By Charles Ayena
Parliament is currently probing irregularities surrounding controversies around a most important project, the Busega-Mpigi Expressway.
Most of the debate is hooked around the change in design and budget. As my Committee on infrastructure continues to probe the controversies, President Yoweri Museveni has ordered the interdiction of several top engineers at the Ministry of works and transport.
As an engineer, however, I ask myself several questions relating to the company which was awarded the contract.
So, why did Uganda award one of its most important road contracts to a Chinese consortium linked to companies that had been debarred by the World Bank? Why?
My concern dates back to events in 2019 when the World Bank debarred China Railway Construction Corporation (CRCC), some of its subsidiaries and hundreds of controlled affiliates for nine months over fraudulent misrepresentation during the procurement process for a road project in Georgia. The sanction was not for poor workmanship or project failure, but for procurement misconduct.
Around the same period, Uganda awarded the Shs547b Busega–Mpigi Expressway contract to a joint venture comprising China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) and China Railway 19th Bureau Group.
The award immediately attracted criticism because questions arose over whether the consortium was affected by the World Bank’s debarment and whether cross-debarment by the African Development Bank (AfDB), one of the project’s financiers, should have prevented the award.
However, the issue is more nuanced than it is often portrayed.
Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) maintained at the time that it had fully disclosed the proposed contractor to the African Development Bank and received a formal “no objection” before signing the contract. According to UNRA officials, their due diligence concluded that the sanctions did not legally bar the specific joint venture from undertaking the project.
That explanation may satisfy procurement lawyers, but it does not completely address the broader governance question.
Infrastructure projects financed through public borrowing demand the highest standards of transparency and public confidence. Even where a contractor is legally eligible, governments should appreciate that reputational risks matter. Awarding contracts to firms associated with previous procurement sanctions inevitably fuels public suspicion, especially where billions of shillings in taxpayer-backed loans are involved.
On the other hand, governments must also balance integrity concerns with practical realities. Large-scale expressways require highly specialized contractors with proven technical capacity, equipment and financing. Chinese engineering firms dominate much of Africa’s major infrastructure market because they often combine construction expertise with access to competitive financing. Excluding every company that has previously faced sanctions—particularly where those sanctions have expired or compliance conditions have been met—could significantly reduce competition for major projects.
This raises the real question that Uganda should be asking.
Instead of focusing solely on whether CCECC or its partners had previously been sanctioned, greater attention should be directed toward whether the procurement process was transparent, whether all financiers approved the contractor, whether contract supervision has been rigorous, and whether Ugandans are receiving value for money.
Public procurement is ultimately about accountability rather than headlines. A company that once violated procurement rules should not automatically receive future contracts without scrutiny. Equally, a past sanction should not amount to a permanent ban if the company has fulfilled the conditions for reinstatement and remains legally eligible under the applicable financing agreements.
The Busega–Mpigi Expressway debate therefore exposes a larger challenge for Uganda’s infrastructure programme. Citizens deserve greater disclosure during procurement, stronger independent oversight and timely publication of evaluation reports. Such transparency would reduce speculation and build public confidence in decisions involving billions of shillings.
As Uganda continues investing in strategic transport infrastructure, the lesson is clear: legality alone is not enough. Public confidence is earned through openness, accountability and consistent application of procurement rules. Whether the contractor is local, Chinese or from anywhere else, every major public contract must withstand both legal scrutiny and the court of public opinion.
MP and Member of the Committee on Infrastructure.