Anti-Corruption Strategy

JLOS has developed an Anti-Corruption Strategy

 

The Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) is one of the sectors provided for under the government Sector Wide Approach (SWAP) adopted in 1998 by the government of Uganda. The sector has been in existence for the last thirteen years and is made up of Seventeen (17) MDAs. Upon realization that the fight against corruption is ineffective without a clear strategy, the sector is in the process of formulating an anti corruption strategy.

The Justice Law and Order Sector Anti-Corruption Strategy is a framework designed to enable planning in order to make a significant impact on reducing corruption in the Sector institutions as well as building and strengthening the quality of accountability in the country as a whole. It will focus on Ministries, Departments and Agencies, which comprise the JLOS, members of staff and systems in order to contribute to the National Anti Corruption Strategy vision of Zero Tolerance for corruption to create an efficient and effective service delivery.

Corruption has been generally understood to mean “abuse of entrusted authority for illicit gain”. This broad definition includes any conduct or behavior in relation to persons entrusted with responsibilities in public office which violates their duties as public officials and which is aimed at obtaining undue gratification of any kind for themselves or for others”

In an area in which objective data is not readily available, perceptions and other assessments are some indicators of real levels of corruption. This makes corruption very hard to measure. . According to the World Bank and the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index as well as other local surveys like National Integrity Survey (NIS) and the Public Procurement Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA), it is estimated that Uganda losses over 250 million US dollars of public resources per annum to corruption.

According to Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) 2010, JLOS institutions like the Uganda Police Force and the Judiciary are ranked among the top three corrupt institutions in Uganda. Uganda is placed among countries in which people reportedly most often (in comparison to other countries) have to pay bribes when entering into contact with institutions like the Police, Judiciary or customs. This reflects public mistrust, which heightens the crime rates and complicates the work of JLOS institutions in administration of justice in Uganda.

The National Anti Corruption Strategy identifies some key aspects of society that enable corruption to exist and flourish as follows;

  • Public beliefs and attitudes;
  • Ineffective accountability systems;
  • Lack of political leadership and accountability;
  • Moral decay in public service
  • Limited capacity of anti-corruption agencies and the judicial system
  • Delays in the legislative framework:

Other driving factors include but are not limited to;

  • Poor staff motivation and/or remuneration;
  • Poor organisational/institutional structures that do not clearly outline roles and responsibilities to specific officials;
  • Poor internal controls and segregation of duties;
  • Poor record keeping, archiving and tracking systems;
  • Inadequate transparency, for example in prioritizing and sequencing the hearing of court cases or payment of court awards;
  • Public ignorance about various procedures and rights;
  • Lengthy court resolution timelines that lead to frustration of stakeholders who may resort to easier/faster options to achieve end results; and
  • Political interference among others.

The JLOS Anti-corruption Strategy is therefore aimed at strengthening the sector’s capacity to deal with corruption, at strengthening integrity, transparency and service delivery within institutions, thus building public trust. This anti-corruption strategy has been developed for JLOS in order to give effect to the expressed commitment of the sector to fight corruption in the JLOS agencies. The Strategy places the emphasis on a broad sectoral effort while identifying specific institutional responsibilities as they apply.

The purpose of the JLOS Anti-corruption Strategy is to prevent and combat corruption through a multiplicity of supportive actions. This strategy is meant to provide JLOS with a holistic and an integrated approach to fighting corruption across institutions involved in the administration of justice. To enhance operational efficiency, the strategy will take a broad service wide approach to the promotion of accountability by exploited synergies that already exist like the 3Cs; coordination, co-operation and communication to ensure harmonization and standardization.

The Anti-Corruption strategy will together with the already existing mechanisms and strategies prevent and deter corruption in the JLOS Institutions, put in place standards of behavior and systems for detection, investigations and punishment of corruption. It will also enlist support from members of the public, civil society and other governmental organizations that are involved in the fight against corruption. The strategy is thus a mixture of preventive and combative mechanisms against corruption and maladministration in the JLOS.

 

DOWNLOAD:

JLOS Anti-Corruption Strategy

 

KAMPALA - The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) in partnership with the Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) held the 2nd JLOS Annual Anti-Corruption Forum on 28th October 2020, as part of the Government annual anti-corruption campaign. The Forum was held under the theme “Technological Readiness for Effective Accountability in Pursuit of a National Middle-Income Status: A Critical Reflection on JLOS Anti-Corruption Legal Enforcement’. The focus was the operability and effectiveness of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Anti-Corruption Court Division of the High Court, in light of the use of technology.

The Forum was convened and presided over by Hon. Justice Jane Frances Abodo, the Director of Public Prosecutions who emphasised the importance of embracing technological capabilities to meet the contemporary crime challenges and manifestations, especially for white-collar crime. The Forum demonstrated how technological advancements have increased the sophistication of crime, now invisible to traditional crime management systems. Economic crime in particular, has a direct negative correlation with development and if left unchecked, can pave way for State capture. It can undermine and further delay Uganda’s development efforts and aspiration for a middle-income economic status.

Development Partners, including the United Nations Development Programme and the Austria Development Agency in Uganda emphasised the corrosive effect of corruption on Uganda’s economic growth and welfare of citizens. The poor and marginalised persons are prone to suffer a disproportionately higher burden of corruption when for instance seeking justice services or medical care. The Partners echoed their commitment to support Uganda’s development agenda, more so in the modernisation of the justice, law and order institutions, and building technological capabilities to effectively combat corruption. 

The Forum resolved to enhance institutional strengthening and integration, reforming and completing pipeline anti-corruption legislation, and embrace the required technologies. Embracing integrated modern hardware and software technologies, applying big data and machine learning to facilitate processes among the criminal justice chain-linked institutions, should be integrated with credible system security against hackers and internal breaches. The technological reforms should be matched with specialised human resource skilling and development of expert anti-corruption investigators, prosecutors and adjudicators. Matters of legality and admissibility of evidence sourced from local and international jurisdictions using mutual legal assistance procedures are equally very important. Therefore, investment in research and innovation in different spheres of technological development and application is key to ensure a holistic transformation. This is the reality of the fourth industrial revolution.

From a governance point of view, while modern technology minimises opportunistic corruption and enhances institutional efficiency, the transformation should be matched with sufficient sensitisation of duty bearers and the public to ensure informed and effective utilisation of the proposed developments. Stakeholder inclusion is central to ensure no one is left behind under this transformation in terms of access and operability for both duty bearers and the public. As a matter of caution, data protection, systems security, management and regard for human rights must be observed. Data privacy, confidentiality and protection are critical considerations that must be part of a technological revolution. The transformation must comply with modernisation and legality to maintain legitimacy and the rule of law of Uganda’s anti-corruption enforcement.

In attendance was Hon. Lady Justice Jane Okuo – Judge of the Anti-Corruption Court; AIGP Grace Akullo - the Director of Criminal Investigations in the Uganda Police Force; Mrs. Alice K. Khaukha – the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions; and Dr. Syliva Namubiru - the Chief Executive Officer of the Legal Aid Service Providers Network (LASPNET) that explored current trends and gaps that need urgent redress. Dr. Anga R. Timilsina (Ph.D.), the Global Programme Advisor on Anti-corruption at United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) provided a global perspective to embracing technology in anti-corruption law enforcement. The Forum was coordinated by the JLOS Secretariat, represented by the Senior Technical Advisor, Ms. Rachel Odoi-Musoke and attended by over 150 stakeholders from various government departments, civil society, the academia, development partners, and the general public.

 

 By Mudoi Musa

  

Published: October 29, 2020

Introduction

The Human Rights and Accountability Working Group is a thematic sub-structure of the JLOS Technical Committee that is responsible for the development and oversight of sector interventions to strengthen and promote human rights and accountability programs, processes and structures.

The Working Group enables deeper consideration of human rights issues within the broad spectrum of enhancing access to justice for all, specially the vulnerable persons. This is a response to the need for more effective and better institutionalized linkages that was identified in the JLOS Mid Term Review as affecting the level of impact and implementation of JLOS programs. Therefore, the Group is a key driver in improving the promotion, protection and respect of human rights within JLOS institutions and also ensuring accountability in service delivery.

 

Establishment
The Working Group is an extension of the JLOS Technical Committee and offers in-depth consideration of JLOS interventions that is otherwise not be possible in the Technical Committee. The Working Group reports to the Technical Committee for decisions related to resource allocation and management. It is resourced by the JLOS Advisor for Human Rights and Accountability, whose mandate includes providing technical advisory support, coordinating the Group’s activities and acts as the link to the JLOS secretariat.


Mandate and Functions
The mandate of the Group is to support the Technical Committee in the implementation of the JLOS SDP and in monitoring and evaluation of JLOS interventions.


The Group has to ensure that issues concerning the Human Rights and Accountability component influence the agenda of the Technical Committee and Steering Committee, and bring to the fore emerging issues of national importance.


The Working Group handles matters relating to;
1.    Promotion and protection of human rights at individual and institutional levels;
2.    Promotion of internal and external JLOS accountability;
3.    Adoption and implementation of the Anti-corruption measures in JLOS;
4.    Promotion of accountability in Transitional Justice, and
5.    Handling emerging broader human rights and accountability thematic issues.

The Human Rights and Accountability Working Group has various functions that include;
a.    Promote observance of human rights and accountability within JLOS MDAs;
b.    Identify constraints to the achievement of the Human Rights and Accountability programs to the sector structures for redress;
c.    Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Human Rights and Accountability Reform Programs;
d.    Prepare analysed and comprehensive progress reports on Human Rights and Accountability programs within the overall program for the Technical Committee;
e.    Recommend relevant changes to JLOS SIP III implementation activities as necessary;
f.    Respond to issues raised by the Technical Committee, Steering Committee and Leadership Committee;
g.    Benchmark the JLOS Human Rights and Accountability interventions against other successful sectors/models;
h.    Support sector publicity;
i.    Support the sector in lobbying for funds;
j.    Develop action plans and budgets for the Human Rights and Accountability component;
k.    Perform any other tasks that may be assigned by the Technical Committee. 

When implementing its functions, the Group is obliged to continually mainstream cross-cutting issues  (such as poverty, gender, conflict, HIV-AIDS , and environment) in all activities and also focus on pro-poor programming, low cost but efficient initiatives, vulnerable groups, and bear sensitivity to conflict/post conflict affected areas.

The Working Group is required to provide a work plan supported with a procurement plan to the JLOS secretariat at the end of each financial year.

Membership
In line with SDP:
1.    To the extent possible, each JLOS institution is required to nominate at least two (2) suitable representatives to the Working Group. One is be a senior technical person knowledgeable in the thematic area, and an alternate.
2.    Civil Society Organizations and private sector bodies are expected to express interest in participating in the Working Group. Once deemed relevant and admitted to the Group, a CSO is required to nominate one suitable representative to the Working Group.


The selected representatives/members are expected to:
1.    Attend meetings regularly and participate in the activities of the Working Group;
2.    Provide feedback and report on  implementation of programs;
3.    Provide their respective institutions with reports and updates on the work of the Working Group.

Membership of the Working Group shall be drawn from the 17 JLOS institutions and non-State actors. The Working Group may also co-opt persons from other institutions if the matter under discussion so requires. The current membership of the working group is as follows;


JLOS Institutions
1.    Uganda Law Society (ULS)
2.    Judiciary
3.    National Community Service Program (NCSP)
4.    Non-Government Organisations’ Board (NGO Board)
5.    Amnesty Commission (MIA-AC)
6.    Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP)
7.    Uganda Prisons Service (UPS)
8.    Judicial Service Commission (JSC)
9.    Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MoGLSD)
10.    Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC)
11.    Law Development Centre (LDC)
12.    Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Affairs (MoJCA)
13.    Uganda Law Reform Commission (ULRC)
14.    Uganda Police Force (UPF)
15.    Department of Citizenry and Immigration Control (DCIC)
16.    Uganda Law Council (ULC)
17.    Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (CADER)
18.    Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT)
19.    Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB)
20.    Ministry of Local Government (Local Council Courts)


Non-State Institutions
1.    Independent Development Fund (IDF)
2.    National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU)
3.    JLOS Development Partners Group Focal persons (JLOS DPG)
4.    Human Rights Network (HURINET)
5.    Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI)
6.    Anti-Corruption Coalition of Uganda (ACCU)


Leadership
The leadership of the Working Group is determined by both the Technical Committee and Group membership.


Chairperson
The Chairperson of the Human Rights and Accountability Working Group is selected by the Technical Committee from its membership, while the Alternate Chairperson of the Working Group is determined annually by members from among the membership of the Working Group.


The Chairperson has the following functions:
a)    Chairs Working Group meetings;
b)    Communicate key issues and suggestions made by the Working Group to stakeholders;
c)    Manages timely progress of meetings and tasks assigned to members;
d)    Provides strategic direction for the Working Group;
e)    Presents reports to the Technical Committee on behalf of the Working Group.

Secretary
The Advisor- Human Rights and Accountability is the Secretary to the Working Group. The Secretary is responsible for timely documentation of the submissions, minutes and any documentation for the Working Group and the contact person for the same.
Meetings of the Working Group


The Group endeavors to meet on a monthly basis.  The Chairperson determines the date and venue for the meetings of the Working Group. The Secretary is responsible for invitations to the meetings of the Working Group.  Unless otherwise agreed, notice of each meeting informing members of the venue, time, date and agenda is sent to the members of the Working Group a week in advance.


Quorum
A quorum is dully constituted by a simple representative majority. A duly convened meeting of the Working Group, at which quorum is attained, is competent to exercise all or any of the powers and authority vested in or exercised by the Working Group.


The Human Rights and Accountability Group is one of the five Working Groups that the Technical Committee operates through, with a focus of deepening JLOS interventions especially regarding promoting the observance of human rights and accountability within the Sector. The concerted efforts of the JLOS Working Groups should substantially contribute towards the promotion of the rule of law in Uganda.

 

Mindful of Uganda’s poor performance in regional anti-corruption ranking and the negative impact of corruption on development;

Aware of the poor ranking and public perception of the Justice Law and Order Sector institutions on fighting corruption;

Recognising that we need local solutions to address local problems especially in the fight against corruption;

Building on existing comprehensive policy, legal and institutional anti-corruption framework; and

Counting on the determination of the Government and people of Uganda to fight corruption and promote people centred development.

Therefore, the Ministries, Departments, and Agencies, and their staff constituting the Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) commit to ensuring zero tolerance to corruption.

As JLOS, we undertake to uphold the rule of law, and implement the national and sector anti-corruption programmes, pledging to:

1. Enhance the sector capacity to prevent corruption. 

2. Strengthen sector mechanisms to detect, investigate, and adjudicate cases of corruption. 

3. Promote and enforce effective mechanisms to punish all those found culpable

 

DOWNLOAD

The JLOS Anti-Corruption Charter (pdf)

 

FACTS AND FIGURES (HUMAN RIGHTS)

1) Observance of human rights across JLOS has continued to improve over the SDP IV period. This is attributed to increased establishment of human rights structures and mechanisms across different JLOS MDAs at national and sub-national levels, training of JLOS staff in human rights, and application of the standards in the administration of justice

2) In July 2021 H.E. the President appointed Ms. Mariam Wangadya as the new Chairperson of the Commission. She and five members of the Commission were sworn in on 30th September 2021 to commence work. The UHRC has nonetheless continued to maintain its ranking of “A” status.

3) Despite the COVID-19 disruption, the proportion or remand prisoners reduced from 52% in 2016 to an annual average of 50.6% in 2020/21. The lowest levels of 47.7% were reached in FY2018/19 as a result of increased case disposal.

4) The Sector, through the UHRC enhanced civic education using the media and dissemination of IEC materials, and this was complemented by the Electoral Commission and CSOs. The national election season was constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic and this limited the extent of physical association and citizen engagement

5) JLOS efforts to reduce human rights violations have broadly registered positive impact over the SDP IV period. The focus was largely on institutionalising human rights mechanisms within JLOS MDAs, building knowledge capacity amongst JLOS officers, enhancing monitoring inspection of key functions and processes, strengthening the legal and policy framework on human rights, and holding all persons involved in human rights violations accountable

6) In 2020/21, case clearance by UHRC was posited at 14.8% against a target of 76%. The UHRC concluded only 70 complaints through mediation because its tribunal was non-functional for the entire year. Currently, the UHRC is fully constituted and all mechanisms are functional.

7) JLOS has maintained human rights structures and mechanisms in key institutions, including the UPF’s Directorate of Human Rights and Legal Services established in 2015, Human Rights Desks in all 28 police regions, Human Rights Committees in all 259 prison units across the country, and human rights desks in key MDAs including ODPP, and MoJCA

8) At the institutional level, JLOS continued to support its human rights mechanisms and ensure their functionality, and established new ones as well. The focus has largely been on the criminal justice chain where human rights violations were observed and reported by members of the public

 

FACTS AND FIGURES (ACCOUNTABILITY)

1) Since 2016/17, the perception index against corruption has improved from 25% in 2016 to 27% in 2020/21

2) The fight against corruption was strengthened through increased capacity building and enforcement of anti-corruption laws, combined with a heightened focus on asset recovery

3) The Anti-corruption Division (ACD) of the High Court is one of the anti-corruption hallmarks of achievement of JLOS over the 20-year period. Established in 2009, the ACD has emerged as a leading mechanism in the fight against corruption in Uganda, and a benchmark for the African region.

4) During the SDP IV implementation period, the ACD case clearance rate has increased by a proportion of 30%, from a rating of 89% in 2016/17 to 115.6% in 2020/21. Over the same period, the ACD disposal rate has grown by 15.5%.

5) Uganda’s ranking under the Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI) score also dropped from 28% to 27%. Uganda’s international rank also dropped from 137th to 142nd of 180 countries assessed. This is largely attributed to the prevailing apathy where the public is complicit in the growing levels of corruption in Uganda

 

Adopted from the JLOS Annual Report (2020 - 2021)

смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно смотреть бесплатное подростковое порно