Who is Responsible for Construction Safety in Uganda

About a year ago, I wrote about construction safety in Uganda in an article that was published in The Monitor newspaper. I particularly emphasised there is a need to rethink construction in Uganda with a particular focus on safety on sites. I highlighted then that construction site accidents are not new and that studies show that site accidents tend increase as the economy expands. In passing, I mentioned that we were fortunate that we could learn from others who have gone through this period and how they solved this problem. United Kingdom, Japan, USA, Malaysia and most recently China have all experienced this problem and there is ample literature on how this was tackled. Since that article, which was written after two accidents on construction sites in Kampala, there have been 4 more accidents which have claimed the lives of over 10 people.

That is not the reason however, why I return to this subject, but the question that has been on the minds of many Ugandans lately. Who is responsible for construction safety? Is it the architect, engineers, contractor, developer or the local authority’s building inspection unit?

Conventionally site safety lies with all people involved in the project. The architect and engineer at design stage to ensure that the works can be executed safely, the developer and contractors who must make certain that the execution methods comply with the safety and health standards in place. However, that is only true in an ideal situation where the sites have an architect and engineer appointed by the developer to handle the development project through its course. In Uganda, most developers want to cut corners and avoid what they call unnecessary cost by appointing architects and engineers for design only, and this is mainly to obtain approval for their planned development from the local authority. After Kampala City Council worked with the associations bringing together these professionals to ensure that all drawings submitted for planning approval are handled by registered architects and engineers, most developers had no alternative but to engage registered engineers and architects. It is a well known fact that before this effort developers avoided registered architects and engineers and that is how we ended up with 5-8 storey buildings in the heart of the city without lifts or ample parking space. That not withstanding, a step in the right direction was made and I am positive that the majority of recent developments in Kampala are designed by registered architects and engineers. Unfortunately, that is where the success story ends. Once these drawings have been approved by KCC, developers are free to do what they want and the first thing they do is to do away with registered architects and engineers for the supervision of construction of these buildings, as a means of cutting costs. The situation is further compounded by the appointment of inexperienced contractors on one hand and the failure by KCC to carry out the stage inspections as stipulated by law on the other. This in effect leads to a more complex situation in which no body is responsible for safety on site.

Traditionally design of a building is the responsibility of the architects and engineers and it’s construction is the responsibility of the contractor supervised by the architects and engineers. Once the design architects and engineers are no longer part of the project as is normally the case in Kampala, responsibility for site safety lies squarely with the contractor. Unfortunately this is not explicitly stated by law and as we have learnt from the investigation reports for some of the accidents, contractors usually on the instructions of developers have routinely abandoned plans and executed works that are different from what was designed. Other project participants who should be culpable would be the developer and/or KCC, but I am aware that there is no law that would make either of them criminally responsible. In fact the Building Rules currently in use under the Public Health Act of 1969 specifically state in rule No. 18 that ‘The approval of any plans of any building or structure shall not in anyway impose or imply acceptance of responsibility on the part of the local authority for the stability of any building or structure’.

In the absence of a law that makes any one responsible for safety on site, it is a far cry to expect the trend of events to change for the better. Most of the reports from these sites indicate that almost all accidents are not the consequence of poor design but rather unsafe site conditions, unsafe actions by operatives and lack of management control. The laws that are required in place now should be mainly to do with management of construction sites and the responsibility of developers and contractors for the safety of the public and operatives. At the moment neither of the laws (Occupation Health and Safety Act of 2006 and Public Health Act of 1964) expressly make any body responsible for health and safety on site.