Government to prioritise debt management and economic growth
Government will prioritise debt management, domestic revenue mobilisation, and economic transformation in the next financial year.
This revelation was made by the State Minister for Finance (General Duties), Hon. Henry Musasizi, while justifying the motion on the National Budget Framework Paper for Financial Years 2025/26- 2029/20.
Musasizi revealed that the preliminary resource envelope stands at Shs57.44 trillion and that this financial year marks the first implementation phase of the National Development Plan IV which aims to increase household incomes, fully monetise the economy and enhance employment for sustainable socio-economic transformation.
He underscored that focus would be placed on agro-industrialisation, tourism, minerals, science and technology, alongside critical enablers such as defence, security, electricity, strategic roads, and the Parish Development Model.
He reassured the House that no new taxes would be introduced but that efforts would be directed towards improving efficiency in tax administration.
The Vice Chairperson of the Budget Committee, Hon. Remegio Achia who presented the report emphasised that the budget framework paper seeks to strengthen Uganda's economic resilience while ensuring social development. He noted that while economic growth is projected at 6.4 per cent, the burden of debt remains a concern. "We must strike a balance between financing critical infrastructure and maintaining a sustainable debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio," he said.
Uganda's total public debt currently stands at Shs94.9 trillion as of June 2024, with debt servicing consuming nearly a third of domestic revenue.
To address this, Achia said the government has set a domestic revenue target of Shs33.68 trillion up from Shs31.98 trillion in the current financial year. Accordingly, the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) will intensify tax compliance measures, including expanding the tax base and enforcing digital tax systems such as the Electronic Fiscal Receipting and Invoicing Solution (EFRIS).
Achia stressed the importance of ensuring that resources are utilised efficiently. "Our priority must be value for money. Every shilling spent must yield tangible results for the Ugandan people," he said warning that wasteful expenditure and corruption in public institutions must be addressed to maintain fiscal discipline.
To prevent excessive borrowing, the government has reduced domestic borrowing from Shs8.97 trillion to Shs4.01 trillion. However, external financing is set to increase to Shs12.81 trillion to support key projects such as the Standard Gauge Railway and the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area Programme.
Achia acknowledged the inconsistencies between the Budget Framework Paper and the National Development Plan IV stating that sector priorities must be realigned to ensure effective resource utilisation. "There is a need to align sectoral priorities with our development plan to ensure that resources are utilised effectively for Uganda's long-term progress," he said.
Achia observed that frequent supplementary budget requests, often arising from unplanned expenditures, create fiscal imbalances and hinder long-term planning. "We need to strengthen budget discipline to avoid excessive reliance on supplementary requests that disrupt the implementation of key development projects," he noted.
Kira Municipality MP, Hon. Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda who presented a minority report criticised the budget's priorities, arguing that non-essential expenditures have been prioritised while critical areas are underfunded. "Donations in this budget amount to Shs159 billion, fuel costs stand at Shs355 billion, special meals and drinks at Shs298 billion, and welfare and entertainment at Shs139 billion. This is where the government has placed its priorities," he said.
He further condemned the government for allocating only Shs200 billion to clear domestic arrears, including unpaid pensions and gratuities. "Payment of domestic arrears should be a top priority in next year's budget," he argued.
Other MPs raised concerns about the government's ability to raise the required revenue.
Sheema South Representative, Hon. Elijah Mushemeza questioned the feasibility of realising Shs57 trillion in revenue when such figures have never been achieved in previous years. "We have never realised Shs57 trillion in the last five financial years. What assurance can you give us that this time around you will?" he asked.
Hoima East Division MP, Hon. Patrick Isingoma questioned why the budget had not prioritised funding for the Positron Emission Tomography (PET) machine needed for cancer detection and treatment. "This machine is only available in Nairobi, where a single round costs US$1,500. Most people go to India for treatment because we lack this facility," he lamented.
The Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi urged the government to take domestic arrears more seriously, noting that they now exceed Shs14.6 trillion. He also criticised the government's for failing to compensate victims of the Kiteezi landfill disaster.
Commenting on alleged luxury spending, Musasizi clarified that money provided for the army, police, and Uganda prisons are not luxury spending. 'Shs1.1 trillion is medical clothing for medical workers; we have an item of clothing under Parliamentary Commission for protocol people, we have Shs900 million for Uganda Revenue Authority and this is attire for tax collectors, under Ministry of health, shs900 million for medics and nurse's uniforms,' he said.
The Deputy Speaker, Thomas Tayebwa urged the government to consider the minority report and cost tax proposals to guide the budget. He also suggested that the minister clearly indicate which budget proposals would be implemented.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Parliament of the Republic of Uganda.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Etihad
an hour ago
- Al Etihad
Trump says Musk relationship over, warns of 'serious consequences' if he funds Democrats
7 June 2025 22:33 BEDMINSTER (Reuters)Donald Trump said on Saturday his relationship with his billionaire donor Elon Musk is over and warned there would be "serious consequences" if Musk funds US Democrats running against Republicans who vote for the president's sweeping tax and spending a telephone interview with NBC News, Trump declined to say what those consequences would be, and went on to add that he had not had discussions about whether to investigate if he thought his relationship with the Tesla and SpaceX CEO was over, Trump said, "I would assume so, yeah.""No," Trump told NBC when asked if he had any desire to repair his relationship with Musk."I have no intention of speaking to him," Trump Trump said he had not thought about terminating US government contracts with Musk's StarLink satellite internet or SpaceX rocket launch companies. Musk and Trump began exchanging insults this week, as Musk denounced Trump's bill as a "disgusting abomination." Musk's opposition to the measure complicated efforts to pass the legislation in Congress, where Republicans hold only slim majorities in the House of Representatives and bill narrowly passed the House last month and is now before the Senate, where Trump's fellow Republicans are considering making changes. Nonpartisan analysts estimate the measure would add $2.4 trillion to the $36.2 trillion US debt over 10 years, which worries many lawmakers, including some Republicans who are fiscal said on Saturday he is confident the bill would get passed by the US on July 4 Independence Day holiday."In fact, yeah, people that were, were going to vote for it are now enthusiastically going to vote for it, and we expect it to pass," Trump told have strongly backed Trump's initiatives since he began his second term as president on January 20. While some Republican lawmakers have made comments to the news media expressing concern about some of Trump's choices, they have yet to vote down any of his policies or nominations. DELETED MUSK POSTS Musk has deleted some social media posts critical of Trump, including one that signaled support for impeaching the president, appearing to seek a de-escalation of their public feud, which exploded on Thursday. During his first term as president, the House, then controlled by Democrats, twice voted to impeach Trump but the Senate both times acquitted White House and Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saturday on the deleted posts. People who have spoken to Musk said his anger has begun to recede and they thought he would want to repair his relationship with of the X posts that Musk appeared to have deleted was a response to another user posting: "President vs Elon. Who wins? My money's on Elon. Trump should be impeached and (Vice President) JD Vance should replace him." Musk had written "yes."On Theo Von's "This Past Weekend" podcast - recorded on Thursday as the feud between Trump and Musk unfolded and released on Saturday - Vance called Musk's criticism of Trump a "huge mistake.""I'm always going to be loyal to the president, and I hope that eventually Elon kind of comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear. But I hope it is," said Vance, describing Musk as an "incredible entrepreneur."Trump named Musk to head an effort to downsize the federal workforce and slash spending, lauding him at the White House only about a week ago for his work as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk cut only about half of 1% of total spending, far short of his brash plans to axe $2 trillion from the federal budget.


Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.


Arabian Post
2 days ago
- Arabian Post
Musk's ‘Debt Slavery' Warning Intensifies GOP Spending Bill Debate
Elon Musk has launched a scathing attack on President Donald Trump's proposed $4 trillion tax and spending bill, branding it the 'Debt Slavery Bill' and urging Americans to pressure lawmakers to reject it. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO's criticism comes as the U.S. national debt approaches $37 trillion, with the Congressional Budget Office projecting the bill would add approximately $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Musk's denunciation marks a sharp reversal from his previous role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency under Trump. In a series of posts on his social media platform, X, Musk described the bill as a 'disgusting abomination' and warned that its passage would plunge the nation into 'debt slavery.' He called on his 220 million followers to contact their representatives, stating, 'Bankrupting America is NOT ok!' The legislation, officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' was narrowly approved by the House on May 22 and is now under consideration in the Senate. It includes permanent tax cuts estimated to reduce federal revenues by $3.7 trillion, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and nearly $300 billion in additional defense and border security funding. The bill also proposes significant reductions to Medicaid and food assistance programs, introducing new work requirements for recipients. ADVERTISEMENT Critics argue that the bill's fiscal measures disproportionately benefit the wealthy while placing undue burdens on low-income Americans. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has voiced strong opposition, labeling the debt ceiling increase as 'the greatest in U.S. history' and asserting that the GOP now owns the resulting fiscal consequences. Similarly, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has expressed concerns over the proposed Medicaid cuts, calling them 'morally wrong and politically suicidal.' Supporters of the bill, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, contend that the tax cuts will stimulate economic growth sufficient to offset the deficit increases. They argue that the legislation is necessary to maintain America's competitive edge and bolster national security. However, the CBO's analysis contradicts these claims, indicating that the bill would significantly exacerbate the national debt without delivering the promised economic benefits. Musk's opposition is not solely based on fiscal concerns. The bill's elimination of electric vehicle tax credits could adversely affect Tesla's bottom line, potentially costing the company billions. Additionally, the withdrawal of Musk's ally Jared Isaacman as a nominee for NASA administrator has further strained relations between Musk and the Trump administration. The controversy surrounding the bill has intensified as the Senate deliberates its provisions. Several Republican senators have expressed reservations, and the bill's passage is far from certain. Musk's vocal opposition has galvanized public discourse, with many Americans taking to social media to echo his concerns and urge their representatives to reconsider their support.