Global Fund: “Where were you when we were fighting!”

Introductory note by CIHA Blog Editorial Assistant, Bangirana Albert Billy: The press release ‘Africa: GAVI Alliance significantly expands private sector involvement in saving lives’, published on AllAfrica.com, presents a clear picture of where the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) funds actually come from and why they are necessary for Africa. The article identifies the LDS Charities attached to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Comic Relief from the UK as some of the major contributors to this noble fund.

The solicited funds are then disbursed to developing countries like Uganda – US$21 million in 2013 – in view of fighting poverty, improving health care and averting social injustice as the article ‘Uganda gets more GAVI funds’, published in the local tabloid The Independent’, affirms.

However, Tumusiime K. Deo, an ear-to-the-ground Ugandan journalist, in the following post critically challenges the politics of greed and the consequent corruption that such funds continue to breed within the recipient countries. He exposes the twisted mentality and the arrogance of both the government of Uganda and the donor community when faced with the question of accountability. The narrow route of escapism and simplistic justifications continue to tarnish the relevance of such humanitarian causes in Africa.

______________________

by Tumusiime K. Deo

The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) has disbursed more money to Uganda to a tune of $20B! Amazing how generous these funders can mean to be, but equally disgusting is how they do not quite learn from their own mistakes. It was reported that during a 2005 investigation session into a case where the previous funds were reportedly stolen, one of the then ministers asked a judge directly, “Where were you when we were fighting?” This question was quite pregnant with meaning and ought to have provided food for thought to the donors on how aid money is perceived in Uganda – a cheap reward for those who fought![1]

I have written before that Uganda’s problem is not money; in fact, there’s enough money in Uganda to do so much. Says who that we cannot afford to purchase and administer vaccines to all our children? Says who that government cannot afford to provide mosquito nets to every citizen to fight malaria? The problem with the donors is that they do not concentrate quite enough on institutional concerns – the assumption that government structures are good enough to deliver the services is a mere illusion. If the money is well intentioned to help the ordinary man or woman or child in the remotest of villages, let GAVI use part of the money to recruit local professionals with strict terms of reference and deadlines in order to carry out thorough monitoring of expenditures at every point. Of course this might sound too much to ask in the interim, but if there’s an intention to send more funds in future, it might make sense to spend on infrastructure. The money needs to be sent directly to the beneficiaries and not through government intermediaries because, for some, all money is money; many people cannot draw a line between money for fighting tuberculosis and money for blowing on workshops or fueling vehicles to have fun on the weekend. Some in the government have a skewed mentality that donor money is free money. Is it therefore surprising that it is and how it is misused?

In 2010 I had a chance of visiting one district called Apac. I saw two roads; one I was told is managed by the government, and another the donor personally constructed and monitored. I did not need to hire a professional engineer to tell the sharp difference between the two pieces of infrastructure that are physically not so far apart. Likewise, the results that would accrue if GAVI personally monitored and utilized its funds for the intended purpose would be quite different from a situation where the money is given to government departments to manage.

It is also important for the donors to answer the question: “Where were you when we were fighting?” Yes, the question may have been directed at Justice James Ogoola who was handling the GAVI case then, but in order for the donor funds to make real sense, each one of us must answer this question moving forward. If the honorable Justice could not provide an answer, what then should be expected of those who were born after 1986 when the fighting had ended? They will likely only have read about the fighting in history books, which does not give them ample ‘moral authority’ to question the use or misuse of funds purported for their treatment. Yes, in a situation where citizens are not empowered to demand accountability of their leaders, more and more money will be provided, but very little impact will be created.

At the end of the day, it may sound rather far-fetched to expect donors to storm the country and start implementing social service delivery. It may amount to a vote of no confidence in the government, but also it’s important to keep in mind that confidence is not granted – it’s earned, and not on a silver platter, but it must be cultivated and seen to tangibly exist. At this, then, the question of whether to build confidence first or send the money first does suffice. Is it sufficient that part of the previously stolen money was returned? Are the thieves still on the loose, or have they been apprehended? What mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated? If GAVI has hired independent auditors, is it enough to do an audit at the end of the funding period, or it might make sense to carry out a thoroughly informed baseline and a mid-term audit? Or should receipts of expenditure be wired periodically? In a country so littered with corruption, money is so intelligibly stolen that even the most professional auditor may not trace the dents. In other words, the thieves are far more sophisticated than are the systems in place for monitoring them, if any.

Meanwhile, I think Uganda needs to drift away from having ministers who are at the same time politicians. Politics has for ages been said to be a dirty game, and ideally political players too are dirty. For this matter, therefore, dirty players playing a dirty game can never deliver any clean results. So next time, money intended for a genuine cause should be put under custody of professionals with a proven track record of managing public resources. Otherwise, it will continue to be stolen, and stolen and stolen. The donor community needs to think seriously about what they can do in these situations. The perils of the donor community substituting for government are well-known, but the choice should not be substituting or complicity in corruption. We need a better choice to resolve Uganda’s political and development problems that does not depend on the charity of the donor community.