By Daglous Bakinyumya
The recent announcement by the government of Uganda to take over the collection of school fees for all public schools has sparked mixed reactions across the country. While government officials paint the policy as a reform to promote transparency, improve efficiency, and relieve parents of exploitative fees, many education stakeholders remain skeptical about the true intention behind the move.
Could this policy be a backdoor for the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) to shore up revenue collection ahead of the 2026 elections, or is it a genuine attempt to reform the education sector?
Under the new arrangement, parents will no longer pay school fees directly to individual schools. Instead, payments will be channeled through the URA’s centralized system using the Payment Registration Number (PRN) code. The government will then redistribute the funds to schools. Officials argue that this approach will ensure fair distribution, minimize misuse of funds, and prevent illegal levies by school administrators.
On paper, this sounds like a strategic intervention to sanitize school finance management. However, questions remain unanswered, and fears are mounting among school heads, teachers, and even some parents.
Is it Revenue Collection or Education Reform?
One of the biggest questions on everyone’s mind is: Is this about helping education or boosting revenue collection? The involvement of URA raises eyebrows. Traditionally, URA is mandated with tax collection, not school fee management. Bringing a revenue authority into the heart of education financing signals that this might be more about revenue than reform.
The government’s growing financial needs, especially in the run-up to the 2026 elections, cannot be ignored. Massive campaign financing, public project launches, and increasing public debt all hint at a government eager to consolidate funds.
With over 13 million students in Uganda’s public school system, channeling fees through URA could create a new stream of consistent cash flow. Whether this money strictly goes back to schools as claimed—or ends up elsewhere—remains to be seen.
Transparency vs Bureaucracy
There’s no denying that some public school administrators have exploited parents for years through unauthorized charges and hidden levies. If properly implemented, the centralized collection system could indeed curb these practices, offering parents relief from unpredictable fee structures.
However, centralizing payments also introduces a layer of bureaucracy that could cripple school operations. What happens if URA delays disbursements? Schools have strict academic calendars, and a delay in funds could mean halted projects, unpaid salaries, and even students sent home for lacking resources. The flexibility schools currently enjoy in planning and responding to emergencies may disappear entirely.
As one headteacher lamented, “We used to make decisions quickly. If a classroom needed urgent repairs or we needed to buy food for the students, we didn’t wait for a committee or ministry approval. This new system may force us to wait, even in emergencies.”
Why Election Timing and Political Undertones
Another red flag is the timing of the policy. Coming just months before the 2026 general elections, critics suspect the move is more political than progressive. Could the government be laying down infrastructure to generate funds for election activities under the guise of education reform? It wouldn’t be the first time that major policies have doubled as political strategies.
It also opens the door to politicizing education—what was once a school-level administrative matter now becomes a national political tool. If schools begin to associate financial support with political loyalty or face delays for lack of alignment, the ripple effects could be disastrous.
Will Academic and Infrastructure Development: A Hit or Miss?
Supporters argue that centralizing school funds will improve infrastructure and academic investment, as funds will be monitored closely. But skeptics argue the opposite—without autonomy, school leaders may be restricted in how they develop their institutions. School-specific needs, especially in rural areas, may be overlooked by centralized systems designed with a one-size-fits-all mindset.
In short, the policy could leave brilliant headteachers with their hands tied, unable to innovate or respond to local realities.
What’s the Real Goal?
So, what is the government really aiming at? Is it to regulate school fee structures that have gone wild in some institutions, or is it to maximize state revenue collection under the guise of fairness?
The truth may lie somewhere in between. There is a legitimate case for improving transparency in school finances. However, the government must address stakeholder concerns transparently. If not, this could become yet another well-meaning policy sabotaged by poor implementation and hidden political motives.
Final Thoughts
The government’s decision to take over school fees collection is undoubtedly bold—but whether it’s bold in the right direction remains uncertain. While it has the potential to streamline funding and curb mismanagement, its link to URA raises fundamental questions about intent. Is education being weaponized for financial gain, or is this a true attempt at reform?
If the government is genuinely concerned about the burden of high school fees and irregular charges, then the solution lies in policy and legislative reform—not in transferring payment systems to a revenue authority. Let government draft and table a bill in Parliament aimed at regulating school fees across both public and private schools, ensuring fairness, accountability, and standardization. Such a law would have far-reaching and lasting impact compared to this current concept, which appears uncertain, rushed, and vulnerable to bureaucratic failure.
At the same time, school administrations and management boards—especially in private institutions—must also reflect deeply on their core mission. Education should be a service, not a money-making venture. The growing trend of excessive fees and hidden charges not only exploits parents but also risks tarnishing the credibility and integrity of these institutions. If the drive for profit continues unchecked, schools risk killing their very purpose and trust in the communities they serve.
Until this new centralized system proves itself efficient, timely, and responsive to the unique needs of schools, stakeholders will continue to question whether this move was truly for the benefit of learners—or just a convenient way for URA to hit its revenue targets more easily.
Mr. Daglous Bakinyumya is a Political TV Producer and TV Host – @BDouglasPaapa
