Buy Uganda, Build Uganda @12

However, experts warn that protectionist tendencies risk undermining COMESA’s regional market

Kampala, Uganda  | JULIUS BUSINGE | Twelve years after its conception, Uganda’s Buy Uganda, Build Uganda (BUBU) policy has become both a symbol of the country’s industrial ambition and a test case for how far national preference can stretch within a regional trade bloc.

First conceived in 2014 and formally launched in 2017, BUBU was designed to reduce Uganda’s trade deficit, stimulate domestic manufacturing and tilt consumer demand towards locally produced goods. In practice, it has reshaped public procurement rules, channelled financing towards selected industries and embedded “local content” requirements in state contracts.

The results are visible. More than 1,000 locally manufactured products have now been certified by the Uganda National Bureau of Standards, according to government figures.

“Over the years, we have also observed a change in the choices of Ugandan consumers with many preferring locally made products, especially in furniture, leather and leather products, iron and steel products, construction materials, cement, food and beverages, electric cables, conductors, and pharmaceuticals,” said James Makula, Senior Commercial Officer and BUBU desk officer at the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives.

“The challenge has been low production by local producers, failure by some local products to conform to quality standards, and the negative mindset by some Ugandans that local products are unavailable or of poor quality.”

Makula said the government is committed to helping local producers dominate the domestic market in the near future.

He said government procurement now incorporates BUBU-compliant bidding documents, particularly for construction materials, stationery, and furniture. He saidl consumer preferences are also gradually shifting, with a growing appetite for quality local goods, supported by financing from the Uganda Development Bank (UDB) and Uganda Development Corporation (UDC) to help manufacturers scale production capacity.

Despite these achievements, challenges remain. SMEs face high costs of certification, often exceeding Shs3million, while starting capital for many local businesses is below Shs1 million. Taxation and regulatory hurdles continue to constrain growth, and imports still dominate supermarket shelves, limiting the visibility of local products.

Regional perspective, risk

As Uganda’s industrial policy celebrates its twelfth anniversary, a regional perspective brings complexity. The COMESA Competition and Consumer Protection Regulations, 2025, caution against national preference policies that discriminate against goods or services from other member states.

Protectionist tendencies, whether through procurement preferences, import restrictions, or non-tariff barriers (NTBs), can conflict with COMESA’s goal of a unified regional market.

Willard Mwemba, the chief executive officer of the COMESA Competition & Consumer Commission, has consistently urged COMESA member states to uphold the bloc’s trading rules to protect fair competition, consumer choice and market integration.

He stresses that competition and consumer protection laws play a crucial role in ensuring that markets remain open and competitive, and cautions against policies that could distort trade or disadvantage producers and consumers across borders.

Mwemba emphasises that consumers across the Common Market must be aware of their rights so they can make informed choices and challenge unfair practices that result from discriminatory “buy local” measures that restrict cross-border commerce.

He has also highlighted the importance of harmonising competition and consumer laws across member states to eliminate barriers that fragment markets, stressing that compliance fosters certainty, encourages investment, and avoids penalties or sanctions that can arise from non-compliance to regional rules.

Mwemba’s views underline the need for dialogue and negotiation when national policies impact regional trade obligations and he urges member states to work collaboratively to resolve trade tensions under the COMESA framework rather than resorting to unilateral protectionist measures.

David Kibet Kemei, the director general of the Competition Authority of Kenya told The Independent on October 10, 2025 on the sidelines of the COMESA Competition Commission’s 9^th Annual Business Reporters Workshop, 3rd Annual Press Conference, and the 2nd Business Reporters’ Competition Award Ceremony in Nairobi that there is a risk when individual member states implement policies distant to COMESA’s general mission.

“There are some industries that really care more about the consumers and they have come up with customer policies that are consumer friendly… and there are some that are still lagging behind. Preferential treatment of national products risks reducing consumer choice and undermining competition across borders,” he said.

Across COMESA, protectionism manifests in various forms. Kenya’s sugar industry, for example, enjoyed protection through COMESA-backed safeguard measures for more than two decades, limiting duty-free imports from regional partners to stabilize domestic production.

The safeguard, which capped imports at 350,000 tonnes annually, formally ended on November 30, 2025, as the government shifted toward competitiveness and value addition rather than continued trade protection.

Other countries also exhibit protectionist tendencies: Egypt enforces complex product registration and local certification, Ethiopia maintains restrictive import licensing and state dominance in key sectors, Zambia uses export and import controls on maize and other commodities, and Zimbabwe, Malawi, Sudan, and Eswatini rely on licensing, bans, and sensitive product lists that shield domestic industries. Even Rwanda, generally pro-integration, applies stringent standards and inspections that act as de facto trade barriers.

“The COMESA Competition regulations prohibit anti-competitive practices, including those that hinder trade and consumer welfare,” notes the regional enforcement framework, underscoring that policies like BUBU must be carefully implemented to avoid breaching COMESA obligations. National preference programs that favor domestic suppliers over regional competitors fragment markets, raise transaction costs, and erode trust among member states, limiting the potential gains of deeper regional integration.

President Museveni’s stance

Uganda’s President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has consistently advocated for prioritizing local production, linking the BUBU policy to broader industrialisation goals. He emphasizes that industrial parks and joint ventures with local producers are central to building the country’s manufacturing capacity.

“Every shilling of public expenditure should strengthen the local economy,” Museveni has said, noting that the government supports factories, agro-processors, and vocational training to ensure youth transition from job seekers to producers. In budget speeches, he repeatedly stresses value addition, competitiveness, and adherence to quality standards to allow domestic goods to compete effectively both nationally and regionally.

Balancing the national BUBU strategy with COMESA rules is complex but critical. While Uganda can incentivize local production through skills development, capacity building, and quality standards, outright exclusion of regional products would violate COMESA regulations.

Experts stress that Uganda must focus on enhancing local industrial capacity without erecting barriers that undermine the free movement of goods, services, and capital within the 21-member bloc, which has a population of over 560 million and a combined GDP of about US$768 billion according to data from COMESA secretariat.

James Makula underscores that the regional perspective informs domestic strategy. “The change in consumer preference is also attributed to deliberate efforts by government and partners to build the capacity of the local private sector, especially in the area of conformity to quality standards. Regional integration remains important to ensure Ugandan products can compete across COMESA markets,” he said.

As Uganda moves forward, the BUBU policy’s success will increasingly be measured not only by domestic uptake but also by compliance with regional trade rules. The strategy for 2026 and beyond emphasizes agro-industrialization, value addition in the mining and oil sectors, and improving competitiveness in regional and international markets.

Government officials and trade experts stress that policies encouraging local production must align with COMESA’s vision to avoid fragmenting the regional market, ensuring that Uganda remains a competitive player within Eastern and Southern Africa.

The first 12 years of Buy Uganda, Build Uganda illustrates both the potential and the pitfalls of national industrial preference in a regional context.

Striking the balance

While consumer preferences are shifting, production capacity is growing, and industrial parks are expanding, experts caution that only policies consistent with COMESA trade rules can ensure that Uganda benefits from regional integration, promotes sustainable industrial growth, and protects consumer welfare across borders.

In a region where protectionist measures still persist—from Kenya’s historic sugar safeguards to Egypt’s non-tariff barriers and Zambia’s commodity controls—Uganda’s BUBU policy serves as both a model and a cautionary tale.

The challenge remains striking the right balance between national industrial development and regional obligations, ensuring that the twin goals of local growth and regional market integration are harmonized.

*****

COMESA Protectionist Practices Snapshot

Uganda

• Buy Uganda, Build Uganda (BUBU) policy promotes local procurement and consumption
• Government encourages preference for domestic goods in public procurement, construction, and industrial projects
• Challenges exist in balancing BUBU with COMESA rules to avoid trade barriers

Kenya

• Extended sugar safeguard measures for over two decades (ended Nov 2025)
• Limited duty-free sugar imports to 350,000 tonnes annually
• Shifted focus toward competitiveness and value addition

Egypt

• Complex product registration, local certification, and conformity assessments
• Sensitive product lists in agriculture and processed foods
• High compliance costs for regional exporters

Ethiopia

• Import licensing and foreign exchange controls
• State dominance in key sectors (cement, agro-processing)
• Discretionary customs practices hindering regional entry

Zambia

• Export/import controls on maize and other agricultural commodities
• Administrative barriers affecting predictability for regional traders

Zimbabwe

• Import bans and licensing for food, beverages, dairy, basic manufactures
• Policies justified on domestic industrial protection grounds

Malawi

• Import licensing, seasonal bans, and discretionary permits on agriculture
• Restricts regional suppliers despite COMESA commitments

Rwanda

• Strict standards, inspections, and sanitary/phytosanitary controls
• Occasionally acts as de facto trade barriers

Democratic Republic of Congo

• Multiple border charges, variable customs valuation, and local taxes
• Weak enforcement creates indirect protection for domestic producers

Sudan

• Licensing systems, import bans, and discretionary customs procedures
• Uneven implementation limits regional market access

Eswatini

• Sensitive product protections in sugar and agro-processing
• Restricts full duty-free access for COMESA suppliers