By Spy Uganda
The Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Thomas Tayebwa, has directed the House Committee on Health to conduct a comprehensive review of the US$2.3 billion (Shs8.09 trillion) health cooperation agreement signed between Uganda and the United States, following mounting pressure from opposition legislators for parliamentary oversight.
The directive was after the Leader of Opposition, Joel Ssenyonyi, raised concerns over the scale, transparency, and potential implications of the agreement particularly in light of a similar deal in Kenya that was recently suspended by court order over medical data privacy concerns.
Tayebwa said Parliament’s primary responsibility was oversight and accountability, noting that while there were differing legal interpretations on whether the agreement required formal ratification, scrutiny was unavoidable given the magnitude of the funding involved.
“We needed to first ask ourselves whether this agreement requires ratification under the Ratification of Treaties Act,” Tayebwa said. “Both the Leader of Opposition and the Attorney General have valid points, but what is critical is scrutiny. The Health Committee will examine these huge sums and ensure the agreement serves the country’s best interests.”
Ssenyonyi told Parliament that legislators had been sidelined despite the agreement carrying major fiscal and policy implications. He argued that Parliament could not be expected to approve budgets and safeguard public resources without first examining such commitments.
“Parliament is not aware of this massive fiscal obligation. There has been no scrutiny,” Ssenyonyi said. “There are data protection concerns, and in Kenya, a similar deal was halted over medical privacy. If this is such a good deal, it must be brought to Parliament for review.”
He added that agreements involving substantial annual obligations should be subjected to parliamentary examination before implementation, warning that Uganda could be locked into costly commitments without adequate planning.
“Where there is a huge annual obligation, it is imprudent for Parliament to be at the tail end,” Ssenyonyi said. “We are here to budget, plan, and ensure public funds are responsibly managed.”
However, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka rejected calls to formally table the agreement before Parliament, arguing that there is no legal requirement compelling government to present all international agreements to the House.
“Government reports to Parliament as prescribed by law,” Kiwanuka said. “If Parliament wants all agreements tabled, it must legislate for it. Otherwise, committees interact with relevant agencies and will report when required.”
The agreement, signed on 10 December 2025, aims to strengthen Uganda’s health system over a five-year period. Key components include training and equipping more than 14,000 Community Health Units, enhancing disease surveillance, improving electronic medical records, and enabling real-time health data-driven decision-making. It also предусматривает the sharing of medical specimens with the United States, a provision that has fueled concerns about patient confidentiality and data sovereignty.
Kiwanuka defended the deal as lawful and beneficial, expressing confidence that parliamentary review would vindicate government’s position.
“Government did sign an agreement, and it is within the law,” he said. “I am confident the Health Committee will confirm that this was a good deal for the country.”
Despite these assurances, the opposition remains wary of the potential financial burden on Uganda. Ssenyonyi cautioned that although the United States will fund part of the US$2.3 billion package, Uganda will still be required to finance a significant share, potentially through borrowing or increased taxation.
The matter has gained urgency following developments in Kenya, where a court suspended a US$2.5 billion health agreement with the United States just hours after it was signed, citing risks associated with the transfer and sharing of sensitive personal health data.
As Parliament’s Committee on Health begins its examination, lawmakers face the challenge of balancing the benefits of international health partnerships with fiscal discipline, legal compliance, and the protection of citizens’ personal medical information—amid growing public scrutiny of large-scale government agreements.
