Basajjabala Claims UGX 1.635 Billion City Square Land

The long-running controversy surrounding Kampala’s City Square has taken a fresh turn after businessman Hassan Basajjabala told Parliament that his company has a continuing interest in the prime city-centre property. Basajjabala appeared before Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) on September 23, 2026, where he said his company, Haba Group, won a tender in 2001 to redevelop the approximately 2.5-acre City Square. He told MPs that the company paid Shs1.635 billion to the then Kampala City Council as a premium for the project. According to Basajjabala, the proposed development was designed to retain the green space at the top of the square while putting commercial activities underneath. He said the arrangement initially provided for a five-year lease beginning in 2002, with an option for a further 49 years. The issue has resurfaced following a new proposal to develop part of City Square. Businessman Hassan Bulwadda reportedly wrote to President Yoweri Museveni on August 18, 2026, proposing the development of about two acres of the property into an eco-friendly commercial complex that would include facilities such as a hotel and shopping mall. On August 30, President Museveni directed Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs Minister Minsa Kabanda to study the proposal in consultation with the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) and report back. The proposal has generated opposition from some city authorities, who argue that City Square should remain a public open space because of its civic, historical and environmental importance. Kampala Lord Mayor Ronald Balimwezo has also questioned the basis for commercialising the property. For Basajjabala, however, the proposed redevelopment raises a separate question: what happens to the interest and compensation claim arising from his company's earlier agreement? Appearing before COSASE, Basajjabala maintained that his company had legitimately secured the City Square redevelopment deal through a tender process. He told MPs that Haba paid Shs1.635 billion and that the company had documents supporting its position, including a payment receipt, offer letter and sublease. He argued that the government cannot simply allocate the same property to another developer while his claim remains unresolved. Basajjabala has also linked the City Square issue to a broader compensation dispute involving his companies and the government. The businessman told the committee that he is seeking compensation over cancelled property and market arrangements. Parliament is separately examining the financial issues surrounding Haba Group, including a Shs140 billion Bank of Uganda guarantee that is connected to the wider dispute. COSASE has not accepted Basajjabala's claims as settled simply because they were presented to the committee. The committee has indicated that it will examine the documents and circumstances surrounding the competing claims. Its chairperson, Muwada Nkunyingi, has requested documentation relating to the compensation being sought and said the committee would engage relevant government institutions, including the Ministry of Finance and Bank of Uganda. MPs have also questioned the circumstances under which Basajjabala acquired an interest in City Square and how the property could now be the subject of another development proposal. This leaves several issues requiring clarification: whether the original agreement remained legally enforceable, what happened after the redevelopment project was halted, what compensation, if any, is legally due, and whether the government can proceed with a new development proposal while the earlier claim remains unresolved. The City Square controversy is not new. The property, also known as Constitution Square, has been the subject of government and private-sector disagreements for years. Earlier accounts record that attempts to lease the property to Basajjabala's interests were opposed by government officials, while subsequent cancellation of agreements contributed to compensation claims. The latest developments therefore bring an old dispute back into public view at a time when Kampala is again debating how its prime public spaces should be used. The central question now is not simply whether City Square can be commercially developed. It is also whether any new development can proceed while competing claims over the property's previous arrangements remain unresolved. For Parliament, the immediate task is to establish what agreements were entered into, what payments were made, what rights were created or cancelled, and what obligations remain between the government and Basajjabala's companies. Until those questions are answered, the future of City Square remains caught between competing interests: public use of a historic Kampala landmark, proposals for commercial development, and Basajjabala's claim arising from an agreement dating back to 2001.