The UTel–Rowad Capital controversy raises questions that deserve answers, but Uganda must distinguish between a failed investment commitment and proven fraud.
The recent reports surrounding Rowad Capital Commercial (RCC) and its proposed investment in Uganda Telecommunications Corporation Limited (UTel) have generated strong reactions. But amid the headlines, one important principle risks being forgotten: a commercial dispute should be examined through evidence, contractual obligations and due process—not public anger alone.
RCC entered this arrangement with an ambitious proposition: a reported US$225 million investment intended to help revive a national telecommunications company that has struggled for years. The government publicly announced the partnership in October 2024, with President Yoweri Museveni witnessing the signing. The proposed investment was expected to support UTel’s revival and improve the commercialisation of Uganda’s telecommunications infrastructure.
That was a significant undertaking, not a small business transaction.
The reported failure to deliver the initial US$25 million raises legitimate questions. If the money was contractually due and was not delivered, the government has every right to demand accountability and consider the remedies available under the agreement. Uganda’s public assets must be protected, and taxpayers deserve transparency.
However, there is a difference between questioning whether an investor fulfilled its obligations and declaring that the investor is a fraudster. The latter is a serious allegation that requires evidence.
Where is the full contractual record?
Ugandans deserve to know the precise terms of the agreement, the conditions attached to the initial payment, the milestones that had to be met, the correspondence between the parties and any reasons provided for the delay. They also deserve clarity on whether there were unresolved conditions, disagreements over implementation or other contractual issues that affected the transaction.
These questions should not be treated as excuses. They are essential to determining what actually happened.
It is also worth examining the government’s own processes. The partnership was publicly presented as an opportunity to recapitalise UTel, with RCC expected to acquire a 60 per cent stake while the government retained 40 per cent. The proposed arrangement also involved the National Backbone Infrastructure, a strategically important public telecommunications asset.
If the investment did not materialise as anticipated, the country should establish exactly where the process broke down. Was the problem entirely attributable to the investor? Were there implementation challenges? Were all the conditions necessary for the transaction clearly understood and fulfilled? The answers should come from verifiable records, not speculation.
Uganda must protect its reputation as an investment destination.
International investors assess more than the size of an opportunity. They also consider the predictability of government decisions, the clarity of contracts, the availability of dispute-resolution mechanisms and the consistency with which commercial agreements are handled.
Holding investors accountable is necessary. So is ensuring that they receive fair treatment.
A country does not strengthen investor confidence by overlooking contractual failures. Neither does it strengthen confidence by allowing accusations to replace a transparent examination of the facts. The right approach is to enforce agreements fairly, publish the relevant findings and apply the law consistently.
The government must also consider the financial implications of terminating the partnership, the cost of independently financing UTel’s revival and the alternatives available to secure the capital and expertise needed to make the company competitive.
Cancellation may ultimately prove justified. But the decision should rest on a documented assessment of the agreement, the investor’s performance and the national interest.
The ultimate question is what happens to UTel.
Uganda needs a viable national telecommunications company, stronger digital infrastructure, more competition, better services and opportunities for skilled employment. Those objectives should remain at the centre of this debate.
Whether RCC remains part of the project or the government pursues another route, the public deserves a credible recovery plan with clear financing, measurable milestones and independent oversight.
Defending fair treatment for RCC does not mean demanding that Uganda abandon accountability. It means insisting that accountability be based on facts and applied fairly.
The country should neither condemn an investor without a complete examination of the evidence nor allow a major investment commitment to disappear without an explanation.
Uganda deserves the truth, the investor deserves due process, and UTel deserves a solution.
