The Kiteezi Land Scandal: A Legal and Governance Wake-Up Call for Uganda

 

 

By: Isaac Christopher Lubogo

 

1. Introduction: A Scandal Rooted in Repetition

 

Uganda is no stranger to public land scandals, but few have so starkly captured the tragic intersection of corruption, institutional failure, and environmental negligence as the unfolding events surrounding the Kiteezi landfill relocation project. In a time when Kampala’s waste crisis demanded urgent and transparent action, the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) instead ventured into a questionable land acquisition that now stands challenged in Civil Suit No. 11/2025. The facts are as disturbing as they are avoidable: government officials knowingly purchased land reportedly sitting within a forest reserve, at inflated prices, and in defiance of warnings from both environmental and legal authorities. This discourse dissects the facts, examines the legal and institutional breakdowns, and draws comparative lessons for policy reform in Uganda.

 

2. The Verified Facts: A Transaction Shrouded in Controversy

 

On 14 February 2025, KCCA signed a memorandum of understanding with businessman Luwaga David Derrick to purchase 230 acres of land in Buyala, Mpigi District, at an average price of 70–78 million shillings per acre—amounting to a total of 18 billion shillings (Nile Post, 2025).

 

Prior to this transaction, the National Forestry Authority (NFA) and the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) issued formal warnings that the land in question was not only part of a gazetted forest reserve, but also that the land titles were likely forged, having been dubiously issued by the Mpigi District Land Board (Watchdog Uganda, 2025).

 

Even more alarming, the Deputy Solicitor General refused to sign off on the contract, citing legal irregularities. Despite this, KCCA’s Executive Director Dorothy Kisaka and other top officials proceeded with the acquisition. A whistleblower, Mukalazi John Paul, has since alleged that over UGX 5 billion in bribes were offered to public officials—including figures within KCCA and the Solicitor General’s Office—to greenlight the deal. He also revealed that KCCA had rejected a free 50-acre alternative site for reasons yet to be explained to the public (NBS Investigates, 2025).

 

 

3. Legal Analysis: Breaches of Duty and the Rule of Law

 

The decision to go ahead with the land acquisition in the face of express objections from the Solicitor General and statutory environmental bodies raises profound questions about public fiduciary duty and compliance with administrative law. By law, public institutions like KCCA are bound by Uganda’s Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Act, which requires all public purchases to undergo due diligence and be cleared by legal advisers, especially where land is involved.

 

Ignoring the Solicitor General’s advice, coupled with the failure to verify the authenticity of land titles, could constitute a breach of fiduciary duty and a violation of the PPDA Act.

 

The matter also implicates provisions under the Anti-Corruption Act, 2009, especially sections relating to abuse of office and causing financial loss to government.

 

If the courts in Civil Suit No. 11/2025 uphold these claims, implicated officials could face civil and criminal liability, setting an important precedent for holding public agencies accountable to legal standards.

 

4. Environmental Governance Undermined

 

The environmental dimension of the scandal is no less damning. The land in question is part of a protected forest reserve, an area legally safeguarded under the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003 and the National Environment Act, 2019. Section 36 of the Environment Act prohibits the degradation or unauthorized use of protected ecosystems, including wetlands and forest reserves.

 

The failure to honor NEMA’s and NFA’s professional environmental assessments not only sets a dangerous precedent for environmental governance in Uganda but also threatens already fragile ecosystems near the Buyala region. Uganda is already grappling with severe environmental degradation, and this transaction undermines every effort made toward sustainable development.

 

5. Institutional and Procedural Breakdown

 

What this scandal illustrates most disturbingly is the institutional breakdown in Uganda’s public land management systems.

 

Despite the existence of legal bodies with clear mandates—such as the Solicitor General’s office, NFA, and NEMA—KCCA officials were able to bypass all of them with no apparent accountability mechanism stopping them.

 

The rejection of a free 50-acre alternative site only deepens suspicions that the transaction was not about serving Kampala’s waste management needs, but rather facilitating rent-seeking behaviour by public officials and land speculators. Institutions like the Inspectorate of Government (IGG) and Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC) must therefore take up this matter not just as an individual scandal, but as a case study in how corruption thrives under institutional silence and procedural bypassing.

 

 

6. Global Benchmarks: What Uganda Can Learn

 

Ghana (Africa):

 

Ghana’s Land Administration Project (LAP) has created a more transparent and decentralized land titling and verification system. The use of digital cadastral maps and real-time land verification could have easily flagged forged titles before purchase.

 

Finland (Europe):

 

Finland’s open-access land registry provides real-time information on land ownership and environmental status. More critically, all public land deals undergo mandatory peer reviews, and environmental concerns override political urgency.

 

Japan (Asia):

 

Japan’s model integrates land-use planning with environmental impact assessments. No public land deal proceeds unless its ecological implications are fully resolved—a balance Uganda has failed to strike.

 

United States (Americas):

 

The U.S. mandates independent environmental impact statements and executive oversight (via Attorney Generals) for all public land acquisitions. A deal like the Kiteezi scandal would have been automatically frozen pending investigation.

 

These models offer a practical guide: strengthen inter-agency verification, enforce public transparency, and place environmental and legal vetoes above political convenience.

 

 

7. Broader Implications and Recommendations

 

This scandal should serve as a pivotal moment for Uganda. Beyond the 230 acres and 18 billion shillings lost lies a deeper moral and systemic rot. The following reforms are urgently needed:

 

Digitize Uganda’s land registry to reduce forgery and improve public accessibility.

 

Make Solicitor General approval legally binding on all public land transactions.

 

Create an Environmental Oversight Commission with the power to halt land acquisitions in ecologically sensitive areas.

 

Mandate parliamentary review for any public land purchase above a specified financial threshold.

 

Empower citizen watchdog mechanisms, especially for local councils and environmental governance.

 

 

8. Conclusion: From Tragedy to Transformation

 

The Kiteezi scandal is not just a legal dispute—it is a moral indictment of a system that rewards corruption, silences expertise, and disregards future generations. But this crisis also presents an opportunity: to rebuild Uganda’s governance structures with integrity, to embed transparency in public procurement, and to finally take environmental stewardship seriously.

 

If Civil Suit No. 11/2025 ends not only in restitution but in institutional reform, then perhaps this moment of shame can become Uganda’s turning point.