Opposition Claims Dei BioPharma have absorbed significant public funds without delivering commensurate value

In its alternative budget for the 2026/27 financial year, the Opposition has warned that Uganda’s rising debt burden, shifting fiscal targets and controversial tax proposals risk undermining livelihoods, weakening institutions and choking service delivery.

Presenting the proposals at Parliament on Tuesday, 07 April 2026, the Leader of the Opposition, Hon.  Joel Ssenyonyi said the country’s current fiscal path is unsustainable, with the bulk of government spending already locked into debt obligations and fixed costs.

He said that under the proposed national budget of over Shs78 trillion, more than half of the resources are pre-committed, leaving limited fiscal space for critical sectors such as health, education and infrastructure.

“For every Shs1,000 collected in taxes, more than Shs300 goes directly to lenders,” Ssenyonyi said warning that, ‘Uganda is increasingly borrowing not for development, but for survival’.

The Opposition estimates that only about Shs34.2 trillion which is close to  44 per cent of the budget is available for discretionary spending, a squeeze it says is already being felt through underfunded public services, stalled projects and widening inequality.

The Opposition singles out a number of projects including Atiak Sugar Factory, Dei BioPharma, Lubowa International Specialised Hospital and the Inspire Africa coffee initiative describing them as examples of investments that have absorbed significant public funds without delivering commensurate value.

Ssenyonyi said such projects reflect deeper weaknesses in public finance management and prioritisation, arguing that government must shift focus from prestige investments to service delivery.

The Executive Director of the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG), Julius Mukunda said persistent changes in budget estimates point to deeper planning challenges.

“These numbers are a moving target. Today it is Shs84 trillion, tomorrow Shs43 trillion. Parliament must work with concrete and consistent figures,” Mukunda said.

He noted that debt servicing alone is consuming nearly 39 per cent of the budget, leaving little room for development expenditure.

“We believe your priority is where your money is and most of the money is going into debt,” he added.

Mukunda also highlighted a financing gap in key government programmes, particularly under the National Development Plan, where sectors such as agro-industrialisation face a shortfall of about Shs8.1 trillion.

Mukunda argued that Uganda can raise more domestic revenue without increasing tax rates by improving efficiency, including leveraging local governments to support tax collection.

Mukunda criticised the increase in tax on imported second-hand clothes (mivumba) from 15 per cent to 30 per cent arguing that it risks hurting low-income earners without a viable local textile industry to fill the gap.

Equally contentious is the proposed taxation of smartphones, which Mukunda described as a direct barrier to youth entrepreneurship and digital participation.

“The phone is the shop, the office, the address for many young people. Making it expensive is telling them to stay poor,” he said.

In their budget statement, the Opposition further criticised government for slashing domestic arrears payments from Shs1.4 trillion to Shs200 billion, calling it a breach of earlier commitments.

At the same time, both the Opposition and civil society pointed to inefficiencies such as idle loans where government continues to pay commitment fees on undisbursed funds due to delayed project execution.

The result, they argued, is a cycle of stalled infrastructure projects, with at least 27 major developments reportedly suspended due to funding constraints.

The Opposition proposed a scaled-down and more realistic budget of about Shs71.4 trillion, aligned with actual revenue performance.

Key recommendations include reducing domestic borrowing, prioritising arrears clearance and cutting administrative expenditure on travel, workshops and government vehicle fleets to create what is described as a “service delivery buffer”.

The alternative framework also calls for capping interest payments, strengthening revenue collection efficiency instead of raising taxes and prioritising concessional borrowing over commercial debt.

The Opposition also raised concerns over underfunding in critical social sectors.

“Health continues to receive only about 6 per cent of the budget far below the 15 per cent Abuja target resulting in drug shortages, understaffing and poor service delivery,” the budget statement reads in part.

Ssenyonyi added  that agriculture, which employs the majority of Ugandans, remains underfunded with limited investment in irrigation, extension services and market access.

The Opposition framed its alternative budget as a choice between maintaining the current trajectory and adopting reforms aimed at protecting citizens’ welfare.

“We must choose discipline over excess, transparency over opacity, and long-term national interest over short-term convenience,” Ssenyonyi added.