You are here: HomeDisplaying items by tag: Accountability

Ms. Shifa Katutu - National Community Service

Mr. Joseph Migisha - NGO Board

Ms. Marion Namande Namiyingo - Amnesty Commission

Ms. Jane Okuo - Directorate of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Charles Kaamuli - Directorate of Public Prosecutions

Mr. J.W. Kururagyire - Uganda Prisons Service

Mr. Hillary Bisanga - Head of Policy and Planning Unit

Mr. Samuel Kaali - Judicial Service Commission

Ms. Farida Semyano - Judicial Service Commission (Alternate)

Mr. Masiga Samson - Ministry of Gender

Mr. Magara Cornelius - Ministry of Gender

Ms. Roselyn Karugonjo Segawa - Uganda Human Rights Commission

Ms. Norah Nyeko - Uganda Human Rights Commission

Ms. Proscovia Nakawungu - Law Development Centre

Mr. Nicholas Opiyo - ULS, AA Legal Consultants Advocates

Published in About JLOS
Friday, 05 December 2014 07:51

Public dialogue on anti-corruption held

The Justice Law and Order Sector(JLOS) held a public dialogue on Anti-Corruption on 4th December 2014 at the Imperial Royale Hotel Kampala to discuss key issues on the fight against corruption in Uganda but with specific focus to JLOS. The public dialogue was organized in conjunction with partners for the accountability sector as part of the buildup events towards the commemoration of the International Anti-Corruption Day 2014.

The Dialogue was presided by Mr. Charles Elem Ogwal, the Chairperson of the JLOS Technical Committee. The theme of the dialogue was “Building synergies in the fight against corruption to improve the administration of Justice and the rule of law in Uganda”. The theme underpinned two critical results of the fight against corruption;

a) The need to build partnerships (public and Private) to fight corruption in Justice Service delivery. 

b) The realization of improved administration of Justice and the rule of law.

The objective of the dialogue was to discuss and reflect on the challenge of corruption that has bedeviled many public Institutions. Recent Anti-Corruption Surveys revealed that JLOS Sector Institutions appeared among the top most corrupt institutions in Uganda.

The participants of the public dialogue included; members of the Human Rights and Accountability Group, Human Resource Managers Forum, JLOS PPUs, Participants from the IGG, Registrar’s from the High Court Divisions, Participants from the private sector, Participants from the Office of the Auditor General, Development Partners, Chairpersons of Working Groups and members of the JLOS Secretariat.

 

By Modoi Musa | Published: December 5, 2014

Published in Archived News

 

The Justice Law and Sector held a high level breakfast meeting on the 4th December 2014 at Hotel Africana to discuss key issues in the fight against corruption in Uganda, but with specific focus to the Justice Law and Order Sector(JLOS). The meeting was organized in conjunction with partners from the Accountability Sector as part of the buildup events towards the commemoration of the International Anti-Corruption Day 2014.

The theme of the meeting was; Fghting corruption in JLOS: A collective effort to promote integrity and enhance access to JLOS services for all. The theme underpins two critical results of the fight against corruption; 1) the need to ensure integrity in service delivery, and 2) the realization of increased access to JLOS services for all especially the marginalized people. These are in tandem with the JLOS Sector Investment Plan III (JLOS SIP III) undertakings of promoting human rights and accountability in Uganda.   

The meeting was convened for selected heads of institutions and some technical staff who have a key responsibility to fight corruption in their institutions and the country at large. The participants included; Hon. Justices of Courts of Judicature, heads of Government institutions, heads of Civil Society Organizations and members of the JLOS Secretariat.

 

By Musa Modoi | Published: December 5, 2014

 

DOWNLOAD:

Report of the JLOS Anti-Corruption High level Breakfast Meeting (2014)

Published in Accountability
Wednesday, 27 January 2016 07:34

The JLOS Anti-Corruption Charter

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)

Published in Accountability

The Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) has in place measures to eliminate abuse of office, acts of impunity and ensuring accountability and the rule of law. The JLOS chain-linked justice system is premised on the theory of the 3Cs; Cooperation, Communication and Coordination of initiatives. The chain-linked initiative involves shared roles in prevention, detection, investigation and reprimand of cases of corruption. 

All seventeen (17) JLOS member institutions fight syndicate corruption through institutionalising and implementing the Third JLOS Strategic Investment Plan (JLOS SIP III), the JLOS Anti-Corruption Strategy (JACS) and the National Anti-Corruption Strategies (NACS). 

The JACS is guided by a vision of “A corruption free Society based on rule of law and respect for human rights”, and a three core pillars that form the foundation and inform its strategic objectives. These include;

  1. PREVENTION; To enhance the Sector capacity to prevent corruption,
  2. DETECTION; To strengthen the Sector to detect, investigate, and adjudicate cases of corruption
  3. PUNISHMENT; To promote and enforce effective mechanisms for punishment of those found culpable and reparations for acts of corruption.

A number of administrative mechanisms are in place to promote accountability and fight corruption. These include the JLOS Inspectors Forum, the JLOS Integrity Committee, the JLOS Audit Committee, the Human Rights and Accountability Working Group, Professional Standards Unit (PSU) of Police, institutional staff disciplinary units, a series of toll free call lines and standardised complaints handling frameworks, among others. The public is invited to use toll free call lines and complaint boxes for all respective JLOS institutions and the Inspectorate of Government to report acts of corruption and abuse of office. For instance, the Judiciary has put up three SMS hotlines for the public to report acts of corruption and unprofessional conduct of staff; 0776 709100, 0703 707085  and 0794 702085. (See www.jlos.go.ug for more contacts), and the IG’s hotline is 0414 347 387.

Implementation of process and service delivery reforms, such as automation of business processes, have minimised opportunities for syndicate corruption at many service points such as the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB). In addition, innovative justice initiatives aimed at simplification of processes and expedition of the adjudication of court cases. These have reduced opportunity for corruption. Innovations such as the Small Claims Procedure, Plea Bargain Initiative, Roll out of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, Legal Aid Service Provision, among others make justice a more transparent process. Users of court are able directly seek and handle their claims without relying in intercessors.

In 2014, the PSU received 1,958 complaints of professional misconduct of Police Officers. Minor cases are referred to RPCs, criminal cases are channeled to the DPP and CID, while cases requiring administrative disciplinary action are forwarded to the Directorate of Human Rights and Legal Advisory Services. The Police Disciplinary Unit awarded fines against 200 Traffic Police Officers, 37 officers were recommended for discharge/dismissal, 100 were acquitted, 142 sentenced to severe reprimand and 291 cases are still pending at the Unit as at June 2015.

In the previous year, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) registered 137 complaints against judicial officers and concluded 106 case files. Out of18 disciplinary committee sessions held, 2 Magistrates were dismissed, 2 Magistrates severely reprimanded, 3 Magistrates were reprimanded and 1 Magistrate was warned. The other 98 cases did not demonstrate sufficient merit to warrant disciplinary action. The 174 cases are still pending before the JSC Disciplinary Committee. Similarly, the Judiciary’s Inspectorate of Courts received 676 complaints from the public against judicial officers and conclude 673. Most of the complaints were resolved administratively and 3 are still pending for further consideration.

The JLOS criminal justice system has progressively demonstrated impressive results. The Police/CID handled 458 corruption cases in 2014 compared to 413 and 214 in the previous two years respectively.

 

FIIVE TOP CORRUPTION OFFENCES HANDLED BY UGANDA POLICE FORCE/CID

Offence

2012

2013

2014

Abuse of office

40

88

36

Embezzlement 

59

212

254

Causing financial loss

90

84

77

Conflict of interest

01

3

0

Other corruption cases

24

26

91

Total

214

413

458

 

The DPP established the Anti-Corruption Department as a specialized body to handle prosecutions of corruption cases. In all corruption investigations, efforts to recover assets and proceeds of corruption are emphasized. Through Prosecution led investigations, and in collaboration with the CID, the Government Analytical Laboratory experts and the OAG, the average conviction rate for this calendar year, January 2015 to October 2015 is 62.5%. So far, 17 cases have been settled through Plea Bargaining Program for Corruption cases. A total of UGX674,652,552 and USD$102,000 has so far been recovered through Plea bargaining. 

In the same breadth, the Judiciary established a specialized anti-corruption court which has since its inception in August 2008 posted exemplary performance. As of 30th November 2015, the Anti-Corruption Court Division of the High Court (ACD) had registered 2,371 cases and completed 2080. It has recovered billions of shillings in over 100 cases where orders to refund proceeds of corruption have been made. Some of the major cases include the following;

 

CASES WHERE REFUND ORDERS WERE MADE BY ACD

 

Case

Amount to Refund

1

SC-24/13 Uganda vs Balikoowa Nixon & Orthers

3,366,926,390/=

2

SC -24/13 Uganda vs Wanyaka Samuel Huxley

822,965,000/=

3

SC-1254/08 Uganda vs Teddy Cheeye

100,000,000/=

4

SC-8/09 Uganda vs Okello B.S & 2 Others

400,000,000/=

5

SC-11/14 Uganda vs Adukun Grace

540,796,510/=

6

SC-08/14 Uganda vs Kalumba

300,000,000/=

7

SC-138/10 Uganda vs Odongo Christopher

118,424,000/=

8

SC-13/14 Uganda vs Hassan Degeya

109,000,000/=

9

SC-22/12 Uganda vs Kebba Isaac

£199,617

10

SC-47/12 Uganda vs J. Kashaka Muhanguzi & 5 Others

US$1,719,454.54

 

The disposal of cases by the Anti-Corruption Court Division of the High Court (ACD) during the FY2014/15 exceeded cases filed at a rate of 124% (309 of 249). This performance revealed an increase by 47.3% (127) from the previous financial year when it registered a completion rate of 76.7% (182). As at 30th June 2015, there were 286 cases pending in the court, and 28 (9.7%) of these cases are against JLOS officers. 

An elaborate legislative legal regime on Anti-Corruption laws and regulations is in place. This includes; the Anti-Corruption Act, the Penal Code Act, the Whistle Blowers Act, the Leadership Code Act, among others. Further legislative reforms and enactments are in pipeline aimed at complimenting and strengthening the existing legal regime. These include; the Witness Protection Law, the Asset Recovery and Mutual Assistance Law, Proceeds of Crime Law, Amendment to the Anti-Corruption Act, and Amendment to the Leadership Code Act, among others. 

There are various fora of interaction between JLOS service providers and users of JLOS services to build synergies against impediments such as syndicate corruption. There are place District Chain Linked Committees (DCCs) in all Districts, Regional Chain Linked Committees in all High Court Circuits and also institutional User Committees such as Court Users Committees in most JLOS institutions. The Justice, Law and Order Sector, appeals to the public to join the fight against corruption and report all acts of corruption.

The Justice, Law and Order Sector, therefore, appeals to the public join in the fight against corruption and report all incidents of corruption. This way, we shall promote accountability as a cornerstone for access to justice, the promotion of the rule of law and security of person and property.

 

Media inquiries on this subject can be sent to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

DOWNLOAD:

 Anti-Corruption Week (2015): JLOS Media Supplement (pdf)

Published in Latest News
Wednesday, 13 January 2016 11:54

Judiciary Appoints Chief Inspector of Courts

 

The Hon. JSC. Augustine Sebuturo Nshimye has been appointed as the Chief Inspector of Courts for the Judiciary with effect from 13th January 2016. This is a positive step in the promotion of accountability within the Judiciary and the JLOS Sector as a whole. His Lordship shall be responsible for carrying out the functions of the Inspectorate of Courts in line with the Constitution (Inspectorate of Courts)(Practice Directive) 2015. This position mandates his Lordship to receive, investigate and evaluate complaints from the public against judicial officials.

Previously, the functions of the Inspectorate of Courts were carried out by a Registrar of the High Court. By virtue of the Registrar’s position in the judicial staff hierarchy, it was difficult to inspect and take decisive action against senior judicial officers at levels above Registrar; thus against judges of the High Court, the Court of Appeal/Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. The appointment of a justice of the Supreme Court therefore rightful places the Inspectorate of Courts within the top echelon of the judicial structure.

The Judiciary has for long grappled with challenges associated with accountability and perceived corruption. This appointment of a senior judicial officer is poised to turn around a disturbing trend of the Judiciary where in the recent years it has been pitted as one of the most corrupt public institutions in Uganda. The Chief Inspector of Courts will among other strategic reforms lend support towards the judiciary’s anti-corruption initiatives through the implementation of the Judiciary Anti-Corruption Plan of Action and strengthen accountability.

The Justice, Law and Order  Sector congratulates his Lordship and welcomes this appointment as a strategic re-enforcement of the sector efforts to promote accountability, fight corruption and ensure optimal staff productivity. The appointment of Justice Nshimye comes at a time when the Judiciary is resolute on zero tolerance for corruption and committed to subjecting any officer found culpable to both administrative and criminal sanctions. The Judiciary has previously also put up three SMS hotlines for the public to report acts of corruption and unprofessional conduct by its staff; 0776 709100, 0703 707085  and 0794 702085.

 

By Musa Modoi | Published: January 14, 2016

 
Published in Latest News
Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:56

Promoting Accountability in JLOS

 

Conceptual Premise

The concept of Accountability denotes an obligation of an individual or organization to account (answer) for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and to disclose the results in a transparent manner. It also includes the responsibility for money or other entrusted property. Accountability means ensuring that officials in public, private and voluntary sector organisations are answerable for their actions and that there is redress when duties and commitments are not met.


The Constitution of Uganda provides that all public offices shall be held in trust for the people. Therefore, all persons placed in positions of leadership and responsibility  shall, in their work, be answerable to the people. All lawful measures shall be taken to expose, combat and eradicate corruption, abuse or misuse of power by those holding political and other public offices. This requirement is realized through various institutional and individual public service standards contained in policies, legislation, regulations, guidelines, standing orders, and codes of conduct. In the same vein, under Article 17(1)(i) of the Uganda Constitution, it is a duty of all citizens to combat corruption and misuse or wastage of public property.

In the JLOS context, in addition to the public service standards, the JLOS SIP III and the JLOS Anti-Corruption Strategy are explicit on matters of accountability. Under JLOS Outcome III on promoting accountability, the Strategy provides for three result areas; internal accountability, external accountability and the fight against corruption.

Accountability in practice is demonstrated in various perspectives and at different levels. The different perspectives include; presentation of periodic performance reports, presentation of financial reports, conduct of internal and external audits, conducting staff performance appraisals, conducting disciplinary measures, among others.


The different levels of accountability include; Sector accountability, Institutional accountability, intervention (activity/project/program) accountability, process accountability, and individual staff accountability.


Institutionalizing Accountability

Accountability is an institutionalized (i.e. regular, established, accepted) relationship between different actors. One set of people/organisations are held to account (‘accountees’), and another set do the holding (‘accounters’). Once these practices are made a part of an institutional regular way of operation, then that denotes the institutionalization of accountability. Accountability cannot be a one-off event but rather a regular practice that ensures that all stakeholders work by set standards.


In JLOS, there are various codes of conduct, procedural guidelines, and program documents that have inbuilt accountability mechanisms. These define interventions, processes, monitoring for results mechanisms, oversight structures and reporting lines. These frameworks set standards relating to program or activity interventions at institutional level, together with corresponding JLOS staff responsibilities.
There are many ways in which people and institutions can be held to account. It is useful to think of an accountability relationship as having up to three stages: standard setting, answerability and sanction for errant conduct and reward of exemplary service.


1) Standard setting: setting out the behaviour expected of the ‘accountee’ and the criteria by which they might validly be judged. For instance, the JLOS SIP III, and JLOS Work plans are program standards against which the Sector and JLOS MDAs are held to account. In addition, institutional Client Charters serve to set standards against which services are to be delivered and therefore premise against which institutions are held accountable.

At an individual or staff level, codes of conduct such as the Public Service Standing Orders, the Uganda Prisons Service Standing Orders, and the Judicial Code of Conduct are in place to guide individual conduct and performance. These standards not only guide execution of mandates, but also prevent abuse of entrusted mandates.

Periodically, institutions and staff are expected to account or answer for their actions, the use of public resources provided, the exercise of authority and demonstrate results against the set performance standards.

2) Answerability: a process in which accountees are required to defend their actions, face sceptical questions, and generally explain themselves. This applies both to negative or critical as well as to positive feedback.

The JLOS Sector and institutions receive funding to implement programs and interventions. As an act of accountability, the Sector’s Semi-annual and Annual Progress Performance Reports are a demonstration of accountability. The JLOS MDAs such as the UHRC provide accountability in their periodic reports that are presented to Parliament for scrutiny.

There are also non-structured mechanisms of accountability that largely involve public participation. These include Community Barazas, Community Outreaches/ Dialogues, Public Open Days, JLOS Service User Committees, and public inquiries or consultations among others.

Where accountability provided falls short of expected performance under the standard set, a sanction mechanism comes into play.

3) Sanction and reward: a process in which accountees are in some way punished for falling below the standards expected of them (or perhaps rewarded for achieving or exceeding them). An effective sanction system must be implemented consistently to build a culture of respect for codes and standards. When sanctions are enforced rarely, no matter how severe, the punishments seem more like random bad luck for the targets, rather than the legitimate consequence of violating or not meeting the standards that have been set.
The Sector has two types of sanction systems; criminal justice sanctions and the administrative sanctions. Criminal sanctions follow the criminal justice pattern and trial before courts of law for abuse of set standards. Various legislation define such abuses, including corruption, as crimes triable in courts of law. Administrative sanctions are administered at institutional levels by the various oversight mechanisms including Disciplinary Units, Supervisors, and Tribunals.
In addition to the above, persons who have been found to offer exemplary performance are recognized and rewarded. This is the flip side of the sanction of errant conduct. 


In many cases, the accountability process sounds very formal and like a legal trial, but most accountability sequences are not as formal, and/or do not include all these stages. However, accountability is also how those in power are held publicly responsible for their decisions. This helps to highlight that accountability is not only a set of institutional mechanisms or a checklist of procedures, but an arena of challenge, contestation and transformation.

 

By Musa Modoi | Published: January 20, 2016

 

DOWNLOAD:

 Promoting Accountability in JLOS: Concepts and Strategies (pdf)

Published in Accountability
Tuesday, 15 December 2015 13:06

JLOS Participates in 2015 Anti-Corruption Week

 

KAMPALA - The Justice, Law and Order Sector – a key stakeholder in the fight against corruption participated, along with other agencies, in this year’s anti-corruption week that held under the theme, “Stop Syndicate Corruption for Better Service Delivery”.  In partnership with the Inspectorate of Government, Directorate of Ethics and Integrity, Office of the Auditor General and the Public Procurement and Disposal Agency (PPDA) supported by the German Government through Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), JLOS institutions participated in various activities in commemoration of the International Anti-Corruption week from December 2 – 9, 2015. The activities were aimed at creating massive awareness about corruption, its effects and encourage the public and the media to join in the strong fight against the evil.

Published in Latest News

Membership of the Human Rights and Accountability Working Group is 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 Working Group is Mrs. Grace Babihuga Nuwagaba (Uganda Law Society) and the Alternate Chairperson is Mr. Bisereko Kyomuhendo (Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs -Human Rights Desk). 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.

Published in Management Structures
Tuesday, 21 October 2014 12:54

Human Rights and Accountability

 

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 is an innovation of the JLOS SIP III that 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 established under the JLOS Third Strategic Investment Plan (SIP III). It 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 SIP III 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 SIP III:
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 Working Group is Mrs. Grace Babihuga Nuwagaba (Uganda Law Society) and the Alternate Chairperson is Mr. Bisereko Kyomuhendo (Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs -Human Rights Desk). 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.

Published in Priority Focus Areas