The critical question is not simply whether Uganda needs new administrators, but whether the system gives them the resources, authority and institutional support required to deliver results.
By Richard Okuku
Secretary General, Uganda Local Governments Association (ULGA)
Replacing Uganda’s Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs), Deputy CAOs, Resident District Commissioners (RDCs) and Deputy RDCs will not, on its own, cure the deep-rooted weaknesses affecting local government performance. Unless government first addresses inadequate operational funding, restrictive staffing ceilings, delayed recruitment approvals and cumbersome procurement processes, a new crop of administrators will inherit the same constraints, and communities may continue to suffer poor service delivery.
This is the fundamental weakness in the proposal advanced by Hon. Moses Byaruhanga, Senior Presidential Advisor on Political Affairs, in his September 28, 2026, opinion piece, “Let’s Appoint, Train New RDCs and Chief Administrative Officers.” While his concerns about corruption, staff absenteeism and administrative laxity deserve serious consideration, attributing these failures primarily to the current leadership risks confusing the visible symptoms with their underlying causes.
The critical question is not simply whether Uganda needs new administrators, but whether the system gives them the resources, authority and institutional support required to deliver results. You cannot reasonably demand better performance from local governments while leaving the structural obstacles to that performance untouched.
Prof. Baryamureeba Questions Court Ruling Upholding Nameere’s Victory Over Nalubowa
Uganda’s decentralisation framework, established under Chapter Eleven of the 1995 Constitution and the Local Governments Act, was intended to bring services closer to citizens, strengthen local democracy and accelerate development. More than three decades later, the country must confront an uncomfortable reality: transferring responsibilities to local governments without providing adequate and predictable funding, sufficient staffing and operational flexibility undermines the very purpose of decentralisation.
The solution is not to shield underperforming officers or dismiss legitimate concerns about corruption. It is to combine firm, evidence-based accountability with reforms that address the institutional failures holding local governments back. Replacing personnel may change who occupies public offices, but unless the system itself changes, the results may remain the same.
Underfunding undermines service delivery
Local governments are responsible for delivering essential services, including primary education, healthcare, agricultural extension, infrastructure maintenance and community development. Yet their ability to perform these functions is constrained by inadequate operational funding.
According to concerns raised by the Uganda Local Governments Association (ULGA) and the Urban Authorities Association of Uganda (UAAU), many districts receive transfers that are largely committed to salaries or tied to specific purposes, leaving limited resources for routine supervision and monitoring.
A district education officer may be expected to inspect dozens of schools without adequate transport or fuel. A district health officer may be held responsible for the performance of health facilities without sufficient resources to conduct support supervision, verify staff attendance or follow up medicine stock-outs.
Similarly, district engineers may be expected to monitor construction projects across vast geographical areas without adequate transport and facilitation.
When supervision fails under these circumstances, it is easy to blame the responsible officers. However, a fair assessment must distinguish between failure caused by negligence and failure caused by a lack of operational resources.
The funding imbalance is also reflected in the proportion of the national budget allocated to local governments. ULGA’s analysis indicates that local government allocations have historically remained at about 8% to 10% of the national budget, with much of the money committed to wages or conditional grants. The association argues that local governments need substantially greater and more flexible funding to fulfil their responsibilities effectively.
Without adequate resources for monitoring, supervision and routine operations, even competent administrators may struggle to deliver the expected results.
Central government bottlenecks undermine local performance
Another major challenge is the extent to which local government operations depend on decisions and approvals from central government institutions.
Recruitment, wage allocations, procurement procedures and the release of funds can involve multiple administrative processes. Even when a district identifies a staffing gap or has money allocated for a project, implementation may be delayed by pending approvals, funding releases or payroll system challenges.
The result can be vacant positions, delayed projects and unspent funds that eventually return to the Consolidated Fund.
For example, a district may construct additional classrooms but lack clearance to recruit the teachers required to serve the increased number of pupils. A health centre may receive new infrastructure without the additional midwives, laboratory personnel or clinical officers needed to make it fully operational.
Should the CAO alone bear responsibility for these failures when recruitment is constrained by wage ceilings and central government clearances?
The same applies to procurement. Delays in approving designs, evaluating bids, releasing funds and issuing commencement instructions can push construction projects into the rainy season or towards the end of the financial year. Contractors may then rush work, seek variations or fail to complete projects on schedule.
Gen. Muhoozi Forgives Former CMI Boss Birungi, Says He Will Be Released Soon
Replacing the CAO does not automatically resolve these administrative bottlenecks. Government must examine the entire chain of decision-making and establish where delays occur, who is responsible and what corrective measures are required.
Education funding illustrates the wider problem
The funding challenges are particularly evident in Universal Primary Education (UPE).
The Ministry of Education and Sports capitation grant rate cited in ULGA’s analysis is sh20,000 per learner per year. Spread across three school terms, this amounts to approximately sh6,667 per term.
Assuming an 80-day term, that translates into about sh83 per learner per school day.
Schools are expected to meet several operational needs, including learning materials, examination printing, utilities, co-curricular activities and facility maintenance. Such a funding level places considerable pressure on school administrators and district education departments.
Concerns about ghost learners and misuse of public funds must be addressed. Inflating enrolment figures is unacceptable, and every public shilling must be accounted for. However, eliminating fraud alone will not resolve the financial challenges facing schools. Government must also examine whether the capitation grant adequately reflects the actual cost of delivering quality education.
The withdrawal of complementary support from parents and Parent-Teacher Associations can further complicate school operations. Any policy changes affecting such support should consider their implications for teaching and learning while ensuring that public education remains accessible and transparent.
The broader lesson is that service delivery problems must be examined in the context of both administrative performance and the resources available to institutions. Strong leadership matters, but it cannot indefinitely compensate for inadequate funding.
Personnel reform must be evidence-based
The argument that structural weaknesses contribute to poor service delivery should not become an excuse for protecting non-performing officers. Equally, administrative leaders should not be blamed for failures beyond their control.
Government should assess CAOs, Town Clerks, RDCs and other public officers against clear performance indicators, including project completion, financial management, staff supervision, compliance with procurement requirements and improvements in service delivery.
Where corruption, negligence or abuse of office is established, appropriate disciplinary or legal action should follow. Officers who lack particular skills should receive targeted training, while those who consistently fail to perform despite having the necessary resources and support should face appropriate action under established procedures.
This approach would enable government to distinguish individual failures from institutional shortcomings instead of assuming that replacing the entire leadership cadre will solve both.
A wholesale recruitment exercise also risks discarding institutional memory and experienced personnel without guaranteeing that their replacements will perform better. New appointees would still have to operate within the same funding arrangements, recruitment restrictions and administrative systems.
The better approach is to assess the current workforce, retain competent performers, strengthen the capacity of those who need support and replace those whose persistent failures are established through fair and transparent processes.
Reform the system, not just its personnel
Uganda needs a comprehensive approach to strengthening local government administration.
First, central government should review intergovernmental fiscal transfers to ensure that local governments have adequate and predictable operational funding. Allocations should reflect the actual responsibilities districts and urban authorities are expected to discharge, including the costs of supervision, monitoring and maintenance.
Second, the Ministry of Public Service and the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development should work with local governments to expedite recruitment clearances, payroll processing and wage releases. Funds should not remain unused simply because administrative approvals arrive too late.
Third, procurement and project implementation procedures should be streamlined without weakening safeguards against corruption. Local governments need timely decisions, predictable financing and clear responsibilities for every stage of implementation.
Fourth, existing CAOs, Town Clerks and RDCs should receive continuous professional development, with performance assessments determining whether they require further training, reassignment or disciplinary action.
Fifth, elected local government leaders also need capacity building to strengthen oversight, planning and their participation in governance. District chairpersons and sub-county leaders should be equipped with the knowledge required to understand their responsibilities, scrutinise budgets and monitor public projects.
Decentralisation cannot function effectively without constructive engagement between administrative officers and elected leaders. Both sides must understand their respective mandates and work towards shared service delivery objectives.
Finally, government should establish transparent performance benchmarks for local government leaders and regularly evaluate their results. This would help identify effective officers, address weaknesses early and ensure that public resources translate into better services.
Decentralisation must not be weakened
The proposed overhaul of CAOs and RDCs should be judged against one fundamental test: will it improve service delivery to Ugandans?
If new appointments are made while funding remains inadequate, recruitment approvals remain slow, staffing ceilings remain restrictive and procurement continues to suffer delays, the new officers will inherit many of the same problems.
Repeatedly changing administrative leadership without fixing these constraints could destabilise local institutions and weaken continuity in public service delivery.
Decentralisation is not simply about transferring responsibilities to districts. It requires the corresponding transfer of resources, authority and institutional capacity to execute those responsibilities.
Uganda should therefore pursue targeted personnel reforms alongside stronger institutional systems, adequate funding, faster administrative processes and continuous capacity building.
The real measure of reform is not how many CAOs or RDCs are replaced, but whether schools function better, health facilities provide better care, public projects are completed on time and citizens receive the services they deserve.
Replacing people may change the faces in public offices. Reforming the system is what will change the lives of Ugandans.