By Ibrahim Shamiru Byakika
The recent enforcement of the trade order has triggered concern across the country, raising serious questions about the true meaning of “protecting the gains” in Uganda’s development journey.
Whereas the directive may have been introduced with the intention of improving order, sanitation, and urban organization, its implementation has instead exposed significant gaps, especially in how policies are applied across different categories of urban centers.
There is a clear difference between Kampala’s Central Business District (CBD), cities, municipalities, and town councils. Treating them as if they operate under the same conditions is both unrealistic and unfair.
Many of the areas recently elevated to city, municipality, and town council status are still largely rural in nature. Their economies depend heavily on small-scale and informal businesses operated by low-income earners with minimal capital. These are ordinary Ugandans whose daily survival depends on small trade.
When these areas were granted new administrative status, people jubilated. It was seen as progress, a gateway to better services, improved infrastructure, and enhanced economic opportunities. However, today, that excitement has turned into frustration and distress.
Many of the affected traders are beneficiaries of government initiatives such as the Parish Development Model (PDM), where they received modest funding, often about UGX 1 million, to start small businesses.
Others are ghetto youth who were supported with small startup capital to promote self-reliance, especially during previous political engagements.
Today, many of them are stranded. What, then, is next for them?
If these citizens were mobilized and supported to engage in small businesses as a pathway out of poverty, then policy actions must protect and sustain those efforts. Displacing them abruptly without preparation or viable alternatives risks undoing the very progress that has been made at the grassroots.
This brings into sharp focus the question: what was meant by “protecting the gains”? If the gains refer to economic empowerment of ordinary Ugandans, then they must be safeguarded through inclusive planning, proper consultation, and humane implementation of policies.
Equally, the vision of “Uganda Empya” must be reflected in practical actions. For many citizens, this vision represents hope for inclusive development and shared prosperity.
However, those hopes risk fading if policies continue to disrupt rather than support livelihoods.
One of the biggest shortcomings in the current situation has been inadequate sensitization. Traders were not sufficiently informed or prepared for the implications of the trade order. There was minimal stakeholder engagement, and no clear alternative trading spaces were provided prior to enforcement.
Urbanization should be a gradual and inclusive process, not an abrupt imposition.
Policies designed for structured environments like Kampala’s CBD should not be applied wholesale to municipalities and town councils that are still developing. These areas require time, infrastructure, and continuous engagement to transition effectively.
Moving forward, there is an urgent need to review and re-revise the trade order. A balanced approach should include meaningful consultations with traders, proper sensitization, provision of alternative trading spaces, and a phased implementation strategy.
Development must be people-centered. If Uganda is truly committed to “protecting the gains,” then the livelihoods of its most vulnerable citizens must be at the forefront of every policy decision.
Otherwise, the question will persist: are we protecting the gains or eroding them?
The writer is a media practitioner and community mobilizer.
Email:shamiruibrahim@gmail.com
