The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) wants its membership reduced by half and legislators serving on the accountability committees barred from joining sectoral committees, arguing that competing parliamentary assignments are undermining audit scrutiny, constituency representation and members’ performance.
Patrick Nsamba Oshabe, Chairperson of PAC Central, told Parliament’s Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline that the current arrangement leaves accountability committees struggling to examine the enormous volume of Auditor General’s reports within the six-month statutory deadline.
Oshabe said although PAC Central has 42 members, only about 15 to 20 are actively involved in its work, with many legislators prioritising sectoral committees where they also hold membership.
He argued that PAC members were effectively members on paper because their allegiance shifted to sectoral committees, particularly during the annual budget process, when parliamentary business competes for their time.
“Today, a member is a member of PAC, but tomorrow there is something going on in Finance. The member leaves you here, yet you are relying on them, but they also want to attend to Finance,” he said.
Oshabe said the same problem arises when members are required to attend meetings of the committees on infrastructure and other sectors, leaving accountability work unattended.
He proposed that Parliament reduce the membership of the three accountability committees by half and designate their members exclusively to audit and accountability work.
Under the proposal, members would not simultaneously serve on sectoral committees, allowing them to concentrate on scrutinising public expenditure and completing reports within the timelines prescribed by Parliament’s rules.
The three committees are PAC Central, which examines central government entities; PAC Local Government, which scrutinises local governments; and the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE).
Oshabe said the current arrangement undermines the committees’ ability to meet their reporting obligations because members often suspend audit work to participate in sectoral committee activities during the budgeting period.
“When you have members of the accountability committees specific to that role alone, you will be sure that as sectoral committees are considering the budget for the next financial year, they are not told to stand still,” he said.
Beyond reducing membership, Oshabe called for a special budget for accountability committees to match their workload, including resources for examining audit reports, conducting field visits and scrutinising public institutions.
He said the committees receive funding comparable to that of other parliamentary committees despite handling substantially larger volumes of reports covering ministries, hospitals, universities, local governments and other public entities.
Oshabe cited an instance in which his committee sought five days to examine reports but was allocated only two days under Parliament’s existing budget arrangements.
He said the disparity in workload required a corresponding change in funding if the committees were to deliver on their constitutional mandate.
The chairperson also cited challenges in financing field missions, saying the resources available for some visits were insufficient to cover the intended work.
He argued that dedicated funding would enable accountability committees to prepare realistic work plans and examine audit findings thoroughly rather than rush through reports to meet deadlines.
Oshabe also called for qualifications and other criteria to be considered when appointing MPs to accountability committees, arguing that the nature of the work requires members who can commit adequate time and effectively scrutinise public expenditure.
The proposal forms part of broader efforts to strengthen the performance of accountability committees through amendments to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
He maintained that reducing membership would not weaken oversight if the remaining legislators were selected appropriately, assigned exclusively to the committees and supported with sufficient research staff and funding.
Oshabe further opposed proposals to retain the same PAC membership for the entire five-year parliamentary term, arguing that changes should be allowed after two and a half years to accommodate circumstances such as resignation, loss of a parliamentary seat, conflicts of interest and inability to perform committee duties.
He said continuity should be achieved through a more effective working arrangement rather than locking membership for the full parliamentary term.
The proposals were presented to the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline, chaired by the Nakawa East MP, Fredrick Ruhindi, as it reviews parliamentary procedures to address audit backlogs and improve accountability.
Ruhindi said the review would examine concerns surrounding the audit function, including the backlog of reports and the working methods of accountability committees.
The committee is expected to consider the proposals alongside other recommendations aimed at strengthening Parliament’s scrutiny of public expenditure and ensuring that audit findings receive timely attention.
