Da Dona
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 16, 2025
- 880
- 548
Recent Evictions in Lubigi Wetland- Photo by Observer.
The opposition Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) has criticized the government's ongoing wetland restoration campaign, accusing authorities of applying the law selectively by targeting poor residents while allegedly sparing wealthy individuals and powerful investors occupying the same wetlands.
The criticism follows recent eviction operations conducted by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) in the Lubigi Wetland, one of the largest wetlands in the Kampala metropolitan area. The operation saw security personnel demolish houses, rental units, kiosks, and other structures that NEMA said had been illegally established within the protected wetland ecosystem.
Hundreds of residents were left homeless after the demolitions, prompting public debate over the manner in which the exercise was carried out.
Speaking at a press conference in Kampala, FDC Deputy President for Western Uganda Robert Centenary said the party fully supports environmental conservation and the protection of wetlands. However, he argued that the government's enforcement efforts appear unfair because they disproportionately affect low-income communities.
Centenary claimed that while poor residents are being forcefully removed from wetlands, several factories, commercial farms, and developments linked to influential individuals continue operating in the same protected areas without facing similar action. He said environmental laws should be enforced equally regardless of a person's social status, wealth, or political connections.
The opposition further argued that many of the affected residents had lived in the area for years and had invested their savings in building homes and businesses. According to FDC, some occupants acquired the land after receiving approvals or permits from government institutions, making it unfair for them to bear the consequences alone when authorities later decide to reclaim the wetlands.
The party called on the government to first clearly identify, map, and publicly gazette all wetland boundaries before carrying out evictions. FDC leaders said many Ugandans unknowingly purchase land located in wetlands because boundary information is not readily available to the public.
They proposed that local governments should maintain updated records showing protected wetland areas so that potential buyers can verify land status before purchasing property or undertaking developments.
The opposition also urged government to consider compensating and resettling affected families, especially those who have occupied the land for long periods or who developed the land based on approvals issued by state agencies. FDC suggested that resources from the Land Fund could be used to support displaced residents.
In response, NEMA dismissed accusations of selective enforcement.
The authority's spokesperson, Naomi Namara, said environmental laws apply to everyone and that any person found illegally occupying wetlands can face enforcement action regardless of their economic status.
Namara explained that some large-scale developments seen in wetland areas may have received environmental approvals from NEMA after meeting specific requirements and conditions. She emphasized that such projects should not automatically be considered illegal simply because they are located near wetlands.
According to NEMA, many informal settlements emerge through gradual encroachment, which eventually degrades wetland ecosystems and increases the risk of flooding and environmental damage. The authority maintains that the restoration exercise is necessary to protect natural resources, improve water management, and restore ecological functions that have been lost due to human activities.
The dispute highlights the growing tension between environmental conservation efforts and the social impact of evictions, with critics demanding fairness and transparency while government agencies insist that restoring degraded wetlands remains a national priority.
Source: Daily Monitor UG
