Uganda data pact faces sharper scrutiny

Uganda’s Parliament has stepped up pressure on the government over a health cooperation deal with the United States that includes provisions for sharing pathogen specimens and certain health-related data, opening a wider argument about privacy, sovereignty and whether ministers gave lawmakers enough visibility before signing. The agreement sits inside a five-year Uganda–US health framework worth nearly $2.3 billion, signed on December 10, 2025, under which Washington is set to provide up to $1.7 billion while Kampala increases domestic health spending.

The parliamentary dispute has been fuelled by concern that a deal presented as a public health partnership may also create obligations touching sensitive medical information. Text from the memorandum shows Uganda and the US planned a separate specimen-sharing agreement covering physical samples and related data, including genetic sequence data, for high-consequence pathogens with cross-border epidemic potential during outbreaks. The same document also envisages a data-sharing arrangement tied to performance monitoring and accountability for US congressional appropriations, with that arrangement expected to last up to seven years from execution of the memorandum.

That language has given critics in Kampala room to argue that ministers must explain precisely what categories of data could move, under what safeguards, and whether any anonymisation, consent or local oversight mechanisms would apply. Debate in Parliament and public commentary around the agreement have sharpened around the distinction between sharing outbreak-response information and opening a broader channel for patient-level or system-wide health data. Reports from Kampala indicate that MPs, including Muhammad Nsereko, have pressed for disclosure of the text and for a legal explanation of how any transfer would fit Uganda’s privacy framework.

Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka has pushed back on claims that the arrangement is unlawful. He told Parliament, according to local reporting, that he had reviewed the agreement and found it consistent with Ugandan law, while maintaining that any data handling would have to stay within existing legal protections. That reassurance has not closed the matter politically, because lawmakers are also contesting process. The Deputy Speaker, Thomas Tayebwa, previously directed Parliament’s health committee to examine the wider Uganda–US health cooperation agreement amid arguments over whether such a pact required ratification or at least fuller legislative scrutiny.

Health Minister Dr Jane Ruth Aceng has meanwhile sought to calm fears that Uganda is surrendering control over biological materials or health information. She has said Uganda’s sovereignty over its biological resources and health data remains intact, a position meant to frame the pact as cooperation between states rather than a concession of control. Even so, the wording of the memorandum shows the arrangement is designed to give the US side access to information needed to monitor co-investment, audits and compliance within the scope of the programme, reinforcing why opposition figures want tighter definitions around access and use.

The stakes are larger than one bilateral dispute. Reuters reported in February that Africa CDC Director-General Jean Kaseya had raised major concerns over data and pathogen-sharing provisions in similar US health agreements across Africa. Zimbabwe withdrew from talks over one proposed deal, while Zambia said it had pushed back on part of its own agreement. That wider backlash has given Ugandan legislators a regional reference point and has strengthened demands for careful legal review before implementation goes further.

At the same time, the Uganda agreement is not a minor side arrangement. It is part of Washington’s “America First Global Health Strategy”, which recasts aid relationships into multi-year bilateral compacts aimed at making recipient countries take on more domestic financing while improving surveillance, frontline capacity, laboratory systems and digital health infrastructure. Uganda’s Ministry of Finance says the main areas include outbreak response, disease reduction, frontline workers and data digitisation for accountability. Independent analysis has also flagged Uganda as one of the countries facing comparatively heavy co-financing expectations under the new model.

Supporters of the framework argue that Uganda cannot afford to dismiss a package of this scale when health systems still depend heavily on external support for HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and child health, polio, surveillance and laboratory strengthening. The memorandum itself links financing to capacity building, emergency response and digital integration, including stronger interoperability and cybersecurity under Ugandan law. To government backers, that makes the arrangement less a surrender of data than a hard-edged financing compact in which accountability requirements are unavoidable.