Uganda’s National Data Strategy: Beyond Institutional Turf Wars

Uganda’s digital transformation depends not only on technology and connectivity but also on how effectively the country governs its data. The recent public disagreement between the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) and the Ministry of ICT and National Guidance over the National Data Strategy raises an important question: who should coordinate Uganda’s national data agenda, and how can this be done without violating existing laws?

In a public statement dated 21 October 2026, UBOS challenged the Ministry’s launch of the strategy, arguing that it breaches the Uganda Bureau of Statistics Act, 1998, which establishes UBOS as the principal agency responsible for coordinating, monitoring and supervising the National Statistical System. The Bureau also advised the public to treat the strategy with “the utmost contempt.”

My take is that this statement exposes a significant governance question for Uganda’s digital transformation: who has the mandate to coordinate national data governance, and how should that mandate relate to the statutory role of the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS)?

While UBOS’s concerns about its statutory mandate deserve serious consideration, the debate should go beyond institutional rivalry and highlight whether the strategy's scope, institutional arrangements and implementation mechanisms respect existing legislation while providing Uganda with a coherent framework for managing data as a national strategic asset.

I would separate this into three pillars: the law, the institutional mandates, and the substance of the strategy itself.

The legal argument

UBOS invokes the UBOS Act, 1998, and its statutory responsibility for coordinating, monitoring and supervising the National Statistical System. That is a legitimate issue to examine. However, establishing that responsibility does not automatically establish that UBOS has exclusive authority over every category of data generated, held or used in Uganda.

The institutional argument

A National Data Strategy may cover much more than official statistics: government databases, data sharing between ministries, interoperability, data standards, privacy, data sovereignty, digital public infrastructure, research datasets and responsible AI. These areas can intersect with the mandates of several institutions.

The language of the statement

Advising the public to treat the strategy with “the utmost contempt” goes beyond identifying a legal concern. It is a forceful institutional position. The more consequential questions are the specific provisions alleged to breach the law, the legal basis for that allegation, and the process for resolving the dispute.

Does the law support UBOS's position?

There is a substantial legal basis for UBOS to protect its statutory mandate. Section 3 of the Uganda Bureau of Statistics Act establishes UBOS as the principal agency responsible for coordinating, monitoring and supervising the National Statistical System. It also gives the Bureau responsibilities for standardising statistical collection and reviewing data-collection initiatives. But there is an important distinction:

• National statistics concern the collection, processing, analysis and dissemination of official statistical information.

• National data governance can cover the broader lifecycle of data, including ownership and stewardship, access, security, interoperability, sharing, privacy, infrastructure and responsible use.

These domains overlap, but they are not automatically identical.The Ministry's stated objectives for the new strategy include reducing fragmented government data systems, improving information sharing and strengthening data for public-service delivery, with the strategy also intended to support Uganda's AI ambitions.

Those objectives raise a legitimate policy question: does the strategy seek to coordinate government-wide digital data infrastructure, or does it also establish arrangements that duplicate or override UBOS's statutory authority over official statistics?

Without examining the actual strategy's provisions, I would not conclude that the entire strategy is illegal. That conclusion would require a careful legal analysis of its specific provisions, the powers under which it was issued and the relevant statutory framework.

There is also an important point in the UBOS Act itself: section 20 provides for consultation and cooperation between UBOS and other government lead agencies whose functions relate to its mandate. That supports an approach based on institutional coordination rather than treating the mandates as necessarily mutually exclusive.

Where I see the real governance problem

I see three possible risks that deserve examination.

A. Institutional fragmentation

If multiple institutions develop overlapping strategies, standards, data platforms and reporting structures, government could end up with parallel systems, duplicated expenditure and competing definitions of data quality and accountability.

B. A narrow interpretation of the national data agenda

If Uganda's data agenda is treated exclusively as a statistics issue, important questions about interoperability, data protection, cybersecurity, digital identity, data sovereignty and AI-ready datasets could be inadequately addressed. These require coordinated participation from several institutions.

C. Unclear accountability

If a ministry can direct data-sharing arrangements without clearly defined safeguards, questions arise over who authorises access, who is accountable for misuse, how data subjects are protected, and who resolves disputes between agencies. Conversely, an unclear or overly restrictive division of responsibilities can impede legitimate data sharing and public-service delivery.

The point is that Uganda needs both statistical integrity and whole-of-government data governance. Neither objective should undermine the other.

What next….!

I would recommend a structured institutional resolution rather than allowing this to become a public contest over which institution controls the national data agenda.

First, clarify the law. Conduct a legal review of the National Data Strategy against the UBOS Act, applicable data protection legislation and existing digital-government policies.

Second, map institutional mandates. Clearly define the responsibilities of UBOS, the Ministry of ICT, the Personal Data Protection Office and other relevant institutions.

Third, establish a formal coordination mechanism. Provide clear decision-making powers, reporting obligations and procedures for resolving institutional disputes.

Fourth, strengthen data safeguards. Define rules for lawful data sharing, privacy, cybersecurity, data quality and responsible AI development.

Fifth, measure implementation. Establish measurable targets, institutional responsibilities, financing arrangements and periodic reviews to determine whether the strategy is improving public services, enabling innovation and generating economic value.

I would also recommend that the government distinguish between data governance and statistical governance within the strategy itself.

UBOS should retain its legally established responsibilities for official statistics and the National Statistical System. The Ministry of ICT should exercise its lawful responsibilities for digital policy and government-wide technology coordination. Other statutory bodies should retain their respective mandates.

Where responsibilities overlap, the framework should specify how decisions are made and which institution has the final authority for each function.

The strategic issue for Uganda's AI future

There is a particularly important dimension here.

Uganda cannot build a strong AI ecosystem simply by developing an AI strategy. It also needs reliable, accessible, interoperable and appropriately governed data.

For example, a National AI Data Commons or similar shared data infrastructure would require answers to questions such as:

• Who owns or stewards each dataset?

• Which datasets can be shared, under what legal basis and conditions?

• How will personal, confidential and sensitive government data be protected?

• What standards ensure datasets are reliable, representative and suitable for AI?

• How will Uganda retain control over strategic data and capture economic value from it?

• Which institution is accountable when access is denied improperly or data is misused?

These are cross-institutional questions. They cannot be resolved simply by declaring one institution the overall owner of the national data agenda.

In my view, Uganda should use this dispute as an opportunity to establish a coherent national data governance architecture that supports both official statistics and the wider digital economy.

My overall assessment is that UBOS's statutory mandate deserves protection, but the scope of that mandate must be distinguished carefully from the broader task of governing data across the economy.

The decisive question is whether the National Data Strategy respects existing law, complements established frameworks and clearly allocates responsibilities. If it duplicates statutory functions, the relevant provisions should be revised. If it addresses legitimate gaps in cross-government data governance, those functions should be coordinated with UBOS and other relevant institutions rather than abandoned merely because they involve data.

The most constructive next step is to compare the actual strategy against the UBOS Act, the data-protection framework and the relevant digital-government policies before reaching a definitive legal conclusion.

For Uganda's digital future, the objective should not be to determine which institution wins an institutional dispute. It should be to establish one coherent national data governance framework, with legally clear mandates, effective safeguards and measurable public value.

That is the standard against which the strategy should be assessed.

Brendan A. Wadri is a technology and public-sector leader whose work focuses on digital transformation, data governance, AI governance and responsible technology policy.