Uganda: Who Owns Uganda's Mining Companies?

When Uganda was admitted into the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) fold in August 2020, it was hailed as a political and institutional coming-of-age for a sector that had long operated in silence. The decision signaled intent. The government was telling its citizens, investors and international partners that the era of secretive deals, opaque licences and whispered mineral flows was coming to an end.

Five years later, the optimism has not entirely faded, but it has been tempered by reality. Uganda has produced four EITI reports, convened a functioning multi-stakeholder group, earned a "moderate" validation score of 78.5 points and demonstrated unusual openness for a country whose extractive industries sector is still relatively nascent. Yet, beneath the formal progress lies a stubborn truth- many mining companies are refusing to fully disclose who actually owns them.

At the heart of this impasse is beneficial ownership disclosure, a core requirement of the EITI Standard and arguably its most politically sensitive demand. Without it, transparency collapses into accounting exercises detached from power, influence and control. And in Uganda's mining sector, power is precisely what remains obscured.

Beneficial ownership refers to the real, flesh-and-blood individuals who ultimately own or control a company, even when that control is hidden behind layers of shell companies, proxies or nominees. The EITI requires this information to be disclosed because natural resources belong to citizens, and citizens have a right to know who is benefiting from their extraction.

Extractive sector contribution

Uganda's extractive sector is small in employment but large in consequence. In FY2022/23, for example, mining and quarrying contributed Shs 2.685 trillion to the economy, about 1.47% of GDP. Mineral production value rose by 23% to Shs 248.5 billion, driven by dramatic increases in volcanic ash, Syenitic aggregate and marble, according to Uganda's fourth EITI report. Five companies alone contributed 89% of total production value. Limestone and iron ore accounted for three-quarters of that value.

Yet the sector employs just 0.026% of Uganda's workforce. Local experts say the sector's promise lies not in jobs but in revenue, industrial inputs and strategic leverage. That promise, officials insist, can only be realised if governance of the sector keeps pace with growth.

In FY2022/23, the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) collected Shs 530.17 billion from the extractives, a 29% increase from the previous year. Mining contributed about Shs 300 billion. Oil and gas, still in exploration and pre-production phase, contributed Shs 230.23 billion.

Oil exports remain years away, with first oil expected in 2026. But revenue numbers alone do not tell the whole story. Transparency is about credibility, and credibility is precisely what Uganda's fourth EITI report struggled to deliver.

Out of 20 companies included in the reconciliation scope, only ten submitted declaration forms. The remaining ten, whose payments represented 27.5% of total extractive revenues, did not submit at all. Even among those that did, several submissions were unaudited, unsigned or partially completed.

Moore Insight, the Independent Administrator for the fourth EITI report, issued a rare and pointed disclaimer: "Given the observations outlined above, we cannot conclude with reasonable assurance that the EITI data presented comprehensively covers all significant revenues and payments from the extractive sector in Uganda for the year 2022/23." Behind that technical language lies a fundamental breakdown of cooperation, especially in the mining sector.

Gloria Mugambe, the Head of the Uganda EITI Secretariat, has seen the pattern repeat itself year after year. "My colleagues from URSB (the Uganda Registration Services Bureau), beneficial ownership shows up each year," she said during the report launch in Kampala on Nov.20 . "That means that companies are not giving us full information on beneficial ownership. And this is an EITI requirement. It's not something which we can debate about."

For Mugambe, the cost of non-disclosure is tangible. "Well, we can fail to disclose the information, but that means that we will be marked down," she explained. "That's some of the things that caused us to get 78.5 and not 90%, where things like beneficial ownership, things like contract transparency, because our Production Sharing Agreements are not public."

Evolution of mining legal framework

Uganda's extractive industries legal framework has evolved rapidly in response to EITI demands. The Companies Amendment Act 2022, the Partnership Amendment Act 2022 and the Beneficial Owner Regulations of 2023 require companies to maintain registers of their real owners. The Mining and Minerals Act 2022 mandates disclosure of beneficial ownership and contracts in line with the EITI Standard.

On paper, Uganda has complied. In practice, enforcement remains weak. "We are now in the sixth year of implementation, we have produced four reports," Mugambe said. "For some companies, especially from the oil and gas sector, they have managed to normalize EITI reporting and make it part of their day-to-day work... but the real challenge is in the mining sector."

Each reporting cycle, the same questions resurface. "Every time we approach companies... many times we will get the same questions. What is this? Where is it from? Why do we have to do it? Is there a law? Am I compelled to do this?"

Even direct political intervention has failed to secure full compliance, Mugambe said. "In the last process, we got a letter from the Minister of Energy," Mugambe said. "She wrote to them saying, this is something that you must do. But compliance was still not 100%."

The EITI reporting process in Uganda is hosted by the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, but it does not yet have its own standalone legal mandate. That gap has become the most common justification for company resistance.

Dr Henry Bazirah (PhD), the Executive Director of the Water Resources Governance Institute and a member of the EITI Multi-Stakeholder Group, acknowledges the argument but rejects it. "Yes, the claim that there is no law requiring them to submit reports has some justification and also does not necessarily have a justification," he recently told The Independent.

"One, it is good practice that you file reports whenever any government entity requires you to submit reports. You may not see the interest in it, but it's the interest of government to know how you are dealing within its jurisdiction."

Bazirah is blunt about the consequences of partial compliance. "We have received reports that have not been audited. Some of them have not been signed off by the company authorities... and that makes the information unreliable. That does not make the information authentic information."

"You cannot use that information for or against the companies," he added. "You can only have that information as a record that you can make reference to." For Bazirah, the problem runs deeper than reporting templates. It cuts to the political economy of mining itself.

"The mining business is a business where people do not want to disclose what they are doing," he said. "And Uganda seems to be a jurisdiction where a lot of businesses are having easy, laissez-faire entry and exit of movement of gold."

What follows is an unusually candid assessment rarely voiced in public forums. "We understand that some of the mining operations are done by members who are close to the first family. And because of that they don't want to have a law that causes them to pay taxes on the commodities that they are transacting." "So, it is a tough area to come and engage in. Politically it is sensitive."

"In other words," he concluded, "the mining sector has been captured." For Bazirah, this capture explains the resistance to beneficial ownership disclosure more than any technical excuse. "The mining sector would be a sector that would take Uganda off a debt burden," he told The Independent. "I think the mining sector will bring a lot more money to government than even the oil."

Little sensitisation, appreciation of EITI

Don Bwesigye Binyina, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Energy and Mineral Policy (ACEMP) approaches the issue from an institutional angle. "The reporting system under EITI is voluntary and not mandatory," he says. "We have not had a deliberate attempt to sensitize mining companies about the importance of full disclosure."

"There is little appreciation of EITI reporting standards by the mining companies," he adds, "while majority consider it to be too intrusive and leaves them too exposed... and discomforting tax liabilities once this information is made public."

The absence of penalties, he argues, is decisive. "There is little appreciation of EITI reporting standards by the mining companies, while majority consider it to be too intrusive and leaves them too exposed to their competitors and discomforting tax liabilities once this information is made public," he told The Independent.

"We should also note that the introduction of the National Mining Company to oversee Government's commercial interests with a 15% free-carry with the potential of raising that to 35% creates a new challenge for the mining industry in terms of disclosure," he adds.

Bwesigye says although Uganda's Mining and Minerals Act demands transparency and accountability, without penalties for non-disclosure, companies will remain reluctant to comply."

Transparency lies squarely with the state

From an economist's standpoint, Dr Fred Muhumuza (PhD) of Makerere University insists the responsibility lies squarely with the state. "The government is supposed to set rules. And they should be followed," he recently told The Independent. "If the rules are not being followed (by the mining companies), the government agencies can follow them and say who is not compliant."

He draws parallels with banking regulations. "All banks in Uganda are supposed to have audited books and publish them. Any bank that does not do that, Bank of Uganda will be against them."

But Muhumuza also acknowledges the tension between transparency and commercial confidentiality. "I'm a private company. Some of my survival is because of the secrets I keep to myself. So going forward, you need to look at whether there is a difference in the law. To what extent should we go?"

For artisanal miners, the conversation feels detached from economic reality. "From a business perspective, compliance is a cost," says Kenneth Asiimwe, the CEO of the Uganda Association of Artisanal Miners. "No one is willing to waste money on such a venture." "If you tell me if I'm transparent, as a miner, I'll take top priority on, for instance, Parish Development Model funds, I would hurry to submit my report. As simple as that." Asiimwe warns against regulatory hostility. "There is a perception that government is holy and everyone else outside is a criminal," he says. "You cannot regulate without financing."

Transparency path is deliberate

However, government officials, for their part, insist the government commitment is real. Saul Ongaria, Uganda's EITI Coordinator, acknowledges that extractive sectors worldwide are secretive. However, he says, Uganda has consciously chosen a different path. Transparency is not only about oversight but about attracting investment, creating confidence and building a level playing field.

That message was echoed by Planning Minister Amos Lugoloobi at the fourth EITI report launch. Transparency, he said, is both a guardrail against corruption and a catalyst for growth. With external financing shrinking and domestic revenue mobilisation becoming critical, Uganda cannot afford leakages, illicit flows or opaque ownership structures,he said.

The EITI framework, Lugoloobi argued, supports accurate revenue forecasting, strengthens public trust and reinforces the social contract. Vision 2040, Uganda's economic development blueprint depends on ensuring that resource wealth becomes a driver of inclusive development rather than a curse.

Internationally, Uganda's struggle is far from unique. Hidden ownership has long plagued extractive sectors across Africa and beyond. From the Panama Papers to the Luanda and Pandora leaks, investigations have repeatedly shown how anonymous companies facilitate corruption, tax evasion and illicit financial flows. Developing countries are estimated to lose more than a trillion dollars annually through such schemes, according to Global Finacial Integrity.

The EITI was designed as a counterweight to this global problem. Since 2020, member countries have been required to disclose beneficial ownership information. Public officials, including politically exposed persons, must declare interests in extractive companies. The aim is to prevent conflicts of interest, close corruption channels and restore public confidence.

Uganda's EITI 'moderate' score

In May last year, the EITI Board gave Uganda a "moderate" score of 78.5 points out of a possible 100. Uganda's validation score was based on the implementation of the 2019 EITI standard. According to the EITI validation classification, a score of 0 - 49 is categorized as "low"; 50 - 69 is "fairly low," 70 - 84 is ranked as "moderate," 85 - 92 is classified as high, while 93 - 100 is very high.

The EITI Board noted that Uganda's overall score reflected an average of three component scores on stakeholder engagement, transparency, and outcomes and impact. Uganda's highest score (85 points) was registered on the component of "outcomes and impact" and the EITI commended the Uganda National EITI Secretariat (UGEITI) for its outreach efforts (publishing reports and carrying out dissemination activities in oil and mining regions).

Uganda also registered a score of 82.5 points on stakeholder engagement following UGEITI's rallying of stakeholders from government agencies, oil and mining companies as well as civil society (EITI multi stakeholder group) to routinely work and agree on key documents such as work plans, annual progress reports, as well as disseminating and debating the findings. On the transparency component, Uganda scored 67.5 points owing to among other issues "unexplained discrepancies in gold mining and processing data."

Recommendations Govt must implement

However, the EITI Board pointed out particular areas for the government to improve including transparency in the disclosure of oil and mining contracts as well as discrepancies in gold production and export data which affected the country's overall score.

The Board noted that Uganda would also have to disclose the beneficial, as well as legal owners of all corporate entities that apply for or hold a participating interest in oil, gas or mining licenses, according to the EITI Board.

This would also include disclosing financial information and regulatory frameworks related to activities of state-owned enterprises in the mining sector. It also included detailed reporting of fund transfers, retained earnings, reinvestment, third-party financing arrangements and loans.

The EITI Board also recommended to the government to disclose the prevailing rules and practices and loans or loan guarantees to mining, oil and gas companies. These disclosures should cover all expenditures that could be considered quasi-fiscal, such as payments for social services, public infrastructure, subsidies and national debt servicing, among others, undertaken outside of the national government budgetary process.

Within the mining sector, the EITI Board tasked Uganda to publish estimates of informal mineral export volumes and values, in order to fulfil the objective of providing a basis for addressing export related issues in the mining sector. It is recommended that the government entities comprehensively disclose and harmonise export data.

Uganda was also encouraged to describe the methods for calculating export volumes and values and disaggregating by projects and regions. It should also ensure comprehensive disclosures of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas and mining disaggregated by company, revenue stream and government beneficiary, and by project.

Three months after Uganda's validation, Mark Robinson, the Executive Director of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which brings together governments, companies and civil society organisations in national multistakeholder platforms to promote governance reforms in the energy and mining sectors, visited Kampala, for a follow-up meeting with government ministries, departments and agencies, as well as civil society actors.

Robinson noted that according to new EITI regulations passed in 2021, the disclosure of contracts by all EITI member countries is "a must, not an option." "All countries that are members of the EITI need to comply with that requirement."

"We believe that a country's natural resources belong to its citizens," he said in a meeting with civil society. "Our mission is to promote understanding of natural resource management, strengthen public and corporate governance and provide the data to inform greater transparency and accountability in the extractives sector."

Robinson noted that identifying the real owners of companies including those owned by people who have political interests (politically exposed persons) is another EITI requirement. He noted that since politicians will always have an interest and stake in companies, the records of those companies need to be put in the public domain.

"We are only seeing the early days of this because oil is not yet on stream; and mining is in its infancy but the revenue potential of the sector is transformational if the resource is used for the right purposes (funding public services, expansion of energy access and meeting Uganda's Vision 2040 aspirations)."

Besides mobilizing more investment (domestic, regional and international), Robinson further noted that the EITI would help to create confidence among potential investors. "It creates a level-playing field for investors."

He said the EITI process also helps build citizen trust. "The EITI needs to provide confidence in the citizens in the intention of the government to use natural resources wisely. That trust is so fundamental for a country like Uganda which has gone into a complex, turbulent political trajectory."

At the fourth EITI report in Kampala, Mugambe was worried about Uganda's EITI reporting exercise becoming an annual ritual rather than a catalyst for change. Producing reports without enforcing recommendations, she said, does little to transform governance. Without coordinated action across ministries, she warned, Uganda would remain stuck at the reporting stage, unable to translate transparency into accountability.

And many experts agree with her. They say the country's path forward is clear but politically demanding. They say Uganda needs a firm legal basis for EITI implementation, embedded in public finance law. It also needs penalties for non-disclosure, incentives for compliance and sustained sensitisation of companies. It also needs to integrate beneficial ownership data across agencies, from the Uganda Registration Services Bureau to the mining cadastre.

Above all, it needs political will. Beneficial ownership disclosure is not a technical add-on. It is a test of whether Uganda is prepared to confront powerful interests, clean up its mining sector and align practice with promise.

The stakes remain high because Uganda's minerals and future oil revenues could help ease debt, fund infrastructure and support industrialisation, or they could deepen inequality, fuel corruption and entrench capture. However, according to the experts The Independent has talked to for this story, until the real owners step out of the shadows, Uganda's EITI journey will remain incomplete, its transparency promise unfulfilled, and its mineral wealth vulnerable to capture by those best positioned to hide the proceeds accruing from the sector.

Read the original article on Independent (Kampala).

Uganda: Who Owns Uganda's Mining Companies?

Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters

Success!

Error!

Error!