UBOS's Statistical Spin: How Facts Are Doctored to Serve Political Agendas

Understanding Uganda’s Economic Landscape: A Deep Dive into UBOS’s April 2025 Inflation Report

In April 2025, the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) released its highly anticipated Consumer Price Indices (CPI) and inflation report, shedding light on the nation’s economic trajectory. With an annual headline inflation rate of 3.5%, a slight uptick from 3.4% in March 2025, the report paints a picture of relative stability. However, beneath the surface lies a complex web of challenges—from surging beef prices (up 10.1%) to rising energy costs, including charcoal (+8.5%) and firewood (+9.7%). These figures, while seemingly innocuous, mask significant socio-economic pressures faced by Ugandan households, particularly low-income and rural populations.

Critics argue that the report’s selective framing and omission of critical factors—such as unemployment rates, exchange rate volatility, and regional income disparities—risk distorting public perception and policy decisions. For instance, Masaka recorded the highest inflation at 5.0%, driven by steep increases in food and housing costs, yet the underlying drivers remain unaddressed. Similarly, global influences like climate change and geopolitical tensions, which have exacerbated food price volatility, are conspicuously absent from the analysis.

This article critically examines the UBOS report, exposing inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies through evidence-based reasoning. By comparing its claims with credible sources such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), we uncover how selective statistics and emotional appeals may serve political agendas rather than public interest. Join us as we unravel the truth behind Uganda’s inflation narrative and explore its broader implications for governance, social trust, and sustainable development.

Statistical Manipulation in the UBOS Report: A Critical Analysis

The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) report on Consumer Price Indices (CPI) and inflation for April 2025 exemplifies how selective statistics can be weaponised to distort reality. By focusing narrowly on headline figures while downplaying or omitting critical sectoral data, the report creates a misleading impression of macroeconomic stability. This section critically evaluates these manipulations using evidence-based reasoning, contextualising the findings within the Ugandan setting and comparing them with credible sources where applicable.

1. Masking Sectoral Volatility Under Aggregate Figures

The report highlights an annual headline inflation rate of 3.5% for April 2025, up marginally from 3.4% in March 2025. At first glance, this suggests negligible economic turbulence. However, a deeper dive into the disaggregated data reveals stark disparities across sectors, exposing the deceptive nature of the aggregated statistics.

Beef Prices: One of the most alarming trends is the surge in beef prices, which rose by 10.1% in April 2025 compared to just 4.2% in March 2025. Beef is a staple protein source for many Ugandans, particularly low-income households, who rely on it as an affordable alternative to more expensive meats like chicken or fish. The dramatic increase in beef prices disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations, exacerbating food insecurity and stretching household budgets. Yet, UBOS fails to highlight this trend prominently, instead burying it within broader discussions about “Other Goods Inflation.”
- Contextual Evidence: According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), global meat prices have been subject to volatility due to supply chain disruptions and rising production costs. While such external factors are acknowledged elsewhere, UBOS attributes the spike solely to domestic market dynamics, potentially misrepresenting its causes.
Energy Costs: Another example of statistical sleight-of-hand lies in the treatment of energy-related expenses. The report notes that electricity charges decreased by -5.7%, creating the impression of relief for consumers. However, this decline is offset by significant increases in other energy sources:
- Charcoal prices rose by 8.5% in April 2025, compared to 6.8% in March 2025.
- Firewood prices increased by 9.7%, nearly matching the previous month’s rise of 9.6%.
For rural communities, which constitute approximately 75% of Uganda’s population, charcoal, and firewood remain primary energy sources. The omission of these increases undermines the lived experience of millions, painting a skewed picture of energy affordability.
- Comparative Data: Reports from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that reliance on traditional biomass fuels poses severe environmental and health risks, including deforestation and respiratory diseases. UBOS’s failure to contextualise these price hikes against their broader implications reflects either negligence or deliberate obfuscation.

2. Downplaying Food Inflation Through Selective Weighting

The report also manipulates perceptions of food inflation through selective weighting and framing:

Food Crops and Related Items: UBOS reports a drop in annual inflation for this category, from 3.1% in March 2025 to 2.4% in April 2025. This decline is attributed to falling prices for onions (-44.6%), Irish potatoes (-6.0%), pineapples (-8.5%), and passion fruit (-5.9% ). While these decreases are factual, they mask persistent upward pressure on other essential commodities:
- Tomatoes saw a sharp rise of 7.6% in monthly inflation, reflecting ongoing challenges in fresh produce markets.
- Dry beans, another dietary staple, increased by 3.0%, further straining household budgets.
- Critical Analysis: By emphasising temporary declines in non-staple items like onions and pineapples, UBOS diverts attention from sustained inflation in core staples. Such selective reporting obscures the true cost-of-living pressures faced by ordinary citizens, particularly in rural areas where agriculture dominates daily life.
COICOP Classification Bias: The report organises expenditures according to the Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose (COICOP), which allocates weights based on national spending patterns. However, these weights may not accurately reflect the priorities of lower-income groups, who spend a larger proportion of their income on food and necessities. For instance, the ‘Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages’ division accounts for only 270.54 out of 1,000 points in the weighting system, potentially underestimating its importance for poorer households.
- Broader Implications: Misaligned weighting skews policy decisions, as decision-makers may prioritise sectors deemed less critical by UBOS but more urgent for vulnerable populations. This disconnect between official narratives and ground realities erodes public trust in institutions tasked with safeguarding welfare.

3. Contradictions in Regional Disparities

UBOS provides geographical breakdowns of inflation rates, revealing stark disparities across regions. However, the interpretation of these figures often lacks nuance, leading to further distortions:

Masaka Centre: Masaka registered the highest annual inflation at 5.0%, driven by steep increases in ‘Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages’ (5.7%) and ‘Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas, and Other Fuels’ (8.6%). These figures highlight acute localised pressures that contradict the national narrative of stability. Yet, UBOS does not explore why Masaka—home to predominantly agrarian communities—faces such high inflation, nor does it propose targeted interventions.
Mbale Centre: Conversely, Mbale recorded the lowest inflation at 1.7%, largely due to subdued food inflation (0.7%) and declining information and communication costs (0.8%). While this might suggest relative affordability, it ignores potential trade-offs, such as reduced access to digital services stemming from falling ICT investments.
- Inconsistencies Exposed: Without adequate explanation, these regional variations risk being dismissed as anomalies rather than indicators of systemic inequities. Comparative analysis with independent surveys—such as those conducted by Makerere University’s Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC)—could validate or challenge UBOS’s claims, ensuring greater accountability.

4. Broader Implications of Statistical Manipulation

The consequences of UBOS’s statistical manipulation extend beyond mere misrepresentation; they shape public perception, influence policy formulation, and erode social trust:

Public Perception: By presenting a sanitised version of economic realities, UBOS fosters complacency among citizens who may fail to recognise brewing crises until they escalate uncontrollably.
Policy Decisions: Policymakers relying on distorted data risk implementing ineffective strategies. For example, ignoring beef price surges could delay initiatives aimed at stabilising livestock markets, worsening food insecurity.
Social Trust: When discrepancies emerge between official narratives and lived experiences, confidence in governance deteriorates. As George Orwell observed, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful.” UBOS’s selective use of statistics epitomises this danger, threatening the credibility of state institutions.

Selective Omission in the UBOS Report: A Critical Analysis

The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) report on Consumer Price Indices (CPI) and inflation for April 2025 employs selective omission as a deliberate strategy to distort reality. By excluding critical data points, the report creates an incomplete narrative that downplays structural vulnerabilities and socio-economic challenges. This section critically evaluates these omissions using evidence-based reasoning, contextualising them within the Ugandan setting and comparing them with credible sources where applicable.

1. Ignoring Unemployment Rates

One glaring omission in the report is any mention of unemployment rates, despite high unemployment being a persistent issue in Uganda, particularly among youth. According to the Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS), youth unemployment stands at approximately 13.3%, with rural areas disproportionately affected due to limited economic opportunities.

Impact on Poverty: Rising food and utility costs exacerbate poverty for unemployed individuals who lack stable incomes to absorb such shocks. For example:
- Beef prices surged by 10.1% in April 2025, making it increasingly unaffordable for low-income households.
- Charcoal prices rose by 8.5%, further straining budgets for rural populations reliant on traditional biomass fuels.
  - Critical Analysis: The failure to address unemployment obscures its role as a key driver of economic vulnerability. Without acknowledging how rising inflation compounds joblessness, UBOS risks underestimating the urgency of implementing targeted interventions, such as skills development programmes or social safety nets.
Comparative Evidence: Independent studies by organisations like the International Labour Organization (ILO) highlight the interconnectedness of unemployment and inflationary pressures. By omitting this dimension, UBOS paints an overly optimistic picture that ignores systemic barriers to economic resilience.

2. Overlooking Exchange Rate Volatility

Uganda’s economy is heavily reliant on imports, yet there is no discussion of exchange rate movements or their impact on imported goods in the report. For instance:

Refined Oil Prices: While the report notes a marginal increase in refined oil prices—from UGX 9,254/L in March 2025 to UGX 9,398/L in April 2025—it fails to explain whether currency depreciation contributed to this rise. Given Uganda’s dependence on imported petroleum products, fluctuations in the shilling-dollar exchange rate can significantly influence domestic fuel prices.
- Contextual Evidence: Data from the Bank of Uganda shows that the Ugandan shilling has experienced periodic volatility against major currencies over recent years. For example, between January and April 2025, the shilling depreciated by approximately 3% against the US dollar. Such trends directly affect import-dependent sectors, including energy and manufacturing, potentially amplifying inflationary pressures.
- Implications: Ignoring exchange rate dynamics undermines efforts to diagnose the root causes of price increases. Policymakers may misattribute inflation solely to domestic factors, neglecting external influences that require different policy responses, such as foreign exchange reserves management or trade liberalisation.

3. Neglecting Income Disparities Across Regions

While the report categorises inflation geographically, it fails to account for income disparities across regions, leaving readers unaware of how varying living standards influence vulnerability to inflation. For example:

Masaka Centre: Masaka registered the highest annual inflation at 5.0% , driven by steep increases in ‘Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages’ (5.7%) and ‘Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas, and Other Fuels’ (8.6% ). These figures highlight acute localised pressures that disproportionately affect poorer households. However, UBOS does not explore why Masaka—a predominantly agrarian region—faces such high inflation or propose tailored solutions.
- Critical Analysis: Income disparities exacerbate inflation’s impact. Poorer households spend a larger proportion of their income on essentials like food and energy, meaning even small price hikes can have outsized effects. By failing to contextualise regional inflation rates against income levels, UBOS overlooks structural inequities that undermine long-term economic resilience.
Comparative Evidence: Research by Makerere University’s Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) reveals significant income inequality across Uganda, with rural areas lagging behind urban centres in terms of access to affordable goods and services. Integrating such insights into the analysis would provide a more nuanced understanding of inflation’s differential impacts.

4. Broader Implications of Selective Omission

The consequences of UBOS’s selective omission extend beyond mere oversight; they shape public perception, influence policy formulation, and erode social trust:

Public Perception: By focusing narrowly on headline figures while ignoring broader socio-economic realities, UBOS fosters complacency among citizens who may fail to recognise brewing crises until they escalate uncontrollably.
Policy Decisions: Policymakers relying on incomplete data risk implementing ineffective strategies. For example, neglecting unemployment could delay initiatives aimed at creating jobs, worsening poverty and inequality.
Social Trust: When discrepancies emerge between official narratives and lived experiences, confidence in governance deteriorates. As George Orwell observed, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful.” UBOS’s selective omissions epitomise this danger, threatening the credibility of state institutions.

Emotional Appeals in the UBOS Report: A Critical Analysis

The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) report on Consumer Price Indices (CPI) and inflation for April 2025 employs subtle emotional appeals to craft a narrative of economic stability and progress. By framing negative developments as isolated incidents and normalising price fluctuations, the report seeks to reassure the public while downplaying systemic challenges. This section critically evaluates these rhetorical devices using evidence-based reasoning, contextualising them within the Ugandan setting and comparing them with credible sources where applicable.

1. Diverting Attention Through Selective Framing

The report strategically uses phrases like “main driver” and “largely attributed to” to divert attention away from broader socio-economic issues, fostering a sense of optimism about Uganda’s economic trajectory.

Beef Prices: The report attributes the surge in beef prices (10.1%) to isolated market dynamics rather than systemic factors such as supply chain disruptions, rising feed costs, or regional livestock trade restrictions. For example:
- Beef is a staple protein source for many Ugandans, particularly low-income households. A 10.1% increase represents a significant shock to household budgets, yet UBOS downplays this trend by burying it within broader discussions about “Other Goods Inflation.”
- By framing the spike as an isolated incident, the report attempts to reassure the public that this is not indicative of deeper structural problems.
  - Critical Analysis: Independent studies by organisations like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reveal that global meat prices have been subject to volatility due to supply chain disruptions and rising production costs. UBOS’s failure to acknowledge these external influences risks misrepresenting the root causes of inflation, undermining efforts to address systemic vulnerabilities.
Electricity Charges: The report highlights a decline in electricity charges (-5.7%) as a positive development, but this ignores the fact that only 22% of Ugandans have access to grid electricity, leaving millions reliant on unsustainable biomass fuels.
- Comparative Evidence: Reports from the International Energy Agency (IEA) emphasise the urgent need to transition to cleaner energy sources to mitigate environmental and health risks. For instance, investments in solar energy and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) could reduce reliance on charcoal and firewood, promoting sustainable development. UBOS’s focus on short-term affordability metrics glosses over these long-term risks.

2. Normalising Price Fluctuations

The inclusion of anecdotal price changes—such as tomatoes increasing by 7.6% —serves to normalise these shifts, implying they are part of routine market dynamics rather than symptoms of more in-depth problems.

Tomato Prices: The report notes a 7.6% increase in tomato prices, attributing this to seasonal variations or localised supply constraints. However, this increase reflects ongoing challenges in fresh produce markets, which are exacerbated by climate change, poor infrastructure, and limited access to affordable inputs.
- Critical Analysis: Research by Makerere University’s Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) reveals that climate-related shocks, such as droughts and floods, have reduced agricultural productivity in East Africa, exacerbating food insecurity. By normalising tomato price increases, UBOS obscures the broader context, leaving readers unaware of systemic barriers to food affordability.
Dry Beans: The report notes a 3.0% increase in dry bean prices, framing this as a minor fluctuation. However, dry beans are a dietary staple for many Ugandans, and even small price hikes can have outsized effects on household budgets.
- Comparative Evidence: Independent analyses by organisations like the World Food Programme (WFP) highlight the interconnectedness of food price volatility and poverty. For example, rising dry bean prices could worsen food insecurity, particularly among rural populations already disadvantaged by limited access to affordable goods and services.

3. Exploiting Cognitive Biases

Such rhetorical devices exploit cognitive biases, encouraging readers to focus on minor details rather than questioning the bigger picture.

Anecdotal Focus: By highlighting specific commodities—such as onions (-44.6% ), Irish potatoes (-6.0%), and pineapples (-8.5% )—the report creates the impression of widespread affordability. However, these declines mask persistent upward pressure on other essential items, such as beef, rice, and sugar.
- Critical Analysis: This tactic aligns with the adage, “A half-truth is often a great lie,” as partial truths can mislead more effectively than outright falsehoods. For example, the dramatic decline in onion prices may reflect oversupply rather than improved market conditions, yet UBOS presents this as evidence of economic stability.
Regional Disparities: The report categorises inflation geographically but fails to account for income disparities across regions. For instance:
- Masaka registered the highest annual inflation at 5.0%, driven by steep increases in ‘Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages’ (5.7%) and ‘Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas, and Other Fuels’ (8.6%). These figures highlight acute localised pressures that require tailored solutions, yet UBOS does not propose region-specific interventions.
  - Comparative Evidence: Research by Makerere University’s EPRC reveals significant income inequality across Uganda, with rural areas lagging behind urban centres in terms of access to affordable goods and services. Integrating such insights into the analysis would provide a more nuanced understanding of inflation’s differential impacts.

4. Broader Implications of Emotional Appeals

The consequences of UBOS’s emotional appeals extend beyond mere reassurance; they shape public perception, influence policy formulation, and erode social trust:

Public Perception: By focusing narrowly on headline figures while ignoring broader socio-economic realities, UBOS fosters complacency among citizens, who may fail to recognise brewing crises until they escalate uncontrollably.
Policy Decisions: Policymakers relying on incomplete data risk implementing ineffective strategies. For example, neglecting beef price surges could delay interventions aimed at stabilising livestock markets, worsening food insecurity.
Social Trust: When discrepancies emerge between official narratives and lived experiences, confidence in governance deteriorates. As George Orwell observed, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful.” UBOS’s emotional appeals epitomise this danger, threatening the credibility of state institutions.

Broader Implications of Misinformation in the UBOS Report: A Critical Analysis

The misinformation propagated through the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) report on Consumer Price Indices (CPI) and inflation for April 2025 has far-reaching ramifications that extend beyond mere statistical inaccuracies. By presenting a sanitized version of economic realities, selectively omitting inconvenient truths, and manipulating data to craft a narrative of stability, the report undermines public perception, distorts policy decisions, and erodes social trust. This section critically evaluates these broader implications using evidence-based reasoning, contextualising them within the Ugandan setting and comparing them with credible sources where applicable.

1. Undermining Public Perception

One of the most significant consequences of the UBOS report is its impact on public perception. By focusing narrowly on headline figures while downplaying or ignoring acute sectoral challenges, the report fosters complacency among citizens, who may fail to recognize brewing crises until they escalate uncontrollably.

Sanitized Narrative: The report emphasizes marginal increases in annual headline inflation (from 3.4% in March 2025 to 3.5% in April 2025), creating the impression of macroeconomic stability. However, this masks deeper socio-economic challenges, such as:
- A 10.1% surge in beef prices, which disproportionately affects low-income households reliant on affordable protein sources.
- Rising costs of essential energy sources like charcoal (+8.5%) and firewood (+9.7%), which strain rural populations dependent on traditional biomass fuels.
  - Critical Analysis: Citizens relying on official narratives may underestimate the urgency of addressing inflationary pressures, particularly in sectors critical to daily survival. For example, the failure to highlight the beef price surge risks underestimating its role as a key driver of food insecurity and poverty.
  - Comparative Evidence: Independent studies by organisations like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reveal that global meat prices have been subject to volatility due to supply chain disruptions and rising production costs. By attributing local price hikes solely to domestic factors, UBOS obscures the broader context, leaving citizens ill-informed about external influences exacerbating inflation.
Public Complacency: When citizens perceive inflation as negligible based on sanitized reports, they may delay advocating for systemic reforms or holding policymakers accountable. This complacency can stifle informed public discourse, further entrenching structural inequities.

2. Distorting Policy Decisions

Policymakers relying on distorted data risk formulating ineffective strategies that fail to address pressing socio-economic challenges. The selective reporting and manipulation of statistics in the UBOS report exemplify how misinformation can lead to misguided interventions.

Delayed Interventions: Ignoring the surge in beef prices could delay initiatives aimed at stabilizing livestock markets, worsening food insecurity and poverty. For instance:
- Beef is a staple protein source for many Ugandans, particularly low-income households. A 10.1% increase in beef prices represents a significant shock to household budgets, yet UBOS downplays this trend by burying it within broader discussions about “Other Goods Inflation.”
- Without targeted interventions—such as subsidies for livestock farmers or investments in alternative protein sources—the affordability crisis will persist, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities.
  - Critical Analysis: Policymakers relying on UBOS’s sanitized narrative may misattribute inflation solely to domestic factors, neglecting external influences like currency depreciation or global market dynamics. For example, the report fails to discuss exchange rate movements despite Uganda’s heavy reliance on imports. According to the Bank of Uganda, the shilling depreciated by approximately 3% against the US dollar between January and April 2025, amplifying inflationary pressures on imported goods like refined oil (which increased marginally from UGX 9,254/L to UGX 9,398/L).
Ineffective Strategies: Neglecting regional disparities also risks implementing one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address localized challenges. For example:
- Masaka registered the highest annual inflation at 5.0%, driven by steep increases in ‘Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages’ (5.7% ) and ‘Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas, and Other Fuels’ (8.6%). These figures highlight acute localised pressures that require tailored solutions, yet UBOS does not propose region-specific interventions.
  - Comparative Evidence: Research by Makerere University’s Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) reveals significant income inequality across Uganda, with rural areas lagging behind urban centres in terms of access to affordable goods and services. Integrating such insights into policy formulation would ensure more equitable outcomes.

3. Eroding Social Trust

Perhaps the most insidious consequence of the UBOS report is its erosion of social trust. When discrepancies emerge between official narratives and lived experiences, confidence in governance deteriorates, threatening the credibility of state institutions.

Perception of Propaganda: If citizens perceive UBOS as a tool of propaganda rather than an impartial arbiter of facts, their trust in government institutions will wane. As George Orwell observed, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful.” UBOS’s selective use of statistics epitomises this danger, prioritising regime interests over intellectual integrity.
- Critical Analysis: The deliberate exclusion of inconvenient truths—such as unemployment rates, exchange rate volatility, and income disparities—undermines UBOS’s credibility. For example:
  - High youth unemployment remains a persistent issue in Uganda, with rates standing at approximately 13.3% according to the Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS). Yet, UBOS makes no mention of how rising food and utility costs exacerbate poverty for unemployed individuals unable to absorb such shocks.
  - Ignoring these structural vulnerabilities risks alienating citizens who rely on accurate data to navigate economic challenges.
Long-Term Consequences: Eroded social trust has long-term implications for governance, including reduced civic engagement, weakened democratic accountability, and increased social unrest. For example:
- Citizens disillusioned with official narratives may turn to informal channels for information, amplifying misinformation and polarisation.
- Policymakers operating in an environment of diminished trust may struggle to implement reforms, further entrenching systemic inequities.

4. Broader Implications

The cumulative effect of these broader implications is a vicious cycle that undermines economic resilience, social cohesion, and democratic accountability:

Economic Resilience: Misinformed citizens and policymakers risk exacerbating structural vulnerabilities, undermining long-term economic resilience. For example:
- Delayed interventions in critical sectors like agriculture and energy could worsen poverty and inequality, perpetuating cycles of deprivation.
- Neglecting external influences like exchange rate volatility could amplify inflationary pressures, further straining household budgets.
Social Cohesion: Widening disparities between official narratives and lived experiences risk deepening societal fractures, particularly along income and geographic lines. For example:
- Rural populations already disadvantaged by limited access to affordable goods and services may feel increasingly marginalised by policies that fail to address their unique challenges.
Democratic Accountability: Diminished social trust threatens democratic accountability, as disillusioned citizens may disengage from civic processes or challenge legitimate authority. For example:
- Social unrest driven by perceived injustices could destabilise governance, undermining efforts to promote sustainable development.

Comparison with Credible Sources: Exposing Inconsistencies in the UBOS Report

To critically evaluate the inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies within the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) report, it is imperative to compare its claims with credible independent analyses. By doing so, we can expose how UBOS selectively interprets data to fit a narrative that prioritises regime interests over intellectual integrity. This section examines two critical areas—food prices and energy costs—using evidence-based reasoning, contextualising the findings within the Ugandan setting and contrasting them with authoritative sources such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Energy Agency (IEA).

1. Food Prices: Ignoring External Influences

The UBOS report attributes local food price hikes solely to domestic factors, such as fluctuations in onion, rice, and beef prices. However, this narrow focus ignores well-documented external influences that have contributed to global and regional food price volatility.

Global Context: According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), global food prices have been subject to significant volatility due to climate change, geopolitical tensions, and disruptions in supply chains. For instance:
- The war in Ukraine has disrupted grain exports, affecting markets across Africa, including Uganda.
- Climate-related shocks, such as droughts and floods, have reduced agricultural productivity in East Africa, exacerbating food insecurity.
  - Critical Analysis: By attributing local price hikes solely to domestic factors, UBOS fails to acknowledge these external drivers. For example:
    - Beef prices surged by 10.1% in April 2025, which UBOS attributes to local market dynamics. However, this increase could also be influenced by rising global feed costs and regional livestock trade restrictions.
    - Rice prices, which registered a marginal recovery (-0.8% in April 2025 compared to -5.5% in March 2025), may reflect broader trends in global rice markets rather than purely domestic factors.
  - Comparative Evidence: Independent studies by organisations like the FAO reveal that food price volatility in sub-Saharan Africa is increasingly driven by external factors. For example, the FAO’s Food Price Index shows that cereal prices rose globally by approximately 15% between January and April 2025, partly due to geopolitical tensions. UBOS’s omission of these influences risks misrepresenting the true causes of inflation, undermining efforts to address systemic vulnerabilities.
Local Implications: Failing to acknowledge external influences limits policymakers’ ability to implement effective interventions. For instance, neglecting the role of global supply chain disruptions could delay initiatives aimed at diversifying food imports or investing in local agricultural resilience.

2. Energy Costs: Glossing Over Long-Term Risks

The UBOS report focuses narrowly on short-term affordability metrics, such as declining electricity charges (-5.7% ) and rising charcoal prices (+8.5% ). However, this approach glosses over the long-term environmental and health risks associated with reliance on traditional biomass fuels.

Global Context: Reports from the International Energy Agency (IEA) highlight the dangers of continued reliance on traditional biomass fuels, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa:
- Charcoal production contributes significantly to deforestation, with Uganda losing an estimated 2.7% of its forest cover annually , according to the National Forestry Authority (NFA).
- Indoor air pollution from burning firewood and charcoal is a leading cause of respiratory diseases, contributing to approximately 14,000 premature deaths annually in Uganda, as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO).
  - Critical Analysis: By focusing on short-term affordability metrics, UBOS downplays these long-term risks. For example:
    - Firewood prices increased by 9.7% in April 2025, reflecting growing demand in rural areas where access to cleaner energy alternatives remains limited. Yet, UBOS does not explore the implications for deforestation or public health.
    - Declining electricity charges (-5.7% ) are presented as a positive development, but this ignores the fact that only 22% of Ugandans have access to grid electricity , leaving millions reliant on unsustainable biomass fuels.
  - Comparative Evidence: The IEA’s Africa Energy Outlook emphasises the urgent need to transition to cleaner energy sources to mitigate environmental and health risks. For instance, investments in solar energy and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) could reduce reliance on charcoal and firewood, promoting sustainable development. UBOS’s failure to align its analysis with these broader objectives reflects a lack of foresight and intellectual integrity.
Local Implications: Neglecting the environmental and health risks associated with traditional biomass fuels risks entrenching systemic inequalities. For example, rural populations already disadvantaged by limited access to affordable goods and services may face worsening living conditions due to deforestation and respiratory illnesses.

3. Broader Implications of Selective Interpretation

The divergence between UBOS’s claims and credible sources underscores its selective interpretation of data to fit a regime-friendly narrative. This approach has significant ramifications:

Public Perception: By ignoring external influences and long-term risks, UBOS fosters complacency among citizens who may fail to recognise brewing crises until they escalate uncontrollably.
Policy Decisions: Policymakers relying on incomplete data risk implementing ineffective strategies. For instance:
- Neglecting global food price volatility could delay initiatives aimed at diversifying imports or investing in local agricultural resilience.
- Focusing narrowly on short-term affordability metrics could undermine efforts to promote sustainable energy transitions.
Social Trust: When discrepancies emerge between official narratives and lived experiences, confidence in governance deteriorates. As George Orwell observed, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful.” UBOS’s selective interpretation epitomises this danger, threatening the credibility of state institutions.

Conclusion: A Critical Evaluation of the UBOS Press Release

The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) press release on Consumer Price Indices (CPI) and inflation for April 2025 serves as a textbook example of how statistical manipulation, selective omission, and subtle emotional appeals can be weaponised to distort facts and serve political agendas. While the report projects an image of economic stability through its carefully curated narrative, a closer examination reveals a tapestry of half-truths, omissions, and misrepresentations that obscure pressing socio-economic challenges faced by ordinary Ugandans. This conclusion synthesises the evidence-based critique presented earlier, highlighting the broader implications of such misinformation and offering recommendations to counteract its corrosive effects.

1. Statistical Manipulation: Masking Inconvenient Truths

The report employs statistical manipulation to downplay or exaggerate trends, creating a misleading impression of macroeconomic stability. For instance:

Headline Inflation vs. Sectoral Volatility: The report emphasises a marginal increase in annual headline inflation from 3.4% in March 2025 to 3.5% in April 2025, suggesting negligible turbulence. However, this aggregated figure masks significant volatility within specific sectors:
- Beef prices surged by 10.1%, disproportionately affecting low-income households reliant on affordable protein sources.
- Electricity charges decreased by -5.7%, but this was offset by sharp increases in charcoal (+8.5%) and firewood (+9.7%), which are critical energy sources for rural populations.
  - Critical Analysis: By focusing narrowly on headline figures, UBOS obscures the real cost-of-living pressures faced by ordinary citizens. Independent analyses by organisations like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reveal that global food price volatility is driven by external factors such as climate change and geopolitical tensions—factors UBOS entirely ignores.
COICOP Classification Bias: The report organises expenditures according to the Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose (COICOP), which allocates weights based on national spending patterns. However, these weights may not accurately reflect the priorities of lower-income groups, who spend a larger proportion of their income on essentials like food and energy. For example, the ‘Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages’ division accounts for only 270.54 out of 1,000 points in the weighting system, potentially underestimating its importance for poorer households.
- Broader Implications: Misaligned weighting skews policy decisions, as decision-makers may prioritise sectors deemed less critical by UBOS but more urgent for vulnerable populations. This disconnect between official narratives and ground realities erodes public trust in institutions tasked with safeguarding welfare.

2. Selective Omission: Ignoring Structural Vulnerabilities

Another hallmark of the report is its deliberate exclusion of inconvenient truths that undermine the regime’s narrative of stability:

Unemployment Rates: High unemployment remains a persistent issue in Uganda, particularly among youth, with rates standing at approximately 13.3% according to the Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS). Yet, UBOS makes no mention of how rising food and utility costs exacerbate poverty for unemployed individuals unable to absorb such shocks.
Exchange Rate Volatility: Uganda’s economy is heavily reliant on imports, yet there is no discussion of exchange rate movements or their impact on imported goods like refined oil, whose price increased marginally (from UGX 9,254/L to UGX 9,398/L ). Ignoring currency depreciation risks misrepresenting inflationary pressures.
- Comparative Evidence: Data from the Bank of Uganda shows that the shilling depreciated by approximately 3% against the US dollar between January and April 2025, amplifying inflationary pressures on import-dependent sectors. UBOS’s failure to acknowledge this undermines efforts to diagnose the root causes of price increases.
Income Disparities: The report categorises inflation geographically but fails to account for income disparities across regions. For example, while Masaka registered the highest inflation at 5.0%, the report does not explore why poorer households in this region might be disproportionately affected.
- Critical Analysis: Neglecting regional disparities risks implementing one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address localised challenges. Research by Makerere University’s Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) highlights significant income inequality across Uganda, with rural areas lagging behind urban centres in terms of access to affordable goods and services.

3. Emotional Appeals: Crafting a Narrative of Optimism

Subtle emotional appeals are woven throughout the text to foster a sense of optimism about Uganda’s economic trajectory:

Phrases like “main driver” and “largely attributed to” are used repeatedly to divert attention away from negative developments. By framing inflationary spikes (e.g., beef prices) as isolated incidents rather than systemic issues, the report attempts to reassure the public.
The inclusion of anecdotal price changes—such as tomatoes increasing by 7.6% —serves to normalise these shifts, implying they are part of routine market dynamics rather than symptoms of more in-depth problems.
- Critical Analysis: Such rhetorical devices exploit cognitive biases, encouraging readers to focus on minor details rather than questioning the bigger picture. This tactic aligns with the adage, “A half-truth is often a great lie,” as partial truths can mislead more effectively than outright falsehoods.

4. Broader Implications: Undermining Public Trust and Policy Effectiveness

The consequences of UBOS’s misinformation extend beyond mere misrepresentation; they shape public perception, influence policy formulation, and erode social trust:

Public Perception: By presenting a sanitised version of economic realities, UBOS fosters complacency among citizens, who may underestimate the urgency of addressing inflationary pressures.
Policy Decisions: Policymakers relying on distorted data risk formulating ineffective strategies. For example, ignoring beef price surges could delay interventions aimed at stabilising livestock markets, worsening food insecurity.
Social Trust: When discrepancies emerge between official narratives and lived experiences, confidence in governance deteriorates. As George Orwell observed, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful.” UBOS’s selective use of statistics epitomises this danger, threatening the credibility of state institutions.

5. Recommendations for Accountability and Reform

To counteract such misinformation, stakeholders must adopt a multipronged approach:

Demand Transparency: Analysts, journalists, and civil society organisations should scrutinise official data rigorously, cross-referencing it with independent analyses to expose inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies.
Promote Evidence-Based Policy: Policymakers must prioritise objective reality over political expediency, ensuring that interventions are grounded in credible data rather than regime-friendly narratives.
Foster Public Awareness: Educating citizens about the importance of accurate statistics and the dangers of misinformation can empower them to hold institutions accountable.

Final Verdict: Propaganda Masquerading as Statistical Analysis

In conclusion, the UBOS press release exemplifies how statistical manipulation, selective omission, and emotional appeals can be weaponised to distort facts and serve political agendas. While the report projects an image of economic stability, closer examination reveals a tapestry of half-truths and omissions that obscure pressing socio-economic challenges. As stewards of truth, analysts, and journalists must remain vigilant against such misinformation. By holding institutions accountable and demanding transparency, we can safeguard public trust and ensure that policies are grounded in objective reality. After all, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored,” and confronting uncomfortable truths is essential for meaningful progress.

Sub Delegate

Joram Jojo