By Steven Masiga
Philosophers often observe that when two people meet, each perceives themselves as superior to the other. This analogy aptly captures the dynamics currently brewing between Resident District Commissioners (RDCs) and their deputies across Uganda.
Only in serious criminal cases can police make arrests without a warrant; generally, the law mandates a warrant before any arrest is made. Ideally, RDCs and their deputies, as heads of district security, should follow proper procedure in managing issues like school or hospital malpractices.
Juniors are expected to report their findings to the senior RDCs or within the district’s security committee meetings, which allows the committee to make collective decisions on appropriate action. However, the increasing tendency of RDCs or their assistants to unilaterally order arrests of headteachers and other district staff risks creating confusion and, potentially, significant disruptions.
Recently, power struggles have emerged between RDCs, their assistants, and even LCV chairpersons, each group asserting authority over the other. While government has made efforts to clarify reporting structures, this issue may require a constitutional review. Rather than vying for superiority, these political leaders should prioritize collaboration and serve the people as their offices mandate.
As RDCs and their assistants were all appointed by the president, it’s paramount that these teams work in unity. While assistants might not have full authority to act independently, they should consult their RDCs before taking decisive actions like school closures or arrests of public officials. This ensures that findings from government program monitoring are accurately discussed and receive input from the full security team before implementation.
The law doesn’t designate assistant RDCs as deputy security heads, which can be inferred only through practice. Furthermore, RDCs, while essential to district security, should maintain their civilian approach; their role is not military.
Some RDCs have been known to use intimidation tactics, which can be problematic. For instance, an RDC in Mbale reportedly threatened a lawyer, saying, “I can shoot you.” Such actions misrepresent the RDC’s responsibilities, as their weapons are meant for enforcement, not intimidation.
For assistant RDCs to work harmoniously with their senior counterparts, teamwork is essential. Both RDCs and assistant RDCs, including substantive deputies, are appointed under different legal provisions, which implies some hierarchy.
Deputy RDCs, for instance, are appointed under Section 72 of the Local Governments Act and are regarded as employees within the RDC’s office. It’s good practice to bring field monitoring observations to relevant authorities, such as the CAO or DEO, rather than hastily arresting local government staff, which could ultimately lead to trivial court cases that consume valuable judicial resources.
Studies show that up to 90% of civil servants arrested over alleged administrative malpractice eventually win their cases in court. Therefore, my appeal to newly appointed RDC assistants is to consult their seniors before making public statements or arrests, ensuring police also check for prosecutable issues before detaining individuals.
Ultimately, collaboration within RDC teams, proper reporting to State House, and adherence to legal protocols benefit everyone involved. As RDCs are charged with monitoring corruption, they should refer such cases to the appropriate anti-graft authorities instead of taking action alone.
Steven Masiga is a legal scholar and writer based in Mbale.
