Uganda’s Persistent CPI Ranking: Why Anti-Corruption Reforms Are Not Working
Despite numerous anti-corruption strategies and institutional reforms, Uganda continues to perform poorly on global corruption indicators. The persistence of these rankings raises an important question: why have existing anti-corruption frameworks failed to produce meaningful change? Many of these approaches appear well designed, desirable, achievable, and could even qualify as SMART policy interventions.
In the 2017 Corruption Perceptions Index, Uganda ranked 151 out of 180 countries. This ranking reflects a persistent pattern, as Uganda has remained in a similar position for several consecutive CPI assessments.
Uganda has established numerous institutions mandated to address corruption. These include the Inspectorate of Government (IG), the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and the Office of the Auditor General (AG). Additional agencies with related responsibilities include the Criminal Investigations Directorate (CID) and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA). The Directorate of Ethics and Integrity (DEI) coordinates anti-corruption policy and provides political leadership. These institutions are coordinated through the Inter-Agency Forum (IAF), which serves as a mechanism for collaboration among anti-corruption bodies.
Despite the availability of institutions, a legal framework, and policy measures, Uganda’s performance remains dismal. Uganda has also subscribed to several international treaties and regional organisations that address corruption and accountability. These include: the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime 2000 (The Palermo Convention); United Nations Convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism (1999); United Nations Convention against Corruption, the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (2003), and the East and Southern African Anti-Money Laundering Group (ESAAMLG).
Notwithstanding subscription to all the above-mentioned international treaties, regional organisations, and laws, the Global Integrity Report (2011) highlighted a significant implementation gap in Uganda’s anti-corruption framework. While the country scored 98 percent for having a strong legal framework, it received only 52 percent for implementation. This resulted in an implementation gap of 46 percent in a study covering 31 countries.
What could be going wrong?
While acknowledging the efforts of accountability institutions, Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), it is clear that something within the current approach is not working effectively. These efforts include extensive research, well-designed institutional strategies, and public anti-corruption campaigns.
These trends suggest that current anti-corruption strategies require reassessment. It may be time for stakeholders involved in the anti-corruption effort to pause and reassess the strategies currently being implemented. Uganda’s poor performance is not due to a lack of laws, institutions, or manpower, but rather to rigid approaches that have limited the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts. This could also justify why the country is not shifting spots amongst the corruption rankings. It could as well highlight that the corrupt actors are too flexible in regard to strategy to beat the activists and institutions at their game.
In Uganda today, citizens are empowered about corruption and have also done their part to report the vice, but where is the actual problem? Public perceptions also raise concerns about institutional credibility. They highlighted that the few people charged with tackling corruption in the nation are also corrupt! Their assertions could be justified by a recent report by the Inspectorate of Government naming the 80 most corrupt government agencies, where some agencies mandated to tackle corruption are famed and shamed. Citizens' perception of these agencies manifests that people no longer trust the government when it comes to fighting corruption.
Therefore, a shift from old school approaches in tackling the vice should be made. Many anti-corruption strategies are designed at the institutional level but may fail to reflect the experiences and realities faced by ordinary citizens. Greater flexibility is needed to develop solutions that reflect technological and development trends. The common man should also be consulted on what they feel could be best done, since the elites are scoring negatives in that arena.
What can be done differently?
Instead of borrowing ideas, solutions, and approaches from elsewhere and redesigning them in our boardrooms, it’s high time we ask the common man, who is more affected by corruption, what S/he thinks could best be done to tackle the vice. Do not be surprised that they will come up with enriching ideas and working solutions. That could shift Uganda from the same CPI Spot to a slightly higher bar.
Uganda’s continued CPI ranking suggests that the challenge is not the absence of laws or institutions, but the gap between policy design and implementation. Future anti-corruption strategies must therefore focus on strengthening institutional accountability, rebuilding public trust, and incorporating citizen perspectives into reform processes. Without addressing these structural issues, Uganda risks remaining trapped in the same corruption perception cycle.
