Expressing his doubts about overly relying on the law to fix ethical ills in leadership without the incorporation of the honest and right people to genuinely enforce the laws, former USA President John F Kennedy said: “The ultimate answer to ethical problems in government is honest people in a good ethical environment.

No web of statute or regulation, however intricately conceived, can hope to deal with the myriad possible challenges to man’s integrity or his devotion to public interest.”

President Kennedy’s wisdom rhymes properly with what befell Uganda’s Leadership Code Act, 2002. The purpose of this code was to provide for a minimum standard of behaviour and conduct for leaders; to require leaders to declare their incomes, assets and liabilities; to put in place an effective enforcement mechanism and to provide for other related matters.

The code was first introduced in Uganda in 1992. It required leaders, their spouses and children (under 18) to make a public declaration of their wealth, assets and liabilities to the Inspector General of Government (IGG). The category of targeted leaders ranged from the president, cabinet members, and civil servants to local council leaders.

A semblance of declarations was first made in 1997 in line with articles 233 and 234 of the 1995 Constitution. It must be remembered that on the NRM’s ten-point programme, point number seven concerned the fight and elimination of corruption.

The main objective of such codes is to ensure that public servants conform to minimum ethical standards of behaviour and conduct and that they serve the public interest guided by ethical principles which are above private gain. It was intended that if such a law was enforced and a culture of transparency ensued in Uganda, the country would benefit hugely in fighting corruption in public offices.

Unfortunately, while we had managed to establish formal regulation, which laid down guidelines of policy to punish dishonest dealings, the body of leaders meant to submit to this law was not willing to declare their wealth.

The law was only able to catch one former member of parliament, John Ken Lukyamuzi, who had failed to make proper declarations. He eventually lost his parliamentary seat but this decision was challenged in court because the inspectorate constituted itself as a tribunal and, therefore, irregularly dismissed Lukyamuzi from parliament. Government has now come up with amendments to the act, by establishing a tribunal independent of the IGG.

While the Leadership Code provided that declarations would be treated as public information, accessible by any person upon application, the reality was different. The decision to release information was at the discretion and judgment of the IGG. One would have thought unrestrictive public access to such information would aid the verification process.

In the Leadership Code (Amendment) Bill, 2016, the spirit of the law to promote transparency and ridding the country of corruption in leadership may be defeated if the new changes proposed are adopted by parliament without amendment.

For instance, clause 6 of the bill seeks to amend Section 7 of the act to give the IGG discretionary powers to decline an application to access the contents of a declaration in the interest of security, sovereignty of the state or the right to privacy. I have it on good authority that cabinet is fighting hard to ensure that this becomes law.

It is hard to find a correlation between the private declaration of wealth, assets and liabilities and the infringement of security and sovereignty interests. Leaders should be prepared to provide explanations regarding the disclosed information.

And if the property was acquired through hard work and business acumen, why should that cause a storm when it becomes public knowledge? Why are cabinet members afraid of showing Ugandans that they have honestly-earned their wealth and they are even willing to share ideas?

This is the folly of having a wonderful law that President Kennedy remarked about, which unfortunately defeats the very purpose it was meant to serve because of the clash of personal interest, which is often disguised as national security.

In order to increase the positive effects of declarations, this information has be verified for basically two reasons: to maintain the integrity of information in the IGG’s system. Two, to address public concerns about the lifestyles of certain public officials in line with what is declared.

The right to privacy is a legitimate one. But also, no one is forced into management of public affairs. If one feels they prize privacy and are not willing to be subjected to public scrutiny, then they have no business pretending to be serving the public. The governed must know the conduct and financial status of their governors.

By publicly-declaring their wealth, leaders are subjecting themselves to public scrutiny in the way they handle official matters and will be required to account for the wealth they have acquired. Once leaders know that their activities are known to the public, they would become honest in the performance of their official duties, lest they become subject to investigation.

Elsewhere, especially in the Scandinavian countries, such disclosures, which are freely accessed by ordinary people, are routine. In Sweden, Norway and Finland, all tax returns are publicly available. Showing how much everyone contributes to national coffers is meant to increase social cohesion as well as trust in the government and the tax system.

We shouldn’t let politicians determine the agenda to fight corruption yet they are bound to be key suspects.