By KT Reporter
Uganda is rich in oil, gas, and minerals—yet for decades, that wealth has translated into more controversy than cash for public services. The domestic revenue problem is no longer up for debate.
With public debt rising, donor support shrinking, and pressure mounting to fund health, education, and infrastructure, the government has little choice but to collect more money at home.
Yet as the country inches closer to oil production, there is a real risk that Uganda could repeat a familiar African mistake: discovering wealth underground while remaining fiscally poor above it.
Some analysts, including officials from the Ministries of Finance and Energy if the country is to attain domestic revenue mobilisation, then transparency in the extractive sector—through the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)—must be treated as a core fiscal reform, not a public relations exercise.
The role of the extractive sector in domestic revenue mobilisation is highlighted in the domestic revenue mobilisation strategy as well as the Ten-fold Growth Strategy, aiming to boost the economy from USD 59.3 billion to USD 500 billion by 2040.
Achieving this goal could add significant value at the household level, potentially increasing per-capita income and allowing for greater investment in health, education, and infrastructure services.
This macro vision not only aims to transform national economic status but also promises tangible benefits, such as improved living standards and economic stability, directly resonating with the everyday experiences of Ugandan citizens.
Under NDPIV, Uganda’s economic transformation is anchored on four pillars: Agro-industrialisation, Tourism, Mineral-based development (including oil and gas), and Science, Technology, and Innovation (ATMS).
A report by The Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) said that with significant mineral deposits such as gold, cobalt, iron ore, copper, and rare earth elements, among others, the government sees the mining sector as a key driver of this ambitious growth.
The report under the theme “Leveraging Mineral Value Addition to accelerate Uganda’s Ten-fold Growth Strategy, among others, suggested that the Government of Uganda should enhance transparency and accountability mechanisms within the mining sector to promote investor confidence and ensure that mineral wealth benefits the country.
It has equally been observed that Uganda is rich in oil, gas, and minerals—yet for decades, that wealth has translated into more controversy than cash for public services.
The most recent report by Uganda’s EITI secretariat (UGEITI) was quite revealing about the opaque nature of Uganda’s mining sector.
Gold exports that do not match production figures, oil contracts shielded from public scrutiny, and mining operations that operate beyond the reach of regulators have all raised a familiar question: can transparency help Uganda avoid the resource curse and mobilise domestic revenue?
That question took centre stage at the release of Uganda’s latest Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) report, where government officials, multinational companies, tax authorities, miners, and civil society confronted an uncomfortable reality.
Uganda’s problem is no longer lack of resources—it is how much of that wealth escapes formal systems before it can be taxed, shared, or invested.
Contracts, secrecy, and lost trust.
For TotalEnergies, one of Uganda’s largest oil investors, transparency starts with disclosure.“We’ve been pushing for contract disclosure since 2020,” a TotalEnergies representative told participants.
“If I had a magic wand, we would have this published tomorrow.”The applause that followed reflected public frustration more than surprise.
Contracts define how much revenue the government earns, what communities receive, and what obligations companies must meet. When they remain secret, trust erodes—and with it, public confidence that extractive wealth will translate into development.
In a country preparing for commercial oil production, undisclosed contracts are not just a governance concern; they are a domestic revenue risk.
Without public scrutiny, loopholes that reduce taxable income can remain hidden.
Transparency that stops at the top.
Civil society actors argued that transparency has often failed because it does not reach the people most affected—or most able to hold leaders accountable.
“Many things about extractives remain very illicit,” said Winnie Ngabirwe, the Executive Director of Global Rights Alert.“They remain in corporate boardrooms, they remain in international reports and platforms, and yet the host communities—the beneficiaries and the ones affected—are rarely in it.” She said.
She called for EITI to be redesigned as a bottom-up process, rooted in communities where mining and oil extraction occur. According to her, transparency that does not empower citizens to ask questions ultimately fails to protect public revenue.
“When corruption happens,” she said, “that corruption takes away money from communities. It takes away money from education, from health, from fuel service delivery.” Said Ngabirwe.
This link between transparency and service delivery is central to domestic revenue mobilisation. “If citizens cannot see what is paid, received, or lost, they cannot demand accountability for how revenues are used.”
Who owns the companies, who loses the money?
Civil society’s push has gone beyond reporting figures to demanding beneficial ownership disclosure—knowing who truly owns extractive companies.
“We want to understand who owns the companies operating in mining, oil, and gas,” Winnie said. “Because when money is extracted illegally or corruptly, it is women, young people, and poor communities who suffer most.” Ngabirwe demanded.
Uganda’s adoption of beneficial ownership rules under EITI is widely seen as one of the initiative’s strongest contributions to revenue mobilisation, helping close channels for illicit financial flows that drain the tax base.
When compliance does not pay?
UGEITI has on several occasions noted that most of the mining companies in Uganda have been reluctant to report their production and earnings, including payments to the government.
From the mining sector, however, the discussion turned to incentives or the lack of them.“From a business perspective, compliance is a constant,” one mining sector representative said. “No one is willing to waste money on such a venture.” Said Kenneth Asiimwe, the CEO of the Uganda Association of Artisanal and Small-Scale Miners.
He argued that transparency must make economic sense if companies are expected to comply.“If you tell me that because I’m transparent, as a miner, I will take top priority on Parish Development Funds, I would hurry to submit my report,” he said.
“If I spend 10 percent on being compliant, it should return 10, 20, or 30 percent.” he said.
”The proposal reframes transparency not as a moral obligation alone, but as a tool that can formalise businesses, expand the tax base, and reward those who operate within the law—key pillars of domestic revenue mobilisation.
URA admits coordination gaps
Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), which plays a critical role in collecting extractive revenues, acknowledged that institutional fragmentation has weakened transparency outcomes.
“My magic word is: let’s work together,” said Lawrence Muwonge, URA’s Manager for Extractives. “We have discrepancies. We have pointing fingers—pointing at URA, pointing at the Ministry, pointing at the artisanal miners.
”For URA, EITI has exposed gaps in coordination that directly affect revenue collection. When agencies publish conflicting data (three separate databases, none aligned), public trust declines, and opportunities for tax evasion expand.“If we work together,” Muwonge said, “we can hit the road running via EITI implementation.”
The gold problem: When revenue disappears.
Nowhere is the link between transparency and lost revenue clearer than in Uganda’s gold sector.
David Ssebagala, Commissioner at the Mineral Development Program, formerly the Department of Geological Survey and Mines (DGSM), offered a stark explanation for persistent discrepancies between gold production and export figures.“Eighty percent of their operations are illegal. They are unlicensed,” Ssebagala said. “As DGSM, what we report is what we capture from formal licences.”Much of the gold exported from Uganda, he explained, originates from operations that cannot legally report production.
He said mineral explorers using exploration licences risk immediate cancellation if they admit to mining.“So the discrepancy is coming from production that is not from formal operations,” he said. “We cannot report production from unlicensed operations. We can’t.”This gap has direct revenue consequences. Gold that bypasses formal licensing also bypasses proper taxation.
When one arm of government enables leakage
Ssebagala was particularly critical of weak coordination within government.“I can’t be fighting illegal mining as the mines department,” he said, “but then URA is giving these guys a pass—allowing their illegally mined product to access the market,” he explained.
He called for joint enforcement, including stopping exports of minerals from illegal operations and operationalising a long-promised “single window” system linking DGSM, URA, and customs.“We are both the government,” he said. “There is no reason why we should be publishing information that is not the same.”
Beyond Uganda: regional consequences
Uganda’s transparency gaps also carry regional risks. Ssebagala warned that discrepancies in gold exports are already causing tension within the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR).“This discrepancy is becoming a big problem,” he said. “It could have huge financial implications if it turns out that illegal trade is happening.
”Failure to address transparency gaps could undermine Uganda’s credibility in regional mineral certification systems—further threatening legitimate exports and revenue.
Survival versus obligation
Responding to concerns raised by artisanal miners, Ssebagala acknowledged their struggle—but rejected the idea that survival justifies illegality.
“You are surviving on a resource that is owned by all of us,” he said. “Why don’t you pay your fair duty—your fair obligation of taxes?”Licensing, he insisted, exists to ensure minerals benefit all Ugandans—not just those extracting them.
Can transparency break the resource curse?
Uganda’s EITI experience suggests that transparency alone is not enough—but without it, domestic revenue mobilisation is impossible.
Contract disclosure can prevent revenue loss before it begins. Beneficial ownership can close corruption loopholes. Coordinated data can expose illegal trade. Incentives can formalise businesses. Community participation can sustain accountability. Together, these reforms challenge the logic of the resource curse—the idea that natural wealth inevitably leads to poverty, corruption,n and conflict.
As Uganda prepares to extract more oil and export more minerals, the question is no longer whether transparency matters. The question is whether Uganda can turn transparency into taxes—and taxes into services that finally allow its natural wealth to benefit its people.
-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
