URA returns to Shs 7.4bn renting six years after building Shs 140bn tower

On Sunday, October 19, 2025, the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) completed the transfer of four departments from its headquarters in Nakawa to office space owned by city businessman Sudhir Ruparelia.

The decision to return to rented premises in Kampala has sparked public concern, coming just six years after the completion of the URA Tower, a 22-storey structure built at a cost of Shs 140 billion to end the authority’s dependence on rental offices.

The Nakawa-based tower, which accommodates up to 1,700 staff, was designed with 280,000 square feet of usable space, including underground parking for 360 cars and surface parking for 710 vehicles.

While URA says the new rented space is meant to house the large taxpayers department, critics question the necessity and cost of the move. They argue that, in this digital era, most large taxpayers can meet their obligations and file returns online, without physically visiting URA offices.

During the tower’s construction, then URA Commissioner General Doris Akol told parliament that the authority was spending heavily on communication and travel between scattered offices.

She said consolidating operations in one building would eliminate inefficiencies, improve service delivery, and save taxpayers an estimated Shs 7.4 billion annually in rent. Many Ugandans supported the project at the time, viewing it as a long-term investment to reduce operational costs.

However, the latest move to rent space at the RR Pearl Towers, reportedly costing over Shs 18 billion per year, has revived old questions about fiscal prudence and transparency. URA had earlier justified constructing its own tower, arguing that rented premises often required costly alterations to suit workflow and system requirements.

The frequent relocations of departments, including the tax investigations department, led to high relocation expenses, disruptions, and inefficiencies.

“URA offices within Kampala had relocated more than three times in search of suitable premises, resulting in disruption of services and high relocation costs,” Akol said at the time.

These challenges, URA had explained, diverted resources from other priorities such as staff development, research, and taxpayer outreach. The decision to return to rented space has, therefore, prompted speculation about whether all 280,000 square feet of the Nakawa tower are fully utilized, and whether the shift signals deeper operational or governance issues within the tax body.

Adding to the controversy is the procurement process itself. Although the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Appeals Tribunal nullified the initial contract award to Speke Hotel (1996) Ltd, owned by Sudhir Ruparelia, URA went ahead with the relocation.

In April this year, URA advertised a tender for “the provision of office space for rent in Kampala Central Business Area.” Three firms submitted bids: TWED Property Development Ltd, Speke Hotel (1996) Ltd, and Apple Properties Ltd.

Apple Properties was disqualified for lack of a valid audited financial report. After evaluation, URA named Speke Hotel (1996) Ltd as the best-evaluated bidder, offering space at Pearl Business Park (Pearl Tower) along Kira Road.

TWED, however, protested the award, arguing that the Pearl Tower did not meet URA’s parking requirements of 312 slots plus 100 for walk-in clients since most of its 440 slots had already been leased to TotalEnergies EP Uganda.

The PPDA Tribunal later agreed with TWED, ruling that URA’s evaluation process was flawed and ordering the tax body to re-evaluate the bids within 10 days in line with procurement law.

Despite the ruling, URA has since completed the relocation. When contacted, URA’s manager for public and corporate affairs, Robert Kalumba, maintained that the process followed all necessary legal procedures.

“The process of acquiring the offices passed through all the necessary legal procedures,” Kalumba said.

Still, questions linger over why the tax authority has returned to practices it once deemed inefficient and unsustainable, and whether taxpayers will ultimately bear the burden of yet another costly decision.