Government efforts to enforce trade order, demolish houses in wetlands, and regulate buildings not on plan are meant to create safe cities, restore the environment, and bring sanity to land use. However, laws do not operate in a vacuum; they affect real lives. The challenge here lies not in the intent, but in the approach.
Data from the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) shows that 27 per cent of Ugandans are multidimensionally poor, facing overlapping deprivations in health, education, and living standards. The burden is heavier in rural areas, but urban poverty is equally visible in informal settlements and roadside economies. More than half of Ugandans lack health insurance, and many households still rely on unsafe or inefficient cooking methods.
These are the citizens most impacted by evictions and enforcement actions. They are the roadside vendors trying to earn a daily income, the families building on small plots because that is all they can afford, and the informal workers who survive through savings groups and community support systems.
For such households, compliance with formal requirements is often beyond reach. Hiring an architect, processing building plans, or securing legally compliant land is not simply a matter of choice, it is a question of affordability. When rising rent and limited income push people into wetlands or informal spaces, it is not necessarily defiance of the law, but a response to economic pressure.
Enforcement that does not take these realities into account risks doing more harm than good. When people lose their homes, livelihoods, and means of survival at once, the result is not order it is distress. A young population without viable economic pathways becomes more vulnerable to crime and social instability. Women and girls, in particular, face heightened risks when livelihoods disappear overnight. In such circumstances, enforcement can unintentionally create the very insecurity it seeks to prevent.
This is why the question should not be whether to enforce the law, but how to do so responsibly. Reform must be sequenced. Livelihoods should be secured before enforcement is intensified.
Government programmes such as the Parish Development Model and Emyooga already exist to support low-income earners. These should be directly linked to enforcement efforts so that affected individuals are not left without options. Similarly, affordable and accessible market spaces must be habitable and profitable before removing traders from the streets.
Urban order must go hand in hand with inclusion and equality. Safe housing should not only meet standards; it must also be within reach of ordinary Ugandans. Incremental housing models, simplified building approvals for small plots, and standardized low-cost designs are practical steps that can bridge the gap between policy and reality.
Equally important is coordination. The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) has a critical role in ensuring that agencies such as KCCA, NEMA, and the Ministry of Lands do not carry out overlapping enforcement actions that excessively affect the same vulnerable households. A clear and humane eviction framework, one that guarantees adequate notice, proper assessment, and viable alternatives is now essential.
This balanced approach aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals on poverty reduction, decent work, and inclusive cities, while advancing Uganda’s Vision 2030 ambitions. Lasting transformation will not come from enforcement alone, but from ensuring that every Ugandan has a fair opportunity to comply, sustain a livelihood, and live with dignity.
Experiences from elsewhere show that enforcement and inclusion can go hand in hand. In Kigali, urban reforms were paired with investment in housing and public markets, allowing informal workers to transition gradually into formal systems. In Medellín, authorities first invested in infrastructure and services within informal communities before enforcing compliance, building trust and reducing resistance.
Uganda can draw lessons from these approaches. People are far more likely to comply with the law when they are given a realistic pathway to do so.
The goal of organized cities and environmental protection is valid and necessary. But achieving it requires more than enforcement. It requires policies that are grounded in the lived realities of the population. A law that does not reflect the conditions of its people risks becoming a source of tension rather than progress.
Uganda cannot legislate people out of poverty. It can only create the conditions for them to rise out of it. The country’s development agenda will be stronger when enforcement is matched with empathy, coordination and practical alternatives.
