A shared industry database
against fraud — and why evidence still decides.

The insurance industry in Uganda is grappling with fraud that has changed in both scale and sophistication. At the 67th CEO's Breakfast Meeting in February 2026, industry players discussed creating a shared data platform to track and prevent fraudulent claims — a proposal that has been under discussion for some time and which the Uganda Insurers Association has signalled as a priority.

How fraud has evolved

Mr. Geoffrey Sewakiryanga, chairperson of the Uganda Association of Engineering Valuers and Loss Assessors (UAEVLA), presented a stark picture of how insurance fraud has shifted. It has moved from individual exaggeration to organised networks; from paper alteration to digital forgery; from localised schemes to cross-border operations; and from simple claim inflation to AI-enhanced evidence creation.

"With AI, criminals can create realistic deep fakes, forge documents, identities and signatures," Mr. Sewakiryanga told the meeting, held at Serena Kampala Hotel on 19 February 2026 and organised by IRA. The implication is that fraud detection methods that relied on identifying obvious forgeries or repeated names in paper files are no longer adequate.

The Insurance Appeals Tribunal has added a further dimension. By September 2025, the Tribunal had handled 51 appeals, and IAT Chairperson Ms. Rita Namakiika Nangono noted that fraudulent claims remain a persistent issue — with the added complication that some insurers appear to use the presence of fraud in the system as a rationale for resisting claims that are, in fact, genuine.

The cost of fraud to the industry

Fraudulent claims are not a victimless problem. They distort loss ratios, drive premium increases, delay settlement of legitimate claims, increase litigation costs and erode the public trust that insurers depend on. The industry's ability to demonstrate that insurance works — that claims are paid fairly and promptly — is undermined every time a fraudulent claim goes undetected or a genuine claim is delayed because resources are diverted to investigating suspicion.

Alhaj Dr. Kaddunabbi Ibrahim Lubega, IRA's Chief Executive Officer, underscored the systemic nature of the threat: "Claims management remains the ultimate test of insurance credibility; fraudulent claims are not only eroding trust in the industry but they are increasing the operational costs, reducing efficiency, and ultimately disadvantage the policyholders we are serving."

What a shared database can — and cannot — do

The proposed shared fraud database, which the Uganda Insurers Association confirmed is being implemented in collaboration with IRA, is designed to address pattern detection. A centralised platform allows participating insurers to identify repeated claimants, duplicated vehicle identification numbers, recycled invoices, suspicious timing patterns and cross-company claim stacking — signals that are invisible when each insurer's data sits in isolation.

This is valuable. It narrows the field of enquiry and allows investigators to focus their attention on claims that exhibit risk indicators.

But a database, however sophisticated, does not establish what happened at the site of a loss. It can tell you that the same phone number appeared on three claims from different insurers in six months. It cannot tell you whether the fire that destroyed the warehouse was accidental or deliberate, whether the vehicle damage is consistent with the reported accident, or whether the documents presented as proof of loss are genuine. That gap — between data flagging suspicion and evidence proving a finding — is where field investigation remains essential.

"A database should narrow the field of enquiry. The conclusion should still rest on verifiable evidence."

The technology question

Mr. Sewakiryanga urged the industry to adopt AI-driven fraud detection, real-time claim analytics, drone inspections and blockchain-secured documentation. These are real tools, and their adoption will shape how the industry operates in coming years. Drones, for example, are already proving valuable in large-loss property assessments where aerial photography provides evidence that ground-level inspection alone cannot capture.

For loss assessors, the practical implication is that technology augments but does not replace field work. Real-time data analytics can flag a suspicious claim. A drone can photograph a roof. But the assessor still needs to attend the site, verify the physical evidence, interview the relevant parties, reconcile the reported circumstances with what the evidence shows, and produce a written account that stands up to scrutiny.

IRA CEO Kaddunabbi also emphasised the importance of engaging assessors at first notice of loss — ensuring that professional observation begins before the evidence degrades, rather than weeks later when memory has faded and physical traces have disappeared.