When Uganda Borrows for Development, Who Checks the Results?

Uganda’s Public Accounts Committee has asked the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development to provide a comprehensive account of a US$510 million World Bank loan under the Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development programme, commonly known as USMID.

The matter arose during the committee’s review of the Auditor General’s report for the 2024/2025 financial year. According to Parliament, the committee was unable to proceed fully because ministry officials had not provided satisfactory responses to questions about the programme’s implementation and expenditure.

This does not, by itself, prove that the money was misused. It does, however, raise an important governance question:

When government borrows money in the name of development, how clearly can citizens see where the money goes and what it achieves?

Loans are not free resources. They must eventually be repaid, usually through future government revenues. That means every major borrowing decision creates a responsibility to demonstrate that the money has been used for the purpose approved, that projects are completed to the required standard and that the public receives lasting value.

USMID was designed to support municipal infrastructure. For ordinary Ugandans, that can mean better roads, drainage, markets, public spaces, urban services and more organised towns. But the impact depends on implementation, supervision and accountability—not only on the size of the loan.

A development project can appear successful on paper while communities continue to face unfinished roads, poor drainage, weak maintenance or limited access to services. This is why parliamentary oversight and audit reports matter. They help move the conversation from how much was allocated to what was actually delivered.

The issue also highlights the importance of clear records. Citizens should be able to know:

• Which municipalities received funds;

• Which projects were approved;

• How much each project cost;

• Whether the work was completed;

• Who implemented it;

• And what independent assessments found.

  
  

Public accountability should not begin only after concerns emerge. It should be built into the entire project cycle—from borrowing and procurement to construction, monitoring, completion and maintenance.

Uganda needs infrastructure investment, and external financing can support that goal. But development borrowing should leave behind more than roads and buildings. It should also strengthen public confidence that national resources are being managed carefully.

The central question is not whether Uganda should borrow for development, but whether citizens can reliably track what each borrowed shilling has produced.

What information should government publish routinely so that the public can follow the progress and results of major loan-funded projects?