SUMMARY: Well-placed sources say that in a recent meeting with President Yoweri Museveni, Kiggundu raised concerns about the lack of tenants at the new Nakivubo complex. When asked why the shops were not attracting businesses, he reportedly attributed the problem to the continued presence of street vendors operating nearby, drawing foot traffic away from formal premises.
This week, the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) began a large-scale eviction of street vendors from Kampala’s central business district, directing them to relocate to nearby markets and designated stalls. From an urban planning and public order perspective, the move has been widely framed as necessary and long overdue.
Yet beneath the surface, questions are emerging about timing, motive, and beneficiaries.
Not long ago, vendors were similarly evicted from sections of the Nakivubo Channel to pave way for a major redevelopment project by businessman Hamis Kiggundu. The project — now complete — transformed the area into a modern commercial complex, with shops constructed above the rehabilitated channel. While the site is visibly cleaner and more orderly, one reality stands out: many of the shops remain empty.
Well-placed sources say that in a recent meeting with President Yoweri Museveni, Kiggundu raised concerns about the lack of tenants at the new Nakivubo complex. When asked why the shops were not attracting businesses, he reportedly attributed the problem to the continued presence of street vendors operating nearby, drawing foot traffic away from formal premises.
It is against this backdrop that the President is said to have directed KCCA to decisively clear street vendors from the city centre — a move that has now unfolded with remarkable speed.
The policy question, therefore, is not whether street vending should be regulated — that debate is largely settled — but whether the current enforcement is driven purely by public interest or is also influenced by the commercial interests of a powerful investor.
Fuel has been added to the debate by recent social media posts from Balaam Barugahara, the Minister of State for Youth and Children Affairs and a businessman with close ties to Kiggundu.
In one post on X, Barugahara openly assured a trader that space would be allocated at Kiggundu’s Nakivubo mall, complete with six months’ prepaid rent. He went on to defend Kiggundu’s political alignment with President Museveni and Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, suggesting that criticism had only increased Kiggundu’s visibility and opportunity. In the same message, Barugahara urged traders to comply with KCCA’s eviction directive and relocate to formal markets, framing the move as part of building a “smart city.”
In a separate post, Barugahara floated the idea that the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) could relocate its downtown offices to Kiggundu’s new complex — offices that previously operated alongside street vendors before the eviction.
Taken together, these interventions have deepened public skepticism. Critics argue that while city order and sanitation are legitimate goals, enforcement appears selectively aligned with private commercial outcomes. If street vendors are removed primarily to improve traffic flow, hygiene, and safety, why does the conversation so quickly shift to filling specific privately owned shops?
Supporters of the eviction insist that Kampala cannot modernize while tolerating unregulated street trade, and that investors who put money into urban infrastructure deserve policy consistency. Detractors counter that urban reform should not be perceived as a tool to channel vulnerable traders into the premises of politically connected developers.
Ultimately, the eviction of street vendors may still stand on sound policy grounds. But the optics — presidential conversations, empty malls, ministerial advocacy, and synchronized enforcement — have blurred the line between public governance and private interest.
Whether coincidence or convergence, the episode underscores a deeper challenge for Kampala: how to balance urban order, investor confidence, and livelihoods — without leaving the impression that city policy is being shaped in boardrooms rather than by inclusive planning.
About The Author
