By Mulengera Reporters
Farmers who borrowed through Uganda’s Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF) to mechanize their farms are being left counting losses after receiving faulty tractors, exposing serious questions over quality control and procurement practices under the Bank of Uganda-administered financing scheme.
An independent evaluation of the ACF by the National Planning Authority (NPA), released in May 2026, found that 7 per cent of surveyed beneficiaries reported receiving defective tractors acquired through the Facility.
The finding raises concerns about how agricultural equipment financed under the government-backed scheme is selected, inspected and approved before it reaches farmers.
For beneficiaries, a faulty tractor is not simply a defective asset. It can mean lost planting seasons, disrupted land preparation and mounting financial pressure for a farmer who must continue servicing a loan for equipment that cannot perform the work for which it was acquired.
The NPA evaluation warns that equipment failure can cause direct financial losses to farmers and jeopardise their ability to repay ACF loans.
The problem also carries consequences for the credibility of the entire Facility.
The ACF, established in 2009 and administered by the Bank of Uganda, has effectively doubled the volume of credit available to agricultural borrowers. But the tractor complaints suggest that expanding access to finance does not necessarily guarantee that beneficiaries receive assets capable of delivering the promised economic benefits.
Questions over supplier selection
More troubling is the possibility that the equipment problem is connected to the way some assets are procured.
According to the evaluation, there are reports that participating financial institutions (PFIs) influence beneficiaries to acquire assets from preselected suppliers, rather than allowing farmers to choose providers based on their own assessment.
If confirmed, such practices could create a potential conflict of interest and weaken safeguards designed to ensure that farmers receive quality equipment.
The NPA warns that procurement arrangements of this nature can undermine quality assurance and damage the integrity of the entire ACF scheme.
The question that now demands answers is simple: who is responsible when a farmer is financed to buy a tractor, but the tractor turns out to be faulty?
For a borrower, loan repayment obligations do not necessarily disappear because the equipment fails.
Mechanisation investment at risk
The tractor problem comes at a time when agricultural mechanisation is increasingly viewed as essential to improving productivity and reducing dependence on labour-intensive farming.
A defective tractor therefore has consequences beyond the individual borrower. It can delay land preparation, affect planting schedules and reduce the productive capacity of farms that were expected to benefit from ACF financing.
It can also discourage other farmers from taking advantage of the Facility.
When beneficiaries see colleagues struggling with unreliable equipment bought through a government-backed financing programme, confidence in the scheme can suffer.
The NPA consequently recommends that the ACF investigate the root causes of the quality failures, hold suppliers accountable and provide timely support to affected farmers.
It also calls for stronger procurement and inspection procedures for asset financing.
A wider accountability question
The faulty tractor findings add to broader concerns raised by the NPA about the way the ACF is assessed.
Although the Facility has generated measurable economic benefits and significantly expanded agricultural lending since 2009, the evaluation notes that its performance is assessed more through programme-level outcomes than through structured governance indicators.
That gap becomes particularly important when beneficiaries encounter defective assets, questionable supplier-selection practices or inadequate support after receiving financing.
For Bank of Uganda and the institutions implementing the ACF, the challenge is therefore no longer simply about increasing the volume of agricultural credit.
It is about ensuring that the money translates into working equipment, productive investments and sustainable incomes.
For farmers who have received faulty tractors, however, the immediate concern is more basic: they are left servicing loans while the machinery they borrowed to acquire fails to deliver.
The NPA evaluation has now put that problem on record — and placed the spotlight on the quality-control and procurement systems behind Uganda’s flagship agricultural credit scheme. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
