Two parish chiefs in Lamwo district have been directed to refund a combined shs10 million to Pearl Bank over allegations that funds meant for a livestock restocking programme were channelled to people who were not the intended beneficiaries.

Omon Martine, the parish chief of Pawor West, and Odwogo Francisco Jimmy, the parish chief of Licwa, were each reportedly directed to refund shs5 million within two weeks following a baraza convened by Deputy Resident District Commissioner Vincent Mugenyi and the Lokung sub-county GISO.

The directive followed complaints about alleged irregularities in the identification of beneficiaries under the programme, which is intended to help households rebuild their livestock assets and improve their livelihoods.

The two officials were reportedly released on police bond as investigations continued. However, the circumstances surrounding the alleged diversion, the basis for the refund directive and the status of the investigations require clarification from the relevant authorities.

Okema Charles, the LC1 chairperson of Okora East village in Lokung sub-county, alleged that the intended beneficiaries were replaced with other individuals, including relatives of the parish chiefs.

In Licwa parish, Okema claimed that Odwogo replaced Langoya Karl Peter, a resident of Ghana village, with his daughter, Angeyo Harriet Nabirwe, from Palabek Kal sub-county.

In Pawor West parish, he alleged that Omon replaced Ladyee Ansilia, identified with Goloro, with Ayaa Sisilia from Nyimur sub-county.

The allegations raise questions about how beneficiaries were identified, verified and approved, particularly where people from outside the respective parishes were reportedly included in the programme.

Okema also alleged that Odwogo mismanaged shs250,000 meant for Parish Development Committee facilitation in Licwa parish.

Leaders implicated in alleged demands

The complaints also implicated other local leaders in Pangira parish over alleged demands for money from people seeking to benefit from the restocking programme.

Okema alleged that Omac Jolly Joe, the parish chief of Pangira, asked LC1 chairpersons in Lokung dub-county to contribute shs40,000 each to secure beneficiary status under the programme.

He further alleged that Ongany Lakana, a former LC2 chairperson of Pangira parish, demanded Shs100,000 from beneficiaries. According to Okema, Lakana received shs150,000, which he was subsequently asked to refund.

The allegations have heightened concerns about possible irregularities in the administration of a programme intended to support vulnerable households through livestock recovery.

For residents who depend on livestock for household income, food security and livelihood recovery, the integrity of beneficiary selection is critical.

Any unauthorised changes to approved beneficiary lists could leave intended recipients without the support for which they were selected.

Questions over accountability

The reported refund directive also raises questions about the safeguards used to protect programme funds, the role of financial institutions in disbursing the money and the procedures followed when beneficiary lists are changed.

Clarification is needed from Pearl Bank on the nature of the funds, the disbursement arrangements and the grounds on which the two parish chiefs were directed to make the refunds.

The district authorities also need to explain whether the directive was an administrative measure pending investigations or followed a formal determination of responsibility.

The allegations against the named officials could not be independently verified by press time, and their responses were not available. The position of Pearl Bank and further details from the district authorities were also not available.

The outcome of the investigations will be important in establishing whether programme funds were diverted, who authorised any changes to the beneficiary lists and whether the intended beneficiaries received the support.