The Agriculture Ministry also needs to explain the basis for approving the sh40bn arrangement, the standards used to assess the compost and the measures in place to ensure that farmers receive products appropriate for their needs.
A sh40bn government procurement arrangement for compost supplied by Dei Biopharma Ltd has raised questions about the cost of agricultural inputs, the product’s suitability for targeted crops and compliance with quality standards under a presidential directive on fertilizer procurement.
Documents reviewed by this publication indicate that the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) expects Dei Biopharma to supply 173,913 bags of compost under a programme targeting farmers growing cocoa, coffee, tea and horticultural crops.
The arrangement translates into approximately sh230,000 per 50-kilogramme bag, raising questions about how the price was determined and whether the procurement offers value for public money.
Concerns over the deal are compounded by a July 20, 2026, laboratory assessment by Makerere University’s Department of Soil Science and Land Use Management, which examined compost supplied by Dei Biopharma to establish its suitability for agricultural application.
The report recorded nitrogen content of 2.35 per cent, available phosphorus of 6.79 per cent and potassium of 2.12 per cent. The findings have prompted questions about whether the product’s nutrient composition meets the requirements of the crops targeted under the government programme and whether its price reflects its agricultural value.
However, the documents do not establish that the compost is unsafe. The laboratory report found that the concentrations of the heavy metals examined were within permissible limits, suggesting that the product met the applicable safety thresholds for those substances.
The central issue, therefore, is whether the government is paying a competitive price for a product whose nutrient content, intended use and expected benefits have been adequately established.
Presidential directive
The procurement arrangement traces back to April 3, 2026, when President Yoweri Museveni issued Presidential Directive PO/4, instructing the Agriculture Ministry to procure fertilizers from Itracom Fertilizers Ltd and Dei Biopharma Ltd.
The directive reportedly required the ministry to ensure that the products supplied met the minimum nutrient specifications for their intended crops. It also called for competitive pricing benchmarked against prevailing regional market prices.
On June 10, 2026, the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at Makerere University nominated a fertilizer expert to collect samples from the two companies for laboratory analysis. The exercise was intended to establish whether their products met the required standards before or in connection with their use under the government programme.
CAO, 12 Other District Officials Arrested, Interdicted Over Corruption
However, a complaint dated July 30, 2026, submitted by the university’s Department of Soil Science and Land Use Management, alleges that a team sent to Dei Biopharma’s production facility in Matugga, Wakiso District, found no fertilizer available for sampling.
Instead, the team reportedly found compost, which the complainant described as a soil amendment rather than a conventional fertilizer.
The distinction matters because the two products serve related but different purposes. Fertilizers primarily supply plants with nutrients in specified quantities, while soil amendments improve soil properties, including structure, organic matter content and the capacity to support plant growth. Some amendments also release nutrients as they decompose.
Compost can provide valuable benefits to farmers, but its suitability depends on its composition, application rates, soil conditions and the requirements of the crop. Its value cannot be determined by nutrient concentration alone, just as relatively low nutrient content does not automatically mean it has no agricultural benefit.
Nevertheless, the reported absence of a fertilizer product during the sampling exercise raises questions about whether the product presented for assessment was the same one required under the procurement specifications and whether it was evaluated against standards appropriate for its intended use.
What the laboratory found
The Makerere laboratory report, dated July 20, assessed several parameters, including pH, organic matter, the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, nitrogen, available phosphorus, exchangeable nutrients and selected heavy metals.
It recorded a pH of 8.11, organic matter content of 45.73 per cent and a carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of 11.56.
The report indicated that the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio was below the recommended maximum of 35 for soil amendments, suggesting a low risk of nitrogen immobilisation. However, it cautioned that the relatively low ratio could lead to faster decomposition, requiring more frequent applications to maintain soil organic matter.
The laboratory also found that the compost’s organic matter content was slightly below the recommended range of 50 to 60 per cent for soil amendments, suggesting that improvements to the composting process were needed.
Its sodium content was below 0.5 per cent, which the report considered unlikely to pose a salinity risk.
These findings present a more nuanced picture than a simple declaration that the product is either suitable or unsuitable. The compost has characteristics that may benefit agricultural soils, but questions remain about whether its nutrient composition and application requirements align with the objectives of a programme targeting specific commercial crops.
The complaint argues that the nutrient concentrations are inadequate for the crops covered by the government programme. However, determining whether the compost can adequately support coffee, tea, cocoa and horticultural production requires more than comparing its composition with the nutrient percentages of conventional fertilizers.
Such an assessment would also need to consider the applicable procurement specifications, recommended application rates, soil conditions and whether supplementary fertilizers are expected to be used.
Pricing under scrutiny
The pricing question is equally significant.
A letter dated July 16, 2026, from the Permanent Secretary of MAAIF to chief administrative officers, resident district commissioners and district production officers reportedly provided for the supply of 173,913 bags at a total cost of Shs40 billion.
At approximately Shs230,000 per 50-kilogramme bag, the quoted price is substantially higher than the Shs40,000 to Shs70,000 range cited in the complaint as the prevailing retail price for compost in Uganda.
If that range is representative of comparable products, the difference would be substantial. A sh230,000 bag costs more than three times the upper end of the cited range and nearly six times its lower end.
However, the comparison requires further verification because compost products can differ in nutrient content, organic matter, processing methods, packaging, transportation and delivery arrangements.
One supporting document cited in the complaint is a proforma invoice from Agape Innovations Ltd, dated July 30, 2026, quoting sh70,000 for a 25-kilogramme bag of organic fertilizer.
That translates into sh140,000 for an equivalent 50-kilogramme quantity, before accounting for differences in product specifications and delivery terms.
Although the invoice does not, by itself, establish the prevailing market price for comparable compost, it highlights the need for a transparent pricing methodology and independent market benchmarks before substantial public funds are committed.
The financial implications are significant given the scale of the procurement. If the price is materially higher than that of comparable products, the government could be paying more than necessary for agricultural inputs.
Conversely, if the product offers demonstrably superior benefits or includes additional services, those differences should be documented to justify the price.
Questions over compliance
The procurement also raises questions about enforcement of the presidential directive.
If the directive required minimum nutrient specifications and competitive regional pricing, the relevant authorities need to demonstrate how the product was assessed, which specifications were applied and how the contract price was approved.
The available documents do not establish whether the ministry conducted a comprehensive comparative market assessment, whether the compost was formally approved against the applicable procurement standards or whether field trials were undertaken to assess its performance on the targeted crops.
There is also a need to clarify whether the laboratory analysis formed part of a final product approval process or was intended to inform further decisions.
Dei Biopharma Ltd had not responded to the concerns by the time of publication. This publication is seeking the company’s response on the pricing methodology, product specifications, recommended application rates and evidence supporting its suitability for the crops covered by the programme. Its response will be included when received.
The Agriculture Ministry also needs to explain the basis for approving the sh40bn arrangement, the standards used to assess the compost and the measures in place to ensure that farmers receive products appropriate for their needs.
Ultimately, the issue extends beyond the price of a bag of compost. It concerns whether public procurement delivers agricultural inputs that are competitively priced, independently assessed and capable of meeting the programme’s objectives.