The recently concluded Local Council One (LC1) elections should be seen as the beginning of reforms to Uganda’s grassroots governance system rather than simply the election of new village leaders, women lawyers have said.
They argue that village leaders need clearer legal mandates, better training, improved remuneration and, potentially, minimum educational qualifications to effectively serve their communities.
They state that while Local Councils remain the backbone of community justice, service delivery and government mobilisation, the institution has been weakened by inadequate facilitation, limited legal training, poor remuneration and laws that have failed to keep pace with Uganda’s changing governance landscape.
Speaking during an online discussion on the significance of the LC1 elections, Anzoa Sarah, a lawyer and board member of FIDA Uganda, said the focus should now shift from the conduct of the elections to whether the institution itself is adequately equipped to serve Ugandans.
“When we compare the immense importance of Local Council leaders and the work that they do with the investment we make as a country in their elections, training and capacity building, the contrast is quite wide,” Anzoa said.
She noted that the Local Council system was created to decentralise governance by bringing justice and public services closer to ordinary citizens.
“Many disputes happen within communities, and these are matters that can best be handled by leaders who understand the people they serve. We cannot take every chicken thief to court. Local Councils were established to resolve community conflicts, mobilise people for government programmes, support security and environmental protection, and improve the welfare of citizens.”
According to Anzoa, the institution remains indispensable because it serves as the first point of contact for millions of Ugandans seeking justice.
“For about 80 percent of Ugandans, the LC1 is their first and only court. Whenever there is a dispute, the first thing people ask is whether you have reported it to the Local Council chairperson. If we abolished these offices, the judicial system simply does not have the capacity to absorb all those disputes. The courts would choke immensely.”
She, however, argued that government has continued to assign extensive responsibilities to LC1 chairpersons without providing the resources needed to perform them effectively.
“They are expected to resolve disputes, mobilise communities, implement government programmes, maintain security and keep records, yet they receive little facilitation and almost no structured capacity building. We cannot simply bring in new Local Council leaders without assessing whether the institution itself is working.”
One of the key debates that emerged during the discussion was whether Uganda should introduce minimum educational qualifications for LC1 chairpersons.
Belinda Namutebi, a lawyer with the MEMPROW Girls Network, argued that while the law only requires an LC1 chairperson to be an adult, the responsibilities entrusted to village leaders have become too complex for education to remain an afterthought.
“The law states that an LC1 should simply be an adult, but there is no consideration of education. Yet we are entrusting these people with enormous responsibilities. We trust them with dispute resolution, mobilisation, administration and community leadership. In today’s world, education cannot simply be ignored when we are giving someone such authority.”
Namutebi said the expanding responsibilities of village leaders require individuals who can understand legal procedures, keep proper records and appreciate the limits of their authority.
She noted that LC1 chairpersons remain the government’s closest representatives to communities and play a central role in implementing public programmes.
“If government declares a national clean-up exercise or another community programme, who is expected to mobilise people? It is the LC1 chairperson. Your Member of Parliament may feel very far away, but your LC1 is always there. These elections are still fit for purpose, but government must do more to support those elected.”
They suggested the need for the professionalisation of Local Council leadership through better remuneration, continuous training and stronger accountability.
Namutebi argued that the meagre allowances paid to LC1 chairpersons have contributed to unofficial charges levied on residents seeking recommendation letters or land transaction services.
“If an LC1 chairperson earns only 10,000 shillings, they may become dependent on charging people for letters or witnessing agreements. We should address the problem at its root by improving their remuneration instead of simply condemning them. Government should facilitate them properly so they are able to serve their communities without resorting to such practices,” said Namutebi.
She also called for stronger sanctions against Local Council leaders who knowingly facilitate fraudulent land transactions.
“If an LC1 knowingly witnesses different sale agreements for the same piece of land, they should be held accountable. This happens more often than people think. Many people in villages believe they have lost their land because of the actions of Local Council leaders. Those responsible should answer for their actions.”
Anzoa said improved welfare alone would not solve the challenges unless the government also invested in legal education for Local Council leaders.
Drawing on her work in women’s rights and access to justice, she said some LC1 chairpersons continue to mediate serious criminal cases that should be handled by police and the courts.
“We have encountered cases where a child who had been defiled was taken before the Local Council for reconciliation instead of being referred to police. In one case, a six-year-old victim received only 200,000 shillings for treatment after a settlement, yet later required more than 55 million shillings for surgery because of the injuries sustained. That is why Local Council leaders need proper legal training to understand the limits of their mandate.”
She recommended partnerships with institutions such as the Uganda Law Society to equip Local Council leaders with skills in mediation, record keeping, evidence handling and the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences.
Anzoa also proposed digitising village administration through electronic registers and digital case management systems to improve accountability and record keeping.
On concerns about security interference during the recent LC1 elections, Anzoa argued that challenges witnessed at the village level reflected broader weaknesses in Uganda’s electoral governance.
“If the head is rotten, the other parts of the body will rot as well. The conversation about independent elections starts from the top. If there are concerns about the independence of the Electoral Commission and how elections are managed nationally, those same challenges will inevitably be reflected in Local Council elections. We cannot solve the problem from the bottom up; reforms must begin at the top,” she noted.
They suggested that the LCI elections should not be measured solely by the leaders who emerged victorious, but by whether the polls spark a broader national conversation on strengthening Uganda’s grassroots governance system.
They argued that without reforms to the legal framework, training, remuneration and accountability of Local Council leaders, many of the challenges exposed during the elections are likely to persist long after the ballots have been counted-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
