More Related News
FASHION
ENTERTAINMENT
Sports News
There is something deeply unsettling about a loan that begins as an instrument of hope and ends as an instrument of dispossession.
A Ugandan entrepreneur walks into a financial institution with a business idea, a piece of land, a house, a school, a farm, or some other valuable asset. He signs documents, pledges property, receives money, and walks away believing that he has borrowed capital with which to create wealth. Years later, the same borrower may find himself fighting to save the very property he pledged.
The recent court battle involving former Uganda Cranes captain Andy Mwesigwa and ABC Capital Bank has therefore become more than a dispute involving one former footballer and one financial institution. It provides a useful window through which Uganda ought to examine a much larger national question: when does borrowing cease to be productive finance and become a mechanism through which struggling citizens progressively lose their accumulated wealth?
Reports concerning Mwesigwa's dispute indicate that he obtained approximately Shs400 million from ABC Capital Bank in connection with his investment in AMESCO High School, and that the amount later became the subject of a much larger claim, reported at approximately Shs1.4 billion. More recently, the Commercial Court reportedly ordered him to deposit approximately Shs392 million, described in media reporting as 30 percent security in the continuing litigation.
The distinction is important. A court requiring security does not, by itself, finally determine that the borrower owes the entire amount claimed by the lender. The precise evolution from Shs400 million to the alleged Shs1.4 billion must ultimately be established from the loan facility, interest computation, repayment history, penalties, fees, restructuring agreements, and the court record.
But the question remains legitimate even beyond Mwesigwa.
How can a loan of hundreds of millions become a liability approaching or exceeding a billion shillings, while the business financed by that money struggles to generate enough cash to service it?
That is where Uganda's larger credit problem begins.
The mathematics of a loan and the economics of survival
Can Shs400 million legitimately become Shs1.4 billion?
Yes, mathematically it can happen under certain contractual arrangements. But that does not mean that every increase is automatically lawful or commercially reasonable.
The final balance can potentially comprise outstanding principal, ordinary contractual interest, default interest, penalty charges, arrangement or management fees, legal and recovery costs where lawfully recoverable, insurance-related charges, restructuring costs, and other contractual charges.
The critical question is therefore not simply, "Why did Shs400 million become Shs1.4 billion?"
It is: "What precisely caused the increase, at what contractual rate, under what statutory authority, and over what period?"
That is a question capable of being answered only by examining the actual facility agreement and statement of account.
Uganda's banking system does not operate in a legal vacuum. The Financial Institutions Act, 2004, regulates financial institution business, including lending and extending credit. The Act expressly defines financial institution business to include lending or extending money held on deposit, including consumer and mortgage credit, financing of commercial transactions, and recovery of amounts lent.
At the same time, Bank of Uganda's consumer-protection framework places considerable emphasis on transparency and disclosure in financial transactions. The philosophy behind such regulation is straightforward: the consumer must understand the financial obligation before becoming legally bound by it.
This raises a fundamental question about the Ugandan credit market. Are borrowers genuinely understanding the financial commitments they undertake, or are some merely signing documents because they urgently need capital?
The cost of money in an economy that needs capital
Are Ugandan interest rates too high?
The answer is both yes and no.
There is no single interest rate applicable to every Ugandan loan. Risk, collateral, tenor, currency, borrower creditworthiness, sector, and institutional funding costs all matter.
But Uganda's borrowing costs remain significant. The cost of shilling-denominated credit has remained high enough to make borrowing a serious burden for enterprises operating on narrow profit margins.
For a large, established corporation capable of generating substantial margins, a high cost of capital may be manageable. For a small Ugandan entrepreneur operating in retail, agriculture, transport, education, manufacturing, or another competitive sector, it can be devastating.
Suppose a business borrows Shs400 million at a high effective cost of capital while simultaneously paying salaries, rent, electricity, fuel, licences, taxes, insurance, raw-material costs, and suppliers.
The business does not merely have to make Shs400 million.
It must generate enough cash to repay Shs400 million plus the cost of borrowing plus the entire cost of operating the enterprise.
That is a very different proposition.
The problem becomes even more serious when the repayment timetable is disconnected from the economic reality of the business. A business may be profitable on paper and still lack sufficient cash to meet a monthly repayment. A school may have enrolled students but suffer delayed fee payments. A farmer may have harvested crops but encounter depressed market prices. A contractor may have completed work but remain unpaid. A retailer may possess stock but lack liquidity.
The bank, however, expects payment according to the agreed schedule.
Debt repayment is often structured around the calendar, while business income is structured around the market.
Those two clocks do not always move together.
The law already recognises that credit cannot become an instrument of oppression
It would nevertheless be wrong to suggest that Ugandan law permits financial institutions to charge whatever they wish.
The distinction between banks, microfinance institutions, and money lenders is important.
Uganda's Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money Lenders Act, 2016, provides a regulatory framework for money lenders and contains provisions dealing with interest and the regulation of money-lending practices.
Ugandan courts have also demonstrated that contractual freedom does not necessarily mean that every interest rate is immune from judicial scrutiny.
In Musinguzi Willy Turirukwa v Ndema Thomas, the Commercial Court reduced an agreed 36 percent interest rate to 24 percent, treating the contractual rate as unconscionable and substituting what the court considered a more reasonable rate.
In HCH Financial Services Ltd v Lisma Investments Ltd & Another, the Commercial Court similarly reduced a contractually agreed 6 percent per month interest rate to 24 percent per annum.
In Wasirwa v Jonakee Holdings Ltd, an alleged 8 percent monthly interest rate was sufficient to raise a triable issue concerning excessive interest.
The jurisprudence therefore carries an important principle for the modern Ugandan borrower: a signature does not necessarily transform an oppressive bargain into a just bargain.
At the same time, that principle must not be misunderstood as saying that every commercially expensive loan is unlawful. Courts ordinarily examine the contract, circumstances, statutory framework, and evidence before interfering with an agreed rate.
The question is therefore one of proportionality, transparency, fairness, and legality.
The banking sector is different from the ordinary money-lending market
This distinction is particularly important when examining a dispute involving a bank such as ABC Capital Bank.
A commercial bank is not simply a licensed money lender under the Tier 4 regulatory regime. Banks operate principally under the Financial Institutions Act, the Bank of Uganda Act, and subsidiary regulations and supervisory requirements.
The Financial Institutions Act defines financial institution business broadly to include lending, consumer and mortgage credit, financing of commercial transactions, and recovery of sums lent.
This regulatory architecture exists for a reason.
Banks hold deposits belonging to members of the public. They lend those funds to businesses and individuals. They must therefore balance profitability with financial stability, risk management, and consumer protection.
The problem, therefore, is not that banks make money from lending.
That is what banks are supposed to do.
The deeper question is whether the cost of credit corresponds reasonably with the productive capacity of the economy into which that credit is being injected.
The Ugandan entrepreneur is fighting on several fronts
Consider the ordinary Ugandan businessperson.
He borrows money. He pays interest. He pays workers. He pays rent. He pays electricity. He pays transport costs. He pays local government charges and licences. He pays taxes. He faces imported competition. He faces exchange-rate risks. He faces unpredictable consumer demand. He may suffer theft, fire, bad debts, or delayed payments.
Then the bank asks for repayment according to a schedule that may have been designed on the assumption that the business would immediately perform at projected levels.
What happens when the market does not cooperate?
The loan does not stop accumulating merely because the customer's customers have stopped buying.
And therein lies one of the greatest weaknesses in Uganda's credit architecture.
The borrower carries the risk of the market, while the lender's contractual right to repayment continues according to the terms of the facility.
This is not necessarily unfair. A lender must protect its capital.
But if the structure becomes so rigid that a temporary business interruption automatically converts a viable enterprise into a foreclosure candidate, then the financial system risks destroying the very productive capacity upon which repayment depends.
But borrowers are not always innocent victims
It would be intellectually dishonest to blame financial institutions for every failed business.
Some borrowers misuse loans. Some divert business capital into consumption. Some purchase expensive cars, construct personal houses, or finance lifestyles instead of investing the money for which it was borrowed. Some submit unrealistic business plans. Some borrow from one institution to repay another. Some deliberately conceal their financial position. Some take multiple mobile loans simultaneously. Some simply lack basic financial literacy.
The lender therefore has a legitimate interest in credit assessment.
A responsible financial institution must ask whether the proposed business can repay the money.
Likewise, the borrower must ask whether the business can survive the debt.
This is where financial literacy becomes as important as financial regulation.
Many borrowers understand the amount they receive but do not fully understand reducing-balance versus flat-rate interest, annual percentage cost, default interest, penalty interest, fees, insurance, restructuring costs, legal costs, early repayment provisions, and the consequences of default.
The question is therefore not merely whether the borrower signed.
The question is whether the borrower understood what he signed.
From the bank branch to the mobile phone
The credit problem has now moved beyond conventional banking.
A Ugandan can borrow money from a mobile phone in seconds.
The National Payment Systems Act, 2020, regulates payment systems, payment service providers, and electronic money. Its consumer-protection framework requires payment service providers to observe principles including transparency, accountability, data protection, protection against unfair trade practices, full disclosure, confidentiality, and dispute resolution.
This is a significant development because mobile credit has changed the psychology of borrowing.
The traditional bank borrower may spend days preparing a business plan, discussing collateral, and negotiating a facility.
The mobile borrower may receive a message saying:
"You qualify for Shs200,000."
The distance between temptation and indebtedness has been reduced to a few taps.
Digital financial inclusion is undoubtedly capable of expanding access to finance for people previously excluded from formal banking. But Uganda must ensure that access to credit does not become merely access to debt.
Financial inclusion should mean inclusion in wealth creation, not merely inclusion in borrowing.
The National Payment Systems Act's consumer-protection provisions provide an important legal foundation because they expressly require transparency, full disclosure, and protection against unfair trade practices.
The challenge is ensuring that those protections are not merely written in legislation but experienced by the consumer in practice.
When debt becomes land
Perhaps the most frightening part of the Ugandan borrowing story begins when the loan is secured against land.
For many Ugandans, land is not simply collateral.
It is inheritance.
It is a home.
It is a family history.
It is retirement security.
It is the accumulated wealth of generations.
When such property is mortgaged, the consequences of default can therefore extend far beyond the borrower and affect spouses, children, and future generations.
The Mortgage Act, 2009, provides the legal framework governing mortgages and the remedies available to mortgagees following default. It regulates notices, enforcement, and the mortgagee's power of sale.
The law does not, however, give a mortgagee unlimited freedom.
The Mortgage Act imposes a duty of care on a mortgagee exercising the power of sale to take reasonable steps to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable for the mortgaged property.
This is a crucial protection.
Losing property through a lawful foreclosure is one thing.
Losing it through an unlawful, procedurally defective, or improperly conducted sale is another.
Ugandan case law demonstrates that mortgage disputes are not theoretical.
In Kaija Karoli v Centenary Rural Bank & 3 Others, the court dealt with mortgaged land, statutory demand and notice requirements, and considered the enforceability of the mortgage.
In Niwamanya v Twesigye & 3 Others, the Commercial Court considered allegations concerning the sale of mortgaged property and the rights of parties affected by the mortgage.
In Ganafa Peter Kisawuzi v DFCU Bank Ltd & Others, the Commercial Court considered the statutory sale of mortgaged property and the allegation that the process was tainted by fraud.
In Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Dahable Uganda Ltd & Another, the Commercial Court dealt with secured loans running into billions of shillings and the foreclosure process involving mortgaged properties.
These cases illustrate an uncomfortable truth:
A loan dispute can ultimately become a land dispute.
And when a loan dispute becomes a land dispute, the consequences can permanently alter the economic position of a Ugandan family.
The bigger question: Is Uganda's economy generating enough profit from borrowed capital?
This may be the most important question of all.
It is easy to ask whether interest rates are too high.
But we should also ask whether the Ugandan economy is generating sufficient returns from legitimate enterprise.
If an entrepreneur borrows at 20 percent and invests in a business that realistically returns 10 percent, the problem is not merely the interest rate.
The business model itself is economically incompatible with the cost of capital.
That entrepreneur is borrowing at a higher price than the economy permits him to earn.
This is why Uganda needs more than cheaper loans.
It needs more profitable enterprises.
The state must create conditions in which borrowed money can be transformed into productive wealth.
That means reliable electricity, efficient transport, predictable taxation, access to markets, industrial infrastructure, technology, agricultural value addition, export opportunities, and stable regulatory conditions.
A cheap loan cannot rescue an economy in which the cost of doing business remains prohibitively high.
What about taxation?
It is fashionable to say that Ugandans do not want to pay taxes.
That is too simplistic.
The better question is:
What is the cumulative cost of running a legally compliant business in Uganda?
Taxes, licences, statutory contributions, utilities, compliance requirements, and financing costs can collectively consume a substantial portion of a small enterprise's operating margin.
This does not justify tax evasion.
But it justifies asking whether tax policy is designed around business survival and growth rather than merely revenue extraction.
Government does not generally tax a business simply because it borrowed money. Taxation depends upon the relevant tax base and applicable tax law. Uganda's tax framework recognises certain financing costs in appropriate circumstances and provides specific incentives and reliefs under defined conditions.
The argument should therefore not be that Government should not tax indebted businesses.
The better argument is that Government taxation, financing policy, and investment policy should collectively leave productive enterprises with sufficient room to survive, reinvest, and employ people.
A business that is perpetually taxed and simultaneously forced to borrow expensive working capital may remain alive without ever becoming strong.
That is not development.
The foreign investor question
The debate about foreign investors requires equal intellectual honesty.
It is sometimes argued that Uganda's investment laws require foreigners to bring less capital than Ugandan investors.
That proposition requires qualification.
Under Uganda's current investment framework, the general investment-licence threshold is not lower for foreign investors than for domestic investors. The current Uganda Investment Authority framework states a general threshold of US$250,000 for a foreign investor and US$50,000 for a domestic investor.
The real question is therefore not whether foreigners are legally required to bring less capital.
The real question is whether Ugandan entrepreneurs possess comparable access to affordable capital and investment incentives with which to compete.
That is a much stronger argument.
A foreign investor may arrive with access to international capital markets, cheaper financing, advanced technology, established supply chains, and experienced management.
A Ugandan entrepreneur may borrow from a local financial institution at a much higher cost and then compete against that foreign investor in the same market.
The law may call both investors equal.
The economics may not.
Investment incentives must serve Uganda's development
Uganda should not be opposed to foreign investment.
Indeed, foreign investment can bring capital, technology, markets, skills, and employment.
But the country must continuously ask what it receives in exchange for its incentives.
The Investment Code Act, 2019, recognises considerations including local sourcing, employment of citizens, and technology transfer.
That principle should become much more central to investment policy.
Government should not merely ask how much capital an investor brings.
It should ask how many Ugandans the investment employs, how much technology it transfers, how much local raw material it uses, how much value it adds inside Uganda, how many Ugandan companies enter its supply chain, and how many Ugandans ultimately acquire senior managerial and technical skills.
An investment that brings billions but employs very few Ugandans in meaningful positions should not automatically be considered more valuable than a Ugandan enterprise employing hundreds.
Capital is important.
But productive capital is more important than capital alone.
The problem of Ugandan management
There is also a legitimate concern about the distribution of managerial opportunities in foreign-owned enterprises.
A foreign company operating in Uganda may naturally bring expatriates for specialised positions where the required skills are scarce.
But where Ugandans are qualified and capable, Government should demand structured localisation and skills-transfer programmes.
The objective should not be to exclude foreigners.
It should be to ensure that foreign investment produces Ugandan capacity.
Government should therefore look beyond simply counting how many Ugandans appear on a payroll.
It should examine how many Ugandans occupy senior management, how many sit on boards, how many receive professional training, how many are promoted, and whether expatriate appointments are genuinely based on skills scarcity.
An investment that permanently imports its management hierarchy has not achieved meaningful human-capital transfer.
How can Ugandans actually profit from borrowed capital?
The answer cannot be to discourage borrowing.
Uganda needs credit.
Farmers need credit. Manufacturers need credit. Students need education financing. Housing requires long-term finance. Small businesses need working capital. Transport companies need asset finance. Hospitals require investment. Schools require infrastructure.
The answer is to make productive credit cheaper, longer-term, better structured, and more closely aligned to actual business cash flows.
Uganda needs more cash-flow-based lending and less dependence on collateral alone.
Land should not be the primary determinant of whether a Ugandan entrepreneur deserves credit.
The viability of the enterprise should matter.
A borrower should not take a five-year loan for a project whose revenue only begins in year three and then be expected to service aggressive monthly repayments from the first month.
The repayment schedule must have a relationship with the economic life of the investment.
This is how development finance works.
The State must rethink the architecture of productive credit
Government should develop a coordinated national productive-credit strategy bringing together Bank of Uganda, the Ministry of Finance, Uganda Development Bank, Uganda Investment Authority, UMRA, URA, and private financial institutions.
The objective should be to reduce the cost of capital for productive sectors and direct financing towards enterprises capable of creating jobs, exports, technology, and domestic value addition.
Uganda Development Bank and similar development-finance mechanisms should be strengthened so that entrepreneurs in manufacturing, agro-processing, technology, education, health, and export-oriented industries can access patient capital.
A country cannot industrialise by financing factories exclusively through short-term expensive loans.
Government should also consider stronger credit-guarantee mechanisms for qualifying Ugandan SMEs operating in priority sectors. By sharing part of the risk, Government can make it easier for financial institutions to lend at lower risk premiums.
Banks, too, should be encouraged to distinguish between productive credit and purely consumptive borrowing.
A loan used to purchase machinery, establish a factory, expand agricultural production, or develop an export business has a different economic value from a loan used to finance consumption.
The regulatory environment should recognise that difference.
Loan agreements must become documents ordinary people can understand
One of the most important reforms Uganda could make is to improve the language of loan agreements.
A borrower should know before signing precisely what the loan will cost.
The documents should clearly disclose the principal, ordinary interest, effective annual cost, fees, penalties, default interest, legal costs, and projected total repayment.
If a Shs400 million loan could become Shs1.4 billion under particular circumstances, the borrower should be able to understand exactly how that could happen.
Financial sophistication should not be a prerequisite for knowing the price of debt.
The law already points in this direction through consumer-protection principles requiring transparency and disclosure.
But the culture of financial contracting must move further.
The ordinary borrower should not need to hire a lawyer and an accountant merely to discover what he has agreed to pay.
Restructuring should sometimes be preferable to foreclosure
Where a fundamentally viable business encounters temporary difficulty, the lender should consider restructuring rather than immediately moving toward enforcement.
Restructuring is not forgiveness.
It is recognition that a dead business cannot repay a loan.
Sometimes extending the repayment period can save both the borrower and the lender.
A bank that sells a viable school, factory, hotel, or farm at distress value may recover part of its money while destroying an enterprise capable of generating substantially more wealth over time.
The lender's objective should therefore be recovery, but recovery must sometimes be understood over the long term.
The borrower also has responsibilities
Government cannot carry the entire burden.
Before taking a loan, the borrower must ask what the actual effective interest rate is, what the total repayment will be, what happens if several instalments are missed, whether interest is calculated on the original principal or reducing balance, what penalties apply, what collateral is being pledged, and what happens if the business takes longer than anticipated to become profitable.
Most importantly, the borrower must ask:
Am I borrowing to create wealth or to finance consumption?
A loan is not income.
It is future income already spent.
That distinction must become part of Uganda's financial culture.
The real lesson from Andy Mwesigwa
The lesson of the Mwesigwa case should not be that banks are enemies of entrepreneurs.
Nor should it be that borrowers are victims whenever a loan becomes difficult to repay.
Both propositions would be too simplistic.
The real lesson is that Uganda needs a credit system in which the success of the borrower and the success of the lender are not structurally opposed.
A bank should make money when its customer succeeds.
A borrower should become richer because he borrowed.
A school financed through a bank loan should grow, educate more children, employ more teachers, and repay the bank from increased revenue.
A factory should borrow, produce, employ, export, and repay.
A farmer should borrow, increase production, sell profitably, and repay.
That is how credit becomes development.
But when a business collapses, the bank auctions the land, the entrepreneur loses years of accumulated wealth, and the economy loses another potential employer—everybody loses something.
The bank may recover its money.
But Uganda loses an entrepreneur.
And that is not always a victory for the economy.
Conclusion: From a collateral economy to a production economy
For too long, Uganda's credit system has placed enormous emphasis on what the borrower owns.
The future should place greater emphasis on what the borrower can produce.
Land is important.
Titles are important.
Collateral is important.
But collateral should be the safety net, not the business model.
Uganda does not become industrialised because its citizens possess many land titles.
Uganda becomes industrialised because those titles are converted into productive investment without destroying the owners in the process.
The tragedy of the indebted Ugandan entrepreneur is therefore not simply that he borrowed money.
It is that he may have borrowed expensive money in an economy where the return on productive investment is too uncertain, taxation and operating costs remain burdensome, markets are intensely competitive, and repayment structures are sometimes insufficiently sensitive to business realities.
The answer is neither unrestricted cheap money nor unlimited government protection.
The answer is responsible credit, affordable capital, transparent contracts, enforceable consumer rights, viable businesses, disciplined borrowers, and intelligent public policy.
Ugandans do not need a financial system that merely gives them money.
They need a financial system that gives them a reasonable chance to make money from the money they borrow.
Government must therefore ensure that the conditions under which that money is borrowed make productive success possible.
Because the ultimate measure of a credit economy should not be how much money its financial institutions lend.
It should be how much productive wealth those loans create and how many Ugandans remain owners after the debt has been repaid.
The story of Andy Mwesigwa is therefore only the beginning of a much larger national conversation.
It is a conversation about the meaning of credit in a developing economy.
It is a conversation about whether financial institutions are merely financing consumption and securing collateral, or financing production and building prosperity.
It is a conversation about whether taxation and investment policies enable Ugandan businesses to grow strong enough to compete.
It is a conversation about whether foreign investment creates meaningful Ugandan ownership, skills, and employment.
And ultimately, it is a conversation about whether the Ugandan who borrows money to build a business should emerge from that process wealthier, stronger, and more economically independent—or poorer, dispossessed, and permanently indebted.
A nation cannot borrow its way into prosperity if its productive citizens are continually losing the very assets with which they are expected to build the economy.
Credit must therefore become an instrument of production, ownership, and empowerment, not merely an instrument of recovery.
And Government must ensure that the financial architecture of the country makes it possible for Ugandans not merely to borrow capital, but to profit from it, employ others with it, repay it, and ultimately own the wealth it creates.
That is the difference between a credit economy and a development economy.
About the Writer
Evan Sande Ndahura is a Ugandan political and legal commentator, columnist, poet, and social justice advocate whose writings focus on governance, constitutionalism, democracy, and the political economy of power in Africa. He is widely published on issues of judicial accountability, electoral justice, human rights, and institutional reform, with an emphasis on Uganda's political and legal systems. Writing from a Pan-African critical perspective, he believes that Africa's liberation will ultimately be achieved through a mighty pen, not a gun.
