The Northern Corridor Transit and Transport Coordination Authority (NCTTCA) is a critical regional institution that facilitates trade and transport between the Port of Mombasa in Kenya and several landlocked countries, including Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Established under the 2007 Northern Corridor Agreement, the intergovernmental organisation plays an important role in coordinating the movement of goods along one of East Africa’s most important trade routes. Its operations are supported through levies and contributions from member states, with Uganda and Kenya among the countries that contribute significantly to its financing.
However, serious questions are now being raised about governance, financial accountability and oversight within the organisation.
Since the appointment of the current Executive Secretary, Dr. John Deng Diing Diar, concerns have been raised by individuals who allege that financial mismanagement, abuse of office and corruption have taken root within the organisation.
Several concerned individuals have reportedly written to relevant authorities and member states calling for intervention and greater scrutiny of the organisation’s financial affairs.
As a concerned East African citizen who has followed developments around the Northern Corridor, I believe these allegations deserve serious attention from the governments that constitute the organisation.
If the concerns are ignored, the consequences could be damaging not only to the organisation itself but also to taxpayers in member states whose resources support its operations.
One of the issues that concerns me is what appears to be weak accountability and oversight structures within the organisation.
There are allegations that internal control mechanisms are inadequate and that the Executive Committee has not provided sufficient oversight over the management of the organisation.
The question, therefore, is simple: Who is watching the money?
The organisation handles funds derived from public resources, including levies collected from trade passing through the Northern Corridor. Such funds should be subjected to the highest standards of financial accountability and independent oversight.
Another issue requiring clarification is the role of the country chairing the organisation’s policy organs.
I have been informed that Burundi currently holds the chairmanship of the organisation. Questions have been raised about the level of financial contribution made by individual partner states and whether countries in arrears or making limited contributions should hold key leadership positions.
This issue deserves to be examined in light of broader regional principles requiring member states to meet their financial obligations before taking on major institutional responsibilities.
If a country contributes little or nothing to an institution but still holds a position with significant oversight responsibilities, questions naturally arise about the effectiveness of that oversight.
But the bigger concern is financial auditing.
I have been informed that the organisation is not subjected to external audits by the supreme audit institutions of the partner states, including their respective Offices of the Auditor General.
Instead, it is alleged that private audit firms are engaged to audit the organisation.
If this is accurate, it raises serious questions about the independence and effectiveness of the auditing process.
An organisation funded partly through public money should not operate in an environment where its financial controls cannot be independently scrutinised by the appropriate public accountability institutions.
Independent forensic auditing would provide an opportunity to establish the facts, determine whether public resources have been misused and identify any weaknesses in the organisation’s financial systems.
There are also claims that significant sums of money may have been lost through financial irregularities.
Some estimates circulating among concerned individuals put the alleged losses at about US$12 million, equivalent to roughly Shs40 billion.
These are serious claims and should not simply be dismissed or accepted without evidence.
A proper forensic audit should establish exactly how much money the organisation receives, how much is spent, where the money goes and whether all expenditures comply with approved procedures.
For Uganda, there are also questions about the management and accountability of the country’s contributions to the organisation.
I have been informed that Uganda’s annual contribution that is allegedly being mismanaged could be close to Shs6 billion.
If such claims are accurate, Ugandan institutions responsible for public finance and accountability should be interested in establishing what happens to this money.
Where are the relevant financial records?
Who audits them?
Who reports to Parliament?
What role does the Auditor General play?
What oversight does the Ministry of Finance exercise?
And what mechanisms are available to Uganda Revenue Authority and other relevant institutions to verify the collections and expenditures?
These are legitimate questions that deserve clear answers.
The Northern Corridor Agreement gives the Council of Ministers, comprising ministers responsible for transport and related sectors from the contracting states, an important supervisory role.
The ministers therefore cannot afford to remain distant from what happens within the organisation.
They should demand regular and transparent accountability from management and ensure that the organisation operates according to the principles upon which it was established.
The governments of Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and other partner states must also take these concerns seriously.
Kenya, as the host country, has a particularly important role to play in ensuring that the organisation is properly governed and protected from any form of financial abuse.
I therefore call upon President William Ruto and the Kenyan authorities to take a keen interest in the allegations surrounding the organisation and support efforts to strengthen its governance.
For Uganda, Parliament and the government should also establish whether the country’s financial contributions are properly accounted for and whether Ugandan taxpayers are receiving value for the resources committed to the organisation.
The best way to resolve these questions is not through political accusations or counter-accusations.
It is through transparency, documentation and an independent forensic audit.
Such an audit should examine the organisation’s finances, procurement processes, staff expenditures, revenue collections, contracts and other areas where public funds are involved.
If there is nothing to hide, an independent audit should be welcomed.
If wrongdoing is established, those responsible should be held accountable regardless of their position.
The Northern Corridor is too important to East Africa’s economy to be allowed to deteriorate because of weak governance or financial mismanagement.
It connects the region’s major port to millions of people and businesses across several countries. Its institution must therefore be managed with the same seriousness and accountability expected from any organisation entrusted with public resources.
The questions are now before the partner states: Where are the external auditors? Where is the financial oversight? Who is accounting for the money?
These questions cannot be ignored indefinitely.
East Africans deserve answers.
The writer is a senior veteran journalist.
