Nakivubo Channel deal: When Presidential directives bypass environmental safeguards

By Mukalazi Deus

Board Chair, UBUNTALISM GLOBAL, a member of the MUNGAANO INTIATIVE FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE (mubirudeus22@gmail.com)

A letter, ostensibly authored by the President of Uganda, surfaced on various social media platforms. In this letter, written on August 2nd, 2025, the President of Uganda issued a directive to the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon Nabbanja approves a “godly” proposal from businessman Hamis Kiggundu to redevelop and cover the Nakivubo Channel. The plan, submitted only a week earlier on July 25, allows him to finance the cleaning, covering, and strengthening of the drainage channel and, in return, build properties above it to recover his investment. At face value, this may appear visionary—combining drainage improvement with urban redevelopment. Yet the speed and manner in which this approval was granted exposes Uganda’s persistent governance challenges, particularly in balancing development ambitions with environmental protection, legal safeguards, and the rights of urban residents.

The Nakivubo Channel is not just a drainage ditch—it is one of Kampala’s most critical urban wetlands, channeling stormwater through the city into Lake Victoria. Any interference with it carries far-reaching consequences: increased risk of flooding, loss of biodiversity, contamination of water sources, and displacement of vulnerable communities. Uganda’s laws, including the National Environment Act, Cap. 153, and the Climate Change Act 2021, make it clear: no project of this magnitude should proceed without an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). This is not bureaucracy for its own sake—it is a safeguard to ensure that decisions consider long-term sustainability, community well-being, and compliance with both domestic and international obligations. By sidestepping this requirement, the directive risks setting a dangerous precedent—that politically connected individuals can override established environmental safeguards for private benefit.

Allowing private property to be constructed directly above a public drainage channel raises fundamental governance and equity questions. Legally, the Nakivubo Channel is a public asset—held in trust for the people of Uganda. Turning it into real estate effectively privatizes what should remain a common good. Kampala’s history already bears scars of poor drainage planning. From Bwaise to Kisenyi, ordinary Ugandans have borne the brunt of floods, waterborne diseases, and displacement—all while watching wetlands disappear under malls, arcades, and condominiums. If precedent is anything to go by, this redevelopment risks worsening urban flooding rather than alleviating it. Moreover, the justification that the developer will recover his money through property development dangerously commercializes public policy. The state’s primary obligation is to protect citizens, not to mortgage public utilities for private profit.

That a proposal dated July 25th could be approved by August 2nd raises serious red flags. Meaningful consultation with technocrats, city planners, environmentalists, and affected communities was impossible within such a short window. Uganda has ratified multiple international frameworks—such as the Paris Agreement and the Ramsar Convention—that obligate it to integrate climate and environmental safeguards in development projects. Approving construction over a major wetland channel without due process violates both these obligations and the spirit of the Constitution, which protects citizens’ right to a clean and healthy environment. This decision also undermines institutions such as the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), whose mandates are to regulate, not rubber-stamp, projects of this magnitude. Of course, someone may argue that the President wrote to the head of government business and the technical teams are at liberty to provide a feasibility statement for such a project. The tone of the letter is clearly directing the Prime Minister to execute the proposal. The President has already approved and is not seeking for technical advice. Am sure if that was his intention he would have clearly stated so.

Uganda needs investment in urban infrastructure, but it must be done right. Redevelopment of Nakivubo Channel should indeed proceed—but only under conditions that require a full Environmental and Social Impact Assessment in compliance with the law and international standards, include broad stakeholder consultations, ensure transparency in financing arrangements, preserve wetlands and drainage systems as public goods, and align with climate resilience strategies recognizing that wetlands are natural buffers against the very flooding Kampala struggles with.

The President’s directive may have been well-intentioned, but it is dangerously premature. By approving construction above Nakivubo Channel without an ESIA, Uganda risks compounding the very problems the project claims to solve—urban flooding, environmental degradation, and social displacement. Uganda must resist the temptation of shortcuts in development. True modernization is not about covering wetlands with concrete; it is about respecting the rule of law, safeguarding the environment, and ensuring that all Ugandans—not just a few—benefit from urban transformation. The Nakivubo Channel controversy is more than a drainage issue. It is a test of whether Uganda chooses inclusive, sustainable development—or continues down the path where private deals outweigh public interest.