land titles. \uf0b7 Included in the Universities payables of UGX6.98Bn are two interim certificates worth UGX2.606Bn for payment of the construction of the Business Development Center (Teaching Facility) at Gulu University. Due to the long outstanding Payables, the contractor stopped working and the fate of the project has remained unclear. \uf0b7 A review of the ICT governance structure of the University revealed that; there was no approved IT risk management framework/policy and there was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \uf0b7 During the audit of Gulu University, I observed that total of four (4) IT systems/equipment developed were not cleared by NITA-U. |\n|---:|-------------:|:---------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 25 | Kabale University. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the budgeted receipts from GoU of 47.898Bn, only UGX.44.611Bn was received by the entity resulting in a shortfall of UGX.3.287Bn. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.44.611Bn received during the financial year, the entity utilized UGX. 44.599Bn, resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.013Bn which represents an absorption level of 99.97%. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 7 quantified activities worth UGX.3.13Bn assessed; 4 activities representing 57% were fully implemented, while 3 activities representing 43% were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that Kabale University had long outstanding payables of UGX.1,872,390,164 \uf0b7 A total of 4 IT systems/equipment internally developed were not cleared by NITA-U \uf0b7 I noted that Kabale University had 7 systems which were not integrated or automatically sharing information with other systems. \uf0b7 Six (6) categories of IT equipment recommended for disposal by board of survey report were not disposed. \uf0b7 There were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation and there was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not transfer the two (2) land titles of land measuring approximately 20.563 hectares into the name and custody of the Uganda Land Commission |", "metadata": {"page": 524, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 All the warranted amount of UGX56.091Bn was spent by the University, representing an absorption level of 100%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 12 quantified activities worth UGX45.64Bn assessed; 6 activities representing 50% were fully implemented, 4 activities representing 33.3% were partially implemented, while 2 activity representing 16.7% was not implemented. \uf0b7 The University acquired one (1) piece of land measuring 318 hectares. Out of the agreed purchase price of UGX 6,539,395,190 only UGX 2,356,590,768 was paid leaving a balance of UGX 4,182,804,422 outstanding. \uf0b7 I noted that three Gulu University Constituent College task force members irregularly received gratuity worth UGX 82,932,099. \uf0b7 I noted that all thirteen (13) pieces of land measuring approximately 2,532 hectares were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module. In addition, 8 pieces of titled land measuring approximately 2,186 hectares were not recorded in the land/assets register, of the university; Four (4) pieces measuring approximately 961 hectares had encumbrances in the form of encroachment by the local population; and Five (5) pieces of land measuring approximately 346 hectares (14%) did not have land titles. \uf0b7 Included in the Universities payables of UGX6.98Bn are two interim certificates worth UGX2.606Bn for payment of the construction of the Business Development Center (Teaching Facility) at Gulu University. Due to the long outstanding Payables, the contractor stopped working and the fate of the project has remained unclear. \uf0b7 A review of the ICT governance structure of the University revealed that; there was no approved IT risk management framework/policy and there was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \uf0b7 During the audit of Gulu University, I observed that total of four (4) IT systems/equipment developed were not cleared by NITA-U. |\n|---:|:-------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 A review of Plot No.364 Ndorwa Block 3 Kabale Kikungiri Hill land and Plot 66-76 Kirigime Road Land records revealed that the University had not valued its pieces of land since 2002 and 2009, respectively. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 525, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 All the warranted amount of UGX56.091Bn was spent by the University, representing an absorption level of 100%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 12 quantified activities worth UGX45.64Bn assessed; 6 activities representing 50% were fully implemented, 4 activities representing 33.3% were partially implemented, while 2 activity representing 16.7% was not implemented. \uf0b7 The University acquired one (1) piece of land measuring 318 hectares. Out of the agreed purchase price of UGX 6,539,395,190 only UGX 2,356,590,768 was paid leaving a balance of UGX 4,182,804,422 outstanding. \uf0b7 I noted that three Gulu University Constituent College task force members irregularly received gratuity worth UGX 82,932,099. \uf0b7 I noted that all thirteen (13) pieces of land measuring approximately 2,532 hectares were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module. In addition, 8 pieces of titled land measuring approximately 2,186 hectares were not recorded in the land/assets register, of the university; Four (4) pieces measuring approximately 961 hectares had encumbrances in the form of encroachment by the local population; and Five (5) pieces of land measuring approximately 346 hectares (14%) did not have land titles. \uf0b7 Included in the Universities payables of UGX6.98Bn are two interim certificates worth UGX2.606Bn for payment of the construction of the Business Development Center (Teaching Facility) at Gulu University. Due to the long outstanding Payables, the contractor stopped working and the fate of the project has remained unclear. \uf0b7 A review of the ICT governance structure of the University revealed that; there was no approved IT risk management framework/policy and there was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \uf0b7 During the audit of Gulu University, I observed that total of four (4) IT systems/equipment developed were not cleared by NITA-U. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 26 | Lira University. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.4.948Bn, only UGX.3.621Bn was realised, representing a performance of 73.2%. \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX 31.811Bn, the university received warrants of UGX 27.747Bn resulting into a shortfall of UGX 4,063,277,549. (12.77) %. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.27.75Bn available for spending, invoices totalling UGX.25.31Bn were submitted resulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX.2.44Bn representing an absorption level of 91.2%. As a result of failure to absorb funds, the entity still has staffing gaps in the approved structure. \uf0b7 I assessed a sample of eleven (11) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of fourteen (14) activities worth UGX.11.031Bn and noted that Six (6) outputs with six (6) activities and expenditure worth UGX8.551Bn were fully implemented. Five (5) outputs with eight (8) activities worth UGX2.480Bn were partially implemented. Out of the eight (8) activities, the University fully implemented two (2) activities while six (6) activities were partially implemented. \uf0b7 Out of the two (2) pieces of land measuring approximately 417.533 hectares held, (One) 1 piece of titled land measuring approximately 165.975 hectares was not recorded in the entity land/asset register. I also noted that the 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 417.533 hectares were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module thus affecting the accuracy of the non-produced assets in the financial statements. \uf0b7 Out of the 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 417.533 hectares the University held, 1 piece of land measuring approximately 165.975 hectares (39.75%) did not have land title. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 417.533 hectares held by the University, one (1) piece of land measuring approximately 165.975 hectares (39.75%) was not utilized while one (1) land title measuring approximately 251.558 hectares was not transferred into the name and custody of the Uganda Land Commission. \uf0b7 I noted that only 267 positions out of the approved establishment of 991 posts were filled leaving 724 positions vacant representing a staffing gap of 73%. \uf0b7 During the audit of Lira University Information Technology (IT) Investments, I observed that; A total of six (6) IT systems/equipment procured of UGX 56,410,000 were not cleared by NITA-U. In addition, 430 IT hardware equipment had exceeded the recommended five (5) years useful life, hence due for disposal. \uf0b7 There were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. Furthermore, out of the total approved established positions in the structure for the ICT Department of thirteen (13) staff, only six (6) representing (46%)of the approved structure were filled leaving seven (7) (54%) positions vacant. |", "metadata": {"page": 525, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 27. | MAK Holdings. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Included in payables of UGX 846,382,405 as shown in the statement of financial position and under note 18 to the accounts are long outstanding arrears of UGX 791,911,805 \uf0b7 Review of the Guest House cash book and bank statements revealed that out of cash collected of UGX 780,314,500, a total of UGX 371,772,200 was spent at source \uf0b7 I noted that Makerere University Holding Limited operated without a strategic plan an annual work plan and budget. There were no minutes to show approval and review of the strategic plan and the budget by the Board. \uf0b7 Mak Holdings does not have an Investment Policy and Audit Risk Management Policy. I also noted that Mak Holdings Financial Management Policy and the Mak Holdings Human Resource Manual, 2016 being implemented were not approved by the Board. I further noted that the existing policies were not communicated to employees \uf0b7 The Guest House is in a dire state with dilapidated structures and rooms with outdated facilities |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 28 | MAK Holdings. 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Company management budgeted to receive and generate revenue of UGX.1,892,600,000 however, only UGX.809,760,761 (43%) was realized reflecting an underperformance of UGX.1,082,839,239 which is 57% of the expected revenue for the year. \uf0b7 The Makerere University Guest house had accumulated creditors to the tune of UGX.620,024,827 from UGX.405,138,535 in the financial year ended 30th June, 2020 representing a 53% increase in liabilities. Some of the outstanding liabilities include statutory payments worth UGX.240,026,071. \uf0b7 I noted an increase in receivables of UGX.299,307,621 from UGX.271,978,943 reported in the prior year. \uf0b7 I noted that Makerere University Guest House issues Manual Receipts and purchases most of its supplies from suppliers who do not have the Electronic Fiscal Receipting and Invoicing System (EFRIS) contrary to Section 73A (1) of the Tax Procedures Code Act. The Company is therefore, disadvantaged from the benefits associated with the EFRIS system which includes accuracy in VAT payable and claimable records. |\n| 1 | 29 | Mapronano World Bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted out of the released US $280,331.61 under SALIVA Project, only US $178,755.45 was spent by the project resulting into unspent balance of US $101,576.16representing 36% under absorption level. \uf0b7 Out of the released funds worth US $404,167.62 under NANO Project, only US $254,334.12 was spent by the project management resulting into unspent balance of US $149,833.50 representing 37% under absorption. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of seven (7) outputs with a total of twenty-two (22) activities worth US $1,574,943 and noted that; Four (4) outputs with fifteen (15) activities and expenditure worth US $1,077,340.69 were fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with seven (7) activities worth US $497,602.41 were partially implemented. Out of the six activities, two were fully implemented; three were partially implemented while one was not implemented at all. |", "metadata": {"page": 526, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 31 | Management Training and Advisory Centre (MTAC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.2.19Bn for the financial year 2021/2022, a sum of UGX.2.11Bn was collected representing performance of 96.3% of the target. This resulted into a short fall in revenue collection of UGX. 79,995,000. \uf0b7 Out of UGX. 7,795,757,000 the Centre had budgeted to receive from the Government, only UGX. 7,767,641,000 was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX. 28,116,000. The shortfall represents 0.5% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.9.88Bn, a sum of UGX.9.53Bn was spent by the Centre resulting into unspent balance of UGX.0.35Bn representing an absorption level of 96.4%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of five (5) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of nineteen (19) activities worth UGX. 5,460,767,000 and noted that three (3) outputs with fourteen (14) activities with expenditure worth UGX. 4,355,739,000 were fully implemented. Two (2) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX. 1,105,028,000 were partially implemented. Out of the five (5) activities, the entity fully implemented one (1) activity; four (4) activities were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity had outstanding commitments to a tune of UGX. 1,121,289,592 as at 30th June 2022. \uf0b7 I noted that the Centre had receivables amounting to UGX. 690,189,868 this financial year compared to UGX.703, 515,408 brought forward from the previous financial year. Included in the receivables are students\u2019 debtors worth 547,570,961 which relate to prior years. \uf0b7 I noted that 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 3.844 hectares costing UGX. 30,498,500,000 were recorded in the entity\u2019s land register while 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 1.644 were not recorded in the Centre\u2019s asset register. \uf0b7 I noted that the Centre had staff who have served in acting positions for over 5 years. \uf0b7 I noted that out of 73 approved positions in the Centre\u2019s structure only 48 were filled leaving 25(34.2%) positions vacant. \uf0b7 I noted that the Centre provides support to its outreach centres in form of among others provision of computers to enable delivery of teaching. It was established that all centres have inadequate computers to facilitate learning. \uf0b7 Verification of the number of enrolled students for the year under review indicated that management was only able to attract 711 students in the different diploma programmes leading to under enrolment of 1,209. |", "metadata": {"page": 527, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Review of the required wage bill to pay the staff currently employed by the Centre amounts to UGX.858,920,011 but only UGX. 100,000,000 (11%) was allocated by Government, leading to funding gap of UGX.758,920,011. \uf0b7 | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 32.0 | Makerere University. 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 University budgeted to receive UGX.389.433Bn, but only UGX.347.889Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.41.543Bn. The shortfall represents 10.67% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.132.332Bn, only UGX.68.083Bn was realized, representing a performance of 51.4 % of the target. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.347.889Bn received during the financial year, UGX344.465Bn was spent resulting into an unspent balance of UGX3.424B,n representing an absorption level of 98%. \uf0b7 Out of a sample of fourteen (14) outputs with a total of thirty five (35) activities worth UGX 341.13Bn assessed, I noted that Two (2) outputs with two (2) activities and expenditure worth UGX.1.298Bn were fully implemented; and Twelve (12) outputs with thirty-five (35) activities worth UGX.339.833Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted long outstanding payables of UGX.959,975,856 due from rental income attributed toUniversity tenants. \uf0b7 I noted through land inspection, document review and inquiries from management that four (4) pieces of land measuring 103.05 hectares (6.3%) out of the 1,645.04 hectares of land owned by Makerere University had encumbrances in the form of caveats, court injunctions and encroachment. While three (3) pieces of land measuring approximately 309.2 hectares (9.34%) out of the 32 pieces held did not have land titles. \uf0b7 The entity did not transfer all the twenty-nine (29) land titles measuring approximately 1,335.84 hectares held, into the name and custody of the Uganda Land Commission. \uf0b7 Whereas the University leased three (3) pieces of land during the period under review, these pieces of land were not traceable to the lease register. \uf0b7 One (1) lease for land measuring 3.98 hectares had expired at the time of carrying out the audit. Besides, the entity did not receive any lease rentals from the leased properties. \uf0b7 A review of the IT systems of the University revealed a number of irregularities such as; procurement of equipment worth UGX.41,826,600 and tenure decommission 1,417 IT equipment despite recommendation of the board of survey report. |", "metadata": {"page": 528, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 33 | NORHED Consolidated Project for the Year Ended 31st Dec, 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st January 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under NORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing agreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. |", "metadata": {"page": 528, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 (USD.167,049). \uf0b7 I further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only NOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption rate of only 53.4%. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 34.0 | ROM Project for the Year Ended 31st December, 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the project would commence on 1st January 2021, the project funds were released on 17th November, 2021, thus occasioning a delay of 10 months in the implementation of project activities in the year. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. |\n| 2 | 35.0 | TELLS Project for the Year Ended 31st December, 2021 Implemented by Makerere University Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the project would commence on 1st January 2021, the project funds were released on 30th November, 2021, thus occasioning a delay of 11 months in the implementation of project activities in the year. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. |", "metadata": {"page": 529, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 36 | Muni University. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX 26.639Bn received during the financial year, the University spent UGX 26.145Bn resulting in un-utilised warrants of UGX 0.494Bn representing an absorption level of 98.15%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 17 quantified activities worth UGX 3.878Bn assessed; 7 activities representing 41.2% were fully implemented, whereas 10 activities representing 58.8% were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that of the six (6) pieces of land measuring approximately 1,334.85 hectares held by the University were not recorded in the GFMIS fixed asset module, four (4) pieces of titled land measuring approximately 1,155.65 hectares were not recorded in the land/assets register; One (1) piece of land at Bidibidi measuring approximately 177.891 hectares had encumbrances in the form of the utilization of the entire piece of land to resettle refugees by OPM; 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 179.202 hectares (13%) did not have land titles and the University failed to transfer all the four (4) titles of land measuring approximately 1,155.65 hectares held, into the name and custody of the Uganda Land Commission. \uf0b7 The statement of financial position and note 19 of the financial statements disclosed UGX 2,850,053,751 as receivables included in the balance under note 19(a) are accrued revenue of UGX 338,023,245. \uf0b7 I noted that a total of two (2) IT systems developed were not cleared by NITA-U |", "metadata": {"page": 529, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Big Blue button and E-books systems developed systems are not owned by the entity, as a result, it increases the exposure of the entity to vendor manipulation. \uf0b7 I noted that there were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation. \uf0b7 Out of the 11 total approved established positions in the structure for the ICT Directorate/Department/Unit staff, only 8 staff representing (73%) were filled leaving 3 staff (27%) positions vacant. \uf0b7 There was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity, and risk register. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 37.0 | Mbarara University of Science and Technology Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of Statement of the financial Position and note 19(a) revealed that receivables worth UGX. 958,118,173 remained outstanding. \uf0b7 Out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.12.477Bn, only UGX.10.844Bn was collected, representing a performance of 87% of the target. \uf0b7 Out to the approved budget, UGX. 59.171Bn out of which UGX.54.671Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX4.53Bn. The shortfall represented 7.6% of the revised approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.54.671Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling UGX.53.870Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.802Bn representing an absorption level of 99%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of twenty-five (25) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of eighty-three (83) activities worth UGX.41.861Bn and noted that; Ten (10) outputs with twenty (20) activities and expenditure worth UGX.1.629Bn were fully implemented while thirteen (13) outputs with fifty-nine (59) activities worth UGX.40.073Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 Out of the fifty-nine (59) activities, the entity fully implemented twenty (20) activities; eighteen (18) activities were partially implemented, while twenty-one (21) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 Procurements totalling to UGX.311,643,492 sourced using Micro procurement were split to fit within the set threshold of UGX.5,000,000. \uf0b7 I noted that the University entered into a contract worth UGX. 8,397,814,309 with a contractor to construct Phase 2, of faculty of Computer Formatics, for a period of 18 months. However, the funds to pay for the multi- year project were not released. \uf0b7 A total of 3 IT systems/equipment procured at UGX.122,410,500 were not cleared by NITA-U, while systems costing UGX.122,410,500 did not have clearance from MoFPED. |", "metadata": {"page": 530, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 38 | National Council of Sports. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds during the financial year of UGX.18.368Bn, only UGX.18.043Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.325Bn representing an absorption level of 98.2%. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.0.781Bn during the year under review, out of only UGX.0.670Bn was realized, representing a performance of 86% of the target. |", "metadata": {"page": 530, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 4 quantified activities worth UGX.15.1Bn assessed; 3 activities representing 75% were fully implemented, while 1 activity representing 25% was not implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that transfers to Uganda netball federation and Uganda Boxing federation worth UGX.270,040,950 were not fully accounted for. \uf0b7 I noted a shortage of sports academies and technical capacity in terms of personnel with internationally accredited skills to promote sports in the country. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not transfer land in to the custody of Uganda Land Commission \uf0b7 I noted that the staff of the entity had not been enrolled on the IPPS system and were paid through IFMS without IPPS numbers. \uf0b7 A total of 3 IT systems/equipment acquired at UGX.43,049,727 were not cleared by NITA-U. \uf0b7 Review of the ICT governance structure of the entity revealed that; there were no specific structures that steer and oversee ICT implementation; the entity did not have an approved IT staff structure in place despite ICT prioritization in NDP III; there was no approved IT risk management framework/policy at the entity; there was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 531, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 39 | Uganda Management Institute (UMI). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Institute did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review however, UGX 12.02Bn was collected. \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget, of UGX 38.03Bn, a sum of UGX 32.05Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 5.98Bn. The shortfall represents 15.72% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX 43.57Bn received during the financial year UGX 31.55Bn was spent by the institute resulting in an unspent balance of UGX 12.020Bn representing an absorption level of 72%. \uf0b7 Out of a sample of seven (7) outputs assessed with a total of twenty five (25) activities worth UGX2.31Bn four (4) outputs with twenty two (22) activities worth UGX 1.48Bn were partially implemented and three (3) outputs with three (3) activities with a budget of UGX 0.83Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 Out if 276 positions in the establishment 200 posts were filled leaving 76 positions vacant representing a staffing gap of 28%. \uf0b7 All the 05 pieces of land measuring approximately 6.725 hectares held, by Institute were not transferred into the name of the Uganda Land Commission as required by the law. |\n| 1 | 40 | Uganda National Examinations Board (UNEB). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity had an approved budget of UGX 146,445,366,444 which was entirely warranted. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not budget for NTR collection despite a communication from the PS/ST which projected the entity\u2019s NTR at UGX.56.89Bn. |", "metadata": {"page": 531, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The Uganda Land Commission was not notified about the acquisition of one piece of land measuring 0.4 hectares costing UGX.750,000,000 to enable recording and updating of the GOU land register. \uf0b7 I noted that all the 6 pieces of land measuring approximately 2.12 hectares held by the entity at the reporting date had not been transferred into the custody of ULC. \uf0b7 I noted that one piece of land measuring approximately 0.4 hectares (100%) had not yet been used in accordance with the approved purpose set out in the strategic plan. \uf0b7 There was no IT risk management framework/policy at UNEB by the time of the audit. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 41.0 | Uganda Business and Technical Examinations Board (UBTEB) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.7.7Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX.2.3Bn was realised, representing a performance of 30% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds of UGX. 35.2Bn during the financial year, UGX. 32.65Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 2.55Bn representing absorption level of 92.8%. \uf0b7 I noted that four (4) outputs with seven (7) activities and expenditures worth UGX.16.3Bn were fully implemented three (3) outputs with nine (9) activities worth UGX.16.4Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the Board did not have a land title for its 1 piece of land measuring approximately 0.404 hectares (100%) \uf0b7 I noted that UBTEB had only made payments amounting to UGX. 3,792,402,179 against the required amount of UGX. 5,126,257,884 toward advance payments for the construction of the proposed UBTEB assessment Centre hence an underpayment of UGX.1,333,855,405. I further noted that at the time of the audit in October 2022, the Board had not made any payments toward the four Interim payment certificates raised by the contractor totaling UGX. 2,980,505,141 \uf0b7 I noted that there was no Business and Technical Vocational Qualifications Framework in place rendering it difficult for the Board to effectively execute its mandate. \uf0b7 I noted that though the Board had 205 approved staff positions, only 97 had been filled leaving a staffing gap of 108 (52%). \uf0b7 I noted that Uganda Hotel Training and Tourism Institute, Bukalasa Agricultural College, and Nyabyeya Forestry College do offer diploma programmes but assess their students contrary to the provision of the law. |", "metadata": {"page": 532, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 42 | Makerere Institute of Social Research- Norhed Project \u201cBuilding and Reflecting on Interdisciplinary Phd-Studies for Higher Education Transformation\u201d Grant Number: Uga-13/0023 For the Period 1st January 2021 to 31st August, 2021 | \uf0b7 There were no material and reportable issues |", "metadata": {"page": 532, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 43.0 | MISR NORHED Project II \u201cBuilding and Reflecting On Interdisciplinary PHD- Studies for Higher Education Transformation\u201d Grant Number: UGA- 13/0023 for the Period 1st September, 2021 to 31st December, 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 There are no reportable issues. |\n| 2 | 44.0 | Uganda Petroleum Institute Kigumba Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the budgeted NTR of UGX.0.647Bn for the year 2021/2022, UGX.0.641Bn was collected, representing a performance of 99% of the target. Similarly, the Institute budgeted to receive UGX.8.5Bn from GOU of which only UGX.4.75Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX. 3.75Bn representing 45% of the budget. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total releases of UGX. 5.389Bn received during the financial year, UGX. 4.761Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 0.628Bn representing an absorption level of 88.3% \uf0b7 I noted from a sample of (16) Outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of one hundred forty-six (146) activities worth UGX. 4.096Bn that; \uf0b7 Six (6) outputs with fifty-seven (57) activities and expenditure worth UGX. 1.409Bn were fully implemented, three (3) outputs with eleven (11) activities worth UGX. 2.244Bn were partially implemented, Seven (7) outputs with seventy (78) activities worth UGX. 0.443Bn were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 103 approved staff for the Institute; only 81 positions were filled leaving 22 (21.4%) positions vacant. Of the 81 staff, 40 staff were on Government payroll (permanent), 1 staff on probation while 41 are on governing council contract \uf0b7 I noted that contract staff salary for the month of June 2022 worth UGX. 47,877,500 had not been paid. Further enquiries indicated that contract staff had not been paid for the last four (4) months. |\n| 3 | 45.0 | Education Service Commission Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Commission had a revised budget, totalling UGX.21.28Bn, out of which UGX.18.03 was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.3.25Bn. The shortfall represents 15.3% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 The Commission received UGX.18.03Bn during the financial year, however UGX.17.6Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.42 representing an absorption level of 98% |", "metadata": {"page": 533, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 From the sampled of Six (6) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of twenty-four (24) activities worth UGX.15.92Bn, I noted that; Five (5) outputs with twenty-one (21) activities and expenditure worth UGX.11.94 were fully implemented. One (1) output with three (3) activities worth UGX.3.98 were partially implemented. Out of the three (3) activities, the entity fully implemented two (2) activities; one (1) activity was partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that Commission was allocated land measuring approximately 0.405 hectares by the Ministry of Education and Sports of which the Commission had not acquired a land title. \uf0b7 The commission budgeted to receive UGX.1,022,060,300 for the last 3 financial years, for implementation of IT systems and acquisition of IT Equipment, however, only UGX.321,530,300 was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.700,530,000 which is 68.5% of the budget. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 46.0 | Mandela National Stadium Limited Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Although the entity budgeted to receive UGX.98.36Bn, only UGX.82.88Bn was collected, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.15.48Bn which is 15.7% of the budget. \uf0b7 Out of the two (2) outputs with a total of thirty three (33) activities and total expenditure of UGX.34.3Bn sampled for assessment, I noted that One (1) output with six (6) activities and expenditure worth UGX.2.2Bn was fully implemented while one (1) output with twenty-seven (27) activities worth UGX.32.1Bn was partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the 3 pieces of land measuring approximately 50.199 hectares, land measuring approximately 25.199 hectares had encumbrances in the form of court injunctions and encroachment. \uf0b7 A review of the financial statements revealed that Mandela National Stadium Limited had receivables of UGX. 30,839,304,013 at the close of the financial year, an increase of 1,051.8% from receivables of UGX.2,677,452,246 of the previous financial year 2020/2021. \uf0b7 There was neither approved IT risk management framework/policy nor risk register at the entity. Furthermore, there was no business continuity plan, contrary to Section 4.6 of the National Information Security Policy 2014. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas the Uganda Land Commission leased 2 piece of land measuring 2.433 hectares during the period under review, these pieces of land were not traceable to MNSL lease register. |", "metadata": {"page": 534, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 47 | Kyambogo University 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.139.89Bn, out of which UGX.129.13Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX10.76Bn. The shortfall represents 7.7% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.77.14Bn during the year under review, out of which only UGX.74.68Bn was realized, representing a performance of 97% of the target. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.129.13Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoiced totaling UGX.128.75Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.0.38Bn representing an absorption level of 99.71%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of sixteen (16) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of eighty three (84) activities worth UGX. 119.91Bn and noted that; Two (2) outputs with six (6) activities and expenditure worth UGX.1.01Bn were fully implemented; Twelve (12) outputs with seventy six (76) activities worth UGX.118.61Bn were partially implemented. |", "metadata": {"page": 534, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 A review of the University expenditure vouchers revealed that payments relating to the previous year totaling to UGX.2,663,779,707 were neither disclosed/ verified as part of the arrears in the previous financial year nor budgeted for, but was paid in the current financial year. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas the Ministry of Public Service issued a salary structure for all Public Universities for uniformity of payment of salaries of public universities, Kyambogo University paid top-up on the approved salaries from allowances\u2019 allocation to a tune of UGX.8,934,707,841. \uf0b7 A comparison of 5% NSSF deducted from the salaries of employees for the month of December, January, February and March with the total amount of 5% NSSF remitted for the same months, revealed a discrepancy of UGX.116,071,516 unremitted amount to NSSF. \uf0b7 The entity had 38 positions in ICT staff establishment of which only 7 (18%) positions were filled | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 535, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 48 | The National Council for Higher Education 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.4.780Bn during the year under review out of which, only UGX.3.425Bn was collected, resulting to a short fall in revenue collection of UGX.1.355Bn, representing a performance of 74% of the target. \uf0b7 The entity was supposed to receive UGX.13.83Bn out of which UGX.12.472Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.1.358Bn, representing 9.83% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.12.472Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling UGX.11.18Bn resulting into un-utilised warrants of UGX.1.3Bn representing an absorption level of 90%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of five (5) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of one hundred fifteen (15) activities worth UGX.11.2Bn and noted that; Two (2) outputs with three (3) activities and expenditures worth UGX.1Bn were fully implemented. Three (3) outputs with twelve (12) activities worth UGX.10.2Bn were partially implemented. Out of the twelve (12) activities, the entity fully implemented three (3) activities while nine (9) activities were partially implemented, and none of the activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the approved staff establishment of 125 staff, NCHE has only 53 staff, resulting to a staffing gap of 72 staff (58%). I further noted that the Council had a wage requirement of UGX. 12,821,702,568 but only received UGX. 7,064,285,393 resulting into a shortfall of UGX. 5,757,417,175. \uf0b7 I noted that only 487 programs were accredited out of 600 planned for the year, leaving 113 programs not accredited. \uf0b7 I noted that 30 universities\u2019 provisional licenses were not assessed for progression to charter status, after 3 years of holding provisional licenses. \uf0b7 I further noted that licenses of 76 Tertiary Institutions were not assessed for progression of certificate of classification and registration. |", "metadata": {"page": 535, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I also noted that four (4) Universities whose licences were revoked continue to operate contrary to the regulations. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 49.0 | National Curriculum Development Centre 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources and rates charged at vote level for the financial year 2021/2022 and noted that the entity did not budget for NTR in the year under review; however, UGX.0.095Bn was collected. \uf0b7 According to the approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.42.16Bn out of which UGX. 40.72Bn was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX1.38Bn which is 3.3% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.40.72Bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totaling UGX. 39.027Bn resulting in an un-utilized warrant of UGX.1.7Bn representing an absorption level of 95.8%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of eleven (11) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of seventy-two (72) activities worth UGX.39.03Bn and noted that; Two (2) outputs with eleven (11) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.49Bn were fully implemented. Nine (9) outputs with sixty-one (61) activities worth UGX.38.54Bn were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that the Centre had receivables totaling to UGX.392,497,559 as at 30th June 2022 though there were no demand notes or reminders issued in the current year in regard to these arrears of revenue or any other serious action to ensure recovery. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas the Centre had outstanding domestic arrears of UGX.3.7 Bn as at the end of the FY 2020/2021, did not budget for domestic arrears 1,820,651,696 was spent to settle the arrears. |", "metadata": {"page": 536, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 30. | MaRCCI World bank Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project planned to receive US $1,269,440 out of which US $223,895.39 was received, resulting in a shortfall of US $1,045,544.61 which represents 82.36% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of forty-one (41) activities worth US $1,269,440 and noted that; One (1) output with two (2) activities and expenditure worth US$ 5,400 were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirty one (31) activities worth US $219,803 were partially/ non-implemented, three (3) outputs with Eight (8) activities worth US $81,280 were not implemented at all. |\n|---:|------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 50 | Pharm-Biotechnology and Traditional Medicine (Pharmbiotrac) Centre Ace Ii Project Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the Funds disbursement schedules revealed that a sum of USD. 290,728 (60.3%) was received in the year under review out of the expected amount of USD. 1,719,039 resulting into a shortfall of USD. 1,428,311. This represents a performance of only 17% of the target. \uf0b7 The Project received USD. 290,728 during the financial year, and it also had balances brought forward of USD. 1,003,605, thus making a total of USD. 1,294,333 available for spending in the year. Out pf the available funds, a sum of USD. 1,073,844 was spent, leading to a funds absorption rate 83%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of one (1) output that had been fully quantified with a total of six (6) activities worth USD. 52,351 and noted that; o In this One (1) output, only two (2) activities were fully implemented. o In this output no activity was partially implemented. o In this output, four (4) activities were not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of USD. 5,396.68 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities (in form of excess expenditure) without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. |", "metadata": {"page": 536, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 51. | Opec Fund for International Development (OFID)-Vocational Education Project Phase 11 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the project was supposed to receive UGX.22.1Bn but only received a total of UGX UGX.3.1 Bn \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total of UGX.18.87Bn availed for financing the Project for the year under review only UGX.2.9Bn (15%) had been absorbed. \uf0b7 I noted that the Project was planned to be concluded by December 2021 but extended to 2024 due to slow progress of implementation. I noted that except for supply of institute buses which accounts for 22 % of Component 2 and supply of equipment and tools which constitutes 16% of the total project budget, the procurement of the remaining training supplies i.e. Furniture, tractors and off-shelf Workshop & ICT equipment and text books had not taken off by the time of concluding the audit. \uf0b7 I noted that while key among the outputs of the consultancy services is the development of Training Plan for the selected 8 Technical Institutions, the competence based curriculum was not yet in place |\n|---:|------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 52 | Uganda Skills Development Project (USDP)- PSFU Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the Project effective date was 28th October 2016 and the closure date scheduled for end December 2022. During the period the project had cumulatively received total of USD.22.6million for the entire project period representing a 100% budget performance. \uf0b7 Out of the cumulative amount received over the years, a sum of USD.22.3 million had been accounted for by the end of the financial year leaving a balance of USD. 269,151.09 outstanding. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the total available funds of UGX.10.28Bn during the financial year, UGX.10.06Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.22Bn representing an absorption level of 98%. |\n| 1 | 53 | Uganda Skills Development Project (USDP) -MOES Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total available funds of UGX. 149.2Bn during the financial year, a sum of UGX. 61.3Bn was spent by the Project, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 87.8Bn representing an absorption level of 41%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of (3) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of nine (9) activities worth UGX.47.2Bn and noted that; One (1) output with one (1) activity and expenditure worth UGX.31.4Bn was fully implemented. One (1) output with seven (7) activities worth UGX.7.6Bn was partially implemented while one (1) output with one (1) activity worth 6.4Bn was not implemented at all. \uf0b7 I noted that the Project had 20 ongoing construction works worth UGX. 114Bn at various Technical Colleges and Vocational Training Institutes (VTIs) which were still incomplete by the close of the financial year. \uf0b7 A review of the procurement files and contract management reports revealed that the suppliers had not fully installed, tested and trained users on equipment supplied to the project. |", "metadata": {"page": 537, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 55. | The Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education And Research For Development (Norhed) 2020 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st January 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under NORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing agreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. \uf0b7 I noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 (USD.167,049). \uf0b7 I further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only NOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption rate of only 53.4%. |\n|---:|:------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | | GENDER AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTOR | |\n| 1 | 1.0 | UNFPA Funded Programme UGA09GBV/PGUG12 Sep 2021 Implemented by MGLSD Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that expenditure amounting to UGX.1,074,783 was not supported contrary to the requirements of the Treasury Instructions. \uf0b7 I noted that the Ministry recruited GBV support officers as volunteers who earned a basic allowance, however, their contracts indicated that they earned a monthly salary of UGX.500,000, which is above the PAYE threshold and qualifies for PAYE deductions as per the income Tax Act. |\n| 2 | 2.0 | UNFPA funded programme Ref; GPECMUGA and UGA09GBV Dec, 2021 Implemented by Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (MOJCA)- Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 No reportable issues |\n| 3 | 3.0 | Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 13.271Bn, only UGX. 12.648Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.623Bn representing an absorption level of 95%. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 100 quantified activities worth UGX.12.59Bn assessed; 90 activities representing 90% were fully implemented, 5 activities representing 5% were partially implemented, while 5 activities representing 5% were not implemented. I also noted absence of a detailed risk register of risks and funds to the tune of UGX. 0.126Bn were irregularly diverted. |", "metadata": {"page": 539, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 55. | The Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education And Research For Development (Norhed) 2020 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st January 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under NORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing agreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. \uf0b7 I noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 (USD.167,049). \uf0b7 I further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only NOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption rate of only 53.4%. |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 One piece of land accommodating EOC headquarters with a leasehold for 89 years measuring 0.180Ha, lacked a title as it was reported lost. In addition it was not recorded in the fixed asset register and on the GFMIS fixed asset module. \uf0b7 There are long outstanding receivables of UGX.247.98M which relate to outstanding salary advances to staff. \uf0b7 I noted that there is fusion of the Board and Management where members of the Commission were involved in the day to day activities of the Commission. \uf0b7 One IT systems/equipment procured at UGX 225Mn was not cleared by NITA-U, there were no specific structures to steer and oversee ICT implementation, and no approved IT staff structure in place or approved IT risk management framework/policy and risk register. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 540, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 55. | The Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education And Research For Development (Norhed) 2020 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st January 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under NORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing agreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. \uf0b7 I noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 (USD.167,049). \uf0b7 I further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only NOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption rate of only 53.4%. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 4 | Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MoGLSD) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.282.50Bn a sum of UGX. 271.46 was warranted, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.11.042Bn. The shortfall represents 3.9% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the year of UGX.271.46Bn a sum of UGX.271.46Bn was spent by the entity representing an absorption level of 100 %. \uf0b7 I noted that of the 110 quantified activities worth UGX.219.9Bn assessed; 62 activities representing 56% were fully implemented, 10 activities representing 9% were partially implemented, while 38 activities representing 35% were not implemented. \uf0b7 Out of UGX.9.39Bn budgeted NTR, UGX.13.83Bn was collected, representing a performance of 147% of the target. \uf0b7 I noted that 10 pieces of titled land measuring 73.8367 hectares were not recorded in the land register and GFMIS fixed asset module, 3 pieces measuring approximately 2.33 hectares had encumbrances while 27 pieces measuring 139.2042 hectares (73%) were not titled. \uf0b7 I noted that UGX.9.2Bn remained recovered under Uganda women Empowered Program (UWEP) and recoveries worth UGX.8.5Bn were not transferred to Bank of Uganda. In addition, UGX.2.95Bn on Uganda women Empowered Program - UWEP National Recovery Account was un-tagged to any District. \uf0b7 A sum of UGX.0.814 on Youth Livelihood Program-YLP National Recovery Account remained un-tagged to any District, and UGX.39.010Bn remained un-recovered from the youth groups. \uf0b7 I noted that the Ministry lacks effective measures to Curb the increasing number of Street Children. Out of UGX.0.142Bn planned for implementation of street children activities, only UGX.0.044Bn (69%) was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX 0.098 Bn (31%). \uf0b7 I noted that one IT systems procured at UGX.53M was not cleared by NITA-U and two IT systems with a total cost of UGX.50Mn were not being optimally utilized while three (3) projects with a total cost of UGX.1.013Bn were not implemented within the specified timelines. |", "metadata": {"page": 540, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 55. | The Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education And Research For Development (Norhed) 2020 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st January 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under NORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing agreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. \uf0b7 I noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 (USD.167,049). \uf0b7 I further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only NOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption rate of only 53.4%. |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that of thirty-seven (37) pieces of land measuring approximately 217.4869 Hectares, 10 pieces measuring approximately 78.2827 Hectares titles were not transferred to the Uganda Land Commission. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 5.0 | National Council for People with Disabilities Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The NCPD had a budget of UGX.1.2bn out of which only 0.838bn was received representing 69% and a budget shortfall of 31%. The shortfall hampered the implementation of planned activities such as the monitoring of human rights violations against persons with Disabilities and the development of a monitoring and Evaluation Framework for National Council for Persons with Disabilities. \uf0b7 I noted that the NCPD has 5 pieces of land across the country transferred from the Uganda Foundation for the Blind but only, 1 piece in Kireka is titled but not fully secured as it is heavily encroached. 1 Piece of land in Lira District is surveyed but not titled while the rest are neither surveyed not titled. \uf0b7 Outstanding payables increased by UGX. 163,200,000 (30%), from UGX. 539,360,000 as at 30th June 2021 to UGX. 702,560,000 as at 30th June 2022.This was majorly in respect of cumulative unpaid staff gratuity for five (5) consecutive financial years |\n| 2 | 6.0 | National Council for Older Persons (NCOP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts of UGX.0.726Bn for the financial year, only UGX. 0.724Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1.855Mn representing an absorption level of 99.7%. \uf0b7 I noted that four (4) outputs with twelve (12) activities and expenditure of UGX. 0.724Bn sampled for assessment were not quantified. \uf0b7 I noted that NCOP did not prepare and submit the annual monitoring plans to the Ministry of Gender for consolidation and onward submission to MoFPED and NPA Similarly NCOP did not prepare and submit quarterly monitoring reports to the Ministry of Gender for onward submission to the Office of the Prime Minister and MoFPED as required. \uf0b7 I noted that NCOP spent UGX.6.031Mn on vehicle repairs and maintenance without pre and post vehicle inspection/assessment by the Government Chief Mechanical Engineer. |", "metadata": {"page": 541, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 55. | The Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education And Research For Development (Norhed) 2020 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st January 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under NORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing agreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. \uf0b7 I noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 (USD.167,049). \uf0b7 I further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only NOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption rate of only 53.4%. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 7 | Uganda National Cultural Centre Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity had an approved budget of UGX 12.765,000,000, out of which UGX. 9,724,000,000 was availed, resulting in a shortfall of UGX 3,041,000,000 which is 24% of the budget. Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.13.036Bn, UGX.13.050Bn was spent resulting into an excess expenditure of UGX.0.014Bn representing an absorption level of 103%. \uf0b7 I noted that 4 activities worth UGX. 13.039Bn were fully implemented representing 100% performance. \uf0b7 I noted that 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 4.446 hectares owned by UNCC, were not transferred into the custody of the Uganda Land Commission as required. I also noted that one (1) piece of land at Nommo Gallery, was being used contrary to the approved purpose in the entity Strategic Plan. |", "metadata": {"page": 541, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 55. | The Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education And Research For Development (Norhed) 2020 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st January 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under NORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing agreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. \uf0b7 I noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 (USD.167,049). \uf0b7 I further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only NOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption rate of only 53.4%. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted non-recognition of arrears of revenue from M/S Creation Limited amounting to UGX 1,600,000,000 as reported in the financial statements. Additionally, management had long stopped billing M/S Creation Limited on account of lack of interest from the client/tenant to pay since 2017, despite continued occupying the premises. \uf0b7 I noted that the board term of office had expired in May 2022 thus the Centre is operating without oversight roles and duties of the board being performed. \uf0b7 I noted staffing gap of 21 (30%) vacancies as only 48 positions (70%) out of the approved establishment of 69 posts were filled. \uf0b7 I noted that UNCC did not conduct Non Tax Revenue assessment and failed to enforce Tenancy Agreement terms and its Board of trustees had expired. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 8.0 | The National Children Authority (NCA) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Authority had an approved budget of UGX.0.909Bn out of which UGX.0.905Bn was released, resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.004Bn. The shortfall represents 0.4% of the approved budget. Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.0.905Bn, only UGX.0.904Bn was spent resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.00028Bn representing an absorption level of 99.9%. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the six (6) outputs quantified and assessed worth UGX.0.905Bn; two (2) outputs with two (2) activities were fully implemented, four (4) outputs with thirteen (13) activities worth UGX.0.378Bn were partially implemented, while five (5) activities remained unimplemented. The entity did not maintain a detailed risk register to mitigate implementation risks or to minimise their impact. \uf0b7 The entity did not have a Governing Board and Committees Contrary to section 9 (c) (1) and 9 (J) (1) of the Children\u2019s Amendment Act (2016) which could affect the entity\u2019s ability to achieve the set objectives and mandate. \uf0b7 The entity did not have an approved staff structure clearly showing the departments and requisite staffing levels (staff establishment) and currently operates with only 10 employees. |", "metadata": {"page": 542, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 55. | The Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education And Research For Development (Norhed) 2020 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st January 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under NORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing agreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. \uf0b7 I noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 (USD.167,049). \uf0b7 I further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only NOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption rate of only 53.4%. |\n|---:|------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 9 | National Library of Uganda Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The entity had an approved budget of UGX. 1,068,432,118, out of which UGX. 941,329,988 was received, leading to a shortfall of UGX 127,102,130, which was 12 % of the budget The entity budgeted to receive UGX.0.1Bn from development partners, out of which UGX.0.185Bn was availed, resulting in an over performance of UGX0.07Bn, which is 1.6% of the budget. The entity budgeted to collect NTR of 0.05Bn during the year under review. Out of this, only 0.049 Bn was collected, representing a performance of 98% of the target. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of nine (9) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of ten (10) activities worth UGX 0.813Bn and noted that; Two (2) outputs with two (2) activities and expenditure worth UGX 0.03Bn were fully implemented. Two (02) outputs with three (3) activities worth UGX.0.27Bn were partially implemented, while Five (5) outputs were not implemented. \uf0b7 The library has an approved staffing structure of 32 staff out of whichonly 22 (68%) positions are filled leaving 10 (32%) vacant. |", "metadata": {"page": 542, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 55. | The Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education And Research For Development (Norhed) 2020 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st January 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under NORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing agreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. \uf0b7 I noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 (USD.167,049). \uf0b7 I further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only NOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption rate of only 53.4%. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted from management that no board has been constituted by the responsible Minister since 2018. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 10.0 | National Women\u2019s Council Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Council had an approved budget of UGX 2.8Bn out of which UGX.2.848Bn was availed. Out of the available funds of UGX.2.848Bn, UGX.2.832Bn was spent representing an absorption level of 99%. \uf0b7 I noted that out of the seven (07) activities worth UGX.0.446Bn, the entity fully implemented one (01) activity; two (02) activities were partially implemented, while four (04) activities remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 The Council had outstanding payables of UGX 35 million relating to unpaid taxes in the period under review. |\n| 2 | 11.0 | National Youth Council Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Council budgeted to receive UGX. 2.076Bn out of which UGX.2.074Bn was received, a performance of 99.95% of its approved budget for the year. Out of the total receipts of UGX. 2.076 Bn UGX. 2.074Bn was spent representing an absorption level of 99.95%. \uf0b7 I noted that four (04) outputs with five (05) quantified activities amounting to UGX 0.085Bn were assessed as follows; 2 activities representing 40% were fully implemented, 2 activities representing 40% were partially implemented, while 1 activity representing 20% was not implemented. \uf0b7 The Council had outstanding payables totalling to UGX 175Mn as presented in the statement of financial position. \uf0b7 I also noted inadequate staffing of key personnel with only 8 (57%) out of approved posts of 14, filled leaving 7 (43%) posts vacant. |\n| 3 | 12.0 | National Social Security Fund Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that under Clauses 8.1.2 and 10.2 of the agreement between GOU and NSSF under the Bwebajja Project that GOU was required to budget for and include the upfront payment and annuity fees upon commencement of construction in its annual budget plans to ensure that there is adequate appropriation of funds to meet GOU\u2019s payment commitments. Additionally, GOU was expected to make an upfront payment of UGX.95 billion on the third anniversary of commencement of construction, which was not done. In addition, the project appears to be behind schedule and this may occasion significant implementation risks. |", "metadata": {"page": 543, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 55. | The Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education And Research For Development (Norhed) 2020 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas Section 1.2 of the Partnership Agreement stated that the Programme Projects would commence on 1st January 2021, I noted that funds disbursements were received late towards the year end for all the Projects under NORHED II Programme. The delays ranged from 4- 11 months, depending on the completion of implementing agreements of the various projects. Late disbursement of funds may have affected the implementation of planned project activities. \uf0b7 I noted, out of the NOK 7,753,259 (USD.846,508) budgeted under the Programme, only NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048) was received, which is 76% performance. This led to a budget shortfall of NOK 1,862,296 (USD.167,049). \uf0b7 I further noted that out of the released funds to the Programme totaling to NOK 5,890,963 (USD.679,048), only NOK 3,146,879 (USD.362,801) was utilized by the Programme projects, indicating a programme funds absorption rate of only 53.4%. |\n|---:|------:|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 13 | UNFPA Country Programme Component of Data and Populationdynamics Implemented by Ministry of Gender, Labour & Social Development (Mglsd) 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that expenditure amounting to UGX.1,074,783 was not supported contrary to the requirements of the Treasury Instructions. \uf0b7 I noted that the Ministry recruited GBV support officers as volunteers who earned a basic allowance, however, their contracts indicated that they earned a monthly salary of UGX.500,000, which is above the PAYE threshold and qualifies for PAYE deductions as per the income Tax Act. |", "metadata": {"page": 543, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | HEALTH SECTOR | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 1 | Moroto RRH Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not have a strategic plan that had been approved by NPA. \uf0b7 I reviewed the approved Local revenue estimates for the financial year 2021/2022 and noted that the Hospital did not budget to collect during the year. However, Moroto RRH did collect UGX. 13,136,750. \uf0b7 The Hospital budgeted to receive UGX. 9,624,678,535 as grants from the Treasury. However, UGX. 9,003,682,579 (95.5%) was warranted and UGX. 8,560,717,959 (88.9%) received respectively. \uf0b7 Moroto RRH did not budget to receive external/donor financing. But UGX. 2,180,676,879 was received as Off-Budget Financing. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 8,560,717,959, UGX. 8,553,113,589 (99.9%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 7,604,370 (0.1%). \uf0b7 Moroto RRH did not maintain a Non-Tax- Revenue register as required despite the Hospital collecting NTR revenue of UGX.13,136,750 during the year under review. \uf0b7 A review of payment vouchers revealed that funds amounting to UGX.22,887,500 did not have supporting documentation to provide evidence of occurrence of the activities for which they were drawn. \uf0b7 I noted that Moroto RRH had off-budget financing amounting to UGX.2,312,143,345 and out of this, UGX.1,746,648,373 was spent; leaving unspent funds at the year-end of UGX.565,494,972 \uf0b7 It was observed that UGX. 29,918,000 remained unaccounted for under the WHO fund account. \uf0b7 Audit observed that the Administration Block that houses offices of administrators is dilapidated. \uf0b7 I observed that Moroto RRH did not have a policy on Motor vehicle Management. \uf0b7 The Hospital has an approved structure of 420 staff and only 268 (63.8%) are filled leaving a staffing gap of 152 (36.2%). \uf0b7 Procurements worth UGX. 342,136,804 did not have procurement records in place. \uf0b7 The Hospital management did not implement the recommended disposal of the Hospital assets. This recommendation was made in the financial year ended June 2021. |", "metadata": {"page": 545, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \uf0b7 I noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) was realized. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \uf0b7 I also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \uf0b7 I noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \uf0b7 I noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of conclusion of my audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to seek such services from nearby health facilities. \uf0b7 I noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \uf0b7 I noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication Ltd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 4 | The Country Coordinating Mechanism December 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of a total of USD.555,693 available for spending during the year only USD.515,017 was spent resulting into an unspent balance of UGX.40,676 representing 7.3% of the available funds. \uf0b7 Out of a total of USD.555,693 available for spending during the year only USD.515,017 was spent resulting into an unspent balance of UGX.40,676 representing 7.3% of the available funds. \uf0b7 Out of a total of USD.555,693 available for spending during the year only USD.515,017 was spent resulting into an unspent balance of UGX.40,676 representing 7.3% of the available funds. |\n| 1 | 5 | Uganda Debt-swap (Kawolo- Busolwe General Hospitals) Project | \uf0b7 I noted that the refurbishment of Busolwe General Hospital whose proposed scope was estimated to cost USD 5,532,792.38 has delayed to commence to-date despite the fact that the project designs had been approved by the Bi-National Committee a year ago in December 2021. |", "metadata": {"page": 549, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \uf0b7 I noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) was realized. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \uf0b7 I also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \uf0b7 I noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \uf0b7 I noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of conclusion of my audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to seek such services from nearby health facilities. \uf0b7 I noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \uf0b7 I noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication Ltd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 550, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \uf0b7 I noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) was realized. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \uf0b7 I also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \uf0b7 I noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \uf0b7 I noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of conclusion of my audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to seek such services from nearby health facilities. \uf0b7 I noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \uf0b7 I noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication Ltd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 6 | ADB \u2013UCI East Africa's Centres of Excellence for Skills and Tertiary Education in Biomedical Sciences Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The project expected to receive UGX.24.67Bn from Africa Development Bank/Fund (ADB/F) but only UGX.21.57Bn was received resulting into a shortfall of UGX.3.10Bn (11.63%). \uf0b7 Out of the total funds available of UGX.31,632,037,899, the project spent a total of UGX.24,381,361,189 resulting into unspent balance of UGX.7,250,676,710. The unspent balance majorly relates to uncompleted works (progress at 68%) for the Multi- Purpose building for cancer treatment and research. \uf0b7 I noted the following anomalies regarding the construction of the Multipurpose building for which Roko Construction Ltd was the contractor: o Roko\u2019s contract expired on 30th December 2020 and the Bank objected to any further extensions. o Management cashed the performance bond of UGX8bn after Roko Construction failed to perform as per contract o Inconsistencies in the valuation of completed works between Certificates 6 and 7 with Certificate 6 dated 7th September 2021 having the total value of certified works as USD.10,136,181 and Certificate 7 dated 24th May 2022 having a total value of works completed being USD.9,691,293 hence a decrease in the value of works of USD 444,887. o An overpayment to Roko of USD.82,444. o UCI did not claim for liquidated damages amounting to USD.68,137.4 from Roko Construction Limited even after the Institute became aware of Roko\u2019s failure to deliver the contract. \uf0b7 The consultant had been paid USD.913,983 (95%) of the contract sum yet the progress of construction works that the consultant was supervising was only 69% as at 30th June 2022. The contract for consultancy services for the design and construction supervision expired in April 2020 and had never been renewed. \uf0b7 By 30.06.22, a total of USD.851,608 (80% of the contract sum) was paid to M/S MFI document solutions for the supply of ICT and Telemedicine Equipment. However, by at the time of the audit, the ICT equipment had not yet been delivered and installed. I further observed that the KCB bank performance guarantee presented by the supplier to the institute expired on 31/03/2022. There is a risk of loss of funds \uf0b7 A total of USD.483,000 (20% of the contract sum) was advanced to a supplier in March 2020 for the supply of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). However, at the time of the audit the MRI scanner had not yet been delivered and installed. I further observed that the Stanbic Bank performance guarantee IG21293UG0101204 presented by the supplier to the Institute expired on 18th October 2022. \uf0b7 USD.176,600 (20%) had been advanced to a supplier in March 2020 for the supply of Laboratory Furniture but at the time of the audit, the furniture had not yet been delivered. |", "metadata": {"page": 550, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \uf0b7 I noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) was realized. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \uf0b7 I also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \uf0b7 I noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \uf0b7 I noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of conclusion of my audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to seek such services from nearby health facilities. \uf0b7 I noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \uf0b7 I noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication Ltd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that the project staff were paid salaries to the tune of UGX.287,225,467 and UGX.83,170,756 was deducted as PAYE out of which UGX.31,289,385 was remitted resulting in to an under remittance of UGX.51,881,371. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 7.0 | Uganda Reproductive Maternal and Child Health Services Improvement Project (URMCHSIP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the available budget of USD180Mn, a total of USD 131.7Mn was spent resulting into unutilized balance of USD 17,056,967 yet the project was closing in December 2022, a month away. \uf0b7 I noted that, as at 30th September 2022, the digitalized system for verification of outputs and invoicing which had been rolled out by the Ministry to all the 131 districts was being utilised by only 98% of the districts to verify outputs and generate invoices. \uf0b7 Despite the significant contribution of URMCHSIP to the mandate of the health sector and bearing in mind that the project interventions will be closing by 31st December 2022 and finally end by June 2023, measures have not been put in place by the Ministry to guide the sustainable financing of the project interventions after close of project. \uf0b7 A local firm was contracted in June 2022 to develop a Birth and Death and Adoption Orders Registration System (BDAR) through NIRA. However by the time of reporting in December 2022 this had not been done. The performance gurantees were also still outstanding. \uf0b7 Whereas 200 computers were supplied and delivered to NIRA in September 2022 for use in High Volume HC IIIs to support in Notification of Health Facility Deaths and Births, they had not yet been distributed to the intended beneficiaries by November 2022. \uf0b7 Contrary to the RBF implementation manual, a total of UGX. 2,771,416,463 transferred to various Health facilities meant for the maintenance (medicines and other supplies) lacked the required accountabilities. |", "metadata": {"page": 551, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \uf0b7 I noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) was realized. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \uf0b7 I also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \uf0b7 I noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \uf0b7 I noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of conclusion of my audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to seek such services from nearby health facilities. \uf0b7 I noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \uf0b7 I noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication Ltd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 8 | Uganda Cancer Institute 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the entity had prepared its Strategic Plan for the period 2020/21 \u2013 2024/25. However, although the plan was submitted to National Planning Authority (NPA) it had not yet been certified by the time of reporting. There is a risk that activities implemented during the financial year 2020/21 were not aligned to the NDP-III, which negatively affects the achievement of NDP-III objectives. \uf0b7 I reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources and rates charged at vote level for the financial year 2020/21 and noted that although the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX.1.95Bn during the year under review, only UGX.1.58Bn was collected resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.37bn (representing under performance of 18.97% of the target). Shortfalls in NTR collections affect the implementation of planned activities at Government wide level. \uf0b7 UCI budgeted to receive UGX.37.76Bn out of which UGX.37.11Bn was warranted, resulting into a shortfall of UGX.0.65Bn (representing 1.72% of the budget). Revenue shortfalls affect the implementation of planned activities. \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX. 82,520,767 were irregularly reallocated from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. Unauthorized reallocation of funds is not |", "metadata": {"page": 551, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \uf0b7 I noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) was realized. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \uf0b7 I also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \uf0b7 I noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \uf0b7 I noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of conclusion of my audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to seek such services from nearby health facilities. \uf0b7 I noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \uf0b7 I noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication Ltd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | only contrary to the Public Finance and Management Act, but it negatively affects the delivery of services and negates the purpose of budgeting. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.161,782,565 meant for contract staff salaries were reallocated and spent on permanent staff salary payments without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 A review of the Hospital\u2019s NTR records revealed that the Accounting Officer waived off Radiography fees worth UGX.35,610,000 during the year under review. However, there was no policy in place to guide management on waivers. These waivers can be abused. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 9.0 | Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.148.22bn received during the financial year, the Institute submitted invoices totaling UGX.147.64Bn resulting in unutilized warrants of UGX.0.58Bn representing an absorption level of 99.6%. \uf0b7 Funds amounting to UGX.269,511,315 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The Institute paid domestic arrears incurred outside the appropriated budget to a tune of UGX.1,351,175,775. \uf0b7 I was not provided with supporting documents for expenditure of UGX.292,502,866. \uf0b7 The Institute has two (2) IT systems which were not integrated and not automatically sharing information with other systems which leads to inefficiencies. \uf0b7 I reviewed the implementation of ICT activities and noted that there was no; approved IT risk management framework/policy and risk register at the entity and business continuity plan. \uf0b7 Management under paid pension to a tune of UGX.31,103,361 and did not pay gratuity of UGX.24,928,278. |\n| 2 | 10.0 | China Uganda Friendship Hospital Naguru Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.10.870Bn, only UGX.9.99Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.878Bn (representing an absorption level of 91.92%). As a result, of the 28 quantified activities |", "metadata": {"page": 552, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \uf0b7 I noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) was realized. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \uf0b7 I also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \uf0b7 I noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \uf0b7 I noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of conclusion of my audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to seek such services from nearby health facilities. \uf0b7 I noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \uf0b7 I noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication Ltd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | worth UGX.0.996Bn assessed; 25 activities (representing 89%) were fully implemented, 2 activities (representing 7.1%) were partially implemented while 1 activity remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 Two (2) land titles for land measuring approximately 1.259ha were not transferred into the names and custody of the Uganda Land Commission contrary to the Treasury Accounting Instructions. \uf0b7 The Hospital\u2019s Procurement and Disposal Unit which is supposed to have two (2) staff, according to the approved staff establishment, has only one (1) staff in post handling all procurement duties. This can lead to internal control overrides. \uf0b7 During inspection of the Hospital Stores, I observed that the storage area was small and medicines were congested with the medicines on the floors instead of pallets and boxes leaning onto the walls. In addition, the store was not well lit and was poorly ventilated. \uf0b7 Fourteen (14) tracer drugs selected experienced stock-outs ranging from 42 to 312 days. Stock-outs erode patients\u2019 confidence in the public health care system, which compels them to seek inappropriate and expensive alternative health care services elsewhere. \uf0b7 Management experienced delays of up to 54 days in delivery of medicines and sundries to the hospital by National Medical Stores. \uf0b7 Examination of end-of-year stock balances for essential medicines revealed that some of the drugs had expired | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 553, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \uf0b7 I noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) was realized. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \uf0b7 I also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \uf0b7 I noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \uf0b7 I noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of conclusion of my audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to seek such services from nearby health facilities. \uf0b7 I noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \uf0b7 I noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication Ltd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 11 | China Uganda Friendship Hospital Naguru 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Through document review (interviews), I noted that the entity had prepared a draft five-year strategic plan FY 2020/21- 2024/25 which had not yet been approved by the National Planning Authority at the time of audit. Failure to have timely approval of the strategic plan by the NPA leads to non-alignment of the operational plans with the strategic plan which negatively affects the achievement of NDP-III objectives. \uf0b7 I reviewed the NTR estimates, revenue sources and rates charged at vote level for the financial year 2020/21 and noted that the entity budgeted to collect NTR of UGX. 234,656,317 during the year under review. Out of this, only UGX. 142,441,055 was collected, representing a performance of 60.7% of the target. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.10.362Bn received during the financial year. UGX. 10.13Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.232Bn representing an absorption level of 97.8%. \uf0b7 I noted the Hospital received off-budget financing to a tune of UGX.254,095,329, which was not declared to treasury and, therefore, not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. These funds were received directly from development partners for undertaking activities not budgeted for. \uf0b7 Three suppliers whose outstanding arrears were UGX.516,952,824 as at the end of FY 2019/20 were paid a total of UGX 636,305,508. Therefore, UGX.119,352,684 was paid to the suppliers in excess of the outstanding amounts. Despite the fact that UGX.119,352,684 was paid to three providers in excess of their outstanding domestic arrears, five suppliers with arrears totalling to UGX.102,668,097 were not paid. \uf0b7 The hospital structure has 349 approved positions. However, only 297 (85%) positions were filled and 52 (15%) positions were vacant by the end of the year under review. The hospital lacked a neurosurgeon to build the capacity of the emergency |", "metadata": {"page": 553, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \uf0b7 I noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) was realized. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \uf0b7 I also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \uf0b7 I noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \uf0b7 I noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of conclusion of my audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to seek such services from nearby health facilities. \uf0b7 I noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \uf0b7 I noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication Ltd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | services and reduce unnecessary referrals. Inadequate staffing undermines the achievement of strategic objectives and affects service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted that the information system at the hospital is manual and there is no linkage between the point of admission of a patient, to treatment, laboratory, pharmacy, billing, payment and finally discharge as there are no patient records and as such it is difficult to confirm completeness of the fees billed since the current system cannot completely and quickly show the services consumed by a particular patient. Failure to integrate the systems leads to loss of revenue as it is difficult to quickly establish the services different patients have consumed, paid for, and those that have not been paid for. \uf0b7 There was a continued challenge concerning inadequate ward space especially for the Pediatrics, inpatient care for malnourished children, new born care and isolation of patients with contagious diseases. Congestion at the hospital with patients crowded in the wards and some sleeping on the floors exposes the patients to spread of contagious diseases. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 554, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that funds to the tune of UGX.30,626,159 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital has failed to remit these taxes to URA and has been outstanding for the last two years. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not pay NSSF Contributions amounting UGX. 8,378,688 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff on contract contrary to the law. \uf0b7 I noted that out of budgeted total revenue of UGX. 20,099,113,265 for the year 2021/2022, UGX. 20,111,753,711 (100%) was realized. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 20.11Bn UGX.14.46Bn (72%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.5.64Bn (28%). \uf0b7 I noted that the Regional Referral Hospital received off-budget financing of UGX. 2,824,625,391, which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted that domestic arrears worth UGX.17.2Mn which were not budgeted for during the year \uf0b7 I also noted expenditure on unbudgeted items \uf0b7 I noted that the oxygen plant was acquired by the Hospital inv2017 but broke down in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. \uf0b7 I noted that out of four x-ray machines owned by the Hospital, only one is functional but was not in use by the time of conclusion of my audit. \uf0b7 I noted that the hospital lacked a CT scan and therefore cannot offer such services to its patients but rather refer them to seek such services from nearby health facilities. \uf0b7 I noted that Mbale RRH has inadequate facilities to provide the range of services expected of a regional referral hospital \uf0b7 I noted during my review that management of the Hospital paid UGX. 15Mn as contribution to M/S Independent publication Ltd. for publication/inclusion of the hospital in a handbook on health sector performance in Uganda. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 12 | Mbarara RRH Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of UGX.8,686,536,283, UGX.7,319,187,794 (84%) was spent by the entity on salaries, pension and gratuity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1,367,348,489 that were returned to the consolidated fund. \uf0b7 RRH underpaid UGX.56,327,519 in respect of pension and gratuity. \uf0b7 4 newly recruited employees failed to access the payroll by the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 UGX.521, 912 relating to 2 employees was deducted past the end date according to my active deductions report. \uf0b7 UGX.17,719,439 deducted monthly from 72 employees, had loans with regular end dates ranging from 96 to 234 months. \uf0b7 RHH has arrears of UGX.1, 096,830,103, spanning as far as 12 years ago these relate to majorly unpaid utilities. \uf0b7 Out of budgeted total revenue of UGX.18, 030,255,546 for the year 2021/2022, UGX.16,028,761,438 (89%) was realized thus affecting operations of the private wing. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts of UGX.16, 489,165,699, UGX.15, 075,132,144 (91%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1, 414,033,555 (9%) that were returned to the consolidated fund. This affected majorly payment of salaries and pension. \uf0b7 UGX.2, 158,463,042 received by the RRH from development partners was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. \uf0b7 I noted a slow progress of works on 32 of the 56 Unit staff house under construction. Works remained at 30% yet the completion date was 22/07/2022. \uf0b7 UGX.69, 820,000 was paid for a Video Conferencing Equipment that remained un-utilized by the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 Out of 388 positions in the establishment register for the RHH, only 315 positions were filled leaving 73 (19%) positions vacant. |\n| 1 | 13 | Masaka RRH Opinion | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.7,188,852,354, UGX.6,475,538,668 was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.713,343,686, representing an under absorption level of 9.9% |", "metadata": {"page": 554, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted an under payment of UGX.73,203,538 in respect of pension and gratuity. the underfunding was mainly caused by Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) ceilings communicated by MoFPED. \uf0b7 15 newly recruited/ transferred employees delayed to access payroll, with average delays of 29 days (4 weeks) \uf0b7 UGX.8,878,853 relating to 8 staff was underpaid as a result of the delayed access and payment. \uf0b7 3 new pensioners/beneficiaries delayed to access pension payroll, with average delays of 6 days (1weeks). \uf0b7 MoPS made deductions from staff on behalf of UCLA/UBA amounting to UGX.36,611,225 relating to 12 employees and the amount lacked letters of undertaking or consent letters \uf0b7 UGX.14,473,215 relating to 8 employees was deducted by UCLA/UBA past the end date. \uf0b7 Noted unrealistic loan end dates for 8 employees ranging from 111 to 1663 years. In the year under review, UGX.23,704,932 had been deducted from these employees \uf0b7 UCLA/UBA deducted UGX.17,460,348 from 21 staff without approval of the Accounting Officer from the PDMS \uf0b7 The Hospital had wrongly deducted the LST of 255 employees resulting into an under deduction of UGX.7,916,250. \uf0b7 Through a re-computation of PAYE, I noted that the Referral Hospital had wrongly computed the PAYE of 271 employees resulting into an under payment of UGX.6,170,287. \uf0b7 Compared the deductions in the IPPS payroll registers with the remittances/payments in the IFMS details XML payment file and noted an under remittance amounting to UGX.58,592,895. \uf0b7 There were variances of UGX.106,777,757 between the IPPS payroll registers and interface files availed to the entity by the core FTP system. \uf0b7 The entity paid UGX.28,348,917 in respect of Salaries off IPPS \uf0b7 Noted funds amounting to UGX.54,934,223 relating to Pension were charged on account code 211101-General Staff Salaries other than 212102 that is prescribed for Pension. \uf0b7 Out of budgeted total revenue of UGX.12,967,092,147 for the year 2021/2022, UGX.12,976,969,799 (102.8%) was realized \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.12,967,092,144, UGX.12,241,302,938 (94%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.725,789,206 (5.9%). \uf0b7 Violation of Restricted Bidding Procedures for project of remodeling of maternity complex ground floor into ICU \uf0b7 The entity assets register did not conform to requirements as it lacked asset numbers, registration numbers, initial cost, recoverable cost. \uf0b7 Slow progress on implementation of capital works under construction of maternity and senor staff hostel. \uf0b7 Masaka Regional referral hospital received and utilized un-warranted off-budget financing from development partners a sum of UGX.4,586,597,602 which was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. |\n|---:|-------------:|:-----------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 14 | Arua RRH Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The Referral Hospital spent, UGX.7,041,373,112 on Salaries, Pension and Gratuity, representing 58% of the total expenditure of UGX.12,229,767,057. \uf0b7 18 newly recruited/ transferred employees delayed to access payroll, with average delays of 6 months (24 weeks). I further noted that UGX.97,500,429 relating to 14 staff was not paid because of the delayed access and payment. Delayed access of |", "metadata": {"page": 555, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Orthopaedic Workshop was adequately equipped and staffed. It lacked the following materials for operations; Polypropylene for making sockets, Eva Foams for making soft inserts, Pop powder for fabrication of devices, Knee Joint for Artificial limbs and Components for fabricating the limbs \uf0b7 Hospital Lagoon\u2019s fence was vandalized due to the absence of security and as a result manhole covers have been stolen and the community was using the land for grazing. \uf0b7 Arua Regional Referral Hospital private wing did not have an approved work plan and budget for the financial year 2019/2020.The strategic plan and budget is supposed to guide the budgeting process by creating integrated link with the general hospital annual work plans which feed into the budget to ensure effective service delivery and achievement of their vision, mission and objectives. \uf0b7 The hospital did not maintain a detailed risk register for all risks that may affect the implementation of activities as detailed in the approved work plans and budgets. As such, there were no strategies and officers responsible to mitigate the occurrence of such risks or to minimize the impact in the event that these risks materialized. The failure to maintain risk registers implies that the entity does not have a mitigation or response strategy to risks that may affect the achievement of planned activities. Referral Hospital showed that receipts and payments totaling UGX.2,692,383,900 did not go through GFMIS. It was further noted that these transactions were not disclosed in the financial statements for year under review. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 15 | Jinja RRH Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the year under review (FY 2021/22), Jinja RRH spent, UGX. 9,978,315,215 on salaries, Pension and Gratuity, representing 61% of the total expenditure of UGX. 16,236,829,143. \uf0b7 Jinja RRH budgeted to receive UGX.11,065,053,195 in respect of salaries, pension and gratuity during the year under review and received UGX. 11,065,053,193 representing 100% performance. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 11,065,053,193, UGX. 9,978,315,215 was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1,086,737,978 representing an absorption level of 90%. \uf0b7 Review of the payroll registers (IPPS) and IFMS payments revealed an under payment of UGX. 22,130,445 in respect of pension and gratuity. \uf0b7 Jinja RRH had wrongly computed the gratuity benefits of 06 pensioners who were paid gratuity during the year resulting into an overstatement of UGX. (15,917,110). \uf0b7 Jinja RRH had wrongly computed the pension benefits of 05 new pensioners (who were paid pension during the year) resulting into an overstatement of UGX. 172,855. \uf0b7 In addition, I compared the re-computed pension given the number of months the person was paid in the year and actual pension paid and noted an over payment of UGX. 1,466,274 to 04 pensioners/beneficiaries and an under payment of UGX. 4,413,861 to 02 pensioners/beneficiaries. \uf0b7 I noted that 15 newly recruited/ transferred employees delayed to access payroll, with average delays of 81 days (12 weeks). \uf0b7 I however, noted that 03 new pensioners/beneficiaries delayed to access pension payroll, with average delays of 24 days. |", "metadata": {"page": 558, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 17,570,129,321, UGX. 16,236,829,143 (92%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.1,333,300,178 (08%). The unspent balance at the end of the financial year was subsequently swept back to the consolidated fund account. \uf0b7 Reviews revealed that NTR had an initial budget amount of UGX. 813,349,837 and a revised amount of UGX. 885,620,813. however, there was no documentary evidence in terms of work plans and budget estimates to support the budget figure. \uf0b7 The private wing pharmacy lacked stock cards to show drugs received, drugs issued out and the balance at hand on any particular day. \uf0b7 There were no monthly, quarterly or annual drugs and medical supplies reconciliation records in place and as such, I was unable to ascertain the balance of stock at hand. \uf0b7 Inquiries revealed that the hospital had an auto clinic system that was supposed to help with daily reconciliations, however, this had been off for more than 5 months during the year and therefore was not up-to-date. \uf0b7 Inquiries revealed that the personnel working in the private pharmacy currently did not have the requisite technical knowledge to enable smooth operations. There was no evidence to show that these employees received training to equip them with the basic knowledge for running the operations of the pharmacy. \uf0b7 Inquiries revealed that there was no approved fees structure to guide in charging of patients. There was no evidence of fees being made public through notice boards and other strategic locations. \uf0b7 An inspection of the store revealed that Various drugs that expired during the year had not yet been removed from the shelves as required. \uf0b7 I also observed that the Hospital procures drugs with a short expiry period \uf0b7 An inspection of the medical stores revealed Leaking roof that lets in rain water hence contaminating the drugs, there were few shelves to handle all the drugs. Most drugs had been laid on the floor, the store was generally in a disorganized state, the approved structure recommends 3 positions in the store. However, only 1 position was filled leaving a staffing gap of 2 positions \uf0b7 Inspection of a sample of stock cards revealed that they had not been updated. For example, they lacked quantities in, and balances of items in stock, I also noted that management did not maintain a stock book. \uf0b7 I noted that the entity did not have a strategic plan that had been approved by NPA. \uf0b7 I observed that the budgets for 04 of the 05 outputs assessed were not supported by costings/budgets for each of the activities within these outputs. I was therefore unable to confirm if the funds allocated for these out-puts were reasonable and justifiable. \uf0b7 I noted that a number of assets that were identified by the Board of Survey Report in 2021 for disposal had not been disposed of by the time of audit (25th July 2022). | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 16 | Soroti RRH Opinion | \uf0b7 Out of UGX.7,484,933,156 received as wage, pension and gratuity, UGX.7,216,775,575 was spent, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.268,157,978 that was returned to the consolidated fund. This was due to failure to recruit staff. |", "metadata": {"page": 560, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 9,728,867,272, UGX. 9,460,702,687 (97%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.268,164,585 (3%). \uf0b7 The Hospital experienced drug stock outs for several essential medicines. \uf0b7 The Hospital experienced expiry of several essential medicines. \uf0b7 The hospital did not have a designated storage area for expired drugs. \uf0b7 Out of the Hospital\u2019s approved staff list of 289, only 194 (67%) were filled. \uf0b7 The hospital did not maintain a detailed risk register. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 17 | Hoima RRH Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of UGX. 7,354,467,299 received as wage, pension and gratuity, only UGX. 7,141,440,796 was spent, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 213,026,503 that was returned to the consolidated fund. This was due to failure to recruit heath workers and delayed submission of pensioner\u2019s documentation for payment by the RRH. \uf0b7 RRH overpaid UGX. 1,273,933 in respect of salaries. The Accounting officer promised to recover the funds from the respective employees. \uf0b7 RRH underpaid UGX. 74,926,837 in respect of pension and gratuity due to insufficient allocation funds by MoFPED. \uf0b7 13 newly recruited/ transferred employees delayed to access payroll, with average delays of 1.8 months. By close of the financial year, 8 staff had not been paid a total of UGX. 9,078,276. \uf0b7 5 new pensioners/beneficiaries delayed to access pension payroll, with average delays of 4 months. As a result, UGX. 5,343,902 was not paid by the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 UGX. 7,268,797 was paid to 6 staff who had either retired, transferred, or died with average delays of 1.5 month. Delayed removal of staff from payroll resulted into financial loss to government. \uf0b7 UGX. 1,757,809 relating to Pension and Pension Arrears were charged on account codes other than those prescribed for Pension and Pension Arrears. \uf0b7 UGX. 4,586,671 relating to 8 employees was deducted by UCLA/UBA past the end date. \uf0b7 RRH had unrealistic loan end dates for 8 employees ranging from 109 to 4738 years. \uf0b7 UCLA/UBA deducted UGX. 21,015,298 from 8 staff without approval of the Accounting Officer from the PDMS. In addition, UGX. 4,315,541 was deducted by UCLA/UBA from 23 staff over and above the approved amounts by the Accounting Officer. \uf0b7 The RRH wrongly deducted the LST of 187 employees resulting into an over deduction of UGX. 2,836,250. \uf0b7 The RRH wrongly computed the PAYE in respect of 151 employees resulting into under deduction of UGX. 4,097,543. \uf0b7 There was under remittance of PAYE amounting to UGX. 56,049,162. |", "metadata": {"page": 562, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 9,728,867,272, UGX. 9,460,702,687 (97%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.268,164,585 (3%). \uf0b7 The Hospital experienced drug stock outs for several essential medicines. \uf0b7 The Hospital experienced expiry of several essential medicines. \uf0b7 The hospital did not have a designated storage area for expired drugs. \uf0b7 Out of the Hospital\u2019s approved staff list of 289, only 194 (67%) were filled. \uf0b7 The hospital did not maintain a detailed risk register. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The RRH paid UGX. 22,434,758 off the IPPS to 2 employees and 2 pensioners/beneficiaries. The Accounting Officer explained that with the introduction of HCMS, the challenge will be resolved. \uf0b7 UGX. 266,171,930 spent on activities under account item codes they were not budgeted majorly due block releases by MoFPED. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts of UGX. 9,515,008,698, UGX. 9,301,982,191 (97.76%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 213,026,507 which was swept to the consolidated fund account. This affected the staff recruitment and payment of pension. \uf0b7 UGX.58,857,369 remained unaccounted for by the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 UGX.17,694,000 was paid to a firm that is not registered to pay the value added tax causing a loss to government. \uf0b7 NSSF Contributions amounting UGX.6,503,625 arising from the payment of Salaries of private wing staff were not remited. UGX.2,227,822,220 received by the RRH was not appropriated to the entity by Parliament. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 563, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 9,728,867,272, UGX. 9,460,702,687 (97%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.268,164,585 (3%). \uf0b7 The Hospital experienced drug stock outs for several essential medicines. \uf0b7 The Hospital experienced expiry of several essential medicines. \uf0b7 The hospital did not have a designated storage area for expired drugs. \uf0b7 Out of the Hospital\u2019s approved staff list of 289, only 194 (67%) were filled. \uf0b7 The hospital did not maintain a detailed risk register. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 18 | Kabale RRH Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of UGX. 5,131,275,924 received as wage, pension and gratuity, only UGX. 5,131,275,845 was spent, hence no unspent balance. \uf0b7 3 new beneficiaries of the deceased had not been accessed to pension payroll, with delays ranging from 6 to 18 months. \uf0b7 Kabale RRH deducted UGX.4,586,671 relating to 6 employees was deducted by UCLA/UBA past the end date. \uf0b7 I noted that unrealistic loan end dates for 5 employees for a period of 9 years each in the year under review, UGX. 1,150,488 had been deducted from these employees. \uf0b7 A comparison of the \u201cactive deductions\u201d and \u201cmy approvals\u201d reports in the PDMS revealed that there were variances in deduction amounts by UGX. 1,376,164. \uf0b7 Re-computation of LST revealed the Kabale RR Hospital had wrongly deducted the LST of 12 employees resulting under deduction of UGX. 257,500. \uf0b7 Kabale RRH\u2019s payroll registers (IPPS file) with the IFMS interface files and observed that there were variances of UGX. 4,068,109. \uf0b7 Out of the total budget of UGX. 9,692,089,179, Kabale RRH received all the funds budgeted for that is 100%. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for UGX. 9,692,089,100, UGX. 9,644,150,861 (99.5%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 47,938,239 (0.5%). The unspent balance of UGX. 47,938,239 at the end of the financial year was subsequently swept back to the consolidated fund account. \uf0b7 Kabale RRH received UGX. 1,953,693,454 from donors like USAID, Global Fund and some from MOH to cater for HIV activities. \uf0b7 Kabale RRH had obsolete and unserviceable Medical equipment and non-functional oxygen plant and limited information on construction of the oxygen plant. |", "metadata": {"page": 563, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 9,728,867,272, UGX. 9,460,702,687 (97%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.268,164,585 (3%). \uf0b7 The Hospital experienced drug stock outs for several essential medicines. \uf0b7 The Hospital experienced expiry of several essential medicines. \uf0b7 The hospital did not have a designated storage area for expired drugs. \uf0b7 Out of the Hospital\u2019s approved staff list of 289, only 194 (67%) were filled. \uf0b7 The hospital did not maintain a detailed risk register. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|:-------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Kabale RR Hospital has an approved staff structure of 417 positions. I noted that out of the approved staff structure, 170 (41%) positions had been filled leaving 247 (59%) positions vacant. \uf0b7 Kabale RRH had not prepared the risk register for the hospital. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 564, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX. 9,728,867,272, UGX. 9,460,702,687 (97%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.268,164,585 (3%). \uf0b7 The Hospital experienced drug stock outs for several essential medicines. \uf0b7 The Hospital experienced expiry of several essential medicines. \uf0b7 The hospital did not have a designated storage area for expired drugs. \uf0b7 Out of the Hospital\u2019s approved staff list of 289, only 194 (67%) were filled. \uf0b7 The hospital did not maintain a detailed risk register. | Unnamed: 2 |\n|---:|-------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 19 | Lira RRH Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of UGX. 7,127,988,692 received as wage, pension and gratuity, only UGX. 7,116,377,641 was spent, resulting in an unspent balance of UGX. 11,611,051 that was returned to the consolidated fund. This was due to non-payment of one contract staff/pensioner Mr. Odu Benard. \uf0b7 The RRH underpaid UGX. 288,412 in respect of salary due to failure by the staff to report the under payments of his salary. \uf0b7 01 new pensioner/beneficiary delayed to access pension payroll, with average delays of 1 month. As a result, UGX. 222,822 was not paid by the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 UGX. 46,025,872 relating to Pension was charged on account codes other than those prescribed for Pension. \uf0b7 The RRH has accumulated arrears of UGX.186,559,362, arising from non-payment employee costs. \uf0b7 Prepayments amounting to UGX.402,264,456 in respect of NWSC and UMEME advance payments had not been consumed at the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 Out of budgeted total revenue of UGX.15,649,329,200 for the year 2021/2022, UGX.10,790,701,383 (69%) was realized thus affecting payment of contract staff salaries, allowances and related expenses. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts of UGX.10,790,701,383, UGX.10,599,468,917 (98.2%) was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.191,232,466 (1.8%) that were returned to the consolidated fund. This affected majorly payment of salaries and allowances. \uf0b7 Fuel expenditure amounting UGX.35,298,250 deposited in United Bank of Africa (UBA) cards remained unaccounted at the end of the financial year. \uf0b7 UGX.24,204,209 relating to payment for supplies/works executed in the financial year 2020/2021 was expended as part of the current year expenditure yet there was no evidence of prior recognition of the domestic arrears and there was no budget provision. \uf0b7 Medical Insurance contract awarded to M/s UAP Old Mutual Insurance Uganda Limited on the 26th day of April, 2022 at a contract sum of UGX.263,587545 had no contract management plan and contract management report, no clearance was obtained from the Solicitor General, payment to the tune of UGX.247,772,213 (94%) had been effected yet the contract was still running up to 365 days after commencement and according to the special conditions of contract, the payment schedule was meant to be semi-annual basis. |", "metadata": {"page": 564, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 20. | Entebbe RH Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of UGX.3,387,231,383, UGX.3,354,258,489 (99%) was spent by the entity on salaries, pension and gratuity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.32,972,894 that were returned to the consolidated fund. \uf0b7 RHH Overpaid UGX.1,594,870 in respect of pension and gratuity. \uf0b7 UGX.389,111,854 underpaid in respect of pension and gratuity. \uf0b7 RRH wrongly computed the gratuity benefits of 8 pensioners resulting in an understatement and overstatement of UGX.14,291,376 and UGX. 24,504,532 respectively. \uf0b7 UGX.9,607,206 deducted on the payroll was not remitted to respective beneficiary institutions. \uf0b7 Relevant documents to support the creation of assignments on the IPPS payroll for 4 pensioners were not on their respective files. \uf0b7 The entity did not maintain an up-date the staff list that included all new staff and excluded all staff leavers. \uf0b7 Out of UGX.1,200,000,000, was allocated for procurement of drugs and medical supplies UGX.1,021,000,000 (85%) resulting in a deficit of UGX. 179,000,000 (15%). \uf0b7 Out of the available allocation for procurement of drugs and medical supplies of UGX.1,036,173,022, UGX.411,082,167 (40%) was utilized by the entity leading to utilized balance of UGX.625,090,855 (60%). \uf0b7 37 medicines and supplies totaling 3,260 in number (units) had expired. \uf0b7 Out of 559 approved positions, only 176 (31%) posts were filled, leaving 383 (69%) vacant positions. \uf0b7 RRH lacked 71 medical equipment, and had excess of 51 medical equipment. \uf0b7 2 equipment in the radiology department were not functioning \uf0b7 Procurements of UGX.267, 725,480 were not in the procurement plan. |\n|---:|------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 21 | Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Sept 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Although the Project had budgeted for USD 4,820,288 (UGX. 14,423,091,800), only USD 2,610,101 (UGX. 9,479,082,377) was received for utilisation for the financial year ending 30th September 2021 (representing 54%). I further noted that out of the USD 2,610,101 (UGX. 9,479,082,377) received, the project only utilised USD 2,577,021 (UGX. 9,362,167,833) leaving a balance of USD 33,080 (UGX 116,914,544 ). The low release of funds coupled with under absorption of funds implies unrealistic over budgeting. In addition the low absorption of funds received constrains management in the delivery of planned project outputs. \uf0b7 I noted that, whereas the Finance Unit Standard Operating Procedures provide that accounts and Financial statements / reports are to be prepared on the accrual basis using historical cost accounting, the Project operations manual 2017 provide for preparation on the basis of historical cost accounting. \uf0b7 A review of 4 beneficiary Rural Referral Hospitals\u2019 (RRH) financial reports, at the end of the year, revealed expenditure amounting to UGX 63,868,601 in excess of the budgeted amounts. |", "metadata": {"page": 565, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 23 | The Italian Support to the Uganda Health Sector Strategic Plan Iii (HSSPIII) and the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) For Northern Uganda Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project (KRSP) Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total actual receipts of EUR 4,199,750 a sum of EUR 3,691,785.65(88%) had been utilised by 30th June 2022 implying an under absorption of 12% of the total project grant. At the end of the financial year, the project closed with a cash and cash equivalent of EUR 530,266.59. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for Lot 1 and Lot 2 were meant to be completed on 16th May 2021, only Lot 1 sites had been handed over and commissioned by end of FY 2021/2022. This implies delays for Lot 2 of 17 months from the planned completion date of 16th May 2021. By December 2022, the sites had not been completed. \uf0b7 In addition, Lot 3 had not yet started thereby occasioning significant delays on this lot 3 and the entire project. |\n| 1 | 24 | Kayunga Yumbe Hospital Project (KAYUP) FYT June 2021 | \uf0b7 I noted that out of the expected receipts of USD.8,643,589.75, the project received funding totalling USD.8,579,596.82 constituting USD.7,769,470.24 from external sources and USD.810,126.58 (UGX. 2,880,000,000) from GoU counterpart |", "metadata": {"page": 566, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|:-----------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | contribution. Therefore, a budget shortfall of USD.135,657.97 (representing 1.7% of the external funding approved budget) was registered. This has a negative effect on the timely delivery of the planned outputs achievement of project objectives. \uf0b7 Whereas the contract for the supply of medical and Hospital furniture worth USD 1,999,854.56 was initiated in the FY 2018/2019, deliveries had not yet been made by close of the year under review (30th June 2021). In addition, the performance guarantee had expired. Under the circumstances, the intended service delivery is compromised. In addition, the expiry of the bank guarantee exposes the Ministry of Health to a risk of a financial loss in the event that the company fails to deliver. \uf0b7 Three (3) Supplies contracts worth USD 2,582,573.121 for the supply of laboratory equipment had not performed by 30th June 2021 as planned thereby delaying the intended service delivery at both Kayunga and Yumbe hospitals. Failure to ensure timely execution of the project supplies contracts impacts negatively on the achievement of the primary objective of the project of contributing to the delivery of the Uganda National Minimum Health Care Package (UNMHCP), through improvement of health infrastructure at the two hospitals. \uf0b7 During the year under review, the project planned, under component 3, to procure six (6) vehicles (2 Ambulances, 2 mini- buses and 2 pickups) for the two hospitals. Draft contracts were prepared and submitted to the Funds for final approval. However, approval of Draft contracts by the Development funders was yet to be obtained and accordingly clearance from the Solicitor General had not been sought by 30th June 2021. Under the circumstances, the intended project outputs were not attained thereby delaying planned service delivery at the two (2) hospitals. \uf0b7 There were delays by the Funding Agencies in effecting payments due to Contractors and Suppliers for services offered to the project. This led to failure to pay project obligations on time resulting into accrued outstanding obligations of USD 2,361,491.08 of which USD 1,558,909.95 was related to unpaid interim certificates for civil works, USD765,581.13 due to equipment suppliers and USD 3,700 in respect of unpaid Project staff salaries. Low disbursement rate exposes the project to a risk of loss of funds due to unfavourable foreign exchange fluctuations. Furthermore, the project is at risk of having incomplete project components and litigations due to unpaid obligations at project closure. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 567, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 25 | Uganda Nurses and Midwives Council (UNMC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Included in the disclosed receivables of is an amount of UGX444.4Bn which arose out of a Court ruling in favour of Council but had not been realised by the time of reporting. \uf0b7 Although the Uganda Nurses and Midwives Council Act 1996 provides that the Registrar shall publish the names of all registered nurses in the Gazette after the 1st day of January and not later than the 31st day of March in each year, at the time of reporting in December 2022, the Council had not gazetted the names of persons. |\n| 1 | 26 | Uganda Nurses and Midwives Council (UNMC). 2020/21 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that a material uncertainty existed regarding the continued operation of Uganda Nurses and Midwives Council in the foreseeable future. This state of affairs is supported with a letter from the Permanent Secretary \u2013 Ministry of Public Service to all Accounting Officers Ref: MSD/135/165/01 dated 19th April 2021 in which guidance was provided on the modalities for management of public Institutions during the implementation of recommendations on the rationalization of Agencies and Public Expenditure. \uf0b7 I noted that during the year under review, management made the necessary adjustments to the opening reserves and receivables (1st July 2020) to recognize the unaccounted for advances of UGX 1,274,315,720 which formed a basis for qualification of opinion on the Council\u2019s financial statements for the Financial Year ending 30th June 2020. |", "metadata": {"page": 567, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|:-----------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Council sued RAM Engineering and Stanbic Bank in a fraudulent case worth UGX 444,400,000 and the case was ruled in favor of UNMC. In the court ruling dated 4th October 2021, a garnishee order for refund of UGX.444,400,000 was issued against the respondent and the bank jointly and, or severally. I further noted that costs of the application were awarded to Uganda Nurses and Midwives Council (the Applicant). During the year under review, management made the necessary adjustments to the financial statements in the form of a receivable of UGX 444,400,000 and further disclosed a contingent asset in the form of interest and costs of the application. By the end of the year under review, funds were yet to be recovered as per the court ruling. \uf0b7 On 3rd July 2020, management fixed a sum of UGX. 4,370,100,000 (UGX 4,000,000,000 and USD 100,000) with Standard Chartered Bank for 6 months with approval of the Governing Council vide resolution No. 11 under minute Ref: FC/16/26/06/2020 of the 7th full Council Virtual meeting held on 24th, 25th and 26th June 2020. Council earned interest income of UGX.163,429,767 that was credited on Standard Chartered Bank A/c No. 0102086768300 on 2nd January 2021. In addition, a sum of UGX 4.5bn was fixed on 21st June 2021 with the same bankers. I noted that the investment decisions were made without the guidance envisaged under a resource mobilization strategy. Furthermore, an investment register was not availed for audit verification. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 568, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 27 | Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Due to Government reforms to rationalize Government agencies and public expenditure, there exists a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt that the Council shall remain a Going Concern in the foreseeable future. \uf0b7 I observed that whereas the Council\u2019s potential revenue from members was UGX.2,336,864,180, only UGX.2,094,087,170 was budgeted for leaving UGX.242,777,010 unbudgeted for. The Council has not established a mechanism to collect and update information in the register of members so as to have reliable data to inform the revenue budgeting process. \uf0b7 The Council collected Non \u2013 Tax Revenue of UGX.1,846,419,724 against a budget of UGX.2,094,087,170 leading to under collection of UGX.247,667,446. \uf0b7 Contrary to section 32(1) of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, 1998, that requires inspection/supervisory visits to be undertaken by the office of the Registrar at least once in every quarter of the year, I noted that inspection visits of health facilities were done once in the year and only 155 out of 1,523 health units were inspected. This can lead to complacency and compromise standards of health practitioners thus affecting the lives of patients. |\n| 1 | 28 | Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council. Opinion Unqualified 2020/21 | \uf0b7 I noted that the council has an approved staff establishment of 28 positions. However, only 16 positions (representing 57%) were filled leaving 12 positions (43%) vacant. Under the circumstances, the existing staff are exposed to a risk of job-related stress which could negatively affect service delivery. \uf0b7 Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners council had four (4) motor vehicles. The council did not have a policy on Motor Vehicle Management to guide the usage of its fleet of four (4) vehicles so as to eliminate theft, losses, wastage and misuse. \uf0b7 None of the four (4) vehicles owned by the council was inspected during the year under review. Under the circumstances, there is a risk of unforeseen mechanical failures that would expose the users of such vehicles to road accidents. \uf0b7 I noted that the three (3) drivers employed by the Council had not undertaken additional training to obtain additional skills and were not subjected to annual medical examination to ascertain their fitness to drive. |", "metadata": {"page": 568, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 I noted that as part of Management\u2019s responsibilities for the Financial Statements outlined on Page 6 of the Financial Statements, the Accounting Officer stated that a material uncertainty existed regarding the continued operation of Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners\u2019 Council in the foreseeable future. Management\u2019s judgement was informed by a letter Ref: MSD/135/165/01 dated 19th April 2021 from the Permanent Secretary \u2013 Ministry of Public Service to all Accounting Officers. In this letter, guidance was provided on the modalities for management of public Institutions during the implementation of recommendations on the rationalization of Agencies and Public Expenditure. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | 29.0 | The Rehabilitation and Expansion of Kayunga and Yumbe Hospitals Project (KAYUP) -BADEA No. 0761, OFID No. 1628P and SFD No. 6/620 \u2013 Ministry of Health Project. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 The total loan disbursements from the 3 external funding agencies amounted to USD 34.427Million by 30th June 2022 representing 93% of the approved loan of USD 37 million. The balance of USD 2.572 M had not been disbursed \uf0b7 By 30th June 2022, the project registered outstanding obligations of USD 1,615,332.06 due to delays in payment by the funders |\n| 2 | 30.0 | Uganda-Spain Debt Swap Project. June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Whereas the project had a closing cash balance of USD 1,355,619.94, I noted the existence of outstanding claims from Excel Construction Ltd worth USD 1,414,640 and M/S ISDEFE (consultant) of Euros 88,437.97. This state of affairs affects the implementation of planned project activities which ultimately leads to delayed service delivery. \uf0b7 There was a delay in the refurbishment of Busolwe General Hospital whose proposed scope was estimated to cost USD 5,532,792.38. This is despite the fact that the consultant so far has been paid EUROs 155,108 since December 2017. Delayed implementation of the project activities and disbursement of funds attracts commitment charges. In addition, these delays may result into cost overruns on the entire project. |", "metadata": {"page": 569, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 31 | Butabika National Mental Referral Hospital. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.18.77Bn, only UGX.18.02Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.762Bn representing an absorption level of 96%. As a result, I noted that out of the 20 quantified activities worth UGX.16.4Bn assessed; 18 activities representing 90% were fully implemented, 2 activities representing 10% were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted an encroachment of up to 11.30 hectares on the hospital land by over 2,000 families/households. In the circumstances, management is constrained in the effective delivery of the Hospital mandate. \uf0b7 I noted that a number of critical medical equipment had been faulty for quite a long time without repair and or replacement of their spare parts rendering them redundant. An X ray machine had broken down since January 2022 \uf0b7 UGX.55,427,002 had not yet been paid to pensioners by the year end hence the pensioners\u2019 livelihood is negatively affected. \uf0b7 Out of an approved staff structure of 531 positions, the Hospital has only 410 (77%) positions filled, leaving 121 (23%) positions vacant |", "metadata": {"page": 569, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|:-----------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Although the Hospital has an official bed capacity of 550, I noted that the bed occupancy rate was 150% and that the Hospital was handling over 1,000 in-patients on a daily basis. \uf0b7 The entity has two Information technology systems, that is, the internally developed Medical Records Management System (MRMS) and the Health Management Information System (HMIS) which were not integrated and therefore not automatically sharing information with each other which leads to duplications and inefficiencies and affects service delivery. \uf0b7 143 IT equipment which had exceeded the recommended 3 year useful life and recommended for decommissioning by the Board of Survey were not disposed of. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 570, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 32 | Kawempe National Referral Hospital. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.13.168Bn, the Hospital spent UGX.13.030Bn resulting in unspent balance of UGX.0.139Bn representing an absorption level of 99%. The unspent funds were meant for payment of salary and furniture and fittings. \uf0b7 26 quantified activities worth UGX.11.557Bn were assessed and established that 23 activities representing 88% were fully implemented while 3 activities representing 12% were partially implemented. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.47,111,540 were irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 Out of the payables of UGX.932,927,785, UGX.669,602,626 owed to UMEME Ltd have been outstanding for the last 3 financial years while UGX.263,325,159 owed to BHL Healthcare Ltd has existed for the last 2 financial years. \uf0b7 The Hospital did not pay gratuity worth UGX.167,487,795 to three (3) pensioners as by the close of the financial year. \uf0b7 Although the hospital had an established staffing level of 889 only 296(33%) positions were filled leading to an understaffing of 585 (67%). \uf0b7 Although the Hospital deployed two (2) information systems (Integrated Hospital Management Information System and Open Electronic Medical record system) they did not have any automated interface mechanisms to share information (integrated). This leads to duplication and inefficiency. \uf0b7 A review of the ICT governance structure of the entity revealed that there was no specific structure that steers and oversees ICT implementation and approved IT risk management framework/policy. Hospital contracted M/S Toyota Uganda Limited (CFAO Motors Uganda) to supply two double cabin Pickups at a contract sum of UGX.433,432,126. I however noted that although the entire contract amount was paid only one double cabin pickup had been delivered by the time of reporting, almost 6 months late. |\n| 1 | 33 | Kiruddu National Referral Hospital. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.21.287Bn, only UGX.20.656Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.63Bn (representing an absorption level of 97.6%). As a result, of the 30 quantified activities worth UGX.20.7Bn assessed; 22 (73%) activities were fully implemented, 4 (13%) activities were partially implemented while 4 (13%) activities were not implemented. |", "metadata": {"page": 570, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|:-----------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | \uf0b7 I observed that Plot 3927 Block 273 and plot 1774 block 255 at Kiruddu-Makindye in Kampala District where the Hospital premises and treatment plant has land titles registered in the names of Kampala Capital City Authority but not in the Hospital name which may result into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \uf0b7 Included in reported payables balance of UGX.458,284,964. is a long-outstanding obligation of UGX.94,372,000. in respect of special meals served in FY 2019/20. I observed that management did not budget for the settlement of domestic arrears during the year under review. The Hospital is at risk of litigation and eventual payment of fines which may result into a financial loss. \uf0b7 Out of 830 approved positions; only 293 (35%) posts were filled, leaving 537 (65%) positions vacant. Included in the 537 vacant positions are critical positions such as Director surgical services, 36 consultants and 20 senior consultants. \uf0b7 I observed that a total of three (3) IT systems were not being optimally utilized by the entity and the Integrated Hospital Management System (IHMS) running in the Hospital is not owned by the entity. In addition, the Hospital\u2019s IHMS is not integrated or automatically sharing information with other systems. This leads to redundancies, duplications and inefficiencies. \uf0b7 A review of drugs supply chain management revealed that on several occasions there were drug stock outs which left Kiruddu NRH without several essential, vital and necessary drugs. Drugs stock outs are potentially dangerous to the lives of patients. |", "metadata": {"page": 571, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 22. | Italian Support to UHSSP and PRDP \u2013Karamoja Region Staff Housing Project June 2021 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 A review of the project financial records revealed that, as of 30th June 2021, although cumulative receipts of EUROs 4,200,000 (100%) had been released to the project by the Italian Republic, the cumulative expenditure was EUROs 3,355,254.49 (79.89%) thereby leaving EUROs 844,495.51(20%) unabsorbed by close of the year under review. I further noted that the remaining project funds are insufficient to complete the project due to cost escalations. Under the circumstances, the project is exposed to a risk of incomplete projects and unpaid obligations at project closure. \uf0b7 The Italian Government delayed to disburse the second installment which affected the execution of the civil works under the initial contract. The Ministry of Health provided USD 1,304,322.96 (earlier meant for the procurement of x-rays) to the project to keep the works going. Upon receipt of the 2nd release from the Italian Government in December 2017, USD 1,276,847 was refunded leaving a balance of EUROs 22,302.24 outstanding to date. I informed management that delayed refund of internally borrowed monies negatively affects the delivery of the Ministry\u2019s planned outputs. \uf0b7 The Ministry of Health engaged a foreign firm to construct 68 staff houses at selected Health Centre IIIs in 9 Karamoja Districts at USD 5,592,885. The contract period was 18 months and a sum of USD 1,118,577 was advanced to the contractor on 16th June 2016. However, due to delayed payments by the Ministry arising from delayed release of funds by both the Italian Government and GoU co-funding, works stalled in 2018 and eventually the contractor abandoned the sites. \uf0b7 I noted that at the time when the sites were abandoned, USD 415,025.48 had been recovered by the Ministry against the advance leaving a balance of USD 703,551.56. On the other hand, works valued at USD 315,827.87 had been certified. The contractor sued the Ministry for breach of contract. Whereas a reconciliation statement was prepared by the project consultant and shared with the contractor, the latter insisted that the Ministry settles the outstanding amount of USD 315,827.87. This court case had not been disposed by the time of audit. \uf0b7 Whereas the contracts for civil works under Lot 1 and Lot 2 were scheduled to be completed on 16th May 2021, the sites had not been handed over and commissioned by 30th June 2021. Delayed contract execution compromises the timely achievement of project objectives and may lead to cost escalations. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 34 | National Drug Authority. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total expenditure budget of UGX.104.8bn, only UGX.85.7bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.19.1bn representing an absorption level of 82%. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of forty three (43) activities with a total of one hundred twenty four (124) targets worth UGX.73.9Bn and noted that twenty three (23) activities with fifty one (51) targets and expenditure worth UGX.43.7Bn were fully implemented, twenty (20) activities with seventy three (73) targets worth UGX.30.2Bn were partially implemented. Out of the seventy three (73) targets, the entity fully achieved forty (40) targets; thirty two (32) targets were partially achieved, while one (1) target was not achieved. \uf0b7 The Authority had long outstanding receivables from Ministry of Health and tenants to the tune of UGX.43,210,405,917 and UGX.131,298,624 respectively. Receivables represent idle assets which deny the entity availability of funds for prompt service delivery. \uf0b7 I note that out of the four (4) pieces of land measuring approximately 2.537 hectares held, one (1) piece of land located on Block 423, plot 13 in Busiro County (measuring approximately 1.619 hectares) had encumbrances in the form of encroachment by the local population. Encumbrances hinder management\u2019s ability to utilize the land and pose a risk of loss of land. \uf0b7 I noted that NDA has four (4) IT systems which were neither integrated nor automatically sharing information amongst each other and with other government systems. |\n| 1 | 35 | Uganda Covid-19 Response and Emergency Preparedness Project (UCREPP) | \uf0b7 The project with a funding of USD. 12.5M has a completion date of 31st December 2022. I established that the Project managed to achieve, on average, only 10% of what it had planned to do during the period under review implying non- achievement of 90% of the approved budget and work plan. |", "metadata": {"page": 571, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the period, UGX. 258,159,000 was disbursed to two hospitals, however only UGX. 210,593,083 had been utilized leaving a balance of UGX. 47,565,917 not utilized. |\n|---:|-------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 36 | Uganda National Health Research Organization. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Management did not appraise their staffs for the year under review. \uf0b7 Although the Organization\u2019s employees are entitled to benefits such as membership to the provident fund scheme, staff insurance and annual leave, management did not pay any of the benefits during the year under review. |", "metadata": {"page": 572, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | Unnamed: 0 | Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 During the period, UGX. 258,159,000 was disbursed to two hospitals, however only UGX. 210,593,083 had been utilized leaving a balance of UGX. 47,565,917 not utilized. |\n|---:|-------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 37 | Uganda Blood Transfusion Services (UBTS). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.19.3Bn, only UGX.18.83Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0469Bn (representing an absorption level of 98%). As a result, of the (27) activities worth UGX.17.742Bn assessed; 25 activities representing 92% were fully implemented, 1 activity representing 4% was partially implemented while 2 activities representing 8% were not implemented at all. The unimplemented activities related to non-payment of employee costs and domestic Arrears \uf0b7 Two (2) regional office buildings of UBTS in Mbale and Fort portal were constructed within the regional hospitals land without land titles or signed memoranda of understanding. In the circumstances, UBTS could lose infrastructural investments in case of future disagreements. \uf0b7 Plot 2F on Nakasero Hill Road which houses the Headquarters of UBTS was encroached upon by a Hotel by way of a wall fence covering a total area of 0.079ha. \uf0b7 UGX 955,195,790 was reported as payables of which UGX.624,097,536 was accrued during the year. The payables arose from over commitment beyond the approved estimates as appropriated by Parliament for the financial year. \uf0b7 Out of 424 approved staff positions only 286 (67%) posts were filled, leaving 138 (33%) positions vacant. \uf0b7 I noted that whereas a contractor for the remodelling and expansion of a store at Nakasero prepared and submitted building plans to UBTS, there was no evidence that these plans had been submitted to KCCA and subsequently approved. Implementation of unapproved building plans poses a risk of financial loss in the event that the responsible Authority (Metropolitan Authority/KCCA) refused to approve the plans and directed the demolition of the works already done. \uf0b7 Records of 313,975 units of blood collected and recorded on the Blood Safety Information system indicated that 252,178 units of blood were dispatched to 488 health units. However, there was no record of blood received and issued by health Units on the District Health Information System (DHIS2) to enable verification of data entered in the DHIS2. Tracing of blood to the \u2018last mile\u2019 or user becomes difficult and renders the accountability cycle for the blood units incomplete. |", "metadata": {"page": 572, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 38. | Uganda Virus Research Institute. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.15.939Bn, UGX.15.536Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.403Bn (representing 2.53% of the approved budget). The activities that were affected by the budget cuts included travel abroad (UGX.0.156Bn), validation of pensioners (UGX.0.012Bn) and workshops (UGX.0.235Bn). \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.15.536 Bn, only UGX.15.323Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unutilized warrant of UGX.0.213Bn (representing an absorption level of 98.6%). As a result, I noted that of the thirty-one (31) quantified activities worth UGX.14.51Bn assessed; twenty-nine (29) activities (representing 87%) were fully implemented and two (2) activities (representing 13%) were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Institute did not have land titles for the four (4) pieces of Land under its use. I further established that apart from Kamwanyi land measuring about 1.416 hectares and the UVRI Headquarters land measuring about 29.137 hectares, management was not certain of the size of the land in Arua and at Zika Forest. Lack of Land titles could result into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \uf0b7 The reported payables of UGX.202,811,084 relating to property tax that the Institute owes Entebbe Municipal Council have been outstanding since FY 2010/11. Under the circumstances, the entity runs a risk of litigation that could result in a financial loss in the form of penalties. \uf0b7 Contrary to PPDA Regulations, contract managers did not submit monthly reports to the Accounting Officer on the progress of contracts worth GBP.7,938.63; USD.33,473.07 and UGX.3,280,937,286. Failure to monitor the progress of contracts increases the risk of poor contract performance as gaps are not identified early for remedial action. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 39 | National Medical Stores. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the NTR estimate of UGX.56.38Bn, NMS realized only UGX.45.086Bn representing a performance of 80% of the target and a shortfall of UGX.11.265Bn. \uf0b7 According to the GOU approved budget, NMS was supposed to receive UGX 600.314Bn out of which UGX.589.056Bn was warrantied resulting in a shortfall of GoU funding of UGX.11.258Bn. Essential drugs could thus not be procured. \uf0b7 The value of Non-Viable Stock rose from UGX.5,161,429,000 (FY 2020/21) to UGX.13,418,720,000 composed of expired and unused drugs, gloves and other items resulting into increases the costs involved in destruction and denial of essential drugs to the population. \uf0b7 Management reported a provision for doubtful debts to the tune of UGX.25,891,381,000 composed of debts that appear irrecoverable but efforts to have MoFPED approve the write-off have not been successful. \uf0b7 Management presented the status of twelve (12) court cases for and against NMS as part of the contigent liabilities. However, three (3) of the court cases stretch to over 10 years (from 2008) without any ruling by the Courts of Law. \uf0b7 The ERP system (NMS+) which is used to undertake the roles of warehousing, finance, procurement, audit and fleet management was not integrated nor automatically sharing information with other government systems such as IFMS, Human Capital Management and e-Government procurement. This leads to duplications and inefficiencies. |", "metadata": {"page": 573, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 38. | Uganda Virus Research Institute. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.15.939Bn, UGX.15.536Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.403Bn (representing 2.53% of the approved budget). The activities that were affected by the budget cuts included travel abroad (UGX.0.156Bn), validation of pensioners (UGX.0.012Bn) and workshops (UGX.0.235Bn). \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.15.536 Bn, only UGX.15.323Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unutilized warrant of UGX.0.213Bn (representing an absorption level of 98.6%). As a result, I noted that of the thirty-one (31) quantified activities worth UGX.14.51Bn assessed; twenty-nine (29) activities (representing 87%) were fully implemented and two (2) activities (representing 13%) were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Institute did not have land titles for the four (4) pieces of Land under its use. I further established that apart from Kamwanyi land measuring about 1.416 hectares and the UVRI Headquarters land measuring about 29.137 hectares, management was not certain of the size of the land in Arua and at Zika Forest. Lack of Land titles could result into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \uf0b7 The reported payables of UGX.202,811,084 relating to property tax that the Institute owes Entebbe Municipal Council have been outstanding since FY 2010/11. Under the circumstances, the entity runs a risk of litigation that could result in a financial loss in the form of penalties. \uf0b7 Contrary to PPDA Regulations, contract managers did not submit monthly reports to the Accounting Officer on the progress of contracts worth GBP.7,938.63; USD.33,473.07 and UGX.3,280,937,286. Failure to monitor the progress of contracts increases the risk of poor contract performance as gaps are not identified early for remedial action. |\n|---:|:-----------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Three IT systems i.e. MACS, SAGE and NAVISION were not being used at the time of audit but had not yet been decommissioned. There is need for management to ensure data integrity and completeness during decommissioning. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 574, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 38. | Uganda Virus Research Institute. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.15.939Bn, UGX.15.536Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.403Bn (representing 2.53% of the approved budget). The activities that were affected by the budget cuts included travel abroad (UGX.0.156Bn), validation of pensioners (UGX.0.012Bn) and workshops (UGX.0.235Bn). \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.15.536 Bn, only UGX.15.323Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unutilized warrant of UGX.0.213Bn (representing an absorption level of 98.6%). As a result, I noted that of the thirty-one (31) quantified activities worth UGX.14.51Bn assessed; twenty-nine (29) activities (representing 87%) were fully implemented and two (2) activities (representing 13%) were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Institute did not have land titles for the four (4) pieces of Land under its use. I further established that apart from Kamwanyi land measuring about 1.416 hectares and the UVRI Headquarters land measuring about 29.137 hectares, management was not certain of the size of the land in Arua and at Zika Forest. Lack of Land titles could result into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \uf0b7 The reported payables of UGX.202,811,084 relating to property tax that the Institute owes Entebbe Municipal Council have been outstanding since FY 2010/11. Under the circumstances, the entity runs a risk of litigation that could result in a financial loss in the form of penalties. \uf0b7 Contrary to PPDA Regulations, contract managers did not submit monthly reports to the Accounting Officer on the progress of contracts worth GBP.7,938.63; USD.33,473.07 and UGX.3,280,937,286. Failure to monitor the progress of contracts increases the risk of poor contract performance as gaps are not identified early for remedial action. |\n|---:|------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 40 | Uganda Heart Institute. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the NTR estimate of UGX.6Bn, the Institute realized UGX.6.485Bn representing a performance of 108% of the target hence the need for the Institute to review its revenue targets. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.29.216Bn, only UGX.28.873Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.343Bn (representing an absorption level of 98.8%). As a result, I noted that of the 37 quantified activities worth UGX.14.365Bn assessed; 18 activities (49%) were fully implemented, 18 activities (49%) were partially implemented while 1(one) activity remained unimplemented. \uf0b7 I observed that land measuring 4.0470 hectares owned by the entity in Naguru had been encroached upon. Encumbrances hinder management\u2019s ability to utilize the land and pose a risk of loss of land. \uf0b7 UGX.2,429,618,348 was assessed by URA as outstanding tax obligation (PAYE) arising from wrong deduction of taxes from professional allowances at 6% instead of 30% as per sec 19 (1) a of the Income Tax Act. Management has started implementing the tax rates but it has resulted into low morale with some professional employees leaving the Institute which may in the long run affect its ability to effectively deliver on its mandate. \uf0b7 I noted that UHI has a Hospital Management Information System (HMIS) for patient management and other ancillary services in the OPD, Theatre, Cath Lab, IPD, Lab and other ancillary services. Despite the fact that the system is meant to share information to aid the smooth running of the entity, the system operates in isolation of other systems such as IFMIS and Human Capital Management (HCM) system of Ministry of Public Service. This leads to duplications and inefficiencies \uf0b7 I observed that there were no factory trainings conducted for users and engineers (technicians) for some of the equipment procured by the Institute which makes the equipment susceptible to breakdown and prolonged down time. \uf0b7 I noted that some vital medical equipment was inadequate according to the bio-medical department analysis and recommendation, while others were due for replacement. This compromises the level of service to patients \uf0b7 Out of the 10 (ten) items selected as tracer Essential Medicines at the Institute, three (3) experienced stock-outs ranging from 40 to 45 days. In addition, the Institute had some expired medicine which had no designated holding area; and were kept together with medicines still under use. This poses a high risk to the patients. |\n| 1 | 41 | Mulago Specialized Women & Neonatal Hospital. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.25.88Bn, UGX.25.34Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.54Bn representing 2.1% of the approved budget. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.25.34Bn, only UGX.24.96Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.0.38Bn representing an absorption level of 98.5%. As a result, of the six (6) quantified activities worth UGX.4.59Bn assessed; five (5) activities (representing 83%) were fully implemented and one (1) activity was partially implemented. |", "metadata": {"page": 574, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 38. | Uganda Virus Research Institute. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.15.939Bn, UGX.15.536Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.403Bn (representing 2.53% of the approved budget). The activities that were affected by the budget cuts included travel abroad (UGX.0.156Bn), validation of pensioners (UGX.0.012Bn) and workshops (UGX.0.235Bn). \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.15.536 Bn, only UGX.15.323Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unutilized warrant of UGX.0.213Bn (representing an absorption level of 98.6%). As a result, I noted that of the thirty-one (31) quantified activities worth UGX.14.51Bn assessed; twenty-nine (29) activities (representing 87%) were fully implemented and two (2) activities (representing 13%) were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Institute did not have land titles for the four (4) pieces of Land under its use. I further established that apart from Kamwanyi land measuring about 1.416 hectares and the UVRI Headquarters land measuring about 29.137 hectares, management was not certain of the size of the land in Arua and at Zika Forest. Lack of Land titles could result into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \uf0b7 The reported payables of UGX.202,811,084 relating to property tax that the Institute owes Entebbe Municipal Council have been outstanding since FY 2010/11. Under the circumstances, the entity runs a risk of litigation that could result in a financial loss in the form of penalties. \uf0b7 Contrary to PPDA Regulations, contract managers did not submit monthly reports to the Accounting Officer on the progress of contracts worth GBP.7,938.63; USD.33,473.07 and UGX.3,280,937,286. Failure to monitor the progress of contracts increases the risk of poor contract performance as gaps are not identified early for remedial action. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 UGX.785,971,835 that was deducted from staff salaries in respect of PAYE was not remitted to Uganda Revenue Law contrary to the Income Tax Act. \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for pension for the financial year of UGX.11,059,648,812; UGX.11,009,275,358 was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.50,373,454. Non-payment of pension leads to accumulation of arrears and affects the livelihood of the pensioners. \uf0b7 UGX.57,495,264 was deducted from staff salaries in respect of Local Service Tax (LST) but was not remitted to the respective local governments. \uf0b7 The Hospital had four (4) systems (HMIS, RX solution, IPPS and IFMS) which were not integrated or not automatically sharing information with other systems. \uf0b7 Seventy-one (71) IT equipment that had exceeded the recommended useful life and recommended for decommissioning by the board of survey had not been disposed of. \uf0b7 Splitting of procurements was observed during the procurement of oxygen analyser, paramagnetic analysis TCP/IT module, condensate drain system-900, non-return valves, cylinders, trolleys and head bars and medical gas plant contrary to Section 58 (d) of the Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, 2003. I also observed that direct procurement was used without justification. \uf0b7 I observed that the fridges that store cold chain medicines are housed in a non-ventilated room thereby retaining the heat emitted from them which could damage the medicine and shorten the life span of the fridges. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 575, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 38. | Uganda Virus Research Institute. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.15.939Bn, UGX.15.536Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.403Bn (representing 2.53% of the approved budget). The activities that were affected by the budget cuts included travel abroad (UGX.0.156Bn), validation of pensioners (UGX.0.012Bn) and workshops (UGX.0.235Bn). \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.15.536 Bn, only UGX.15.323Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unutilized warrant of UGX.0.213Bn (representing an absorption level of 98.6%). As a result, I noted that of the thirty-one (31) quantified activities worth UGX.14.51Bn assessed; twenty-nine (29) activities (representing 87%) were fully implemented and two (2) activities (representing 13%) were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Institute did not have land titles for the four (4) pieces of Land under its use. I further established that apart from Kamwanyi land measuring about 1.416 hectares and the UVRI Headquarters land measuring about 29.137 hectares, management was not certain of the size of the land in Arua and at Zika Forest. Lack of Land titles could result into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \uf0b7 The reported payables of UGX.202,811,084 relating to property tax that the Institute owes Entebbe Municipal Council have been outstanding since FY 2010/11. Under the circumstances, the entity runs a risk of litigation that could result in a financial loss in the form of penalties. \uf0b7 Contrary to PPDA Regulations, contract managers did not submit monthly reports to the Accounting Officer on the progress of contracts worth GBP.7,938.63; USD.33,473.07 and UGX.3,280,937,286. Failure to monitor the progress of contracts increases the risk of poor contract performance as gaps are not identified early for remedial action. |\n|---:|------:|:-------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 42 | Mulago National Referral Hospital. Opinion Qualified | \uf0b7 Domestic arrears to the tune of UGX.1,384,692,974 paid during the year were recognized as part of the Statement of Financial Performance instead of the Statement of Appropriation Account contrary to the Financial Reporting Guide 2018. In addition, the amount was not disclosed in prior periods implying that they were not verified and reconciled with the balances on the database maintained by the Accountant General\u2019s Office. \uf0b7 Records for expenditure worth UGX.1,041,373,039 were missing on file at the time of audit. \uf0b7 Pension and Gratuity worth UGX.387,436,568 was not paid to fifteen (15) pensioners and retirees. \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants of UGX.74.580bn received during the financial year, the entity submitted invoices totalling UGX.72.183Bn resulting in un-utilized warrants of UGX.2.394Bn representing an absorption level of 96.8%. Recruitments of staff were thus not undertaken as funds were released late in May 2022. \uf0b7 I assessed the implementation of a sample of eight (8) outputs that had been fully quantified with a total of fourteen (14) activities worth UGX.50.683bn and noted that seven (7) outputs with thirteen (13) activities and expenditure worth UGX.45.883bn were fully implemented while One (1) output with one (1) activity worth 4.8bn was partially implemented. \uf0b7 Funds to the tune of UGX.1,177,688,181 were diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. |", "metadata": {"page": 575, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 38. | Uganda Virus Research Institute. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.15.939Bn, UGX.15.536Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.403Bn (representing 2.53% of the approved budget). The activities that were affected by the budget cuts included travel abroad (UGX.0.156Bn), validation of pensioners (UGX.0.012Bn) and workshops (UGX.0.235Bn). \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.15.536 Bn, only UGX.15.323Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unutilized warrant of UGX.0.213Bn (representing an absorption level of 98.6%). As a result, I noted that of the thirty-one (31) quantified activities worth UGX.14.51Bn assessed; twenty-nine (29) activities (representing 87%) were fully implemented and two (2) activities (representing 13%) were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Institute did not have land titles for the four (4) pieces of Land under its use. I further established that apart from Kamwanyi land measuring about 1.416 hectares and the UVRI Headquarters land measuring about 29.137 hectares, management was not certain of the size of the land in Arua and at Zika Forest. Lack of Land titles could result into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \uf0b7 The reported payables of UGX.202,811,084 relating to property tax that the Institute owes Entebbe Municipal Council have been outstanding since FY 2010/11. Under the circumstances, the entity runs a risk of litigation that could result in a financial loss in the form of penalties. \uf0b7 Contrary to PPDA Regulations, contract managers did not submit monthly reports to the Accounting Officer on the progress of contracts worth GBP.7,938.63; USD.33,473.07 and UGX.3,280,937,286. Failure to monitor the progress of contracts increases the risk of poor contract performance as gaps are not identified early for remedial action. |\n|---:|:-----------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 The entity had 27 pieces of land measuring approximately 75 hectares at the reporting date. However, management did not avail documentation to confirm the size, date and cost of acquisition, ownership and the location of the land. Similarly, the Hospital did not have Land titles for 22 pieces of land whose size the hospital could not ascertain. \uf0b7 Six (6) pieces of land whose hectares and value could not be established due to management\u2019s inability to avail the information had encumbrances in the form of caveats, court injunctions and encroachment. Similarly, some entities on the land had obtained title deeds without the consent/approval of the Hospital. \uf0b7 For a sample of 463 key medical equipment in the Hospital, I noted that 46 were non-functional, 4 semi-functional and 413 are functional. \uf0b7 In 2019, the Ministry of Health installed RX Solution, an electronic pharmaceutical management system in the stores with the objective of automatically submitting data to the MoH PIP system for stock status reporting. However, although the RX solutions had been installed on the Hospital computers in the store it was not being used by the stores staff. \uf0b7 Hospital has six (6) systems which were not integrated and not automatically sharing information with other systems. As such, information sharing was purely manual despite being explicitly provided for in the respective system requirements. \uf0b7 Direct procurements worth UGX.571,826,881 were undertaken by the Hospital without justification while a total of UGX.777,307,880 procurements were irregularly undertaken during the year. | Unnamed: 2 |", "metadata": {"page": 576, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 38. | Uganda Virus Research Institute. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the approved budget of UGX.15.939Bn, UGX.15.536Bn was warranted resulting in a shortfall of UGX.0.403Bn (representing 2.53% of the approved budget). The activities that were affected by the budget cuts included travel abroad (UGX.0.156Bn), validation of pensioners (UGX.0.012Bn) and workshops (UGX.0.235Bn). \uf0b7 Out of the total warrants for the financial year of UGX.15.536 Bn, only UGX.15.323Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unutilized warrant of UGX.0.213Bn (representing an absorption level of 98.6%). As a result, I noted that of the thirty-one (31) quantified activities worth UGX.14.51Bn assessed; twenty-nine (29) activities (representing 87%) were fully implemented and two (2) activities (representing 13%) were partially implemented. \uf0b7 The Institute did not have land titles for the four (4) pieces of Land under its use. I further established that apart from Kamwanyi land measuring about 1.416 hectares and the UVRI Headquarters land measuring about 29.137 hectares, management was not certain of the size of the land in Arua and at Zika Forest. Lack of Land titles could result into encroachment, disputes and loss of public land. \uf0b7 The reported payables of UGX.202,811,084 relating to property tax that the Institute owes Entebbe Municipal Council have been outstanding since FY 2010/11. Under the circumstances, the entity runs a risk of litigation that could result in a financial loss in the form of penalties. \uf0b7 Contrary to PPDA Regulations, contract managers did not submit monthly reports to the Accounting Officer on the progress of contracts worth GBP.7,938.63; USD.33,473.07 and UGX.3,280,937,286. Failure to monitor the progress of contracts increases the risk of poor contract performance as gaps are not identified early for remedial action. |\n|---:|------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 43 | Allied Health Professionals Council (AHPC). Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the availed funds of UGX.4,487,551,000 during the financial year, UGX.4,197,663,000 was spent resulting into an unspent balance of UGX.289,888,000 representing absorption level of 93.5%. \uf0b7 Out of twenty (20) activities worth UGX 0.514Bn assessed, six (6) outputs with six (6) activities and expenditure worth UGX.0.298Bn were fully implemented, five (5) outputs with five (5) activities worth UGX.0.216Bn were partially implemented while nine (9) outputs with nine (9) activities could not be assessed because they were not reported on in the annual performance report of the entity. \uf0b7 UGX.30,425,166 was irregularly diverted from the activities on which they were budgeted and spent on other activities without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 Council reported land and building in the financial statements originally acquired at UGX.609,000,000. Whereas buildings were revalued to UGX.750,000,000 in 2022, the value of land remained at historical cost of UGX.370,881,000 implying that the land value disclosed in the financial statements was misstated. \uf0b7 Receivables of UGX.601,300,000 in respect of fees due from registered and licensed clinics & Laboratories Private Practice have been outstanding for more than one financial year. \uf0b7 AHPC has two donated IT systems whose cost could not be ascertained and had no clearance from NITA-U. The two systems were also not interfaced. |", "metadata": {"page": 576, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 44. | Health Service Commission. 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year UGX.8.088Bn, the Commission spent UGX.7.744Bn resulting in unutilized warrants of UGX.0.343Bn (representing an absorption level of 95.75%). As a result, I noted that out of the 19 quantified activities worth UGX.7.309Bn assessed; 7 activities representing 37% were fully implemented while 12 activities representing 63% were partially implemented. \uf0b7 On 31st March 2015, Butabika Hospital Management Board permitted the Commission together with four (4) other government entities to utilise three acres of Butabika Hospital land on a lease to construct office premises. However, by close of the year under review, no action had been taken by the Commission despite its current substantial annual rent expenses of UGX.680,000,000. \uf0b7 I noted that although the Board of Survey recommended twenty-seven (27) IT equipment valued at UGX.63,300,000 for decommissioning in the financial year 2021/22, no disposals had been made. \uf0b7 Out of 79 positions only 52 are filled leaving 27 positions vacant. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 45 | Uganda AIDS Commission. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 According to the revised approved budget, the entity was supposed to receive UGX.14.736Bn however UGX.14.551BN was warranted resulting into a revenue shortfall of UGX. 0.185Bn. \uf0b7 The Commission received off-budget financing to a tune of UGX. 939,268,646 which was not declared to Treasury and therefore not appropriated by Parliament \uf0b7 Although UAC did not budget to collect NTR during the year under review UGX.40,180,000 was collected as NTR. \uf0b7 I reviewed the implementation of nine (9) outputs that were fully quantified with a total of forty-four (44) activities worth UGX.14.55Bn and noted that the reported performance at activity level was not aligned with the planned performance. As a result, it was difficult to assess the level of implementation of the planned out puts. \uf0b7 UGX.13,347,458 was irregularly diverted from workshops and seminars code and spent on staff lunch without seeking and obtaining the necessary approvals. \uf0b7 The entity had reported payables of UGX.76,162,182 which have been accumulating since July 2005. |\n| 1 | 46 | Ministry of Health. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the UGX.243.62Bn total funds available for spending, only UGX.33.14 (13%) was spent by the Corporation leaving a balance of UGX.210.48Bn representing 87% under absorption. The low absorption was attributed to the supplementary funding that was approved during the financial year and only availed towards year-end. Delayed receipt and utilization resulted into delays in service delivery. \uf0b7 I noted that there is slow progress on the takeover of Government interests as listed in Schedule 2 of the UDC Act 2016, which identified seven Government undertakings that were to be taken over. I noted that only two companies (i.e. Phoenix Logistics and Tri-Star Apparels Ltd) had been transferred to UDC. The remaining five, namely; Amber House Limited, Embassy House, Development House, Munyonyo Commonwealth Resort and Nile Hotel International Limited were still outstanding. Delays undermine the implementation of the UDC Act 2016 and undermine the public policy of streamlining the management of these corporations \uf0b7 The Corporation has been holding 2 pieces of land measuring approximately 6.932 hectares without land titles for a long time without justification, exposing the corporation to the risk of loss of land thru land grabbing and encroachment. |", "metadata": {"page": 577, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 44. | Health Service Commission. 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year UGX.8.088Bn, the Commission spent UGX.7.744Bn resulting in unutilized warrants of UGX.0.343Bn (representing an absorption level of 95.75%). As a result, I noted that out of the 19 quantified activities worth UGX.7.309Bn assessed; 7 activities representing 37% were fully implemented while 12 activities representing 63% were partially implemented. \uf0b7 On 31st March 2015, Butabika Hospital Management Board permitted the Commission together with four (4) other government entities to utilise three acres of Butabika Hospital land on a lease to construct office premises. However, by close of the year under review, no action had been taken by the Commission despite its current substantial annual rent expenses of UGX.680,000,000. \uf0b7 I noted that although the Board of Survey recommended twenty-seven (27) IT equipment valued at UGX.63,300,000 for decommissioning in the financial year 2021/22, no disposals had been made. \uf0b7 Out of 79 positions only 52 are filled leaving 27 positions vacant. |\n|---:|:-----------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | Unnamed: 0 | \uf0b7 Uganda Development Corporation (UDC) entered into a number of contracts worth UGX.2.7Bn with various suppliers without conducting market price assessments. This was contrary to the procurement law and exposed the entity to a risk of obtaining services at uncompetitive prices. \uf0b7 Out of the 70 established posts in the UDC structure, only 49 are filled (70% staffing level) and 21 positions were vacant representing 30%. I further noted that among the vacant positions were significant/priority positions such as the Director of Internal Audit, Manager Investment (mining and manufacturing), and Manager Investments Appraisal among others. Inadequate staffing levels affect the level and quality of service delivery by the Corporation and may compromise the principle of segregation of duties. | Unnamed: 2 |\n| 1 | | LEGISLATURE | |\n| 2 | 1.0 | Parliamentary Pension Scheme. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 I noted that the bank reconciliations from June 2021 to September 2021 were not correctly done. There were un-reconciling differences between the cashbook and the bank statement balances. In addition to this, the bank reconciliations provided for my review lacked evidence of review and approval by senior management. \uf0b7 I noted that the project field staff allowances were not charged PAYE tax. Non-compliance with Income Tax Act may precipitate tax penalties from Uganda Revenue Authority, leading to financial loss for the project. \uf0b7 I noted quarterly reports were not submitted to CDC on time. Late submission of reports may delay reporting, monitoring and evaluation of the project by the development partners. |", "metadata": {"page": 578, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}, {"content": "| | 44. | Health Service Commission. 2021/22 Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year UGX.8.088Bn, the Commission spent UGX.7.744Bn resulting in unutilized warrants of UGX.0.343Bn (representing an absorption level of 95.75%). As a result, I noted that out of the 19 quantified activities worth UGX.7.309Bn assessed; 7 activities representing 37% were fully implemented while 12 activities representing 63% were partially implemented. \uf0b7 On 31st March 2015, Butabika Hospital Management Board permitted the Commission together with four (4) other government entities to utilise three acres of Butabika Hospital land on a lease to construct office premises. However, by close of the year under review, no action had been taken by the Commission despite its current substantial annual rent expenses of UGX.680,000,000. \uf0b7 I noted that although the Board of Survey recommended twenty-seven (27) IT equipment valued at UGX.63,300,000 for decommissioning in the financial year 2021/22, no disposals had been made. \uf0b7 Out of 79 positions only 52 are filled leaving 27 positions vacant. |\n|---:|------:|:---------------------------------------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 0 | 2 | Parliamentary Commission. Opinion Unqualified | \uf0b7 Out of the total receipts for the financial year of UGX.822.278Bn, only UGX.818.533Bn was spent by the entity resulting in an unspent balance of UGX.3.744Bn representing an absorption level of 99.5%. As a result, I noted that out of 27 quantified activities worth UGX.703.275Bn assessed; 21 activities representing 77.7%, were fully implemented, and six activities representing 22.3%, were partially implemented. \uf0b7 I noted that completed physical works for the New Parliamentary Chambers stood at 53%, which is only an increase of 20% from the previous year at 33%. In addition, the contractor stated that works could not be completed by the end of the contract, i.e. May 2023. \uf0b7 A review of ICT activities implemented revealed the following; non-optimal utilization of IT system, absence of IT risk management framework/policy and use of an old IT staff structure. \uf0b7 I noted that the Commission did not maintain an updated asset register as required and had not implemented the disposal/divestment plans and recommendation of the Board of survey reports for the last four (4) financial years. |", "metadata": {"page": 578, "document_name": "Annual Consolidated OAG audit reports 2022", "headings": [], "type": "table"}}]