- IMF Urges Uganda to Widen Debt Reporting as Public Liabilities Near 51.00% of GDP
The International Monetary Fund has urged Uganda to broaden the scope of its public debt reporting to capture a wider range of government liabilities, warning that more comprehensive debt statistics are needed to strengthen fiscal oversight, improve transparency and safeguard long-term debt sustainability.
In a technical assessment released this week, the Fund said Uganda’s public sector debt statistics are generally of high quality, describing them as broadly accurate, reliable and timely.
However, the IMF noted that important gaps remain in the coverage of public liabilities, meaning the government’s published debt data may not yet provide a full picture of fiscal risks across the broader public sector.
The recommendation comes as Uganda’s public liabilities approach 51.00% of gross domestic product, following years of borrowing to finance infrastructure, development programmes and public investment.
Although Uganda’s debt remains assessed as sustainable, the IMF said stronger and more comprehensive reporting would improve debt sustainability analysis, support better policymaking and enhance investor confidence.
The Fund recommended that Uganda progressively expand its debt reporting framework to include domestic payment arrears, government overdrafts and other outstanding obligations.
Over time, the IMF said debt statistics should also incorporate liabilities held by extra-budgetary institutions, local governments and public corporations in order to reflect the full public sector balance sheet.
The assessment forms part of the IMF’s Data Quality Assessment Framework, which evaluates whether countries’ debt statistics meet international standards for accuracy, consistency and transparency.
The review was undertaken under a Japan-funded initiative aimed at strengthening public debt statistics across African economies.
The IMF’s position highlights a growing concern across the continent: debt sustainability is no longer only about how much governments borrow, but also about how clearly and comprehensively they report what they owe.
For Uganda, the issue is not that the current debt data is unreliable. Rather, the Fund’s concern is that the coverage remains too narrow to fully capture contingent risks and obligations that may eventually fall on the government.
Domestic arrears, for example, can become an important fiscal risk if unpaid bills to contractors, suppliers or service providers accumulate outside the headline debt numbers.
Government overdrafts can also create hidden pressures if they are not properly captured and monitored within the wider public debt framework.
Liabilities of local governments, public corporations and extra-budgetary institutions may similarly become a burden on the central government where those entities face repayment difficulties or require budgetary support.
The IMF’s recommendation is therefore a call for Uganda to move from a narrow debt-reporting approach toward a broader public sector risk framework.
This matters because investors, credit rating agencies and development partners increasingly demand transparent debt data before assessing a country’s fiscal position.
In an environment of higher global interest rates, tighter financing conditions and closer scrutiny of sovereign balance sheets, incomplete debt reporting can raise concerns even where headline debt levels appear manageable.
For African governments, the credibility of debt data has become a central part of fiscal management.
Several countries have faced criticism in recent years over hidden debts, arrears, state-owned enterprise liabilities and contingent obligations that were not fully reflected in official statistics.
Such gaps can undermine investor confidence, complicate debt restructuring negotiations and weaken public trust in fiscal management.
Uganda’s case is therefore significant because the IMF is not simply warning about the level of debt. It is warning about the need to see the entire debt picture.
The Fund’s assessment suggests that Uganda already has a strong foundation in debt statistics, but now needs to deepen institutional coordination and align more fully with international statistical standards.
That will require stronger collaboration among agencies responsible for debt compilation, including the Ministry of Finance, central bank, public enterprises, local government bodies and other public sector institutions.
It will also require better systems for identifying, recording and reporting arrears and other obligations in a timely manner.
If Uganda can expand debt coverage while maintaining data quality, it will strengthen its fiscal credibility and improve the government’s ability to manage risks before they become crises.
When governments do not fully capture arrears and other liabilities, budgets can underestimate the true cost of public obligations. This can lead to repeated payment delays, accumulation of new arrears and pressure on future budgets.
A broader reporting framework would help Uganda understand not only how much it owes, but where fiscal pressure is building.
For policymakers, this can improve decision-making on borrowing, public investment, guarantees, subsidies and support to state-owned entities.
For investors, stronger reporting can reduce uncertainty.
Investors are more likely to trust a country’s debt market when public liabilities are clearly disclosed and fiscal risks are not hidden outside the central government balance sheet.
For development partners, better debt transparency can support more effective programme design and fiscal surveillance.
The IMF’s advice also comes at a time when many African countries are rethinking their borrowing strategies after years of rising debt-servicing costs and limited access to international capital markets.
Governments are increasingly turning to domestic markets and concessional financing, while seeking to avoid a return to unsustainable debt accumulation.
In that context, debt transparency is not a technical luxury. It is a fiscal necessity.
Uganda’s debt position remains sustainable, but the IMF’s warning suggests that sustainability must be protected through better information, stronger institutions and more comprehensive reporting.
The country’s infrastructure ambitions remain significant, and public investment will continue to require careful financing choices.
The challenge is to ensure that borrowing supports growth without creating hidden liabilities that weaken fiscal stability in future.
The Fund’s recommendations also reflect a broader shift in how debt risk is understood.
Traditional debt indicators often focus on central government debt as a percentage of GDP, debt service to revenue, external debt exposure and financing needs.
But fiscal crises can also emerge from obligations that are not initially captured in central government debt data.
These include unpaid bills, guarantees, public-private partnership liabilities, debts of state-owned enterprises, pension obligations and quasi-fiscal activities.
By urging Uganda to expand reporting to include more of these obligations, the IMF is pushing for a more complete and forward-looking approach to fiscal risk management.
The recommendation should not be seen as a negative verdict on Uganda’s debt statistics.
On the contrary, the Fund’s assessment that the country’s debt data is broadly accurate and timely suggests that Uganda has already built a credible base.
That wider perimeter will help authorities, investors and citizens better understand the true scale of public obligations.
Citizens have a right to know not only the debts recorded by central government, but also the liabilities that may eventually affect public resources, service delivery and future taxation.
For Uganda, the opportunity is to strengthen its reputation as a country willing to improve fiscal transparency before debt pressures become unmanageable.
For Africa more broadly, the IMF’s assessment reinforces a wider lesson.
Governments cannot manage what they do not fully measure. Investors cannot accurately price what they cannot clearly see. Citizens cannot hold leaders accountable for obligations that are hidden from public view.
Uganda’s debt may still be sustainable, but the IMF is signalling that sustainability is stronger when the full balance sheet is known.
As African governments face higher borrowing costs, tighter external financing and growing demands for infrastructure investment, the credibility of debt data will increasingly shape access to capital and investor confidence.
Uganda’s next debt reform test is therefore not only about borrowing less or borrowing better.
It is about reporting more clearly. The country has been told that its debt statistics are good. Now the IMF wants them to be complete.
