office of the auditor general · office of the auditor general the republic of uganda ... 4.2...

1VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE LAND TENURE REFORM PROJECT

BY THE MINISTRY OF LANDS HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

T H E R E P U B L I C O F U G A N D A

M A R C H , 2 0 1 3

VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF

THE LAND TENURE REFORM PROJECT BY THE MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL

www.oag.go.ug | E-mail: [email protected]


VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT

ON THE MANAGEMENT OF

THE LAND TENURE REFORM PROJECT

BY THE MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL

MARCH, 2013


12th June, 2013

The Rt. Hon. Speaker of ParliamentParliament of UgandaKampala

VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE LAND TENURE REFORM PROJECT BY THE MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

In accordance with Article 163 (3) of the Constitution, I have undertaken a value for money audit on the management of the Land Tenure Reform Project implemented by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and hereby submit this report.

My office intends to carry out a follow – up at an appropriate time regarding actions taken in relation to the recommendations in this report.

I would like to thank my staff: The Director, Mr Stephen Kateregga and Assistant Director Liz Nambuya; and team Bob Monday – Senior Principal Auditor, Patrick Ndahura - Principal Auditor, Joshua Asiimwe - Senior Auditor, the two VFM auditors: Samuel Magembe and Lindah Nalubanga who undertook this audit. I would also like to thank the staff of Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Developments charged with the implementation of the Project for the assistance offered to my staff during the period of the audit.

John F. S. MuwangaAUDITOR GENERAL

AUDITOR GENERALAUDITOR GENERAL’S MESSAGE

TAB

LE O

FCO

NTE

NTS

TAB

LE O

F CO

NTE

NTS

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

List of tables ............................................................................................................................................. ii

List of figures ............................................................................................................................................ ii

List of acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ ii

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background to the audit ................................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Motivation ....................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Description of the audit area .......................................................................................................... 5

1.3.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 5

1.3.2 Mandate ........................................................................................................................................... 6

1.3.3 Vision and mission statement ......................................................................................................... 6

1.3.4 LTRP strategic objectives ................................................................................................................. 6

1.3.5 Activities carried out by LTRP .......................................................................................................... 6

1.3.6 Organizational structure ................................................................................................................. 7

1.3.7 Funding for the LTRP ....................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Audit objectives ........................................................................................................................ ........ 8

1.5 Audit scope ....................................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER TWO 2.0 AUDIT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ ....... 10

2.1 Sampling ........................................................................................................................................ 10

2.2 Data collection methods ............................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Document review ........................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Interviews ....................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.3 Physical inspection ........................................................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER THREE3.0 SYSTEMS AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 12

3.1 Systems description ...................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Process description ........................................................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 19

4.1 National land policy and legislative reviews ................................................................................. 19

4.2 Project design for the land tenure reform project ........................................................................ 21

4.3 Implementation and functionality of the land information system .............................................. 22

4.4 Government land inventory and management ............................................................................. 29

4.5 Development of the national land use plan ................................................................................. 30

4.6 Sensitization on land tenure reforms and land rights .................................................................. 31

4.7 Systematic demarcation of land ..................................................................................................... 33

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................. 38

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 40

Appendix I- Organizational Structure ...................................................................................................... 40

Appendix II – Documents reviewed ........................................................................................................... 41

Appendix III – List of interviews conducted ............................................................................................ 43

Appendix IV - Timelines for LIS project ....................................................................................................44

Appendix V: The approved structure for a Ministry Zonal Office ............................................................ 46

VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE LAND TENURE REFORM PROJECT BY THE MINISTRY OF LANDS HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL

Table 1: Sowing funding Source for LTRP activities ................................................................................... 8

Table 2 Showing planned and approved essential laws and policies ...................................................... 20

Table 3: Showing results for data conversion for freehold, leasehold and Mailo title files .................... 23

Table 4: Showing the total number of file conversion by MZO ................................................................ 24

Table 5: Showing planned and actual public awareness activities ......................................................... 32

Table 6: Showing various phases in the implement of SD ....................................................................... 34

Table 7: Showing planned and actual SD in various villages .................................................................. 35

Table 8: Showing planned and actual certificates of customary ownership issued ............................... 35

Picture 1: Showing some examples of titles that needed reconstruction/reconstruction ..................... 25

Picture 2: Showing double plotting and titling on a typical title .............................................................. 26

ii

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF PICTURES

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AG Auditor General

ALC Area Land Committees

CAO Chief Administrative Officer

DLB District Land Board

DLO District Land Office

DLT District Land Tribunal

FRA Food Rights Alliance

FY Financial Year

GOU Government Of Uganda

IGN InstitutGéographique National (French National Mapping Agency)

IMG Implementation Management Group

INTOSAI International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions

IT Information Technology

KCCA Kampala City Council Authority

LA98 Land Act, 1998

LAIS Land Act Implementation Study

LAIU Land Act Implementation Unit

LC Local Council

VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE LAND TENURE REFORM PROJECT BY THE MINISTRY OF LANDS HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL iii

LG Local Government

LIS Land Information System

LISP Land Information System Project

LSCS Land Sector Coordination Secretariat

LSRCU Land Sector Reform Coordination Unit

LSSC Land Sector Steering Committee

LSSP Land Sector Strategic Plan

LTRP Land Tenure Reform Project

MAPR Ministerial Annual Performance Reports

MLHUD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development

MFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

MPS Ministerial Policy Statement

MZO Ministry Zonal Office

NEMA National Environmental Management Authority

NGO Non-Governmental Organizations

NLP National Land Policy

NLIC National Land Information Center

NLUP National Land Use Policy

OAG Office Of The Auditor General

PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan

PLO Principal Land Officer

PMA Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture

PS Permanent Secretary

PSCPII Private Sector competitiveness Project II

PSFU Private Sector Foundation Uganda

SD Systematic Demarcation

RDC Resident District Commissioner

TOR Terms of Reference

UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics

ULA Uganda Land Alliance

ULC Uganda Land Commission

SHS Uganda Shillings

VFM Value For Money


BACKGROUNDThis value for money (VFM) audit on the management of Land Tenure Reform Project by the Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development (MOLHUD) was conducted in accordance with Article 163(3) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. This mandate is amplified by Section 21(1) of the National Audit Act 2008 which requires the Auditor General to carry out VFM audits for purposes of establishing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the operations of any department or ministry.

The 1995 Constitution of Uganda included explicit land tenure-related provisions1. Further to this, the Constitution also mandated Parliament to enact laws relating to land management in the country to regulate the ownership relationship between mailo tenants and landlords, and making provision for tenants on registered holdings to acquire a registrable interest in land. The Land Act, 1998 was subsequently enacted. The Land Sector Strategic Plan (LSSP) was formulated to help in effective implementation of the land Act.

In this anticipation, the Land Tenure Reform Project(LTRP) was formed. The project aimed at reforming the land subsector by implementing the LSSP, which provides the Operation, Institutional and Financial Framework for the implementation of the sector wide reforms.

The Audit was conducted in accordance with INTOSAI standards. These standards require that a VFM audit should be planned in a manner which ensures that an audit of high quality is carried out in an economic, efficient and effective way and in a timely manner.Data collection methods, such as: Document reviews, Physical Observations, analytical reviews and Interviews were used.

MOTIVATIONLand disputes and conflicts have become very common in Uganda. Trans-state boundary disputes, national boundary disputes or conflicts between districts, hot spots of ethnic land conflicts, conflicts between pastoralists and agriculturalists are all on the rise2.

Uganda’s population was estimated at 34.1 million by mid 2012, and was expected to rise up to 37.2 million in the year 2015 and 52.9 million in 2025, growing at a rate 3.2% per annum3. With such enormous population increases exerting pressure on land since the biggest population is in the informal agriculture sector, the current land reforms are not adequate enough to maintain cordial

1 Article 237 (1) & (4) The most significant of these are: · Vesting of ultimate ownership of land directly in the citizens of Uganda· Legal recognition of the four tenure systems which existed before the 1975 Decree· Delegation of land matters to fully autonomous District Land Boards· Provision for customary owners to acquire certificates of ownership· Provision for conversion of customary and leasehold tenure to freehold · Security of occupancy on mailo, freehold or leasehold land for lawful or bona fide occupants (tenants).

2 Integrated study on land and family justice, a 2008 household survey by Rugadya…et al for Ministry of Justice in 20 districts

3 UBOS figures (statistical Abstract 2012)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iv


relations between users and owners of land. Conflicts, therefore, are arising naturally due to competing land uses, hence the need for strong and effective land reforms, which will lead to proper land use management in the country.Additionally, public land especially forest reserves have been massively encroached onby unauthorized persons4.

There are various independent reports5 on land related issues. For instance, OXFAM6 reported land grabbing7 in Mubende and Kiboga, districts where over 20,000 locals were forcefully evicted from their land, their crops destroyed and houses burnt as a result of misunderstandings between the locals and the private investors [New Forest Company Uganda Limited (NFC) and Neumann Kaffee].

Despite efforts by the Government of Uganda and the development partners to bring about the requisite land reforms, a number of initiatives have not been successfully completed to bring such reforms. There are increasing cases of land disputes, the Land Information System (LIS) is non-functional and the Project for the computerization of the land registry hangs in balance. The land administration system is inadequately resourced and performing poorly below expected standards8 with tendencies of fraud and corruption.9

4 The National Land Policy, 2013 5 The Independent dated Sunday, 06 may 2012 09:07 by

Haggai Matsiko under “the article Museveni angry over NGO report on land grabbing”

The Independent dated 09th Nov 2010 , The New vi-sion, 04th July,2009 , The Monitor,28th June, and11th Nov,2011[forged and delay in processing of land titles, payment of bribes, increase in land wrangles and evictions]

6 Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organi- Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organi-zations networked together in 92 countries, as part of a global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty.

7 Oxfam Report Titled “Land and power”,22nd Septem-ber,2011

8 Auditor General Value for Money Report on Perfor- Auditor General Value for Money Report on Perfor-mance of Land Administrative Units

9 The Inspectorate of Government second annual report on corruption trends in Uganda: using the data track-ing mechanism, November, 2011 – Economic Policy Research Centre PG 38

v

It is against this background that the office of the Auditor General thought it necessary to conduct a Value for Money audit on the performance of LTRP with an objective of ascertaining the progress of the project, examining the challenges faced and suggesting recommendations in areas of improvement.The audit covered three Financial Years of 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12.

MAJOR FINDINGSThe following audit findings were made:

National Land Policy and legislative reviews1. The ministry had not reviewed 78.6% of all essential laws and policies for the land sector planned for the period 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12. This regulatory framework review was aimed at providing a sound legal basis for the ownership, occupation of land and operationalization of the land information system being set up among others.

2. The National Land Information System (NLIS) being set up has no law recognizing its existence, has no rules and regulations to operationalize its operations but has been commissioned.

3. The Ministry had managed to facilitate the drafting and approval of the NLP pending incorporation of comments by Cabinet; however, complementary district land policies to operationalize the National Land policy had not been developed as required by the Constitution10 of the Republic of Uganda 1995. Absence of district land policies will make it difficult to implement this policy if steps are not expedited to start their formulation.

10 Article 241(2)


Project Design for the Land Tenure Reform Project1. The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (MoLHUD) did not have a specific

project design for the Land Tenure Reform Project (LTRP) as is the norm with all other similar Government projects. In the period starting 2001 to FY 2011/2012, Government had spent Shs.60 billion to facilitate activities of the project, however, most of its objectives, such as: creating an inclusive and pro poor policy and legal framework for the land sector, putting land resources to sustainable productive use and increasing availability and use of land information were yet to be realized.

2. The ministry had not developed performance matrices for measuring the objectives set in the LTRP document and had not prepared work plans for the implementation of the highlighted activities.

Implementation and functionality of the Land information system (LIS)1. It was noted that between September 2003 and 2009, efforts by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and

Urban Development (MoLHUD), through a company called MsStewardNet Ltd, to computerize the land information of the country’s land register had not yielded any tangible results. Audit was not availed with the total expenditure towards these efforts for the same period.

2. Government’s subsequent attempt at establishing the Land Information System (LIS) through the PSCP II project under the land sub-component was on track but had delayed by over 8 Months at the time of audit (March 2013) despite the ministry’s commissioning of the project.

3. The delayed functioning of the LIS has thus hampered availability, accessibility, affordability, and use of land information for planning and implementation of development programmes.

Government Land inventory and management1. By the time of audit (March,2013), the ministry had not finalized the activity of carrying out an

inventory to establish how much land the Government owned and the contract to deliver on this had been terminated.

2. By the time of audit, out of the planned 79 districts for the exercise, implementation had been conducted in only five (5) districts namely Masindi, Buliisa, Hoima, Kasese and Kyenjojo (Lot 7) of the contract. This is an overall performance of 6.3%.

Development of the National Land use PlanLTRP did not facilitate the development of a national land use plan and district land use plans in conformity with the national land use policy. As a result, there is failure to have an integrated approach to land use that will ensure that activities and policies concerning the three major forms of land use (agriculture, built environment and conservation areas) are harmonized to achieve social, economic and environmental benefits. Only 1/3 (33,000 sq km) of Uganda’s cultivable land is utilized at present implying that a total of 66,000 sqkm (67%) cultivable land is not being utilized.

Public awareness/sensitization of land tenure reforms and land rights1. The ministry had not managed to create and implement an effective system for the generation and dissemination of information on public awareness of land rights.2. With the exception of the sensitization materials for the National Land Policy that were

vi



translated into the major languages11, sensitization on activities aimed at promoting public participation in the implementation of land utilization strategies, laws, processes and procedures were not being given due attention.

Systematic demarcation of landIt was established that out of the planned nine (9) districts in which systematic demarcation was to be implemented,this activity had been carried out in only four (4) districts, that is: Ntungamo, Mbale, Iganga and Kibaale, representing a performance of 44.4% in Phases I and Phase II at a cost of Shs1.13billion. Further, out of the planned issuance of 12,459 systematic demarcation titles for the surveyed parcels of land, only 1,885 were processed, representing 15.1%, and of these, 1,660 (13.3%) had been issued to the beneficiaries.

Recommendations

National Land Policy and legislative reviews1. Management should expedite the legislative

reviews on planned land related laws and the development of district land policies. These will help in operationalizing the approved National Land Policy.

2. The LIS law should be at the forefront to guide its operationalization, now that the system has been commissioned.

Project Design for the Land Tenure Reform ProjectIn future, management should consider project designs that take on the recommended project life cycle with clear deliverables; timelines, indicating start date and end date; measurement criteria for set objectives, with clear work plans; if Value for Money is to be realized.

11 Seven major languages: Ateso, Ngakarimojong, Luganda, Lugbara, Luo, Runyankole-Rukiga, and Runyoro-Rutoro

Implementation and functionality of the Land information system (LIS)1. The ministry should sensitize its staff about

the benefits of the new system to ensure that they embrace it and thus become receptive to training on its implementation. This will also help management to get feedback on the system’s functionality so that the final design is drawn up before the roll out phase is initiated.

2. The Ministry should lobby Government to have their approved structure for the MZOs implemented so as to have functional MZOs.

3. Plans for the sustainability of the system, once it’s operational, should be expedited so as to bring on board the other 15 MZOs that were not brought into the initial pilot phase.

4. The ministry should expeditiously resolve cases of problem files so as to capture data on all available records in the land registry to avoid future problems once the system is operational. This is because for every fake title, double plotted and double titled record file, there is a genuine owner and claim.

Government Land inventory and management1. Management should prioritize the

development of a Government land inventory.

2. Government should consider reactivating the district dispute resolution teams to help in coming up with an amicable agreement between it and the registered and known interested parties such as the church, cultural institutions etc.

Development of the National Land use PlanManagement should mobilize all stakeholders to take up their roles and responsibilities in reviewing and harmonizing the different

2VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE LAND TENURE REFORM PROJECT BY THE MINISTRY OF LANDS HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL

sectoral laws and policies relating to land use and management, now that the National Land Policy has been approved (February 2013).

Public awareness/sensitization of land tenure reforms and land rights1. Management should consider prioritizing the dissemination of information and sensitization of

the public on land rights.2. Management should set realistic targets based on indicators of what was realistically achieved

in the prior year to determine what could be achieved in the following year.3. The Ministry should develop and establish performance matrices for measuring the success of

its sensitization efforts and information dissemination mechanisms.

Systematic demarcation of land

1. Management should carry out capacity building on human resource development by training personnel and purchasing appropriate tools and equipment.

2. Management should involve the private sector, Local Government personnel to supplement the central government efforts in Systematic Demarcation implementation.

3. Management should put emphasis on public information, education and sensitization.



CHA

PTER

ON

EC

HA

PTE

R O

NE

1

4VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMMUNITY AGRICULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME (CAIIP I &II) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE AUDIT

This Value for Money audit on the Management of Land Tenure reform Project was conducted in accordance with Article 163 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. This mandate is amplified by Section 21 (1) of the National Audit Act 2008, which requires the Auditor General to carry out value for money audits for purposes of establishing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the operations of any Ministry or Department.

1.2 MOTIVATION

Land disputes and conflicts have become very common in Uganda. Trans-state boundary disputes, national boundary disputes or conflicts between districts, hot spots of ethnic land conflicts, conflicts between pastoralists and agriculturalists are all on the rise12. Evictions on registered land between owners and the occupants are also on the rise. Additionally, public land, especially forest reserves, have been massively encroached on by unauthorized persons. There have been persistent independent reports13 on land related issues. For instance, OXFAM14 reported land grabbing15 in Mubende and Kiboga districts where over 20,000 locals were forcefully evicted from their land, their crops destroyed and their houses burnt as a result of misunderstandings between the locals and the private investors (New Forest Company Uganda Limited (NFC) and Neumann Kaffee).

Uganda’s population was estimated at 34.1 million by mid 2012, and was expected to rise up to 37.2 million in the year 2015 and to 52.9 million in 2025, growing at a rate of 3.2% per annum16. With such enormous population increases exerting pressure on land, since the biggest population is in the informal agriculture sector, the current land reforms are not adequate enough to maintain cordial relations between users and owners of land. Conflicts, therefore, are arising naturally due to competing land uses hence the need for strong and effective land reforms, which will lead to proper land use management in the country. Despite the efforts by the Government of Uganda and the Development Partners to bring about

12 Integrated study on land and family justice, a 2008 household survey by Rugadya…et al for Ministry of Justice in 20 Integrated study on land and family justice, a 2008 household survey by Rugadya…et al for Ministry of Justice in 20 districts

13 The Independent dated Sunday, 06 may 2012 09:07 by Haggai Matsiko under “the article Museveni angry over NGO report on land grabbing”

The Independent dated 09th Nov 2010 , The New vision, 04th July,2009 , The Monitor,28th June, and11th Nov,2011[forged and delay in processing of land titles, payment of bribes, increase in land wrangles and evictions]

14 Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organizations networked together in 92 countries, as part of a global Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organizations networked together in 92 countries, as part of a global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty.

15 Oxfam Report Titled “Land and power”,22 Oxfam Report Titled “Land and power”,22nd September,201116 UBOS fi gures (statistical Abstract 2012) UBOS figures (statistical Abstract 2012)

CHAPTER ONE

5VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMMUNITY AGRICULTURAL

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME (CAIIP I &II) | A REPORT BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL

the requisite land reforms, a number of initiatives have not been successfully completed. There are increasing cases of land disputes, the Land Information System (LIS) is non-functional and the project for the computerization of the land registry hangs in balance. The land administration system is inadequately resourced and performing below expected standards17 with tendencies of fraud and corruption.18

It is against this background that the Office of the Auditor General conducted a Value for Money audit on the performance of LTRP with an objective of ascertaining the progress of the project, examining the challenges faced and suggesting recommendations in areas of improvement.

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AUDIT AREA

1.3.1 BackgroundThe Land Tenure Reform Project (LTRP) is a Government and donor funded project under the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (MoLHUD). It was put in place with an aim of reforming the land sector by providing a framework for contributing to the achievements of Government policies and goals of modernizing agriculture and eradicating poverty by implementing the Land Sector Strategic Plan (LSSP), which provides the operational, institutional and financial framework for the implementation of sector wide reforms including the implementation of the Land Act, 1998.

The Land Tenure Reform Project has the following component activities:

17 Auditor General’s Value for Money Report on the Functionality of Land Management Institutions

18 The Inspectorate of Government second annual re- The Inspectorate of Government second annual re-port on corruption trends in Uganda: using the data tracking mechanism, November, 2011 – Economic Policy Research Centre PG 38

· Creating an inclusive and pro poor policy and legal framework for the land sector, putting land resources to sustainable productive use ;

· Improving the livelihoods of poor people through equitable distribution of land access and ownership, and provision of greater tenure security for vulnerable groups ;

· Increasing availability and use of land information ;

· Establishing and maintaining transparent, accessible institutions and systems for decentralized delivery of land services; and

· Mobilizing and utilizing public and private resources effectively for the development of the land sub-sector.

The key result areas for the LTRP include:· The final Draft National Land Policy (NLP)· The National Land Use Plan· Reduction in the number of land disputes · Reviewed and revised land related laws· Construction of new land offices and

renovation of existing ones · Training of District Land Boards (DLBs)

and Area Land Committees · Provision of technical support to DLBs and

technical staff · Procurement of specialized equipment for

District Land Offices (DLOs) · Building LC Courts capacity to handle land

matters· Detailed design for the Land Information

System· Rehabilitation of the land registry · Rehabilitation and facilitation of the

national geodetic network · Undertaking systematic demarcation


1.3.2 MandateThe 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda includes explicit land tenure-related provisions19. Further to this, the Constitution also mandated Parliament to enact a law20, by the end of June 1998, regulating the relationship between mailo tenants and landlords, and making provision for tenants on registered holdings to acquire a registrable interest in land. The Land Act, 1998 was subsequently enacted for effective implementation of the LSSP.

1.3.3 Vision and Mission StatementThe Land Tenure Reform Project (LTRP) does not have its own vision, mission and objectives but subscribes to those of the land sector.

VisionThe vision of the land sector, which states the ultimate long term goal of the sector, is: “Uganda’s land resources used productively and sustainably for security of livelihoods and poverty eradication”.

MissionThe mission of the land sector, which states the practical objective of the sector, is: “To create an enabling environment for the participation of all stakeholders in effective use and management of Uganda’s land resources”

19 Article 237 (1) & (4) The most significant of these are:

· Vesting of ultimate ownership of land di-rectly in the citizens of Uganda

· Legal recognition of the four tenure sys-tems which existed before the 1975 Decree

· Delegation of land matters to fully autono-mous District Land Boards

· Provision for customary owners to acquire certificates of ownership

· Provision for conversion of customary and leasehold tenure to freehold

· Security of occupancy on mailo, freehold or leasehold land for lawful or bona fide occupants (tenants).

20 Article 237 (9)

1.3.4 LTRP Strategic ObjectivesThe LTRP adopted the LSSP strategic objectives which include the following:-· To create an inclusive and pro-poor policy

and legal framework for the land sector.· To put land resources to sustainable

productive use.· To improve livelihoods of poor people

through a more equitable distribution of land access and ownership, and greater tenure security for vulnerable groups.

· To increase availability, accessibility, affordability, and use of land information for planning and implementing development programmes.

· To establish and maintain transparent, accountable and easily accessible institutions and systems for decentralised delivery of land services.

· To mobilise and utilise public and private resources efficiently and effectively for the development of the land sector.

1.3.5 Activities carried out by LTRPThe activities carried out by LTRP are:• Review and revision of relevant laws, and

formulation of National Land Policy.• Dissemination and Preparation for

Implementation of the National Land Use Policy

• Development of the National Land Use Plan.

• Dissemination of Public Information on Land Rights.

• Institution and facilitation of Land Dispute Resolution Institutions.

• Development and piloting of Systematic Adjudication, Demarcation, Survey and Certification/Registration of Land Rights.

• Design and Development of the National Land Information System.

• Rehabilitation of existing records, installation of technical equipment and procedures.



• Strengthening of technical services in District Land Offices; support for the operations of District Land Boards and other decentralized land sector institutions; strengthening of the capacity of national land sector institutions for co-ordination and monitoring.

1.3.6 Organizational StructureThe institutional framework for implementing the LSSP is built on a three tier structure – namely: national, regional and district, and sub-county. Each level is mainly responsible for: · National: The co-ordination point at national level will be the Land Sector Coordination Secretariat, located within the Directorate of Lands in the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment. This unit will supersede the existing arrangement for co-coordinating Land Act implementation (LAIU), and will have an advisory, communication and administration focus.

· District and region: The co-ordination point will be the District Land Officer, who will be responsible for coordinating among land sector institutions at district level (the District Land Office, District Land Board, District Planning Office), and also for liaising with the sub-county and national co-ordination points.

· Sub-county and below: The co-ordination point will be the Sub-County Chief as the Recorder, who will be responsible for coordinating among land sector institutions at sub-county level (her or himself, the Sub-County Land Committee, and lower institutions), and for being the key liaison with the co-ordination point at the district.

Co-ordination among the three levels is ensured by focal point arrangements at each level, to ensure both vertical and horizontal co-ordination of the land sector planning and implementation activities.

The co-ordination structure includes a multi-stakeholder steering committee, Land Sector Steering Committee (LSSC), an implementation management group (IMG)21, and a Land Sector Co-ordination Secretariat. The LSSC is responsible for spearheading the implementation of the LSSP through LTRP, maintaining strategic cohesion and priorities of the LSSP, mobilizing funding and ensuring stakeholder participation, while the Implementation Management Group (IMG) is serving as a lower level management forum for the various component programmes under the LSSP and ensures that these are synchronized and programmes are implemented.

The LTRP is headed by a Project Coordinator, who is also an Assistant Commissioner in the Land Sector Strategic Plan Division of the Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban Development (MLHUD).He/she is also the head of the Land Sector Coordination Secretariat. He/She works with six (6) Principal Land Officers who are responsible for: dispute resolution; governance; geomatics and land information; gender and communication, law reviews and implementation, and institutional support and reforms. The Permanent Secretary, MLHUD is the overall Accounting Officer of this project.

In order to ensure smooth implementation of the LSSP, all key aspects of the LSSP objectives have working groups/focus groups21 that have an official from the Land Sector Coordination Secretariat specifically assigned and charged with the functioning and delivery of outputs.

21 Sensitization Focus Group, Law Review Working Group, Systematic Demarcation Working Group, Land Fund Focus Group, National Land Policy and the Land Use Policy Working Groups ,Land Information System working Group and the Land Registry Rehabilitation Working Group


The Land Sector Coordination Secretariat supports both institutions and the working groups for specific programmes within the LSSP. The organisation structure flow diagram is shown in Appendix I

1.3.7 Funding for the LTRPThe funding towards activities of increasing availability, accessibility, affordability, and use of land information were funded by LTRP (GoU) and PSCPII(World Bank) as shown in the table 1 below:-

Table 1: Sowing funding Source for LTRP activities

Source Period Amount

LTRP(GOU) 1999/2000 to 2011/2012 60,666,447,115

PSCPII (World Bank) 2005/2006 to 2012/2013 35,087,606,619

Total Funding 95,754,053,734

Source: MLUHD and PSCPII Audited Accounts

1.4 Audit objectivesThe overall objective of the audit was: - To assess the extent to which LTRP was achieving its set objectives.

The specific objectives of the audit were to establish whether the Project:I. Enabled the revision of the related land laws for effective land use management.II. Enabled the preparation of the National Land Policy and National Land Use PlanIII. Increased the availability and use of land information through the establishment of an effective

Land Information System.IV. Rehabilitated the Land Registry and facilitated systematic demarcation on land.

1.5 Audit scopeThe audit was carried out on the management of Land Tenure Reform Project by the MLHUD, with the aim of ascertaining whether the project is effectively, economically and efficiently performing its role of reforming the Land Sector by providing a framework for contributing to the achievements of Government policies and goals of modernizing agriculture and eradicating poverty by implementing the Land Sector Strategic Plan (LSSP). It covered the entire period the project has been in existence, that is, from 1999/2000 to 2011/2012.



CHA

PTER

TW

OC

HA

PTE

R T

WO

2


AUDIT METHODOLOGYThe audit was conducted in accordance with the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) performance auditing standards and guidelines as set out in the VFM audit manual of the Office of the Auditor General.Those standards require that the audit should be planned in a manner which ensures that an audit of high quality is carried out in an economic, efficient and effective way and in a timely manner.

2.1 SamplingThe audit covered the Land Sector Coordination Secretariat, the Land Component Implementation Unit at the MLHUD, Kampala. The Private Sector Foundation Uganda (PSFU) was also factored into the audit. It also covered upcountry districts that have been receiving support in technical land services as well as pilot Ministry Zonal Offices (MZOs). These categories comprised eight (8) districts including: Mbarara, Kabale, Arua, Lira, Masaka, Wakiso, Jinja and Mbale; and seven (7) Districts Land Boards of Rukungiri, Ntungamo, Soroti, Fort-Portal, Nebbi, Lira and Wakiso, which were randomly selected.

2.2 Data collection methodsVarious methods were used for collecting data from the field and these included: document review, interviews and physical inspections.

2.2.1 Document reviewVarious documents as detailed in Appendix II were reviewed to extract data relating to land tenure reforms to assess the extent to which LTRP is managing land tenure reforms in Uganda.

2.2.2 InterviewsTwenty four (24) interviews were conducted during the audit in order to assess the operations of LTRP at district level and its management at the Ministry, and to corroborate information obtained from the other sources. The following were interviewed: The project coordinator - LTRP, six Principal Land Officers, three Chief Administrative Officers, two Chairmen, District Land Boards, eight District Land Officers, two District Registrars, one District Surveyor and one Cartographer, as shown in Appendix III

2.2.3 Physical InspectionPhysical inspections/observations were carried out in thirteen (13) regional land offices as mentioned in the sample, of which four (4) were pilot MZOs for the LIS pilot project sites and eight (8) Districts Land Boards as well as with the aim of verifying services and the various forms of support offered by LTRP to districts, especially the land offices, District Land Boards (DLBs) and Area Land Committees (ALCs)

CHAPTER TWO



CHA

PTER

TH

REE

CH

AP

TER

TH

RE

E

3


SYSTEMS AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION

3.1 SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION

Roles And Responsibilities of Key Players

Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban DevelopmentThe Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development is responsible for providing policy direction, national standards and coordination of all matters concerning lands, housing and urban development. It is also responsible for putting in place policies and initiating laws that ensure sustainable land management promote sustainable housing for all and foster orderly urban development in the country. The Permanent Secretary- MLHUDThe Permanent Secretary is the Accounting Officer of the Ministry and is assisted by three directors responsible for three subsectors: the Undersecretary, Finance and Administration; Commissioner for Planning and Quality Assurance in the operation and management of the ministry. He/she is responsible for the coordination of the ministry’s day to day activities and resources for effective management of the ministry funds, including LTRP.

The Land Sector Steering Committee (LSSC)The LSSC is responsible for spearheading

the implementation of the LSSP, maintaining strategic cohesion and priorities of the LSSP, mobilizing funding and ensuring stakeholder participation.

Assistant Commissioner, Land Sector Strategic PlanHe/she is the project coordinator and head of the Land Sector Coordination Secretariat (LSCS) and responsible to the LSSC. The secretariat is charged with supporting LSSP management institutions through issuance of strategic advice, efficient administration and effective liaison and communication. He/she is responsible for six Principal Land Officers. Through working groups, the Principal Land Officers are each responsible for: dispute resolution; governance; geomatics and land information; gender and communication; law reviews and implementation; and institutional support and reforms. The Permanent Secretary, MLHUD is the overall Accounting Officer of this project.

Implementation Management Group (IMG)The IMG reports to the LSSC and serves as a lower level management forum for the various component programmes under the LSSP and ensures that these are synchronized and programmes are implemented. Specifically, the group:· Disseminates work-plans and budgets for individual or umbrella activities across the working groups,· Ensures harmony between work-plans and harmonized resource allocations (including human resources), and· Proposes outputs and targets for activities under LSSP.The Principal Land Officer (Governance)He/she works closely with the Sensitization Focus Group and is responsible for provision of information on land rights, materials development and mainstreaming the concerns throughout LSSP activities.

CHAPTER THREE



The Principal Land Officer (Law reviews and Implementation) He/she works closely with the Law Review Working Group and is responsible for reviewing and revising different land related laws.The Principal Land Officer (Geomatics and Land Information)He/she is responsible for spearheading the systematic demarcation activities under LSSP, an activity that ensures security of tenure and availability of information on land parcels.He/she is also responsible for the development of regulations pertaining to Systematic Demarcation.

The Principal Land Officer (Dispute Resolution)He/she is responsible for the coordination, supervision and implementation of national programmes for land tenure reform with respect to land dispute resolution.

The Principal Land Officer (Gender and Communication) He/she assists the Assistant Commissioner/LSSP in the coordination, supervision and implementation of national programmes for land tenure reform with respect to gender mainstreaming, land right and information dissemination and protection of rights of vulnerable groups.

The Principal Land Officer (Institutional Support and Reforms) He/she is responsible for the development of a management plan and regulations for the operationalization of the Land Fund; is also responsible for Government land which is a line activity for the Uganda Land Commission; the development of a National Land Policy and Land Use Policy and the appropriate regulatory framework; the sector wide development of a national Land Information System; and the rehabilitation and modernization aspects of the land registry countrywide.

District and regional:The co-ordinator is the District Land Officer, who is responsible for co-coordinating among land sector institutions at district level (the District Land Office, District Land Board, District Planning Office), and also for liaising with the sub-county and national co-ordination points.

Sub-county and Area Land Committee:The coordinator, who is also known as the Recorder, is the Sub-County Chief. He/she is responsible for coordinating among land sector institutions at sub-county level (the Sub-County Land Committee, and lower institutions), and is the key liaison with the co-ordination point at the district.

3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

3.2.1 Law Review Process (Policy and Legislative Review Process)

A) LAWSEstablishment of Law Review Working GroupThe Terms of Reference are drafted by the MLHUD indicating the scope of work for the law review working group. The proposed members of the Law Review Working Group are supposed to be formally appointed by the Director of Land Management and these proposed members should indicate their willingness to serve as members of the law review working group.

The law review working group is required to adopt a participatory and consultative process in legislative development process. In order to ensure a comprehensive identification of issues under the legislation, the law review working group is supposed to form sub-groups to carefully study the issues under


legislation. These, in turn, present progress reports to the law review working group from which terms of reference are developed.

Terms of Reference and Procurement of ConsultantsThe law review working group develops the terms of reference (TORs) for the procurement of consultants22 to review the land related laws and come up with the draft laws, subject to consideration by the law review working group.The consultants are required to adopt a participatory and consultative process in the legislative development process.

Submission of Inception report by the ConsultantsThe consultants are mandated to develop and submit the inception report and present it to the law review working group for approval. The purpose of the inception report is to indicate suggestions for modifications of Terms of Reference and a detailed work plan. Thereafter a draft issue paper is prepared.

Drafting of Issue Papers The Issue Papers identify the problems to be addressed by the proposed laws and the consultants’ recommendations. The draft Issue Papers are submitted to the Director, Land Management by the consultant and are subject to discussion by the law review working group. The working group reviews the draft issues papers, identifies gaps where further work is needed in each draft and makes recommendations for modifications. The consultants prepare final draft Issue Papers incorporating comments from the law review working group for wider stakeholder consultations. The consultants submit the final draft Issue Papers to the Ministry for acceptance.

22 To form part of the Sub-groups working under the Law Review Working Group

Final draft Issue Papers are then presented by the consultants, including the comments of the working group, to the stakeholders’ meeting for discussion. Stakeholders are chosen from the private sector, academia, NGOs and Government, and are major stakeholders in land issues. After the stakeholders’ meeting, the working group develops a sensitization strategy and proceeds to communicate widely about the review processes, land related laws and rights so as to create an enabling environment for the participation of all stakeholders in effective use and management of Uganda’s land resource.

Drafting of Bills of the existing legislations and new legislationsThe consultants prepare draft bills (with explanatory notes) incorporating comments from stakeholders for further consultations at the regional level. The draft bills are submitted to the Ministry for review and approval.Thereafter, the consultants prepare draft bills (with explanatory notes) incorporating comments from the Ministry. The final draft bills are submitted by the MLHUD to the Directorate of the First Parliamentary Counsel23 for processing. Thereafter, the bill is tabled before Parliament for discussion through its committees. After the bill is adopted by Parliament, it is sent to the President for assenting before a law is enacted.Thereafter, the Act compels the ministry to develop Regulations to operationalize the Act.

B) FORMULATION OF REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES The Parent Act (Act of Parliament) empowers the line Minister to develop Regulations to operationalize the Act. They contain the procedures, forms to be used and fees

23 A Department in the Ministry of Justice and Constitu-A Department in the Ministry of Justice and Constitu-tion Affairs responsible for drafting bills



payable. The law review working group spearheads the development of Regulations.The law review working group holds meetings to identify provisions in the Parent Law that require regulations. The working group then establishes a drafting Committee which is charged with developing the draft regulations. After developing the draft regulations, consultations are conducted with stakeholders through workshops and seminars. This is necessary to collect their views in order to come up with regulations that are comprehensive and applicable. The Drafting Committee incorporates stakeholders’ comments and views and then develops the final draft regulations for onward submission to the Directorate of the First Parliamentary Counsel for final comments.The Drafting Committee prepares the final draft regulations incorporating comments from the Directorate of the First Parliamentary Counsel for the Minister’s signature. The signed regulations are then forwarded to the Directorate of the First Parliamentary Counsel for processing and gazetting.

3.2.2 Systematic Demarcation (SD) Process

Systematic Demarcation is a process by which the land rights of people living in a given area are identified, ascertained, established and marked in an orderly and uniform way. Boundaries are marked and land rights formally recorded.

The SD exercise is carried out by involving people at the grassroots, who best know what land issues and problems are in their areas.Area Land Committees at sub-county level are instrumental in the SD exercise for organizing their respective communities.The main activities carried out during systematic adjudication demarcation, survey and certification/registration (Systematic Demarcation) involve the following:

Planning process:The planning process is key in identifying the SD area through a consultative approach, involving stakeholders in the SD exercise like national leaders, local leaders, opinion leaders and the community. Planning involves the following activities:· Development of Guidelines for SD teams on the best approach to be followed while carrying out

the various component activities.· Development of training manuals for SD to ensure uniformity and exhaustiveness of content in

the training sessions.· Development of sensitization materials for SD to facilitate better appreciation of the SD message

and objectives by the learners.· Translation of sensitization materials into the local languages to ease the ability of the masses

to understand the concept of SD.

Baseline surveys process:The baseline survey is carried out in all the pilot areas to assess several issues, some of which are to analyse: the prevailing mechanisms of conflict resolution; household sizes and standards of living; settlement patterns; main land use activities; community views on uniform land demarcation,certificates of occupancy and customary ownership.


Mobilization, Training and Sensitisation process: Mobilization is carried out among the local leaders to enable them to mobilize and sensitize members of their respective communities, so as to create awareness of the potential benefits of Systematic Demarcation.

The sensitization process is aimed at informing, educating, empowering and motivating all the different stakeholders in the given area for a successful implementation and utilization of the systematic demarcation exercise. Announcements on systematic demarcation are put on radios, other print media, including: posters, workshops and other means to mobilize all stakeholders.

Participatory adjudication and Demarcation process: The Area Land Committee members, together with the local leaders, elders and neighbours carry out the adjudication. They amicably settle the various land disputes per parcel. Where they fail, they forward the cases to the relevant courts. The adjudicators clearly mark off the turning points of each parcel with both a unique local plant and a survey beacon.

Land surveying process:The survey teams follow immediately and measure the adjudicated parcels. The field observations are later processed, compiled and passed over to the Cartographers for plotting. The end product of this exercise is a cadastral map showing the parcel dimensions and acreage.

Public display process:In this exercise, display maps are pinned on the notice board from which the community is expected to edit the adjudication, survey and plotting outputs by identifying and providing correct information to the systematic

demarcation team from the Ministry on the omissions, duplications or inconsistent spelling of names of plot owners/neighbours.

Certification/registration process: This process finally results in formal registration of the land rights in the names of the applicant. The applicant is issued with either a certificate of customary ownership, or occupancy, or a land title whichever is applicable.

3.2.3 Land Dispute Resolution ProcessesThis process is headed by the Principal Land Officer for land disputes and resolution and it takes the following steps:

Investigations of Land DisputesReceipt of complaints: The dispute resolution system is based on local courts at the lower level, that is, LC3 and LC2 courts, strengthened to improve the transparency and fairness of their decisions, with an upper tier of impartial appointed Tribunals to consider higher value cases and appeals. The Handling of disputes is determined by the value of land. At lower level simple land disputes are handled while at higher levels complex land disputes are handled.

Inspection of disputed sites to define the nature and magnitude of the problem: The inspection of disputed sites is carried out by a sub-county dispute recorder so as to define the exact location of the land in dispute, the nature and magnitude of the dispute.

Interviewing of complainants and the accused parties: An inquiry is made by the ALC or any other



dispute resolution institution to establish the matters that caused or contributed to the land disputes. This dispute is referred to a DLB member or such person considered suitable to act as a conciliator to mediate the dispute between the complainant and the accused.

Extraction of documentary evidence related to the dispute:The extraction of evidence related to the dispute is done in order to analyze and evaluate the documentary evidence obtained against the evidence received during the interviews of the concerned parties and to appreciate their concern.

Ascertainment of the root cause and recommending lasting solutions: After ascertaining the root cause of the dispute with available evidence, an action considered appropriate and fair is taken and the proposed amendments to the Constitution or the rules are considered to avoid similar disputes in the future as well as resolving related problems in the future.

Sensitization on land rights information: Sensitization material on land rights information is developed, such as: fliers, literature on land rights; and dispute resolution is then disseminated to different stakeholders, such as: districts, local council courts and area land committees, in order to strengthen dispute resolution.

Training of Land Related Dispute Resolution Institutions on the mechanisms of land dispute resolutionA guide and programme for training on land dispute resolution is developed by the MLHUD together with training materials. Participants, such as: Local Council Courts, Traditional Institutions, Area Land Committees and technical officers, are trained by MLHUD on land dispute resolution.


CHA

PTER

FO

UR

CH

AP

TER

FO

UR

4



4.0 FINDINGS

In this chapter, findings on the performance of the LTRP and the implementation of the Land Information system (LIS) of the MLHUD in reference to the audit objectives are presented.

4.1 NATIONAL LAND POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REVIEWSThe Land Sector Strategic Plan (LSSP- 2001-2011) paragraph 3.2, objective 1 requires the MLHUD to create an inclusive and pro-poor policy and legal framework for the land sector by reviewing and revising the land sector legislative and regulatory framework in order to provide a sound legal basis for the ownership and occupation of land. This was to be done through revising obsolete laws, harmonizing and amending all land related laws in order to ensure their conformity with the new Constitutional Order and the Land Act 1998. Developing and implementing a comprehensive National Land Policy (NLP) and complementary district land policies was to be prioritized.

It was noted that the LTRP project had not managed to facilitate the review and the revision of some land sector regulatory frameworks aimed at providing a sound legal basis for the ownership and occupation of land. While the project had managed to facilitate the drafting and approval of the NLP pending incorporation of comments by Cabinet, complementary district land policies to operationalize the National Land policy had not been developed as required by the Constitution24 of the Republic of Uganda 1995.

Audit further noted, through documentary reviews, that out of the fourteen (14) essential laws and policies planned to be reviewed in the period under review (2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12), only three (3) had been reviewed and approved, representing a performance of 21.4%. Interviews conducted with the PLO Law review revealed that final issue papers have been submitted and that the drafting of the bills is on-going on the remaining eleven (11) essential laws. Details are in Table 2 below.

24 Article 241(2)

CHAPTER FOUR


Table 2 Showing planned and approved essential laws and policies

Essential laws and policies relating to land tenure reforms.

Essential laws and policies planned to be reviewed

Essential laws and policies reviewed and approved

1. The Physical Planning Act,2010 and Regulations, 2011 √ √

2. Land Acquisition Act, 1965 √ X

3. Registration of Titles Act (Cap. 205) √ X

4. Survey Act (Cap 209) √ X

5. The Mortgage Act, 2009 and Mortgage Regulations,2012 √ √

6.Traditional Rulers (Restitution of Assets and Properties) Act

√ X

7. Local Government (Rating) Act √ X

8. Real Estates Agency Law √ X

9. National Land Policy and National Land use Policy √ √

10.Land Records Archiving and destruction laws and Regulations

√ X

11. Condominium law √ X

12. Proposed Government Land law √ X

13. Land Information System Law √ X

14. Surveyors Registration Act √ X

Total 14 3

Source: OAG analysis of planned and approved essential laws and policies

However, it was noted that the reviews and revisions on land related laws, regulations and guidelines were based on a land policy which was only recently (February 2013) approved with amendments as seen from the cabinet minute extract from the Executive.

Audit attributed the Ministry’s failure to revise all obsolete laws, harmonize and amend all land related laws in order to ensure their conformity with the new Constitutional Order and the Land Act 1998 to:

· Lack of an approved National Land Policy against which such reviews would be based.· Inadequate mobilization and sensitization of all stakeholders considering that there was no

evidence of communication materials mobilizing the various stakeholders for consultation purposes, an activity that is key in policy formulation.

This implies that the new land related laws, regulations and guidelines handled could be misleading if the land policy approved is not consistent with existing laws, given that naturally the laws should be based on an existing relevant policy. This results into the duplication of resources in the event that laws need to be rewritten. In addition, absence of district land policies will make it difficult to implement the national land policy if steps are not expedited to start their formulation.

Conclusion The LTRP has not facilitated the achievement of creating an enabling environment for the participation of all stakeholders in the effective use and management of Uganda’s land resources. This is hindering the provision of sound legal basis for the ownership and occupation of land that could improve the livelihoods of Ugandans.



Management ResponseThe National Land policy making process is complete.The reason for the slow legislative reviews has been brought about by the delay in the approval process by Cabinet. The ToRs for the review of the legal framework were developed and reviewed before the consultants were hired. After the development of the draft bills, consultations took place but took long. Final drafts have been submitted to the client by the consultants. It is important to note that what is under the control of the Ministry is the preparation of the final draft bill. Approval of the bill is by Cabinet and Parliament.

Audit response: Audit maintains that there was no evidence for the development of the draft bills for the specific essential laws referred to and reflected in table two (2) above. Audit, however, applauds the MoLHUD for its efforts towards the completion of the process for the development of the National Land Policy and its efforts so far in as far as having other bills mentioned in their responses submitted to Cabinet for approval.

Recommendations · Management should expedite the legislative

reviews on planned land related laws and the development of district land policies. These will help in operationalizing the approved National Land Policy.

· The LIS law should be at the forefront to guide its operationalization, now that the system has been commissioned.

4.2 PROJECT DESIGN FOR THE LAND TENURE REFORM PROJECTBest practice25 dictates that a project26 be planned and carried out to follow a sequence beginning with an agreed strategy, which leads to an idea for a specific action, oriented towards achieving a set of objectives, which then is formulated, implemented, and evaluated with a view to improving the strategy and further action. There are three major deliverables from the project planning process: the project definition, the work plan, and the project management procedures.

Through documentary review, it was noted that the MLHUD did not have a specific project design for the Land Tenure Reform Project (LTRP) as required by best practice and as is the norm with all other similar Government projects. Audit further established that the Ministry did not prepare work plans for the implementation of the activities highlighted under the LTRP, making it difficult for audit to confirm planned activities against the actual performance reported over time in the Ministry’s annual performance reports. Although the LSSP had broad indicative timelines for the various activities under it, these were not broken down into specific measurable timelines.

Audit attributed the Ministry’s failure to have a clear design for the LTRP project to the lack of clear management ownership and leadership seeing that the interdependencies between the project activities listed and the normal activities of the Ministry were never highlighted and there were never any criteria against which success would be judged.

25 European Commission – EuropeAid Project Cycle Management Handbook, March 2002

26 A project is a new, unique and temporary set of activities, with a defined beginning and end, which uses resources in a planned and orga-nized way with the purpose of reaching certain objectives.


Consequently, the LTRP which was implemented without envisaging the entire project cycle as best practices dictate, could lead to duplication of resources and also make it impossible for management to track project outputs to the rightful implementers.

Similarly, the selection of appropriate project interventions may not be achieved due to lack of a specific project design.

Conclusion:The MLHUD did not have a specific project design for the Land Tenure Reform Project (LTRP) as required by best practice and as is the norm with all other similar Government projects. This affected the smooth implementation of the project activities.

Management ResponseThe LTRP was designed by MLHUD, approved by the sector work group, and then submitted to the Development Committee of the Ministry of Finance for approval. The LTRP is reflected normally in the Public Investment Plan (PIP) which lists Uganda Government’s projects and their profiles outlining the background and objectives of each project, including expenditure estimates.The next phase of the project is still under review by the Ministry, when the review is completed, a draft project document will be produced and submitted to the Sector Working Group for onward submission to the Ministry of Finance for consolidation and approval.

RecommendationIn future, management should consider project designs that take on the recommended project life cycle with clear deliverables; timelines, indicating start date and end date; measurement criteria for set objectives, with clear work plans; if Value for Money is to be realized.

4.3 IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNCTIONALITY OF THE LAND INFORMATION SYSTEMStrategic objective 4 of the Land Sector Strategic Plan 2001 – 2011, required the MLHUD to introduce a unified, relevant and accessible Land Information System so as to increase availability, accessibility, affordability, and use of land information for planning and implementing development programmes.The computerization of the land registry was to include capturing information on land and land transactions and storing this data on computers for quick retrieval and the efficient delivery of land administration services.This was to reduce the time required to check and update land titles, enhance the security of the land registration process and reduce corruption related tendencies associated with checking, updating and transferring land titles.It was noted that between September 2003 and 2009, efforts by the MLHUD through a company called MsStewardNet Ltd, to computerize the land information of the country’s land register had not yielded any tangible results. Audit was not availed with the total expenditure towards these efforts for the same period.

The Ministry had since engaged IGN France International to lead a Consortium, with support from the World Bank, for the Design, Supply, Installation, Implementation of the Land Information System and Securing of Land Records (DeSILISoR) Project, under the PSCP II land component27. The project28 which 27 The project component is divided into 5 sub- compo-

nents i.e. Component 1: Detailed design of LIS Software Component 2: Data Conversion (maps, orthophotos,

titles, Job Records Jackets) Component 3: Data Integration (linkage of 500.000

titles with corresponding parcels) Component 4: LIS implementation (Installation of

LIS and IT equipment, Public Awareness Campaign, Trainings and Capacity Building)

Component 5: Review of the design and preparation of the roll out strategy are planned to start in January 2012.

28 Aiming to rehabilitate existing land records and



commenced in February 2010 and is being piloted in Kampala, Jinja, Mukono, Wakiso, Masaka and Mbarara was nearing completion by the time of audit (March 2013). The cadastral maps have now been computerized, the aerial photography of the project area to provide a base map has been finished and the computerization of titles is nearing completion. A detailed review of the status of each of the project’s components is discussed below:

Component 1: Detailed design of LIS Software The detailed design of LIS software had been completed successfully, though audit noted that the design which had been scheduled to take 193 days had instead taken 394 days registering a substantial delay of approximately 29 weeks as seen from Appendix IV. While this delay could have had significant implications on the rest of the components, especially component 4 (LIS implementation, that is, Installation of LIS and IT equipment, Public Awareness Campaign, Trainings and Capacity Building),audit could not ascertain, in monetary terms, the value the Government lost as a result, given that the Ministry could not quantify this implication. However, audit noted, through the review of the annual progress reports29 of the contractor to the MLHUD, that in order to mitigate these delays, the consortium mobilized experts of its partner ILS to reinforce on site in Uganda from October to November 2010 and in the 1st Quarter of 2011 (FY 2011/2012), all of which could have had significant financial implications for the contract.

Component 2: Data Conversion phaseWhile the project had managed to achieve the conversion of base map production including aerial photographs acquisition, Ground Control Points (GCP’s) measurement and calculation, ortho-photo production, the elaboration and completion of the delivery of the Data Conversion Methodology and the scanning of map sheets operation; not all titles of the different categories of leasehold, freehold and mailo had been converted.

For instance, audit established, through review of the targets set for DeSILISoR project in its annual progress report to the Private Sector Foundation Uganda (PSFU)30 and the ministry, that of the 500,000 titles (freehold, leasehold and mailo) and 16,500 maps that were supposed to be rehabilitated31 and scanned through the project, only a consolidated 465,000 title files had been vetted and converted for input into the LIS as shown in the Table 3 below.

Table 3: Showing results for data conversion for freehold, leasehold and Mailo title files

Location No. of Consolidated files No. of Vetted files No. of converted files

HQ (MLHUD) - 355,000 350,000

Mukono 65,000 65,000 55,000

Masaka 50,000 45,000 60,000

TOTAL 115,000 465,000 465,000

Source: DeSILISoR project February 2013

to secure existing titles, registrable instruments and cadastral maps from continuous degradation by con-verting them into digital form

29 Annual Progress Report,February2011 toFebruary 2012, Design,Supply,Installation,Implementation ofthe LandsInformationSystemandSecuringofLandRecords(DeSILISoR)

30 A private organization through which the project is being implemented31 Involving sorting and cleaning up of registry records, opening of new separate file for each Certificate of Title(CoT),

Consolidation of records into separate files, Indexing of information from certificates, Data entry into TRIM database and Identification of orphan and /or missing records etc.


The total number of consolidated files at the MLHUD was not known prior to the data conversion process at the Ministry. Audit was not availed with a clear criterion on how the figure quoted to the consultant for data conversion in his TOR was arrived at. The figure for files quoted as vetted and converted relate to all titles (freehold, leasehold and mailo) previously maintained at the Ministry. The figures for the number of consolidated files for Mukono and Masaka relate to only Mailo32 titles that were originally kept at these land offices even before decentralization.

It was further established that the Ministry did not know, with certainty, the total number of titles and by categorization (leasehold, freehold and mailo), where applicable in its possession, for the different title types for Kampala, Wakiso, Mbarara and Jinja. Audit, however, through interviews, established that the Ministry through this project had rehabilitated and scanned a total number of 503,000 titles in the pilot areas for this project as seen in Table 4 below. The figures provided in this table could only be ascertained from the records of title files delivered during the decentralization of the land registry to the different Ministerial Zonal Offices (MZOs) in the pilot areas. These figures, however, do not necessarily give the actual standing of the total number of records present at these land registry offices to date (March 2013). Audit was not availed with stratification33 records for title files by MZOs (for all the records of titles and maps for the 21 existing MZOs in the country) and verified delivery orders for titles decentralized to the pilot MZOs.

Table 4: Showing the total number of file conversion by MZO

No MZO No of Consolidated files No. of vetted and converted files Total

Leasehold + freehold

Mailo Leasehold + freehold mailo

1 Jinja 14,000 - 14,000 - 14,000

2 Kampal 86,000

3 Mukono 66,000 65,000 66,000 65,000 131,000

4 Masaka 40,000 50,000 40,000 50,000 90,000

5 Mbarara 14,000 - 14,000 - 14,000

6 Wakiso 168,000 - 168,000 - 168,000

Total No of Converted files 503,000

Source: MLHUD records for the number of files delivered to piloted MZO upon decentralization

Audit established further that there was a difference between the official figures provided by the ministry as to how many total files were converted during this process and the figure provided by the consultant as indicated in Table 3 and Table 4 above. While the consultant placed the total number of files converted at a consolidated 465,000; the ministry maintained a conversion figure of 503,000 title files.

Audit doubts this figure of 503,000 provided by the ministry as its total conversion for the pilot areas, considering that the consultant’s figure of 465,000 relates to scanned and rehabilitated title records in the ministry’s possession for the whole country (including figures for titles for the other 15 MZOs that were not initially in the pilot phase) prior to decentralization.

32 Mailo Titles in Mukono Land Office for Bugerere, Buvuma and Kyaggwe and in Masaka Land Office for Buddu, Kabula, Kooki, Ssese, and Mawogola

33 By title category i.e. Number of existing Freehold ,Leasehold and Mailo titles per existing MZO



Component 3: Data Integration (linkage of titles with corresponding parcels)

It was noted that the project integrated title registration data (indexed document images and information) with cadastral data (digitized cadastral maps and necessary document images), provided a back-up copy of the integrated data for security and logs of errors and inconsistency of non-technical nature in the data base to the Ministry.

However, it was also established that the data integration had been delayed because of the unresolved and yet anticipated problems of inconsistency of registers, incompatibility of data, errors in registers and fraudulent cases and theft. For instance, during data conversion in component 2, the contractor discovered that the white page for approximately 250 titles for Nyendo – Masaka Municipal Council was missing (believed to be stolen) and required reconstruction, a process that involved going to individual plot owners in this locality to ascertain ownership.

Similarly, there were over 7,654 cases of problem files in the Kampala and Masaka registry office alone. These included 2,000 cases of titles that needed reconstruction as seen in Picture 1 below, either due to overuse (because there is excessive transaction taking place on the same titles) or intentional destruction of evidence for various crimes, 386 cases of double titling34 and double plotting35as seen in Picture 2 below. Due to this process, (integration of data) and project as a whole, these issues had been brought to the attention of the Ministry for redress.

Picture 1: Showing some examples of titles that needed reconstruction/reconstruction

Source: OAG photo taken on February 26th, 2013On the left is a torn title with a missing plot no and title number; such a title will have to go through a complete reconstruction to be able to ascertain true ownership. On the right is a title that is totally destroyed. Both titles have to be reconstituted from scratch if they are to be accepted by the system because of its excellent unique design features.

34 Double titling – Same plot and block number, same ownership but signed by different registrars on dif-ferent dates

35 Double plotting – two titles, same plot number but of different ownership


Picture 2: Showing double plotting and titling on a typical title

Source: OAG photo taken on February 26th, 2013In the picture above, these are two different titles with the one above belonging to FORTINANTA NALUKWAGO and the one below belonging to SEMPALA JOSEPH. These titles have the same Block number (349) and plot number (411), in BUSIRO County.

The integration of data had delayed for a period of over eight months which affected the implementation of the fourth component. The process that was to commence in December 2010 and end in February 2012 had been reassessed for commencement in October 2012.



Component 4 – System implementation in pilot districts (LIS functionality)It was noted that the system had been installed in the selected pilot offices and at the National Land Information Centre, but the connectivity of the Ministerial Zonal Offices (MZOs) had not been configured to the central servers at the NLIC by the time of audit (March 2013) despite the fact that the system had been expected to be fully configured and running at the time of the project completion date (February 2013); instead, the system was functioning as a stand-alone and had been commissioned at the time of audit (March 2013).However, much as the system could function as a stand-alone at the respective piloted MZOs to enable land transactions, there were no land operation activities taking place at the time of audit. Efforts to train staff had not yielded results as most staff were not appreciative of the functionality of the system and were still evidently uncomfortable with its operation. In addition, not all positions on the approved structure had been filled. For instance, although each MZO had an approved structure for 20 staff as seen in Appendix V, the ministry was yet to secure funding for their wage bill and recruitment. At the time of audit, the IT (information technology) and functionality of the system was being run by a skeleton staff on short term contracts. Mukono, Wakiso and Kampala had staff reallocated from the headquarters to fill the leadership vacuum at these MZOs but with no substantive structure below them.Audit further established that the rehabilitated and/or constructed MZOs were taken over from the respective District Local Governments where they existed before, however, there was no defined methodology on how the offices taken over/constructed would affect the existing staff in those offices, plans for those particular staff and/or a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry and the respective District Local Governments.

Component 5 – Review of the system design and detailed implementation planIt was established that the Ministry had not delivered on an updated detailed design of the National Land Information System and the sustainability and roll out plans had not been completed at the time of audit.The challenges associated with the various components of the LIS implementation were various as discussed below:· The delay to finalise the detailed design of

the LIS software was caused by the delay of the Ministry in approving the LIS system designs from the contractor.

· Lack of an updated manual registry at the Ministry hindered knowing the actual number of land related records in the country and the setting of targets for conversion by the consultant.

· Data integration was not completed by the time of audit because of the challenges posed by the problem files (absence of title files due to various problems associated with them) during this process. This is because among the objectives of the data integration component, the contractor had to ensure Integration of parcel data with title registration records data and to solve the problems of data incompatibility and errors of a technical nature if the system was to be credible.

Audit attributed the non-functionality of the LIS to:· A staff that was ill prepared and trained to

utilize the system in place.· The pilot MZOs that lacked staff to run the

system because the approved structure in place was yet to be filled.

· Lack of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District Local Governments on whose property the system had been established (encompassing staff, building land etc.) and the Ministry. Without the MOU, it becomes very difficult to define the work relationships in place.


Audit attributed the failure to update the system design to the fact that the LIS had not been fully utilised by staff and or, the fact that the staff was not in place to operate it. Utilising the system would enable feedback on the system functionality, an input critical for the review process.As a result of the implementation of the

various components of the LIS, the following were noted:

· Delay in completion of the detailed design of the LIS software significantly affected the project schedule in terms of IT equipment ordering and delivering, and the completion deadline of the Land Information System and its functionality.

· Lack of un updated manual registry affected the setting of targets based on the actual land related records in the TORs with the consultant since the actual title records were more than what the TOR specified for the country.

· The data integration was able to detect various problems associated with the manual system in the land registry and suggested ways on how to reconcile the inconsistent data (Recording of non-technical cases of errors and data inconsistency for future resolution) which will go a long way in restoring confidence in the land registry of the country.

· The non-functionality of the LIS (though it had been commissioned at the time of audit) led to the stoppage of all land related activities in the 6 MZOs piloted which has led to substantial losses in generation of Government revenue. In addition, it has caused inconveniences to the general public seeking transaction on their properties. For instance, because of the decentralization of the piloted registries (MZOs), the ministry had to stop all activities at these MZOs effective 15th December. This decision had cost Government approximately Shs3.1 billion in non-taxable revenue up to the time of the audit (March 2013).

ConclusionThe delayed functioning of the LIS has hampered availability, accessibility, affordability, and use of land information for planning and implementation of development programmes. Despite this deterrent factor, the Ministry commissioned the LIS before all enabling factors such as personnel to effectively run the system, the relevant law (the law recognizing the existence of the LIS given the new cyber platform) and MoUs with affected district land offices piloted, and where the MZOs currently reside were put in place.

Management responseDuring the period (2003- 2009), actual LIS development and implementation was not handled. During this period, studies were carried out which provided a basis for further work starting with basic computerization. There was delay in starting the LIS project brought about by mainly a delay in resolving administrative bottlenecks related to tax issues.The Ministry of Public Service has approved the structure for the MZOs. Personnel including the MZO staff, are in place to carry out LIS operations. The LIS is functional and at the time of audit, the Ministry was in the final stages of linking the MZOs to the National Land Information Centre (NLIC) and this was resolved shortly. The NLIC will be the information hub of the LIS while MZOs will be the information nodes which will feed directly into the NLIC.The MZOs can carry out their intended function effectively as per the design of the LIS from intake, scanning, indexing, review, lodgment, registration and issuance of certificate of title.

Management has, however, noted the positives in audit assessment of the status of the LIS implementation to date.



Audit response: It is true there is an approved structure in place, however, this has not been filled. The MZO staff referred to were reallocated from the ministry’s current existing staff accomplishment and this merely makes up for the leadership of the MZOs but not the entire organisation setup. It was, however, not possible to verify management’s submissions on the now apparent functionality of the system given the time between management submission and publication of this audit report. A follow up audit will be conducted in the near future to give assurance on these new developments as indicated by management.

Recommendations · The ministry should sensitize its staff about

the benefits of the new system to ensure that they embrace it and thus become receptive to training on its implementation. This will also help management to get feedback on the system’s functionality so that the final design is drawn up before the roll out phase is initiated.

· The Ministry should lobby Government to have their approved structure for the MZOs implemented so as to have functional MZOs.

· Plans for the sustainability of the system, once its operational, should be expedited so as to bring on board the other 15 MZOs that were not brought into the initial pilot phase.

· The ministry should expeditiously resolve cases of problem files so as to capture data on all available records in the land registry to avoid future problems once the system is operational. This is because for every fake title, double plotted and double titled record file, there is a genuine owner and claim.

4.4 GOVERNMENT LAND INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENTParagraph 3.2 of Objective 2 of the Land Sector Strategic Plan (2001-2011), requires the MLHUD, among other strategies, to identify Government land36 and compile an inventory of such land for identification and assessment of use and its suitability. A Government land inventory was to help Government identify the location of the land so that it is fully surveyed, registered, its market value determined where necessary, current land use activities indicated and proper land records made.

Audit established that the ministry had not carried out an inventory to establish how much land the Government actually owned. Documentary review and interviews conducted with the coordinator LTRP and a representative from the Uganda Land Commission (ULC) revealed that a contract was signed between the Private Sector Foundation Uganda and Geomaps of Geomaps Centre for developing an inventory of Government land. For the purpose of executing the overall program of Government land inventory, the country was divided into lots which included: West Nile, North, East, Buganda, Western and South Western comprising 79 Districts in total.

It was established that out of the 79 districts planned for the exercise, implementation was conducted in only five (5) districts, namely: Masindi, Buliisa, Hoima, Kasese and Kyenjojo (Lot 7) of the contract. This is an overall performance against the target of 6.3%.

Audit further noted that the contract37 signed to deliver on the Government land inventory had been terminated by the time of audit.

36 land that is occupied and used by Government for public purposes, including state and local govern-ment offices, schools, hospitals, police and prisons land, military installations, road reserves, land on which social infrastructure is located

37 Worth $1.8million


Interviews conducted revealed that the termination of the contract was due to the conflicting interest in ownership of some land between Government, religious institutions and cultural kingdoms.

As a result,· Government land inventory has not been

updated since comprehensive surveys to determine boundaries, valuation and titling of its land has not been done. This could lead to extensive encroachment and misuse of its assets.

· Lack of an updated land register showing where the land is and its acreage could make it difficult to properly manage and track Government land. This situation could render the holding and management of Government land by the Uganda Land Commission ineffective.

ConclusionNew land titles have not been added to the original titles showing interest in the land currently possessed by Government; valuation of this land has not been done, implying that the Government does not have a realistic value attached to its total known assets.

Management’s responseBefore the 1995 Constitution, Government land was more secure. After 1995, the Constitution of Uganda vested land with the citizens. Government land became more insecure. The Government embarked on the process of establishing how much land it actually owned so that it is fully surveyed, registered and proper records made. A consultant was hired to carry out the exercise of land inventory.Regarding the payments to the consultant, they were not fully paid since the work was not completed. However, the consultant did the following work and documentary evidence is available for verification;i. Provided an inventory of titles for

Government Land in the whole county.ii. The Geodetic Control Network (framework for Survey work) was established.iii. Government land was surveyed in 5 districts.

There were challenges such as religious leaders rejecting any surveys in the schools of their interest though government aided, the consultant lost enormous time through adjudication arguments to be resolved on site, the consultant’s security concerns over attacks on survey teams, which delayed and frustrated the programme.

Audit responseThe reports showing the work done by the consultant as mentioned in management response have been verified for work done on lot 7.

Recommendations· Management should prioritize the development of a Government land inventory.· Government should consider reactivating the district dispute resolution teams to help in coming up with an amicable agreement between it and the registered and known interested parties such as the church, cultural institutions etc.

4.5 DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL LAND USE PLAN

Policy statement 28 of the National Land Use Policy May 2007 requires the MLHUD to promote integrated land use planning and management with a view of achieving coordination among various sectoral land use activities through developing, reviewing and harmonizing the different sectoral laws and policies relating to land use and management. It also required the Ministry to develop a national land use plan and facilitate development of district land use plans in conformity with the national land use plan.



It was noted that the LTRP did not facilitate the development of a national land use plan and district land use plans in conformity with the national land use policy. The ministry had not reviewed and harmonized the different sectoral laws and policies relating to land use and management. Available data38 indicated that only 1/3(33,000 sq km) of Uganda’s cultivable land was utilized implying that a total of 66,000 sq km (67%) cultivable land is not utilized, hence the need for Government to focus on the development of a national land use plan and the formulation of measures that will enhance sustainable use in both the urban and rural environment and in protected areas.

Audit attributed the ministry’s failure to review and harmonize the different sectoral laws and policies relating to land use and management; and developing a national use plan to:· delayed approval of the National Land Policy;· Failure to optimally mobilize all stakeholders to take up their roles and responsibilities in reviewing and harmonizing the different sectoral laws and policies relating to land use and management.

As a result, delayed development of a national land use plan has resulted into failure to have an integrated approach to land use that will ensure that activities and policies concerning the three major forms of land use (agriculture, built environment and conservation areas) are harmonized to achieve social, economic and environmental benefits.

Similarly, a well-coordinated and orderly development such as instituting clear interventions and delineating land for different land use categories namely urban development, agriculture, nature conservation, environmental protection,

38 LSSP 2001-2011 paragraph 3.2

industrialization, infrastructure development, services and housing among others may not be achieved.

ConclusionWhile the project had managed to facilitate the drafting and approval of the national land use policy, its objectives and principles in terms of utilizing land for human settlements, agriculture, nature conservation, environmental protection, socioeconomic activities, and infrastructure development cannot be achieved due to lack of a national land use plan.

Management responseTo avoid haphazard, uncoordinated and sometimes conflicting developments, it is essential to have in place comprehensive land use plans at various levels of development. The land use plans will be prepared at different levels depending on where developments are expected to take place. The following are areas where development is anticipated and therefore a land–use plan at each level required:i. Developments scattered within the rural areas.ii. Developments concentrated around trading centers of various sizes and peri-urban areas of large urban centers.iii. Development in large and gazetted urban centres.

However, the National Land Use Policy, Physical planning Act, Physical Planning Regulations and Guidelines are all in place.

Recommendation· Management should mobilize all stakeholders to take up their roles and responsibilities in reviewing and harmonizing the different sectoral laws and policies relating to land use and management, now that the National Land Policy has been approved (February 2013).


4.6 SENSITIZATION ON LAND TENURE REFORMS AND LAND RIGHTS

The Ministry in its land sector strategic plan (LSSP-2001-2011) paragraph 3.2, objective 3, set out to facilitate the creation and implementation of effective systems for the generation and dissemination39 of information to create awareness of land rights. Public awareness was to help the public know the procedures of land transactions in order to eliminate middlemen and some ministry staff who had distorted and misinformed the public about the land procedures.It was noted that the Ministry had not managed to create and implement an effective system for the generation and dissemination of information on public awareness of land rights. The information materials disseminated were written in English making it difficult for the majority of rural populace with low education to interpret the material. For instance, through interviews with the CAOs and staff in the DLOs of Kabale, Masaka, Lira, Mbale, Arua and Mbarara, it was noted that sensitization materials were delivered only once in the period under review and related to the National Land Policy. A review of the ministry’s sensitization campaigns against set targets is further discussed in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Showing planned and actual public awareness activities

FY Activity

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total %performance

Radio spot messages

Planned 40 45 50 135363

Actual 200 150 140 490

Talk show Planned 4 5 6 15

253Actual 12 11 15 38

No. of languages used in print

Planned 4 4 4 12133

Actual 6 4 4 16

No. of posters printed

Planned 10000 10500 11500 3200097

Actual 12500 9000 9500 31000

Sensitization booklets printed

Planned 20000 15000 14000 4900037

Actual 5000 6000 7000 18000

Source: OAG analysis of the ministry’s sensitization campaigns

From the table above, it is noted that the ministry exceeded its performance targets with an average performance of 363% for radio spot messages, 253% for talk shows held and 133% for the number of languages used in their various print. These targets, however, were not realistically set. Targets achieved in a given year should have formed the basis for planned targets in the next year.Furthermore, it was noted that the spectrum of languages being used to pass out information was limited considering the number of active languages spoken in the country. For example, from the Table 5 above, the ministry used six (6) languages in disseminating information of various type to the local populace without due consideration to the 56 indigenous communities recognized40 across Uganda. With the exception of the sensitization materials for the National Land Policy that was translated into the major languages41, all other forms of information dissemination were conducted in English contrary to the ministry reporting.Audit further noted through interviews with the Principal Information Scientist that while LTRP had 39 Dissemination was to be by brochures, radio talk shows, TV, Posters and drummer shows etc.40 Third Schedule, article 10(a) Uganda’s indigenous communities as at 1st February, 1926 – Constitution of

the republic of Uganda, 199541 Seven major languages: Ateso, Ngakarimojong, Luganda, Lugbara, Luo, Runyankole-Rukiga, and

Runyoro-Rutoro



managed to employ many key dissemination practices (Radio spot messages and talk shows, sensitization booklets, posters) for its public awareness program; it had not established performance matrices for measuring the success of its efforts. Without such matrices, the ministry could not determine which efforts had the most impact on increasing awareness.Audit attributed the failure to disseminate and sensitize the public on land rights to lack of prioritizing the activity by the ministry. For example in the financial year 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12, 5% of Shs9.984 billion (i.e. Shs.529, 280,257) was allocated to mobilization, sensitization and dissemination of information from the LTRP budget and 1.06% of Shs.30 billion (i.e. Shs.318, 489,148) of the PSCPII Land Component Budget for this activity.This is affecting land transactions at the Ministry in that:· There is likelihood that the majority of the

public is not aware about the procedures of land transactions.

· There is a possibility that middlemen and some Ministry staff are continuing to distort and misinform the public about the land transaction procedures since no formal communications are being passed out by the Ministry. This could discourage people from registering their land.

ConclusionThere is lack of awareness by the majority of people both in urban and rural areas of the laws governing land use and management in the country. LTRP strategies aimed at promoting public participation in the implementation of land utilization strategies and laws, processes and procedures are not working effectively because they have not been given the due attention.

Management’s responseAt the start of the LTRP, one of the main activities was the sustained public awareness campaign for the Land Act. Simplified and abridged versions of the Land Act were developed in English and 19 other languages. Other sensitization materials such as: posters, wall charts, brochures radio programs were also run.

We regret that information pertaining to the printing of fliers, posters and their distribution was not availed to the audit team at the time of audit. We have now availed all information for verification.The Ministry considers use of the scarce resources available to try to reach the general public by prioritizing these information campaigns in the common known dialects. For the central region- Luganda, western region – the 3 Rs (Rutoro, Rukiga, Runyakitara), Alur and Luo for the North.

Audit response: Audit acknowledges availability of this information by management and wishes to implore the MLHUD to also carry out sensitisation campaigns for other land related programmes as it did for the National Land Policy development process in equal measure. Audit also wishes to applaud management on the wise and effective use of the said resources.

Recommendations· Management should consider prioritizing

the dissemination of information and sensitization of the public on land rights.

· Management should set realistic targets based on indicators of what was realistically achieved in the prior year to determine what could be achieved in the following year.

· The Ministry should develop and establish performance matrices for measuring the success of its sensitization efforts and information dissemination mechanisms.


4.7 SYSTEMATIC DEMARCATION (SD) OF LANDThe Land Sector Strategic Plan (LSSP 2001 - 2011) paragraph 3.2, objective 4 requires the MLHUD through the LTRP to increase availability, accessibility, affordability, and use of land information for planning and implementing development programmes by undertaking systematic demarcation of land rights. The Land Act 1998 lists land rights to include; rights and duties of members of the community using common land; rights of women, children and persons with disability regarding customary land; water rights; rights of way; and rights of officials to encamp.

Through a review of the performance report, it was noted that the LTRP planned to implement systematic demarcation of land in three (3) phases during the period 2003/04 – 2010/11 in order to identify and ascertain the existing land rights. It was established that out of the planned nine (9) Districts in which systematic demarcation was to be implemented, systematic demarcation had been carried out in only four (4) districts of Ntungamo, Mbale, Iganga and Kibale District, representing a performance of 44.4% in Phases I and Phase II 2009/10 to 2011/12. Phase III for scaling up a country wide implementation of systematic demarcation was not carried out in the stipulated time framework as indicated in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Showing various phases in the implement of SD

PHASE I PHASES II PHASE III

2003/2004 2OO6/2007 2010/2011

Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual

Ntungamo √ Mbale √ Country X

Soroti X Iganga √ Wide X

Masaka X Wakiso X

Kampala X

Kibale √

Moroto X

3 1 6 3 Entire country None

Source: OAG analysis of systematic demarcation phasesKey: √ activity implemented and × activity not implemented

Systematic demarcation in Masaka, Soroti, Wakiso, Kampala and Moroto for Phase I and the entire country under Phase III was not implemented as planned.

In the four (4) districts of Ntungamo, Mbale, Iganga and Kibaale where systematic demarcation had been implemented, only 26 villages out of the 44 planned in these four (4) districts representing 59.1% were fully implemented. In Ntungamo district, systematic demarcation was done in all the planned villages as shown in the Table 7 below. This is an underperformance of 40.9%.



Table 7: Showing planned and actual SD in various villages

Ntungamo District,Rukarango parish

Mbale,Bumbobi-Busambe parishes

Iganga District, Buloowoza parish

Kibaale District,Kasingo parish

Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual

Irangara √ Siira 1 X Walukuba X Kyamakulura √

Kabanyizya 1 √ Siira 2 √ Ngangali X Ibambala √

Kabanyizya ii √ Nabikhomwa upper √ Kasolo X Kyamujanju X

Kamoshe √ Nabikhomwa lower √ Bulowooza A √ Kasingo √

Kitibiri √ Luki X Bulowooza B √ Masonde X

Nyakaina √ Masalire X Madhigandere √ Kinena X

Rubingo √ Bukumekha ii √ Rwenseera √

Rukarango 1 √ Busambe X Kyabisengya X

Rukarango ii √ Natsusi √ Kakumiro town east X

Rutunguru √ Shiruli √ Kakumiro town west X

Rweibare √ Bukumekhai X

Nansasa √

Namashere √

Shambala X

11 11 14 8 6 3 10 4

Source: OAG analysis of systematic demarcation in various villagesKey: √ activity implemented and × activity not implemented

Further, audit noted that out of the planned issuance of 12,459 systematic demarcation titles for the surveyed parcels of land, only 1,885 were processed representing 15.1% and of these, 1,660 (13.3%) had been issued to the beneficiaries as shown in the Table 8 below.

Table 8: Showing planned and actual certificates of customary ownership issued

F/Year LocationTotal number of systematic demarcation titles

Planned Processed Issued

2003/04 Ntungamo 2444 500 480

2006/07 Mbale 4500 300 195

Iganga 2500 985 985

Kibaale 3015 100 0

Total 12,459 1,885(15.1%) 1,660(13.3%)

Source: OAG analysis of systematic demarcation implementation


Audit attributed this underperformance to;· Lack of capacity at all levels in terms of personnel and equipment to implement systematic

demarcation activities. This was due to the absence of Area Land Committees, non-functional District Land Boards and District Land Officers. For example in some villages of Kibaale District there were no ALCs to enable the smooth flow of the activity.

· Inheritance issues in cases where land registers are not up-to-date and failure to locate the where about of landlords, for example, in Kabigi parish in Masaka District.

· Politicians and opinion leaders were divided on compulsory acquisition of land for investment by Government and failure by families to agree on the administrators of the deceased estates, for example, Aminit Parish in Soroti District.

· Lack of continuous public awareness campaigns in the country on Systematic demarcation and outright refusal by some villages to survey their land for example, Walukuba village in Iganga District.

· Failure to optimally mobilize all stakeholders to take up their roles and responsibilities.· Failure to sensitise the local population about the need to respect third party rights over their land,

especially, in regard to the wetlands and access roads.· Some land owners faced difficulties in raising the statutory fee of Shs 70,000 that was to be paid

for the titles.· There was no sustained funding arrangement for the Systematic Demarcation programs, which

led to disruption of the pilot activities and delays in rolling out the program.

Further, failure by the project to address causes that derail systematic demarcation has led to a decrease in comprehensive information on the spatial location of every piece of land in an administrative area, Government land and land held in trust; information necessary for legal description of all designated tracts of land and their boundaries.

Management responseThe systematic adjudication, demarcation, surveys and certification/registration program is being undertaken in order to enhance security of tenure, ownership and management of land with the ultimate goal of uplifting the livelihood of the poor and vulnerable groups in Uganda. This was just a pilot program but, unfortunately, there was no money to roll out the program. Under the roll out, it is envisaged that the private sector will be involved.During the execution of the pilot phase of SD, Local Government Officials were involved in the exercise, which had a strong senstisation component. The performance of systematic demarcation, survey and mapping functions has been impeded by a variety of factors, chief among which are: shortage of qualified personnel in some areas, administrative bottlenecks in the preparation and approval of deed plans and the prohibitive survey costs.

ConclusionDelayed roll out of systematic demarcation to all parts of the country has resulted into Government failure to achieve its objective of increasing availability, accessibility, affordability, and use of land information for planning and implementing of development programmes.



Recommendations· Management should carry out capacity building on human resource development by training

personnel and purchasing appropriate tools and equipment.· Management should involve the private sector, Local Government personnel to supplement the

central government efforts in Systematic Demarcation implementation.· Management should put emphasis on public information, education and sensitization.

John F. S. MuwangaAUDITOR GENERAL


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Bona fide occupants

Persons who have been occupying a piece of land without disturbance since 12 years prior to the coming into force of the Constitution, as defined by the Land Act, 1998.

Customary tenure

The system of land tenure derived from local law and custom, first formally recognized by the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

District Land Board

An autonomous board of lay persons, charged with keeping and allocating land in the district, facilitating the recording, registration and transfer of rights, and acting as a lessor for properties formerly controlled by Government.

District Land OfficeProvides technical support for the Land Board, and technical land services for the citizens of a district

Freehold tenureThe right to private ownership of land, free from any over-riding rights

Geodetic networkThe system of permanent triangulation points necessary for cadastral surveys and cartography

Geographical Information System

A system for collection, storage and retrieval of spatially referenced information

Government landLand owned or otherwise under the protection of Government

Land Committee

A group of lay persons whose function is to assist the District Land Board in the demarcation of plots and rights to land

Land Information SystemA system for collection, storage and retrieval of spatially referenced information concerning land



Land policyA systematic framework addressing the role of land in national development, land ownership, distribution, utilisation, alienability, management and control

Land sector

The institutions, organisations, individuals and techniques involved in planning, policy making, service delivery and monitoring for the purpose of effective management of the national land resource

Land servicesTraditional professional services connected with land management: registration and titling, survey, mapping, valuation, physical planning

Land tenureThe right to hold land, and the derivation of this right

Land use Analysis of the way land is used according to a system of land use classification

Land use planningPlanning for the use of land according to evaluation of its suitability

Leasehold tenureThe right to land held under a lease, and recognised as a formal tenure by the Uganda Constitution 1995

Mailo tenureA specific form of freehold tenure derived from the 1900 Agreement which recognises the rights of tenants

RecorderThe official responsible for recording of land rights and transfers of rights at sub-county level

Systematic demarcationDemarcation of plots in a systematic manner, i.e: on a collective basis within an area

TenantsPersons who occupy temporarily a property owned by another person

ValuationCalculation of the value of land or property for the purpose of taxation, credit, insurance etc.


APPENDICES

Appendix i - Organizational Structure

LAND SECTOR STEERINGCOMMITTEE

Multi-Stakeholder

IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT GROUP

Director, Lands

Heads of Working Groups

LSSP WORKING GROUPSLand Policy, Land Use Policy,Systematic Demarcation, LIS,Land Fund, Public Information

REPORTINGMembership

Support

LSSP CO-ORDINATION UNIT

Administration

Advisory

MLHUD TOP MANAGEMENT

GROUP

DIRECTORATE OF LANDS

Surveys & Mapping

RegistrationAdministration

Physical PlanningValuation

(ULC)



Appendix ii– Documents reviewed

SNO DOCUMENT REVIWED INFORMATION OBTAINED

1 Land Sector Strategic Plan 10 year Land sub-sector strategies and how LTRP fits into these, and activities covered by LTRP.

2 Draft National Land Policy Government’s commitment to the land sub-sector , criteria and motivation

3 National Land Use Policy Key land use area information ,land utilization and management issues

4 Land Act Implementation StudiesBack ground to the LTRP i.e. assessment of the social, economic and environmental implications of the Land Act.

5 MLHUD MPS FY 2009-2012 Annual Action plan for the land sub-sector

6 MLHUD MAPR 20O9-2012 Performance of the land sub-sector against planned activities for the years under review.

7 LTRP Project ProfileBack ground to the project, objectives of the project, expected outputs of the project, technical description, plan of operation, annual work plan and funding.

8 LTRP Project Log Frame Goal, output (components), inputs, variable indicators and issues/important assumptions for the project.

9 LTRP contract staff September 2009 to date Staffing complement for the project.

10 Land Act 1998 cap 227 Legislation

11 The land Amendment Act 2010 Amendments to the legislation pertaining to LTRP activities.

12LTRP Annual Expenditure for FYs 2001-to 2011/12 and PSCPII Expenditure history 2006/07 to 2012/13

Expenditure on LTRP and PSCPII activities

13 Funding and sources of funds Funding to LTRP.

14 The Physical planning Act, 2010

Amendment and harmonization of land related laws to ensure conformity with the new Constitutional Order and the Land Act 1998.

15 The Physical Planning Regulations, 2011 -do-

16 The mortgage Act, 2009 -do-

17 The Mortgage Regulations, 2012 -do-

18 The National Environmental Act, 1995 Legislation


19 Government Annual Performance report 2010/2011 Performance indicators ,timelines and activities pertaining to LTRP

20 MLHUD Statistical Abstract 2012 Activities and outputs pertaining to LTRP activities.

21 PSCPII land component progress reports Activities and progress status.

22 Contract agreements Contract price, BoQ, Terms and Conditions of contracts.

23 PSCPII Project implementation manual Timelines, activities and Tasks to be undertaken.

24 UBOS figures (statistical Abstract 2012) Land related statistics

25Value for money audit report on the functionality of land management institutions in Uganda Reported past performance for the land sub-sector

26Integrated study on land and family justice, a 2008 household survey by Rugadya…et al for Ministry of Justice in 20 districts

Motivation

27

The Inspectorate of Government second annual report on corruption trends in Uganda: using the data tracking mechanism, November, 2011 – Economic Policy Research Centre PG 38

Motivation

28 PSCPII Work plans 2006/07 to 2011/12 Scheduled activities for the LIS

29Second Private Sector Competitiveness Project (PSCP II) Updated Procurement Contracts Register for Supplies as of June 2012 to Date

Assorted contracts for LIS activities for the Land sub-components

30

Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban DevelopmentPSCP II, LAND COMPONENTIMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORTS Progress on land component implementation statuses

31 Baseline evaluation report – Geo-information communication Ltd,2007 Previous land related studies on LIS

32 Review of manual and computerized systems in thelands registry:final report (NWSC)

Reviews on the manual and computerized systems at the Land registry

33 Land Act Implementation Studies – Annexures 1 to 9 - 1999

Institutional, financial, and technical needs for implementation, and assess the social, economic and environmental implications of the Land Act 1998.

34 Project Plan November 2010 (DeSILISoR) November, 2011 ICB N° PSFU/T003/MLHUD

Key deliverables, project organization and timelines and presents a detailed methodology for the scope of activities envisaged under the DeSILISoR Project.

35 Project Inception report November 2010 (DeSILISoR) June 2011 ICB N° PSFU/T003/MLHUD

Implementation strategies, tasks and timelines for the LIS

36Annual progress report February 2010 to February 2011 (DeSILISoR) June 2011 ICB N° PSFU/T003/MLHUD

LIS implementation

37Annual progress report February 2011 to February 2012 (DeSILISoR) June 2012 ICB N° PSFU/T003/MLHUD

LIS implementation

38

LIS-PIMS implementation plan(DeSILISoR) January 2012 ICB N° PSFU/T003/MLHUD

Implementation plan for the LIS/PIMS covering RLO re-engineering under DeSILISoR project.



Appendix iii – List of interviews conducted

NAME DESIGNATION LOCATION

GABINDAADE MUSOKE Permanent Secretary MLHUD

RICHARD OPUT For DLM -do-

PATRICK WAMANIALA P/ACD -do-

AELOS DEO HEAD PDU -do-

ATARO LOUELLA ROT -do-

IRUMBA HENRY Principal Policy Analyst -do-

OGARO WILLSON Ass. Commissioner survey and Mapping -do-

OBO DENIS Principal Information Scientist -do-

KAGORO GRACE PLO - Communication and capacity building -do-

OPIO ROBERT PLO - Dispute resolution -do-

ETWAU EDISON PLO - Law Review -do-

MWESIGWA JONES Assistant Administrator -do-

DDAMULIRA Team Leader /problem file vetting -do-

JANNET APAI PHRM -do-

WAMANIALA PATRICK Principal ACC. -do-

WAIRA Senior ACC -do-

KIWALABYE JOHN MARIE Director PSFU Coordinator PSFU

NTAHO FRANK CAO Kabale

NGABIRANO Cartographer Kabale

LUBUUKA DAVID CAO Mbarara

KARUHANGA Cartographer Mbarara

JUDITH OCHWEYO Surveyor Lira

PHILIP ODONGA Senior Land Off Lira

ANGULO GEORGE Chairman DLB Lira

KASAKYA MUHAMMAD Chief Magistrate Lira

SABO NANCY DLO Arua

AZIKU GAD Surveyor Arua

Chairman DLB Mbale

OPIO OGENYI DLO Mbale

Surveyor Masaka

Surveyor Wakiso

KASOZI JASPER Staff Surveyor Entebbe

Ag MUKADA JOHNSON In charge (PLO) Jinja

WILLIAM KAMBUGU IT Officer NLIC

IDUDE PAUL Senior Land Officer ULC


Appendix iv - Timelines for LIS project

Reassessed plan Planneddays Actual Actual

days

Start End Start End

Component 1: Design Phase 02/08/10 11/02/11 193 02/08/10 31/08/11 394 201

Detailed design of pilot system PLIS and overall design of NLIS for long term perspective 02/08/10 11/02/11 193 02/08/10 02/08/11 394 201

Elaboration of detailed design of PLIS 21/09/10 11/02/11 143 30/08/10 02/08/11 337 194

BPR delivery & study by MLHUD 26/09/10 26/10/10 30 27/9/10 15/04/11 197 167

Design of daily case management system 14/10/10 13/01/11 91 14/10/10 01/06/11 230 139

Elaboration of proposal and detailed implementation plan for merging of ownership register functions at district level 14/10/10 13/01/11 91 14/10/10 10/06/11 230 139

Data modeland datacataloguesdesign elaboration(&MeetingPresentation) 06/12/10 31/12/10 25 06/12/10 04/05/11 149 124

Delivery of the proposal and implementation plan formerging of ownership registerfunctionsat district level 13/01/11 13/01/11 1 07/03/11 10/06/11 95 94

PIDimplementation 30/08/10 11/02/11 165 30/08/10 11/04/11 224 59

Draftingofregulations for PID(=PIN) 05/10/10 14/01/11 101 05/10/10 11/03/11 157 56

Preparationofmethodologyofimplementation&Maintenance 05/11/10 14/01/11

7005/11/10 11/03/11

126 56

DeliveryofPID finaldesign,regulations texts and methodologyofimplementationandmaintenance14/01/11 14/01/11

1 11/10/10 11/03/11 151 150

ApprovalbyMLHUD 14/01/11 11/02/11 28 14/03/11 11/04/11 28 0

DetaileddesignofconfigurationoftheDistrictLandOfficesandNLIC 14/10/10 31/12/10 78 14/10/10 15/04/11 183 105

LISrequirements for H/WandgeneralS/W* 14/10/10 31/12/10 78 14/10/10 15/04/11 183 105

MZO&NLIC architecturereport (=ICT Architecture) 22/11/10 31/12/10 39 22/11/10 15/04/11 144 105

Deliveryofthereporton detaileddesignof PLIS 31/12/10 31/12/10 1 01/06/11 01/06/11 1 0

ReviewandendorsementofdetaileddesignofPLISbyMLHUD 03/01/11 20/01/11 17 02/06/11 04/07/11 32 15

OveralldesignofNLIS 14/10/10 31/12/10 78 14/10/10 02/08/11 292 214

PreparationofthedesignofNLIS 14/10/10 30/12/10 77 14/10/10 04/07/11 263 186

Deliveryofthereportonoverall designofNLIS 31/12/10 31/12/10 1 04/07/11 04/07/11 1 0

Review and endorsement of overall design ofNLIS byMLHUD 03/01/11 14/01/11 11 05/07/11 02/08/11 28 17

The strategy for the implementation of PLIS 1/09/10 11/02/11 164 1/09/10 02/08/11 336 172

ElaborationofthePLISimplementationstrategyreport 01/09/10 14/01/11 136 01/09/10 10/06/11 283 147

Delivery of the report onthe PLIS implementation strategy 14/01/11 14/01/11 1 10/06/11 10/06/11 1 0

Meetingfor presentingtheimplementationstrategyto MLHUD 17/01/11 17/01/11 1 12/04/11 12/04/11 1 0

Review and endorsement of the implementation strategybyMLHUD 17/01/11 11/02/11 25 15/06/11 02/08/11 48 23

Final specification of H/W and S/W for MZOs andNLIC 31/12/10 11/02/11 43 18/04/11 31/08/11 13 -30

Preparation of the final specifications of H/W and S/W 31/12/10 14/01/11 15 18/04/11 24/08/11 128 113

Delivery of Final specifications 14/01/11 14/01/11 1 02/08/11 24/08/11 22 21

Review and endorsement byMLHUD 14/01/11 11/02/11 28 10/08/111 31/08/11 21 -7

1926 4692 2766


Appendix v: The approved structure for a Ministry Zonal Office (MZO)

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Supp

ort S

taff

Cas

hier

1

Sten

ogra

pher

Sec

reta

ry

1

Dat

a En

try

Cle

rk

1O

ffice

Att

enda

nt

1D

rive

r

1As

kari

es

2

Dir

ecto

rate

of L

and

Man

agem

ent

Pri

ncip

al L

and

Man

agem

ent O

f-fic

er

Nat

iona

l Lan

d

Info

rmat

ion

Cen

tre Se

nior

Hou

sing

O

ffice

r (U

3)Se

nior

Gov

ernm

ent

Valu

er (U

3)Se

nior

Reg

istr

ar

of T

itles

(U3)

Seni

or P

hysi

cal

Pla

nner

(U3)

Seni

or S

taff

Surv

eyor

(U3)

Seni

or L

and

Mgt

O

ffice

r (U

3)

Staf

f Car

togr

aphe

r (U

4)

Assi

stan

t Rec

ords

Offi

cer

(U5)

Rec

ords

Offi

cer

(U4)

Cus

tom

er s

uppo

rt

Offi

cer

(U4)

ICT

Offi

cer

(U4)

Assi

stan

t IC

T

Offi

cer

(U5)

Inta

ke/ D

ispa

tch

Cle

rk

P.O. Box 7083, Kampala. Tel. +256 414 344 340 Fax. +256 414 345 674

E-mail: [email protected]
