Overview:
With Uganda facing an estimated housing deficit of more than 2 million units, driven by rapid urbanisation and a youthful population, NSSF positioned the project as both commercially viable and socially responsive. However, legislators argue that social impact claims cannot substitute for strict financial discipline.
Members of Parliament have turned up the heat on the management of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) over persistent delays and cost management concerns surrounding the controversial Temangalo housing project, raising fresh questions about governance, accountability, and value for money at the workers’ savings body.
Appearing before the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) on Friday, NSSF Managing Director Patrick Ayota was pressed to explain findings contained in the Auditor General’s report on the Fund’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025.
The Temangalo project, initially marketed as a low-cost housing investment aimed at delivering affordable homes while generating long-term returns for contributors, was expected to be completed in 2024. An extension was later granted to 2025. However, legislators said the Fund has once again failed to meet its own timelines.
Committee Chairperson Medard Sseggona faulted NSSF for what he described as weak project supervision and poor cost discipline, warning that continued delays undermine public confidence in how the Fund invests workers’ savings. Under the National Social Security Fund Act (as amended), NSSF is mandated to prudently invest contributors’ funds to ensure safety, reasonable returns, and liquidity to meet benefit obligations.
With NSSF managing trillions of shillings in workers’ savings, Parliament has consistently emphasised that large-scale real estate ventures must meet strict governance and risk management standards. The Auditor General noted that during negotiations with the contractor, NSSF agreed to remove 50 percent of wardrobes valued at Shs1.5 billion from the project scope. However, this adjustment was reportedly not reflected in revised cost estimates, raising concerns about documentation gaps and potential financial exposure.
Lawmakers questioned why project cost estimates were not formally revised to reflect the change in scope, arguing that such omissions distort the true financial position of the project and weaken accountability.“This is public money, workers’ sweat. Any change in scope must translate into transparent and updated costing,” Richard Muhumuza Gafabusa, MP, Bwamba County Bundibugyo District, remarked during the session.
The Temangalo project carries political and institutional sensitivity. NSSF’s real estate ventures have previously attracted scrutiny over land acquisition, valuation disputes, and procurement decisions. Delays in completion not only affect projected returns but may also increase holding costs and expose the Fund to market fluctuations in Uganda’s evolving real estate sector. Analysts note that prolonged project timelines can erode anticipated internal rates of return, particularly in a high-inflation environment where construction inputs and financing conditions shift rapidly.
For contributors awaiting midterm access and retirement benefits, governance concerns at the Fund inevitably spark anxiety. In response, Ayota assured MPs that management would address all issues raised in the Auditor General’s report, strengthen internal controls, and provide a clear roadmap for project completion. “We take the Auditor General’s findings seriously and will ensure corrective measures are implemented,” he told the committee.
The COSASE probe forms part of Parliament’s constitutional oversight role under Article 164 of the Constitution, which empowers the Auditor General to audit and report on public bodies. The committee’s scrutiny underscores ongoing pressure on state enterprises to demonstrate efficiency, transparency, and adherence to public finance management standards.
As Parliament continues its review, the Temangalo housing project is shaping up as a critical test of whether NSSF can balance ambitious real estate investments with its core mandate: safeguarding the retirement savings of millions of Ugandan workers. The Temangalo housing project traces its roots to NSSF’s broader real estate investment strategy aimed at diversifying its portfolio beyond government securities and equities.
Located in Wakiso District along Gayaza Road, the development was designed as a mixed residential estate targeting Uganda’s growing middle-income population, while generating long-term capital appreciation and rental yields for contributors. The Fund’s pivot into real estate followed earlier controversial land acquisitions in the same Temangalo area more than a decade ago, transactions that attracted parliamentary investigations and reshaped public debate about governance at the workers’ savings body.
The current housing project was partly framed as a structured, professionally managed venture intended to unlock value from those land holdings. With Uganda facing an estimated housing deficit of more than 2 million units, driven by rapid urbanisation and a youthful population, NSSF positioned the project as both commercially viable and socially responsive. However, legislators argue that social impact claims cannot substitute for strict financial discipline.
****URN****