Urban Order vs. Livelihoods: The Cost of Mukono’s Street Vendor Evictions

The longer-term implications may be even more severe. Informal businesses play a critical role in local economic circulation. When vendors lose their income, purchasing power declines, affecting suppliers, transporters, and even formal enterprises that depend on informal networks.

BY DIPHAS KIGULI

The recent demolition of street vendors’ working spaces in Mukono Municipality is a stark reminder of the fragile balance between urban planning and survival livelihoods in Uganda’s rapidly expanding towns. What unfolded on April 1, 2026, was not merely an enforcement exercise—it was a profound human and economic disruption whose long-term consequences may outweigh its intended gains.

Municipal authorities, backed by security forces, carried out a forceful eviction of hundreds of vendors operating along key routes, including Kayunga Road, Seeta–Namugongo Road, the Kampala–Jinja Highway, Mukono–Katosi Road, and in areas such as Nasuuti, Wantoni, and Kame Valley. The justification was straightforward: restore order, improve traffic flow, and safeguard investments in road expansion. Officials argued that roadside stalls had encroached on road reserves, posing safety risks and undermining infrastructure development.

Yet beneath this rationale lies a more complex reality. For many vendors, these so-called “illegal structures” were not just makeshift stalls—they were lifelines. The demolitions were abrupt and, in some cases, reportedly executed without sufficient notice or clear relocation plans. Traders were left scrambling to salvage their goods, with some losing merchandise and capital built over years. Others now face loan defaults after their businesses were destroyed overnight.

This raises a fundamental question: can urban order be pursued at the expense of economic survival?

Mukono is among Uganda’s fastest-growing municipalities, strategically positioned along the Kampala–Jinja corridor and home to a rapidly increasing urban population. Such growth inevitably places pressure on infrastructure, making regulation and planning essential. However, the informal sector—especially street vending—remains a cornerstone of the local economy. It absorbs thousands who might otherwise be unemployed, while providing affordable goods and services to residents.

Dismantling this sector without a clear transition framework risk triggering widespread economic distress. The immediate consequences include loss of income, rising poverty, and reduced household consumption. Many affected vendors are sole breadwinners; their displacement translates directly into food insecurity, interrupted education, and increased vulnerability.

The longer-term implications may be even more severe. Informal businesses play a critical role in local economic circulation. When vendors lose their income, purchasing power declines, affecting suppliers, transporters, and even formal enterprises that depend on informal networks. The municipality itself may face reduced economic activity and diminished indirect revenue flows linked to informal trade.

Moreover, forced evictions without viable alternatives risk driving economic activity further underground. Vendors may relocate to more precarious and unregulated spaces, perpetuating a cycle of enforcement and evasion that erodes both governance and public trust. As many traders have noted, the lack of accessible and affordable alternative markets makes compliance difficult, if not impossible.

From a policy standpoint, this situation highlights a troubling contradiction. On one hand, government initiatives promote entrepreneurship and small business growth; on the other, enforcement actions dismantle the very ecosystems that sustain these enterprises. Such inconsistency undermines confidence in public institutions and discourages grassroots economic participation.

None of this negates the importance of urban order. Well-organized cities attract investment, improve mobility, and enhance safety. However, sustainable urban development must be inclusive. The path forward lies not in abrupt demolitions, but in phased and consultative approaches—developing accessible markets, providing relocation support, and actively engaging vendor associations in planning processes.

Mukono’s recent operation should serve as a cautionary tale. Development is not simply about clean streets and clear roads; it is about people. When policy prioritizes aesthetics and order over livelihoods, it risks deepening inequality and stalling the very growth it aims to achieve.

Ultimately, the question is not whether Mukono should modernize—it must. The real challenge is whether it can do so without leaving its most vulnerable citizens behind.