The Parish Development Model (PDM) is one of Uganda’s most ambitious socio-economic programs aimed at uplifting grassroots communities through financial empowerment. However, the rising incidents of extortion and misuse of PDM funds pose a significant threat to this initiative. The trend of resolving such cases through mediation or restitution alone is insufficient to address the broader harm inflicted on communities and the nation’s development agenda. To safeguard His Excellency President Museveni’s vision for PDM, it is imperative that stricter punitive measures, including imprisonment, be enforced.
The law already provides clear grounds for addressing the crime of PDM extortion. Section 285 of the Penal Code Act (as revised) criminalizes obtaining money or goods with the intent to defraud. It is punishable by up to five years in prison, making it clear that offenders should not walk free merely by returning stolen funds. PDM extortionists, who misappropriate community development funds, clearly fall under this provision, making imprisonment a legal necessity rather than an option.
Additionally, Section 289 of the Penal Code Act (as revised) provides for the offense of conspiracy to defraud. This offense, punishable by up to three years in prison, applies when multiple parties conspire to siphon PDM funds. In many cases, SACCO chairpersons, parish chiefs, town agents, or even District commercial officers have been found collaborating to defraud beneficiaries. This has been uncovered in numerous joint operations led by the State House Anti-Corruption Unit and those led by RDC/RCC offices in various district or cities together with security operatives including DISO’s and Police Force. Such actions must be met with the full force of the law, including custodial sentences, to deter future offenses.
Unfortunately, Section 133 (1) of the Magistrates Courts Act (as revised) has been used to allow leniency in cases of PDM extortion. This section provides that: “The court, having heard the evidence called by the prosecution and by the accused person, shall either convict the accused and pass sentence upon, or make an order against, him or her according to law, or shall acquit him or her.” In practice, this provision has been exploited to settle matters through mediation, even in serious criminal cases such as PDM extortion, where a more punitive response is warranted. This misuse undermines the deterrent effect of the law and emboldens offenders to believe that they can escape severe consequences.
Mediation, while effective in civil disputes or minor offenses, is not appropriate for crimes like PDM extortion, which undermine public trust and sabotage national development programs. Allowing offenders to simply return the extorted funds without imprisonment creates a dangerous precedent. Section 285 and 289 of the Penal Code Act (As revised) already sets a clear punishment framework for false pretenses and conspiracy to defraud, yet lenient approaches allow criminals to avoid meaningful consequences. This undermines the credibility of both the government and the judiciary.
Furthermore, the misuse of public funds under PDM is not a minor offense, it directly sabotages a Presidential directive and harms entire communities. Magistrates courts, presided over by chief magistrates, or magistrates must consider this broader impact when handling PDM extortion cases, ensuring that offenders face penalties that reflect the gravity of their crimes.
The role of state prosecutors and attorneys in these cases is crucial. They must resist the temptation to settle for mediation and instead push for custodial sentences to serve as a deterrent. The Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must ensure that state prosecutors pursue cases with the goal of not just restitution but also punishment that reflects the serious nature of the offense. Without this, the justice system will fail to deter further misuse of public funds.
Magistrates overseeing PDM-related cases must ensure that justice is served by imposing harsh penalties. The Trial on Indictments Act allows for cases to be escalated, ensuring that offenders are tried in courts with the authority to impose more severe punishments when necessary such as the Anti-corruption Division of the High court. Given the national importance of the PDM, the judiciary must treat these cases as critical to Uganda’s development and not allow offenders to settle outside of court, as this weakens both public confidence and the long-term objectives of the initiative.
In conclusion, PDM extortion must be treated as a serious offense deserving of imprisonment. Sections 285 and 289 of the Penal Code Act provide the legal foundation for such penalties, and they must be fully enforced. Chief magistrates, magistrates , State prosecutors, attorneys, CID all have a role to play in ensuring that those found guilty of extorting PDM funds face imprisonment. Custodial sentences will send a strong message that public resources are protected by law and that any abuse of such resources will be met with serious consequences.
The success of PDM and Uganda’s socio-economic transformation hinges on the strict enforcement of justice. Allowing offenders to walk free without imprisonment weakens the rule of law and sabotages the country’s development goals. The DPP, state prosecutors, and the judiciary must prioritize imposing harsher penalties, including imprisonment, to safeguard Uganda’s future and restore public confidence in the system.
The writer is an Assistant RDC, Otuke District.
NRM Party Mobilizer.
He also holds a Diploma in Law, from Law Development Centre, Kampala
+256787806216
umitala@ldc.ac.ug
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
