MPs have rejected plans by Gov’t to abolish Uganda National Roads Authority, a move that prompted the Minister of Works and Transport, Katumba Wamala to ask for more time to table fresh amendments to the Uganda National Roads Authority Amendment Bill 2024.
Parliament’s Physical Infrastructure Committee warned MPs against abolishing UNRA would lead to delays in execution of projects and the Authority should be retained because it has served the mandate for which it was created and thus, still relevant in Uganda.
Dan Kimosho, Chairperson Physical Infrastructure Committee defended the Committee’s position arguing that Uganda still requires to undertake major national road projects such as tolled expressways and managing toll operations, dualling of major road corridors, flyovers and long span bridges (such as the Nile Bridge) and all these projects require more specialist skills and efficient management than even what UNRA has currently and UNRA should rather be enhanced instead of mainstreaming it.
“The relevance of UNRA is expected to even be more pertinent moving forward when more of these planned complex projects under Public private Partnerships. The Committee further observed that a number of projects under UNRA are financed by loans whose agreements between the Government of Uganda and the creditors specify that UNRA is the implementing agency. A change in the implementing agency will require re- negotiation whose outcome and duration is unpredictable,” said Kimosho.
“The Committee is therefore concerned that Government is likely to suffer a setback of delayed project implementation and completion of such important and strategic road infrastructure because of the shocks that come with the rationalization process. Further, aware of the challenges that may currently be existing at UNRA such as the bloated structure, inadequate stakeholder management as well as other governance challenges, the Committee notes that UNRA has served the purpose of its creation and it is still relevant given the importance attached to the development of the national roads network,” added Kimosho.
The Physical Infrastructure Committee also rejected Gov’t argument that UNRA’s existence has imposed a financial drain on Gov’t resources and thus burden of wasteful expenditure, citing the Shs75Bn UNRA collected in toll revenues from the Kampala-Entebbe Expressway which is deposited into the Consolidated Fund after operational and maintenance costs have been catered for and this revenue is expected to increase upon the completion of Busega-Mpigi Expressway.
The Committee also defended UNRA’s purported bloated wage bill noting that one of the objectives for the creation of the Authority with attractive remuneration was because the Ministry had failed to attract highly skilled staff due to low salaries.
“The same Ministry cannot at this point be indicating that attractive remuneration offered by UNRA is a problem. Furthermore, the issue of salary disparities is not only limited to UNRA and it cuts across the entire Public Service,” said Kimosho.
The Committee was informed that one of the objectives of the merger was to save on administration costs. This is largely to be achieved through reduction of staff salaries. The Committee was further informed that in order to minimize staff redundancies following the repeal of the UNRA Act, 2006, all the technical staff will be absorbed in the Ministry as long as they express interest in joining the main stream Government on pertaining terms and conditions of service while the other cadres like lawyers, surveyors and common cadre staff may be submitted to line Ministries for consideration of any vacant positions.
Parliament has been informed that taxpayers would have to dig deeper into their pockets to raise Shs227.24 as payment of compensation to all UNRA staff if the decision to abolish the agency is upheld by MPs.
The Certificate of Financial Implications, Shs11.562Bn had been mentioned as terminal benefits for UNRA staff, yet from the interactions, it became apparent that UNRA would require Shs227.24 Billion as severance package for staff. This is a huge cost which would erode the stated savings from the merger. It is also inappropriate to incur this unjustified cost amidst accumulated contractor debts that have to be paid.
