Parliament to blame for debt burden
<b>Julius Kapwepwe</b><br><br>Uganda’s debt stock that is again escalating is likely to drive the country back to the begging spree which will lead to underdevelopment and request for debt cancellation. A number of things keep re-occurring because of easily bribed institutions such as Parliament
Julius Kapwepwe
Uganda’s debt stock that is again escalating is likely to drive the country back to the begging spree which will lead to underdevelopment and request for debt cancellation. A number of things keep re-occurring because of easily bribed institutions such as Parliament.
For instance, the multi-lateral and bilateral heavy weight of debt that Uganda experienced in the 1990s, led to begging for debt relief. This was partly achieved under the highly indebted poor countries initiative in 1997 and 2000.
Uganda was forgiven an approximate $2b (sh3.3trillion) from various lenders, which in the case of the World Bank was spread over to 2020, beginning with the year 2000. The advent of the July 2005 G.8 Gleneagles deal of Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative provided 100% cancellation of debt owed to World Bank, African Development Fund and International Monetary Fund.
In both cases, the initiatives were extended to the poorest nations of the world, including Uganda. It was, albeit, those countries that had expressed assertiveness in working towards reversal of their socio-economic and political development dilemma.
In spite of this, Ugandans are capable of reducing unnecessary debt and negotiating for debt that is useful for development.
An upsurge in debt, of 30% increase in external debt in 2008 alone, is too much for Ugandans. This translates into a 50% increase in external debt, an indicator of hard financial times.
The loans expiring before utilisation indicate that Ugandan taxpayers continue to pay penalty fees and other costs associated with such loans, leaving many poor.
In spite of the current December 2007 debt strategy, the Executive headed by Cabinet in Uganda continues to borrow without purpose.
Since Uganda is borrowing on highly concessional terms, why should we continue to pay a hefty sh80m (sh144b) annually in debt repayment? Who should be held responsible when documentation on 11 out of the 21 external loans negotiated by Uganda are missing? Only a strong Parliament can get answers from the cabinet for Ugandans.
The writer is a policy, budget
analyst and development
practitioner
Uganda’s debt stock that is again escalating is likely to drive the country back to the begging spree which will lead to underdevelopment and request for debt cancellation. A number of things keep re-occurring because of easily bribed institutions such as Parliament.
For instance, the multi-lateral and bilateral heavy weight of debt that Uganda experienced in the 1990s, led to begging for debt relief. This was partly achieved under the highly indebted poor countries initiative in 1997 and 2000.
Uganda was forgiven an approximate $2b (sh3.3trillion) from various lenders, which in the case of the World Bank was spread over to 2020, beginning with the year 2000. The advent of the July 2005 G.8 Gleneagles deal of Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative provided 100% cancellation of debt owed to World Bank, African Development Fund and International Monetary Fund.
In both cases, the initiatives were extended to the poorest nations of the world, including Uganda. It was, albeit, those countries that had expressed assertiveness in working towards reversal of their socio-economic and political development dilemma.
In spite of this, Ugandans are capable of reducing unnecessary debt and negotiating for debt that is useful for development.
An upsurge in debt, of 30% increase in external debt in 2008 alone, is too much for Ugandans. This translates into a 50% increase in external debt, an indicator of hard financial times.
The loans expiring before utilisation indicate that Ugandan taxpayers continue to pay penalty fees and other costs associated with such loans, leaving many poor.
In spite of the current December 2007 debt strategy, the Executive headed by Cabinet in Uganda continues to borrow without purpose.
Since Uganda is borrowing on highly concessional terms, why should we continue to pay a hefty sh80m (sh144b) annually in debt repayment? Who should be held responsible when documentation on 11 out of the 21 external loans negotiated by Uganda are missing? Only a strong Parliament can get answers from the cabinet for Ugandans.
The writer is a policy, budget
analyst and development
practitioner