Shs5.4bn fire truck under Parliament’s microscope as MPs demand answers over UCAA purchase

KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda’s Parliament has launched a fresh probe into the purchase of a specialised aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle costing Shs5.3985 billion, demanding that the Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (UCAA) produce the full procurement file to demonstrate that taxpayers received value for money.
The Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) raised questions on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, as it scrutinised UCAA officials over findings arising from an audit by the Auditor General.
The inquiry intensified after MPs physically inspected the vehicle at Entebbe International Airport and questioned why key documents relating to its ownership and procurement history were not immediately available.
UCAA subsequently presented a registration book for vehicle UA38070AA, showing that it was registered on June 22, 2026, with the aviation authority listed as the owner.
But the paperwork did little to quell MPs’ concerns over the vehicle’s price.
At the centre of the investigation is a straightforward but potentially far-reaching question: why did a single airport rescue and firefighting vehicle cost nearly Shs5.4 billion, and was the procurement conducted at a price that represents value for public money?
COSASE Chairperson Muwada Nkunyingi pressed UCAA officials to explain the cost and the circumstances surrounding the acquisition.
“We want to know how yours cost Shs5.3 billion. What is the uniqueness? How did you arrive at this cost?”
UCAA Director General Fred Bamwesigye defended the purchase, cautioning MPs against comparing the equipment with an ordinary fire engine.
The vehicle is a Lion 6×6 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) truck, manufactured in Turkey and fitted with a Scania engine. Its registration documents classify it as an engineering plant.
The authority’s defence is likely to be tested against the procurement records now being sought by COSASE, including documentation that can establish how the specifications were drawn up, how suppliers were selected and how the final contract price was determined.
For MPs, the issue extends beyond the vehicle itself. The scrutiny reflects a broader demand for public agencies to account for major purchases involving taxpayer funds, particularly where specialised equipment carries a multimillion-shilling price tag.
The committee’s demand for the complete procurement file could therefore provide a clearer picture of whether the Shs5.3985 billion expenditure was justified by the vehicle’s specialised capabilities, market conditions and procurement process.