Cover — KampalaSkyline

Economy - 14 April 2026

Uganda Faces Mounting Scrutiny Over Public Spending and Controversial Sovereignty Bill

By Jean-Marc Okito3 min readFrançais

Kampala April 16, 2026 - Uganda is facing growing public and political scrutiny over its governance priorities, as controversy over parliamentary spending converges with intensifying debate around a proposed sovereignty bill currently before Parliament.

Criticism has mounted following reports that Members of Parliament from the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) received allowances of up to 100 million Ugandan shillings each during a retreat in Kyankwanzi. Opposition figures argue that the payments reflect a disconnect between government spending and the realities facing public services.

David Lewis Rubongoya, Secretary General of the National Unity Platform (NUP), condemned the expenditure, saying it was unjustified at a time when sectors such as education continue to face resource shortages.

“There is no justification for allocating such sums to people who are already salaried, while essential sectors continue to face difficulties,” he said, pointing to reports of inadequate facilities in public schools.

The issue has revived broader concerns about transparency in public finance, with critics questioning disparities between political spending and service delivery, and calling for stronger oversight of resource allocation.

At the same time, parliamentary debate is intensifying over a proposed sovereignty bill, which seeks to impose strict regulations on foreign influence, including controls on external funding and harsh penalties for non-compliance.

Benjamin Katana, treasurer of the NUP, warned that the bill could significantly expand state oversight into citizens’ private and economic lives. He argued that provisions requiring government approval for certain financial transactions-such as receiving funds from abroad-could disrupt everyday activities.

“This goes beyond national security,” Katana said. “It raises questions about how far the state should go in regulating private life.”

Related reading