The ONC manager has called for an investigation into Shs1.71 trillion reported in UEDCL’s financial disclosures and wants authorities to address outages and a backlog of electricity connection applications.
KAMPALA, Uganda — Hajjat Hadijah Namyalo, manager of the Office of the National Chairman (ONC) of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), has called for a forensic audit of Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (UEDCL), citing persistent power outages, delayed electricity connections and concerns about the use of funds in the electricity distribution sector.
Namyalo wants Parliament and other responsible authorities to establish how the reported Shs1.71 trillion was handled and why some consumers continue to wait for electricity despite paying connection fees.
Her demand comes amid continuing scrutiny of UEDCL following its takeover of electricity distribution operations from Umeme in April 2025. Consumers, businesses and legislators have raised concerns about blackouts, service interruptions and delays in connecting new customers.
Reports published on October 26, 2026, indicate that Namyalo raised the concerns during a media briefing at the ONC offices in Kyambogo. However, the claim that she hosted Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA) officials at Kyambogo was not independently confirmed in the reports reviewed for this article.
The figures cited in the debate also require careful interpretation. UEDCL’s own reporting states that it paid Shs1.71 trillion to the Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL) for bulk electricity during its first 10 months of operations. That figure is not, on its own, proof that the money was earmarked for new connections or that it was misappropriated.
Namyalo calls for accountability
Namyalo has argued that electricity consumers deserve a clear explanation of the persistent service problems, particularly where customers have already paid for connections but have not received the expected service.
She has urged Parliament to investigate UEDCL’s financial position and performance, saying the public needs to know how resources have been used and what measures are being taken to resolve outstanding connection requests.
The proposed audit would be expected to establish the relevant financial records, identify the purpose of the funds under review and determine whether expenditure complied with applicable procedures. It could also examine the relationship between payments, infrastructure investments, procurement, equipment availability and progress in connecting applicants.
A forensic audit is a specialised examination of financial records intended to identify irregularities, trace transactions and establish whether funds were handled appropriately. Its findings, rather than allegations alone, would be necessary to determine whether wrongdoing occurred.
As of the reports reviewed for this article, no completed forensic audit establishing misuse of the Shs1.71 trillion had been identified. Namyalo’s demand should therefore be understood as a call for an investigation, not proof that UEDCL officials misappropriated public money.
The Shs1.71 trillion figure explained
The financial figure at the centre of the debate needs to be considered alongside UEDCL’s published explanation.
In its corporate reporting, the electricity distributor said it paid a total of Shs1.71 trillion to UETCL during its first 10 months of operations. The payments covered bulk electricity purchased for onward distribution to domestic and commercial consumers.
UEDCL’s report describes these payments as a significant component of its operating expenditure. The company purchases electricity from UETCL and distributes it to customers under the arrangements governing the electricity supply industry.
This distinction matters because the cost of purchasing electricity is different from money collected specifically to connect individual customers to the grid.
A comprehensive review could help clarify how much money was received from customers for new connections, how much was spent on connection materials and related infrastructure, and how much remains outstanding against pending applications.
It could also examine the funds UEDCL received through other financing arrangements and distinguish those resources from payments made to purchase electricity.
Without that breakdown, the Shs1.71 trillion figure cannot independently establish whether money intended for connections was diverted or whether the company failed to account for funds.
UEDCL should be given an opportunity to provide a detailed response to Namyalo’s specific allegations, including a reconciliation of the figures and an explanation of the progress made in clearing outstanding applications.
Dispute over the number of pending connections
The number of consumers awaiting electricity connections is another central issue in the debate.
Namyalo has cited an estimate of approximately 400,000 Ugandans who have reportedly paid for connections but remain unserved. That figure has raised questions about the time customers must wait after paying and whether the utility has adequate equipment, personnel and infrastructure to meet demand.
However, publicly reported figures on the backlog differ.
A Daily Monitor report published on October 26, 2026, said UEDCL’s connection backlog had declined from about 450,000 applicants to approximately 200,000. The report also cited the company’s account that it was completing around 50,000 connections each month.
These figures do not necessarily describe identical categories of customers. The reported 400,000 may refer to a particular group of people who have paid, while the company’s backlog figure may include applications at different stages of processing. A verified, dated breakdown is needed before the numbers can be compared directly.
For consumers, the essential question remains whether the company has received payment, whether the applicant meets the technical requirements for connection, and when electricity will be supplied.
A transparent public register of applications, payments, completed connections and outstanding cases could help resolve disputes over the scale of the backlog. It would also allow consumers to track progress and help policymakers identify districts or communities experiencing the longest delays.
Why electricity connections matter
Access to electricity affects household welfare, education, health services and business activity.
For small enterprises, delays can mean additional operating costs or missed opportunities. Businesses such as welding workshops, salons, shops, maize mills and other enterprises that depend on electrical equipment may struggle to expand without a reliable connection.
Households can also face difficulties when they cannot access grid electricity, while health facilities and schools require dependable power to operate equipment, preserve supplies and support essential services.
The effect of an unreliable supply is not limited to the number of hours electricity is unavailable. Repeated interruptions can damage equipment, disrupt production schedules and force businesses to spend money on alternative sources of energy.
For these reasons, the debate over UEDCL involves both financial accountability and the practical quality of service delivered to consumers.
The impact, however, varies between locations and customers. The scale of losses suffered by businesses and households would need to be established through documented cases and reliable data rather than assumed to be uniform across the country.
Uganda’s generation capacity versus reliable supply
Uganda has significantly expanded its electricity generation capacity over the years. The Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA) reports installed generation capacity of approximately 2,098.6 megawatts at the end of 2025.
ERA’s published statistics also recorded maximum electricity demand of approximately 1,345.3 megawatts in December 2025. These figures provide useful context for understanding the difference between the amount of power Uganda can generate and the demand recorded on the system.
However, installed capacity and peak demand alone do not explain the reliability of electricity delivered to an individual household or business.
Electricity must pass through transmission and distribution networks before reaching consumers. Transformers, substations, power lines, meters and other equipment must be available and functioning properly. A fault or capacity constraint in a local section of the network can interrupt supply even when generation capacity is sufficient to meet overall demand.
The electricity system must also account for maintenance, plant availability, reserve requirements, changing demand and technical losses.
Consequently, addressing blackouts requires more than increasing generation. It also requires investment in the networks that carry electricity, maintenance of existing infrastructure, effective fault response and better planning for growing demand.
ERA has previously identified challenges in the sector that include vandalism, energy losses, project delays and concerns about supply reliability. These issues require coordinated responses from the regulator, distribution and transmission companies, government agencies and consumers.
UEDCL’s transition from Umeme
UEDCL assumed responsibility for electricity distribution after Umeme’s concession ended on March 31, 2025. The transition was a major change in the management of Uganda’s electricity distribution network.
The shift placed UEDCL at the centre of efforts to operate, maintain and expand the distribution system while improving access to electricity. It also brought renewed attention to the condition of the inherited network and the resources needed to meet growing demand.
The transition has been accompanied by concerns about outages, connection delays and the speed at which operational improvements can be delivered.
In August 2026, Parliament reported that legislators had questioned UEDCL over delayed connections and continuing blackouts. During that engagement, officials discussed constraints affecting service delivery, including the availability of electricity meters.
The parliamentary scrutiny demonstrates that concerns about connections and reliability extend beyond Namyalo’s latest demand. They have also been raised by elected representatives and consumers seeking clearer timelines and better service.
Nevertheless, the performance of a distribution company should be assessed using comparable evidence. Relevant measures include the number of new applications, completed connections, average waiting times, outage frequency and duration, customer complaints, equipment availability and the amount invested in network improvements.
Regularly publishing these figures would help the public distinguish temporary operational problems from persistent weaknesses requiring major investment or management changes.
What a forensic audit could establish
If the proposed audit is undertaken, its scope will be important.
First, auditors would need to identify the specific funds being examined and their sources. This would prevent the cost of purchasing bulk electricity from being confused with connection fees, government financing or money allocated for infrastructure development.
Second, the review could examine procurement records, supplier payments, project expenditure and the delivery of materials such as meters, transformers and connection equipment.
Third, auditors could compare customer payment records with completed work to establish how many applicants have paid, how many have been connected and what explains the outstanding cases.
The audit could also examine whether delays resulted from procurement problems, equipment shortages, technical limitations, inadequate planning or other factors. Any conclusion would need to be supported by records and evidence.
If irregularities are found, the relevant authorities could determine whether further administrative, financial or legal action is warranted. If the main problems are operational, the findings could instead help identify practical reforms and investments.
An audit would not automatically resolve power outages or connect waiting customers. Its value would depend on whether the findings are published appropriately and followed by corrective action.
ERA’s regulatory role
The Electricity Regulatory Authority is responsible for regulating Uganda’s electricity supply industry, including oversight intended to promote reliable service and protect consumers.
The regulator’s role is particularly important when consumers raise concerns about service quality, billing, connection delays and the performance of licensed operators.
A meaningful response to the current debate would require clear communication about the applicable service standards, the process for handling complaints and the measures being taken to address failures.
Where customers have paid for connections but remain unserved, they need information about the status of their applications and the reasons for the delay. They should also be able to access an effective complaints process.
For its part, UEDCL needs to explain the connection backlog using consistent figures and provide realistic timelines for completing outstanding work. ERA can help assess whether the distributor is meeting its obligations and whether further regulatory action is necessary.
The claims attributed to Namyalo, the financial figures published by UEDCL and the regulator’s statistics should be examined separately and then considered together. Doing so would help ensure that public debate is based on evidence rather than on assumptions about what any single figure means.
The wider economic implications
Reliable electricity is essential to Uganda’s industrialisation ambitions. Manufacturers, service providers, farmers using electrical equipment and small businesses all depend on access to energy that is sufficiently stable and affordable for their operations.
When consumers cannot obtain connections promptly, the effects may extend to employment, investment and the cost of doing business. Existing customers also need confidence that interruptions will be addressed quickly and that faults will not repeatedly disrupt their activities.
The government and electricity-sector institutions therefore face a dual challenge: expanding access to those who remain unconnected while improving reliability for customers already on the grid.
That requires coordination across generation, transmission and distribution. It also requires transparent financial management, adequate maintenance, effective procurement and timely investment in the network.
The current debate provides an opportunity to clarify responsibilities and identify the most urgent service-delivery problems. A credible review should establish what money was received and spent, what work was completed and what remains to be done.
Conclusion
Namyalo’s call for a forensic audit has renewed attention to electricity distribution, financial accountability and the difficulties faced by consumers waiting for connections.
The next steps should be guided by verified records: a clear explanation of the Shs1.71 trillion paid to UETCL, an independently supportable account of the outstanding connection backlog and measurable information on outages and service improvements.
The distinction between an allegation and an established finding is critical. The reported financial figure does not, by itself, prove that funds were misused, and the differing estimates of pending connections require clarification.
Ultimately, Ugandans need more than assurances about the country’s generation capacity. They need electricity connections delivered within reasonable timelines, reliable service, transparent use of resources and an accountable system for addressing complaints. An independent audit, if commissioned with a clear scope and followed by concrete action, could help establish the facts and identify the reforms needed to achieve those goals.
Source: ONC
