Some bold construction firm recently solicited for architectural business from duly
registered architects in what one would equate to a robber attempting to steal from a
police station. Owners or staff of Morgan Developments Limited decided that the
best way to take on architects was to taunt them by requesting for their business in
form of What’s App messages. In the late of hours of Friday 13th October 2017 and
into the early hours of Saturday 14th October 2017, Morgan Developments Ltd sent
out messages to most (if not all) registered architects in Uganda claiming that they are
Interior Designers, Architects, Property Managers, Building Contractors and
Suppliers. Many architects were not amused and instantly expressed their irritation
via social media (through their What’s App group ‘Architects in Practice’). Below are
some of the posts from the members:
‘Quack architects testing their limit here. Let’s take our activism to another level and bombard his number with protest notes and warnings’ – Arch Amunsimire
Doesn’t the Uganda Society of Architects retain the services of a lawyer? We pay quite some annual society fees. We should be able to retain the services of a lawyer. A notice to sue such people would be enough. – Arch Mukisa
Instead of protest notes, it should be a suit that is well publicized. I have always insisted that we are to blame for our plight because the law protects us and we always tend to do less than enough to assert our rights. – Arch Bwambale
I believe ARB/USA have tried to do so (sue). At the last ARB seminar this was mentioned. I don’t remember the exact reasons given for failure to pursue such issues.......but I remember something about a weak law – Arch Bazira
Something to do with the law plus the punishment for non-architects being too small to prevent repeat offences. It has also been reported that getting actual evidence against an architect is quite difficult much as it is a known fact – Arch Kabarungi
It is high time (the) Society started biting members who work against its cause without even waiting for ARB...........We are all to blame for these issues not being dealt with.......the guy should be required to say who stamps for him in writing..... Arch Bwambale.
Some years back (prior to 1996), most architectural work was being done by engineers (especially Structural Engineers) who have an idea about the construction of buildings and architectural draughtsman who are generally schooled about the preparation of drawings or plans. For sometime, the Uganda Society of Architects through their leadership pushed for a law that regulated the practice of architecture and this was eventually passed as the Architect’s Registration Statute (1996). This law provides for the registration of architects and other related matters. I remember vividly, fresh out of the university, how this law was a source of excitement for all
‘Quack architects testing their limit here. Let’s take our activism to another level and bombard his number with protest notes and warnings’ – Arch Amunsimire
Doesn’t the Uganda Society of Architects retain the services of a lawyer? We pay quite some annual society fees. We should be able to retain the services of a lawyer. A notice to sue such people would be enough. – Arch Mukisa
Instead of protest notes, it should be a suit that is well publicized. I have always insisted that we are to blame for our plight because the law protects us and we always tend to do less than enough to assert our rights. – Arch Bwambale
I believe ARB/USA have tried to do so (sue). At the last ARB seminar this was mentioned. I don’t remember the exact reasons given for failure to pursue such issues.......but I remember something about a weak law – Arch Bazira
Something to do with the law plus the punishment for non-architects being too small to prevent repeat offences. It has also been reported that getting actual evidence against an architect is quite difficult much as it is a known fact – Arch Kabarungi
It is high time (the) Society started biting members who work against its cause without even waiting for ARB...........We are all to blame for these issues not being dealt with.......the guy should be required to say who stamps for him in writing..... Arch Bwambale.
Some years back (prior to 1996), most architectural work was being done by engineers (especially Structural Engineers) who have an idea about the construction of buildings and architectural draughtsman who are generally schooled about the preparation of drawings or plans. For sometime, the Uganda Society of Architects through their leadership pushed for a law that regulated the practice of architecture and this was eventually passed as the Architect’s Registration Statute (1996). This law provides for the registration of architects and other related matters. I remember vividly, fresh out of the university, how this law was a source of excitement for all
people qualified to practice architecture in Uganda. Many thought at the time that this
was going to bring an end to poor planning, bad architecture, non-functional buildings
and above all protection of the profession from masqueraders. Unfortunately, despite
some recognizable achievements, that law has not totally helped eliminate sham
architects and masqueraders.
It is obvious the proprietors of M/s Morgan Developments Ltd do not know the provisions of the 1996 law. If they were, they would have known that it is not possible for one to claim to be an Interior Designer, Architect, Property Manager, Building Contractor and Supplier without contravening the second schedule of the law (Code of Professional Ethics). It is also obvious from the posts above, that many of the registered architects are tired and fed up of people who call themselves architects yet they are not and do not have to follow the strict rules under which we practice. We are competing with unregulated people. But why has this practice continued despite having a law in place?
For starters, let us look at the law. Clause 34(1) of the Architects Registration Act (1996) provides that
.... any person who not being a registered architect:-
Some particular members of our profession who are registered as architects have continued to shamelessly append their signatures, names and stamps to drawings that they have not produced or have not been prepared under their supervision. This list is not long (probably not more 10) and is known by everybody who has ever served on the Architects Registration Board. Many of them practically leave their stamps at the printing houses (especially in Nkrumah Road) and usually charge no more than Ush. 500,000 per plan/project. During my time at the Disciplinary Committee, we attempted to bring a few of these guys to face the committee and answer our questions. All of them as if on cue claimed that these drawings/plans had been
It is obvious the proprietors of M/s Morgan Developments Ltd do not know the provisions of the 1996 law. If they were, they would have known that it is not possible for one to claim to be an Interior Designer, Architect, Property Manager, Building Contractor and Supplier without contravening the second schedule of the law (Code of Professional Ethics). It is also obvious from the posts above, that many of the registered architects are tired and fed up of people who call themselves architects yet they are not and do not have to follow the strict rules under which we practice. We are competing with unregulated people. But why has this practice continued despite having a law in place?
For starters, let us look at the law. Clause 34(1) of the Architects Registration Act (1996) provides that
.... any person who not being a registered architect:-
-
a) falsely pretends to be such, or
-
b) uses the style of title ‘architect or any other name, style, title or description
implying whether in itself or in the circumstances in which it is used that such
a person is registered architect or
-
c) holds himself whether directly or by implication to be a professionally
qualified architect commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand shillings or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both (emphasis mine).
Some particular members of our profession who are registered as architects have continued to shamelessly append their signatures, names and stamps to drawings that they have not produced or have not been prepared under their supervision. This list is not long (probably not more 10) and is known by everybody who has ever served on the Architects Registration Board. Many of them practically leave their stamps at the printing houses (especially in Nkrumah Road) and usually charge no more than Ush. 500,000 per plan/project. During my time at the Disciplinary Committee, we attempted to bring a few of these guys to face the committee and answer our questions. All of them as if on cue claimed that these drawings/plans had been
produced by their staff under their supervision. There is so much one can do and the
Board with its limited resources cannot invest in a more elaborate investigation of this
claim. It is clear to many of us in practice that it is impossible for one architect to
have supervised or produced and submitted to one municipality, projects in the excess
of 50 in one month. That would suggest that such architect or his practice has
produced or worked on more than 2 projects a day. While it is scientifically possible
(especially if you have a large number of staff), I believe I am speaking for many of
us, when I say that it is practically impossible. Ironically, it is these same people that
usually have no known fixed physical premises for their practices.
Now that we have nurtured this monster within us, the masqueraders have taken it a notch higher. This inside threat has grown so much that some of these non-architects have now evolved into big companies with a capacity to advertise on TV and other media. M/s Namulondo Investments Ltd unrepentantly and unashamedly advertise on TV that they offer architectural services, which is of course against our code of conduct. I have tried to follow this up and been told that they have employed an architect within their set up. I have asked the Registrar and Board’s lawyer to see if such registered architect is not breaching the law. Another company called Creation Architects has put up a signboard on a site in Ntinda and as an after thought or purposeful confusion included the title of the Architect as ‘ARB No. 085’ at the bottom. I am trying to find out from the Board who No.85 is and why he or she would not want to publish his name. Most architects are always proud of their work and would proudly display their name against any work under their hand. The board will also be interested in the architect’s association with Creation Architects. I am also interested in finding out if any one can register their company or firm with the word ‘Architect’ without any of the directors being an architect. By taunting us with those messages last week, M/s Morgan Developments Limited was daring us to see what we can do.
Rather than external factors, we seem to be faced with internal threats as the biggest danger to our profession. We will have to decisively deal with these people and as the Chair Practice Committee of the Architects’ Registration Board, I am open to ideas. I have been informed that the law as it is now does not adequately protect us from this new monster of ‘firms’ that advertise and contravene all the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Architects’ Registration Act (1996). This statute has to be amended to protect us from this new wave of attack on our profession, which unfortunately is being abetted by some of us. I have looked at laws of other countries and our law will have to be amended to deal with this new threat. I am aware of the fact that amending a law is a long and tedious process, but we have to start.
(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent a body corporate, firm or partnership from carrying on business under a name, style or title containing the word "architect" if- (a) the business of the body corporate, firm or partnership so far as it relates to architecture is under the control and management of a person registered in Part 1 of the Register who does not act at the same time in a similar capacity for any other body corporate, firm or partnership; and (b) in all premises where its business relating to architecture is carried on it is carried on by or under the supervision of a person registered in Part 1 of the Register. (United Kingdom)
Now that we have nurtured this monster within us, the masqueraders have taken it a notch higher. This inside threat has grown so much that some of these non-architects have now evolved into big companies with a capacity to advertise on TV and other media. M/s Namulondo Investments Ltd unrepentantly and unashamedly advertise on TV that they offer architectural services, which is of course against our code of conduct. I have tried to follow this up and been told that they have employed an architect within their set up. I have asked the Registrar and Board’s lawyer to see if such registered architect is not breaching the law. Another company called Creation Architects has put up a signboard on a site in Ntinda and as an after thought or purposeful confusion included the title of the Architect as ‘ARB No. 085’ at the bottom. I am trying to find out from the Board who No.85 is and why he or she would not want to publish his name. Most architects are always proud of their work and would proudly display their name against any work under their hand. The board will also be interested in the architect’s association with Creation Architects. I am also interested in finding out if any one can register their company or firm with the word ‘Architect’ without any of the directors being an architect. By taunting us with those messages last week, M/s Morgan Developments Limited was daring us to see what we can do.
Rather than external factors, we seem to be faced with internal threats as the biggest danger to our profession. We will have to decisively deal with these people and as the Chair Practice Committee of the Architects’ Registration Board, I am open to ideas. I have been informed that the law as it is now does not adequately protect us from this new monster of ‘firms’ that advertise and contravene all the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Architects’ Registration Act (1996). This statute has to be amended to protect us from this new wave of attack on our profession, which unfortunately is being abetted by some of us. I have looked at laws of other countries and our law will have to be amended to deal with this new threat. I am aware of the fact that amending a law is a long and tedious process, but we have to start.
(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent a body corporate, firm or partnership from carrying on business under a name, style or title containing the word "architect" if- (a) the business of the body corporate, firm or partnership so far as it relates to architecture is under the control and management of a person registered in Part 1 of the Register who does not act at the same time in a similar capacity for any other body corporate, firm or partnership; and (b) in all premises where its business relating to architecture is carried on it is carried on by or under the supervision of a person registered in Part 1 of the Register. (United Kingdom)
(1) It is unlawful for any person or firm to practice or offer to practice architecture in
this state, or to use in connection with his or her name or otherwise assume, use, or
advertise any title or description including the word "archi- tect," "architecture,"
"architectural," or language tending to imply that he or she is an architect, unless the
person is regis- tered or authorized to practice in the state of Washington under this
chapter .
(2) An architect or architectural firm registered in any other jurisdiction recognized by the board may offer to prac- tice architecture in this state if:
(a) It is clearly and prominently stated in such an offer that the architect or firm is not registered to practice architec- ture in the state of Washington; and
(b) Prior to practicing architecture or signing a contract to provide architectural services, the architect or firm must be registered to practice architecture in this state. (3) A person who has an accredited architectural degree may use the title "intern architect" when enrolled in a struc- tured intern program recognized by the board and working under the direct supervision of an architect.
(4) The provisions of this section shall not affect the use of the words "architect," "architecture," or "architectural" where a person does not practice or offer to practice architecture. (Washington State, USA).
(2) An architect or architectural firm registered in any other jurisdiction recognized by the board may offer to prac- tice architecture in this state if:
(a) It is clearly and prominently stated in such an offer that the architect or firm is not registered to practice architec- ture in the state of Washington; and
(b) Prior to practicing architecture or signing a contract to provide architectural services, the architect or firm must be registered to practice architecture in this state. (3) A person who has an accredited architectural degree may use the title "intern architect" when enrolled in a struc- tured intern program recognized by the board and working under the direct supervision of an architect.
(4) The provisions of this section shall not affect the use of the words "architect," "architecture," or "architectural" where a person does not practice or offer to practice architecture. (Washington State, USA).
