Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Court Ruling: RDCs and police cannot stop lawful land evictions.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

Uganda’s Constitutional Court has ruled that Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), police, and other executive actors have no authority to stop, suspend, delay, or require additional approvals for lawful court eviction orders, in a landmark judgment that reinforces judicial independence.

The ruling comes amid escalating land conflicts and follows presidential directives that require all evictions to be scrutinized by the District Security Committees, chaired by Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), in consultation with the Ministry of Lands. An RDC is a constitutional representative of the President at the district and local government levels.

Under Uganda’s 2021 Land Eviction Guidelines and Practice Directions, court agents may carry out evictions after strict legal requirements are fulfilled. These include a valid court order or decree authorizing the eviction, an eviction order clearly identifying affected persons or structures, a notice of eviction or demolition issued to affected parties, and a warrant of eviction or demolition.

However, many evictions in Uganda have been criticized as forceful or unlawful, carried out without a proper due process.

In a presidential communication in 2022, President Museveni directed that no eviction should occur in any district without a District Security Committee meeting chaired by RDCs and conducted in consultation with the Ministry of Lands.

But court Bailiffs under the umbrella body, Uganda Court Bailiffs Association, challenged the President’s directive and petitioned the Constitutional Court of Uganda, arguing that even where valid court orders exist, RDC-led security committees have frequently interfered with lawful enforcement.

Court records listed the petition as Uganda Court Bailiffs Association Ltd vs Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 0001 of 2023),

The Constitutional Court addressed that tension, holding that enforcement of court orders is not an executive function but an integral component of judicial power.

“The court therefore reiterates that enforcement of judicial decisions remains a core judicial function. Any participation by non-judicial actors must be facilitative only, and not supervisory or controlling,” The ruling, which Witness Radio has seen a copy of, states.

The 2023 petition further challenged what it described as persistent interference by the executive arm of government, including RDCs, police, District Internal Security Officers (DISOs), and local councils in the enforcement of court orders.

According to the petitioners, security agencies had, over time, imposed unauthorized “clearances,” halted executions, confiscated court documents, and frustrated lawful enforcement of judicial decisions.

In its decision, the Constitutional Court distinguished facilitating and controlling court executions.

“Any conduct by executive officials that purports to halt execution, confiscate court process, subject judicial warrants to extra-judicial “clearance” or ‘approval,’ or otherwise frustrate lawful execution amounts to a direct encroachment upon judicial authority and is inconsistent with Articles 2, 126, and 128 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.” The judgment stated.

The judgment, concurred in by Deputy Chief Justice Flavian Zeija and Constitutional Court judges Frederick Egonda Ntende, Florence Nakachwa, and Ketrah Katunguka, acknowledged that security agencies may lawfully participate during sensitive enforcement exercises, including land evictions, particularly where there is risk of violence or public disorder. However, the judges stressed that such involvement must be strictly limited.

“Where the execution of a court order is likely to provoke violence, resistance, or a breach of the peace, security agencies are lawfully entitled to intervene for the limited purpose of maintaining peace, protecting life and property, and ensuring that the process does not descend into disorder,” the judgment reads.

But the court warned that this supportive role has “clear constitutional limits.” “Security agencies do not possess authority to review, vary, suspend, veto, or otherwise sit in judgment over court orders. The direction and supervision of execution remain the exclusive preserve of the courts.”

The court further clarified that security agencies may verify the authenticity of court orders where necessary, particularly in cases involving forged, irregularly issued, or improperly extracted court documents.

“Such verification, however, must remain strictly confined to confirming authenticity. It must not be turned into a process for questioning the legal validity, correctness, propriety, or enforceability of the order itself, for those are matters reserved exclusively for the courts. Nor must it become a device for delay, obstruction, refusal, or abuse. Verification is legitimate only where it is undertaken promptly, in good faith, and solely for the purpose of ascertaining that the order sought to be enforced is genuine. Once authenticity is confirmed, security agencies are bound to act in aid of, and not in derogation from, the authority of the court,” the ruling states.

The ruling raises new legal questions about the implementation of recent presidential directives on land evictions.

In a presidential communication in 2022, President Museveni directed that no eviction should occur in any district without a District Security Committee meeting chaired by RDCs and conducted in consultation with the Ministry of Lands. He further warned that members of District Security Committees would face consequences if evictions occurred outside this framework.

The President also warned magistrates and judges against facilitating illegal evictions in collusion with land grabbers and tasked the Minister of Lands with reporting judicial abuses to the Attorney General for possible legal action.

However, the Constitutional Court ruling appears to place constitutional limits on the role of executive actors in enforcing lawful court orders.

The judgment arrives against a backdrop of increasing land conflicts across Uganda, where forced evictions, land-grabbing allegations, and court-enforced removals remain a major source of tension.

It is unclear whether the President’s office will appeal the ruling.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Climate Change and Conflict : The Agony of Kasese Farmers.

Published

on

As climate change impacts various parts of the globe, Kasese District in South-Western Uganda serves as a stark example of environmental vulnerability. Global warming has accelerated the melting of glaciers in the Rwenzori Mountains. Satellite data from scientific monitoring groups reveals a striking 30% reduction in ice surface area between 2020 and 2024.

For the farming communities of Munkunyu Sub-county, this environmental challenge has created a complex crisis. The altered landscape has heightened resource competition between local Bakonzo crop farmers and Basongora cattle keepers from neighbouring Nyakatonzi Sub-county, as both communities navigate severe strains put on nature and land.

Why the land crisis is growing

Before diving deeper into the unfolding situation on the ground, it is critical to understand the primary triggers forcing these communities into confrontation:

The Glacial Melt: A 30% loss of Rwenzori ice cover in just four years is drastically altering local river volumes and weather predictability.

The Climate Double-Whammy: Farmers and pastoralists are trapped in a punishing cycle of back-to-back disasters, first catastrophic flash floods, immediately followed by extreme dry spells that leave no grass for livestock or food for households.

How floods and hungry cattle sparked a quiet war

Just eight months ago, Munkunyu’s farming families faced severe flash floods that wiped out their entire agricultural investments. In the wake of these disasters, herdsmen seeking surviving pastures moved their cattle directly into the cultivation zones. Farmers report that on 30 May 2026, livestock grazed across 217 hectares of food crops. This created immense economic and psychological strain for hundreds of households already struggling with food insecurity and school fee obligations.

Wide acres of local farmland left bare and ruined after hungry cows moved into cultivation zones to eat growing food crops. (Photo Credit: KYL)

Matsiko Loyce, a local councillor and farmer, outlines the collective weight of losing both crops and land resources:

“In October last year, we lost our crops to floods. As we began to recover with hopes of feeding our families, livestock grazed on our remaining income. It is a deeply distressing situation.”

Local herds of cattle walk through agricultural fields, destroying the remaining green crops. (Photo Credit: KYL)

The escalating pressure soon led to physical friction. When local youths attempted to block cattle from entering the remaining fields, a violent altercation broke out. Matsiko emphasises the critical need for peaceful intervention:

“Two young men trying to protect the crops were injured during the confrontation. The matter has been formally reported to the police to ensure a peaceful, lawful resolution.”

The broken 15 million shilling compensation deal

Following local mediation efforts, the pastoralists initially agreed to a compensation package of 15 million Ugandan Shillings (approx. $4,110 USD) for the 150 hectares of ruined crops.

However, the agreement faced a major setback when the June 12 deadline arrived. The pastoralists shifted their position, offering to pay only 5 million shillings (approx. $1,370 USD) with no clear assurance of whether or when the remaining 10 million shilling balance (approx. $2,740 USD) would be paid. The farmers reportedly refused this reduced offer, demanding the full fulfillment of the original 15 million shilling agreement. According to human rights defenders monitoring the situation, this delay has severely fractured community trust.

A history of lost grazing land

This resource competition is deeply linked to historical migration patterns. The Basongora are an ancient pastoralist community whose traditional lifestyle was disrupted between 1925 and 1954. During this time, colonial administrations gazetted over 90% of their ancestral grazing lands to establish Queen Elizabeth National Park.

Displaced and hit by a devastating rinderpest epidemic in 1931, many Basongora crossed into the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) before returning to Kasese in subsequent decades. Concurrently, the Bakonzo have long cultivated food and cash crops in lowlands like Nyakatonzi and Munkunyu. While these groups have maintained a delicate coexistence for decades, accelerating climate change has disrupted that balance, renewing historical anxieties over land access.

Bakonzo and Basongora elders convene near the boundary of Queen Elizabeth National Park to initiate a collaborative resource-sharing framework aimed at preventing future land disputes. (Photo Credit: KYL)

Choosing to survive together over fighting

Kato Ronald, the Executive Director of Kasese Youth Link and a human rights defender, appeals for structured mediation over conflict:

“Both the livestock and the human populations require sustenance. There is an urgent need to resolve this climate-induced conflict through a framework that ensures human security.”

Local leaders call for dialogue

As the conflict drags on, local leaders are calling for restorative justice rather than increased criminalisation to prevent further escalation. Mr. Ndyoka Isaac Kabunzu, the LCIII Chairperson for Munkunyu Sub-county, noted that recent arrests

have only heightened anxieties.

“These developments have increased community tension. Any individuals held without sufficient evidence should be released. Sustainable peace requires structural intervention over criminalisation.”

Kabunzu strongly advocated for a transparent judicial review, urging district leaders, security agencies, cultural institutions, and all stakeholders to immediately convene a dialogue aimed at addressing the root causes.

While the air in Munkunyu remains tense as communities await a resolution to the compensation agreement, the path forward relies on restoring mutual trust, establishing green compensation frameworks, and choosing joint survival over resource division.

Source: Peace Journalism Foundation East Africa

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Rights experts call for an inclusive transition as the East Africa region attracts renewable energy investments.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

NAIROBI, Kenya: As governments across East and the Horn of Africa accelerate efforts to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, experts have warned that the shift could deepen inequality and further trigger human rights violations if affected communities are excluded from decision-making processes.

The warning came at the 5th East and Horn of Africa Business and Human Rights Conference in Nairobi, organized by Danchurch Aid and its partners. Climate justice advocates, business leaders, and human rights experts met to discuss how the increasing investments could better align with human rights standards and responsible business conduct.

Just transition was among the key issues discussed during the two-day conference held last week, with experts emphasizing the need for inclusive approaches as East Africa attracts growing investments in renewable energy.

While there is a need and an urgency to address climate change, experts argue that the global race toward clean energy is already producing unintended consequences elsewhere, offering important lessons for Africa.

“The transition to renewable energy is inevitable, whereas justice isn’t,” Mr. Andrew Byaruhanga, the Executive Director of Resource Rights Africa, said during a panel discussion on just transition pathways.

Byaruhanga said governments and investors risk prioritizing energy targets and financial returns over the rights and welfare of communities whose land and livelihoods are affected by transition-related projects.

“The finance sector must be mobilized, not just for returns, but also for impact. Public and private sectors must align their efforts, share risks, and invest in long-term partnerships. The success of this transition, therefore, depends on empowering those most affected. Governments have a role to play in making sure that the financing architecture takes cognizance of these realities,” he added.

His remarks reflected growing concerns that renewable energy projects, despite their climate benefits, can reproduce the same patterns of exclusion and dispossession that have historically accompanied large-scale development projects.

Across the world, communities are increasingly raising concerns about land acquisition, displacement, inadequate compensation, and restrictions on civic space linked to renewable energy infrastructure and critical mineral extraction.

A recent report by the Coalition for Human Rights in Development, Financing the Transition, Silencing Defenders, documented cases across Asia where communities and environmental defenders faced intimidation, arrests, displacement, and violence while opposing energy transition projects.

Among the cases highlighted was the Jalaur River Multipurpose Project in the Philippines, where Indigenous Tumandok communities reportedly faced inadequate consultations and displacement threats linked to the construction of a hydropower dam. In India’s Assam state, local communities opposed a major solar project over concerns that it would displace more than 20,000 Indigenous residents and threaten traditional livelihoods.

Although the cases occurred outside Africa, experts in Nairobi said similar risks are emerging across the continent as governments pursue investments in renewable energy, carbon markets, and climate-related infrastructure.

Florence Shako, Executive Director of the Center for Education Policy and Climate Justice, said the transition must not come at the expense of vulnerable communities.

“We can talk about decarbonization and the fact that it’s important to transition, but we must really think about what inclusivity means for the youth, for persons with disabilities, and for people in the Global South,” she said.

Shako noted that many affected communities lack access to information, legal representation, and affordable mechanisms for seeking justice when their rights are violated. She also warned that transition projects often fail to provide alternatives for people who lose land, jobs, or sources of income.

“We need to think about replacement livelihoods and access to remedies. Otherwise, communities will continue bearing the costs while others reap the benefits.” She added.

The conference also highlighted concerns about youth exclusion from transition discussions.

According to Eric Baeni, Coordinator of the Pan African Youth Alliance on Business and Human Rights (PAYA-BHR), unemployment remains one of the biggest barriers preventing young people from engaging with climate and transition agendas.

“We are the workforce of the continent, but we are unemployed. Unemployment is the key challenge that prevents many young people from understanding and participating in the just transition.” He said.

He called for deliberate efforts to involve young people in policy discussions and ensure they benefit from employment opportunities created by emerging green industries.

The concerns raised in Nairobi come at a time when African governments are under increasing pressure to pursue low-carbon development pathways while tackling poverty, unemployment, and climate vulnerability. African countries emit only a small fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions, but are among the most vulnerable to climate-related disasters such as droughts, floods, and food insecurity.

Experts further argued that this reality requires transition strategies that prioritize local development needs rather than simply replicating models designed elsewhere.

As the conference concluded, experts called for stronger protections for human rights defenders, meaningful community participation, accessible grievance mechanisms, and investment frameworks that place affected communities at the center of decision-making.

They also urged governments to strengthen safeguards around land rights, free, prior, and informed consent, and benefit-sharing arrangements before approving major transition-related projects.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Emotions run high as Uganda Land Commission mediates S

Published

on

The Uganda Land Commission (ULC) has intensified efforts to resolve a series of longstanding land disputes in Soroti city, with cultural institutions, private sector organisations and residents seeking intervention over contested properties.

During a stakeholder engagement in Soroti city, the proceedings took an emotional turn when Iteso Cultural Union founder, Pumprus Imodot, broke down while addressing commissioners over a disputed piece of cultural land in Kichinjaji ward.

Imodot told the commission that despite submitting ownership documents to several government offices, he has not received a satisfactory response. He expressed concern that construction activities are continuing on the disputed land while the matter remains unresolved.

The meeting was attended by ULC commissioners Tom Kasenge and Christine Amongin Aporu, Soroti city leaders, and representatives from the aviation sector, who explained how they believe the land was legally allocated.

The commission later moved to the Yellow Flats area in Soroti city’s Western division to mediate another dispute involving 10 families and a claimant, Samuel Oyata, over ownership of Plot 25.

Commissioner Kasenge said attempts to reach an immediate settlement between the parties were unsuccessful, adding that further engagement would be required before a resolution could be reached.

Residents led by Allan Opolot and 81-year-old Stephen Enokikin rejected Oyata’s claim, insisting that their families possess legitimate ownership documents dating back several decades.

However, Oyata maintained that the plot was legally allocated to him through the district land board with the recommendation of the former Soroti Municipal Council.

Speaking on behalf of the affected families, Stephen Enokikin said they remain confident in their ownership documents and believe the truth will prevail.

Meanwhile, the commission also mediated a separate dispute involving property occupied by the Teso Private Sector Development Centre in Soroti city.

The contested property has attracted competing claims from the Teso Private Sector Development Centre and two individuals, Francis Omoding and George William Okwaput, who were granted a lease extension offer by the Uganda Land Commission.

During a stakeholders’ meeting attended by Soroti city mayor Francis Esudu, Soroti District Land Board chairperson Jorem Opian Obicho, opinion leaders and commission officials, Teso Private Sector chief executive officer Soyce Malinga challenged the lease offer, alleging that Omoding had a conflict of interest because he processed ownership documents while serving as treasurer of the institution’s Board of Governors.

Kasenge explained that the matter remains before the commission following applications by Omoding and Okwaput for lease extension on the property.

The discussions prompted strong reactions from stakeholders. Benson Ekue, director of Public Affairs Centre Uganda, urged the commission to revoke the lease offer granted to Omoding and Okwaput.

Ninety-five-year-old elder Mzee Amuriat appealed to the commission to reconsider its decision, arguing that the property has historically served various community and business organisations, including Teso African Traders, Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and later the Teso Private Sector Development Centre.

Following extensive deliberations, a majority of stakeholders voted in favour of recommending that the commission cancel the lease offer granted to Omoding and Okwaput and instead consider the application submitted by the Teso Private Sector Development Centre.

Commissioner Christine Amongin Aporu acknowledged concerns raised during the meeting and explained that the commission had identified procedural issues surrounding the lease allocation process that require further review.

Despite the recommendations, Okwaput rejected the resolutions reached during the engagement, insisting that all legal procedures were followed in obtaining the lease offer. He warned that any attempts to reverse the decision could result in court action and potential compensation claims exceeding Shs8 billion.

Aporu reaffirmed the commission’s commitment to peaceful dispute resolution, noting that the Uganda Land Commission will continue engaging all affected parties to find lasting solutions to the land conflicts affecting Soroti city.

The engagements underscore the growing challenge of land ownership disputes in Soroti city, where competing claims involving cultural institutions, private entities and residents continue to fuel tensions over valuable urban land.

Original Source:newvision.co.ug  Via : europesays.com

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates