Uganda's efforts to attract foreign investment face a growing challenge: uncertainty about whether government contracts will survive parliamentary review without disruption or cancellation demands. Recent inquiries into expressway operations, vehicle inspections and digital number plates have raised legitimate questions about procurement, pricing and accountability. However, concern is mounting that parliamentary intervention may increasingly shift from oversight toward directing contract termination, potentially signalling to businesses that Uganda cannot guarantee a predictable environment for long-term investment.
The risk lies in contractual certainty. When investors commit funds based on agreements with the state, they face potential demands from Parliament to suspend or cancel those arrangements. For companies that have borrowed to purchase equipment, build facilities or recruit staff, prolonged uncertainty can delay expansion and complicate financing. Prospective investors may respond by factoring that risk into higher prices, demanding stronger guarantees or choosing different markets. Yet as economist Gloria Akello notes, oversight serves an essential purpose: poorly negotiated contracts, excessive charges and weak supervision impose substantial costs on taxpayers and consumers. The challenge is investigating suspected wrongdoing thoroughly while ensuring remedies are supported by evidence and account for the state's contractual obligations.
The Kampala-Entebbe Expressway dispute illustrates this tension. Parliament's Physical Infrastructure Committee recommended terminating operating arrangements and transferring responsibilities to government, citing performance and financial concerns regarding EGIS Road Operation's operating contract and an arrangement involving Pinnacle Security. However, the Attorney General's office warned that abrupt termination could expose Uganda to costly international arbitration, highlighting that a contractor's shortcomings do not necessarily give government an immediate right to cancel an agreement. The Attorney General's office supported instead a forensic audit of revenue collection systems, offering a way to pursue accountability while reducing the risk that taxpayers finance compensation or arbitration costs.
The digital number plate project presents another test. Parliament is investigating the award and implementation of the US$257 million Intelligent Transport Monitoring System project involving Joint Stock Global Security Ltd. The Physical Infrastructure Committee raised the prospect of cancelling the contract on October 14. Yet evidence has emerged of the system's capabilities: during an October 2 inspection, MPs verified that the technology could track cars and motorcycles, while Police reported recovering 264 out of 289 stolen motor vehicles in 2026, a recovery rate of 91 percent. On October 20, Auditor General Edward Akol presented preliminary findings to the Committee during a closed-door session, adding further scrutiny.
Uganda's experience with Swiss inspection firm Société Générale de Surveillance demonstrates the cost of intervention. Following parliamentary intervention in 2017, government terminated the mandatory vehicle inspection agreement in 2020 and subsequently agreed to a Shs109.9 billion settlement to acquire the company's investments. President Yoweri Museveni has raised similar concerns, citing the Chinese-backed Osukuru fertiliser factory in Tororo, where court intervention arising from a business partner dispute stopped operations with consequences for economic activity and employment. These cases illustrate why the costs of intervention must be examined alongside the failings that prompt it.
For Parliament, credible oversight means demanding records, testing explanations and establishing whether contractual breaches have actually occurred. Where violations are proven, remedies should follow the law and agreed procedures, with full consideration of financial, legal and operational consequences. Policy and governance expert Titus Nkurunziza warns that dragging investors through grueling parliamentary hearings discourages investment, as businesses will reconsider commitment if subjected to such proceedings. Fair questioning, meaningful opportunity to respond and clear distinction between allegations and established findings are central to credible oversight. Uganda cannot afford a situation where protecting public funds today results in costly arbitration, compensation claims or disrupted services tomorrow.