The most revealing part of the Inspectorate of Government’s inquiry into the Federation of Uganda Football Associations (Fufa) may be the documents it wants to see.
In a letter dated September 14, 2026, and received by Fufa on September 22, the IGG requested records covering the federation’s governance, public funding, procurement, properties, affiliated companies and commercial arrangements, in some cases stretching back to January 2016.
The investigation concerns ‘allegations of mismanagement of public funds by officials’ of Fufa, according to the letter signed by Inspector General of Government Justice Aisha Naluzze Batala.
The demands are extensive. The IGG wants minutes and resolutions of every Fufa Executive Committee meeting since 2016, audited accounts for each financial year, details of every bank account held by the federation and its associated entities, and records showing how public money was received and spent.
It also wants the paperwork behind some of Ugandan football’s infrastructure and commercial arrangements, including Kadiba Stadium, national-team accommodation, and broadcasting and naming-rights agreements involving StarTimes.
The scope is significant. The inquiry is not limited to whether money was received and accounted for.
It seeks to establish who authorised decisions, which entities handled transactions, how contracts were awarded, what payments were made and where the money ultimately went.
Following the money
Among the most pointed requests is the demand for ‘a complete schedule of every bank account held by the Federation, at any bank, at any time from 1st January 2016 to date, whether open or closed’.
The IGG wants certified bank statements for July 2021 to August 2026, equivalent records for legal entities owned by Fufa, and audited financial statements and management letters covering each financial year since 2016.
It has also requested details of grants, subventions and other releases received from the National Council of Sports, the Ministry of Education and Sports, the Ministry of Finance or other public bodies between July 2021 and August 2026, together with expenditure returns, vouchers and accountability documents.
The request for Fufa’s statutes in force in every year since 2016, alongside Executive Committee minutes and resolutions, could help investigators establish how decisions were made and the authority under which they were taken.
Questions about changes to Fufa’s governance and electoral rules have featured in debate around the federation over the years.
Whether any particular change was improper, however, requires a comparison of the relevant versions, approval records and applicable rules.
The IGG’s demand for the statutes and decision-making records could provide material for that examination.
Questions raised five years ago
One of the most significant demands concerns Satellite Plus Systems (U) Ltd, the company Fufa contracted to produce television content for its competitions.
In July 2021, the Monitor examined corporate records at the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) that documented links between Satellite Plus Systems and PearlSporto, a company whose ownership Moses Magogo, Fufa’s president, acknowledged.
PearlSporto had been contracted by Fufa in 2012 to fly Cranes fans to Zambia. Magogo was then Fufa vice-president in charge of administration.
The records showed that a one Daniel Isabirye, a director of Satellite Plus Systems, also appeared in PearlSporto’s corporate records as a director.
Company resolutions filed with URSB in January 2013 further listed Isabirye, Magogo and Faisal Musenze, a relative of Magogo, as signatories to a PearlSporto bank account at DFCU Bank’s City Hall branch.
There was another documented overlap: Satellite Plus Systems’ registered post office box, 28160, was also recorded as Magogo’s address in PearlSporto documents.
These connections raised questions about the relationship between the company producing Fufa’s television content, at a reported cost of $400,000 (about Shs1.7b at today’s exchange rate), and a business owned by the federation’s president.
They did not, by themselves, establish that Magogo owned Satellite Plus Systems.
Magogo denied owning the production company, while Fufa maintained that its procurement procedures had been followed and that its due-diligence documents showed Magogo was neither an owner of the company nor involved in its procurement.
The IGG now wants the complete Satellite Plus Systems contract file, including procurement and selection records, due diligence, contracts and variations, invoices, technical specifications and evidence that the contracted services were delivered.
Those documents could allow investigators to examine how the supplier was selected, who approved the arrangement, what the contract required and what payments were made.
Who received the broadcasting money?
The inquiry extends beyond the production contract to Fufa’s wider commercial arrangements.
The IGG wants the instrument transferring or licensing competition commercial rights to Fufa Media Services Ltd, the Executive Committee resolution authorising it, any valuation and evidence of consideration paid.
The relationship between Satellite Plus Systems and Fufa Media Services also warrants closer examination.
Fufa Media Services is understood to have taken over or assumed functions associated with the earlier production arrangement, but the precise corporate and contractual relationship must be established through company filings, resolutions and agreements.
Monitor’s 2021 reporting raised questions about the links between Satellite Plus Systems and Magogo’s business interests.
The IGG’s request for the rights-transfer instrument, authorising resolutions and corporate records could help establish how Fufa’s media rights were structured and who was authorised to manage them.
For the StarTimes and Star DTV (Uganda) Co. Ltd arrangements, the IGG wants the Uganda Premier League broadcasting and naming-rights agreements, amendments, revenue-sharing formulas and payment schedules.
It is also seeking evidence of the sums due and received, the accounts into which payments were made, deductions taken before distribution and season-by-season payments to each club since 2018/19.
The letter asks for ‘a full account of the consideration under the arrangement, showing what has fallen due, what has been received, by whom it was received, into which account, and how it has been applied’.
For clubs whose finances depend partly on their share of football’s commercial revenues, these are not merely corporate details.
They concern how income generated by competitions is accounted for and distributed.
The IGG also wants the instrument authorising StarTimes to remit fees to Fufa Media Services, whose Fufa TV televises some league matches, rather than directly to Fufa, together with the resolution or authority behind that arrangement.
Kadiba, Chan and the wider Fufa structure
The inquiry’s reach is equally striking elsewhere. For Kadiba Stadium, the IGG wants the land agreement, title documents, Fifa project agreements, disbursement statements, audits, procurement records, contracts, payment certificates and site records.
It also wants a reconciliation of expenditure against funds received from every source, the project’s current physical and financial status, and reasons for non-completion.
The letter requests ‘a full account of all expenditure on the project from inception to date, reconciled to the funds received from every source’.
On national-team accommodation, the IGG wants details of facilities used, dates, rates, numbers accommodated, total payments and payees.
It has specifically requested the full file relating to the Uganda Cranes accommodation during the 2025 Chan, including how facilities were identified, inspected, selected and approved.
The Cranes were accommodated at Fufa Hotel, also known as Paradise Hotel in Kisaasi.
The arrangement attracted public criticism after photographs and videos showed players walking along a dusty, unpaved access road to the facility.
Some critics questioned whether the accommodation met the standards expected for a national team hosting a continental tournament.
Magogo defended the choice at a media briefing at the hotel, arguing that a football hotel should be judged by its suitability for players rather than by the standards of a general commercial hotel.
‘A football hotel is customised,’ he said, pointing to its food arrangements and gym facilities. He also said the hotel had been approved by the Confederation of African Football (Caf).
The controversy made the selection process and the hotel’s ownership legitimate questions for scrutiny.
The IGG’s request for the accommodation file and particulars of the business registered as Fufa Hotel Kisaasi could help establish how the facility was selected, what was paid and who received the money.
Other requests cover Fufa House and the Technical Centre at Njeru, Fufa Hospitality and Travel Agency Ltd, Scoreline Investments Ltd and other entities owned or controlled by Fufa or its registered trustees.
For these entities, investigators want ownership and incorporation records, directors, accounts, bank statements, board minutes and resolutions, as well as records of dividends, fees, advances and other transactions between the businesses and the federation.
Taken together, the requests seek a picture of the wider structure through which Fufa holds property, conducts business and receives or spends money.
History of accountability questions
The IGG did investigate alleged mismanagement at Fufa in 2014, one year into Magogo’s presidency.
The Inspectorate abandoned that inquiry after Fufa’s lawyers argued that the matter was already before the courts.
The current investigation is, therefore, not the first IGG inquiry involving Fufa under Magogo.
What stands out in the September letter is the breadth and specificity of the documentation now being sought across the federation’s governance, finances and commercial activities.
Sports lawyer Harold Atukwase said the latest investigation was perhaps the first of its kind under Magogo’s presidency, pointing to longstanding calls from Ugandans, particularly sports lovers, for greater accountability over public funds allocated to Fufa.
‘In recent years, several business entities have been established under Fufa, without full and transparent public disclosure of their ownership structures, business interests, or whether the proper procedures were followed,’ Atukwase said.
He was careful to distinguish those concerns from a finding of wrongdoing.
‘This is not to suggest that Fufa is guilty of any wrongdoing,’ he said. ‘However, considering the scope of the IGG’s inquiry, it may prove practically impossible for Fufa to satisfy every demand for documentation and accountability covering the last 10 years.’
Atukwase added: ‘If they don’t get you on one account, they may get you on another. But we wait and see how the investigations unfold.’
There is also a wider question around the timing of the inquiry. For much of the past year, speculation within football and political circles has been that powerful figures in government have been building a case against the Fufa leadership, and that the approach of Afcon 2027 has been the main obstacle to any decisive action.
The claims remain unconfirmed, and the IGG’s letter does not establish that the investigation is politically driven or linked to a plan to remove the Fufa president.
But the timing raises a question that the inquiry’s eventual findings may help clarify: will the authorities allow the process to run its course through the Afcon preparations, or could evidence emerging from the investigation prompt action sooner?
For now, neither the government’s intentions nor the investigation’s outcome can be assumed.
There is also a separate precedent in the Fifa Ethics Committee’s 2019 decision concerning the resale of tickets allocated to Uganda for the 2014 World Cup.
Fifa ratified a plea agreement with Magogo that imposed a CHF10,000 (about Shs52m in today’s exchange rate) fine and a two-month suspension from football-related activities.
Of course that case concerned World Cup tickets, not the allegations currently being investigated by the IGG.
It does not establish wrongdoing in the matters now under scrutiny, but the World Cup ticket case forms part of the documented history of accountability questions surrounding Fufa’s leadership.
The timing of the present inquiry is also striking. It comes amid wider political changes in Uganda, including the loss of the Speakership by Anita Among, Magogo’s wife, this year.
For years, claims have circulated in political and football circles that efforts to subject Fufa and its leadership to fuller scrutiny ran into resistance from powerful interests associated with Among’s position as Speaker.
These claims have not been independently established, and the extent to which such influence may have shaped previous attempts at scrutiny remains unclear.
But with Among no longer Speaker and the IGG now demanding extensive records covering Fufa’s finances, governance and commercial dealings, the question is whether this inquiry will progress where earlier efforts were said to have stalled.
Monitor contacted Fufa for a response to the IGG inquiry and the issues raised in this article. The federation had not replied to the email by the time of publication.
For now, the IGG has set out a detailed list of records it wants to examine.
The significance of the inquiry lies in whether those records can establish a clear account of public funds, commercial revenues, contracts and decisions made across Fufa’s operations over the years.
That is what football stakeholders and the public will be waiting to see.