KAMPALA — Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) has questioned the Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (UCAA) over the purchase of a specialised aircraft rescue and firefighting truck at a cost of Shs5.3985 billion.
The committee is seeking to establish how UCAA arrived at the price of the Lion 6×6 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) vehicle stationed at Entebbe International Airport, amid demands for the complete procurement records.
The matter came up on Tuesday as COSASE scrutinised UCAA over issues arising from the Auditor General’s audit of the authority. MPs had earlier inspected the vehicle at Entebbe Airport but raised questions after UCAA did not initially provide documentation showing its ownership and procurement history.
UCAA subsequently presented a registration book for motor vehicle UA38070AA, showing that it was registered on June 22, 2026, with UCAA listed as the owner.
The vehicle was manufactured in Turkey, is fitted with a Scania engine and is classified in the registration documents as an engineering plant.
MPs question Shs5.4bn price
COSASE Chairperson Muwada Nkunyingi pressed UCAA officials to explain why the vehicle cost Shs5.3985 billion and what specific features justified the expenditure.
“We want to know how yours cost 5.3 billion. What is the uniqueness? How did you arrive at this cost?” Nkunyingi asked, according to reports of the committee proceedings.
UCAA Director General Fred Bamwesigye defended the purchase, saying the vehicle was specialised aviation rescue equipment rather than an ordinary fire engine.
Acting Director of Airports Samuel Wonekha told MPs that the Lion 6×6 has a 12,500-litre water tank, foam-fighting equipment and specialised rescue tools designed to help emergency crews access damaged aircraft and evacuate passengers.
The vehicle also has a specialised generator to power equipment used to cut through aircraft during rescue operations, officials told the committee.
UCAA officials further argued that the vehicle was obtained at a comparatively lower price than similar aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicles acquired by other airports in the region, following negotiations with the supplier.
But MPs said the explanation was not enough.
They want documentary evidence showing how the procurement price was established and whether the authority obtained value for money.
Market comparison ordered
COSASE has directed its researchers to establish the prevailing market price of comparable Lion 6×6 ARFF vehicles and compare those figures with the amount paid by UCAA.
The committee has also ordered UCAA to submit the complete procurement file, including documents relating to the procurement process, specifications, supplier, negotiations and final purchase price.
The committee also tasked the Criminal Investigations Directorate (CID) with verifying the authenticity of the vehicle’s registration documents and establishing whether the truck is indeed owned by UCAA.
The investigation comes as Parliament continues to scrutinise UCAA’s management of public resources.
In August, Parliament’s Speaker, Jacob Marksons Oboth, reminded accounting officers that appearing before parliamentary committees is a constitutional obligation after COSASE experienced difficulties obtaining information from UCAA’s leadership during an earlier inquiry.
Fire trucks and aviation safety
UCAA maintains that investment in specialised firefighting equipment is necessary to maintain aviation safety standards at Entebbe.
The authority previously commissioned two Falcon 6×6 specialised fire trucks at Entebbe International Airport in 2024, saying the equipment was intended to strengthen the airport’s rescue and firefighting capability. The trucks were supplied by East African Distributors, part of the Madhvani Group.
Those vehicles were equipped with large water and foam capacities, extendable turrets and foam-induction systems. UCAA said the equipment was part of efforts to maintain Category 9 fire cover at Entebbe.
The Lion 6×6 under current scrutiny is a different specialised vehicle. The manufacturer describes the model as an aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle equipped with a 12,500-litre water tank, 1,500-litre foam tank and high-reach equipment designed to reach aircraft fuselages and other difficult areas.
UCAA’s own information on Entebbe International Airport shows that the airport operates formal airside safety systems, including an Airside Safety Committee and requirements for airside vehicles and equipment to have serviceable fire extinguishers and other safety equipment.
Transformer also questioned
COSASE also raised questions over a Shs2.3 billion transformer reportedly procured from Vietnam.
The transformer had not been delivered when MPs conducted their inspection, adding to the committee’s concerns about UCAA’s procurement and asset management.
For COSASE, therefore, the issue is not simply whether Entebbe needs a sophisticated fire truck. It is whether a truck costing more than Shs5.3 billion was acquired through a procurement process that can withstand public scrutiny.
That distinction matters. An airport fire truck is not an ordinary vehicle; aircraft fires are among the most demanding emergencies in aviation. But specialised equipment does not place public money beyond examination.
The committee’s market comparison and procurement-file review will now determine whether UCAA’s explanation of the price survives scrutiny.
