Busia, Malaba deserve URA revenue share to end smuggling

In February, President Museveni and his Kenyan counterpart Uhuru Kenyatta, were in my backyard of Busia, to launch what has been described as an ultra modern, sparkling one-stop border facility that will enhance human and cargo movement and strengthen regional integration. Unknown to many of the dignitaries assembled, a stone’s throw away from the sparkling facility, the Basamia and other Ugandan communities live in abject poverty and appalling conditions around that border line in shanty accommodations.

On April 29, NTV carried an investigative story ‘Smuggling on the porous borders of Uganda’. True, it is common to see along the border and in the neighbouring villages with Kenya both petty and big time smugglers of items ranging from cement, cigarettes, sugar, wheat flour, etc.

As a result, the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) standard response, has been to put in place heavily armed men to curb the vice or rather line the pockets of whichever officer is lucky to be appointed on such patrol units, which are basically extortionist armed units rather than anti-smuggling units. Consequently, they only manage to create resentment in the population.

Understanding the socio-economic and cultural practices of the people living at the borders is crucial in understanding the dynamics of smuggling. For example, a relative recently told me that a traditional wedding party returning from the Kenyan side of the border laden with gifts from the in-laws, had the gifts confiscated by URA enforcement teams. The Busia community has endured many years of violent suppression by URA enforcement teams.

According to statistics by URA, since the Busia border post was operationalised in 2015, revenue collection at Busia has grown by 45 per cent from Shs436 billion in the 2013/14 financial year to Shs798 billion in the 2016/17 financial year.

This article seeks to make a case for revenue sharing with communities where revenue is collected, that URA ought to borrow from other government agencies where a stick and carrot approach is employed. That while they can retain revenue enforcement teams, they should also offer incentives to the communities in the frontline border districts to make them be the bulwark against smuggling or indeed any other illegal activities.

This would target communities living near the borders and their livelihood given that their way of living is directly or indirectly affected by activities at the border.

The Uganda Wildlife Authority is legally obliged to share 20 per cent of its park entry fee collections with local governments/communities living around the protected area. This obligation is based on the acknowledgment that frontline communities in the protected areas endure a disproportionate burden of costs associated with conservation.

The overall goal for sharing this revenue is to enable communities living adjacent to protected areas to experience the economic benefits so that they may improve their welfare and ultimately work in partnership with UWA to suitably manage the resources.

Similar revenue sharing arrangements are envisaged in the districts where oil extraction activities will be taking place. The National Forestry Authority too has revenue sharing arrangements with the local governments in which its activities are undertaken.

Therefore, URA should borrow a leaf from those sister agencies and make revenue sharing with the communities of border places like Busia, Malaba, Mutukula , Bwera, Katuna, etc, so as to end smuggling.

The legal and legislative mechanism necessary for such arrangements can be put in place. However, the benefits will be immense. For instance, they will include demonstrating economic value as a result of increased revenue collected by government, which smuggling impedes. It will also help to establish good relations between the communities and URA.

This will to creating a hostile attitude towards smuggling, improving social economic livelihood of the communities. Members of the communities will monitor and report smuggling activities and support patrol activities as opposed to using force all the time.

Border communities in Busia like those around national game parks and reserves face a myriad of unique challenges with adverse effects and a host of subsidiary problems associated with border towns. They include loss of traditional way of life and influx of migrant workers. This scenario has led to an increase in alcoholism, drug abuse, prostitution, domestic violence and others forms of crime.

These days, it is common for friends to call me when uncharitable story from Busia is broadcast on television. Therefore, if there is affirmative action for revenue (both monetary and non-monetary) sharing with communities around forests, game parks and where mineral extractables are present, a convincing case exists for affirmative revenue sharing for border communities through developments funds, livelihood restoration and community investments.

Mr Odumu is a lawyer. [email protected].
Twitter @Odumuokumu