Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, has stated that the internet infrastructure, should be owned by the government, and not by private companies. This is to ensure affordable and equitable access for citizens.
In a recent press briefing, Museveni argued that allowing private companies to own vital internet infrastructure, often leads to monopolies driven by profit, rather than public interest.
He argued that while private firms may play a vital role in distributing internet services to end-users, core transmission lines, the backbones should remain under government control to guarantee low-cost transmission.
Currently, Uganda has a mix of publicly and privately owned telecommunication and internet-service providers. The national fibre backbone network has seen investments over time. Internal access, both mobile and broadband, is provided through private ISPs that resell access to users.
In previous years, there have been attempts made to promote state-owned connectivity; for example, the Ugandan government at one point directed that all ministries and agencies use services from state-owned telco.
Museveni invoked his own experiences, contrasting Uganda’s earlier limitations during conflict days with current digital possibilities saying, “When we were fighting in the early days, I had to judge using my eyes to estimate how far the enemy is, so that I could adjust my gun sight to shoot him properly. But these days, with laser, I don’t have to calculate, I just read it on the gauge.”
He used this as motivation for securing state control over internet for national development and public good.
He added by saying, ” It is the same as renting. When internet is owned by business people and they monopolize it, they are after money. But the government internet backbone will not overcharge you. The cost will come down from 600 dollars per gigabyte.”
For ordinary internet users in Uganda, Museveni’s suggestion could lead to cheaper data and improved access especially if implementation is inclusive and transparent.
For private ISPs, it signals possible regulatory and structural upheaval: fewer opportunities to own backbone infrastructure, perhaps more oversight or even exclusion from core network operations.
For civil society, the move has ambiguous implications. On one hand, improved access and affordability could widen digital inclusion. On the other hand, increased state control raises concerns about censorship, privacy, and freedom of expression.
