Repealing the Public Finance and Management act: a demonstration of Lack of Commitment to Gender and Equity?
Following the tabling of the Public Finance and Management
Amendment Bill, 2015 a spirited fight was put up by FOWODE, other Civil society
actors notably CSBAG, the Equal Opportunities Commission & a section of
Members of Parliament to reject the proposed amendments. The fight was a call
to MPs to reject the proposed amendments.
Key of the amendments to the bill was “to repeal the provision
on the requirement to present a certificate certifying that the policy
statements of the Votes are gender and equity responsive”. This would have been a “tragic” move by
government that would have undermined all its efforts in promoting the gender,
equity and equal opportunities principles that it boasts of.
The proposed amendments in the Public Finance and Management Act
2015 read;
Section 13 of the
Principal Act, is amended-(a) by substituting for section 13 the following: “the
Minister or any other person responsible for the vote as the case may be shall
base on the priorities identified in the budget frame work paper of the sector
of the vote cause to be prepared for the vote a policy statement for the vote
for the proceeding Financial Year and shall submit the policy statement to
Parliament by the 15th of March and b) by repealing subsection (15)g.
By implication this meant
that issuing a certificate for gender and equity for only the Budget Framework
paper would create a “spirit of intended omission” by MDAs and LGs not to plan
and budget for gender and equity issues. This has been a syndrome we have been
fighting against for over 15 years. The Certificate for Gender and Equity was
the cure because it would hold MDAs, LGs accountable and would provide proof of
how they have been complying with the Gender & Equity (G&E) guidelines.
Technically the Ministerial Policy Statements are a combination of
planning and budgeting and hence match the Budget Framework Papers. There was a
high risk if gender and equity was subjected to only the BFP and Budgets and
not the Ministerial Policy Statements, which is the implementing tool, we would
never have achieved G&E compliance by government entities.
Secondly
the proposal negated the spirit of affirmative action because the marginalized
groups would never realize inclusion in the access to services. The Gender and
equity requirement in the PFMA was necessary because of the need to address the
different concerns of women and other marginalized groups. The contested
section targeted to serve women (17,921, 357), Youth (6,437,400), Children (19,
874,000), Older Persons (1,481,600), Ethnic Minorities (183,217), persons with
disabilities (4,912,000), the rural and urban poor (19.5%) among other
marginalized groups (UBOS, Census Preliminary Report 2015).
Repealing
the section would therefore have promoted noncompliance to gender and equity
during planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
development activities, programmes or projects within all government Ministries,
Departments, Agencies (MDAs) and Local Governments (LGs).
Recently the world leaders adopted the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. All the 17 Goals emphasize equity and inclusive growth.
It would have been a huge shame on Uganda to show lack of commitment to work
towards these global obligations.
It is worth celebrating that last week, 10th November
2015 to be precise, Parliament rejected the proposed amendments.
Comments
Post a Comment