A group of Ugandan lawyers and civic activists have taken to the High Court to challenge what they describe as a dangerous, unconstitutional, and illegal encroachment on Kampala’s lifeline drainage system—the Nakivubo Channel.
At the center of the dispute is businessman Hamis Kiggundu, aka Ham, whose company Kiham Enterprises Ltd, is conducting construction works on the protected channel.
The company is also behind several mega real estate projects in Kampala City, including the redevelopment of Nakivubo war memorial stadium, which has since been renamed to Hamz Stadium.
The Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) are accused of failing in their oversight roles, while the Attorney General has been sued as government’s chief legal representative.
The plaintiffs, Naffi Kazinda and Samuel Oola, represented by F. Aogon & Co. Advocates are seeking sweeping remedies ranging from halting the project and conducting environmental audits to awarding punitive damages.
The heart of the suit
At issue is a project involving 12 four-storey commercial blocks and a slab covering part of the drainage channel, developments they warn could reverse flood control gains.
The Nakivubo drainage channel is Kampala’s primary stormwater conduit, carrying runoff from multiple tributaries through markets, industrial areas, and residential suburbs before discharging into Lake Victoria.
Any obstruction, the plaintiffs argue, risks catastrophic flooding, soil erosion, pollution, and irreversible ecological damage.
The suit names four defendants. Hamis Kiggundu, accused of continuous and persistent encroachment on Nakivubo without an approved Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA).
It also faults NEMA for abdicating its statutory role as the lead environmental regulator by allowing Ham’s development to proceed.
KCCA is accused of legitimizing Ham’s works through a controversial Council Resolution passed in April 2025.
The Attorney General is sued as the government’s legal adviser, responsible for defending the actions and omissions of state organs.
The plaintiffs contend that the four jointly and severally violated the Constitution, the National Environment Act, the Physical Planning Act, and the Judicature Act.
Museveni’s controversial directive
Although President Museveni is not a defendant, his involvement is central to the controversy.
A letter he signed in July 2025 praised Ham’s “imaginative and simple” proposal to cover the channel after cleaning it up and strengthening it at his own cost.
He directed government executives to help Ham execute the plan, framing it as “beautification and drainage improvement.”
The plaintiffs argue that Museveni’s endorsement, while not directly on trial, created political pressure on regulators and city authorities to approve the project without following statutory procedures.
They warn that such presidential directives undermine environmental governance and embolden private actors to seize control of protected ecological infrastructure under the guise of public good.
Further documentation now emerging sheds more light on how the directive was operationalised within government structures.
A formal communication dated 13th August, 2025, under reference ADM 075/146/01, from the Ministry of Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs, addressed to the Executive Director of KCCA, explicitly referenced “Presidential Directive P0/3 dated 2nd August 2025 for the Redevelopment, Upgrade, Beautification and Drainage improvement of Nakivubo channel by Dr. Hamis Kiggundu.”
In the communication, Kampala Minister, Hon. Minsa Kabanda stated: “I hereby equally instruct that you give Dr. Hamis Kiggundu all the necessary support and approvals required towards the successful implementation of the same as directed by His Excellency the President.”
The letter further directed that “The development should commence with the ground preliminary site preparation works like site clearance, cleaning and unblocking of drainage water passages immediately as directed with proper site hoarding and project signages.”
The directive concluded that “This Presidential Directive should be implemented sufficiently and effectively.”
Copies of the letter were extended to the Director Physical Planning, KCCA; the Resident City Commissioner- Kampala; the Inspector General of Police – Uganda Police Force; the Director, Operations – Uganda Police Force; and Dr. Hamis Kiggundu himself.
KCCA’s divided house
Documents reveal sharp contradictions within KCCA itself. Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago vehemently opposed the Council’s veiled resolution authorising Ham’s structure, describing it as illegal and warning of severe flooding risks.
Ruparelia Group Wins Key Entebbe Land Case, Clearing Path for the New Mega Speke Resort and Convention Centre, EntebbeHe called for disciplinary action against KCCA officials who facilitated the project and demanded IGG investigations into how tycoons acquired land titles on drainage channels.
He called for disciplinary action against KCCA officials who facilitated the project and demanded IGG investigations into how tycoons acquired land titles on drainage channels.
Records from the Council meeting on April 3, 2025, show that the Authority Council Speaker, Maala Zahrah Luyirika dismissed recommendations for disciplinary action against implicated KCCA officials.
This institutional split within KCCA strengthens the plaintiffs’ claim of irregularities and compromised governance.
The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) also features in the record.
In a letter addressed to KCCA, NEMA requested detailed information about Ham’s proposed development, stressing its role as the lead environmental agency.
These inquiries, however, were never adequately addressed. Plaintiffs argue that this demonstrates how regulatory oversight was deliberately sidestepped to fast-track Ham’s project.
In a separate inquiry by this publication, Ms. Naomi Karekaho, the NEMA Corporate Communications Manager confirmed that the environmental agency granted an environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) certificate for the project.
However, NEMA declined to provide the ESIA report for Nakivubo channel redevelopment noting that the NEMA Environmental Licensing and Management System (ELMIS) was undergoing an upgrade.
David Lewis Rubongoya, Secretary General of the National Unity Platform (NUP) Party, added political weight to this opposition.
In his correspondence, he condemned the KCCA resolution that sought to grant legitimacy to Ham’s construction, calling it an “illegal structure” that not only contravenes planning laws but also exposes Kampala to devastating floods.
Rubongoya emphasized that for years, the city has suffered from incessant flooding due to unregulated construction on critical drainage channels, and that KCCA’s failure to enforce the Kampala Drainage Master Plan had only deepened the crisis.
He described the April 2025 resolution as an act of impunity and a betrayal of Kampala residents.
He also warned that the resolution had given cover to tycoons who have systematically grabbed public drainage reserves and wetlands.
Additionally on September 17th, a group of Kampala city residents and members of the downtown business community formally petitioned the World Bank, seeking its intervention in what they describe as an illegal and environmentally hazardous development taking place along the Nakivubo Channel.
The letter to the World Bank recalls the Bank’s own involvement in the rehabilitation of the Nakivubo Channel in 1999 through a US$19.15 million loan under a Development Credit Agreement signed on June 17 of that year.
As part of the rehabilitation project, the World Bank conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment that identified risks to local flora and fauna and proposed safeguards to protect the channel’s integrity.
Recommendations included desilting, realignment, widening, culvert construction, tree planting, and establishing an escrow account for ongoing maintenance.
Plaintiffs’ reliefs sought
The plaintiffs want court to declare Ham’s activities and Museveni’s directive illegal and unconstitutional.
They want a permanent injunction halting further construction or encroachment and an ESIA together with a full environmental audit of Ham’s developments.
They also seek punitive and general damages for the environmental risks posed, along with the costs of the suit.
The suit raises questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Can a presidential directive bypass statutory environmental procedures? And does a local authority’s resolution carry legitimacy if it contravenes constitutional guarantees of sustainable development?
Rubongoya’s intervention frames the dispute not just as a legal battle but as a struggle for accountability in a city where infrastructure collapse and flooding are daily realities.
Despite the ongoing debate, Ham has not released a public statement addressing the issues surrounding the project and has instead continued to provide video and photo updates on the channel redevelopment.
