Chain of command key to success of govt corporations
Much of the discussions on Uganda’s political leadership and governance, both in the media and public seem to focus a lot on personalities rather than the systemic inefficiencies that in my view are largely to blame for the many dysfunctional government ministries, departments and agencies.
One of the most contentious matters in governmental and corporate governance over the last 25 years has been over key performance indicators and reporting lines by managers.
Who do chief executives of business and Ugandan parastatal corporations report to; the board of directors or to the line minister, or even to the head of State?
What is the board?
Is it a largely honorific, advisory body created to give the corporation a semblance of credibility and respect or does it actually carry out crucial oversight roles?
A spate of disputes in top business and government-owned corporations have made news and often played out in the media.
It started in 1993 in that very public dispute between the minister of Industry at the time, Richard Kaijuka, and the executive director of the Uganda Coffee Development Authority, Ernest Kakwano.
It was never clear to whom Kakwano reported, the minister or the board.
A similar feud at NSSF between the former deputy managing director (DMD) of the NSSF, Geraldine Ssali Busulwa, and the board of the Fund was cropping up- but was nipped in the bud. The NSSF issue was perhaps made easier because the term of the DMD was coming to the end, but who knows it was otherwise?
The NSSF feud between the DMD and the board should not just be swept under the carpet. It should be an opportunity to reflect on the many corporate governance gaps that are well protected by the laws that set up and govern most State corporations and agencies.
While most of the country’s professional elite have been blown away by the impressive financial performance of NSSF in recent years, this last incident is a reminder that a well-functioning system is perhaps even more important than merely short term achievements.
The Act of Parliament establishing the NSSF is slated for revision.
This would be a good opportunity for the Fund to draw on the lessons of the current and previous leadership wrangles to clarify the entire corporate structure, from the board to the senior management and how these relate with and report to government as well as NSSF members.
Bodies like URA, KCCA and NSSF have done a relatively impressive job of increasing domestic pools of revenue and investable resources.
They stand out as among the better-performing of Uganda’s public corporations.
Why is it that professionals who worked with a sense of duty and patriotism toward their country ended up in such bitter disagreements and conflict?
Uganda has set itself out the goal of achieving middle income economic status within the next few decades and the private sector in conjunction with the government were expected to achieve this.
Key appointments in the civil service and major parastatal corporations are still made directly by the President. In some other instances, corporate executives are appointed by the Cabinet minister under whose charge these bodies fall.
These roles and responsibilities are contradictory from that point of view, and that is where the clashes between senior management start.
It is very easy – given the national mood, the prestige of these parastatals and the high-paying, high-stakes jobs involved – for some of these conflicts to become politicised or even ethnicised, as happens in countries like Kenya.
One solution could be a decision to shield these corporations as far as possible from direct political influence, so that they can function with a relative degree of autonomy.
www.twitter.com/timkalyegira
Facebook: Kampala Express
