The government’s newly-approved Shs8.1 trillion supplementary expenditure has drawn sharp criticism from political leaders, economists, and civil society actors, who accuse ministries and agencies of wasteful spending, poor planning, and disguising non-emergency items as urgent national needs.
The controversy first arose over allocations under Supplementary Schedule One, where State House received Shs300 billion for youth mobilisation tours, remodelling of the Youth Livelihood Fund, and classified expenditures. Another contentious item was Shs1.19 billion earmaked for buying a station wagon and two security double-cabins for the prime minister. Also raising eyebrows is a Shs23.89 billion bonus payout to Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) staff for exceeding the revenue collection target for the Financial Year (FY) 2024/2025.
The Shadow Finance Minister and Kira Municipality MP, Mr Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, criticised the allocations, particularly the move to use public funds to bulk-purchase T-shirts from a private textile firm for distribution during the ongoing presidential campaigns.
‘We are being asked to believe that the government is going to bulk-buy T-shirts using public money, hand them over to a private association, and then somehow recover the funds,’ Mr Ssemujju said. He added: ‘Cotton farmers in Acholi, Teso, Bukedi, and West Nile have waited for real support for decades, yet the government wants to subsidise the logistics of a private textile company and become its biggest customer in an election period.’
Mr Ssemujju further argued that the Shs300 billion allocated to State House reflects political motives and unfairly overshadows budgets for poverty-alleviation projects such as the Parish Development Model (PDM).
‘The money we are spending on the residence of our dear leader is equal to what we are spending on fighting poverty,’ he said, describing the youth mobilisation and YLP remodelling activities as political campaigning disguised as national programming. The Leader of Opposition in Parliament, Mr Joel Ssenyonyi, questioned the government’s justification for spending Shs37b on a static synchronous compensator (STATCOM) to stabilise power supply for Roofings Limited, a privately owned steel manufacturer in Namanve Industrial Park, in the outskirts of Kampala City.
‘This is not a national project but a direct subsidy to a private, wealthy individual,’ Mr Ssenyonyi said. The Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CSBAG) executive director, Mr Julius Mukunda, said the supplementary package exposes deep fiscal indiscipline.
‘Our analysis shows that these items don’t qualify as supplementary expenditure,’ Mr Mukunda said. The CSBAG boss added: ‘These are predictable activities that could have been budgeted for next year. Instead, they are worsening our debt sustainability.’ Economist Richard Ssempala from Makerere University echoed the concern, saying Uganda’s shrinking fiscal space requires prioritisation of productive expenditures.
‘Are some of these items so essential? Can’t some be postponed or forgone altogether?’ he asked. ‘Uganda needs to spend on high-payoff ventures, not consumptive politics.’ Speaker Anita Among rejected allegations that the State House request is meant to fund the ruling National Resistance Movement party’s mobilisation tours, insisting the expenditures are legitimate. On the Namanve STATCOM, the Ministry of Energy Permanent Secretary, Ms Irene Batebe, defended the intervention by saying: ‘Industrialists consume 66 percent of electricity and employ thousands. Supporting them strengthens the economy.’
The Ministry of Finance spokesperson, Mr Jim Mugunga, also defended the Shs6.9b allocated to refund World Bank-flagged expenditures under the GROW Project, explaining that the government must settle the matter before holding the Private Sector Foundation Uganda (PSFU) accountable as the ”implementing partner”. Despite the government’s explanations, pressure continues to mount as analysts demand greater transparency, clearer justification for supplementary requests, and more stringent scrutiny of politically sensitive spending during the campaign period.