By Immanuel Ben Misagga
Have you observed the widespread discussion surrounding the controversial Protection of Sovereignty Bill? It is being debated right from the top echelons of the Cabinet and Bank of Uganda to the taxis, churches, and markets. Every Ugandan has a view, regardless of the substance.
Such discourse is healthy for the nation to develop legislation that addresses all spheres of influence, from the billionaires to the peasants. It is a healthy debate I am keenly following.
Amidst all these discussions, it is easy to forget that a few weeks ago, Parliament debated the Building Control Act amendments, which mostly focus on increasing the penalties for non-compliance and improving the building approval process.
There was hardly any “noise” raised during the tabling of the bill, yet it stands to affect everyone involved in building, right from the ‘fundi’ to the engineer. How I wish there was some “vibe” or public awareness like there is with the Protection of Sovereignty Bill.
To me, the laxity lies in the fact that the engineering profession became “hostage.”
The amendment bill has far-reaching consequences on every Ugandan life under the roof, particularly affecting the standards and practices within the engineering profession that are essential for public safety and infrastructure development.
Where are the Uganda Institution of Professional Engineers (UIPE) and Engineers Registration Board’s (ERB) voices when the amendments are being debated?
Well, UIPE’s constitutional slogan is to “promote, advance and protect the engineering profession.”
But in reality, all that is mere rhetoric. UIPE has so far failed to hold a single town hall meeting or present a petition to legislators. No press conference. The result of all this is the likely empowerment of non-engineer building control officers, who now approve or reject structural drawings. In essence, planners boss engineers on crucial projects.
What’s more, under the ERB Act, its mandate is to “regulate and control engineers,” but in reality, it was hardly envisaged that the National Building Review Board (NBRB) would duplicate ERB’s powers to control the more than 8,000 registered engineers under the proposed amendments. ERB has so far said nothing, and in today’s practice, engineers will now have to pay both ERB and NBRB to practise one profession.
Therefore, ERB is failing to adequately safeguard the engineering profession. It is allowing the profession to be dismantled in Parliament without raising any objections.
I greatly commend Michael Atingi-Ego for standing up against the Protection of Sovereignty Bill in spite of the bill’s approval from the Finance Ministry.
Back to engineering, the ERB board has surrendered technical authority in the new amendments. It saddens me that building control officers are not necessarily engineers, yet they overrule engineers on technical aspects.
Ask yourself, would the Uganda Law Society (ULS) let a magistrate overrule a judge? Impossible!
ERB seems to have accepted the duplication, and whereas it licenses engineers, NBRB vets them again. Double taxation of competence!
ABANDONED LOCAL MATERIALS
It is also interesting that under the new amendments, the Building Control Act worships Eurocodes, yet there is no code for ISSB, murram, or bamboo, even though the latter three are what 80% of Ugandans use. So where is the Uganda Building Code, 13 years after the first enactment of the Act?
Take this scenario: a two-room house in Kifuuta, Kyotera, needs Shs 3 million in approvals in the form of permits. That is not safety. It is exclusion.
When teachers are pressed, the Uganda National Teachers’ Union (UNATU) advocates for laying down tools. The ULS sues on behalf of lawyers. On the other hand, ERB went for tea while masons are being criminalised in the new amendments.
ERB is prioritising comfort over confrontation by accepting allowances on committees. It is negotiating, but not defending the engineering profession.
Looking at the broader picture, it is obvious that the amendment bill does not threaten the ERB top honchos; rather, it threatens the graduate who cannot afford NBRB fees, the small and medium enterprise (SME) that cannot retain an engineer, and the public who will build illegally because the law is too expensive.
Conclusion
In conclusion, ERB ought to issue a public apology for failing to mobilise stakeholders to have a unified voice.
There should be an extraordinary general meeting within 30 days to table amendments before the bill is passed. These include small works exemptions, ensuring engineer-only building control officers, a local materials code, and one-stop ERB clearance, among others.
ERB should publish districts with non-engineer building control officers and must de-register engineers who abet this practice. Meanwhile, if ERB cannot stop duplication, it should merge with NBRB.
The Kasubi–Namungoona road was mishandled because there was no engineer on the project. The next one will be worse because the new amendments make engineers unaffordable.
In my conclusion, UIPE and ERB were consecrated to stand at the altar of standards, but they are handing the towel to administrators.
The biggest takeaway from this piece is the realisation that boardrooms are for deals, while sites are for truth.
A three-millimetre error can become a crack in the road. A failed cement mix ratio can cause major structural failure.
We ought to realise that engineering has no tribe; safety has no party; and soil does not read proposals. Gravity runs on math, not meetings.
UIPE and ERB need to defend standards, protect lives on site, and open doors for young Ugandan engineers, while ensuring they know how to close formwork.
Deals build contracts. Gumboots build nations.
Finally, I wish to congratulate Eng. Peterson Mwesiga on his election as UIPE president. I could not have wished for a better person, and I firmly believe he is on course to address all the issues raised here, as I have known him to be a pragmatic person.
The author is an investor in the construction industry.
