Thousands of motorists glide daily along Uganda’s 25-kilometre Kampala–Entebbe Expressway, paying tolls for faster travel between the capital and the country’s main international airport.
But behind the smooth asphalt lies a widening battle over who should control the road, collect its revenues and answer for alleged weaknesses in the tolling system.
Parliament’s Committee on Physical Infrastructure wants the government to terminate the private operating arrangement, take direct control of the expressway and hand toll collection to the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA).
The Attorney General’s office, however, has delivered a more complicated legal verdict that an immediate termination of the contract could expose Uganda to costly international arbitration if contractual procedures are ignored.
The legal response, submitted by Deputy Attorney General Kafuuzi Jackson Karuga during a plenary sitting on Thursday August 27, 2026, comes as Parliament debated to consider 14 sweeping recommendations arising from its oversight inquiry into the management, operation and toll collection system of the Kampala–Entebbe Expressway.
The dispute raises wider questions about the infrastructure financing model, public accountability, the cost of private operation and the fate of revenues generated from a road financed through sovereign borrowing.
The parliamentary committee, chaired by Mwine Mpaka, recommended immediate termination of the private operator’s contract, arguing that contractual obligations had not been fully performed.
Among the committee’s concerns were the failure to fully install an Independent Traffic Monitoring System (ITMS), an Automatic Vehicle Classifier, proper carriageway lighting, road-reserve fencing and high-speed Weigh-In-Motion systems intended to support monitoring and axle-load control.
The committee argued that the government should immediately take charge of the operation and maintenance of the expressway to reduce expenditure on private contractual arrangements and free more resources for servicing the road’s debt.
It also recommended that URA take over toll collection, introduce a fully electronic payment system and ensure that all collections are deposited into the control account under the financing arrangements.
But the Attorney General’s response substantially qualifies those proposals. “The contract can only be terminated in the event of persistent failure,” the Deputy Attorney General said, adding that the contractor must first be formally notified of the breach and given 14 days to remedy it.
The legal opinion notes that delays in delivering improvement works attract liquidated damages under the contract. Persistent failure sufficient to justify termination would arise only after contractual thresholds relating to payment reductions and damages are reached.
The Ministry of Works and Transport, the Attorney General advised, must first undertake a comprehensive review to establish whether persistent breach has occurred before taking steps to terminate.
A premature termination, Kafuuzi warns, could expose Uganda to international arbitration under the contract’s dispute-resolution provisions.
“Termination of the contract that does not comply with the procedure highlighted above will entitle the Contractor to redress through international arbitration,” the Deputy Attorney General warned, referring to the International Chamber of Commerce arbitration mechanism provided for under the agreement.
According to the Attorney General’s office, the former Uganda National Roads Authority contracted French firm EGIS Road Operation S.A. on April 13, 2021, for the operation and maintenance of the Kampala–Entebbe Expressway.
The contract was valued at UGX 122.86 billion, inclusive of applicable taxes, and was initially designed to run for 60 months from May 24, 2021, with provision for an extension of up to 24 months subject to satisfactory performance.
The Attorney General stressed that the agreement was broader than toll collection.
It covered the operation, management and maintenance of the expressway, including road-safety improvements, lighting, tolling infrastructure, an Independent Traffic Monitoring System and an overload-control system.
The Mpaka-led committee’s inquiry, however, questioned whether some of those obligations were ever fully delivered and whether the private operating model had provided sufficient value for money.
The legal response acknowledges that failure to execute some of the works within the contractual timeframes constitutes a breach, but insists that breach alone does not automatically justify immediate termination.
One of the sharpest disagreements concerns the extension of the operating arrangement involving Pinnacle Security Limited.
The committee recommended investigation of the former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Works and Transport over what it described as an illegal and unlawful extension of the contract at a reported cost of about Shs36.3 billion, allegedly without the Attorney General’s approval.
But the Attorney General’s office rejected the assertion that the extension was automatically unlawful.
According to the legal response, the Ministry extended the contract through a letter dated May 20, 2026, with the extension taking effect on May 24, 2026 and running until May 24, 2027.
The Attorney General’s office said the extension was provided for under Clause PCC 39.1 of the original contract, which allowed the 60-month arrangement to be extended by up to 24 months subject to satisfactory performance.
It further argued that the reported UGX 36.3 billion was part of the original contract price, making the extension, in the Attorney General’s interpretation, a “no cost extension” that did not require fresh legal clearance.
The office also disputed the committee’s claim that the novation agreement in favour of Pinnacle had never been cleared, saying the Solicitor General approved the novation agreement on April 22, 2026.
“Satisfactory performance was a condition for contract extension,” the Deputy Attorney General said, adding that this would require assessment against the contract’s key performance indicators.
The Ministry of Works and Transport, the opinion says, is the institution authorised to assess that performance. The Attorney General’s position is that an extension granted in the absence of satisfactory performance may amount to a waiver of rights but does not, by itself, render the contract void.
Parliament wants URA to assume toll collection and introduce a more transparent electronic payment system. But the Attorney General has said the proposal faces a statutory obstacle.
Under the Roads Act, the legal opinion states, toll collection is the responsibility of the relevant roads authority, in this case, the Ministry of Works and Transport.
“This being a statutory mandate, this function cannot be delegated entirely to Uganda Revenue Authority,” the response says.
However, the Attorney General opened the door to collaboration between the two agencies, arguing that the Ministry could work with URA on toll collection because both are government institutions.
The position means Parliament’s call for a full URA takeover may require more than a House resolution. It could demand a change in the legal framework governing road tolls.
The Ministry itself also cannot immediately assume operations while a valid contract remains in force, the Attorney General warned.
Where the Attorney General strongly agrees with Parliament is on the need for a forensic examination of the tolling system.
The committee recommended a forensic audit of the EGIS/Pinnacle revenue collection system from its inception to establish whether government lost revenue that should have gone toward servicing the infrastructure loan.
The Attorney General said the recommendation should be implemented. The audit, the office said, would establish whether financial loss occurred and determine the extent of any losses.
The recommendation comes against the backdrop of concerns raised during Parliament’s inquiry over alleged unreconciled vehicles, toll exemptions, weaknesses in digital controls and possible revenue leakages.
The Attorney General also cited the latest information-systems audit of the expressway, finalised on August 19, 2026, which reportedly identified high operating costs, weak governance systems, network-security vulnerabilities, incomplete implementation of the overload-control system, limited toll-payment options, manual and inaccurate vehicle classification, unsupported toll exemptions, weak user-account and password controls, and prolonged closure of toll lanes.
That audit record, the Attorney General argued, undermines Parliament’s assertion that the Auditor General had failed to perform oversight of the project altogether.
The legal response listed several audits touching on the expressway, including an engineering audit for the 2014/15 financial year, an audit of toll collections in 2021/22, an inspection in 2022/23 and the 2025/26 information-systems audit.
“Therefore, it is erroneous to say that the Auditor General did not perform his mandate,” the response said.
The committee also called for recovery of funds linked to allegedly illegal free toll passes issued to staff. It cited a computed value of UGX 314.355 million for free passes at Busega Toll Plaza between January 2022 and June 2026.
The Attorney General, however, said recovery from the contractor may not be straightforward.
While the Roads Act specifies categories of vehicles exempt from paying tolls, the contract also provided for free passes for employees of the operator and Ministry of Works and Transport personnel directly involved in managing the road.
The Attorney General said the contractual arrangement purported to amend the law because toll exemptions should be granted by the Minister through a statutory instrument.
That, the office concluded, was an irregularity attributable to government and therefore could not automatically be recovered from the contractor.
Instead, the Ministry of Works and Transport and the Attorney General’s office said they would work together to regularise toll exemptions going forward.
The committee recommended investigations into officials involved in the procurement, management and oversight of the expressway, including former UNRA board members, accounting officers, technical personnel and managers of the tolling system.
Some of the recommendations called for possible prosecution over causing financial loss and alleged unauthorised modification of computer systems.
The Attorney General urged caution. “The issue of determining offences should be left to the relevant bodies,” the legal response said repeatedly.
Under Article 120 of the Constitution, the Attorney General noted, the Director of Public Prosecutions has authority to direct investigations into alleged criminal conduct and determine whether prosecutions should proceed.
On the procurement of EGIS, the legal opinion said previous Auditor General reports had not identified irregularities. The question of whether any financial loss occurred, meanwhile, should be determined through the proposed forensic audit.
The Kampala–Entebbe Expressway was built as a flagship infrastructure investment intended to cut travel times and improve access to Entebbe International Airport.
But its tolling system has become a test case for how Uganda manages public infrastructure financed through major sovereign borrowing while relying on private companies for specialised operation and maintenance.
Parliament’s committee sees the private arrangement as expensive, inadequately transparent and potentially damaging to government finances.
The Attorney General does not dismiss those concerns. Instead, the legal response effectively divides the committee’s 14 recommendations into two categories: those that can proceed, particularly forensic audits and administrative or investigative action, and those that require greater legal caution.
The clearest warning concerns termination. Parliament may be politically ready to end private control of the expressway, but the government’s own chief legal office says the contract cannot simply be wished away.
Uganda must first establish persistent breach, follow the notice procedures in the agreement and allow the contractor the contractual opportunity to remedy any default.
That creates a crucial dilemma for Parliament and the executive: how to respond to serious accountability concerns without creating an even larger financial liability through a poorly executed termination-Parliament Watch.
