EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATIONS INTO CORRUPTION AND MISMANAGEMENT OF KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY – TS.123.2007 1.0 BACKGROUND :

The Inspectorate of Government received a complaint alleging corruption and mismanagement of Kyambogo University. In particular, it was alleged;

1.1 That there was complete failure by the University’s top management, to implement the merger of the three institutions, namely Uganda Polytechnic (UPK), Institute of Teacher’s Education, Kyambogo and Institute for special Education (UNISE), to form a new Kyambogo University and handle integration by staff within the new structure.

1.2 That there was conflict of interest involving Top Management of the

University and characterized by failure to handle the appointment of top management staff members of the University in a transparent manner and in accordance with relevant laws.

1.3 That there is gross mismanagement of the financial and other resources

of the University 2.0 Objectives of the Investigation; In view of the above allegations investigations were initiated with the following objectives: 2.1 To establish whether there was failure by the management of the

University, to implement the merger of the three institutions, to form Kyambogo University and later alone, to handle the integration of staff into its new structure.

2.2 To establish whether the Ag. Top Management staff members put

themselves in a position of conflict of interest when they failed to facilitate transparent appointment of the new top management of the University in accordance with the relevant laws.

2.3 To further establish whether members of Ag. Top management of the

University were involved in gross mismanagement of its finances and other resources.

i

3.0 FINDINGS Whether there was failure by the management of the University, to implement the merger of the three institutions, to form Kyambogo University and later alone, to handle the integration of staff into its new structure.

Kyambogo University was established in 2003, as a creature of the University and other Tertiary Institutions (Amendment) Act 2003, through the merger of the three institutions namely;

• Uganda Polytechnic Kyambogo (UPK) • Uganda National Institute of Special Education (UNISE) • Kyambogo Institute of Teacher Education (ITEK). Investigations established that;

3.1 There was deviation from the original vision/concept of

the merger.

The Government’s original vision on the merger of the three institutions was to form this University, as a greater Polytechnic, specialized in advancing professionalism in science, technology and teacher education, and embracing the former institutions as constituent colleges and the constituent college system was for purposes of retaining the special characteristics and core competences of the former institutions. While the emphasis on science , technology and science teacher education was to generate a fundamental change in the educational system in Uganda addressing the shortage of properly trained technical manpower and ensuring that entrepreneurial and vocational skills are imparted to students at all levels of Uganda’s educational system. This original idea as conceived by Government was later abandoned by the Ministry of Education and Sports. It was this oversight on the part of the Ministry, that was partly the genesis of the management crisis that later paralysed Kyambogo University. This federal University arrangement was convenient for purposes of advancing the mission of the new University, management and initial restructuring which has since failed to take off.

3.2 Lack of an effective implementation strategy.

There was failure to implement the merger of the three institutions(ITEK, UPK and UNISE) to form Kyambogo University and also to handle the integration of staff into its new structure, characterized by complete lack of an effective implementations strategy, a situation that various commentators

ii

have referred to as a faculty start of the merger. In 1998 the Ministry of Education and Sports appointed a 13 member Task Force Committee headed by Engineer Tusubira to propose the modalities for the implementation of the merger. The Committee came up with a number of strategic recommendations for the implementation of merger. Notable among these recommendations, included the following; • That upon establishment, the University Council should immediately

appoint, on Acting basis, key top Administrators of the University. It further recommended that, the top administrators’ posts be formally advertised and interviews be held as necessary and full appointments, especially for top Administrators be effected before the University formally opens.

• It also recommended that for the first year running, all Academic and

Administrative staff be transferred to the new University, which should be given the statutory right to carry out the initial structural adjustments within that first year.

• Furthermore, that to avoid burdening the new University financially, the

Ministry of Public Service should assume responsibility for the financial implications of initial restructuring

• The Committee further recommended immediate implementation of the

merger, including merger of the budgets of UPK, ITEK and UNISE, with limited supplementary addition, to run the university.

However, as will be explained in the subsequent paragraphs all the above recommendations were also ignored by the Ministry of Education and Sports, which has resulted into both short and long term effects in as far as the quest for stability, operational efficiency and effectiveness of Kyambogo University is concerned.

3.3 Weakness in the legal framework establishing the

University Weaknesses in the legal framework that established Kyambogo University further complicated the merger of the University especially the integration of staff from the former three institutions into the new University. They included the following;

3.3.1 Kyambongo University was established by the Universities and Other

Tertiary Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2003. Under Section 3 of the Amendment Act the 3 institutions merged into one University known as Kyambogo University. However, Under Section 4 and 5 of the same Act

iii

the status quo of the former institutions was restored thus complicating the staff integration process into the new university. Section 4 (1) of the Act provides that, “Upon the establishment of the Kyambogo University by virtue of Section 3 of the Act, the following provisions shall have affect

(a) any regulations or statutes made or continued in force in respect of the Institute of Teacher Education, Kyambogo shall continue in force until revoked under the principal Act or until replaced by new ones under the principal Act; (b) any acts, appointments or programmes made or started under the statute referred to in sub-section (1) or section 73 of the principal Act in respect of the institute referred to in paragraph (a) of this sub-section, and also any acts, appointments or programmes made or started or continued under the principal Act in respect of that institute shall continue in existence as if made under the principal Act in respect of Kyambogo University established by virtue of section 3 of this Act o until they expire; r

t

t

Section 5 of the Act provides that;

(1) Upon the establishment of the Kyambogo University by virtue of section 3 of this Act, the Uganda National Institute of Special Education Act, 1998 shall be deemed to be repealed. (2) Upon the coming into force of the repeal effected by the sub-section (1) of this section the following provisions shall have affect -

(a) any regulations and statu es made under the Uganda National Institute of Special Education Act, 1998 shall continue in force as if made under the principal Act until revoked or replaced under the principal Act; (b) any acts, appointments or programmes made or s arted under the Act repealed by sub-section (1) of this section shall continue in existence as if made under the principal Act or until they expire; (e) all employees and staff of the institute referred to in paragraph (d) of this sub-section shall be deemed to have been engaged under the principal Act by the Kyambogo University established by virtue of section 3 of this Act until removed under the Principal Act; and

The above provisions mean that the Act merged the three institutions under section 3 but disintegrated them under section 4 and 5 highlighted above. This was the cause of all the problems that have paralyzed the staff integration process into Kyambogo University because of the following;

iv

3.3.2 The merger of the three institutions to become one University meant that the University Council had to come up with uniform terms and conditions but this was not possible in view of the provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Amendment Act. This complication was highlighted by Court where it was held that, “when Kyambogo University took a decision to request theAcademic, administrative and support staff of the three former institutions to make fresh applications in order to qualify for appointment by the University, it meant that it had not integrated these employees with the terms and conditions obtaining and by so doing, i had acted contrary to the clear provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 of UOTI Amendment Act 7, of2003. That under the provisions of this law, the University was obliged to take on employees of UNISE and ITEK, on terms and conditions obtaining, except in the case of UPK Academic staff. That the guidelines on appointment process into Kyambogo University approved by University Council, on January 25

t

th 2005, were invalid in as long as they did not provide for continued existence of appointments on the terms and conditions of service of each of such employees and staff as they were, at the time of creation of Kyambogo University.”

3.3.3 The Act rendered it illegal to carry out any restructuring of the three

institutions to come up with a uniform structure for Kyambogo University because the act provided for automatic transfer of all staff formerly employed by ITEK and UNISE to Kyambogo University until replaced, revoked or expire. Similarly, UPK Administrative and support staff were automatically transferred as employees of Kyambogo University under the Act, in their case, on the terms and conditions offered by Kyambogo University. It is only in regard to the integration of UPK academic staff that the Act was clear in that, it provided for immediate termination of contracts of appointments with regard to UPK academic staff who did not meet the required qualifications under the new university. Those who did not qualify were also given an opportunity to upgrade. Those who did not fit in the structure were either to be referred to Ministry of Education or retired according to the provisions of the relevant law (Pension Act). It is our view that the above clear provisions of the Amendment Act relating to UPK academic staff were practically possible and should have applied to the rest of the staff in ITEK and UNISE.

3.3.4 The Amendment Act avoided resolving critical issues regarding the

integration of staff especially the inevitable loss of jobs characteristic of a merger process of such nature and magnitude. It was inevitable that a number of staff of the former institutions were not going to be accommodated in the structure of the new university bearing in mind that Government was not ready to provide additional funding to facilitate the restructuring process. This extra load of redundant staff constitutes one of

v

the current human resource management crisis at the University. This can be simply illustrated by the fact that to every single job there were three staff for one job in the new University structure, take for example the post of Academic Registrar, upon merger there were three Academic Registrars to be accommodated in the new structure, since after all it was illegal to layoff the excess staff. Secondly, the new University was to award degrees and phase out some diploma and certificate courses. This meant the new University needed more qualified staff to deliver degree courses and phase out those who were only qualified to teach diploma and certificate courses or allow them to upgrade. It was a very complex scenario to the extent that the excess staff had to be maintained on the same or higher terms and conditions of service as provided by the law.

3.3.5 Section 4 and 5 of the Amendment Act earlier highlighted was to the

effect that, the terms and conditions of the staff of the former institutions were to remain unchanged until revoked or replaced or expire without setting timetable within which to carry out the task was too open and unlimited in time and defeated the objective. For instance, in the case of staff who were on permanent and pensionable terms upon the merger, one wonders when their terms were expected to expire. What is clear from the above provisions is that it required another Act of Parliament to revoke/terminate such appointments. Neither the University Council nor the Top management of the Kyambogo University had the statutory mandate to revoke, replace or cause the expiry of the terms and conditions of service. However the Ministry of Education and Sports had the responsibility to initiate the review of the law. It is unfortunate that this state of confusion has persisted update, since the establishment of the University and none of the key players realized the cause of the problem even after the court ruling which clearly brought the loopholes in the Amendment Act to the surface. There was apparent slackness on the part of the Ministry of Education coupled with failure to have to timetable on where each of the tasks should be executed.

3.4 Lack of a broad based Interim University Council

The Spirit of the Act (Universities and other Tertiary Institutions Act, 2001) as enshrined under Section 38 of the Act, was that the composition of the University Council was to be broad based and accommodative of divergent stake holder’s interests. This Section provides for composition and membership of a University Council of a public University such as Kyambogo. They included the following;

vi

1) There shall be a University Council for every Public University consisting of the following members;

a) the chairperson of the University Council; b) the vice-chairperson of the Public University Council; c) the Vice-Chancellor of the Public University; d) the Deputy Vice-Chancellors; e) a representative of a sector relevant to the University depending on its

objectives and mission, appointed by the relevant body in that sector; f) one member of the District Council elected by the District Council in

whose jurisdiction the Public University is situated ; g) a member of the Convocation elected by the Convocation; h) two members of the University Senate elected by the same; i) two members of the Academic Staff elected by the Academic Staff

Association of the Public University; j) a senior member of Administrative Staff elected by the Senior

Administrative Staff; k) a member of the National Union of Education Institutions; Support

Staff elected by the branch in that University; l) two students of the University, one of whom shall be a woman

appointed by the Students Union; m) three members appointed by the Minister from the public; n) three members appointed by the University Council from the public; o) a representative of the Ministry responsible for higher education; p) a representative of the Ministry responsible for higher education; q) representatives of the affiliated and constituent colleges or schools if

any, namely: – i. the Chairperson of the governing Council; ii. the Chairperson of the Academic Board; iii. a representative of the staff; and iv. a representative of the students.

2) Members appointed under paragraphs under paragraphs (m) and (n) shall

be appointed from different public sectors, including Farmers Industry, Commerce and other professions.

3) All elected and appointed members other than the representative of the

students shall hold office for four years and shall be eligible for re-election.

4) The students’ representatives on the University Council shall hold office

for one year and shall be eligible for re-election so long as they are students of the University.

vii

5) The office of a member of the University Council shall become vacant –

a. upon death; b. upon ceasing to be a representative of the particular office or body

by virtue of which that person became a member of the University Council;

c. upon resignation of a member; or d. upon being adjudged bankrupt or of unsound mind.

6) The University Council may discharge its functions and exercise its powers

notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership.

It was established that prior to the merger ITEK and UPK had separate autonomous governing boards, which should have been dissolved. However, instead of dissolving both, ITEK governing Council was re-appointed Interim council for the new University by appointing the members of former ITEK, governing Council, as the new Interim Council for Kyambogo University, the criteria adopted by the Minister for Education was not the criteria envisaged to be applied by the framers of the Act. The Spirit of broad based had been ignored, when it was potentially essential, in as far as accommodating divergent interests was concerned. This was mistake number one made by the Ministry that determined the initial and subsequent failure of the merger. This council was not representative of the interests of UNISE and UPK staff, especially with regard to the critical issue of integration, under new terms and conditions. No wonder, it paid little attention, to the provisions of S.38 a situation, that cabinet sub-committee preferred to refer to as “faulty start” of the University that was the genesis of the crisis and mismanagement of Kyambogo University. The foundation was not set properly in accordance with the Law. Indeed the transformation of the original Governing Board of ITEK was right from the start perceived by the staff of other institutions that formed the merger such as UNISE and UPK as a take over of their institutions by ITEK. They felt unrepresented on a body that was to rationalize the organization structure frame and control the full process of appointments. This decision generated dissatisfaction of the majority of the staff of the former institutions of UPK and UNISE. The dissatisfaction became more apparent with the appointment of the majority of ITEK staff in key positions of the University, namely; Prof. Lutalo Bosa as Vice Chancellor, Ms Katushabe Sewmezi as University Secretary and Mr. Bigaja as University Bursar.It partly explains the genesis of the management crisis that has persisted at Kyambogo University to date.

viii

3.5 Inadequate funding

The new University faced a challenge of inadequate funding for the merger process, both recurrent and development funding. Right from conception of the idea of the merger it was anticipated that additional funding for the new University would be a necessity. This position was endorsed by the Government White Paper on Education Policy Review Commission Report, 1992, which under the heading ‘implementation strategy’ emphasized that additional recurrent expenditure and initial development expenditure will be required to kick start the University. Although it was expected that the merger will eventually result into saving of resources, through better utilization of facilities and manpower, that were being underutilized. This position had been also endorsed by the Task Force Committee Report on the proposed merger of the 3 institutions to form Kyambogo University (Tusubira Report), when it noted on page 18 that to in order to avoid burdening the new University, financially the Ministry of Public Service should assume responsibility for the financial implications of the initial restructuring. It was also observed that the then Minister of Education and Sports misguided Cabinet when under minute 136 (CT 2001) he presented and sustainable defended the concept of a “budget neutral approach” to the merger. The budget neutral approach in effect meant that no additional funding from Government would be necessary. Despite the Cabinet’s reluctance to agree with the Minister that merging the three institutions could not be done without additional funding, the Minister argued that, “the insti utions had been running independent budgets which had been able to meet the required activities and that it was hoped that the existing infrastructure and the various sources of funding that the institutions had relied on in addition to Government support, would be pooled together to run the proposed University.” It is this budget neutral approach that has crippled the University and partly responsible for the current financial and management crisis. It was naivety on the part of the Ministry of Education to expect that a merger of this magnitude would take effect without more funding.

t

4.0 Whether the responsible officers of the University put themselves in a

position of conflict of interest and failed to facilitate a transparent process of appointment of the top management of the university in accordance with the relevant laws.

5.0 IRREGULAR APPOINTMENT OF THE TOP OFFICERS OF THE

UNIVERSITY It was established;

• That whereas the Task Force Committee originally appointed to review and propose a management structure for the new University had recommended

ix

that top administrators of the University be appointed by Council on Acting basis, until positions were advertised and competed for, publicly and whereas the University Council, had during its meeting, held on 14th December, 2004, resolved that the positions of top officers of the University be publicity advertised and competed for, since the University was a public University, this decision was later changed by Council, to have the appointments in question, internally advertised and filled-up.

• It was established that the sub-sequent appointments of the top officers of

the University, were characterized by several illegalities not limited to putting themselves in a position conflict of interest, as detailed below;

5.1 Appointment of Prof. Lutalo Bosa as the Vice Chancellor of the

University;

• Prof. Lutalo Bosa, was originally the Principal of ITEK • He was also appointed a member of the Task Force Committee to work on

the implementation strategy for the merger, in June 2001. • On 13th June, 2001 he was appointed by the Ministry of Education and

Sports as the Chairperson and Ag. Vice Chancellor of the Task Force management Committee that was supposed to kick start the University especially Management through the Transition period.

• On 7th November, 2003, he was appointed Acting Vice Chancellor for Kyambogo University, by P.B. Kiwanuka, then the Chairman of the Interim Council. This appointment was renewed every 6 months until he was substantively appointed.

• On 29th April, 2005, he was substantively appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the New Kyambogo University. It was established that the appointment of Prof. Lutalo Bosa as the Vice Chancellor of the University was marred with several illegalities and irregularities as here below;

(a) Section 33 of the Universities and other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 was

not complied with. Prof. Lutalo did not apply and or responded to the advert for recruitment of Vice-Chancellor which was ran on the 14/02/2005. The age limit was 60 years when he was 65 years which meant that if he had responded he would not have qualified.

(b) The Search Committee didn’t secure competent candidates for the post among those who responded, and it subsequently recommended to have the post in question re-advertised. However, before the Senate could consider the report of the Search Committee, the University Council convened a meeting, on the 29th April, 2005, during which it was resolved that on the basis of Prof. Lutalo Bosa’s high record of performance experience and willingness to continue serving the University, all those

x

that had applied for the post be informed that they were not successful with a view of offering the appointment to Prof. Lutalo Bosa.

(c) Despite his interest in being substantively appointed as First Vice

Chancellor of Kyambogo University he did not disclose his interest as required by the Leadership Code Act, 2002. He was the Chairperson of the Senate, and member of the University Council that evaluated his candidature for the post in question. By so doing he violated the provisions of section 9(1) of the Leadership Code Act 2002. Which prohibits a leader with personal Interest from attending meetings of such a public body, and during which such matters have to be discussed.

(d) He attended and participated in the Council meeting of 7th April, 2005,

during which his candidature was deliberated upon under minute 20.7.5. During this meeting, the University Council acted ultra vires by usurping the powers of the search committee, established under the provisions of section 31(3) and denied it the power to recommend three suitable candidates from whom, the Vice Chancellor was to be appointed by the Chancellor. As highlighted hereunder, this section only empowered the University Council to approve the recommendations of the Senate as detailed below.

Section 31(2) of the Universities and other Tertiary Institutions Act, 2001 provides that;

“The Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the University Council from among the three candidates recommended by Senate”

Sections 31(3) further provides;

“A search Committee composed of two members of the University Council; and three members from the University Senate shall identify suitable candidates for the post of Vice Chancellor and forward them to the Senate to nominate three candidates for recommendation to the University Council”.

• The above provisions were not complied with and yet they were

mandatory.

• This means that in addition to Prof. Lutalo Bbosa’s failure to disclose his interest in the matter, his appointment was illegal for lack of compliance to the law as cited above. He therefore participated in the illegal and irregular process as Chairperson of the Senate and as member of the

xi

University Council because he attended all meetings of Senate and Council that made critical decisions leading to his appointment as Vice chancellor:-

(e) On 11th April, 2005, during the Senate special meeting under minute 5.0

Prof. Lutalo Bossa out of the blue excused himself from chairing the meeting on the basis that he was going to be the subject matter of the discussion. The fact that Prof Lutalo Bosa knew that he was going to be the subject of discussion when he never applied for the job of Vice Chancellor clearly demonstrated high level manipulation and flouting of the law. This was dishonest on the part of Prof. Lutalo Bosa and those who participated all along in the Senate and Council meetings which considered his appointment. There was lack of transparency.

(f) The composition of the Senate was largely members of staff under direct

supervision of Prof. Lutalo Bossa as the Vice Chancellor particularly;

Dr. B.D. Mpandey Ag Deputy Vice Chancellor Mrs. M.G. Katushabe Ssemwezi Ag University Secretary

Mr. D.A. Biganja Ag University Bursar Mr. J.N. Kiyimba Ag University Librarian Dr. A.A. Cula Ag Academic Registrar

All the above members, among others, were working in acting capacities which provided a very fertile environment for manipulation, connivance and collusion and consequently these members could not have acted contrary to the interests of Prof. Lutalo Bbosa, and indeed as it happened, Senate irregularly considered Prof. Lutalo Bbosa for the post of Vice Chancellor without regard to Section 31(3) of the Universities and other Tertiary Institutions Act, 2001 which require suitable candidates to have been nominated by the Search Committee.

(e) Investigations further established that Prof. Lutalo Bossa was referee for

the under mentioned when they applied to be considered in the positions, they were holding in acting capacities;

(a) Dr. B.D. Mpandey - for the post of Deputy Vice Chancellor

(b) Mrs. M.G. Katushabe - For the post of University Ssemwezi Secretary (c) Mr. D.A. Biganja - For the post of University Bursar

In the case of the latter (Mrs. Katushabe Ssemwezi and Mr. Biganja) prof. Lutalo Bossa failed to disqualify himself from attending the Appointments

xii

Board proceedings while interviewing and deliberating on their appointments since he was their referee.

In the case of Dr. Mpandey Prof. Lutalo Bosa did not disqualify himself neither from the meetings of Senate nor University Council which discussed and approved/confirmed Dr Mpandey’s appointment as Deputy Vice Chancellor since he was his referee.

(f) Prof. Lutalo Bosa also attended the University Council meeting of 29th April 2005 which under minute 9.8.1 recommended his appointment as vice chancellor of Kyambogo University

The above indicates that Prof. Lutalo Bosa’s conduct breached the Leadership Code Act Section 8(1) and 8 (2a), 9(1),(2) and (4) which provide as follows;

Section 8(1), “a leader shall not put himself in a position in which his orher personal interest conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities”.

Section 8(2) (a), “conflict of interest shall be taken to arise where a leader deals with a matter in which he or she has personal interest and he or she is in position to influence the matter, directly or indirectly, in the course of his or her official duties”. Section8(3) “a leader who contravenes this section(section 8) commits a breach of the code.” Section 9(1), “a leader shall not participate in the deliberations of a public body or board or council or commission or committee, of which heor she is a member at any meeting at which any matter in which he or she has a personal interest is to be discussed”. Section 9(2), “a leader attending a meeting under subsection (1) of thissection shall disclose the nature and extent of his or her personal interest”. Section 9(4), “before a leader deals with a matter in the course of his or her duties in which he or she has a personal interest, the leader shall inform the person or public body or institution concerned, of the nature and extent of his or her interest”. Section 35(d) of the Leadership Code Act, which provides that “ A leader who commits a breach of this code shall in the case of breach under Sections 8(3), 9(4) ……… be liable to dismissal or shall vacate office”.

xiii

Section 20(3) “A person dismissed, removed from office, or convicted for a breach of this Code shall not hold any other Public Office whether appointive or elective for five years effective from the date of dismissal or removal ”

r) In a letter dated 28th November this office requested Prof. Lutalo

Bbosa to respond to the above findings. In his response Prof. Lutalo Bbosa acknowledged the IG findings that the Senate and University council acted contrary to the law by usurping the powers of the Search Committee. He denied that he was in conflict of interest on the basis that during the Senate Meeting of 11/4/2005 he only started the meeting in his capacity as Chairman of Senate and left the meeting when his candidature was being discussed. He however failed to convincingly explain how the Senate came to discuss his candidature for the post of Vice Chancellor since he had not applied nor nominated by the Search Committee as required by law.

s) Prof. Lutalo Bosa further denied the fact that the membership of the

Senate at the time were mainly staff under his supervision who could therefore not have gone against his interests. A further scrutiny of the attendance list of the meeting show that out of the 20 members who attended the meeting only two were not staff under his direct supervision, these include, only two representatives of Ministry of Education and sports. Besides walking out of proceedings he did not satisfactorily explain why he did not disclose his interest and walk out as required by the Leadership Code when he attended Council meetings which deliberated upon his candidature and consequent appointment. Therefore this office did not find merit in Prof. Lutalo Bbosa’s explanation/response or defence.

Conclusions (e) From the foregoing it is very clear that Prof Lutalo Bbosa was part of the

manipulative and fraudulent process leading to his appointment as Vice Chancellor, as Chairman of the Senate and Member of the University Council. He attended meetings of Council that made critical decisions leading to his appointment including the Council meeting of 29th April 2005 which under minute 9.8.1 recommended his appointment as vice chancellor of Kyambogo University

The Inspectorate of Government therefore concludes that since the appointment process of Professor Lutalo Bosa on a five year contract, did not comply with the relevant provisions of the law as indicated above, it

xiv

was void ab nitio; it did not therefore constitute a binding contract since it was procured through a fraudulent process during which Prof. Lutalo Bosa was an active participant as a member of the University Council and Chairman of the University Senate.

2.2.1 Appointment of Dr. Basima Mpandey as the Deputy Vice

Chancellor, Finance and Administration

• Prior to his appointment as the Deputy Vice Chancellor, he was the Principal of former Uganda Polytechnic College

• He had also been appointed a member of the Interim Management Task

Force, that was supposed to kick start the University, as Ag. Deputy Vice Chancellor.

It was established that:-

• On the 6th April 2005, a Special meeting of the University Senate was convened, during which it was resolved that a Search Committee which was responsible for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor should also identify suitable candidates for the position of Deputy Vice Chancellors, in-charge of Academic and also Finance and Administration.

• On the 11th October, 2005, the search committee had completed its

assignment, and forwarded its report to the University Senate, indicating that whereas it had received 6 applicants for the post of Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs, there was no applicant for the post of Deputy Vice Chancellor Finance and Administration.

• That there is no record as per the Minute indicating that at the time when

the possibility of considering the incumbent for the job, was being discussed, he did declare his interest and therefore disqualified himself as a participant/ member of the meeting and as dictated by the provision of section 9(1) of the Leadership Code Act, 2002

• It is clear that the observation by the University Council in their meeting

of the 8th and 29th November, 2005, were generated and tailored to suit the qualifications, experience, weakness of the incumbent, Dr. Mpandey. This is a clear manifestation of high level conflict of interest, influence peddling, abuse of office and thus is a gross violation of the relevant provisions of section 9(1) and (11) the leadership Code Act 2002.

• It should further be noted that in (Dr Mpandey’s application, there is Prof. Lutalo Bosa, the Ag. Vice Chancellor, as his referee, for the job. It was

xv

further noted that by using Lutalo Bosa, as his referee, even before the council could convene and assess whether he meets the set criteria as declared during the 8th November, 2005, he had already endorsed him, together with his team , who were part of the Senate and Council.

• Dr. Mpandey also attended the University Council meeting held on 31st

October, 2006, during which, it was resolved under minute 7.0 that he should be recommended to the Chancellor for appointment as Deputy Vice Chancellor – Finance and Administration.

• It was noted that although Section 40(1) of the Universities and other

Tertiary Institutions Act, 2001, establishes a University Council, as the supreme organ of the University, responsible for its overall Administration, Section 41 does not empower a University Council, to usurp the power of the Senate to recommend suitable candidates for its approval and consequent appointment by the Chancellor. By rejecting the University senate’s recommendation that the post of Deputy Vice Chancellor be re-advertised and insisting that opportunity be given to Dr. Mpandey, the University Council acted ultra vires, thus rendering his consequent appointment on contract void abnitio.

• It was also established that although there is no provision in the Act that

rendered Dr. Mpandey ineligible for appointment, for the Post in question, despite his being the holder of the office in Acting capacity, he was supposed to disclose his interest in retaining the job and also disqualify himself from attending meetings of the Senate and University Council, during which his candidature was deliberated upon. By so doing, he violated the relevant provisions of the Leadership Code Act, as highlighted below:-

Section 8(1), “a leader shall not put himself in a position in which his orher personal interest conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities”.

Section 8(2) (a), “conflict of interest shall be taken to arise where a leader deals with a matter in which he or she has personal interest and he or she is in position to influence the matter, directly or indirectly, in the course of his or her official duties”. Section8(3) “a leader who contravenes this section(section 8) commits a breach of the code.” Section 9(1), “a leader shall not participate in the deliberations of a public body or board or council or commission or committee, of which he

xvi

or she is a member at any meeting at which any matter in which he or she has a personal interest is to be discussed”. Section 9(2), “a leader attending a meeting under subsection (1) of thissection shall disclose the nature and extent of his or her personal interest”.

Section 9(4), “before a leader deals with a matter in the course of his or her duties in which he or she has a personal interest, the leader shall inform the person or public body or institution concerned, of the nature and extent of his or her interest”. Section 35(d) of the Leadership Code Act, which provides that “ A leader who commits a breach of this code shall in the case of breach under Sections 8(3), 9(4) ……… be liable to dismissal or shall vacate office”. Section 20(3) “A person dismissed, removed from office, or convicted for a breach of this Code shall not hold any other Public Office whether appointive or elective for five years effective from the date of dismissal or removal ”

• In a letter dated 28/11/2008 the Inspectorate of Government requested Dr. Mpandey to respond to the above findings to and which he responded as follows; “that he had nothing whatsoever to restrain the decision making bodies from acting against his favour” He, however, did not address himself to the issue of failure to disclose his interest.

CONCLUSION :

It as concluded that the appointment of Dr. Mpandey was characterized by conflict of interest since he did not declare his interest in the job. He attended meetings of Council that made critical decisions leading to his appointment including the Council meeting of 29th April 2005 which finally recommended him to the Chancellor for appointment. This indicates conflict of interest according to the Leadership Code Act, 2002.

xvii

Appointment of University Secretary, University Bursar, Academic Registrar and University librarian

As originally recommended by the Tusubira Task Force Committee, all officers occupying the above post were in acting positions. They included the following; Ms. Katusabe Semwezi Ag. University Secretary Dr. Cula Ag. University Academic Registrar Mr. D. Biganja Ag. University Bursar On the 14th December, 2004 the University council had resolved under min. 7.1 that, all the above post, be advertised. On the 17th March, 2005, the Appointments Board meeting was convened and attended by Mrs Katushabe Semwezi. During this meeting, the Board resolved to recommend to council, that first priority be given to staff on ground before jobs can be advertised for public competition. The University Council consequently agreed with the Board and its earlier decision to advertise the posts in question was rescinded, during its meeting, held on 29th April, 2005. On the 17th March 2006 Council meeting was convened during which it concurred with the Board, that the following officers be appointed as part of the team of top officers of the University.

• Ms. Katusabe Semwezi University Secretary • Mr. Biganja University Bursar • Dr. Cula Academic Registrar • Mr. Justine Kiyimba University Librarian

Appointment of Ms. Katusabe Semwezi as the University Secretary

According to the provisions of section 33(1), there is established the office of the University Secretary who is appointed by the University Council, on the recommendations of the Appointments Board. Section 33(2) provides that the University Secretary shall be responsible for the general administration of the University, including the custody of its assets.

xviii

Section 33(3) further provides that the University Secretary shall be Secretary to the University council and the Accounting Officer of the University.

• Ms. Katushabe Semwezi, formerly a Deputy Registrar of ITEK Kyambogo,

was a member of the Task Force that had been tasked to develop proposal of the merger of the three institutions of UPK, ITEK and UNISE to form a new Kyambogo University.

• She was also appointed member of the interim University management

committee to act as the University Secretary. As earlier highlighted, this was the management committee, tasked to implement the merger process.

• As the University Secretary, M/s Katusabe Semwezi, was also Secretary to

the Appointments Board. She therefore attended the appointments Board meeting of 7th February 2005 during which, it was decided to advise University council to rescind the decision to advertise top positions of the University, including the post of U.S

• As the Ag. University Secretary she issued Circular No. 45 inviting

candidates to apply for Top University jobs, including the post of University Secretary. She also applied for the post, by submitting her application to her office.

• Since the application forms filled and submitted by interested candidates

in the top University posts, including the post of a University Secretary were supposed to indicate referees, she indicated Prof. Lutalo Bosa and Dr. Mpandey, both members of the Appointments Board, as her referees. These officers attended Board Meetings during which her suitability for the post and recommendation for appointment by council, were deliberated upon.

• As Ag. University Secretary and therefore Secretary to the University

Council, at that particular time she attended the University Council meeting of 17th March, 2005, during which it was resolved under min. 5.2(1) that the decision to advertise the posts in question including the post of University Secretary be rescinded.

• She also attended University Council meeting of 29th April, 2005, which

finally approved her appointment as the University Secretary. • It was observed that although the University and other Tertiary

Institutions Act, 2001, did not disqualify Ms. Katusabe, from competing for

xix

the post in question, despite holding it in acting capacity, she was obliged under the relevant provisions of the leadership Code Act 2002, to disclose her interest in retaining the job and also to disqualify herself, from attending meetings of both the Appointments Board and University Council, during which, her candidature was deliberated upon. By so doing, her conduct violated the relevant provisions of the code as highlighted below; Section 8(1), “a leader shall not put himself in a position in which his orher personal interest conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities”.

Section 8(2) (a), “conflict of interest shall be taken to arise where a leader deals with a matter in which he or she has personal interest and he or she is in position to influence the matter, directly or indirectly, in the course of his or her official duties”. Section8(3) “a leader who contravenes this section(section 8) commits a breach of the code.” Section 9(1), “a leader shall not participate in the deliberations of a public body or board or council or commission or committee, of which heor she is a member at any meeting at which any matter in which he or she has a personal interest is to be discussed”. Section 9(2), “a leader attending a meeting under subsection (1) of thissection shall disclose the nature and extent of his or her personal interest”. Section 9(4), “before a leader deals with a matter in the course of his or her duties in which he or she has a personal interest, the leader shall inform the person or public body or institution concerned, of the nature and extent of his or her interest”. Section 35(d) of the Leadership Code Act, which provides that “ A leader who commits a breach of this code shall in the case of breach under Sections 8(3), 9(4) ……… be liable to dismissal or shall vacate office”. Section 20(3) “A person dismissed, removed from office, or convicted for a breach of this Code shall not hold any other Public Office whether appointive or elective for five years effective from the date of dismissal or removal ”

xx

In a letter dated 28/11/2008 this office requested Katushabe Ssemwezi to respond to the above findings. In her 8 page response she conceded that she attended the meetings of Council as quoted above. She acknowledged that although she attended these meetings she did not participate in the deliberations of the matters in which she had personal interest. This office however interpreted attendance of the meetings in question, to mean that she participated in the deliberations, which is prohibited under section 9(1) and (11)of the Leadership Code Act, 2002.

CONCLUSION It was concluded that by attending the meetings in question, Mrs Katushabe Ssemwezi’s conduct violated relevant provisions of the Code as highlighted above.

Appointment of Mr. D. A. Biganja as the University Bursar

• According to Section 36 of the University and other Tertiary Institutions Act, 2001, it is provided that;

“ (i) There shall be a University Bursar, for each Public University who

shall be appointed by the University Council on the recommendation of the Appointments Board and on such terms and conditions that the University council may determine.

(ii) That the University Bursar shall be responsible for the financial

Administration and planning of the University and shall maintain Accounts in a form determined by the University Council”

(iii) The University Bursar shall be responsible to the Vice Chancellor

through the University Secretary, who is the Accounting Officer”. • On the 15th April, 2005, the Ag. University Secretary, Ms. Katusabe

Semwezi issued circular No. 45 in which she indicated that some members of staff interested in applying for top management positions should apply. These jobs included among others, the post of a University Bursar.

• Mr. A. Biganja was at the time the Ag. University Bursar. He

submitted his assessment form (application form) in which he indicated that Prof. Lutalo Bosa and Ms. Katusabe Semwezi, by then Ag. Vice Chancellor and Ag. University Secretary respectively, were his

xxi

referees. They were also members of the Appointments Board and University Council.

• Prof. Lutalo Bosa attended the Appointments Board meeting of 21st

April, 2005 during which, Mr. Biganja candidature and suitability for the post of University Bursar was deliberated upon.

• Mr. Biganja, together with his referees as indicated above, attended

University council meeting held on 17th March, which declared under minute 5.2(1) that the decision to advertise the position of University Bursar be rescinded and opportunity be given to staff on the ground. Mr. Biganja was the staff on ground refered to by the decision of Council.

• Mr. A. Biganja, also attended the University Council meeting of 29th

April, 2005, during which, his appointment as University Bursar was approved.

• The failure of Mr. A Biganja together with his referees to disclose

personal interest and also to disqualify himself, together with referees, from attendance of these meetings of council was tantamount to conflict of Interest and violation of the relevant provisions of the Leadership Code Act, 2002 as highlighted below;

Section 8(1), “a leader shall not put himself in a position in which his orher personal interest conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities”.

Section 8(2) (a), “conflict of interest shall be taken to arise where a leader deals with a matter in which he or she has personal interest and he or she is in position to influence the matter, directly or indirectly, in the course of his or her official duties”. Section8(3) “a leader who contravenes this section(section 8) commits a breach of the code.” Section 9(1), “a leader shall not participate in the deliberations of a public body or board or council or commission or committee, of which heor she is a member at any meeting at which any matter in which he or she has a personal interest is to be discussed”. Section 9(2), “a leader attending a meeting under subsection (1) of thissection shall disclose the nature and extent of his or her personal interest”.

xxii

Section 9(4), “before a leader deals with a matter in the course of his or her duties in which he or she has a personal interest, the leader shall inform the person or public body or institution concerned, of the nature and extent of his or her interest”. Section 35(d) of the Leadership Code Act, which provides that “ A leader who commits a breach of this code shall in the case of breach under Sections 8(3), 9(4) ……… be liable to dismissal or shall vacate office”. Section 20(3) “A person dismissed, removed from office, or convicted for a breach of this Code shall not hold any other Public Office whether appointive or elective for five years effective from the date of dismissal or removal ” In a letter dated 28/11/2008 this office requested Mr. Biganja to respond to the above findings. In his response dated 10/12/2008 he stated that he was neither a member of the Appointment’s Board nor University Council. That he only attended the quoted council meetings as an ex-official.

CONCLUSION It is concluded that by attending meetings in which a matter of appointment of Mr. Biganja as Bursar was discussed, Mr. Biganja’s conduct tantamount to conflict of Interest and violation of the relevant provisions of the Leadership Code.

Appointment of Dr. A.A. Cula as the Academic Registrar Kyambogo University

Section 34(1) of the Universities and other Tertiary Institutions Act provides that “ There shall be an Academic Registrar of each Public University appointed by the University Council, on the recommendation of the appointments Board and on terms and conditions that council may determine”. Section 34(2) provide that the Academic Registrar shall be responsible to the vice chancellor

• Dr. A.A. Cula was the Ag. Academic Registrar of Kyambogo University

since 2003. On the 15th April, 2005, the then Ag. University Secretary, Ms. Katushabe Semwezi, issued circular No. 45, inviting interested competent candidates to apply for top University management posts, among them, the post of Academic Registrar.

• Dr. A. Cula submitted his assessment form to the University Secretary’s

office in which he indicated Dr. Mpandey as one of his referees.

xxiii

• Dr. Mpandey was a member of the Appointments Board at the time and

he attended the Board meeting of 21st April, 2005, which evaluated Dr. Cula’s candidature for the post.

• Dr. Cula, together with his referee, Dr. Mpandey, attended University

Council meetings during which critical decisions concerning his appointment as the Academic Registrar were made, as indicated below;

(i) Dr. Cula together with his referee Dr. Mpandey both attended the

University Council meeting of 17th March, 2005 during which its earlier decision to advertise the position of Academic Registrar, among others’ was rescinded.

(ii) Dr. Cula together with his referee, Dr. Mpandey both attended the

University Council meeting of 29th April, 2005, which finally approved his appointment as the Academic Registrar.

Dr Cula’s attendance of the above meetings and failure to disclose his interest violated the following provisions of the Leadership Code Act, 2002;

Section 8(1), “a leader shall not put himself in a position in which his orher personal interest conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities”.

Section 8(2) (a), “conflict of interest shall be taken to arise where a leader deals with a matter in which he or she has personal interest and he or she is in position to influence the matter, directly or indirectly, in the course of his or her official duties”. Section8(3) “a leader who contravenes this section(section 8) commits a breach of the code.” Section 9(1), “a leader shall not participate in the deliberations of a public body or board or council or commission or committee, of which heor she is a member at any meeting at which any matter in which he or she has a personal interest is to be discussed”. Section 9(2), “a leader attending a meeting under subsection (1) of thissection shall disclose the nature and extent of his or her personal interest”. Section 9(4), “before a leader deals with a matter in the course of his or her duties in which he or she has a personal interest, the leader shall

xxiv

inform the person or public body or institution concerned, of the nature and extent of his or her interest”. Section 35(d) of the Leadership Code Act, which provides that “ A leader who commits a breach of this code shall in the case of breach under Sections 8(3), 9(4) ……… be liable to dismissal or shall vacate office”. Section 20(3) “A person dismissed, removed from office, or convicted for a breach of this Code shall not hold any other Public Office whether appointive or elective for five years effective from the date of dismissal or removal ”

In a letter dated 28/11/2008 the Inspectorate of Government asked Dr. Cula to respond to the above findings. In his response dated 10/12/2008 Dr. Cula did not address himself to the issue of failure to disclose personal interest, and occasions conflict of interest by attending meetings which considered his candidature for the post of Academic Registrar. CONCLUSION: It was therefore concluded that by attending meetings during which the issue at stake concerned appointment of Dr. Cula as Academic Registrar, Dr. Cula’s conduct was tantamount to conflict of Interest and violation of section 9(1) of the Leadership Code and resulted is breach of the Code Act 2002. Appointment of Mr. Justine Kiyimba as the University Librarian

Section 35(1) of the Universities and other Tertiary Institutions Act, 2001, provides that;

“There shall be a University Libra ian for each Public University, who shall be appointed by the University council on the recommendation of the Appointments Board, on terms and conditions the University council may determine”

r

• Mr. Justine Nathan Kiyimba was appointed by the Interim University

Council as Ag. University Librarian Kyambogo University since 2003. • On the 15th April, 2005 the Ag. University Secretary issued circular No. 45

inviting interested members of staff, to apply for the top management positions of the University the post of University Librarian inclusive

xxv

• Mr. Justine Kiyimba responded and submitted his Assessment form to the Appointments Board, through the office of the University Secretary in which he indicated Dr. Andrew A. Cula as his referee

• Mr. Justine Kiyimba together with his referee, Dr. Cula, both attended

University Council meetings during which decisions concerning his appointment as a Librarian were made as indicated below;

• Mr. Justine Kiyimba together with his referee Dr. Cula, attended the

University Council meeting of 17th March, 2005, during which council’s earlier decision to advertise the positions of University Librarian was rescinded.

• Mr. Justus Kiyimba also attended the University Council meeting of 29th

April, 2005, during which his appointment as the University Librarian was approved. By so doing, Mr Justine Kiyimba’s conduct violated the following provisions of the leadership Code Act, 2001, as indicated below;

Section 8(1), “a leader shall not put himself in a position in which his orher personal interest conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities”.

t

Section 8(2) (a), “conflict of interest shall be taken to arise where a leader deals with a matter in which he or she has personal interest and he or she is in position to influence the matter, directly or indirectly, in the course of his or her official duties”. Section8(3) “a leader who contravenes this section(section 8) commits a breach of the code.” Section 9(1), “a leader shall not participate in the deliberations of a public body or board or council or commission or committee, of which heor she is a member at any meeting at which any matter in which he or she has a personal interest is to be discussed”. Section 9(2), “a leader attending a meeting under subsection (1) of thissection shall disclose the nature and extent of his or her personal interest”. A public body as defined by the Leadership Code Act, 2002, means Parliament, a statutory Corporation, Commission, Board Council, authorityor any other body in which Government has an in erest a co-operative various registered under the cooperative society Act 1970 …”

xxvi

Section 9(4), “before a leader deals with a matter in the course of his or her duties in which he or she has a personal interest, the leader shall inform the person or public body or institution concerned, of the nature and extent of his or her interest”. Section 35(d) of the Leadership Code Act, which provides that “ A leader who commits a breach of this code shall in the case of breach under Sections 8(3), 9(4) ……… be liable to dismissal or shall vacate office”. Section 20(3) “A person dismissed, removed from office, or convicted for a breach of this Code shall not hold any other Public Office whether appointive or elective for five years effective from the date of dismissal or removal ”

• In a letter dated 28/11/2008 this office requested Mr. Justine Kiyimba to respond to the above findings. In his response dated 4/12/2008 Mr Kiyimba stated that he was not a member of the University Council though he was in attendance at the Council meetings under reference, during which his candidature for the post was deliberated upon. CONCLUSION: It was therefore concluded that by attending meetings in which a matter of appointment of Mr. Justine Nathan Kiyimba as University Librarian was discussed Mr. Justine Kiyimba conduct was amounted to conflict of Interest and violation and breach of the above provisions of the Leadership Code.

4 Whether members of Ag. Top management of the University were

involved in gross mismanagement of its finances and other resources.

Mismanagement of property and other resources of the University - There was general mismanagement of the University as manifested by the following;

• Employees of the University including the Vice Chancellor Prof. Lutalo Bosa being suppliers of food stuffs to the University and using the University shop and facilities for their personal gain. This could also provide conducive environment where university funds could be siphoned without any checks.

xxvii

Mismanagement of financial resources of the University. The investigations established that there was mismanagement of the finances of the University as manifested by;

• A breakdown in the accounting system of the University

characterized by poor record keeping, lack/non-existent financial records and total lack of accountability regarding the operation of some income generating units such as the University Café, University Farm, Guest house and the mechanical workshop

• Non-compliance to the University medical policy where some staff

are paid medical refunds where they do not qualify for the refunds. Mrs Katushabe Ssemmwezi modified the University’s medical policy without the approval of Council for the benefit of the few staff.

• Transfer of money from the academic departments without

following the approved sharing ratios inevitably affecting the departments budgets and planned activities.

• Failure to remit statutory contributions like NSSF, PAYE. It is poor

management to recruit staff the University was not able to meet their wage and salary cost. NSSF and PAYE are part of the wage/salary cost. The argument that the budget was cash limited and not number limited by the University management has no relevance whatsoever. It rather goes further to illustrate incompetence on the part of the Accounting Officer.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS : In view of the above findings, it is recommended that; 6.1 In order to resolve the issue of integration of staff into Kyambogo

University, the law establishing Kyambogo University should be amended to allow restructuring and proper integration of staff into the University allowing for retrenchment/retirement of staff who cannot fit in the new structure, upgrading of unqualified staff within a given period and voluntary retirement accompanied with an attractive retirement package to motivate those who can retire voluntarily. Time frame must be provided and specific tasks should be assigned specific persons in the institution to avoid a repeat of what happened in the instant case.

6.2 The Ministry of Education and the University Council should as a matter of urgency liaise with Ministry of Public Service and Finance and come up

xxviii

with a comprehensive proposal on how to secure funds to enable payment of commensurate benefits for staff that shall be inevitably laid off in the event of complete restructuring of the University.

6.3 Government should provide funding for

• The restructuring exercise to pay terminal benefits • Initial capital development for infrastructure and equipment to promote

teaching of science and technology. Government should be willing to invest in the teaching of science and technology for better results

6.4 The Cabinet Sub Committee recommendation on Prof. Lutalo Bosa to

retire him and pay commensurate benefits is upheld. 6.5 The University Council should retire the following top most officers in the

interest of stability of the University and pay them commensurate benefits, the same way Prof. Lutalo Bosa was retired ;

(a) Ms. Katushabe Semwezi- the University Secretary

on forced leave (b) Dr. Basima Mpandey currently the Deputy Vice

Chancellor in-charge of Finance and Administration. This recommendation is made on the basis that the two officers, like Prof. Lutalo Bosa were technically empowered by the law, to handle the overall administration of the University and were therefore responsible for the failure of the merger process and intergration of staff into the new University.

6.6 The following officers be warned for breach of the Leadership Code Act 1. Mr. Biganja A David – Bursar(on forced leave)

2. Dr A. Cula - Academic Registrar 3. Mr. Justine Kyimba - University Librarian

This recommendation is made on the basis that their breach was due to the flawed adhoc arrangements caused by the Ministry of Education, which failed to implement the merger in the manner it was expected to. So their breach of the Leadership Code was not 100% their making but the poor administrative function of the Ministry as stated earlier in the report.

6.7 Government should also reconsider the original proposal, as contained in

the Education white paper report, 1992, of creating Kyambogo University, as a federal University with constituent colleges, and continued

xxix

maintenance of special characteristics of the merged institutions and emphasis on promotion of Science and Technology. Each constituent college would be headed by a principal, in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Universities and Tertiary Institutions Act 2001, with an overall Vice Chancellor.

6.8 There should be effective supervision by the Ministry of Education and

Sports to ensure an effective and efficient merger process and to correct the errors already committed.

6.9 Reforms in the managerial processes of the University are also

recommended to safeguard the University property and other resources. These may include;

• Computerization of the financial records of the University. • Divestiture of some income generating activities like University Café,

Guest House.

• Establishing strong internal control system to safeguard the resources of the University including strengthening the internal audit function of the University.

• Strict adherence to procurement procedures and public financial

regulations e.g. eliminate cash transactions and haphazard purchases.

• Streamline staff recruitment procedures

INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT JUNE 2009

xxx