Could Uganda Learn from Kenya and India’s Street Vending Laws to End the Cycle of Evictions?

As Ugandan cities enforce strict crackdowns on street vendors evicting them from public spaces under laws that offer no formal recognition for stationary trading, questions are mounting about whether a more inclusive regulatory model could break the pattern of repeated displacements, resistance, and economic hardship.

In Uganda, the Trade (Licensing) Act and local ordinances treat unauthorized street vending as illegal encroachments, with no dedicated provisions for licensing, zoning, or protecting vendors’ livelihoods. This legal vacuum has fueled the current nationwide operations: KCCA’s February 19 removals in Kampala, Mbale’s March 2 demolitions, Jinja’s March 15 voluntary deadline (with forceful action from March 16), and similar ultimatums in Mbarara, Tororo, and Entebbe. Authorities defend the measures as essential for decongesting streets, improving safety, and supporting formal trade, but vendors highlight the lack of sustainable alternatives, leading to lost incomes and deepened poverty.

By contrast, neighboring Kenya and far-off India have implemented dedicated laws that recognize street vending as a legitimate economic activity while regulating it to balance urban order with vendor rights, offering potential blueprints for Uganda.

Kenya’s Street Vendors Act (No. 7 of 2021) building on earlier frameworks, empowers county governments to issue vending licenses, designate vending zones, and establish oversight mechanisms. Counties can renew, suspend, or revoke licenses based on compliance, but the law emphasizes protection from arbitrary evictions and requires consultation with vendors. This participatory approach aims to integrate informal traders into urban planning, reducing conflict by providing legal pathways rather than blanket bans.

India’s Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, now over a decade old, goes further by explicitly safeguarding vendors’ rights.

Key features include:

1. Mandatory surveys of existing vendors (at least every five years) to identify and accommodate them.
2. Designation of “vending zones” (including natural markets) and limits on capacity (e.g., up to 2.5% of a ward’s population).
3. Town Vending Committees with significant vendor representation (including women) to recommend zones, issue certificates of vending, and handle grievances.
4. Protections against harassment or eviction without due process, plus social security elements.

The Act, rooted in constitutional rights to equality and livelihood, has helped formalize vending in many cities, though implementation varies and challenges like overcrowding persist.

These models contrast sharply with Uganda’s approach, where stalled proposals like the 2019 draft Kampala Street Trade Ordinance (which suggested uniforms, licenses, and IDs for vendors) never advanced due to concerns over high fees, lack of consultation, and vendor pushback. No national or city-level enabling law has materialized, leaving enforcement reliant on outdated frameworks that prioritize removal over regulation.

Urban experts and advocates argue Uganda could adapt elements from these examples: participatory committees for vendor input, designated zones to decongest without erasing livelihoods, and licensing systems that generate revenue while providing security. Such reforms could recognize street vending’s role in employing over 80% of the informal workforce and contributing substantially to GDP, while addressing authorities’ concerns about congestion, hygiene, and fair competition.

Outgoing Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago has echoed this sentiment, noting that “regulation doesn’t necessarily mean eviction” and calling for structural solutions over displacement.

Critics of the current crackdown warn that without legal recognition, the cycle of eviction and return seen in Kampala and Hoima will continue, exacerbating inequality.

Government officials maintain that solutions must align with existing laws, with discussions on alternatives like structured markets ongoing. Yet as enforcement intensifies, the question remains: Why hasn’t Uganda pursued a dedicated street vending law like its regional and global peers? Borrowing from Kenya’s county-led licensing or India’s vending committees could offer a path to inclusive urban order turning vendors from targets of clearance into regulated contributors to the economy.