STRENGTHENING ANTITRUST LAW IN UGANDA

ABSTRACT

Antitrust is that rarely looked upon cornerstone of modern market economies, ensuring fairness, consumer protection and sustainable economic growth. In Uganda however, the framework is still new, stumbling into a dangerously competitive world that has juggernauts that influence markets and policy. It is still weak, fragmented, regionally contradictory, under-enforced and to some extent, not even in the public’s knowledge. This article examines the importance of strengthening antitrust in Uganda, focusing on its role in consumer welfare, efficiency, innovation and its influence on foreign investment. It highlights key challenges – institutional and legislative as well as overlapping mandates with regional organizations. Drawing lessons from South Africa, Kenya and global jurisdictions, the article proposes reforms centered on legislative clarity, institutional independence and capacity building. Ultimately, the article illustrates that strengthening Uganda’s antitrust regime is a vital step towards creating competitive, transparent and inclusive markets that support the country’s long-term development aspirations.

INTRODUCTION

Antitrust Law refers to a set of rules and regulations that prevent the concentration of economic power in regards to monopolies and other anticompetitive practices^[1]. The intention is to prohibit trusts, monopolies and cartels in the economy, to the detriment of other market players as well as consumers. Antitrust law is built on three pillars; prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, preventing monopolies, and promoting fair competition and consumer welfare^[2]. It can also be referred to as Competition Law.

In Uganda, there was the recent enactment of the Competition Act^[3] in 2024 which marks a significant step in consumer protection. However, there are inquiries about what impact the Act will have on businesses, foreign investors as well as on market prices of commodities. The Act increases regulatory scrutiny on the business of mergers, acquisitions and even joint ventures. It is important to note that despite how challenging pursuing some enterprises might become, there is room created for adaptability fostering growth in a more competitive space. Despite this, the framework is not as comprehensive as it should be, leaving gaps in enforcement and market regulation. The essence of this article then is to analyze weaknesses and propose ways to strengthen antitrust law in Uganda, highlighting the importance of effective competition law for economic growth, consumer welfare as well as attracting foreign investment.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF COMPETITION LAW IN UGANDA

Legal Framework

Uganda’s competition policy has evolved slowly, reflecting broader economic transitions from state-led control to liberalization. Then there was the advent of the Competition Act. The Act was introduced in 2024 to promote fair competition, prevent formation of economic oligarchs and protect consumers from unfair prices in a limited unfairly controlled market^[4]. There exists the possibility that the Act may be a hindrance to foreign investors as it has been noted that penetration into an economy starts with borderline anticompetitive practices that is mergers and acquisitions.  The Act disparages practices such as price-fixing, collusion, abuse of dominant market positions and consumer exploitation.

The same law creates a Technical Committee within the Ministry of Trade whose role is strict enforcement of the Act^[5]. Previously, this was handled under the mandate of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa Competition Commission. The Technical Committee’s roles include investigation, reports and notices^[6]. They also have the mandate to review and approve the practices that border on anti-competition. This represents a turn from previous events where these transactions were not even known to the public. The law also seems to encompass public interest as a potential benefit to regulation through better and more stable employment opportunities and overall economic stability. Despite this, there still exist gaps in the state of enforcement of these laws which will be discussed later on.

Importance of Antitrust Law in Uganda

Antitrust law is not just about regulating businesses; it is also about majorly shaping the market to serve society. Below, I break down the importances of competition regulation:

Consumer Protection: The absence of robust anti-trust enforcement leaves consumers at the mercy of economic superpowers who subject them to inflated prices, poor quality goods and almost no choice because of the monopolistic behavior. For example, The Communications Act, 1997, provides for the restructuring of the communications industry in Uganda. The Act establishes the Uganda Communications Commission and provides for its functions^[7]. It also provides for the incorporation of Uganda Telecom Ltd^[8] and Uganda Post Limited^[9]. The Act also liberalizes and introduces competition in the industry^[10]. Unfortunately, Ugandans have been victims of the duopoly between telecom juggernauts Airtel Uganda Ltd and MTN Ltd^[11].

Efficiency and Innovation: Competitive markets push firms to improve efficiency and innovate, which contributes to long-term economic growth. Monopolies by contrast often lack incentives to modernize or adopt new technologies due to their unfairly large market share. This is in line with Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand metaphor that describes how individual self-interest in a free market leads to positive societal outcomes^[12]. A company that improves its product does it purely to increase its market share and financial gain, but aids the community in flooding the market with quality products.

SME Participation: Uganda’s economy is heavily and primarily reliant on small and medium-sized enterprises accounting for 90% of all businesses and generate 75% of the country’s GDP^[13]. They are however unable to grow as their growth is being stifled by multinationals and corporate giants that have treasure chests of funding and capital that the SME’s do not. Antitrust laws protect these businesses from being squeezed out and being victims of larger usually more greedy forces.

Investment Attraction: Foreign investors prefer predictable and fair business environments^[14]. These enables them to participate, despite their size. In a market that favors larger corporations and multinationals, a foreign business intending to grow its portfolio as well as raise its global market share may find it hard to successfully penetrate the market. Effective competition laws demonstrate that Uganda is committed to transparency and rule of law in trade which significantly reduces investment risks.

Alignment with Vision 2040 and Regional Goals: Strong competition frameworks are necessary if Uganda is to achieve its development ambitions such as economic transformation and growing the per capita income target, and fully participate in regional markets under the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa as well as the East African Community. 

Through acknowledging a few of the importances that highlight the existence of antitrust law, a more comprehensive and robust framework can be enacted as well as further steps taken to prevent anticompetitive practices.

Current Challenges in Uganda’s Antitrust Regime

Despite recognition for its importance, regionally and globally, Uganda’s Competition Act faces a multitude of challenges. The first is the weak institutional framework where the Technical Committee is still young and will definitely not pull as much weight as it wants to. Further, it is placed under the supervision of the Ministry of Trade. It thus lacks the independence in decision-making as well as the strength to enact orders or even pursue judicial proceedings. There is red tape that it has maneuver and not being a body corporate strips it of a legal personality. This makes its overseeing job difficult.

The other challenge is in regards to overlapping jurisdiction with COMESA. Uganda is a signatory to the treaty and has done its best in complying with its articles. However, the enactment of the Competition Act places a lot at play concerning jurisdiction. In the event of cross-border mergers involving Uganda, who has the superior jurisdictional mandate? It would be sacrilegious to abandon domestic regulation but it would cataclysmic to ignore the regional supervision. Couple this challenge with political interference where individuals in political positions end up satisfying their own backdoor interests instead of public good. Further, regulators are sometimes hesitant to act against politically connected companies which weakens trust in the system.

There is also low public awareness on what anti-competitiveness practices are as well as lack of insight into the fact that there is a law enacted for their benefit. Current sanctions are too weak to deter anti-competitive practices. For example, in the Competition Act, section 21 outlines a punishment for furnishing false information as either imprisonment for 3 years or a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty currency points. If a crime has a fine, then it’s legal for a price.

LESSONS FROM OTHER JURIDICTIONS

Uganda can draw valuable lessons from both African and global competition regimes. Some are highlighted below:

In South Africa, the Competition Commission and Tribunal is an independent adjudicative body established in terms of the Competition Act of 1998^[15]. It has jurisdiction throughout South Africa. Prior to its establishment, competition law was handled by a board under their Ministry of Trade, and could only advise. The powers of the Tribunal are to grant exemptions, authorize or prohibit large mergers or prohibit a merger, adjudicate in relation to any conduct prohibited in terms of the Act and to grant an order for costs on matters presented by the Competition Commission^[16]. This shows a need for independence and strong investigative powers.

Kenya established the Competition Authority of Kenya whose mandate is to enforce the Competition Act of Kenya^[17]. It has the objective of enhancing the welfare of people by promoting effective competition in markets. Like South Africa’s Tribunal, it has the powers of controlling mergers and acquisitions, deterring anti-competitive practices such as abuse of dominance^[18]. As of recent, it approved the acquisition of 100% of the entire share capital in Pollman’s Tours and Safaris Ltd by Africa Travel Investments Ltd on 7^th May, 2025^[19]. It has raised awareness of what market misbehavior looks thus illustrating the need for awareness.

Nigeria legitimized its competition framework through enactment of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act^[20]. Through it, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission was established^[21]. Its mandate is to promote fair business and safeguard consumer interest. It deploys regulatory tools in key areas such as anticompetitive practices, mergers and acquisitions, surveillance and investigation, complaint resolution, quality assurance, consumer education, legal services and publishing research and statistics^[22]. It is permitted to intervene in any sector involving products and services.

The European Union regulates antitrust law through the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union^[23] in Articles 101 and 102. Article 101 prohibits agreements between two or more independent market operators which restrict competition such as a cartel that may engage in price-fixing or market sharing. Article 102 prohibits firms that hold a dominant position from abusing that position. Jurisdiction over handling such matters falls to both the European Commission and national courts. National courts play a crucial role in applying and enforcing EU competition rules at the national level while the Commission is more instrumental in cross-border disputes. For example, the case against Meta for violating the antitrust regulations by abusing its dominance in online advertising. Meta was fined 797.72 million Euros^[24].

The United States antitrust laws are enshrined in the Sherman Act^[25] which from the onset is a bastion against anticompetitive practices. Section 1 prohibits combinations or conspiracies in trade while section 2 prohibits monopolization. To complement the Sherman Act, Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act^[26] and the Clayton Act^[27]. The former established the Federal Trade Commission as the jurisdictional overlord in regards to these matters in coordination with the Department of Justice.

PROPOSED REFORMS AND STRENGTHENING MEASURES

To strengthen competition law in Uganda, reforms must strengthen both substance and structure that is laws and institutions.

In regards to legislative reforms, the Competition Act must be updated to clearly define prohibited practices, drawing lessons from those who have mastered the art of antitrust. There must be an introduction of comprehensive merger control rules to prevent harmful consolidations and economic cartels. Penalties should also be increased so that the fines far outweigh any potential gains from anticompetitive behavior. Then there should be consistency with regional and global frameworks that Uganda is a signatory to so as to eliminate the overlapping inconsistencies such as jurisdiction.

Institutionally, the Technical Committee created by the Act needs to be granted independence and liberated from political influence in its tasks. There needs to be recruitment of professionals that is economists, lawyers and investigators to assist the Committee in its duties. Like the South African Antitrust regime, an independent tribunal should be set up dedicated to handling disputes related to anticompetitive practices, across all sectors. It should be set up as a body corporate with all the benefits that are accorded to them. In the same vein, judges and other personnel should be trained in competition law and economics.

There is a need for public awareness and multi-stakeholder engagements where consumer education should be conducted on their rights and reporting channels for any economic misconduct. SMEs should also be educated on compliance with competition law and the benefits that it accords them as emerging businesses. Further, partnerships must be fostered with local, regional and global civil societies and academia for advocacy and monitoring. These partnerships should also be developed in regards to cross-border investigative cooperation with regional bodies. In the same conversation should be strengthening harmonization with regimes as well as sharing best practices for enforcement of cross-border cases.

Adaptability is also imperative especially in a quickly developing data-driven world. Lawmakers should cover digital platforms, pricing algorithms, online trade and market dominance in fintech sectors. This casts a bright light in the dark corners of online transactions. Through the recommendations above, I believe that Uganda is capable of attaining a comprehensive and holistic antitrust framework in stronger legislative action, effective institutional governance, adequate public participation and adaptability.

CONCLUSION

The Ugandan economy stands at a critical juncture where the benefits of liberalization and integration can only be fully realized through effective antitrust enforcement. Current weaknesses, ranging from institutional undercapacity to political interference are still leaving consumers susceptible to exploitation from monopolies. Strengthening antitrust law in Uganda is not merely a legal reform, but an economic necessity for inclusive growth. This strengthening will require a comprehensive approach: clearer legislation, independent institutions and sustained public awareness as discussed in the recommendations. Lessons from neighboring countries such as Kenya underscore the importance of political will and institutional credibility. Through these reforms, Uganda can ensure that markets serve the public interest, laying the foundation for inclusive and sustainable economic development.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes

Competition Act, Act 5 of 2024 of Uganda

Uganda Communications Act, Act 8 of 1997

Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998 of South Africa

Competition Act, Cap. 504, 2022 of Kenya 

Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, Act 1 of 2018 of Nigeria

Sherman Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C. 1-38, 1890

Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. 41-58, 1914

Clayton Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C. 12-27, 1914

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (2016/C 202/01)

Book

Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (Printed for Andrew Millar, in the Strand; and Alexander Kincaid and J. Bell, in Edinburgh, on or before 12^th April, 1759)

Journals

International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group, ‘Supply Chain Finance: Market Assessment of Uganda’ (2023)

Dr. David Roth, ‘US Antitrust Law: Principles of Common Law – Lecture 11’ (7^th December, 2021)

Case Law

CASE AT.40684 – Facebook Marketplace

CAK Decision on the Proposed Acquisition of 100% of the Entire Issued Capital in Pollman’s Tours & Safaris Limited by Africa Travel Investments Limited (Published on 7^th May, 2025)

Websites

Alexandra Twain, ‘Antitrust Laws: What They Are, How They Work, Major Examples,’ 2025 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp#:~:text=Antitrust%20laws%20regulate%20the%20concentration,foster%20innovation%20through%20increased%20competition. Accessed on 20^th August, 2025

HB Senkel & Xolani Nyali, ‘Uganda: A New Era of Competition Law’ 2024 https://bowmanslaw.com/insights/uganda-a-new-era-of-competition-regulation/ Accessed on 18^th August, 2025

Michael Ajifowoke, ‘MTN, Airtel Dominance Forces Another Telecom Operator Out of Uganda,’ 2021 https://techcabal.com/2021/09/17/mtn-airtel-uganda-force-africell-exit/ Accessed on 21^st August, 2025

Le, A.N.N., Pham, H., Pham, D.T.N. et al. Political stability and foreign direct investment inflows in 25 Asia-Pacific countries: the moderating role of trade openness. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10, 606 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02075-1 (2023)

Competition Commission and Tribunal website https://www.comptrib.co.za/about-us/

Competition Authority of Kenya website https://cak.go.ke/

Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission website https://fccpc.gov.ng/about-us/our-mandate/

[1] Alexandra Twain, ‘Antitrust Laws: What They Are, How They Work, Major Examples,’ 2025 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp#:~:text=Antitrust%20laws%20regulate%20the%20concentration,foster%20innovation%20through%20increased%20competition. Accessed on 20^th August, 2025

[2] Dr. David Roth, ‘US Antitrust Law: Principles of Common Law – Lecture 11’ (7^th December, 2021)

[3] Competition Act, Act 5 of 2024

[4] HB Senkel & Xolani Nyali, ‘Uganda: A New Era of Competition Law’ 2024 https://bowmanslaw.com/insights/uganda-a-new-era-of-competition-regulation/ Accessed on 18^th August, 2025

[5] Section 7(1), Competition Act, Act 5 of 2024

[6] Section 7(2), Competition Act, Act 5 of 2024

[7] Section 4, Uganda Communications Act, Act 8 of 1997

[8] Section 83, Uganda Communications Act, Act 8 of 1997

[9] Section 85, Uganda Communications Act, Act 8 of 1997

[10] Sections 56 and 57, Uganda Communications Act, Act 8 of 1997

[11] Michael Ajifowoke, ‘MTN, Airtel Dominance Forces Another Telecom Operator Out of Uganda,’ 2021 https://techcabal.com/2021/09/17/mtn-airtel-uganda-force-africell-exit/ Accessed on 21^st August, 2025

[12] Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (Printed for Andrew Millar, in the Strand; and Alexander Kincaid and J. Bell, in Edinburgh, on or before 12^th April, 1759)

[13] International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group, ‘Supply Chain Finance: Market Assessment of Uganda’ (2023)

[14] Le, A.N.N., Pham, H., Pham, D.T.N. et al. Political stability and foreign direct investment inflows in 25 Asia-Pacific countries: the moderating role of trade openness. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10, 606 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02075-1 (2023)

[15] Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998 of South Africa

[16] Competition Commission and Tribunal website https://www.comptrib.co.za/about-us/

[17] Competition Act, Cap. 504, 2022 of Kenya

[18] Competition Authority of Kenya website https://cak.go.ke/

[19] CAK Decision on the Proposed Acquisition of 100% of the Entire Issued Capital in Pollman’s Tours & Safaris Limited by Africa Travel Investments Limited (Published on 7^th May, 2025)

[20] Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, Act 1 of 2018 of Nigeria

[21] Section 3, Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, Act 1 of 2018

[22] Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission website https://fccpc.gov.ng/about-us/our-mandate/

[23] Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (2016/C 202/01)

[24] CASE AT.40684 – Facebook Marketplace

[25] Sherman Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C. 1-38, 1890

[26] Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. 41-58, 1914

[27] Clayton Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C. 12-27, 1914