Uganda’s opposition has unveiled a Shs71.4 trillion alternative budget for the 2026/27 financial year, pitching it as a people-centred shift from government spending priorities, but early analysis is raising doubts about its feasibility and internal balance.
The proposal comes in below the government’s Shs84.2 trillion framework and sets a domestic revenue target of Shs41 trillion, significantly lower than the Shs44.5 trillion projection presented by State Minister for Finance Henry Musasizi.
While opposition figures argue their estimate is more realistic, critics say it may signal limited ambition on revenue mobilization rather than a clear strategy to expand it.
A central feature of the alternative plan is a sharp reduction in domestic borrowing from Shs11.38 trillion to Shs5.124 trillion, alongside a broader cap of Shs8 trillion.
Economists warn that without corresponding increases in revenue or firm expenditure cuts, such a move risks leaving key government obligations underfunded, particularly in the face of rising debt servicing costs and ongoing infrastructure commitments.
Despite its tighter borrowing stance, the proposal expands allocations to social sectors. The health sector is earmarked Shs3.478 trillion, targeting medicines, workforce expansion, and hospital infrastructure improvements.
Nicholas Kamara welcomed the inclusion of non-communicable diseases, though questions persist about how the expanded commitments would be financed over time.
Education is allocated Shs5.749 trillion, with promises that include salary enhancements of up to Shs4 million for degree-holding teachers and increased recruitment.
Analysts caution that such measures, while politically attractive, could intensify pressure on the wage bill, already projected at Shs8.568 trillion.
Local governments also stand to gain, with Shs6.7 trillion proposed to strengthen service delivery at district level.
However, observers note that without reforms to accountability systems and absorption capacity, increased funding alone may not translate into improved outcomes.
Katikamu South MP Hassan Kirumira defended the framework, arguing that an opposition-led government would eliminate wasteful expenditure and improve efficiency. However, he did not detail specific mechanisms to achieve these savings.
Economist Jane Nalunga described the proposal as socially responsive but called for greater clarity on funding priorities, particularly in agriculture and industry, sectors widely viewed as essential for long-term growth and employment.
At the heart of the debate is whether the alternative budget represents a credible fiscal framework or a politically appealing wishlist.
Its combination of reduced borrowing, lower revenue targets, and expanded social spending has exposed a gap that analysts say remains insufficiently explained.
The proposal also renews criticism of government borrowing levels, arguing that rising interest payments are crowding out essential services.
Yet without a detailed roadmap to reconcile reduced borrowing with increased expenditure, the opposition’s plan risks confronting the same fiscal constraints it seeks to challenge.
As Uganda moves toward the next budget cycle, the competing proposals underline a deeper ideological divide between fiscal consolidation and social investment, while highlighting the difficult trade-offs required to balance both.