Uganda continues to maintain its standing as one of East Africa's relatively successful economies and has experienced rapid economic growth over the last few years. In a drive to increase fiscal independence, the government has been attempting to increase tax revenues by boosting more revenue from small companies and by incorporating more of Uganda's large informal sector. The country enjoys significant inflows of foreign direct investment and the Ugandan government remains committed to structural reforms in order to improve the investment climate and increase productivity.

Overall, Uganda's business climate has improved in recent years and the gains are having positive effects on companies, especially larger ones. The Uganda Investment Authority has been established to help foreign investors set up companies in the country. Nevertheless, critics note that the government's investment strategy needs to be applied more evenly and transparently, while corruption continues to be an important source of concern. For example, business executives surveyed in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, cite corruption as the most problematic factor for doing business in Uganda. Companies also identify the favouritism of government officials in rewarding contracts to well-connected companies and individuals, and the ethical behaviour of companies operating in Uganda as significant competitive disadvantages. Foreign-owned companies are not specifically targeted for bribes and payoffs. However, companies should note that tendering processes, in particular for defence items, are not being carried out in a transparent manner, and there is possible collusion between competing companies and government officials, as reported by the US Department of State 2010. Several sources, including UNAFEI 2007, report that government bureaucracy in providing certain services, like issuance of licences and permits, involving several approval stages provide fertile ground for rent-extraction. Companies must often pay facilitation payments to speed up bureaucratic processes, such as obtaining licences and customs approval, to obtain government services, such as electricity or telephone connections, to reduce taxes, fees, or fines, or to be considered for or to be awarded government contracts. As an example of this, the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2006 report that 23.6% of companies identify corruption as a major constraint and 51.7% of companies expect to make an informal payment in order to 'get things done'.

First established in 2003, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) has been playing an active role in assuring compliance with procurement guidelines, leading to a reduction in corruption losses in procurement. However, companies should be aware that corruption and lack of transparency still prevails in public procurement processes, and according to Enterprise Surveys 2006, more than 45% of the surveyed companies expect to make unofficial payments to secure government contracts. Moreover, according to a 2010 news article by AllAfrica, citing a recent report by the PPDA, corruption in public procurement has resulted in a loss of at least USD 184 million each year. In order to best reduce the risk of extortion and demands for bribes in the procurement process, foreign investors considering bidding on public tenders in Uganda are advised to use a specialised public procurement due diligence tool. Private sector development is also hampered by grand corruption, which leads to significant financial losses through mishandled procurements and outright embezzlement. According to a 2009 news article by AllAfrica, the parliament passed the Anti-Corruption Act 2009, setting a stricter punishment, including imprisonment for up to ten years for corruption in both public and private sectors. Hence, companies are strongly recommended to develop, implement and strengthen integrity systems and to conduct extensive due diligence when planning to do or are already doing business in Uganda.

According to the Heritage Foundation 2011, regulation and bureaucracy in Uganda are not always transparent, consistent and, are subject to corruption. Nevertheless, according to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, formerly dense bureaucratic regulations and direct state intervention have been continually and significantly reduced in recent years. The regulatory framework of liberalised sectors of the economy is also being reformed, and although there is not a consistent implementation of declared policies, progress can be seen in, for example, the reforms in the finance and banking sector. According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, companies identify Uganda as having a competitive advantage in relation to the burden of government regulation. According to the World Bank & IFC Doing Business 2011, it takes an average of 25 days and 18 procedures to start a company in Uganda and no minimum capital is required to do it. According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, privatisation of state-owned companies and market liberalisation have characterised economic development, and the private sector has played an increasingly important role becoming the core of the economy. However, the privatisation has been a slow process and parastatal institutions and companies still exist and perform relatively significant roles.

The US Department of State 2010 reports that Uganda generally has an open climate for foreign investment and provides a level playing field for foreign and domestic investors. Nonetheless, the widespread corruption damages the Ugandan business environment, for instance, by restricting the ability of foreign investors to participate in governmental tenders on an equal basis. Moreover, foreign companies have complained that some judges delay rulings on disputes involving politically well-connected parties. The Land Registry, in particular, has been singled out as being characterised by a complex set of laws and for being non-transparent. Although property rights and rules for the acquisition of property are clearly established in principle, their implementation is not consistent. This is especially the case regarding acquisition and ownership of land. Foreign companies are supposed to share the same rights to own property as Ugandan nationals, but the judicial and administrative practices of ensuring existing property rights are often flawed. According to the US Department of State 2010, the revised Investment Code has been presented to Parliament. The revised Code will make the Ugandan Investment Authority a more effective one-stop shop for investors, by providing it with new powers to allocate government resources for investment, and to grant incentives for rural investment.

In contrast to the companies surveyed by the World Economic Forum report introduced above, several sources note that decentralisation and the vast amount of approval stages in the bureaucracy have resulted in higher costs and time-consuming procedures for companies. It is further reported that a consequence of problems resulting from the decentralisation of the political administrative system is continuing pervasive corruption at all levels of government, especially in the local government bodies. Court procedures are complex and administrative corruption is high, but despite a lack of capacity, the commercial courts normally dispose of disputes within seven months. However, it is estimated by the US Department of State 2010 that 80% of commercial disputes are resolved outside the court system in order to save money and time. The Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution was developed in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2000 and can assist in commercial disputes. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2000 incorporates the 1958 New York Convention, requires the Ugandan government to accept binding arbitration with foreign investors, and authorises binding arbitration between private parties. Foreign court rulings are accepted and enforced by Ugandan courts where those foreign courts accept and enforce the judgments of Ugandan courts. Companies are recommended to include provisions for alternative dispute resolution in their contracts. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in Uganda.

Individual Corruption

According to Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010 and the Inspectorate of Government 2008, household respondents perceive the judiciary to be highly corrupt. Continuing complaints commonly involve allegations of abuse of office, delays in service delivery, bribery, extortion and mismanagement. Bribery of court officials is common, and one of the main reasons why the public tends to avoid using the courts. Judicial decisions are frequently biased and based on ethnicity. The same report also states that corruption in the judiciary has mainly been committed by court clerks, taking advantage of a lack of knowledge of court procedures among the general public.
 
According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, corruption in the judiciary is mainly prevalent in the lower courts, and the general public’s trust in the judicial system is especially low. Approximately one-third of the household respondents surveyed in Afrobarometer 2010 perceive most of the judges and magistrates to be corrupt.

Furthermore, according to Freedom House 2010, corrupt court officials sometimes extort bribes from defendants unjustly jailed through cases based on fictitious affidavits.

Business Corruption

According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, companies identify a lack of judicial independence in Uganda to constitute a competitive disadvantage. According to the US Department of State 2010, foreign companies have complained that the judicial system is subjected to political interference, and that some judges delay ruling on disputes involving politically-connected parties. Foreign investors should also note that the courts are significantly backlogged, which according to the US Department of State 2009, is caused by an inadequate judicial administration system and a lack of resources.

Political Corruption

Both Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 and  Freedom House 2010 reveal that, while higher levels of the judiciary have displayed impressive levels of professionalism and independence, the lower levels of the judiciary suffer from cases of corruption as well as a lack of competence and experience.

The judiciary is frequently overruled and intimidated by politicians, and the appointment of national-level judges is increasingly a highly politicised process. According to Global Integrity 2009, in practice, judges are not sufficiently protected from the influence of the executive and political interference. In fact, appointments are sometimes based on political affiliation.

During 2009, several higher and lower level magistrates were charged with corruption and abuse of office. One of them, Moses Ndifuna, was convicted of abuse of office and passive corruption. Ndifuna was sentenced to two years' imprisonment but was released on bail, pending the hearing of his appeal, as reported by the US Department of State 2009.

According to Global Integrity 2009, in principle, all national level judges have to disclose and update their personal asset records which are open to the general public. However, the cost to access these records is very high and therefore not affordable for average Ugandans.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- It takes an average of 38 procedures to enforce contracts over a process of 490 days and at a cost of 45% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the judiciary's level of independence from influences of members of government, citizens, or companies a score of 3.4 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal system for private companies to settle disputes and challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3.7 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2010:
- 80% of commercial disputes are resolved through alternative dispute resolution.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 3.9 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

- 58.5% of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

Transparency International: East Africa Bribery Index 2010:
- The Judiciary is ranked as the fifth most corrupt institution in Uganda, out of 28 institutions in the country.

-The average size of bribe reported as paid by a household respondent is UGX 316,679.

-Of all the bribes reportedly paid by the household respondents, nearly 7% was paid to the judiciary.

Afrobarometer: Summary of Results Uganda 2010:
- 50%, 33 and 6% of the respondents in this household survey considered some, most or all of the judges and magistrates to be corrupt.

Individual Corruption

According to the Inspectorate of Government 2008, the general police and traffic police are perceived to be the most corrupt public institution. This is also supported by Afrobarometer 2010, where a substantial percentage of the household respondents believe that most of the police officers are involved in corruption. According to a 2009 news article by IPS, citizens know ‘the policeman’s language’, meaning give the traffic police a small bribe in order to avoid a penalty ticket. The source further reports that poor welfare and income are main factors causing widespread corruption in the police force.

Similarly, the US Department of State 2009 reports that corruption and impunity pervade the police. Thus, by the end of 2009, 24 police officers had been charged with corruption, although none had been dismissed for accepting bribes.

Business Corruption

Companies in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 identify organised crime and the business costs of crime and violence in Uganda as competitive disadvantages in the country. Companies also report police protection related to these issues as being unreliable.

Political Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2009, in practice, the law enforcement agencies are not protected from political interference. It is further reported that appointments to the police are not always made according to professional criteria, as they are often based on political or ethnic considerations. Police effectiveness is undermined by patronage, nepotism and other corrupt tendencies. One example of that is the appointment of Major General Kale Kayihura as police chief by president Museveni in 2007, and according to Global Integrity 2008, Kale Kayihura is expected to work in accordance with the President’s expectations, effectively allowing political influence over the police force.

Frequency

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the reliability of police services a score of 4.0 on a 7 point scale (1 'cannot be relied upon at all' and 7 'can always be relied upon').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 79% of households who had contact with the police in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

- Citizens give the police a score of 4.6 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

Afrobarometer: Summary of Results Uganda 2010:
- 27%, 36% and 31% of the respondents in this household survey considered some, most or all of the police to be corrupt.

Transparency International: East African Bribery Index 2010:
- The Ugandan police are ranked as the second most corrupt institution in Uganda, out of 28 institutions in the country.

-The average size of bribe reported as paid by a household respondent is UGX 56,246.

-Of all the bribes reportedly paid by the household respondents, 11.8% was paid to the police.

Inspectorate of Government: The 3rd National Integrity Survey 2008:
- Roughly 88% of the surveyed households identify both the police and the traffic police as the most corrupt institutions in Uganda.

Individual Corruption

The provision of public services and the issuance of licences and permits involve several approval stages and extensive red tape, which provide fertile ground for extracting bribes at every level. This has a particularly negative effect on poorer segments of the Ugandan population who may either not be able to afford certain services or who, unable to make the necessary unofficial payments, will have to wait substantial lengths of time to receive services. As, according to Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2008, a utility connection in Uganda equals a year's salary for the poorest 20% of the population. Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010 also notes that paying bribes in order to get connected to public utilities is relatively common in Uganda.

Furthermore, Global Integrity 2009 reports that bribery and corruption practices are highly pervasive also within Umeme, the national power distributor. Hence, according to the report, almost everyone in the country has paid bribes to get connected to the national grid. In fact, Umeme is ranked as one of the most corrupt institutions in Uganda in Transparency International East African Bribery Index 2010.

According to a February 2010 article by The New Vision, corruption within Uganda's primary education sector is rampant. The article states that a quarter of the surveyed parents reported paying unauthorised fees for textbooks or other services, while a smaller part claimed that bribes had been demanded from them in 2009. Accordingly, petty corruption pervades the everyday dynamics at the classroom, school and district level. These corrupt practices and teachers' susceptibility to corruption have been explained by low teacher salaries.

Business Corruption

Despite Uganda's growing role as a transport and services hub in the Great Lakes region, infrastructure, in general, is inadequate in Uganda, and services remain poor and corruption widespread in several sectors, such as telephone services and electricity. According to the business executives surveyed in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, inadequate supply of infrastructure is among the most problematic factors for doing business in Uganda. The World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2006 notes that obtaining an electricity connection is the service most likely to require a bribe, followed by obtaining a telephone connection. It normally takes more than two months to get connected to a telephone line, and companies are reported to have to pay more than twice the stated cost, while getting an electrical connection is similarly time-consuming and expensive.

Political Corruption

Corruption is pervasive in the higher echelons of Uganda's public utilities administration. This is well illustrated among others by Global Integrity 2009. According to the report, the Inspectorate of Government (IGG) has revealed that the former Managing Director of the Social Security Fund (NSSF) David Chandi Jamwa has embezzled over USD 37,000 from the Fund. In addition, Jamwa received salary advances for over USD 127,000 plus gratuities, all totalling USD 172,172, even though he was not supposed to receive such advances because he was not a contributor to the Fund. Jamwa was suspended at the request of President Museveni in December 2008.

According to the US Department of State 2009, the government has suspended the Ministry of Health's chief accountant, Nestor Gasasira, after an Inspectorate of Government (IGG) investigation revealed that Gasasira's expenditures were incommensurate with his earnings. The IGG recommended sacking Gasasira for failing to publicly account for his wealth.

According to a 2010 news article by AllAfrica, Uganda loses a minimum of UGX 394 billion annually due to the bureaucratic processes in collecting start up business licenses. Apart from enabling graft, the total loss from the heavily bureaucratic process is equivalent to 1.3% of the county’s GDP.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
-Dealing with a construction permit requires a company to go through 18 procedures and spend 171 days to obtain the required licences and permits, at a cost of 1288% of income per capita.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give government administrative requirements (permits, regulations, reporting) in Uganda a score of 3.9 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'burdensome' and 7 'not burdensome'), constituting a competitive business advantage for the country.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 49% of households who had contact with registry and permit services in 2009 report to having paid a bribe.

- 39% of households who had contact with the utilities services in 2009 report to having paid a bribe.

- 49% of households who had contact with the medical services in 2009 report to having paid a bribe.

Transparency International: East African Bribery Index 2010:
- Umeme, the national power distributor, is ranked as the seventh most corrupt institution in Uganda, out of 28 institutions in the country.

-The average size of bribe reported as paid by a household respondent is UGX 129,217.

-Of all the bribes reportedly paid by the household respondents, 5.6% was paid to Umeme.

Individual Corruption

The Land Registry lags behind in the implementation of the policy and law regarding land certificates, which has resulted in the customary owners not yet having obtained their appropriate certificates.

According to Freedom House 2010, property rights in Uganda remain insecure. Allegedly, there have been reports of fraudulent land titles, sometimes resulting from collusion with corrupt officials in the land registry offices. The Inspectorate of Government (IGG) 2007 also reports of numerous citizen complaints concerning rampant forgeries of land titles, unauthorised transfers, lifting of caveats, and general malpractices involving allegations of bribery and extortion from the public. The IGG identified that there is a public outcry concerning misuse of office, profiteering and bribery in the Land Registry and identified the causes as: 1) fraudulent land dealing or transaction including the issuing of fake Land Titles, the falsification and manipulation of existing records mostly involving staff of the Land Registry; 2) poor service delivery, which includes delays and poor public relations; 3) complaints about bribery and extortion from the public; 4) poor physical conditions of manual records; 5) poor filing system leading to loss/misplacement of records which makes retrieval of files difficult; 6) poor and inadequate storage/archival facilities; and 7) inadequate staff.

Business Corruption

According to Uganda Debt Network Policy Review Newsletter Jul-Aug 2007, there has been a tremendous increase of land transactions which has given rise to unregulated and unregistered land dealers who could be a source of forgeries and fraudulent transactions.

According to the US Department of State 2010, Uganda's land laws are complex, while the land registry is non-transparent, and some foreign companies have encountered difficulty in obtaining land. The same source further reports that there are more than 8,000 fake land titles in Uganda, and that the Private Sector Foundation (PSF), a private business advocacy group, has received a USD 70 million credit from the World Bank and is now in the process of creating a new land registry system by 2012.

Political Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2007, land grabbing practices involving cabinet ministers, businesspeople and politicians is common. Schools and disadvantaged people report having lost their lands to corrupt officials who have then sold these properties to wealthy individuals. The former minister of local government in Kampala, Kahinda Otafiire, has been implicated in almost every land scandal.

The State Minister for Economic Monitoring, Vincent Nyanzi, wants the offices of the Administrator General and that of the Office of titles in the lands ministry investigated over corruption and mismanagement, according to a December 2009 article by AllAfrica. The minister explained that many people have been evicted without due compensation and on short notice, which is against the law. Moreover, Nyanzi revealed that, at one time, a land title changed ownership to three people in three minutes, which could not be in accordance with due process of law.

In a 2010 news article by AllAfrica, President Museveni stated at the National Land Policy Conference in May 2010 that he had received a report with a list of names of corrupt land officials, and he warned them if they do not stop extorting bribes from the public over land titles, they will be arrested. President Museveni also stated that the collapse of the country’s land system had been caused by corruption, unethical practices, false titles, complaints and abuse by different agencies.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- It takes 13 procedures to register property over an average of 77 days and at a cost of 3.2% of the property value.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the protection of property rights in Uganda, including financial assets, a score of 3.8 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'very weak' and 7 'very strong')

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 47% of the households surveyed who had contact with land services in 2009 reported to have paid a bribe.

Transparency International: East Africa Bribery Index 2010:
- Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development is ranked as the ninth most corrupt institution in Uganda, out of 28 institutions in the country.

- The average size of bribe reported as paid by a household respondent is UGX 133,055.

- Of all the bribes reportedly paid by the household respondents, 0.7% was paid to the Ministry of Lands, Housing  and Urban Development.

Individual Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2009, given the high levels of corruption in the tax administration, enforcement of tax laws is often non-transparent. This high perception of corruption is epitomised by the fact that the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) was named to be among the most corrupt institutions in Uganda in the Inspectorate of Government 2008. According to the report, a significant part of the surveyed households reported to have paid a bribe in relation to tax administration.

Business Corruption

Collection of taxes in Uganda is generally a major problem and lacks transparency. Nonetheless, the US Department of State 2010 reports that the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) has improved its efficiency, boosting the transparency and increasing tax compliance. Partially, this success is based on an internal restructuring. It is further reported that due to the relative ease of enforcing compliance, the URA often targets large, foreign-owned companies. Government tax revenues constituted approximately 68% of the national budget in the fiscal year 2009-2010.

Despite this relative success, rampant tax evasion continues to be facilitated by collusion between the National Resistance Movement, URA staff, the police, and businessmen, according to Global Integrity 2008. Furthermore, Global Integrity 2009 reports that, in practice, tax laws are seldom enforced uniformly and without discrimination and hence, some groups occasionally evade tax laws.

Political Corruption

According to Transparency International East African Bribery Index 2010, the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) is ranked as the fourth most corruption prone institution, out of 116 different institutions in the East African region. This result also indicates that the URA is the most corrupt institution in the country.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- A medium-sized company makes an average of 32 tax payments and spends 161 hours per year managing the administrative burden of paying taxes.

- The total tax rate as percentage of profit is around 36%.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Nearly 39% of households who had contact with tax revenue services throughout 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

Transparency International: East Africa Bribery Index 2010:
- Uganda Revenue Authority is ranked as the most corrupt institution in the country.

- The average size of bribe reported as paid by a household respondent is UGX 1,102,987.

- Of all the bribes reportedly paid by the household respondents, 24.1% were paid to the Uganda Revenue Authority.

Afrobarometer: Summary of Results Uganda 2010:
- 38%, 35% and 15% of the respondents in this household survey considered some, most or all of the tax officers to be corrupt.

Inspectorate of Government: The 3rd National Integrity Survey 2008:
- Of all public services where companies have reported that they have paid a bribe, 36.8% was for tax payment services, thereby ranking as the most corrupt public service.

Business Corruption

The Ugandan government has made some progress towards liberalising trade, but customs implementation remains inefficient and non-transparent. According to World Economic Forum Global Enabling Trade Report 2010, business executives identify the transparency of border administration in relation to irregular payments in exports and imports as constituting a competitive disadvantage. This is also supported in the US Commercial Guide 2010, in which some businessmen report that custom duties can sometimes be avoided, in particular in situations where a bribe is offered to Uganda Revenue Authority officers on site. Furthermore, companies should note that customs and excise laws are not always enforced uniformly and without discrimination, as reported in Global Integrity 2009. 

According to the US Department of State 2010, bootlegging of electronic devices is common and US manufacturers of consumer goods have been victimised by counterfeit products smuggled into the Ugandan market from abroad. Foreign investors seeking law enforcement should expect to engage proactively with Ugandan officials to enforce the law, as enforcement remains haphazard. Criminal proceedings against the recipients of some shipments of illegal goods have been initiated.

Political Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2007 timber and other resources are smuggled into Uganda from the Democratic Republic of Congo by armed officers and re-exported with the tacit consent of the Ugandan government.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- A standard export shipment of goods requires 6 documents and takes an average of 37 days at a cost of USD 2,780 per container.

- A standard import shipment of goods requires 8 documents and takes an average of 34 days at a cost of USD 2,940 per container.

World Economic Forum: The Global Enabling Trade Report 2010:
- Business executives give the efficiency of customs administration (burden of customs procedures) in Uganda a score of 3.4 on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'extremely efficient').

- Business executives give the transparency of border administration (irregular payments in exports and imports) a score of 2.6 on a 7-point scale (1 'not transparent' and 7 'transparent').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Nearly 43% of households who had contact with the customs administration throughout 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

Business Corruption

One of the most common types of corruption in local government bodies is to give contracts and jobs to supporters and family members. According to the PPDA, IGG & USAID National Public Procurement Integrity Baseline Survey 2006, the majority of the respondents indicated that the Secretary to the Tender Board and the Tender Board members as being most corrupt.

Companies should note that corruption is widespread in the public procurement sector. According to Global Integrity 2009, despite that conflicts of interest is covered under law; it is not always being enforced in practice. Therefore, public officials are still able to reward contracts to themselves through a third party, or reward contracts to non-existing companies. Global Integrity 2009 also reports that if a company is found guilty of bribery, it will be prohibited from future bids. Nevertheless, there are cases where violating companies are found to continue to place bids using their political influence. Companies are recommended to use a specialised public procurement due diligence tool in order to mitigate the corruption risks associated with public procurement in Uganda.

See more on public procurement under 'Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives' in the Initiatives section.

Political Corruption

According to a 2008 news article by Anti-Corruption Coalition Uganda, corruption within the water sector is widespread, and many contractors are rewarded contracts as a result of non transparent procurement procedures, bribery or their connections. This has caused an uneven supply of clean water in Uganda.

According to Global Integrity 2009, there are examples of political interference with the public procurement process despite that the law mandates competitive bidding in the country. This is especially the case when procurement involves high-ranking government officials’ interests. One example cited in the Global Integrity 2008 was when the company, Kenlloyd-Logistcs, was suspiciously granted a USD 22.3 million contract to replenish the fuel reserves over well-established oil companies such as Shell, Caltex and some others. The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) stopped the contract and further investigation has revealed that the manager of Kenlloyd-Logistcs is closely linked to the Foreign Minister and the President. Freedom House 2010 also reports that corruption often stems from the award of national and district government contracts. President Museveni has frequently suspended rules requiring competitive bidding to designate a recipient.

According to the US Department of State 2010, government procurement, particularly for defence items, is not transparent. In recent years several high-profile governmental tenders for infrastructure projects were suspended as a result of allegations of corruption. The same source also reports that there are cases where government officials signal that companies interested in procurement contracts can provide ‘under-the-table’ cash payments directly at local agency offices. According to a September 2009 study conducted by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA), and cited in the US Department of State 2009, corruption in the public procurement process accounts for an annual loss of USD 250 million from Uganda's national budget.

See more on public procurement under 'Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives' in the Initiatives section.

Frequency

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the diversion of public funds to companies, individuals, or groups due to corruption a score of 2.0 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'is common' and 7 'never occurs').

- Business executives give the favouritism of government officials when deciding upon policies and contracts a score of 2.4 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'usually favour well-connected companies and individuals' and 7 'are neutral').

Inspectorate of Government: The 3rd National Integrity Survey 2008:
- Securing contracts constitutes the 11.3% of all public services companies report having to pay bribes for, thereby ranking as the third most corrupt public service-related activity.

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006:
- 45.5% of companies expect to give gifts in order to secure a government contract.

- Companies report that a gift valued at approximately 5.5% of the contract value is expected in order to secure a government contract.

Business Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2009, company inspections by Ugandan government officials to ensure public environmental standards are not always carried out in a uniform and even-handed manner, since the officials sometimes extract bribes from companies in exchange for favourable treatment or expedited processing. The institutional capacity to carry out inspections is quite limited as they are understaffed and underfunded. Corruption and lack of capacity reportedly fuel poor and hazardous working conditions as well as environmental degradation, particularly in the agricultural and mining sectors.

Furthermore, Uganda's oil contracts reportedly lack transparency, both on the part of the foreign oil companies and the government, according to a March 2010 article by AllAfrica. According to the source, this might enable corruption and environmental degradation on the part of the oil companies.

Political Corruption

There have been concerns about transparency in Uganda’s oil contracts on the part of the government as well as concerns that these contracts would be flawed, according to a March 2010 article by Inter Press Service. Allegedly, this is the reason why the Ugandan government does not want to disclose their contents. Concerns have also been raised over the fairness of oil deals after details emerged that President Museveni held direct talks with oil investors without including government agencies. According to a 2010 report by PLATFORM in partnership with the Civil Society Coalition for Oil in Uganda, there are currently three pending lawsuits against the Ugandan government for keeping secret the oil production sharing agreements (PSAs) that it has signed with various international oil companies. The report further states that by keeping the PSAs secret, it further fuels unnecessary social consequences, among others, corruption and environmental degradation.

Fish breeding spots on lakes George and Edward in Uganda are threatened due to illegal fishing fuelled by corruption, as reported in a December 2009 article by The New Vision. According to the article, public officials in the Kasese district fisheries department are fully aware of these illegal practices, but regularly accept bribes in order not to interfere.

Furthermore, forest destruction is a serious problem in Uganda, and deforestation mostly happens on privately held land, which accounts to 70% of the country’s forests. A 2008 news article by AllAfrica reports that corruption within the environmental institutions and double standards of politicians are to blame for forest destruction in the country. The article further reported that some forestry authority officials have turned a blind eye to a small amount of bribes.

According to the US Commercial Guide 2010, in 2007, president Museveni faced domestic and international criticism from environmental groups for trying to allocate protected forest reserves to investors for expansion of projects, such as sugar cane and palm oil production.

Frequency

Inspectorate of Government: The 3rd National Integrity Survey 2008:
- 33% of companies identify the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) as dishonest and nearly 25% reported that the services it provides are poor.

• Legislation: The Anti-Corruption Act 2009, the Penal Code 1950, the Inspectorate of Government Act 2002, the Public Finance and Accountability Act 2003 (PFAA), the Leadership Code Act 2002 (LCA), and the Public Prosecution and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 (see 'Public Procurement' below) compose the core of Uganda's legal framework against corruption. The Penal Code 1950 provides instruments to deal with various corruption offences including embezzlement, causing financial loss, abuse of office, and fraud. The LCA is designed to increase transparency and to curb corruption. It sets out minimum standards of behaviour and conduct for political leaders and requires them to declare their incomes, assets and liabilities. It also criminalises attempted corruption, active and passive bribery, extortion, bribing a foreign public official, and abuse of office. The Code of Conducts and Ethics for Uganda Public Services was published by the Ministry of Public Services which lists the standards of behaviour for public officers. Under the Code, bribery is defined as any gratification with a value equal to UGX 20,000 or above that is given to Public Officers by anyone with the intention to influence any current or future decisions in favour of someone, or that involves conflict of interest. Uganda is a signatory to both the UN and AU conventions against corruption. However, although both were ratified in 2004, the conventions have not yet been fully domesticated into Ugandan laws. In July 2009, the Anti-Corruption Bill was enacted, and according to a 2009 article by AllAfrica, the act gives special investigation powers to the Inspector General of Government and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The new law is intended to deal with corruption in both the public and private sector, and those who are found guilty of corruption may face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of UGX 100 million. According to AllAfrica, the government passed the Whistleblowers Protection Bill in April 2010, which intends to protect whistleblowers and provide money rewards in return for reporting. Two other pieces of anti-corruption legislation, the Anti-Money Laundering Bill (AMLB) and the Qui Tam (False Claims) Bill, are in the legislative pipeline. According to a February 2010 article by AllAfrica, leading financial institutions in Uganda and in the world are pressuring the Ugandan government to enact the Anti-Money Laundering Bill as a measure to counter corruption and drug trafficking. As of October 2010, the AMLB is still in Parliament, and Uganda is one of the last countries in the East Africa Community states that have not passed the bill, as reported by AllAfrica in 2010. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in Uganda.

• Government Strategies: The government's economic and development policies require it to work closely with donors, who in turn demand the government to make progress in its commitment to anti-corruption programmes. Donor coordination and dialogue seem to work well in Uganda. Several commissions of inquiry have been installed by the President. Two of these commissions are investigating, respectively, corrupt practices in the police force and in the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), although their effectiveness has been questioned. The Danish development agency, Danida, signed a USD multi-million anti-corruption pact through the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the Government of Uganda in 2004. The anti-corruption programme is currently in its second phase from the period of July 2008 to June 2011, and was designed to strengthen ethics and integrity and respect for rule of law in the public sector. The programme aimed at supporting the implementation of the Leadership Code Act, imparting good governance in key corruption-prone government agencies handling public procurement and tax collection, and supporting civil society organisations (CSOs) and media. The government has declared a zero tolerance policy towards corruption and developed several anti-corruption strategy policy documents, including the Poverty Eradication Action Plan 2004-2007 complemented by the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2004-2007, and the National Strategy to Fight Corruption and Rebuild Ethics and Integrity in Uganda 2008-2013. These plans address corruption as part of capacity-building and good governance strategies and encourage continuing support for anti-corruption agencies and anti-corruption reforms in corruption-prone sectors. Read more about the government's anti-corruption efforts.

• Anti-Corruption Agencies: Uganda has several anti-corruption agencies that are discussed in more detail below. The Inspectorate of Government (IGG, see below) is the primary anti-corruption agency and, together with the others, has made progress in combating corruption and abuse of office. According to African Peer Review Mechanism Country Review Report 2009, anti-corruption agencies generally lack the human and financial resources required to fulfil their mandates effectively and are subject to political and executive influence. This has resulted in a number of alleged grand-scale corruption cases that have not been fully pursued. However, the Anti-Corruption Act 2009 seeks to empower, in particular, the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (see below) and the IGG to better fulfil their mandates.

• Anti-Corruption Court: Parliament passed a provision in 2005 creating a special Anti-Corruption Court, which became operational under the High Court in May 2008. According to the initial evaluation of the Anti-Corruption Court made by Uganda Law Society 2009, the performance of the Anti-Corruption Court is considered satisfactory. Although all cases of corruption and embezzlement have to be heard and handled by the Court with only three judges and five magistrates, these cases are now able to be settled in 40 to 60 days, which is regarded as very fast according to the evaluation report. The down side is that all the country's corruption cases can only be handled in the Anti-Corruption Court in Kampala, which has caused some delays and loss of files due to the process of transferring from other cities into Kampala. According to the US Department of State 2009, the Court convicted seven individuals of corruption throughout 2009.

• Directorate of Ethics and Integrity (DEI): The DEI was established in 1986 to raise the issue of corruption to a cabinet level, to coordinate government efforts in its fight against corruption through the Inter Agency Forum, and to establish an integrity system that promotes good governance. The DEI is mandated to implement the government's zero tolerance towards corruption policy, and maintains an extensive collection of anti-corruption resources that are open to the public. The DEI is carrying out its functions to address issues related to ethics and corruption has acquired a considerable amount of information and materials and therefore a resource centre has been established to make this material available. The DEI was mandated to implement the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2004-2007 which aimed at improving enforcement and coordination of existing law and at ensuring public involvement in the fight against corruption. This strategy has been followed by the National Strategy to Fight Corruption and Rebuild Ethics and Integrity in Uganda 2008-2013 (see above). The DEI is supported by the Danish development agency, Danida, and the UK Department of International Development.

• Inter Agency Forum (IAF): The IAF has been developed by the government and is chaired by the Directorate of Ethics and Integrity (DEI, see above). It aims at ensuring effective coordination of agencies on corruption issues and is comprised of Uganda's major anti-corruption institutions, including the judiciary and police among others. The IAF has been used by anti-corruption agencies to work together in the design and implementation of national anti-corruption strategies and to promote awareness and advancement of reforms. However, due to the DEI's lack of funding and its insufficient staff, the IAF is yet to become effective at facilitating dialogue between public and private anti-corruption stakeholders.

• Ombudsman / Inspectorate of Government (IGG): The IGG is an independent agency under the 1995 Constitution. While it also functions as Ombudsman, its mandate is wider than that of a traditional Ombudsman. According to Transparency International 2006, IGG has the power to investigate, arrest and prosecute cases involving corruption, abuse of authority or public office, as well as gaining access to documents whenever necessary. The IGG has faced difficulties with respect to the declaration of income, as many Members of Parliament have refused to submit income information. According to Global Integrity 2009, the independence of the IGG has been questioned due to the fact that the President has power over the appointment of IGG, and this may create bias. Furthermore, IGG has sometimes experienced threats by some ministers, in particular those who are under investigation. According to African Peer Review Mechanism Country Review Report 2009, the IGG appears vigorous in its attempt to curb corruption, nevertheless, its efforts are disrupted by the fact that the agency lacks qualified staff and sufficient funding. Moreover, IGG recommendations and reports are also rarely followed-up by Parliament or the executive, as reported by Global Integrity 2009

• Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP): The DPP has the mandate over all criminal prosecutions in the country and is further empowered by the Prevention of Corruption Act (1970) to prosecute cases of corruption and bribery. According to Transparency International 2006, the DPP advices the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and other government agencies on matters of criminal investigation. In 2004, the Fraud Unit, a specialised body, was created within the DPP to handle fraud and corruption cases and works closely with the CID National Fraud Squad. Nevertheless, the DPP does not have the power to carry out investigations. The Director of Public Prosecutions is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and with the approval of Parliament. The DPP is not known for corruption within its ranks, but it struggles with a lack of capacity. It has been criticised for not making reports and findings available to the public. The CID, though, is known for both bribery and embezzlement, as reported in a 2010 article by Institute For War & Peace Reporting.

• Auditor General (AG): The AG audits and reports on the public accounts of Uganda and on all public offices. According to Global Integrity 2009, the AG works closely with other government departments to initiate and conduct financial and value for money audits in regard to any project involving public funds. The AG also audits the Local Councils (local government bodies) and submits reports to Parliament and other relevant authorities on local cases. Nevertheless, the same report also states that the AG is under presidential influence, and that the head of the AG is appointed and can be removed by the President. The African Peer Review Mechanism in its 2009 report recommends that more resources to the AG will be needed in order for it to be more effective in fighting corruption.

• E-Governance: The Ugandan government announced in September 2008 that it will establish a national e-Government Web Portal to consolidate the individual websites of various government institutions. The aim of the portal is to create a one-stop shop for all government information. Uganda Central consists of a range of government portals, including those of government ministries and the judiciary.

• Public Procurement: The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) is an independent agency managed by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, which sets the rules and regulations for procurement. The PPDA Act establishes ministries, government departments and agencies as procuring entities. The PPDA Act further specifies Accounting Officers, Contracts Committees, Procurement and Disposal Units (PDU), Evaluation Committees and User Departments, each with different responsibilities. The normal method for procurement is the open domestic bidding method and sole sourcing is legally limited. The PPDA provides links to procurement guidelines, open opportunities, contract awards and notices, and public procurement forms on its website. The PPDA advises the various government departments on procurement, monitors compliance, audits, evaluates performance, and provides capacity training. The PPDA is the central actor in the fight against rampant corruption in public procurement and enforces regulations addressing conflicts of interest for public procurement officials, although enforcement is sometimes subject to political interference. The PPDA is mandated to ensure the exercise of regularity and propriety in the handling and expenditure of resources and public money, and, in particular, that goods or services are procured in a fair, equitable, competitive and cost-effective manner. However, like most of the other government institutions, the PPDA is understaffed and subsequently impeded in its ability to investigate corruption cases. Local government procurement has been harmonised with national standards in 2006. A Register of Providers has been established to ensure that data on providers is more transparent and available to all actors in the procurement process, and serves as a basis for monitoring their performance and compliance with the law. The PPDA has also developed complaints procedures regarding public procurement. The PPDA has the power to blacklist providers and maintains a list of suspended providers. However, according to Global Integrity 2009, although companies that violate procurement regulations are legally prohibited from participating in future bids, the enforcement of the law is weak, and companies guilty of major violations of procurement regulations sometimes bid again using their influence, particularly if those companies are politically well-connected. According to a 2009 news article by Monitor Online, the Ugandan government announced its plans to launch an e-procurement system, where among others the details of public spending, such as procurement deals, will be published. This initiative is expected to increase transparency and reduce corruption within public procurement; for instance, it has been argued that this system will prevent blacklisted companies from bidding for government contracts. As of April 2010, the funding had already been allocated, and the authority will therefore seek for appropriate bidders to provide the service, as reported by AllAfrica. In addition, the government has launched an online Register of Providers system, which is a database of suppliers of works, services, and goods to government. This system is also aimed at transparent and corruption-free practices in procurement activities. The World Bank has previously estimated that Uganda loses around USD 300 million each year due to corruption and procurement malpractices; hence, the idea behind the e-procurement initiatives is to close the loopholes in the public procurement and protect public funds.

• Whistle-Blowing: The Whistleblowers Protection Act was enacted into law in April 2010. Until then there was a lack of a solid legislative framework for whistleblowers protection as the Leadership Code Act and Access to Information Act only provide indirect legal protection for whistleblowers. The Act provides for high prison terms for people disclosing whistleblowers' identity, but also for whistleblowers who come forth with maliciously wrong allegations. The Act also includes monetary incentives for blowing the whistle on corruption: whistleblowers will in fact receive 5% of the total amount recovered thanks to their denouncement. According to Global Integrity 2009 and Freedom House 2010, public and private sector employees are for now generally reluctant to report corruption for fear of reprisals and a lack of actual protection in practice. The Inspectorate of Government (IGG) Act provides a framework for whistleblower protection including identity protections, financial reward and protection from recrimination or other punishments, and the criminalisation of the unlawful disclosure of whistleblower identities and their victimisation. The IGG has established a hotline where the public can report cases of corruption anonymously.

• General Comments on the Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives: The nature of corruption in Uganda is a subject of some debate. Despite fairly elaborate formal control mechanisms, corruption continues to be a major problem. Anti-corruption agencies are understaffed and underfinanced, which greatly curbs their practical capacity to enforce legislative measures to combat corruption. While the government argues that corruption has not increased, but rather that investigations have simply brought the existing problems to light, the lack of government action and the negligence of recommendations made by central anti-corruption agencies calls into question the government's commitment or ability to combat corruption. Despite the Inter Agency Forum, the activities of anti-corruption agencies continue to lack coordination and information gathering within the agencies and sharing of such information between them is poorly developed. The Anti-Corruption Act 2009 has the potential to affect positive developments in Uganda's fight against corruption. Although the nature of the results of this act will be dependent upon the effectiveness of its implementation.

• Media: According to the US Department of State 2009, although the constitution provides for the freedom of speech and of the press, the government at times restricts these rights, and the law criminalises offences by the media and limits the media's ability to function. In addition, the government continues to harass journalists, and its application of several repressive laws to control the media has led to widespread self-censorship, as reported by the US Department of State 2009. Nonetheless, according to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, it is relatively common to have critical public discussions and statements in both print and electronic media. The Ugandan government from time to time makes an effort to crack down on these critical voices, but have been unable to do so. In 2005, the government passed an Access to Information Act, which strengthened press freedom and reinforced existing anti-corruption legislation. According to Freedom House Freedom of the Press 2010, Uganda is one of a few countries in Africa that has this law. Furthermore, several sources indicate that the media in Uganda are relatively free and play an important role in exposing corruption, as cases involving senior members of government are frequently reported by the media. Reporters Without Borders characterises Uganda's written press as pluralistic and serious in its Annual Report 2006. The airwaves were liberalised in the 1990s and since then, Uganda's press and radio have displayed their independence. This has largely allowed some private FM radio shows to openly discuss sensitive issues in relation to the government. However, according to a 2009 article by Reporters Without Borders, 4 radio stations were ordered to shut down and the government has also banned live debate programmes on the ground that they were not able to control their content. Reporters Without Borders 2010 ranks Uganda 96th out of 178 countries, while Freedom House 2010 ranks the country 114th out of 196 countries and describes its press environment as 'partly free'.

• Civil Society: Civil society is quite vibrant in Uganda and, according to Freedom House 2010, it takes active part in testifying on legislation before Parliament and frequently campaigns to influence government policy. NGOs are generally ready to address politically sensitive issues, although they are vulnerable to legal restrictions, including the manipulation of registration requirements. According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, opposition groupings and NGOs are allowed to operate freely, but they are subject to adherence to legal provisions that can easily be interpreted by state authorities in such a way that group activities are considered detrimental to the interests and security of the state. Global Integrity 2009 also states that the US and Uganda have signed an USD 10.4 million Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Threshold agreement in 2007, aiming at reducing the level of corruption in the country. One focus in this agreement was to strengthen the role of civil society. These measurements, according to the MCC Uganda, are to provide technological, equipment and logistical support to the Inter Agency Forum, as well as to provide legal aid for corruption-related victims and much more.

• Anti-Corruption Coalition Uganda (ACCU): The ACCU is an umbrella group of more than 70 civil society organisations seeking to curb corruption in Uganda in order to contribute to poverty reduction. The ACCU organises an anti-corruption week every year in December, the purpose of which is to mobilise civil society in the fight against corruption. In the autumn of 2008, the coalition started the Book of Name and Shame where public servants who are caught in corruption practices and convicted will be named. According to the US Department of State 2009, some ACCU members were harassed by security services at the end of 2009, following publication of a booklet detailing survey results on local perceptions of government corruption.

• Transparency International Uganda (TI Uganda): TI Uganda undertakes advocacy work on anti-corruption laws, holds workshops, and arranges campaigns, seminars and events. While it seeks to influence government to take further steps in the fight against corruption, it also works to raise public awareness about the negative consequences of corruption.

• Uganda Debt Network (UDN): The UDN is an advocacy and lobbying coalition of NGOs, institutions and individuals that actively engage in anti-corruption lobbying activities. The UDN was formed in 1996 as a result of civil society concerns with the social economic development of the country due to the unsustainable level of Uganda's debt burden. The UDN has established close working relationships with other civil society organisations and institutions at all levels of society and now has over 100 members.

• African Parliamentarians Network against Corruption (APNAC) Uganda: APNAC Uganda was established in 2000 as one of the first country partners in the network. The chapter is active in advocacy and networking within and outside of Parliament on corruption issues and, in particular, in sensitising the public on the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (ACPCC). The APNAC Uganda Chapter, together with the Transparency International Uganda, has completed a pilot project on the domestication of the ACPCC.

• Institute of Corporate Governance of Uganda (ICGU): The ICGU has developed guidelines with minimum standards for corporate governance. The guidelines are based on both the OECD and the CACG standards. The institute conducts workshops and gives lectures on, for example, corporate social responsibility and corporate fraud. The ICGU's membership is composed of more than 20 corporate entities. The ICGU was initially promoted by the government as part of a reform and divestiture programme aimed at improving accountability within the public enterprise sector, and has since evolved into a private sector institution. The ICGU contributed to the development and review of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) Uganda Country Self-Assessment Report 2008 under the corporate governance pillar.

The websites listed below provide useful facts on Uganda as well as contacts and tools for companies operating in Uganda:

• International Finance Corporation: Global SME Toolkit
  Guide to sustainable business management practices for SMEs.
• Business Fighting Corruption
  An online resource centre for business on collective action to avoid corruption which contains a guide and resources for partnerships with companies and other stakeholders to fight against corruption.
• CIA World Factbook: Uganda Country Profile
• World Bank: Uganda Data Profile

Sources for further reading:

• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Uganda 2010.
• Freedom House: Countries at the Crossroads - Uganda 2010.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Uganda 2009.
• African Peer Review Mechanism: Country Review Report: Uganda 2009.
• Inspectorate of Government: The 3rd National Integrity Survey 2008.

UNCAC Status: Signed 9 December 2003. Ratified 9 September 2004.

Status on UNCAC Implementation
This field describes the country's status on the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Please note any declarations and reservations made upon ratification. The list of signatories can be found on the UNODC website. Read more about the UNCAC.

Other Relevant Conventions or Treaties:

• AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption: Signed 18 December 2003. Ratified 30 August 2004.
  Read Transparency International's summary and assessment of the convention.
• UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime: Signed 12 December 2000. Ratified 9 March 2005.
  Read Transparency International's summary and assessment of the convention.

Transparency CPI: 2011: 143/182 (Score: 2.4)

Transparency CPI
This field consists of the score for the country in question on the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International as well as its ranking.

World Bank CORR Index (-2.5 - +2.5): 2010: -0.88

World Bank Corruption Index
This field consists of the score for the country in question on the 'Control of Corruption' indicator in the World Bank Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot (GRICS): 1996-2010.

OECD Country Risk Classification (0-7): 2011: 6

Country Risk Classification
The classification of countries by risk category has the aim of providing OECD countries with a basis for calculating the premium interest rate to be charged to cover the risk of non-repayment of export credits. Countries are placed in risk categories 0 - 7, with 0 being the lowest risk category and thus the least expensive. Conversely, premium group 7 is the highest risk category. Each classification is comprised of 2 components: 1) an assessment of the country's economic/financial situation, and 2) its overall political stability. Access the complete list of OECD Country Risk Classification figures.

Data Verification:

Publication date: March 2011

Data verified by: Global Advice Network

General Information Sources

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011.
• The Heritage Foundation: Index of Economic Freedom - Uganda 2011.
• Reuters: 'Uganda postpones mayoral, local polls after fraud', 23 February 2011.
• Bloomberg: 'Ugandan president re-elected in vote rejected by opposition', 21 February 2011.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2010.
• Afrobarometer: Summary of Results Uganda 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Uganda 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• Freedom House: Countries at the Crossroads - Uganda 2010.
• VOA News: 'Ugandan Government Probes Corruption Allegation', 22 November 2010.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: Trying to Blow the Whistle On Corruption', 7 April 2010.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: Don't Put Profit Before People, Warns Report', 1 March 2010.
• AllAfrica: 'East Africa: Pressure Mounts On Uganda to Pass Law Against 'Dirty' Money', 22 February 2010.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Uganda 2009.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: Provide Enough Funds to Anti-Corruption Agencies', 17 May 2009.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: Parliament Passes Anti-Corruption Bill', 14 May 2009.
• The Citizen: 'Museveni bemoans corruption', 12 May 2009.
• The Guardian: 'Corruption endemic in Uganda', 13 March 2009.
• The Parliament of the Republic of Uganda: 'House Considers Whistle Blowers Protection Bill', 3 March 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Inspectorate of Government: The 3rd National Integrity Survey 2008.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2008.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Uganda 2008.
• Lexadin: The World Law Guide - Legislation Uganda 2008.
• Monitor Online: 'Step aside, anti-corruption activist advises Mbabazi', 31 August 2008.
• AllAfrica: Uganda: 'Govt Wants 14 Years in Jail for Corruption', 10 March 2008.
• African Press International: 'Uganda: Corruption Costs Sh500b a year', 23 January 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• African Development Bank & OECD: African Economic Outlook - Uganda 2007.
• UNAFEI: Present Situation, Problems and Solutions in the Legal System Related to Corruption Control in Uganda 2007.
• New Vision: 'Don't fight the Inspector General of Govt', 26 August 2007.
• Monitor: 'Govt pays ghosts 2.1 billion per year', 18 October 2007.
• Transparency International: Country Review of Legal and Practical Challenges to the Domestication of the Anti-Corruption Conventions in Uganda 2006.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006.
• PPDA, IGG & USAID: National Public Procurement Integrity Baseline Survey 2006.

Corruption Levels Sources

Judicial System

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011.
• Transparency International: East Africa Bribery Index 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2010.
• Afrobarometer: Summary of Results Uganda 2010.
• Freedom House: Countries at the Crossroads - Uganda 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Uganda 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Uganda 2009.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• Inspectorate of Government: The 3rd National Integrity Survey 2008.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - Uganda 2008.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2008.
• AllAfrica: Uganda: 'Judiciary Among Most Corrupt Institutions', 25 April 2008.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2007.

Police

• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011.
• Transparency International: East Africa Bribery Index 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• Afrobarometer: Summary of Results Uganda 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Uganda 2009.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2009.
• IPS: 'Where 'Kitu Kidogo' is cheaper than facing the law', 22 December 2009.
• Inspectorate of Government: The 3rd National Integrity Survey 2008.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2008.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2007.

Licences, Infrastructure and Public Utilities

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda:  Sh394 Billion Lost Yearly in Licence Delays', 2 December 2010.
• The New Vision: 'UPE schools still charging illegal fees', 23 February 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Uganda 2009.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2009.
• Guardian: 'Katine villagers accuse leaders of corruption over health centre proposals', 20 April 2009.
• The New Vision: 'Jamwa on Suspension', 4 December 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2007.

Land Administration

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• Transparency International: East Africa Bribery Index 2010.
• Freedom House: Countries at the Crossroads - Uganda 2010.
• AllAfrica: ‘Uganda: Museveni Warns Land Officials Over Graft’, 25 May 2010.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: Minister Wants Land Registry Probed', 31 December 2009.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2007.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2007.
• Uganda Debt Network: Policy Review Newsletter Jul-Aug 2007.
• New Vision: 'Yes Land Registry is Dogged By Corruption, Interview with the Minister for Lands, Housing and Urban Development', 8 June 2007.

Tax Administration

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• Transparency International: East Africa Bribery Index 2010.
• Afrobarometer: Summary of Results Uganda 2010.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• Inspectorate of Government: The 3rd National Integrity Survey 2008.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2008.
• UNAFEI: Present Situation, Problems and Solutions in the Legal System Related to Corruption Control in Uganda 2007.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2007.

Customs Administration

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011.
• World Economic Forum: Global Enabling Trade Report 2010.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2010.
• US Commercial Service: Doing Business in Uganda: A Country Commercial Guide for US Companies 2010.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2007.

Public Procurement and Contracting

• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011.
• Freedom House: Countries at the Crossroads - Uganda 2010.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2010.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: URA for E-Procurement', 7 April 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Uganda 2009.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• Monitor Online: 'Govt turns to cyber to fight graft', 26 November 2009.
• OECD & DAC: Procurement Capacity Strengthening Initiatives in Uganda: an Anti-Corruption approach 2008.
• Anti Corruption Coalition Uganda: Water is Life: Anti Corruption Week 2008 in Uganda.
• AllAfrica: Uganda: 'Politicians, Public Advised to Desist From Corruption', 3 March 2008.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2008.
• Anti Corruption Coalition Uganda: WATER IS LIFE: Anti Corruption Week 2008 in Uganda.
• Financial Times: 'Oil find raises stakes on Congo border', 20 November 2007.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2007.
• PPDA, IGG & USAID: National Public Procurement Integrity Baseline Survey 2006.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2006.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006.

Environment, Natural Resources and Extractive Industry

• US Commercial Service: Doing Business in Uganda: A Country Commercial Guide for US Companies 2010.
• Inter Press Service: 'Pressure Mounts to Make Public Oil Agreements', 4 March 2010.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: Don't Put Profit Before People, Warns Report', 1 March 2010.
• PLATFORM: Contracts Curse: Uganda's Oil Agreements Place Profit Before People, February 2010.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• The New Vision: 'Corruption fuelling illegal fishing', 14 December 2009.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2009.
• AllAfrica: Uganda: 'Politics, Corruption Fuelling Destruction of Forest Reserves', 2 November 2008.
• Inspectorate of Government: The 3rd National Integrity Survey 2008.
• Robert Ddamulira, Practicing Environmental Managers Organization: Environment Corruption worst evil, 2007.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2007.

Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives Sources

• Freedom House: Countries at the Crossroads - Uganda 2010.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: Nation Doesn't Need Dirty Money to Grow, So Let's Clean Up the New Law and Pass It', 25 October 2010.
• Institute For War & Peace Reporting: 'Kampala Losing Patience With Corrupt Police', 4 August 2010.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: Whistle-Blowers Law Comes into Force', 4 May 2010.
• AllAfrica: 'East Africa: Pressure Mounts On Uganda to Pass Law Against 'Dirty' Money', 22 February 2010.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Uganda 2009.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - Uganda 2009.
• Uganda Law Society: Project Narrative and Financial Report 2009.
• African Peer Review Mechanism: Country Review Report - Uganda 2009.
• Monitor Online: 'Govt turns to cyber to fight graft', 26 November 2009.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: Provide Enough Funds to Anti-Corruption Bill', 17 May 2009.
• AllAfrica: 'Uganda: Parliament Passes Anti-Corruption Bill', 14 May 2009.
• The Parliament of the Republic of Uganda: 'House Considers Whistle Blowers Protection Bill', 3 March 2009.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2008.
• OECD & DAC: Procurement Capacity Strengthening Initiatives in Uganda: an Anti-Corruption approach 2008.
• AllAfrica: Uganda: 'Govt Wants 14 Years in Jail for Corruption', 10 March 2008.
• Lexadin: The World Law Guide - Legislation Uganda 2008.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2007.
• Embassy of Denmark Kampala: Anti-Corruption 2007.
• UNAFEI: Present Situation, Problems and Solutions in the Legal System Related to Corruption Control in Uganda 2007.
• PPDA, IGG & USAID: National Public Procurement Integrity Baseline Survey 2006.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2006.
• Transparency International: Country Review of Legal and Practical Challenges to the Domestication of the Anti-Corruption Conventions in Uganda 2006.

Private Anti-Corruption Initiatives Sources

• Freedom House: Countries at the Crossroads - Uganda 2010.
• Freedom House: Freedom of the Press Index 2010.
• Freedom House: Freedom of the Press - Uganda 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - Uganda 2010.
• Reporters Without Borders: Uganda Country Report 2010.
• Reporters Without Borders: Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2010.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2009.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Uganda 2009.
• Reporters Without Borders: 'Four-radio stations closed and a talk-show host detained for 'inciting riots'', 13 September 2009.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - Uganda 2008.
• Global Integrity: Uganda Country Report 2008.
• AllAfrica: Uganda: 'Civil Society Organisation to Get Funds to Fight Corruption', 27 February 2008.
• Reporters Without Borders: Annual Report 2006.
• Transparency International Uganda & Henry Onoria: Legislative and Policy Measures in Uganda
  
• Millennium Challenge Corporation: Uganda.