The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has challenged Government project managers to demonstrate the actual impact of development projects, saying the completion of buildings and other outputs does not necessarily prove that public funds achieved their intended results.
PAC (Central Government) Committee Chairperson Hon. Patrick Nsamba said government must assess whether projects deliver the outcomes for which they were funded, rather than relying on the number of facilities constructed or services established.
Nsamba made the remarks as the team that implemented the 10-year Competitiveness and Enterprise Development Project (CEDP) appeared before the committee to account for the project’s implementation and results on Tuesday, 06 October 2026.
The project, implemented in two phases between 2014 and 2024 with World Bank financing, supported reforms in land administration, business registration, tourism and the private sector.
The project team told MPs that about US$202.3 million (approx. Shs800 billion), had been spent over the project period. It reported several achievements, including the construction of 22 Ministry of Lands zonal offices, development of a National Land Information System and the digitisation of business registration.
However, Nsamba questioned whether such outputs were sufficient to demonstrate the project's success.
“I think going forward, among the things that we must always do at the end of the project cycle is to evaluate those indicators,” Nsamba said.
“If you set the indicators right in 2014 and now you are in 2024, you are closing the project, you must be able to attribute certain outcomes out of this, other than talking about outputs at the end of the project,” he added.
He cited the construction of buildings and tourism facilities as examples where the project needed to demonstrate the actual benefits to citizens and the economy.
“Yes, you constructed the building. But how did it improve the business environment?” Nsamba asked adding that, “Yes, you did the hotel in Jinja. But which contribution did it make?”
His concerns followed a presentation by CEDP Project Manager John Marie Kyewalabye, who outlined infrastructure and institutional reforms implemented under the project.
Kyewalabye said the project had, among other interventions, reduced the time required to register a business from 33 days to one day and a few hours, while also putting business registration services online.
He said the project also supported the Uganda Hotel and Tourism Training Institute, Uganda Tourism Board, Uganda Wildlife Authority and provided matching grants to 312 micros, small and medium enterprises worth US$2.79 million.
“The reason we went there was to enhance capacity of Ugandans to be able to provide and work within this hotel sector. Under the Uganda Hotel and Tourism Training Institute, we constructed an application hotel, which the students are using for training. We also completely reconstructed the school, the administration block and the lecture rooms,” he said.
The project team also attributed an increase in non-tax revenue and business registrations to the reforms.
However, Nsamba questioned whether such increases could be directly attributed to CEDP, given that government continued to fund the beneficiary institutions.
Hon. Ignatius Wamakuyu (Ind., Elgon County) questioned how the loan would be repaid, particularly whether government had put mechanisms in place to recover money through fees and charges from land registration, as envisaged in the financing agreement.
The committee also challenged the project team over its claim that interventions had contributed to more than US$320 million in non-tax revenue.
Nsamba said such claims require a clear methodology showing what portion of the revenue was generated as a result of the project.
Hon. Fredrick Angura (NRM, Tororo South County) questioned whether CEDP's interventions had been duplicating work already being done by ministries and agencies, asking how the project aligned its work plans with those institutions.
An independent assessment cited by the project team rated CEDP’s implementation as successful.
However, the committee’s scrutiny showed that success in implementation and completion of planned activities may not, on their own, establish whether a project produced the intended long-term impact.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Parliament of the Republic of Uganda.
