A group of lawyers and civil society activists has asked President Yoweri Museveni to reject a proposal to redevelop about two acres of Kampala’s Constitutional Square into a hotel, shopping mall and other commercial facilities, arguing that the land is held in public trust and should remain available to Ugandans.
The lawyers’ intervention 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 businessman Hajji Hassan Bulwadda and consult the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) before reporting back to him.
The lawyers, in an open letter addressed to Museveni, said the proposal should not proceed to the evaluation stage because, in their view, the Constitution prevents Government from leasing the square to a private developer.
“Your Excellency must reject this proposal immediately. The Constitution forbids it,” the lawyers said in the letter.
Their intervention has opened a fresh debate over the ownership, constitutional status and future of one of Kampala’s most prominent public spaces, with the proposed development also drawing opposition from city leaders and other actors.
Museveni directive
The controversy started after Bulwadda wrote to Museveni on August 18 proposing the redevelopment of two acres of City Square into what he described as a modern, eco-friendly real estate complex.
In his August 30 response, Museveni directed Kabanda to study the proposal, discuss it with KCCA and report back.
“I have received a letter from Hajj Hassan Bulwadda dated the 18th of August, 2026, proposing to develop the two acres at City Square in Kampala into a modern, eco-friendly real-estate complex, with a hotel, shopping mall, etc, using solar power, etc,” Museveni wrote.
“Study the proposal, discuss with Kampala Capital City Authority and come back to me,” he added. The directive was copied to Vice-President Jessica Alupo and Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja.
The proposal envisages a commercial development using solar energy and incorporating retail and hotel facilities. However, the lawyers say the use of terms such as “eco-friendly” and “solar-powered” cannot change the legal character of the land.
They argue that the central question is not whether the proposed building would use renewable energy but whether Government can legally alienate the public space for private commercial development.
Lawyers invoke Constitution
At the centre of the lawyers’ argument is Article 237 of the Constitution, which provides for Government or local government to hold specified natural resources and land reserved for ecological and touristic purposes in trust for the people and protect them for the common good.
Ugandan courts have previously discussed the public trust doctrine in relation to Article 237(2)(b), including the Supreme Court decision in National Forestry Authority v Kiwanuka, which stated that the provision requires Government or local government to hold certain resources in trust for the public.
The lawyers argue that Constitutional Square falls within the category of public land that Government cannot simply dispose of at its discretion.
“A trustee does not own the trust property and only administers it for beneficiaries who cannot themselves consent it away,” they argue.
“Government holds Constitutional Square as trustee for the people of Uganda, present and future. It has no title to lease. It cannot give what it does not have.”
The group further argues that any lease granted in breach of the alleged public trust would be void and incapable of subsequent ratification.
The lawyers also rely on constitutional principles requiring protection of the environment and natural resources, saying the preservation of public green spaces is both an environmental and legal obligation.
Battle over Constitutional Square
The lawyers’ strongest legal argument is based on an earlier dispute involving Legal Brains Trust and businessman Hassan Basajjabalaba over several public properties in Kampala, including Constitutional Square.
The Constitutional Court had previously made findings concerning the status of the square and public land. However, the legal history is contested and requires an important distinction.
In September 2025, the Supreme Court in Hassan Bassajjabalaba and Others v Legal Brains Trust set aside the Constitutional Court’s orders, holding that the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the fact-heavy enforcement dispute in the manner it had done.
The lawyers acknowledge the Supreme Court decision but maintain that it did not, in their interpretation, remove the constitutional protection of Constitutional Square.
“The Supreme Court’s decision of September 2025 in Basajjabalaba only set aside the order for refund of the compensation paid,” they state in the letter.
“The decision that the Constitutional Square is public trust property was not reversed.”
That interpretation could itself become the subject of further legal argument because the Supreme Court judgment overturned the Constitutional Court decision in the case. The dispute therefore leaves an important legal question about how the previous findings concerning the square interact with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
City leaders oppose plan
The lawyers are not alone in opposing the proposed redevelopment.
Kampala Lord Mayor Ronald Balimwezo has also rejected the proposal, saying City Square has historical, civic and constitutional significance and should remain a public space.
According to reports, Balimwezo told Attorney General Sam Mayanja that the square was set aside as Government Square in 1903 and has since acquired historical and civic importance. He cited the Kampala Capital City Authority Act and Article 237 in arguing that the land is public property held for Ugandans.
Balimwezo also described the square as an important green space in the central business district, serving as a carbon sink, dust filter and storm-water soakaway.
He asked the Attorney General to advise Government to reject the proposed development and instead support KCCA in maintaining the area as a protected urban park and heritage site.
The government has also previously recognised the historical significance of City Square. Uganda’s Department of Museums and Monuments lists City Square as a gazetted national monument and says the site is among Uganda’s protected cultural sites and monuments.
Lawyers point to Nakivubo
In their open letter, the lawyers use the redevelopment of Nakivubo Channel as one of the examples of what they describe as the dangers of transferring public spaces to private commercial interests.
The Nakivubo Channel has been redeveloped by Hamis Kiggundu’s Kiham Enterprises Limited.
The project has faced litigation, with traders’ associations challenging aspects of the redevelopment and linking the works to flooding and damage to property in the city centre. Kiggundu and his company have denied the allegations and have argued in court that the project was approved by KCCA and the National Environment Management Authority.
The lawyers say the experience should serve as a warning before another major public space is committed to private development.
They argue that a drainage channel whose function is to carry storm water towards Lake Victoria should not be treated as ordinary commercial land.
Their letter describes the situation as part of a broader concern about the treatment of public assets.
Entebbe Botanical Gardens, Centenary Park
The lawyers also cite the Entebbe Botanical Gardens and Centenary Park as examples of public spaces whose management and development have generated questions about long-term public access.
They refer to Museveni’s May 8, 2023 directive transferring management of the Entebbe Botanical Gardens from the National Agricultural Research Organisation to the Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities, saying the move was intended to attract investment and improve tourism.
The gardens were established in 1898 and have traditionally been associated with research and conservation.
The lawyers warn that arrangements initially justified on tourism or investment grounds can later become vehicles for private commercial development.
They make a similar argument about Centenary Park, saying KCCA’s management arrangement with Nalongo Estates Ltd expired but that structures remained on the site and public access was restricted.
Recent KCCA action has involved the removal of illegal structures as authorities prepare the area around the Kampala Flyover.
Forest battles cited
The lawyers further broadened their argument to Uganda’s forest reserves.
They cited the long-running disputes involving Butamira Forest Reserve, attempts to allocate portions of Mabira Central Forest Reserve to sugar production, and the controversy surrounding Bugoma Forest Reserve.
The group argues that these disputes illustrate a recurring tension between commercial investment and the constitutional obligation to protect public land and natural resources.
In their view, the proposed City Square redevelopment should therefore be examined not simply as an investment proposal but against the wider history of public land management in Uganda.
‘Kampala needs green space’
The lawyers say Kampala’s rapidly expanding population and increasing environmental pressures make the preservation of public open spaces increasingly important.
“Every city that has protected its public squares, parks and green corridors has done so because such spaces are not decorative,” they state.
They argue that public squares provide places where citizens can gather without paying an entrance fee, while offering shade, recreation and space for civic activities.
“A capital measured only by the density of its hotels and malls will have gained buildings and lost something it cannot buy back,” the lawyers state.
They contend that Kampala already has limited public green space and that losing another major open area would have consequences for the city’s environment and public life.
The group therefore wants the square preserved rather than redeveloped.
Directive not yet a lease
Despite the intensity of the controversy, the lawyers’ letter comes at a stage when no lease or transfer of City Square has been authorised.
Museveni’s August 30 directive instructed Kabanda to study the proposal, consult KCCA and report back to him. It did not itself grant Bulwadda a lease or transfer ownership of the land.
Kabanda has also said she does not have the authority to simply give away City Square and that any decision would have to follow the applicable legal procedures.
This leaves the proposed development at the assessment and consultation stage. The lawyers, however, want the process stopped before it proceeds any further.
They have called on Museveni, Kabanda, KCCA and other Government agencies to independently examine the legality of any transaction and not treat the presidential directive as authority to dispose of public land. They have also asked Bulwadda to withdraw the proposal.
“No developer, however well-intentioned, is entitled to ask the state to breach a public trust on his behalf,” they state.
For now, the City Square controversy has moved beyond a debate about a hotel or shopping mall. It has become a wider argument over how Kampala should balance private investment, urban redevelopment, environmental protection, historical preservation and the legal status of public land.
The eventual decision will depend on the consultations ordered by the President and the legal and statutory processes governing the square. But the lawyers have made their position clear: City Square should remain public, and the proposed commercial redevelopment should be rejected.
Author Profile
- Mr. Stephen Kasozi Muwambi is a seasoned crime investigative writer, majoring in judicial-based stories. His two decades’ experience as a senior investigative journalist has made him one of the best to reckon on in Uganda. He can also be reached via [email protected]
Latest entries
FeaturedSeptember 17, 2026CITY SQUARE ROW: LAWYERS TELL MUSEVENI — ‘DON’T GIVE AWAY PUBLIC LAND’ Lawyers Demand Transparency, Public Consultation And Protection Of Land Held In Trust For Ugandans
FeaturedSeptember 17, 2026“ONLY THE OMUKAMA CAN SACK ME” — BYAKUTAGA ROARS: Besieged Kitara Kingdom Prime Minister Rejects The Ultimatum, Saying The Omukama Is Alive And Remains The Only Authority With Powers To Appoint Or Dismiss Him
FeaturedSeptember 17, 2026BAAGALALIWO FAMILY PROPERTY FIGHT RETURNS: Family Feud Escalates As Beneficiaries Challenge Foundation, Natural Foods Industries Share Changes And Ownership Of Multi-Billion-Shilling Properties
FeaturedSeptember 16, 2026QUEEN MOTHER GIVES WAY: Queen Mother Best Kemigisa Quits Palace As Tooro Elders Including Omusuuga And Prime Minister Prepare For Coronation Of New King
