The Weekend Monitor reported that Parliament’s Physical Infrastructure Committee has been asked to withdraw from investigating the Busega-Mpigi Expressway because security agencies are already examining the project. Committee chairperson Mwine Mpaka said the Speaker advised the committee to withdraw, leaving 202 prepared questions and a planned engagement with at least 10 parties in abeyance.
The decision may have been intended to avoid duplication or interference, but it risks confusing two enquiries that serve different public purposes.
The parliamentary committee had been examining the causes of delay and cost escalation, including reported weaknesses in design, changes in alignment and scope, and procurement initiated before a revised design was completed and approved. These are serious matters, but they are not, by themselves, proof that anybody committed a crime.
A criminal investigation asks whether somebody broke the law. Engineering forensics asks how the project broke down. Uganda needs answers to both. A charge sheet cannot reconstruct a design, and a technical calculation cannot establish criminal intent.
The Inspectorate of Government has publicly confirmed an investigation into alleged fund embezzlement and a value-for-money examination of the project. That work is legitimate and necessary. Investigators can examine possible theft, fraud, collusion, falsification, abuse of office or manipulation of procurement and compensation; trace money; secure documents; and assemble evidence that may support administrative action or prosecution. Nothing in the demand for parliamentary or technical examination should delay or weaken that work.
Engineering forensics begins from a different point. It reconstructs the project from the original need and brief through feasibility studies, ground and environmental investigations, design, cost estimation, procurement, construction, certification, variation, operation and maintenance.
According to the Weekend Monitor report, the committee’s preliminary scrutiny raised questions about incomplete interchanges, omitted toll facilities and link roads, the safety of the original Mpigi terminus, subsequent alignment changes and the expansion of the project scope. It also reported that works procurement began before the revised design was completed and approved.
These remain preliminary matters requiring evidence, but they point to the questions an engineering investigation must answer: Why was the original design accepted? What made the revisions necessary? Were the revised quantities and costs independently verified? Who authorised procurement before the design was final, and how were the resulting risks allocated?
The answers may reveal criminal conduct, but they may also reveal a chain of technical error, premature commitment, fragmented decision-making, inadequate financing or weak institutional control. Infrastructure projects commonly fail through several interacting decisions rather than one dramatic act.
If investigators search only for a thief, they may miss the system that made the loss possible. If engineers examine only the technical system and ignore possible wrongdoing, they may produce an elegant explanation that allows culpable people to escape consequences.
This is why the existence of another investigation should not automatically extinguish Parliament’s inquiry.
The immediate response should be coordination, not withdrawal. The Speaker can agree on rules with the committee and investigation leaders on preserving evidence, sequencing particular witnesses and protecting genuinely confidential material.
Parliament’s 202 questions can therefore be organised around four central issues. What was originally designed and approved? What changed, why did it change, and who authorised the change? What has actually been built and paid for? Which professional, administrative, financial and political controls operated, failed or were bypassed? These questions require the full contract, drawings, specifications, geotechnical and environmental reports, cost estimates, bills of quantities, variations, test results, payment certificates, land-acquisition records and the testimony of all the institutions that shaped the project.
The Uganda Institution of Professional Engineers has an important societal role in this moment. UIPE should not defend named engineers, accuse named officials or compete with investigators. It should insist that engineering evidence forms part of public accountability, help explain the technical questions citizens and Parliament should ask, and offer independent expertise where requested.
Politics determines what a nation wants to achieve; professional expertise helps determine whether it is actually being achieved. Uganda should therefore resist the idea that one investigation makes the other unnecessary.
A criminal investigation asks whether somebody broke the law. Engineering forensics asks how the project broke down. Busega-Mpigi needs answers to both, because Uganda must punish any wrongdoing that occurred and ensure that the same failure is not designed, procured and financed again.