When Citizens Ask, Leadership Must Respond: Lessons from the Raia Makini Community Dialogues
Across villages in Mpimbwe, Bahi and Mpwapwa, a series of community dialogues under the Raia Makini Project has opened a space where citizens can ask questions, raise concerns and engage directly with local leadership about issues that shape their daily lives.
From access to public financing and participation in village meetings to unfinished development projects, water shortages, health services, education, transparency in village finances and allegations of bribery, the discussions have shown that accountability is not a distant concept. It is experienced in the everyday realities of communities.
More importantly, the dialogues have demonstrated that when citizens have an opportunity to speak, issues that might otherwise remain unnoticed can come to the attention of those responsible for addressing them.
It starts with information
In Lwega village located in Tanganyika District, one of the first concerns to emerge was young people's limited access to the 10% council loans for women, youth and persons with disabilities.
The discussion revealed that some young people were not forming or joining economic groups and had limited information about how the loans could be accessed. The District Council Development Officer, Maria Kyejo, explained the registration and application process and clarified that citizens did not need to travel from Lwega to the council offices to begin the process. They could register and seek assistance through the Ward Development Officer.
The village leadership subsequently committed to inviting the Ward Development Officer to a future village meeting so that citizens could receive direct information on how to access the loans.
The issue was not simply about loans. It was about whether citizens knew about a public opportunity, understood the procedures and could reach the officials responsible for helping them access it.
A similar concern emerged in Igalukilo, Kasansa Ward, Mpimbwe Council, where citizens acknowledged that there was still insufficient knowledge about the 10% loans.
Zainabu Juma, the Community Development Officer, explained how groups should register and apply for the loans, which are issued every three months. The Village Executive Officer reported that five groups had received loans during the year. Citizens, however, called for the Ward Development Officers to visit the village, introduce themselves formally and provide further education on the programme.
The discussion also highlighted another side of accountability: responsibility after receiving public funds. Participants discussed CAG findings showing that some groups had not been repaying loans on time. Access to public financing, therefore, was linked to the responsibility of beneficiaries to repay so that the funds can continue reaching other eligible citizens.
Participation is itself an accountability issue
While some communities were asking how to access opportunities, Kasekese village presented a different challenge: getting citizens to participate in the first place.
Attendance at the village dialogue was very low, and participation among those who attended was limited. This became an important lesson about community engagement.
In this village, the experience pointed to the need for an alternative to open community dialogues, with more targeted conversations involving young people, women and business groups. Such focused engagements can create a more conducive space for participants to discuss issues that directly affect them and, in turn, share key messages and concerns with the wider community.
Bringing CAG findings down to village level
At Kibaoni, Community Accountability Champions played an important role in helping citizens engage with findings from the Controller and Auditor General's reports concerning Mpimbwe.
The dialogue focused on the role of CACs under new village leadership, citizen participation in village planning and budgeting, and the responsibility of citizens to protect public resources.
This approach was particularly important because CAG findings are often presented at district or institutional level.
From audit findings to local questions
In Mayamaya, CACs presented and contextualised issues from the CAG report covering Bahi District, allowing citizens and village leaders to examine whether the issues identified at district level were reflected in their own community.
One issue concerned incomplete development projects. The Village Executive Officer initially indicated that he did not know which projects had been left incomplete. During the discussion, however, citizens identified the unfinished laboratory at Zanka Secondary School and asked for an explanation.
The Village Chair indicated that some answers might have to be obtained at ward level but committed the village leadership to follow up. Citizens agreed that the status of the project should be reported at the next village meeting.
The discussion then moved to the unfinished market toilet. Citizens were told that the district council had allocated approximately TSh 3 million, all of which had been spent, while the project remained incomplete. The village had reportedly written to request an additional approximately TSh 1.5 million.
Citizens then asked a broader accountability question: if market levies are collected, why can those revenues not help complete the toilet?
The Village Executive Officer explained that market levies go directly to the council and that the council returns 10 percent, which had been used for repairs and continuation of the toilet project.
The conversation therefore moved beyond the condition of one toilet. It became a discussion about how local revenue is collected, where it goes and how citizens can understand its relationship to services in their community.
The 10% loans again became an issue. Citizens reported that many groups in Mayamaya had not benefited from the scheme. The Village Chair indicated that only two groups in Mayamaya had benefited. Citizens called for follow-up with those groups and asked the Ward Development Officer to explain why others were not accessing the loans despite their efforts.
CACs were encouraged to engage their councillor and follow up on the loan issue and stalled projects, particularly the Zanka Secondary School laboratory.
Transparency means citizens must be able to understand
In Kingiti, Mpwapwa District, the dialogue moved directly into the question of transparency in village governance.
Citizens said village income and expenditure reports had not been presented for approximately six months. They wanted financial information to be presented clearly so that they could understand how money was being received and spent.
The Village Chair explained that village meetings had been held but that attendance and participation were often low. He referred to a meeting held on 17 December 2025 where income and expenditure information connected to decisions about construction of the village office had been presented. Another meeting was held on 23 June 2026 after a previous meeting had been postponed due to low attendance. During the meeting, citizens called for clear and understandable information on the construction of the village office, including details of payments made to builders and artisans.
The Kingiti dialogue also raised an allegation concerning bribery. One citizen said they had allegedly been asked for TSh 20,000 to facilitate the handling of a case after their sunflower harvest was stolen and the alleged suspect was arrested and taken to the village office.
The allegation was discussed in the broader context of rejecting and reporting bribery. It reinforced the importance of citizens being able to raise concerns about conduct in the delivery of public services and local administration.
Water, health and education bring accountability close to home
If there is one theme that repeatedly appeared across the dialogues, it is that accountability is ultimately about whether public services work for the people who depend on them.
In Kingiti, citizens described poor water infrastructure and significant water losses. They asked the village chair to take the matter seriously. The chair reported that he had contacted RUWASA, which had promised to work on the problem.
Citizens also reported that water from a local well was extremely salty and alkaline and unsuitable for drinking, although it could be used for other purposes.
Health services were another concern. Kingiti residents reported that there was no doctor or health worker available at the dispensary, affecting women in particular, including those requiring reproductive and maternal health services. The Development Officer said he had taken up the issue and would escalate it to the relevant level.
At Lukole, the scale of the challenges was even more striking.
Citizens reported that Lukole Primary School had more than 1,300 pupils but only six teachers. The shortage raised serious concerns about the ability of the school to provide adequate education to such a large number of pupils.
The Village Chair urged citizens to agree on ways of giving priority to residents with teaching qualifications to support the school and to discuss how the community could meet the cost of supporting such teachers.
Water shortages were another major concern. In the Zahanati area, citizens said there was only one water point, and severe shortages meant that a person who collected two buckets one day could be told the following day that they had already collected their share.
The situation was said to be particularly difficult for older people who depend heavily on reliable access to water.
Residents also pointed to ageing water infrastructure. Some of the pipes date back to 1998, when the population was much smaller. Lukole now has more than 10,000 residents. The Village Chair explained that the two-inch pipes were too small to deliver sufficient water, especially because the system serves two villages.
Health staffing was another concern. The Village Chair acknowledged that there was a shortage of health workers and said that at least nine would be needed.
A separate concern involved a borehole constructed to support maternal and child health services, with water originally directed to the dispensary. After the original pump broke down, technicians from the district removed it and installed another pump which, according to the Village Chair, did not have sufficient capacity to push water to the dispensary.
Although the District Commissioner had reportedly promised that the issue would be addressed, citizens said that no solution had been implemented by the time of the dialogue.
When a dialogue produces a response
The significance of these dialogues lies not only in the problems that were raised, but also in what happened after those problems were placed on the table.
In Luega, the proposed response was to bring the Ward Development Officer closer to citizens to provide direct education on the 10% loans.
In Igalukilo, CACs who had previously faced challenges in being recognised by the village government were formally recognised by the Village Chair and introduced to the community. They were encouraged to continue educating citizens about the 10% loans and supporting development efforts.
The same dialogue also produced a proposal to establish an emergency water fund through community contributions. The fund would help pay technicians when the water system breaks down, allowing repairs to be undertaken without waiting for a lengthy administrative process.
In Mayamaya, citizens and CACs were encouraged to continue following up on stalled projects and loan-related concerns.
In Kingiti, the water challenge was linked to follow-up with RUWASA, while the shortage of health workers was taken forward for further action.
In Lukole, the dialogue brought the community's concerns about teachers, water and health services directly into discussion with village leadership.
These responses are different, and they do not mean that every problem has already been solved. In several cases, commitments still require follow-up. But the dialogues have created something important: a record of concerns, responses and commitments that citizens can return to.
CACs as a bridge between citizens and leadership
Across these communities, Community Accountability Champions have increasingly become an important link between citizens and local governance.
Their role has included mobilising citizens to attend village meetings, creating awareness about public opportunities such as the 10% loans, discussing CAG findings, encouraging communities to monitor development projects and following up on issues raised during dialogues.
The experience in Igalukilo is particularly instructive. It showed that accountability actors themselves need recognition and cooperation from local leadership if they are to work effectively.
The broader experience suggests that accountability is not the responsibility of one institution. It requires citizens who participate, leaders who respond, officials who provide information, and community structures that help sustain follow-up.
What the dialogues are teaching us about good governance
Taken together, the dialogues reveal a community-level picture of governance that is both challenging and hopeful.
Citizens are asking why projects remain unfinished. They are asking where public money goes. They are asking why water systems built years ago are still expected to serve growing populations. They are asking why schools have too few teachers and health facilities too few workers. They are asking how public loans can reach those who need them and what responsibilities come with receiving them.
The dialogues therefore offer a simple but powerful lesson: good governance is not only about what leaders decide. It is also about whether citizens can ask, understand, participate and follow up.