By Muteguya Denis
The recent wave of demolitions targeting unplanned structures in Uganda’s cities and municipalities has reopened a complex debate that sits at the intersection of law, governance, and socio-economic survival.
On one hand, the State is asserting its mandate to enforce planning laws and restore order in rapidly urbanizing spaces. On the other, thousands of ordinary citizens many operating kiosks and temporary structures—find themselves abruptly displaced, despite being active participants in the formal economy and even beneficiaries of government empowerment programs such as the Parish Development Model (PDM) and Emyooga.
This tension raises an important question: how should the law be applied in a way that preserves both urban order and human dignity?
The Legal Foundation of Demolitions
Uganda’s legal framework is clear and, in many respects, uncompromising. The Physical Planning Act prohibits any form of development without prior approval. Similarly, the Building Control Act requires that all construction be undertaken with valid permits and in accordance with approved standards. These laws empower authorities to issue enforcement notices, halt illegal developments, and, where necessary, demolish structures erected in contravention of the law.
From a strictly legal standpoint, therefore, the government is acting within its mandate. Structures built without approval, on road reserves, wetlands, or in violation of zoning requirements, have no legal protection. Courts have consistently upheld this principle, emphasizing that illegality cannot be cured by duration or usage.
However, the law also imposes procedural safeguards. Authorities are required to issue notices, allow time for compliance, and provide avenues for appeal. The Constitution further guarantees the right to fair administrative treatment, meaning that enforcement must not be arbitrary, selective, or excessively punitive.
The Political Context Behind Enforcement
While the legal basis is firm, the timing and intensity of enforcement are deeply political. For years, urban growth in Uganda has been characterized by weak enforcement, informal settlements, and a degree of state tolerance sometimes even tacit encouragement of unplanned development.
This historical laxity created a social contract of sorts. Citizens built, invested, and operated businesses under the assumption that the State would either regularize or ignore their activities. In many cases, local authorities collected trading licenses, market dues, and other taxes from these very structures now deemed illegal.
The recent shift toward strict enforcement can therefore be interpreted in multiple ways:
- As a genuine attempt to restore order, improve urban planning, and attract investment;
- As a response to public safety concerns, particularly after incidents of building collapse and flooding;
- Or as a politically driven effort to demonstrate control, especially in fast-growing urban centers.
The challenge lies in the abruptness of this transition. Moving from tolerance to strict enforcement without a phased approach risks undermining public trust in state institutions.
The Paradox of Inclusion and Exclusion
Perhaps the most striking contradiction is the fate of individuals whose livelihoods have been destroyed, yet who are simultaneously beneficiaries of government poverty alleviation programs such as PDM and Emyooga.
These programs are designed to:
- Promote financial inclusion,
- Support small-scale enterprises,
- And uplift households from subsistence to market participation.
Many kiosk operators and small traders fall squarely within this target group. They have accessed funds, started businesses, and contributed to local economies. Yet, the demolition of their operating spaces effectively reverses these gains.
This creates a policy paradox:
- The State invests in empowering citizens economically,
- While another arm of the same State dismantles the very platforms through which that empowerment is exercised.
The result is not merely economic loss, but also a sense of exclusion and disillusionment among citizens who perceive inconsistency in government action.
The Legal Position of the Affected Persons
Legally, the affected individuals face a difficult position. Payment of taxes or possession of a trading license does not legalize an illegal structure. The law distinguishes clearly between revenue collection and planning compliance.
However, this does not leave them entirely without recourse. Constitutional protections guarantee fair administrative action. If demolitions are carried out without adequate notice, without an opportunity to be heard, or in a discriminatory manner, affected persons may challenge such actions through judicial review.
There is also a broader administrative law principle of legitimate expectation. Where the State has, over time, allowed and even benefited from certain activities, individuals may reasonably expect a degree of fairness, consultation, or transition before drastic enforcement measures are taken.
While this principle does not validate illegality, it can influence how enforcement is carried out.
The Human and Economic Impact
Beyond legal arguments, the human consequences are significant. For many, kiosks and temporary structures are not merely physical assets but the foundation of daily survival. Their demolition translates into:
- Immediate loss of income,
- Inability to repay loans obtained under government programs,
- Increased urban poverty and vulnerability.
At a macro level, widespread displacement of informal businesses can disrupt local economies and undermine the very objectives of inclusive growth policies.
A Balanced Approach
The current situation calls for a more calibrated approach that harmonizes legality with socio-economic realities.
A balanced strategy could include:
- Gradual enforcement with clear timelines, allowing affected persons to regularize or relocate;
- Designation of alternative trading spaces, especially for small-scale operators;
- Integration of urban planning with economic empowerment programs, ensuring that beneficiaries have compliant spaces to operate from;
- Strengthened public awareness on planning requirements to prevent future non-compliance.
Conclusion
The enforcement of planning laws in Uganda is both necessary and lawful. Uncontrolled urban development carries real risks, from environmental degradation to public safety hazards. However, the manner in which enforcement is carried out matters just as much as the legal basis behind it.
A State that seeks to empower its citizens economically must also ensure that its regulatory actions do not inadvertently dismantle those gains. The true test of governance lies not only in enforcing the law, but in doing so with consistency, fairness, and an appreciation of the lived realities of its people.
In the end, sustainable urban development will require more than demolitions. It will demand a deliberate effort to align law, policy, and livelihoods into a coherent and humane framework.
Mr. Denis Muteguya, Muzzukulu Regional Coordinator, Office of National Chairman (ONC)
Email: denismuteguya@gmail.com
