By Ben Musanje
A group of lawyers and other legal professionals has urged President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni to immediately reject a proposal to redevelop two acres of Kampala’s Constitutional Square into a hotel, shopping mall and commercial complex.
In an open letter to the President circulating on social media, the group argues that the proposed redevelopment would violate the Constitution, which requires government to hold certain public land in trust for the common good of all Ugandans.
The statement follows President Museveni’s August 30, 2026 letter to the Minister for Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs, Minsa Kabanda, directing her to study a proposal by Hajji Hassan Bulwadda to develop the two-acre portion of Constitutional Square.
The lawyers say the proposal should not be subjected to further study or consultation because, in their view, the constitutional status of the Square has already been settled. The group include Peter Mukidi Walubiri, Anthony Odur, Lillian A. Drabo, Morgan Muhindo, Ronald Samuel Wanda, and Martin Odongo. Others are, Sarah Bireete, Prima Kwagala, Steven Kalali, Timothy Amanya, Sarah Kasande, Kato Tumusiime, Emmanuel Candia, Yvonne Mpambara, Tumusiime Kakuru, Eron Kiiza, Juliu K. Warugaba and Phillip Karugaba.
They rely on Article 237(b) of the Constitution, which requires government to “hold in trust for the people and protect” certain land for the common good of all citizens.
According to the group, Constitutional Square falls within this category of public trust property and therefore cannot lawfully be leased to a private developer.
They also refer to the earlier case of Legal Brains Trust v Basajjabalaba, arguing that the Constitutional Court found Constitutional Square to be a green area reserved since the founding of Kampala and not available for lease under the law.
The group further argues that government, as trustee of the land, does not have ownership that allows it to dispose of the property for private commercial purposes.
“A trustee does not own the trust property and only administers it for beneficiaries who cannot themselves consent it away,” the statement says.
Supreme Court ruling cited
The lawyers acknowledge the Supreme Court’s September 2025 decision in the Basajjabalaba matter but maintain that the ruling did not overturn what they describe as the constitutional protection of Constitutional Square.
They argue that the Supreme Court only set aside the order requiring a refund of compensation and did not, in their interpretation, reverse the position that the Square is public trust property.
The group says any lease granted in breach of that trust would therefore be void.
Warning over shrinking public spaces
The lawyers also use the current state of Constitutional Square as an argument against further development, describing the space as already diminished by previous state developments.
They point out that part of the original open space has been occupied by the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court buildings, while the remaining area is described as an underused and unkempt open space.
They argue that further conversion of the Square for private commerce would amount to completing what they describe as the “desecration” of a public space.
“A public square already diminished by the encroachment of the state has nothing left to give to private commerce,” the statement says.
Nakivubo, Centenary Park cited
The group says the Constitutional Square proposal should also be considered alongside other disputes involving public spaces and natural resources.
They cite the redevelopment of the Nakivubo Channel by Hamis Kiggundu’s Kiham Enterprises Limited, saying traders’ associations have attributed flooding and destruction of property in the city centre to the works. The matter, they note, is before the High Court.
The statement also raises concerns about the transfer of management of the Entebbe Botanical Gardens from the National Agricultural Research Organisation to the Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities.
According to the group, the 2023 directive transferring the Gardens was intended to attract investors and promote tourism, but they warn that such arrangements could eventually lead to private development of public land.
Centenary Park is also cited as another example. The group says KCCA granted its management to Nalongo Estates Ltd under a contract that later expired, but that the land was not fully returned to public use. They further point to structures they say were erected contrary to the terms of the arrangement and note that KCCA was still demolishing illegal structures at the park in July 2026.
Forest reserves raise further concerns
The lawyers extend their argument to Uganda’s forest reserves, citing several historical disputes over protected land.
They point to the 2001 permit granted to Kakira Sugar Works Ltd to grow sugarcane inside Butamira Forest Reserve, which they say effectively degazetted protected land without a full Environmental Impact Assessment.
They also cite two attempts, in 2007 and 2011, to transfer about 7,100 hectares of Mabira Central Forest Reserve to Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd.
The statement further refers to the leasing of approximately 5,500 hectares of Bugoma Forest Reserve to Hoima Sugar Ltd, saying the High Court ruled in favour of the developer in 2021 and that a conservation coalition later withdrew its appeal in 2024, citing judicial delay.
The group describes these cases as part of what it considers a wider pattern of government decisions involving public land and protected spaces.
Lawyers defend public green spaces
The statement argues that public squares, parks and green corridors are essential to a growing city and should not be treated as surplus land for commercial development.
The group says such spaces provide places where citizens can gather freely, children can play and people can access shade and open space without paying for entry.
It argues that Kampala already has too few such spaces and that preserving the remaining public areas is both an environmental and legal responsibility.
“A capital measured only by the density of its hotels and malls will have gained buildings and lost something it cannot buy back,” the statement says.
President urged to reject proposal
The lawyers are calling on President Museveni to reject Bulwadda’s proposal immediately and without further study, consultation or engagement.
They have also called on Bulwadda to withdraw the proposal, arguing that no private developer should ask the state to breach what they regard as its constitutional obligations.
The statement concludes with a warning to public officials who may be involved in processing the proposal, including the Minister, Kampala Capital City Authority and officers in the Attorney General’s Chambers.
The group argues that a presidential directive does not override the Constitution and that public officers remain individually responsible for ensuring that their actions comply with the law.
“Article 2 declares the Constitution supreme, and any act or instruction inconsistent with it is void,” the statement says.
The lawyers say their representations are being made in the public interest and urge government to preserve Constitutional Square as public land for present and future generations. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
