Here is how to close gaps in mechanisms of accountability

During the twelfth annual National Leadership Retreat held at the Rwanda Defence Forces Combat Training Centre in Gabiro from 28 February – 2 March 2015, you would have had to be on a leave of absence from your sensesto escape the intense appeals made by President Paul Kagame to senior government officials demanding them to be more accountable to ensure that they serve Rwandans as efficiently as they ought to be. On more than one occasion, the nation’s leader challenged officials to identify means through which those responsible for delivering results across all levels of government are held accountable so that actions and decisions taken by them can be subject to oversight to guarantee that development targets are met in accordance with the needs and goals of Rwandans. In the same way, after noting several gaps in many different accountability mechanisms at our disposal, President Kagame demanded to know how senior officials planned to close these gaps, and ultimately, who would take the lead role to close them. “How is somebody going to be identified so that action is taken, and who does it?” inquired the President who was addressing over 300 senior leaders from local and central government, state agencies, and the private sector. Generally speaking, accountability occurs when performance of tasks by an individual or institution is subject to scrutiny by an independent body so that an evaluation into effectiveness can determine whether they are performing to their full potential, and above all, in the interest of the citizens they are meant to be serving. Many leading commentators and development institutions maintain that accountability involves two major stages: answerability and enforcement. The notion of answerability is an important one, in that it reinforces the obligation of government officials to provide information to the public concerning how decisions are made to allow and encourage public scrutiny, as well as be answerable to institutions of accountability such as parliament. The second stage, enforcement, requires institutions such as parliament or the judiciary whose responsibility is to hold others accountable to sanction anyone found in breach of their responsibilities. So, what does this mean in practise and how can ordinary Rwandans exercise their right to hold elected leaders accountable? The answer to this is simple; in practice we need to strengthen institutions of accountability tasked with providing oversight, so that we Rwandans can be able to hold officials accountable through parliament and the judiciary. According to many experts, public institutions such as parliament and the judiciary have a unique trait of public legitimacy; that is, the ultimate belief among citizens that they serve the public good, of which enforcing accountability is one of them.Today, much as these institutions have made great strides towards holding officials and institutions accountable, there are obvious gaps that still need closing, at least according to President Kagame. Below, I suggest how we may go about it. Parliament, judiciary roles Sometimes referred to as horizontal accountability, this form entails parliament calling into question government officials or institutions believed to be improperly discharging their responsibilities. In other words, parliament checks abuses by other government entities, to safeguard good governance which requires that those responsible for policy-making, implementation and public expenditure be held to account for their actions or inactions for that matter. In Rwanda, one way we do this is through parliamentary accountability, whereby as the highest representative body of elected officials, parliament has the duty to check on the activities of all government branches through a number of measures including but not limited to committee systems, Q&A, and oversight roles. Parliament is collectively and individually mandated to hold all branches of government accountable to the Rwandan people, and by this token, must be actively reflective of public and social concerns. As called for by the President during the twelfth retreat, Parliamentarians must be able to regularly summon cabinet ministers and other senior public officials to explain themselves vis-à-vis progress of development projects. MPs do not have to wait for malpractices such as the Gishoma Peat incident to take place before senior officials can be sent for. Indeed, I acknowledge that progress has been registered in this area; however, there is no reason why such inquisitive sessions cannot take place on a weekly basis to minimise the likelihood of small mistakes turning into disasters. As for the judiciary, it is vitally important that our judicial system eradicates all external pressures that prevent it from calling into question, and eventually punishing those found guilty of mismanaging public office. Also as observed by President Kagame, yes, it is true that our justice system has played a crucial role in elevating Rwanda into a nation with a zero tolerance stance to corruption; however, we must also acknowledge that much more still needs to be done. A number of allegations concerning mayors abusing their powers have come to light, but more needs to be done to uncover corruption practices which may be occurring at the highest level of government. There should be no untouchables. On the whole, Rwanda remains the envy of the region when it comes to public accountability. We have been hailed by many for our zeal to be intolerant to corruption, near-total accountability of overseas development aid, and much more. Those achievements are safely stored. Nevertheless, we are not yet where we need to be, and to do this we must improve. The improvement will not just require public sector commitment; it will also call for citizens, mass media and civil society to be active stakeholders. junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk

Opinions

Here is how to close gaps in mechanisms of accountability