By Spy Uganda
Questions are mounting over the Shs5.3985 billion spent by the Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (UCAA) on a specialised aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle at Entebbe International Airport, with scrutiny now focused on whether the expensive equipment was acquired at a reasonable price.
The Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) raised the concerns on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, while interrogating UCAA officials over issues arising from the Auditor General’s audit of the aviation regulator.
The vehicle, a Lion 6×6 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) truck manufactured in Turkey and powered by a Scania engine, is designed specifically for responding to emergencies involving aircraft.
Unlike an ordinary fire engine, the specialised truck is equipped to fight aviation fires while also supporting rescue operations in the event of an aircraft accident.
According to UCAA officials, the vehicle carries approximately 12,500 litres of water, as well as firefighting foam and specialised rescue equipment.
It is also fitted with a generator capable of powering equipment used to cut through damaged aircraft and help rescue passengers who may be trapped inside.
The sophisticated equipment explains why the vehicle carries a significantly higher price tag than a conventional fire engine.
However, questions remain over whether the Shs5.4 billion paid by UCAA represents good value for public money.
The concern emerged after the vehicle was inspected at Entebbe International Airport, prompting demands for the full procurement records to establish how the final price was arrived at.
UCAA Director General Fred Bamwesigye defended the purchase, arguing that the vehicle should not be compared with an ordinary fire engine because of its specialised aviation-rescue capabilities.
UCAA officials have also said the authority secured the vehicle at a comparatively lower price than similar equipment purchased by other airports in the region, following negotiations with the supplier.
That explanation has not ended the questions over the purchase.
Authorities are now expected to establish the prevailing market price for comparable Lion 6×6 ARFF vehicles and determine whether UCAA’s price falls within a reasonable range.
The procurement file is expected to provide crucial details, including the procurement method used, tender documents, technical specifications, evaluation reports, supplier information, negotiation records and the final contract price.
The issue highlights an important distinction in public procurement: the fact that equipment is necessary does not automatically mean that any price paid for it represents value for money.
Entebbe International Airport, Uganda’s main international aviation gateway, requires specialised emergency-response equipment capable of dealing with aircraft incidents. Rescue and firefighting services are an essential part of airport safety, meaning UCAA has a legitimate need to maintain appropriate equipment.
The question is therefore not whether Uganda needs an aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
It is whether UCAA can demonstrate that Shs5.3985 billion was a fair and defensible price for the particular vehicle it purchased.
Investigators are also expected to verify the vehicle’s registration and ownership records as part of the wider scrutiny surrounding the acquisition.
The vehicle was registered as UA38070AA on June 22, 2026, with UCAA listed as the owner.
The scrutiny comes as questions are also being raised about another major UCAA procurement involving a transformer reportedly costing about Shs1 billion, which had not been delivered by the time of an inspection.
For the firefighting vehicle, however, the central issue is now firmly focused on the money trail.
If the procurement documents show that UCAA followed the required procedures, obtained competitive or otherwise justified pricing, negotiated effectively and received equipment matching the agreed specifications, the authority could have a strong defence of the expenditure.
But if the records reveal unexplained costs, weak competition, irregular procurement procedures or discrepancies between the vehicle delivered and the specifications that were paid for, the acquisition could face much deeper questions.
Ultimately, the Shs5.4 billion price tag is only the starting point. The bigger question is whether UCAA can convincingly explain why the specialised airport fire truck cost that much and whether Uganda got full value for every shilling spent.
