METHODOLOGY

This report was conducted by the Centre for Policy Analysis for its Parliament Watch Uganda initiative, and with the support of the GAPP program, employed the following methodology:

In depth interviews with the Speaker of Parliament, selected committee members, technical staff, other Parliamentary staff, and OAG representatives.

CEPA conducted a series of in depth interviews with individuals representing committee members, technical staff, other Parliamentary staff, and OAG representatives to establish the primary reasons behind limited consideration of AG’s reports and production of accountability committee reports that are tabled in the plenary. During the interviews CEPA guided the respondents to consider the technical, resource, and political constraints that shape the process by which the AG’s findings are reviewed, analyzed, and committee reports produced.

Review of secondary literature

CEPA also conducted a review of secondary literature that analyzed the proceedings of Uganda’s Parliament, particularly focusing on the work done through the African Legislative Project. This literature was used to contextualize accountability committee proceedings in the 9th Parliament across time and relative to other Parliaments in the region.

Analysis of committee proceedings and reports produced

CEPA complemented the analysis gleaned from the interviews with an analysis of the extent to which committees consider the AG’s findings and pass reports, and whether these reports are debated and adopted in the plenary. CEPA evaluated the speed and substantial consideration with which the AG’s reports are dealt with, and the extent to which the current committee processes compare with committee processes in previous Parliaments and in other Parliaments in the region, to the extent that these other processes are available. Some documentation exists on previous Parliaments due to the work of the African Legislative Project. An analysis of the proceedings will help explain to what extent the obstacles to consideration of the AG’s reports are due to human resource capacity, technical constraints, political considerations, bureaucratic obstacles, or other limitations. Where materials are available, CEPA will also analyze minutes and draft committee reports to evaluate the way in which committee proceedings work and the impact on the efficient and substantial consideration of the AG’s reports.

This study is made possible by the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) through the Governance, Accountability, Participation and Performance (GAPP) Program contract. The contents of this study are the sole responsibility of Centre for Policy Analysis and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, DFID and or the Government of Uganda.