Lady Justice Aisha Naluzze Batala (L) hands over the bi-annual report to the Speaker of Parliament, Oboth Oboth (2nd L), while Joel Ssenyonyi (R), the Leader of Opposition in Parliament looks on
HABARI DAILY I Kampala, Uganda I Corruption affects all segments of society, including the business sector, where dishonest practices, abuse of public office and the misappropriation of public resources can undermine investment, increase the cost of doing business and deny entrepreneurs opportunities to grow.
Uganda’s latest anti-corruption report has brought the scale of the problem into sharp focus, revealing that the Inspectorate of Government (IG) ordered the recovery of Shs41.587 billion arising from corruption investigations during the first half of 2026, although only Shs5.724 billion in cash and assets was recovered during the period.
The figures are contained in the Inspectorate of Government’s Bi-Annual Performance Report to Parliament, January to June 2026, issued under the theme, “Strengthening Transparency and Accountability for Inclusive Growth, Employment and Wealth Creation.” The report was presented by the Inspector General of Government, Lady Justice Aisha Naluzze Batala, to Parliament in October 2026.
Although the report does not calculate the precise amount of money Ugandan private businesses lost directly to corruption, its findings expose weaknesses in public resource management, procurement oversight and the delivery of government services that can have serious consequences for legitimate businesses.
For companies seeking government contracts, entrepreneurs requiring public licences and investors navigating regulatory institutions, corruption can create an uneven playing field in which access to opportunities is influenced by improper payments or personal connections rather than merit, efficiency and the quality of services offered.
The Inspectorate’s findings also raise questions about whether Uganda can achieve its ambitions for inclusive economic growth, employment creation and wealth accumulation while significant public resources remain subject to recovery orders and corruption investigations.
Shs41.6 billion flagged, only Shs5.7 billion recovered
The report’s most striking financial finding is the gap between the money the Inspectorate ordered to be recovered and the value of cash and assets actually recovered during the six months ending June 2026.
The IG concluded 614 corruption investigations involving ministries, departments, agencies and local governments. These investigations resulted in orders for the recovery of Shs41,587,031,194, while Shs18,070,126,827 was reported as having been saved through the Inspectorate’s interventions.
Separately, the agency recovered Shs5,718,586,114 in funds and physical assets worth Shs5 million, bringing total recoveries to Shs5,723,586,114.
Among the key findings is that between January to June 2026, Shs41.59bn was recovered, and funds ordered for recovery amounted to Shs5.72bn. Cash and assets recovered amounted to Shs18.07 billion, while 614 corruption investigations were concluded.
The figures highlight the challenge of translating investigations and recovery orders into actual recoveries. The amount recovered represents only a fraction of the money ordered for recovery, although the two figures do not necessarily relate to precisely the same cases or recovery timelines.
For businesses operating in an economy where public spending supports infrastructure, agricultural production, manufacturing and service delivery, the effective management of public resources matters beyond the government balance sheet.
Money lost through corruption can mean fewer resources available for public infrastructure, delayed projects, inadequate services and missed economic opportunities. Businesses that depend on reliable roads, electricity, water, public procurement and efficient regulatory services may bear some of the resulting costs.
The report, however, does not provide a separate monetary estimate of private-sector losses attributable to these effects.
Abuse of office and misappropriation
The report points to abuse of office as a major challenge in public administration, with implications for businesses that depend on transparent government decisions and fair access to economic opportunities.
Of the high-profile corruption cases investigated in ministries, departments and agencies, abuse of office accounted for 69 of the 88 offences recorded in the report’s classification, representing 78.4 per cent. Misappropriation of funds accounted for eight cases, or 9.1 per cent, while extortion accounted for four cases, or 4.5 per cent.
The Inspectorate also concluded investigations into 526 corruption cases in local governments. Abuse of office accounted for 159 cases, representing 30.2 per cent, while misappropriation of funds accounted for 61 cases, or 11.6 per cent. There were also 45 cases of embezzlement, 16 of bribery, 20 involving causing financial loss and 13 involving extortion.
These figures show the range of misconduct that anti-corruption investigators are confronting. Although not every case involves a business, the offences can affect the environment in which private enterprises operate.
In public procurement, for example, abuse of office can undermine confidence that contracts are awarded fairly. Businesses that compete on price, quality and technical capacity may face disadvantages if decisions are manipulated to favour particular bidders.
Similarly, extortion and bribery can impose additional costs on entrepreneurs seeking services from public institutions. Where unofficial payments are demanded, a business may have to absorb the extra expense, raise prices, reduce its margins or abandon an investment.
Such practices can also discourage new entrants, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises that lack the financial resources or influence to navigate an environment in which improper payments are perceived as necessary.
The report does not establish that all these consequences occurred in the cases investigated. Rather, its findings highlight the public-sector weaknesses that can create opportunities for unfair treatment and additional business costs.
Procurement, stalled projects raise concerns
Public procurement is an important link between government expenditure and private-sector activity. Through contracts for roads, buildings, equipment, supplies and other services, public spending provides business opportunities and supports employment across different industries.
But the benefits depend on projects being properly planned, transparently procured and delivered according to agreed standards.
During the six-month reporting period, the Inspectorate conducted 105 on-the-spot inspections to assess service delivery, accountability and compliance with laws and guidelines in selected government institutions and local governments. It identified gaps in procurement, financial and project-related records, delays affecting project implementation, and weaknesses in supervision, monitoring and contract management.
The report also records the inspection of 543 government projects across the country. The Inspectorate said the findings prompted engagements with stakeholders to improve coordination, strengthen oversight and enforce compliance with project timelines, including linking contract renewals to project performance.
These shortcomings matter to businesses because delayed public projects can disrupt supply chains, postpone payments to contractors and suppliers, and defer the economic benefits that completed infrastructure is expected to generate.
A contractor waiting for a project to progress may continue incurring labour, equipment and financing costs. A supplier whose delivery schedule is disrupted may face additional storage or transport expenses. Businesses located near stalled infrastructure may also wait longer for improved access to markets and customers.
The report does not quantify these private-sector costs or attribute every project delay to corruption. Nevertheless, its findings underline the importance of stronger contract management and oversight to protect public resources and improve the reliability of government-funded economic activity.
The Inspectorate’s focus on project performance is therefore relevant not only to public accountability but also to creating a predictable environment in which businesses can plan, invest and employ workers.
Lady Justice Batala calls for stronger accountability
The report is presented under a theme that links transparency and accountability to inclusive growth, employment and wealth creation.
That connection is central to the Inspectorate’s mandate. Under the Constitution, the institution is responsible for promoting adherence to the rule of law, combating corruption and abuse of authority, improving governance in public offices and investigating administrative misconduct.
During the reporting period, Inspector General of Government Lady Justice Aisha Naluzze Batala and the Inspectorate pursued investigations, prosecutions, project inspections and public awareness initiatives aimed at improving accountability.
The report records 1,909 new complaints received between January and June 2026, up from 1,595 in the corresponding period of 2025. The Inspectorate authorised 1,668 cases for investigation and concluded 1,472 investigations across its different areas of responsibility.
Of the concluded investigations, 614 concerned corruption, 681 fell under the Ombudsman function, which addresses maladministration and administrative injustice, and 177 concerned alleged breaches of the Leadership Code of Conduct.
The Inspectorate also reported 29 concluded prosecutions before the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court and the Leadership Code Tribunal. It recorded 26 convictions across the two forums, with a combined conviction rate of 89.7 per cent.
These figures demonstrate enforcement activity, but they also point to the scale of the demand placed on anti-corruption institutions. The number of complaints and investigations suggests that strengthening prevention, detection and enforcement remains important if public resources are to be protected.
For the business community, effective enforcement matters because laws and regulations can only promote fair competition when violations are investigated and consequences follow.
The report’s figures on recovery orders further illustrate why the process must extend beyond identifying suspected wrongdoing. Recovering funds and assets, enforcing administrative decisions and preventing the recurrence of misconduct are essential parts of restoring accountability.
Speaker and Opposition demand tougher action
The release of the report has drawn strong reactions from senior political leaders, who have called for more decisive action against corruption and better follow-through on investigations.
Speaker of Parliament Jacob Marksons Oboth-Oboth warned that corruption had become an organised enterprise, with perpetrators adopting increasingly sophisticated methods to conceal the diversion of public resources.
“Corruption is not done in the forest. It is among us. It is also an industry, internationally known, and those in it are learning how to steal without being caught,” Oboth said while receiving the report.
His remarks highlight the need to address corruption not merely as isolated misconduct by individual officials, but as a problem that can involve networks of people and weaknesses in institutional controls.
For businesses, the implications are significant. Where public resources are diverted or procurement decisions are manipulated, legitimate enterprises may lose opportunities, taxpayers may receive less value for money, and investors may become less confident that rules will be applied fairly.
Oboth called for Parliament to examine the Inspectorate’s findings and ensure that recommendations arising from its reports receive timely attention. He also urged lawmakers to strengthen the legal framework and support the recruitment and training of personnel needed to investigate increasingly complex financial crimes.
Leader of the Opposition in Parliament Joel Ssenyonyi raised concerns about the progress of high-profile corruption investigations, questioning why some arrests that attract public attention do not subsequently result in prosecutions.
“Arresting suspects without subsequent legal action risks turning anti-corruption operations into showbiz,” Ssenyonyi cautioned.
He argued that inconsistencies in how suspects are handled can undermine public confidence in the justice system, calling for greater transparency and consistent decisions on prosecution.
His concerns speak to a central issue for the private sector: the credibility of enforcement. Businesses need confidence that investigations into suspected wrongdoing will be conducted professionally, evidence will be assessed fairly and cases will progress according to the law, regardless of the individuals involved.
Without credible enforcement, anti-corruption efforts risk becoming less effective as a deterrent, while businesses and citizens may lose confidence that reporting misconduct will lead to meaningful action.
Resource constraints threaten the fight
Despite its reported achievements, the Inspectorate says several institutional challenges continue to limit its ability to fulfil its mandate.
These include inadequate operational funding, staffing shortages, gaps in the anti-corruption legal framework, limited consideration of its reports by Parliament and insufficient technical skills to respond to emerging forms of corruption.
The report identifies a staffing gap of 168 officers. It says each of the Inspectorate’s 16 regional offices has an average of only five technical officers covering at least 10 local governments.
The Inspectorate warns that this capacity is insufficient, particularly because many complaints originate from local governments.
The challenge is compounded by the growing use of digital technologies, complex financial transactions, shell companies, beneficial ownership structures and cross-border movement of funds, all of which require specialised investigative skills.
Lady Justice Batala, in her remarks to Parliament, called for increased funding and the recruitment and retention of specialised personnel to strengthen the agency’s work.
The Inspectorate also reported that about 79 per cent of its vehicle fleet had passed its disposal date, affecting an institution whose work requires investigators to travel across the country to examine complaints, inspect projects and verify declarations.
These constraints have consequences for businesses as well. Where investigations take too long or public institutions lack the capacity to enforce standards consistently, the risk of unresolved complaints and repeated misconduct can increase.
The report further warns that weak enforcement of service standards leaves citizens vulnerable to demands for bribes and unofficial fees. Where procedures, timelines and applicable costs are not clearly displayed or consistently followed, public officers may delay services or give preferential treatment to people who offer inducements.
For entrepreneurs, such practices can translate into uncertainty over how long it will take to obtain a service, complete a transaction or resolve an administrative dispute.
What the report means for Uganda’s economic future
The Inspectorate’s report comes at a time when Uganda is pursuing economic expansion through investment, industrial development, employment creation and the growth of productive enterprises.
Its theme, Strengthening Transparency and Accountability for Inclusive Growth, Employment and Wealth Creation, underscores the relationship between governance and economic performance.
Businesses need predictable regulations, reliable infrastructure, transparent procurement and public institutions that deliver services without demanding unofficial payments. These conditions help entrepreneurs calculate costs, compete fairly and direct resources towards production rather than navigating administrative obstacles.
The report also points to the importance of prevention, rather than relying solely on investigations after funds have been lost.
During the reporting period, the Inspectorate inspected 543 government projects and supported the training of community monitoring volunteers to identify challenges and report grievances. It also conducted public awareness activities and engagements with communities, local leaders and other stakeholders to promote accountability.
Such measures can help identify problems earlier, although their effectiveness ultimately depends on whether reported concerns lead to corrective action.
The Inspectorate’s Ombudsman interventions also resulted in recommendations for Shs1.509 billion to be paid to individuals following complaints involving administrative injustice. While these cases are not necessarily business-related, they demonstrate how administrative failures can cause financial harm to people seeking redress.
For the business sector, the wider lesson is that fighting corruption requires more than recovering money after investigations. It requires systems that make it harder to divert public funds, manipulate contracts, demand bribes or obstruct legitimate access to government services.
Parliament’s response will therefore be important. Timely consideration of the Inspectorate’s reports, implementation of recommendations, stronger oversight of public expenditure and adequate resources for investigations could help close gaps that allow corruption to persist.
Ultimately, Uganda’s businesses cannot thrive fully in an environment where corruption distorts competition, raises costs and weakens confidence in public institutions. Although the latest report does not quantify the private sector’s direct losses, the financial figures and documented governance weaknesses offer a warning about the economic price of failing to enforce accountability.
The Shs41.6 billion ordered for recovery represents a substantial sum requiring follow-up, while the Shs5.7 billion recovered demonstrates the importance of turning enforcement decisions into tangible results.
For the Inspectorate, Parliament and the wider business community, the challenge is to ensure that public resources serve their intended purpose, government contracts are awarded fairly and businesses can operate according to the rules rather than the ability to pay improper fees.
About the Author
