The latest proposals to streamline Uganda’s public procurement system have generated an important national debate. Among the most discussed reforms is the proposal to reduce the role of contracts and evaluation committees in order to speed up procurement decisions and minimise bureaucracy. The intention is understandable. Delayed procurement has for years slowed project implementation, increased costs and frustrated service delivery across many public institutions.
Few would disagree that Uganda needs a procurement system that is faster and more efficient. Long procurement cycles often delay the delivery of medicines, school facilities, roads and other public services. When procurement takes too long, it is ordinary citizens who bear the greatest cost.
However, procurement reform should not be driven by speed alone. Public procurement is about much more than awarding contracts quickly. It is also about protecting public resources, ensuring fairness among bidders and maintaining public confidence in government institutions.
The challenge, therefore, is not whether committees should exist, but if they are adding value. Where committees have become unnecessarily bureaucratic or duplicate responsibilities, reform is justified. Where they provide genuine independent scrutiny, they remain an important safeguard against poor decision-making and abuse of public funds.
Reducing unnecessary procedures should not mean weakening accountability. In fact, as procurement processes become leaner, other oversight mechanisms should become stronger. Digital procurement systems, clear audit trails, conflict-of-interest declarations and regular performance audits can provide effective oversight while reducing delays.
Professionalism is equally important. Procurement decisions should increasingly be guided by qualified procurement practitioners who possess the technical expertise required to evaluate bids objectively and manage public contracts effectively. At the same time, accounting officers must continue to exercise leadership while remaining fully accountable for procurement outcomes.
Ultimately, the success of these reforms will not be measured by how many committees are removed. It will be measured by whether procurement becomes faster without sacrificing transparency, competition and integrity. Uganda should avoid replacing one problem with another. Excessive bureaucracy can delay development, but weak oversight can be equally costly.
As Uganda modernises its procurement system, the country has an opportunity to build a framework that is both efficient and accountable. These two objectives should not be viewed as competing priorities. A procurement system that combines professional expertise, digital technology and effective oversight is more likely to deliver better services, better value for money and greater public trust.
The current debate should therefore move beyond whether committees should stay or go. The more important question is how Uganda can design a procurement system that delivers timely services while safeguarding the public interest. That is the standard against which these reforms should ultimately be judged.
Dr Taus Muganda is a researcher majoring in procurement, innovation and digital transformation.
