The Government’s move to secure another 600 acres of land for Dei BioPharma Limited has intensified questions about the management of public resources, the company’s actual operational performance and whether Uganda is committing more resources to a private enterprise without adequately accounting for previous investments.
The proposed land acquisition comes after Government committed Shs723.4 billion to the pharmaceutical company owned by businessman and scientist Dr Matthias Magoola, with a further US$434 million (approximately Shs1.74 trillion) recommended to complete and operationalise its manufacturing facilities.
Yet, several reports by the Auditor General, Parliament and independent media have raised concerns about the company’s financial documentation, production capacity, infrastructure challenges and the commercial performance of its associated projects.
The developments raise a difficult question for taxpayers: why is Government continuing to expand its support for Dei BioPharma when fundamental questions about its existing investment remain unresolved?
The proposed acquisition involves 600 acres in Wabitembe, Kiryowa and Kigoogwa villages in Gombe Division, Nansana Municipality, Wakiso District. The land is intended to accommodate additional pharmaceutical production facilities and help the company meet international manufacturing and export standards.
Lands Minister Judith Nabakooba, Attorney General Sam Mayanja and State Minister for Investment and Privatisation Aminah Mukalazi have been involved in the acquisition process, assuring affected residents that genuine landowners will be compensated.
However, the Government’s enthusiasm for expanding the facility has drawn attention away from a more pressing issue: whether the existing investment has delivered the results originally promised.
One of the most significant accountability concerns emerged in the Auditor General’s report for the financial year ended June 30, 2024.
Auditor General questioned the documentation supporting Government’s Shs723.4 billion investment in Dei BioPharma, reporting that his office had not been provided with an independent valuation establishing the company’s worth before public money was committed.
The audit also identified the absence of a shareholder agreement and share certificates at the time of the review.
More significantly, the Auditor General disclosed that 150,000 preference shares had been allotted to the Ministry of Finance on October 22, 2021, at a reported value of Shs207.13 billion.
The report questioned the sequence of the transaction, noting that the allotment and purchase of shares appeared to have taken place before Parliament approved the investment.
The Auditor General warned that bypassing the required procedures could undermine financial controls and expose Government to possible legal disputes.
These findings raise serious questions about how a private company’s valuation was established, who authorised the transactions and why the relevant documentation was not available during the audit.
The report recommended that the Permanent Secretary and Secretary to the Treasury engage the Attorney General and the company to address the outstanding documentation and mitigate potential legal risks.
However, the public still needs a clear account of whether all these recommendations have been implemented.
The concerns resurfaced during parliamentary scrutiny in October 2026 when the Presidential Affairs Committee, chaired by Martin Mapenduzi, presented its assessment of the Government-supported pharmaceutical project.
The committee confirmed that Government had committed Shs723.4 billion through three major allocations: Shs70 billion in the 2023/2024 financial year, another Shs75 billion in December 2023 and Shs578.4 billion through a supplementary budget in the 2024/2025 financial year.
It also reported that Government held an estimated 9.4 per cent stake in the company, although proof of the shareholding had not been presented during its assessment.
The committee recommended an additional US$434 million to complete the facility.
Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa questioned the recommendation, warning that Parliament could not continue approving payments while essential procedures remained unresolved.
Leader of the Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi also demanded a value-for-money audit of the money already invested before any additional financing could be considered.
The questions were particularly significant because the company was still operating below its projected capacity despite the substantial financial commitment.
Former Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Monica Musenero told Parliament that she had obtained copies of the share certificates and would present them to legislators.
However, the existence of certificates alone does not settle questions about the company’s valuation, the legal terms of Government’s ownership or whether the investment represents value for money.
Parliament needs to establish whether the promised documents have been formally submitted, whether the Auditor General has reviewed them and whether the original investment was properly protected.
The latest parliamentary debate was not the first time the company faced questions over its public financing.
In October 2024, Ssenyonyi presented findings following an oversight visit to Dei BioPharma in Matugga, questioning the absence of essential documents relating to Government’s investment.
He raised concerns about the lack of a valuation by the Chief Government Valuer, the absence of a memorandum of understanding between Government and the company, and insufficient disclosure of the company’s beneficial ownership.
He also questioned the progress of pharmaceutical production, noting that the company had previously promised to begin manufacturing medicines and vaccines.
During the same oversight process, Ssenyonyi reported that company management had expressed readiness to refund the Shs723.4 billion, although no formal offer had been made.
That disclosure raised further questions about the company’s financial position and the circumstances under which such a substantial Government investment had been made.
The Attorney General and Finance Minister were subsequently asked to respond to the concerns.
More than two years later, Parliament is still demanding documentation and measurable performance targets while another major expansion is being pursued.
This raises a fundamental accountability question: why have the concerns identified during earlier parliamentary scrutiny not been conclusively addressed before additional resources are considered?
The company’s difficulties are also reflected in its agro-industrial operations in Kamuli District.
In September 2026, Daily Monitor reported that a Shs394 billion cassava-processing plant owned by Dei BioPharma in Busambu, Namasagali Sub-county, was struggling to operate at full capacity because of inadequate electricity.
The facility, occupying approximately 700 acres, was designed to process up to 500 tonnes of cassava daily into pharmaceutical-grade starch and industrial sugars, including glucose, maltose and fructose.
However, the company reportedly struggled to sustain production because the available electricity supply could not support its machinery.
Dr Magoola told the publication that the company had been relying on generators, with one generator reportedly costing approximately Shs15 million daily to operate.
The difficulties were particularly concerning because the facility had reportedly been ready for full-scale production for about one and a half years but continued operating intermittently.
The problem also affected the wider pharmaceutical manufacturing chain because the Matugga facilities were expected to use some of the raw materials produced in Kamuli.
In September, Energy Minister Monica Musenero intervened, directing electricity officials to address the supply challenges.
By October, the Ministry of Energy had reported progress on electricity infrastructure works and the plant’s commissioning process.
However, the episode raises questions about why a multibillion-shilling industrial facility was established without adequate arrangements for reliable electricity and whether the original project planning sufficiently considered the infrastructure required for commercial operations.
It also raises questions about the actual quantities of cassava processed, the volumes of pharmaceutical ingredients produced, the customers supplied and the revenue generated since commissioning.
A factory’s construction and commissioning should not be confused with proof of successful commercial production.
Another development that deserves parliamentary attention is the reported Shs40 billion Government procurement arrangement involving compost supplied by Dei BioPharma.
An October 9, 2026 investigation by Insight Post Uganda raised questions about the pricing, quality assessment and suitability of the company’s compost under a Government agricultural programme.
According to documents cited in the report, the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries expected Dei BioPharma to supply 173,913 bags of compost for farmers growing cocoa, coffee, tea and horticultural crops.
The arrangement translated into approximately Shs230,000 per 50-kilogramme bag.
The report also examined a July 20, 2026 laboratory assessment by Makerere University’s Department of Soil Science and Land Use Management.
The laboratory recorded nitrogen content of 2.35 per cent, available phosphorus of 6.79 per cent and potassium of 2.12 per cent.
It also found that the compost’s organic matter content was slightly below the recommended range for soil amendments and identified characteristics requiring improvements in the composting process.
Importantly, the assessment did not establish that the product was unsafe. The heavy metals examined were within permissible limits.
However, a separate complaint dated July 30, 2026, reportedly raised concerns that a team sent to the company’s Matugga facility to collect fertilizer samples found compost instead of the conventional fertilizer expected under the programme.
This distinction raises questions about whether the product supplied matched the procurement specifications and whether the Government properly assessed its suitability for the crops targeted.
The pricing also requires explanation.
The investigation cited a comparison with other compost products reportedly selling at considerably lower prices, although differences in composition, processing and delivery would need to be considered before determining whether the Government price was excessive.
The Agriculture Ministry should explain how the Shs40 billion arrangement was priced, what competitive market assessment was undertaken and what technical standards were used to approve the product.
Dei BioPharma should also clarify its actual compost production capacity, distribution arrangements and the evidence supporting its suitability for the targeted farmers.
The broader concern is whether Government is extending another major commercial opportunity to the same company without adequately demonstrating that the procurement delivers value to taxpayers and farmers.
Questions have also emerged about other business ventures reportedly associated with Dr Magoola, including a wheat-related product marketed as Bell Grain.
Concerns have been raised about the product’s reduced market visibility and its current commercial status.
However, the ownership, production history and present operational status of Bell Grain require independent verification.
The company should clarify whether the product is still being manufactured, how much was produced, which distributors handled it and what happened to its market presence.
Similarly, the Kamuli fertiliser operation requires a clearer account of its production capacity, actual output, distribution network and commercial performance.
The Government should establish whether these ventures are operational businesses generating sustainable revenue or projects that remain dependent on public procurement and additional support.
These questions should not be interpreted as proof that the ventures have failed. Rather, they highlight the need for verifiable records before the Government commits further resources to the wider business interests associated with the investor.
The proposed acquisition of another 600 acres presents an additional challenge for public accountability.
The Government and the company argue that the additional land is necessary to establish specialised production lines, including oncology medicines, vaccines and active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturing.
Dr Magoola has also argued that the expanded facility requires more land to meet international manufacturing standards and qualify for export markets.
However, the public needs a detailed explanation of why the existing site is insufficient, what additional facilities will be constructed and how much the expansion will cost.
There is also a discrepancy that requires clarification.
The Presidential Affairs Committee described the existing Matugga pharmaceutical complex as occupying 150 acres, while recent land acquisition reports quoted Dr Magoola as saying the factory occupies approximately 400 acres.
The company and Government should explain the difference between the land owned or occupied, the actual manufacturing footprint and the proposed expansion.
The total cost of land acquisition, compensation, infrastructure and additional construction should also be made public.
It would be difficult to justify such an expansion without first establishing whether the existing facilities are being used efficiently.
The pattern emerging from these reports raises concerns about the Government’s approach to financing private enterprises.
Dei BioPharma has received substantial public financial support, benefited from Government involvement in land acquisition and infrastructure discussions, and featured in major industrial and agricultural programmes.
Yet the Auditor General has previously questioned the documentation supporting the investment, Parliament has demanded proof of Government shareholding, the pharmaceutical facility remains below its envisaged production capacity, and the Kamuli factory has faced significant infrastructure challenges.
The reported compost procurement has also raised questions about pricing and technical suitability.
Taken together, these developments demand a comprehensive explanation from the Government.
Why should taxpayers continue financing expansion when the value of the original investment has not been fully established?
Has the Auditor General confirmed that the earlier documentation gaps have been resolved?
Has Government conducted an independent assessment of the company’s current financial position, liabilities and commercial performance?
How much medicine has actually reached Ugandan hospitals, pharmacies and patients?
How much revenue has been generated from pharmaceutical products and the associated agro-industrial projects?
What independent evidence demonstrates that the additional 600 acres and proposed US$434 million will produce benefits that previous investments have not yet delivered?
And what happens if the company fails to meet the targets attached to the additional public support?
These are questions that cannot be answered through factory tours, commissioning ceremonies or promises of future production.
Uganda’s ambition to manufacture medicines locally is legitimate. Developing domestic pharmaceutical capacity could reduce dependence on imports, strengthen national health security and create skilled employment.
But industrialisation cannot become an excuse for weak financial controls or preferential treatment of selected private companies.
Before further resources are committed, Parliament should demand a comprehensive account of the Shs723.4 billion already invested, including audited financial statements, an independent valuation, shareholder agreements, share certificates and records showing how the funds were spent.
The Auditor General should provide an updated assessment of the investment, including whether the earlier audit recommendations were implemented.
Parliament should also require independently verifiable production and sales figures for the company’s medicines, operational records from the Kamuli factory, evidence of the compost procurement’s value for money and updated information about the performance of the associated business ventures.
The proposed land acquisition should be supported by a transparent cost-benefit assessment, a compensation plan and clear conditions governing the company’s obligations.
Any further Government financing should be linked to measurable performance milestones, with consequences for failure to meet agreed targets.
The Government must also explain why the same company continues to receive extensive public support when other Ugandan businesses face similar challenges without comparable access to taxpayer-funded resources.
Ultimately, the concern is not that Uganda should abandon pharmaceutical manufacturing. It is that Government could be pouring more money, land and public infrastructure into a private enterprise without first demonstrating that previous commitments have delivered value.
Before Government secures another acre or commits another shilling, it must show the country what has been achieved with the resources already provided.
The responsibility to protect taxpayers rests not only with Dei BioPharma’s management but also with the ministries, public officials and institutions that continue to recommend, approve and facilitate the investment.
