KAMPALA – A wave of public debate has emerged across social media platforms in Uganda following reports that the government maintains over 100 presidential advisors, with questions centring on their roles, remuneration, and overall value to taxpayers.
Online discussions gained momentum after claims circulated suggesting that as many as 110 individuals serve in advisory positions to Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. The reports, which remain unverified in full, also allege wide disparities in monthly earnings among the advisors.
According to figures shared online, some senior advisors are said to earn tens of millions of shillings per month, with top-tier earners reportedly receiving up to sh100 million. Others are placed in mid-level brackets ranging between sh15 million and sh20 million, while a lower tier is said to earn between sh2.3 million and sh6 million monthly.
The disclosures—described as a “sample” of a broader payroll—have sparked mixed reactions among Ugandans. Critics argue that the size of the advisory team and the reported compensation levels raise concerns about public expenditure, particularly at a time when many citizens face economic pressures.
Some social media users questioned the necessity of maintaining such a large advisory structure, suggesting that the funds could be redirected toward essential public services. Others expressed frustration over perceived income disparities, contrasting the reported salaries with average household earnings.
However, defenders of the system argue that presidential advisors play a critical role in governance by providing technical expertise, policy guidance, and strategic insight across sectors. They maintain that experienced advisors—many of whom are former senior government officials—can contribute significantly to national development if their input informs high-impact decisions.
The debate has also reignited calls for greater transparency and accountability in public spending, with analysts urging clearer communication on the specific roles, outputs, and performance metrics associated with advisory positions.
While the government has not issued an official statement on the circulating figures, the discussion reflects growing public interest in how state resources are allocated and the broader question of efficiency within public administration.
As scrutiny increases, observers note that the issue may prompt wider conversations on public sector reform, expenditure prioritisation, and the balance between political appointments and technocratic governance.
