Parliament Faults Police Over Charges for Canine Services

Uganda Police has reported a decline in crime across the country, but Members of Parliament have raised concerns over alleged charges imposed on citizens seeking police canine services.

While appearing before the Public Accounts Committee chaired by Hon. Gorreth Namugga, on Tuesday, 10 March, 2026, James Ochaya the Deputy Inspector General of Police said the latest police crime data shows a significant reduction in reported cases for 2025.

Ochaya told the committee that although the annual police report is yet to be officially released, preliminary figures show that reported crime cases dropped from 218,725 in 2024 to 196,155 in 2025 which is a reduction of 22,560 cases, representing a 10.3 percent decline.

“The criminal case rate stood at 427 persons per 100,000 people in 2025, down from 476 in 2024,” Ochaya said, noting that the figures are based on a national population estimated at about 45 million people.

He attributed the decline to improved policing structures and stronger collaboration with communities and other security agencies.

“We have strengthened sub-county policing, enhanced collaboration with other security agencies and increased community engagement,” Ochaya said.

He also revealed that police operations in early 2026 had already resulted in thousands of arrests.

“In January and February 2026, police arrested 7,159 suspects, of whom 3,724 were arraigned before courts of law,” he said.

According to Ochaya, the Kampala Metropolitan Area accounted for a significant share of the arrests, with 3,512 suspects apprehended during the same period, of whom 1,935 were presented before court.

However, the session turned tense when legislators questioned police leadership over reports that communities are being asked to pay Shs200,000 for canine services during criminal investigations.

Namugga said the committee had received information that police sniffer dogs are routinely paid for by members of the public, despite police leadership indicating that the service should be free.

“We are giving information that the dogs are paid for very expensively, but we are surprised the IGP does not know that the dogs are paid for,” she said.

In response, Ochaya acknowledged the concerns and promised investigations.

“We shall investigate and find out where the problem is and rectify,” he said.

Other lawmakers shared personal experiences and complaints from constituents about payments allegedly demanded when requesting canine services.

Silas Aogon (Ind., Kumi Municipality) said the practice appeared widespread across the country.

Similarly, Susan Amero (Ind., Amuria District Woman Representative) urged police to clarify the policy and sensitise the public if the service is indeed free.

“I had a farm in Kakiri and I went for a dog at Kakiri police station. I paid money for the dog to reach my farm to investigate theft, and nothing was even detected,” she said.

She added that if the charges are legitimate, they should be formalised through official receipts so the funds can be accounted for as government revenue.

Joseph Ssewungu (NUP, Kalungu West County) also questioned whether police have sufficient resources to transport canine units to crime scenes.

He cited an example from Kalungu where a dog unit was only deployed after local leaders constructed a facility to house it.

Police officials explained that transportation has often been a challenge but said the force is procuring specialised equipment to improve canine deployment, especially in rural areas