Kyambogo University paid more than Shs 2 billion for printing services it did not use, according to a procurement investigation that has also questioned the legality of the university’s decision to renew the supplier’s contract.
A July 13, 2026, report by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority found that the university paid MFI Document Solutions Ltd based on the minimum monthly printing volumes written into its contract, rather than the number of pages actually printed.
The arrangement meant the university continued paying for unused capacity. Of the 49 payment records available, the authority reviewed 37. It found that Kyambogo had paid Shs 2.26 billion for black-and-white printing services whose actual value was about Shs 1.42 billion.
That left excess payments of Shs 842.87 million. For colour printing, the university paid Shs 2.23 billion for services valued at about Shs 1.02 billion, resulting in excess payments of Shs 1.21 billion. In total, PPDA said the university paid about Shs 4.53 billion against contracted minimum volumes, although the printing services actually consumed were worth about Shs 2.49 billion.
The difference, Shs 2.04 billion, was classified by the authority as a financial loss arising from what it called unfavourable contractual terms.
“Consequently, the university incurred a financial loss of Shs 2,042,985,617 arising from unfavourable contractual provisions requiring payment based on minimum monthly print volumes rather than actual print usage, contrary to the value-for-money principle under Section 51 of the PPDA Act,” the report said.
The figure represents money paid without an equivalent service being received by students. At a public university that depends on government funding and student fees, such losses can reduce the money available for teaching, research, infrastructure and student services.
The investigation has placed University Secretary Arthur Katongole, the institution’s accounting officer, under scrutiny over both the management of the contract and its renewal. Katongole said he was preparing a formal response to the PPDA findings and would address each issue raised in the report.
“At the moment, I’m writing my response to the report, which I think will be submitted in the coming days. But we shall respond to each and everything raised in the report,” he said.
He also questioned the motives of the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the investigation.
“Whistleblowing is okay, but we should find out: was the whistleblower an interested party in the contract, is he or she interested in my job, or is he or she just a genuine, patriotic Ugandan who is interested in accountability? We shall find out all this and we shall respond accordingly,” Katongole said.
CONTRACT BEGAN IN 2021
MFI Document Solutions Ltd entered into a contract with Kyambogo University in October 2021 to provide leased printing and photocopying services. The agreed charges included Shs 67 for each black-and-white page, Shs 350 for a colour page and Shs 650 for a page produced using a security printer.
The contract, valued at about Shs 6 billion, was due to expire on October 31, 2025. As that deadline approached, however, concerns were raised within the university about whether the arrangement offered value for money.
According to the whistleblower’s March 25, 2026 complaint, the university’s Procurement and Disposal Unit had raised concerns about minimum printing obligations, alleged over-invoicing and the supplier’s performance.
A report dated August 21, 2025, from the principal procurement officer also indicated that the original contract had been signed despite concerns from the senior legal officer. The chief internal auditor had separately questioned the minimum-volume obligations and invoicing The Procurement and Disposal Unit advised the university not to renew the contract automatically.
Instead, it recommended a fresh competitive procurement process to correct weaknesses in the existing arrangement. Because a new tender could take about three months, the unit proposed only a temporary extension, limited to no more than nine months.
During that period, the university would pay according to actual printing volumes while completing the new procurement process. The university’s Contracts Committee considered the issue at a meeting on October 8, 2025. It also rejected the proposed renewal and directed management to begin a fresh competitive procurement process.
Despite those objections, the whistleblower alleged that Katongole renewed MFI Document Solutions Ltd’s contract on October 31, 2025. The complaint further alleged that the contract was renewed without the participation of the university’s legal officer and without mandatory clearance from the Attorney General or Solicitor General.
The whistleblower argued that the cumulative value of the contract was close to Shs 6 billion, well above the Shs 200 million threshold cited in the complaint for contracts requiring government legal advice.
“Taken as a whole, the facts observed suggest more than a procedural lapse,” the complaint said.
“They suggest possible deliberate disregard of procurement law, continuation of a contract that should have been subjected to competition or termination, and exposure of public funds to avoidable loss.”
Those remain allegations contained in the complaint. The PPDA report, however, agreed that the renewal breached procurement rules.
PPDA REJECTS RENEWAL
PPDA found that the printing and photocopying services did not fall within the categories of contracts eligible for renewal under the relevant procurement regulations.
It also found that no authorisation had been sought from or granted by the Secretary to the Treasury to permit a further renewal. Although the original contract contained a renewal clause linked to satisfactory performance, the authority said such a clause could not override the law.
“Any contractual renewal clause must therefore be interpreted and applied in conformity with the PPDA Act and the PPDA Regulations, 2023,” the report said.
“Consequently, the existence of a renewal clause did not confer authority to renew a contract that was otherwise ineligible for renewal.”
The authority found that the university’s Contracts Committee had correctly interpreted the law when it declined to approve the renewal. It further said that while the accounting officer carries overall responsibility for procurement under Section 28 of the PPDA Act, that authority must be exercised within the law.
“Accordingly, the authority found merit in the allegation that the contract was renewed in breach of the PPDA legal framework,” the report said.
PPDA executive director Canon Benson Turamye ordered Katongole to terminate the contract with MFI Document Solutions Ltd within one month of receiving the report. He also directed the university to begin a fresh competitive procurement process for the same services in accordance with the law.
The report further said Katongole should take responsibility for signing a contract before approval by the Contracts Committee, contrary to Section 28(2) of the PPDA Act, and for the resulting financial loss.
That direction is an administrative finding by the procurement regulator. The draft does not indicate whether any criminal investigation has begun, whether money will be recovered, or whether disciplinary action has been taken against any university official.
MFI Document Solutions Ltd’s response was not included in the material provided. The next test will be whether Kyambogo terminates the contract within the required period, opens the service to competitive bidding and establishes who will bear responsibility for the Shs 2.04 billion loss.
The case also raises a wider question for public institutions: how contracts designed to guarantee suppliers a minimum level of business can leave taxpayers paying for services that were never used.
