Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The African Development Bank and the Tree Plantations Industry

Published

6 years ago

on

“Plantations are not forests”, members of communities from Zambezia province, in Mozambique.

In June 2019, the report “Towards Large-Scale Commercial Investment in African Forestry,”
(1) made a call to development-funding agencies, mainly from Europe, and the World Bank,
to provide aid money to a new Fund for financing 100,000 hectares of (new) industrial tree
plantations, to support the potential development of 500,000 hectares, in Eastern and
Southern Africa. This money, according to the report, would be crucial for private investors to
generate profits from the plantations. The new Fund would be headquartered in the tax
haven of Mauritius.
The African Development Bank (AfDB) and WWF Kenya produced this report with funding
from the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds. The purpose of the report is to assist the
AfDB “in evaluating and designing alternative private funding models for commercial forestry
in Africa with a view to ultimately establishing, or aiding the establishment of, a specialized
investment vehicle for commercial forestry plantations.” The report declares that the
development agencies from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the United
Kingdom and The Netherlands are interested.
Essentially, the report is a praise to industrial monoculture plantations. It repeats, without
providing any evidence, most of the deceiving arguments that plantations companies use in
their propagandas to cover up the impacts of this devastating industry. The report’s focus is
on outlining the possible financial instruments that would attract companies to this region and
make their investments most profitable.
The report identifies “readily available projects with the potential to establish almost 500,000
ha of new forest (sic) on about 1 million ha of landscape, not including areas that existing
companies and developers are already planning to use for own expansion. It also excludes
early stage or speculative projects.” (italics added) In particular, the report identifies “viable
plantation land” in ten countries: Angola, Republic of Congo, Ghana, Mozambique, Malawi,
South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The report further affirms that “Africa may be positioned to have the most profitable
afforestation potential worldwide.” And, then, it goes into explaining the possible investment
schemes that can make profit-oriented business and afforestation objectives (from climate or
voluntary targets) to be aligned and, thus, generate more profits for shareholders.
None of the pages in the report mention, however, not even indirectly, the overwhelming
amount of information that evidences the many negative impacts that industrial plantations
cause to communities and their environments. The report’s authors chose to ignore
plantations companies’ destruction of forests and savannahs; erosion of soils; contamination
and dry-up of water sources; overall violence inflicted on communities which include
restriction of movement, criminalization when resistance emerges, abuse, harassment and
sexual violence in particular to women and girls; destruction of livelihoods and food
sovereignty; destruction of cultural, spiritual and social fabrics within and among
neighbouring communities; few precarious and hazardous jobs; unfulfilled “social” projects or
promises made to communities; destruction of ways of living; rise in HIV/AIDS; and the list
goes on.

In front of this, on September 21, 2020, the International Day of Struggle against
Monoculture Plantations, 121 organisations from 47 countries and 730 members from
different rural communities in Mozambique that are facing industrial tree plantations,
disseminated an open letter to demand the immediate abandonment of any and every
afforestation programme based on large-scale monoculture plantations. (2)
The report, nonetheless, brags about having used a “sector-wide consultation exercise.”
For the authors, the sector includes “industry participants ranging from investors, industrial
players, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) through to forestry fund managers
(…) To further enrich and triangulate inputs to the study, the team also participated in three
forestry industry events and consulted with a broad range of personal contacts in the sector.”
The report also mentions consultations made to Development Finance Institutions and
agencies as well as oil and other industrial companies. It is clear however how communities
living in or around the almost 500,000 hectares of land identified to be transformed into
industrial monocultures, are not considered part of the sector. Nor were considered the many
communities and groups that have been resisting for decades the plantations in the countries
the report use as examples: Tanzania, Mozambique, Ghana and Brazil. (3)
The report further sustains that the NGO Conservation International confirmed “that it sees
potential in associating large global businesses with the forestry sector.” It further mentions
WWF and The Nature Conservancy – namely, the same category of NGOs mainly concerned
on promoting programs and policies that are aligned with corporate interests as an easy way
to keep their funding, projects and investments.
The purely financial focus of this report, with an eye on how to make most profits, should not
come as a surprise though. It was prepared by a company called Acacia Sustainable
Business Advisors (4), which was set up by Martin Poulsen, a development banker active in
rising private Equity Funds particularly in Africa. Equity Funds try to offer big returns by
spreading investments across companies from different sectors. (5) One co-author of the
report was Mads Asprem, the ex-director of Green Resources, a Norwegian industrial tree
plantation and carbon offsets company. Green Resources’ tree plantations in Mozambique,
Tanzania, and Uganda have resulted in land grabs, evictions, loss of livelihoods and
increased hunger for local communities. (6)

The report also shows the possible responses that investors could have to potential
“barriers”. One “structural barrier” identified is called “stakeholder relations,” a very vague
concept that seems to be related to possible conflicts with communities living in or around
the plantation projects. The term “conflicts” however is not mentioned once in the whole
report. The recommended response to this “barrier” is to “Use AfDB or other MDB
[Multilateral Development Bank] “honest broker” profile to convene stakeholders.” So it
seems that the strategy is to use development banks to make communities believe that the
project has the intention of improving (developing) people’s lives. Another “structural barrier”
identified in the report is “land tenure challenges,” to which the recommended response is to
“Follow FSC and other best practices.” This, of course, is recommended despite the vast
amount of information that shows how, in practice, FSC certifies as “sustainable” industrial
tree plantations that destroy peoples’ livelihoods.
When the climate and development agendas blend for profit
It is relevant to underline how the report makes use of the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDG) and the need for climate change mitigation and adaptation in the African region to
promote the further expansion of industrial plantations. It goes as far as to conclude that
“Channelling financial resources to such efforts [afforestation in the framework of the SDGs]
is within the mandate of international development organizations and special climate funds.”
The report also states that “preliminary interviews yielded information that some oil
companies are already forming alliances with sustainable forestry investment companies.”
This despite the fact that oil and gas companies are a fundamental driver of climate change,
which would undermine any possible positive outcome for the climate. Besides, these
‘alliances’ also give these companies an easy way out of any responsibility for their business
operations. This is clearly exemplified with the announcement of oil giant companies, such as
Italian ENI and Anglo-Dutch Shell, to invest in mega tree plantation projects to supposedly
“compensate” their mega levels of pollution they provoke. These two companies are
responsible for environmental disasters and crimes as a result of their fossil fuel activities in
many places across the globe. (7)
The African Development Bank is complicit in this strategy. While the Bank finances this
report encouraging the expansion of industrial plantations in Africa as a climate solution, it
finances in Mozambique a new gas extraction mega-project in the Cabo Delgado province,
undertaken by a consortium of companies including ENI.
This report is one more proof of how investments from profit-seeking corporations are put in
front of the social well being of people in the name of development and now also of
addressing climate change. There is no “unused” or “degraded” land available at the scale
proposed, which means countless people in Africa will be directly and indirectly affected if
this expansion plan materialise.
Another relevant omission of the report is how it bluntly assumes that the current scarcity of
investment in large-scale tree plantations in this African region is due to the few investment
opportunities available. However, the communities and groups on the ground organizing
almost on a daily basis to oppose the seizing of their lands and lives by these plantations
companies, have clear that their resistance has been successful to halt the expansion of
these plantations in many places. And as the open letter launched on September 21st said,

communities around the world “will certainly resist this new and insane expansion plan
proposed in the AfDB and WWF-Kenya.”

(1) AfDB, CIF, WWF, Acacia Sustainable, Towards large-scale investment in African forestry, 2019,
http://redd-monitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/towards_largescale_
commercial_investment_in_african_forestry.pdf
(2) Open Letter about investments in monoculture tree plantations in the Global South, especially in
Africa, and in solidarity with communities resisting the occupation of their territories, 2020,
https://wrm.org.uy/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/carta-con-firmas-en-inglés_upd201008.pdf
(3) See more information on resistance struggles against plantations here: https://wrm.org.uy/browseby-
subject/international-movement-building/local-struggles-against-plantations/
(4) Acacia Sustainable Business Advisors, https://www.acaciasba.com/about
(5) Groww, Equity Mutual Funds, https://groww.in/p/equity-funds/
(6) REDD-Monitor, How WWF and the African Development Bank are promoting lang grabs in Africa,
2020, https://redd-monitor.org/2020/09/22/international-day-of-struggle-against-monoculture-treeplantations-
how-wwf-and-the-african-development-bank-are-promoting-land-grabs-in-africa/ ; The
Expansion of Tree Plantations on Peasant Territories in the Nacala Territories: Green Resources in
Mozambique, 2018, https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/recommended/the-expansion-oftree-
plantations-on-peasant-territories-in-the-nacala-corridor-green-resources-in-mozambique/ ; WRM
bulletin, Green Resources Mozambique: More False Promises! 2018, https://wrm.org.uy/articles-fromthe-
wrm-bulletin/section1/green-resources-mozambique-more-false-promises/ ; WRM bulletin, Carbon
Colonialism: Failure of Green Resources’ Carbon Offset Project in Uganda, 2018,
https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/section1/carbon-colonialism-failure-of-greenresources-
carbon-offset-project-in-uganda/ ; WRM bulletin, Tanzania: Community resistance against
monoculture tree plantations, 2018,
https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/section1/tanzania-community-resistance-againstmonoculture-
tree-plantations/ ; and WRM bulletin, The farce of “Smart forestry”: The cases of Green
Resources in Mozambique and Suzano in Brazil, 2015, https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrmbulletin/
section1/the-farce-of-smart-forestry-the-cases-of-green-resources-in-mozambique-andsuzano-
in-brazil/
(7) REDD-Monitor, NGOs oppose the oil industry’s Natural Climate Solutions and demand that ENI
and Shell keep fossil fuels in the ground, 2019, https://wrm.org.uy/other-relevant-information/ngosoppose-
the-oil-industrys-natural-climate-solutions-and-demand-that-eni-and-shell-keep-fossil-fuels-in the-
ground /
WRM Bulletin

Related posts:

Monoculture tree plantations are a false climate solution The enduring legacy of a little-known World Bank project to secure African plantations for European billionaires Witness Radio – Uganda, Community members from Mozambique and other organizations around the world say NO to more industrial tree plantations CSOs to African Development Bank: Don’t fund EACOP Open letter to African Development Bank and Nordic Development Fund: Address reprisals against Paten Clan
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Smallholder farmers were excluded from the consultative process for the East African Community Seed and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025: CSOs across the EAC call for a time extension and greater inclusion of smallholder farmers in shaping the bill.

Published

8 hours ago

on

September 7, 2026

By

By the Witness Radio team.

Civil society organizations throughout the East African Community are raising their voices, urging that smallholder farmers and farmer-managed seed systems practitioners receive the recognition they deserve in the upcoming East African Community Seed and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025.

This call to action follows public hearings held across EAC partner states from August 26 to 28, 2026. Diverse voices gathered to shape the future of regional seed legislation. However, participation by smallholder farmers and farmer-managed seed systems practitioners was limited.

These hearings united government officials, farmers, civil society groups, researchers, seed regulators, commercial seed sector representatives, and other stakeholders, all eager to share their perspectives and recommendations on the Bill.

The proposed legislation aims to create a unified approach to seed and plant variety regulation across the region. It covers seed certification, variety release, and the movement and trade of seeds across borders.

Civil society organizations from several countries argue that the proposed framework overlooks the vital role of smallholder farmers and farmer-managed seed systems practitioners who have sustained farming communities for generations.

They emphasize that although the formal and commercial seed sector is important, farmers must retain the freedom to save, exchange, multiply, and replant seeds within their communities.

In Kenya, civil society organizations participated in the public hearings, advocating for recognition of farmers, farmer-managed seed systems, traditional landraces, and community seed banks.

Tabby Munyiri of Seed Savers Network said the concern was not about rejecting the formal seed sector, but ensuring that farmers have a choice.

“We recognize the importance of the formal seed system, and we believe that farmers should be able to have an option; farmers should be able to have a choice, and that is why we are calling for an inclusive law,” Munyiri said.

She highlighted that traditional and indigenous seed varieties are crucial for preserving biodiversity and equipping farmers with more options as they adapt to shifting climate conditions.

In Uganda, civil society organizations echoed these concerns, stressing the need to explicitly recognize farmer-managed seed systems rather than relying on vague references to farmers in the proposed regional framework.

During the consultations, Dr. David Kabanda of the Center for Food and Adequate Resources Rights Africa (CEFROHT) urged lawmakers to safeguard farmers’ rights and ensure that commercial interests do not undermine farmer-managed systems.

“We need to critically and deeply think about this issue as East Africans. We can wake up to a very sad reality, and it has started happening, when a few corporate companies take over everything,” Kabanda said.

Kabanda also questioned whether the proposed Bill aligns with the international and African commitments that EAC partner states have pledged to uphold.

He cited the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, particularly Article 9, which addresses farmers’ rights. Kabanda argued that the regional legislation should reflect these commitments and criticized the Bill for what he described as inadequate attention to farmers’ rights.

In Tanzania, civil society representatives described a consultation process that brought together a wide range of stakeholders. David Manongi of the Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity (TABIO) noted that farmers, women, youth, civil society organizations, government officials, researchers, and seed regulators all took part in the discussions.

He added that civil society organizations held preparatory meetings before the public hearing to review the Bill and consolidate concerns and recommendations.

“The meeting provided us with an opportunity to review the Bill and consolidate the concerns and recommendations,” Manongi said.

According to Manongi, stakeholders advocated measures to safeguard farmer seed systems. They focused on ensuring that farmer-managed seed systems and community seed banks are recognized within the regional framework.

In Rwanda, civil society representatives voiced worries about the lack of awareness among organizations that work directly with smallholder farmers regarding the consultations.

Dieudonne Sindikubwabo, who works with the Rwanda Organic Agriculture Movement (ROAM), said many organizations working closely with farmers were unaware that the public hearings were taking place until the process had begun.

“I work with smallholder farmers daily. But when you look at how the Bill is designed, I feel very little involvement of smallholder farmers was done,” Sindikubwabo said.

He explained that his concerns went beyond participation to the substance of the proposed legislation.

Sindikubwabo pointed out that the Bill favors commercialization but falls short in clearly outlining farmers’ rights to keep, exchange, and multiply seeds.

“The Bill is not in favor of smallholder farmers, because they are just focusing on commercialization,” he said.

In Burundi, civil society representatives questioned the inclusiveness of the consultation process, noting they were not formally invited and that farmers were missing from the discussions.

Tusiime Pauline, a legal adviser assisting Burundian civil society organizations, stressed that the absence of farmers was especially troubling since the proposed legislation will directly impact them.

“We didn’t have the farmers there because farmers were not invited,” Pauline said.

She noted that civil society representatives still attended and presented recommendations after preparing submissions and proposed amendments to the Bill. However, she lamented that the discussions largely ignored concerns about farmers’ absence.

“We managed to attend the hearings despite lacking a formal invitation. Leaving out civil society and farmers without inviting them makes the process unfair,” she said.

In Somalia, civil society representatives voiced broader worries about whether rural communities have the awareness and capacity to understand and participate in policy discussions that directly affect them.

Mohammed Hassan from the Center for Dryland Development & Resilience Systems (CDDRS) emphasized the need to share information about the proposed legislation with rural communities, especially those relying on farming and traditional production systems.

“We need to make sure information about these policies reaches rural communities, so the people directly affected can understand what is being discussed and have an opportunity to participate.”

Hassan pointed out that public awareness is crucial because many rural communities may lack sufficient information about policy debates at national and regional levels.

The stories shared by civil society representatives from six of the eight EAC partner states reveal a patchwork of experiences with the consultations, bringing a range of perspectives into the ongoing debate over seed and plant variety regulation in East Africa.

Although the proposed law aims to establish a unified regulatory framework for the region, civil society organizations are urging lawmakers to ensure it also reflects the lived realities of farmers who rely on seed systems beyond the formal commercial market.

Their submissions raise broader questions about how the regional seed system can balance commercial interests, farmers’ rights, biodiversity, and the ongoing use of indigenous and farmer-managed seed systems.

The organizations are also calling for the concerns voiced during the consultations to be genuinely considered before the Bill moves forward in the legislative process.

For farmers, the outcome of this process could determine how they access, save, exchange, and use seeds for years to come. As the EAC weighs the recommendations from the consultations, all eyes are now on how these competing perspectives will shape the next version of the proposed law.

Related posts:

CSOs and Smallholder farmers are urgently convening to scrutinize the EAC Seed & Plant Varieties Bill, 2025. The EAC Seed & Plant Varieties Bill, 2025, is a potential threat to smallholder farmers, as it aims to disengage them from the agriculture business, according to experts. Civil society organizations across East Africa have revived their campaign against the EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025, just as the regional parliament opens the floor to public consultations. East African Community member states launched public hearings this week for the Seed and Plant Variety Bill 2025, marking a significant step in shaping the region’s agricultural future. The EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025 targets organic seeds, aiming to replace them with modified seeds, say smallholder farmers.
Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Six other Anti-EACOP Activists remanded to Luzira over alleged unlawful assembly.

Published

2 days ago

on

September 5, 2026

By

By the Witness Radio team

The Law Development Centre (LDC) Magistrate’s Court has charged and remanded six youth activists attached to the Rooted in Resistance movement to Luzira Prison over alleged unlawful assembly.

The six are Mukiibi Isaac, Mawanda Arafat, Mugerwa Nicholas, Opio Innocent, Friday John and Onyango Ronald.

They are among 16 activists arrested on Monday, September 1, 2026, as they attempted to deliver petitions to Parliament and the offices of TotalEnergies in Kampala, calling for greater scrutiny of Uganda’s oil developments and opposing further investment in fossil fuels.

The activists were protesting against projects including the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and the Tilenga oil project, arguing that continued investment in fossil fuels threatens communities, the environment and Uganda’s climate commitments.

Their lawyer, Kakuru Tumusiime, said that the six had been detained for more than 48 hours before being brought before a magistrate.

He argued that the continued detention amounted to a violation of their constitutional rights and called on the government to listen to the concerns being raised by young people rather than responding to protests with arrests.

“Our Constitution is clear that if a person has been arrested, he should be presented before court within 48 hours after his detention or else he should be granted a police bond,” Kakuru said.

He further accused the authorities of violating the activists’ human rights and said the defense team had already taken steps to challenge the alleged violations.

“We had filed an application for mandatory bail that had not been fixed. I think when they heard about the application, they rushed to bring them before court,” Kakuru said.

The six were subsequently remanded to Luzira Prison until September 17, 2026.

According to Section 62 of the Penal Code, any person who takes part in an unlawful assembly commits a misdemeanor and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term of one year.

The activists say their opposition is rooted in concerns about the environmental and social consequences of Uganda’s decision to develop its oil resources.

At the center of their campaign is EACOP, the planned 1,443-kilometre heated crude oil pipeline that will transport crude from Uganda’s oil fields in Hoima to the port of Tanga in Tanzania.

The pipeline is expected to transport crude produced from Uganda’s upstream oil projects, including the Tilenga project operated by TotalEnergies and the Kingfisher project.

The activists argue that Uganda should be investing more heavily in renewable energy rather than expanding fossil fuel production at a time when countries around the world are under pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Their position is that economic development should not come at the expense of people’s land, livelihoods and the environment.

Their demonstrations and petitions have called for Uganda to reconsider continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure and instead accelerate the transition towards renewable sources of energy.

Rooted in Resistance was formerly known as Students Against EACOP and has become one of the youth-led groups consistently challenging Uganda’s fossil fuel development.

The group says young people have a stake in decisions being made today because they will live with the environmental and economic consequences of those decisions for decades to come.

During Monday’s demonstration, the activists wore orange T-shirts bearing the words “Rooted in Resistance” and carried banners and placards with messages including “No to Oil,” “Oil is temporary, nature is permanent” and “Uganda deserves an oil-free future.”

The demonstration ended with arrests as the activists attempted to deliver their petitions.

On Tuesday, September 1, ten of the activists were charged before Buganda Road Court with public nuisance and remanded to Luzira Prison.

The latest court proceedings involving the six activists have added another chapter to the increasingly tense debate over Uganda’s oil industry, which has led to the criminalization of more than 100 activists.

Related posts:

The 15 Anti-EACOP protesters appearing before Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court.
Breaking: 15 Anti-EACOP Activists have been charged with common nuisance and remanded to Luzira prison. Ten out of sixteen Rooted in Resistance activists now face charges and have been sent to Luzira Prison after standing up against Uganda’s oil development. Another group of eleven environmental activists have been charged with common nuisance and remanded to Luzira Prison for opposing the EACOP project. Hon. Dr. Lulume Bayiga Remanded to Luzira Prison in Critical Condition, Accuses Minister Kibule of his Condition 12 anti-Eacop activists decry delayed justice after spending 100 days on remand
Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Wakiso LCs warned against using official stamps to facilitate land grabbing

Published

3 days ago

on

September 5, 2026

By

Wakiso Town Council Mayor, Mr Fredson Mukalazi Kasiwukira (L), hands over an official stamp to an LC 1 chairperson.  PHOTO/NOELINE NABUKENYA

Newly sworn-in village chairpersons in Wakiso District have been warned against colluding with land grabbers and wealthy individuals to facilitate illegal land transactions, with authorities threatening to arrest those who misuse official stamps.

The village leaders have also been told to stop looking at an official stamp as a source of income and instead find legitimate employment to support themselves.

Wakiso Deputy Resident District Commissioner, Ms Angel Namulimbe, said her office continues to receive numerous complaints related to fraud and land grabbing, many of which allegedly involve village leaders.

“Our office is always full of cases of fraud and land grabbing, and many of these cases involve LC leaders,” she said.

She warned that village leaders found colluding with land grabbers would be arrested.

The RDC made the remarks on Thursday while presiding over the swearing-in and commissioning of village chairpersons and the handing over of official stamps to them in Wakiso Town Council.

Eight of the 13 village chairpersons in the town council and one of the six LC II leaders in the area were sworn in and issued with official stamps.

Ms Namulimbe said she would take firm action against any leader found using the stamp improperly.

Wakiso Town Council Chairperson, Mr Fredson Mukalazi Kasiwukira, accused some village leaders of working with wealthy individuals to frustrate residents and facilitate questionable land transactions.

He warned the leaders against allowing their offices to be used by people seeking to deprive residents of their land.

“Security has been alerted. In case you are reported misusing the stamp, we shall recall it,” he warned.

He also urged village chairpersons to be their eyes on the ground to ensure locals participate actively in all the ongoing government programmes.

“Parish Development Model has been extended up to the village level with LC 1s responsible for identifying prospective beneficiaries,” he said.

Mr Atanansio Musambwa, the Wakiso District vice chairperson and district representative for the area, urged the sworn-in leaders to put the interests of residents first and avoid engaging in practices that could undermine public trust.

He also asked them to pay greater attention to children and other vulnerable residents in their villages.

Wakiso Town Council Clerk, Mr Jimmy Mabanja, while handing over the stamps and other tools of authority to the leaders, reminded them that the items are official tools meant to support the enforcement of laws and proper administration.

He warned the leaders against using the stamps for personal gain or authorising transactions that do not meet the required legal procedures.

The village chairpersons pledged to exercise greater caution in the use of the stamps and other official materials entrusted to them.

Led by Mr Twaibu Kafuuma, the chairperson for Kaasangombe Cell, chairpersons also raised their concerns to the town council authorities, including enhancing their pay from Shs10,000 to Shs1m a month.

They also asked for identity cards, noting that they find it hard to identify themselves in case of community events.

“For example, during the National Cleaning Day, some chairpersons are beaten up by security officers because they cannot identify themselves,” Mr Kafuuma said.

Source: monitor.co.ug

Related posts:

NEMA hindering environment restoration in Wakiso – leaders Campaigning LC I Chairpersons Barred from Land Transactions Until Polls End. A community in Yumbe district has raised serious concerns about allegations of land-grabbing involving an aspirant for Uganda’s Parliamentary Speakership, affecting over 50 families. Police disperse Amolatar protest over land dispute 394,000 Land Titles Affected By Closure Of Ministry Of Lands Offices In Wakiso
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