Veteran journalist and political commentator Andrew Mwenda has intensified his critique of President Yoweri Museveni, asserting that the president’s advancing age and long years in office are diminishing his ability to critically evaluate major government investments.
In a recent opinion piece, Mwenda argues that President Museveni has increasingly been approving projects of questionable value, often presented by individuals he describes as opportunistic entrepreneurs with little regard for economic prudence. These approvals, he suggests, have put substantial sums of public funds at risk.
Mwenda recounts several high-profile cases to illustrate his point, including proposals by individuals such as David Senfuka, who claimed to have invented revolutionary medicines capable of curing cancer and diabetes. According to Mwenda, Senfuka asked the government for $1 billion to establish a pharmaceutical plant in Uganda.
Senfuka’s story, Mwenda explains, was widely regarded as implausible. Interviews with people who knew him suggested he had little formal education and was better known for persuasive skills than genuine business acumen. Yet, the president reportedly approved the request, despite warnings from advisers.
Another controversial figure highlighted in Mwenda’s piece is Matthias Magoola, founder of Dei Pharma, who allegedly convinced the president to allocate over $630 million to build pharmaceutical facilities. Mwenda notes that Magoola had previously been arrested for fraud in India, raising questions about his credibility.
According to Mwenda, these approvals are symptomatic of a broader trend in Uganda’s governance: the concentration of large amounts of state resources in the hands of a few individuals, rather than spreading investment across multiple ventures to reduce risk.
The journalist emphasizes that this centralization of financial support makes the government vulnerable to loss. Should one or more of these large-scale projects fail, the economic damage could be catastrophic, affecting not only public finances but also public trust in government institutions.
Mwenda argues that the root of the problem lies in the president’s age. At 81, having worked under conditions of extreme pressure for over four decades, he contends, Museveni’s capacity for critical assessment is waning. Fatigue and diminished intellectual agility, Mwenda suggests, have eroded rigorous scrutiny of investment proposals.
The piece also critiques the president’s decision-making style, noting that once he commits to a course of action, he becomes resistant to opposing views. This stubbornness, Mwenda claims, has allowed dubious projects to gain government backing without sufficient oversight.
Mwenda illustrates this with the example of Lubowa Hospital, a project funded at $376 million, which he claims could have been built for one-third of the expenditure. He argues that the president overruled cabinet objections and forced approval of the project despite limited national resources.
In addition to large-scale health projects, Mwenda highlights other controversial investments, such as allocations to Roko, a company that had previously gone bankrupt, and a coffee processing plant in Ntungamo. These cases, he argues, show a pattern of concentrated risk and questionable economic rationale.
According to Mwenda, a rational investment strategy would involve dispersing resources across a diverse portfolio of smaller projects. By doing so, the likelihood of a few successful ventures yielding substantial returns would be higher, while the impact of failures would be limited.
The journalist stresses that Uganda had previously adopted policies in the 1990s aimed at limiting state involvement in the economy, but current practices appear to reverse this approach, concentrating state resources in risky ventures led by a few individuals.
Mwenda claims that individuals close to power have recognized the president’s reduced capacity for oversight and have exploited it. He suggests that opportunistic figures present him with lucrative but poorly vetted proposals, knowing that his inclination to avoid conflict and his declining intellectual stamina make him less likely to question them.
The journalist’s critique extends to the broader state apparatus, noting that institutional safeguards meant to protect public funds appear weak. Ministries and financial regulators, he argues, are often sidelined or overridden in the pursuit of high-profile projects favored by the president.
Mwenda describes a culture in which “blue letters” from the president authorize large sums for projects without adequate scrutiny. These letters, he says, are used by intermediaries to secure commissions while delivering limited public value, further undermining governance and accountability.
The piece also touches on the human and political dimensions of the president’s decisions, suggesting that age-related fatigue limits his willingness to engage in complex debates across multiple sectors, leaving him vulnerable to manipulation by those with personal financial interests.
Mwenda warns that the consequences of this decision-making approach are far-reaching. Economic inefficiencies, debt accumulation, and misallocation of scarce resources, he suggests, pose significant threats to Uganda’s long-term development and stability.
Despite these warnings, the journalist contends, there is little evidence that the current approach is being reconsidered. He argues that unless institutional reforms are implemented to introduce rigorous vetting and independent oversight, Uganda risks repeating the same mistakes, with potentially disastrous consequences for public finances.
In conclusion, Mwenda paints a stark picture of governance under a long-serving president. He asserts that Museveni’s age and fatigue have diminished his capacity for critical assessment, leaving Uganda exposed to poor investments and economic mismanagement. The piece serves as a call for greater institutional checks, diversified investment strategies, and renewed attention to economic prudence in government decision-making.
