In a controversy that has captivated Uganda, Safaritech Uganda Limited—a company with dissolved headquarters, a string of virtual addresses, and dubious claims of international affiliations—was engaged by the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) to audit MTN Uganda. This audit resulted in a significant and contested tax liability imposed on MTN. As questions arise about the company’s operations, its Kenyan connections, and the credibility of its audit, this investigation dives into the unsettling details of Safaritech’s history and the basis for URA’s decision.
Virtual Offices and Dormant Accounts
Safaritech’s Setup in London
Safaritech Uganda Limited was originally registered in London as Safaritech Limited (Company Number 10287352). Purportedly headquartered in London, the company changed its office location several times. Initially registered at 4-5 Gough Square, London EC4A 3DE, it later moved to Foframe House on Brent Street and finally to Suite G1, Hartsbourne House, Delta Gain Watford WD19 5EF. Despite these multiple addresses, each location was, in reality, only a virtual office—indicating that the company did not have a physical presence in London.
Financially, the company’s footprint was just as minimal. From its inception, Safaritech held a dormant account with a £100 balance, never filing any financial statements beyond a dormant status report, which it submitted in August 2020. Finally, on December 8, 2020, Safaritech requested to be struck off the UK’s companies register, leading to its official dissolution on March 16, 2021.
Nonexistent Address in Kenya
Further investigation reveals that Safaritech also claimed to be registered in Kenya, listing a non-existent office address. However, local sources in Kenya confirm that no physical presence or office operations are associated with the address Safaritech provided, which raises further questions about its credibility as an audit partner for high-stakes tax matters in Uganda. Safaritech’s alleged Kenyan base, much like its addresses in London, appears to have been primarily for registration purposes rather than substantive operations.
Dissolution and Key Individuals
Safaritech’s official records list Andrew Gathuo Chege from Kenya as the only director at the time of its UK incorporation in June 2016. The company also recorded Hasanain Haji as a person with significant control. Haji’s background includes a tenure as Managing Director of Savannah Goldfields Limited in Kenya from 2007 to 2014, but his involvement with Safaritech has raised questions given the company’s dormant status.
This profile, coupled with Safaritech’s minimal financial activity, reinforces the company’s questionable suitability for handling large-scale audits of corporate giants like MTN Uganda.
False International Affiliations and Disappearing Website
On its now-defunct website, Safaritech claimed affiliations with several global organizations, including the IMF, GIZ, UNDP, and ARTN. However, when Ugandan media brought these alleged affiliations to light, Safaritech promptly took its website offline, citing “updates.” Efforts to verify these affiliations by reaching out to the IMF, UNDP, and GIZ have gone unanswered, leaving a major gap in Safaritech’s credibility.
The URA’s Decision to Rely on Safaritech
The most critical aspect of this investigation is the URA’s decision to engage Safaritech to audit MTN Uganda, a leading telecommunications provider and major corporate taxpayer. Safaritech’s audit led to a substantial tax assessment against MTN, sparking public concern about URA’s due diligence processes. The decision to rely on a virtually non-operational firm over reputable audit firms such as KPMG has cast doubt on URA’s tax assessment practices.
MTN Uganda’s Challenge and URA’s Defense
MTN Uganda is now disputing the tax assessment, questioning the credibility of Safaritech’s audit and expressing concerns about the reputational damage tied to the case. Sources within MTN indicate that the company intends to challenge URA’s assessment vigorously, as they believe the process involved significant errors.
Meanwhile, URA has defended its decision, insisting that Safaritech’s audit was conducted in a thorough and transparent manner. However, given Safaritech’s dissolved status, nonexistent Kenyan address, and lack of trading history, questions remain about the audit’s legitimacy and the tax authority’s rationale for engaging such a firm.
Oversight in Due Diligence?
This case underscores the importance of due diligence when selecting firms for high-stakes audits, especially those involving major tax liabilities. With Safaritech’s dubious operational background, it remains unclear why URA entrusted them with such a significant assignment. This decision has led to public outcry, impacting both MTN’s reputation and confidence in Uganda’s regulatory processes.
For Ugandans and industry stakeholders, the unresolved questions remain: why did URA choose a company with no credible operations over reputable audit firms? And what are the broader implications for the credibility of Uganda’s tax regulatory framework?
