In many Ugandan villages, the LC1 chairperson is the first person called when a boundary is disputed, a family quarrel turns bitter, or a resident needs a letter to travel, seek treatment, enrol in school or access a government service. Whether someone is buying land, reporting theft, applying for electricity, proving residency or seeking mediation, the village chairperson is often the gateway to the next step. Yet the office that carries so much responsibility remains one of the least supported in Uganda’s governance structure. Many LC1 chairpersons receive little or no regular remuneration despite being expected to serve their communities almost daily.
It is therefore a position that is sometimes left to those who can afford to work almost voluntarily or, more worryingly, to those who see it as an opportunity to recover their investment through unofficial charges. The irony is that this seemingly small office has one of the biggest impacts on ordinary Ugandans. Long before citizens interact with Members of Parliament, Resident District Commissioners or ministers, they interact with the LC1. The quality of leadership at this level can determine whether a dispute is resolved peacefully, whether a land transaction proceeds smoothly or whether a vulnerable family receives timely help.
Strategic position Sooner or later, almost every Ugandan finds themselves requiring that LC1 stamp for a matter that could change their lives, as Isaac Ssejjombwe found out. ‘Seven years ago, my brother called me with what sounded like the opportunity of a lifetime. A plot of land had just been put on the market in Buloba. It was not particularly large, but it was spacious enough to build a decent family home. Even better, the asking price was only Shs5 million. At the time, I could only raise Shs2m. My brother, who is a land broker, assured me that this was enough because many land sellers are eager to sell quickly and, once you make a substantial deposit, they are usually willing to give you time to clear the balance.
True to his word, the seller accepted my Shs2m deposit and allowed me three months to raise the remaining Shs3m.’ Three months later, when he had put the balance together, he needed the LC1 chairperson to verify the land, witness the sale and stamp the agreement. ‘I had been told that I would need to pay Shs10,000 for the stamp, which was fine with me. Imagine my shock when the chairman demanded a commission of Shs500,000. At first, I thought it was a joke but I soon discovered he was serious.’ After lengthy negotiations and repeated pleas, the chairman reluctantly reduced his demand to Shs350,000. He then added a transport charge of Shs150,000 to inspect the plot before signing the agreement.
‘Although the distance from his office to the land could easily be covered by a boda boda costing about Shs2,000, he said he only uses cars and that his Toyota Corona needed that amount of fuel. No amount of pleading changed his mind. Instead, he reminded us that he had many other people waiting for his services and that if we were not willing to meet his demands, we should leave so he could attend to them. Cornered and desperate to secure the land, we paid.’ Ssejjombwe discovered as many other Ugandans sooner or later do that the LC1 chairperson occupies such a strategic position. Delaying a land agreement, withholding a recommendation letter or refusing to witness a transaction can cost someone an investment, a school opportunity or access to an essential service.
While many LC1 chairpersons carry out these duties with honesty and dedication, others have turned public service into a private revenue stream. The consequences extend beyond the individual paying an unofficial fee. Land remains one of Uganda’s most valuable and contested resources. Every year, families spend millions of shillings resolving disputes that often begin with poorly documented transactions or disagreements that were never properly mediated. A diligent LC1 chairperson who insists on involving neighbours, verifying boundaries and documenting agreements can prevent conflicts that would otherwise end up before local councils, magistrates’ courts or clan elders.
On the other hand, a careless or compromised leader can unknowingly legitimise fraudulent land sales or fuel disputes that divide families for generations. The same applies to community justice. In many villages, minor assaults, domestic misunderstandings, noise complaints and property disputes are first reported to the LC1. An impartial chairperson who listens to both sides can restore peace before tempers escalate. However, where favouritism, tribal loyalties, political affiliation or financial influence determine decisions, conflicts often become deeper and more expensive to resolve.
Enabling government programmes
Ugandans have also witnessed how strong village leadership can make government programmes succeed. Josephat Mukisa confesses that he did not know his LCI Chairperson until Covid-19 hit and he needed his stamp. ‘I remember feeling very embarrassed meeting him for the first time in the 12 years I had lived in the village. But after that awkward meeting, my chairman became a useful ally in the development of the village. It has been easier to mobilise community activities with his help,’ Mukisa says. Mukisa notes that perhaps the biggest mistake Ugandans make is treating LC1 elections as insignificant.
‘When it comes to village elections, many voters simply support a friend, a relative, a drinking companion or someone from the same tribe without asking whether that person possesses the integrity, patience and fairness the office demands. Ironically, the LC1 chairperson often has more influence over an ordinary citizen’s daily life than leaders occupying far higher offices,’ he notes. When communities elect honest, approachable and competent leaders, everyone benefits. Investors gain confidence to buy land. Families resolve disagreements peacefully. Government programmes reach deserving beneficiaries.
Residents spend less on unnecessary charges and avoid disputes that consume years of litigation. Alternatively, when communities elect leaders who view the office as a business, everyone eventually pays. Some lose money through inflated fees. Others lose property through questionable transactions. Businesses face delays. Trust in local government weakens. Citizens begin to assume that every signature has a price and every public service requires a personal payment.