Street Vendor Rights: Clash Intensifies as Uganda’s Cities Clear Streets Without Clear Legal Protections for Informal Traders

Kampala/Jinja, Uganda:  As a nationwide crackdown on street vending sweeps through Uganda’s urban centers, a sharp divide has emerged between government authorities insisting on strict enforcement of existing laws and vendors demanding recognition of their right to earn a living in the absence of supportive regulations.

The Ministry of Trade, Industries and Cooperatives has firmly defended the evictions, arguing that street vending lacks any legal foundation under current statutes. Commissioner for Internal Trade Zackey Kalega stated that the Trade Licensing Act “has not provided for street vendors,” describing them as operating illegally outside designated shops or limited hawking provisions. “Operating on the streets is not legally provided for under current law,” Kalega emphasized in recent parliamentary and media briefings, underscoring that the framework prioritizes formal, licensed trade to maintain order and fairness.

This position underpins the coordinated push seen across cities: Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) launched forceful removals on February 19 following a ministerial directive from Hajjat Minsa Kabanda, clearing walkways and road reserves to “restore order, protect public safety, and support legitimate businesses.” Similar actions have followed in Mbale (demolitions starting March 2), Jinja (March 2 public notice with a March 15 voluntary deadline and forceful operations from March 16), Mbarara, Tororo, and Entebbe, all citing national directives to curb encroachments and decongest public spaces.

Authorities, including KCCA Executive Director Sharifah Buzeki and State Minister Kabuye Kyofatogabye, frame the measures as essential for urban management, backed by laws like the Kampala Capital City Act (2010), the Physical Planning Act (2010), and local ordinances prohibiting unauthorized use of public areas. They point to available relocation spaces in gazetted markets. KCCA identified thousands of vacancies and insist the goal is organizing the economy, not excluding people from it. Yet vendors and critics argue the enforcement disregards their fundamental rights to livelihoods, especially in a context where no enabling laws exist to regulate or protect informal street trading.

Affected traders in Kampala and Mbale have accused authorities of inadequate engagement, insufficient notice, and failure to provide viable alternatives, leading to heavy losses and deepened poverty. In Mbale, vendors protested the lack of dialogue before roadside structures were demolished, while in Kampala, some have vowed to return, citing poor market conditions and high costs.

Outgoing Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago has been vocal in this critique, warning that “regulation doesn’t necessarily mean eviction” and that displacing the urban poor without structural solutions risks worsening economic hardship. Lawmakers, including MPs on relevant committees, have questioned the timing, with some calling the approach “putting the cart before the horse” evicting first while alternative markets like Usafi remain years from completion.

Stakeholder forums, such as the Uganda Law Society’s recent high-level meeting, have amplified concerns over the human rights implications, grilling KCCA officials on balancing enforcement with inclusion. Vendors’ associations, like Street Vendors and Walkers Uganda, have petitioned leaders for designated zones rather than blanket removals, arguing that street vending supports thousands in the informal sector without harming formal trade when properly managed.

The Kampala City Traders Association (KACITA), representing market-based businesses, backs the crackdown, with Acting Chairperson Issa Sekito describing it as creating a “fair business environment” by protecting compliant, tax-paying traders from unfair competition.

Government officials maintain that solutions must stay “within the confines of the law,” with ongoing talks for alternatives like structured weekly markets. Vendors, however, demand more than relocation promises; they seek legal recognition to end the uncertainty that has defined their trade for years.