The Conception of Odious Debt in Uganda: A critical Review

Abstract

This article critically explores the doctrine of odious debt within the framework of international law and its applicability to Uganda’s contemporary debt crisis. Originating from Alexander Sack’s 1927 thesis, odious debt refers to liabilities incurred by illegitimate regimes without public consent and used against national interests. The doctrine, though morally compelling, lacks firm grounding in customary international law and has not been codified in major treaties like the 1983 Vienna Convention. Despite sporadic references in historical cases—such as Costa Rica’s Tinoco arbitration and Iraq’s post-war debt restructuring—the odious debt doctrine remains largely a political tool rather than a legal norm. Uganda’s mounting public debt, now exceeding $31.5 billion and 52% of GDP, illustrates a practical context for odious debt discourse. Much of this debt is attributed to unaccountable borrowing, corruption, and fiscal mismanagement, with limited tangible benefits for the population. The article argues that some of Uganda’s debt may meet the odious debt criteria, particularly in light of increasing domestic liabilities and controversial foreign lending practices. The paper advocates for the formalization of the odious debt doctrine through national legislation or international soft law mechanisms, emphasizing its alignment with human rights, equity, and democratic governance. By drawing from global precedents and Uganda’s debt experience, the study recommends enhancing fiscal transparency, legal accountability, and international cooperation to prevent exploitative lending and ensure sustainable sovereign financing. Uganda's case presents an urgent call to revisit and institutionalize the odious debt concept as both a legal and moral imperative in global financial governance.