By the Witness Radio team.

In Kyankwanzi District, central region of Uganda, tens of thousands of people displaced to make way for the Kikonda Forest Plantation say they are still waiting for justice more than two decades after losing their land to Global Woods Limited in 2002 to plant trees for carbon offsetting.

Recently, Witness Radio journalists visited the project-affected families. The families described the ordeal as a deep frustration and lasting pain. They said their forceful removal from their land by government authorities paved the way for the tree-planting project. This removal was never subjected to any consultation. Former landowners never consented. To date, they have no idea how the project will improve their livelihoods.

Some families living on the plantation’s edge report ongoing tensions, intimidation, and occasional violence involving workers, along with severe weather changes that have harmed food security in the area.

The project claimed to combat climate change while contributing to local development. However, it caused a drought due to monoculture trees planted by the project implementers. For many who lost their homes and livelihoods, this tells a different story. To them, Kikonda is a painful reminder of dispossession, broken promises, and a justice process that has remained out of reach for more than twenty years.

“We were removed forcefully. We have never been compensated. We have never been heard,” said Mrs. Nalubega Zulaikah, one of the leaders of the affected families, recalling years of uncertainty and marginalization and having no hope for remedies.

Their story is not the only one. In Africa, efforts to attract investment often hurt local people’s rights. Big projects in forestry, mining, farming, and construction still help the economy, but they also raise complaints about land grabbing, forced relocation, environmental harm, poor working conditions, and limited access to justice.

At the same time, governments across the continent are embracing Business and Human Rights (BHR) frameworks designed to ensure that economic development does not come at the expense of people and the environment.

National Action Plans (NAPs), multi-stakeholder consultations, human rights due diligence, and regulatory reforms are emerging across East and the Horn of Africa. These initiatives aim to ensure businesses respect human rights and provide remedies when harm occurs. Despite this progress, sectors driving economic growth remain linked to serious human rights concerns.

These contradictions dominated discussions at a regional forum on Business and Human Rights in East and the Horn of Africa, where government officials, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations, and development partners reflected on both achievements and persistent challenges.

The two-day dialogue was concluded on Thursday, the 11th. Convened by DCA and partners, the event’s theme was “Beyond Compliance: Strengthening Accountable and Rights-Centered Supply Chains in East and Horn of Africa.” The forum brought together governments (policy and regulation), businesses (implementation), civil society (advocacy and monitoring), development partners (support and funding), and human rights defenders (case reporting and advocacy).

“We still see that people continue to suffer from business-related harms, often on a large scale, with irreversible damage done to communities and the environment,” Professor Damilola Olawuyi, a member of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights, told participants, adding that, “We still also see that speaking up against business-related risks and impacts remains a very risky undertaking in many parts of Africa, particularly for human rights and environmental defenders who raise concerns about agribusiness and other investments.”

Several countries in the region have taken significant steps toward institutionalizing the principles of Business and Human Rights.

Uganda adopted its National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights in 2021 and is already undergoing a review process. Kenya was the first African country to develop such a plan and continues to review and strengthen implementation. Tanzania has completed drafting its own NAP and awaits government approval. Ethiopia is finalizing its first plan, and Djibouti has entered the implementation phase.

Officials attending the two-day forum pointed to a growing range of initiatives aimed at improving corporate accountability. These include public awareness campaigns, training government agencies and businesses on human rights obligations, developing digital complaint-reporting systems, and introducing tools to assess the human rights impacts of investment projects.

“We have created public awareness on human rights and businesses because most times we thought businesses were only for profit and had nothing to do with human rights,” said Harriet Asibazuyo, Uganda’s National Coordinator for Business and Human Rights at the Ministry of Gender, Labor, and Social Development.

But participants at the forum said these new policies are not really improving life for many local and indigenous groups who are harmed by investment projects.

Delegates from Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Djibouti listed mining, resource extraction, farming, and large building projects as industries most often linked to human rights abuses.

In Tanzania, officials highlighted extractive industries, agriculture, and infrastructure development as major drivers of displacement and other related impacts, noting that tensions continue to emerge around these sectors, particularly as growing populations place increasing pressure on land and natural resources.

“This is where we see more violations related to land dispossession, environmental degradation, and pollution. Communities are often not adequately engaged in the development of these projects. This lack of engagement results in increased human rights violations,” Jovina Muchunguzi of Tanzania’s Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance explained.

Uganda officials also reported similar concerns. According to Asibazuyo, mining communities continue to grapple with child labor, gender-based violence, environmental pollution, economic exploitation, and land-related conflicts.

“The local communities put in a lot, but the return they get is so little,” she said.

While these National Action Plans focus on Protect, Respect, and Remedy, securing justice remains very difficult in the region.

In Ethiopia, participants pointed to under-resourced institutions and weak enforcement mechanisms. There is also widespread fear among workers who seek accountability for abuses.

“More than 80 percent of workers in fields like farming, factories, and mining are women. Sexual harassment is very common. Workers are not allowed to form groups, and some lose their jobs illegally. Many are afraid that if they go to court, they will be fired,” said Hawi Asfaw, Director of the Socio-Economic Rights Department at the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission.

Kenya reported an increase in litigation related to land rights, environmental harm, and business-related human rights abuses, with courts increasingly serving as arenas where affected communities seek accountability.

In Uganda, communities affected by land-based investment projects often struggle to challenge companies through legal channels. They cite financial barriers, lengthy court processes, and power imbalances.

Experts at the forum called for stronger complaint procedures and easy ways to report problems. They also urged the creation of better-funded groups to investigate complaints and ensure protections are enforced.

Participants at the meeting also said it is important to stop human rights abuses before they happen, not just react to them afterward.

Human rights due diligence is a process through which businesses identify, prevent, mitigate, and address adverse human rights impacts. This emerged as a central theme throughout the discussions.

“We must identify risks before they materialize,” said Oumalkaire Atteye Wais, highlighting the importance of early intervention and prevention.

More than two decades after eviction, families affected by the Kikonda plantation are still waiting for compensation, accountability, and recognition of harm.

For many participants at the forum, this gap between policy and reality remains the defining challenge of the Business and Human Rights agenda in the region.

As governments continue to develop National Action Plans. Businesses are encouraged to conduct human rights due diligence while institutions are pledging stronger oversight. But for communities facing displacement, progress is not measured by policies or conference statements.

They measure progress by whether justice comes to pass or whether the promise of responsible business remains out of reach for those who most need it.

By Witness Radio Team.

Mubende: Residents of Kisagazi Village, Kiteera Parish, Butoloogo Sub-county, Mubende District, drove away land surveyors accused of trying to illegally demarcate land boundaries without consultation or authorization.

The situation briefly turned chaotic as over 50 residents mobilized to stop the exercise, which they say lacked their consent and clear instructions. Tensions escalated when residents noticed unknown people with surveying equipment moving through the land.

Residents allege the surveyors, led by a man named Lutalo, entered the area with “questionable land documents.” These documents were reportedly from the Mubende District land office, but had not been shared with local occupants.

Emmanuel Katende, 52, of Kisagazi Village, said he has lived on the land since the 1980s and that it has sustained his family for decades.

“I have been on this land since the 1980s. I bought these five acres and have depended on them ever since,” Katende said.

He said people were surprised when the surveyors suddenly showed up and only took action after they noticed the land boundaries being marked.

“When boundary opening began unexpectedly, we stopped them because we weren’t informed,” he added.

The land in question is about 948.8 hectares. It is located on Block 48, Plot 2, and is reportedly managed by Kakulo Alpathic Kisamula Estate. It covers Kisagazi and Kawoloro villages.

Fred Mwesigwa, another resident, said villagers acted when they realized the surveyors were unknown to them.

“I saw three men moving with a measuring tape and a theodolite. When I asked what they were measuring, they said they were acting on instructions from their bosses but refused to name them,” Mwesigwa said.

He added that residents alerted local leaders as soon as concerns about transparency grew. Another resident, Kenneth Byakatonda, said a lack of clear communication heightened tensions.

“After the surveyors gave unclear answers, I called our local leaders,” he said.

Witness Radio found the surveyors were from Surve Tech Solution Ltd and were reportedly working under instructions from an individual identified as Lutalo.

A letter reportedly signed by District Staff Surveyor Mr. Birungi Albert on April 17, 2026, authorized Surve Tech Solution Ltd to demarcate boundaries in Kisagazi Village, Kiteera Parish, Butoloogo Sub-county. Despite this, residents say they were not informed beforehand.

Residents further reported that after being ordered to leave by local leaders, who serve as the community’s primary mediators in land affairs, the survey team returned later that day with Lutalo. This second attempt triggered renewed tension. Residents again angrily mobilized and chased them away.

“Despite the leaders’ earlier decision, these people seemed ready to continue. The leaders arrived and ordered them to leave, but they returned later, angering residents,” Mwesigwa added.

Police intervened and escorted the surveyors away after the standoff escalated.

Sandra Nalwanga, Chairperson of the Butoloogo Sub-county Local Council III, said she was unaware of the surveying exercise until residents phoned her. As chairperson, she oversees local governance, community issues, and land matters. She urged authorities to consult communities before starting any land-related activities.

“Early communication can help prevent misunderstandings that may lead to violence or mob action,” she said. She warned that incidents like this could endanger lives if not managed well.

When Witness Radio spoke to Lutalo Richard, the accused survey leader, he said he was acting on behalf of his friend, whom he refused to mention.

By the Witness Radio team.

On August 24th this year, as Namala Christine turns 66, she might have been celebrating her life. Instead, she wonders what went wrong and now faces her next birthday homeless.

“I do not know why I am being punished to this extent,” she told the Witness Radio Journalist.

In 1968, at age eight, Namala joined her grandfather, Mr. Sam Walakira Musoke, on land in Kawaala Zone II, Rubaga Division. He bought it in 1955. Since then, Namala and her family have lived there. Today, NEMA classifies this land as a wetland.

Namala herself has lived on the land for more than 58 years.

On June 4th this year, the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) removed Namala from the land where she had lived for many years. When Witness Radio visited, she sat quietly on broken bricks, what was left of her home. Her face showed shock, sadness, and worry as she thought of her next step.

“As we grew up, each of us was given a portion of the land to settle on. Today, I am the eldest in the family, and I was entrusted with the responsibility of caring for our family’s land,” Namala revealed.

In my talk with her, as she remembered what happened on June 4, her voice shook, and tears came to her eyes as she spoke of how armed men tore down her house and everything the family owned.

“Everything has been destroyed; there is nothing I can show, not even household items. They didn’t allow me to remove any of my belongings from the house,” She told our team.

She now lives by chance. At night, she and other people who lost their homes sleep at the site in old clothes and bags.

“This is what my neighbors gave me. I use it as a mattress and blanket,” she said, explaining that they make a fire at night to keep warm.

After witnessing years of political and social change, Namala finds herself homeless and uncertain about the future.

“I hoped to live well up to death, but look, I don’t even know the next move. I don’t know what to do with my family,” she reveals.

Namala is among the hundreds of villagers in Kawaala Zone II who were evicted from their land.

A Witness Radio investigation found that many people forced out had lived on what is now called “a wetland by NEMA” as land users since the 1940s.

“We have people that we call Bataka (elders) in our Buganda culture. Those people lived on this land starting in the 1940s, and those are the people most of us bought land from,” Mr. Abbas Ssegujja, another resident who lost property worth millions during the evictions, told Witness Radio.

Some documents seen by Witness Radio show that those forced out had paid fees to the Buganda Land Board (BLB) since the 1940s. The families lived on Mailo land, one of Uganda’s forms of land ownership, which belonged to the Buganda Kingdom and is administered by the BLB.

According to Witness Radio’s Team Leader, Jeff Wokulira Ssebaggala, these families living in Kawaala Zone II are accepted by Ugandan law. Jeff says that when residents have real proof of land use or legal stay, government offices must check their claim before removing them.

He added that, in addition to people taking over wetlands, NEMA must also follow the rules. Otherwise, people forced out deserve to be paid for what they lost, and their houses should be rebuilt. NEMA’s committee responsible for overseeing eviction processes is expected to ensure that investigations into lawful occupation status are conducted before any eviction takes place.

“NEMA is in a better position to establish and understand the historical and social attachment of this land to the urban poor community before passing a judgment of eviction and implementing it,” Ssebaggala stressed.

Article 26 of Uganda’s Constitution (1995) gives everyone the right to own property, alone or with others, and says the government cannot take property unless it is needed for public use, and where prompt, fair, and adequate compensation is paid before the taking of possession, Article 237(8) of the Constitution protects the rights of those who legally live on Mailo, Freehold, or Leasehold land, and the Land Act, Cap. 236, also protects Ugandans like Namala.

Uganda has four land ownership types: Mailo, Freehold, Customary, and Leasehold. Mailo is split into two: private and official Mailo. In Kawaala Zone II, people have lived on official Mailo land.

In Uganda, a Kibanja holder is a tenant who uses land without an official ownership paper. The 1995 Constitution and the Land Act (Cap 236) state that Kibanja holders are legal or true tenants. This provides them with strong protection and keeps them safe from removal without a fair reason.

“The government has not clearly matched laws protecting the environment with property rights where people already live in protected places. Because there are no clear plans for moving people, environmental groups focus on restoring the land, and affected families look to property laws for help. So, even though the government has the right to repair and protect wetlands, any removal or demolition must comply with the rules, provide fair compensation, and involve those affected. If needed, they must also help people find new homes.” He added.

Notices seen by Witness Radio indicated that Namala and others were occupying a wetland. Residents had been directed to remove their structures at their own expense before the forced demolition.

NEMA’s Public Relations Officer, William Lubuulwa, told Witness Radio that the affected people are occupying a wetland. He insists that the evictions are lawful. Namala and others had lived on their land since at least the 1940s. This was long before the older NEMA Act CAP 153, which was replaced with CAP 181 in 2019, was enacted.