A Shs40 billion government procurement arrangement for compost supplied by Dei Biopharma Ltd has raised questions about the cost of agricultural inputs, the suitability of the product for targeted crops and the enforcement of 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 Shs230,000 per 50-kilogramme bag, raising questions about how the price was determined and whether it represents value for public money.
The concerns 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 whether it met the quality requirements for agricultural application.
The report recorded a nitrogen concentration of 2.35 per cent, available phosphorus of 6.79 per cent and potassium of 2.12 per cent. These findings have prompted questions about whether the material, as tested, can meet the nutritional needs of the crops targeted under the government programme and whether its price reflects its agricultural value.
The documents do not, however, establish that the compost is unsafe. On the contrary, the laboratory report found that the concentrations of the heavy metals examined were within permissible limits, indicating that the material was safe for application to agricultural soils in that respect.
The central issue is therefore whether the government is paying a competitive price for a product whose nutrient content, intended use and expected benefits have been adequately established.
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 the crops they were intended to serve. 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.
According to a complaint dated July 30, 2026, submitted by the university’s Department of Soil Science and Land Use Management, a team sent to Dei Biopharma’s production facility in Matugga, Wakiso District, found no fertilizer available for sampling. Instead, the company had compost, which the complainant described as a soil amendment rather than a conventional fertilizer.
The distinction is important because the two products serve related but different purposes. Fertilizers are primarily intended to supply plants with nutrients in specified quantities, while soil amendments improve soil properties, including its structure, organic matter content and capacity to support plant growth. Some amendments also release nutrients as they decompose.
Compost can therefore provide valuable benefits to farmers, but its suitability depends on its composition, application rates, the condition of the soil and the requirements of the crop. Its value cannot be determined by nutrient concentration alone, just as its lower nutrient content does not automatically mean it has no agricultural benefit.
Nevertheless, the absence of a fertilizer product during the sampling exercise raises a question about whether the product presented for assessment was the same product required under the procurement specifications and whether it was evaluated against appropriate standards for its intended use.
The Makerere laboratory report, dated July 20, assessed several parameters, including pH, organic matter, 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 concluded that the ratio was below the recommended maximum of 35 for soil amendments, indicating a low risk of nitrogen immobilisation. However, it cautioned that the relatively low ratio could lead to faster decomposition, requiring more frequent application 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, a level 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 good or bad. The compost has characteristics that may benefit agricultural soils, but questions remain about whether its nutrient composition and application requirements match the objectives of a programme intended to support particular commercial crops.
The complaint argues that the nutrient concentrations are inadequate for the crops targeted by the government programme. However, establishing whether the compost can adequately support coffee, tea, cocoa or horticultural production requires more than comparing its composition with the nutrient percentages of conventional fertilizers.
The assessment would also need to consider the applicable procurement specifications, recommended application rates, soil conditions and whether supplementary fertilizers are expected to be used.
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 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 the quoted market range is representative of comparable products, the difference would be substantial. A Shs230,000 bag costs more than three times the upper end of that range and nearly six times its lower end.
However, the comparison requires further verification. Compost products can differ in nutrient content, organic matter, processing, packaging, transport and delivery arrangements.
One supporting document cited in the complaint is a proforma invoice from Agape Innovations Ltd, dated July 30, 2026, quoting Shs70,000 for a 25-kilogramme bag of organic fertilizer.
That translates to Shs140,000 for an equivalent 50-kilogramme quantity, before considering any differences in product specifications or delivery terms.
Although this invoice does not by itself establish the market price of comparable compost, it illustrates why the government needs a transparent pricing methodology and independent market benchmarks before committing substantial public funds.
The financial implications are significant because the procurement involves tens of billions of shillings. If the price is materially above 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.
The procurement also raises questions about the 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 full comparative market assessment, whether the compost was formally approved against the applicable procurement standards or whether the government has undertaken field trials to assess its performance on the targeted crops.
There is also a need to clarify whether the laboratory analysis was part of a final product approval process or an assessment 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, the product’s specifications, the intended application rates and the 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 Shs40 billion 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 appropriately priced, independently assessed and capable of meeting the programme’s objectives.
ENDS.
