The Government Chief Valuer has come under scrutiny over alleged inconsistencies in the valuation of government and public assets, with legislators questioning why property values appear higher when government is acquiring assets but significantly lower when disposing of them.
The concerns were raised by the Public Accounts Committee on Local Government, chaired by Betty Nambooze Bakireke, during a meeting with Government Chief Valuer Gilbert Kermundu and his team, including Deputy Chief Valuer Beno Okumu.
The meeting sought to address public concerns surrounding the valuation of government assets, following reports of questionable land valuations, inconsistent compensation figures and high charges imposed on local governments seeking valuation services.
MPs raised concerns that some local governments have reportedly been asked to provide more than Shs300 million to facilitate government valuation exercises, questioning the basis for such charges and the financial burden they place on local authorities.
Legislators also warned that undervaluation of government land could expose valuable public property to loss through unfair disposal arrangements.
They cited a case in Mukono Municipality, where an acre of land was reportedly valued at approximately Shs600 million, arguing that inconsistent valuation standards could create opportunities for public land to be sold at significantly lower prices.
The committee further questioned disparities in road compensation rates and differences in the valuation of similar properties across neighbouring local governments, calling for greater consistency and transparency in the process.
In his response, Government Chief Valuer Gilbert Kermundu acknowledged operational challenges affecting his office, particularly inadequate staffing and limited facilitation.
He explained that these constraints affect the department’s ability to conduct field assessments and respond promptly to valuation requests from local governments.
Kermundu also noted that some of the concerns surrounding valuation services could stem from limited public awareness of the office’s mandate and procedures. He defended the need for improved regulations and professional standards to guide valuation exercises.
The committee called for clear and uniform valuation guidelines, stronger supervision of valuation exercises and increased government funding to strengthen the office’s capacity to assess public assets across local governments.
Legislators warned that without reliable asset registers, transparent valuation procedures and consistent professional standards, government risks losing valuable public property and resources through inaccurate valuations.
END