Opposition Decries 'Selective' Wetland Evictions, Cites Double Standards

The Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) has voiced strong opposition to the National Environment Management Authority’s (NEMA) ongoing wetland evictions, alleging a pattern of discriminatory enforcement. The party contends that while environmental conservation is crucial, the current operations unfairly target impoverished residents, leaving wealthy individuals and politically connected businesses operating unhindered in protected areas.

“While we accept that it is important to protect wetlands, we are concerned with the manner in which it’s being carried out, the method and scale,” stated Robert Centenary, FDC’s deputy president for the Western Region. He highlighted instances where factories and rice farms owned by affluent individuals remain undisturbed on the same wetlands from which ordinary citizens are being displaced.

Centenary drew parallels to previous government actions, noting that these same vulnerable individuals were recently removed from their places of work under the trade order law. He expressed dismay that before these citizens could resettle, their homes are now being demolished, pushing them further into hardship.

The FDC is advocating for NEMA to clearly demarcate all protected wetlands with accessible boundaries. They believe this would allow individuals seeking to build, purchase land, or obtain business licenses to verify the land’s status beforehand and prevent unintended violations.

Furthermore, the party raised concerns about the humanitarian impact, emphasizing that elderly residents who have lived on wetland-occupied land for decades are being evicted without compensation, a practice they argue contravenes the Lands Act, which mandates compensation for bona fide occupants for over 12 years.

NEMA spokesperson Naomi Namara refuted claims of selective evictions, asserting that individuals and enterprises operating in wetlands, even those who appear wealthy, typically seek and receive permits from NEMA, albeit with conditions. She explained that while those with conditional permits are not immediately demolished, they are subject to eviction if those conditions are violated. Namara stated that cases involving low-income earners often involve the initial ‘opening up’ of wetlands for informal settlements and agricultural use without authorization.

Regardless of economic status, Namara insisted that anyone found in a wetland without proper permits or documentation will be subject to eviction.

The recent NEMA-led operation in the Lubigi wetland, supported by the Uganda Police Force and UPDF, resulted in the homelessness of hundreds, marking the second significant eviction wave in the area within a year.