Uganda’s decision to undertake a nationwide inventory of government land is both overdue and necessary.
If nearly three-quarters of public land lacks formal titles, as government figures indicate, the problem goes beyond poor record-keeping. It points to a deeper failure of governance. The central question is not whether government should know what it owns.
It undoubtedly should. The more important question is, once the inventory is complete, will the State act on what it discovers? For years, disputes over public land have followed a familiar pattern. Schools wake up to find private developers claiming ownership. Hospitals, wetlands, forests and road reserves become targets for encroachment.
Court battles drag on for years while communities lose access to land intended for public services. These are not merely administrative errors. They represent weaknesses in institutions that are meant to safeguard assets held in trust for every Ugandan.
The proposed Comprehensive Government Land Inventory offers an opportunity to change that. A single, verified database of public land could reduce fraud, improve planning and make it easier to protect land needed for future schools, hospitals and infrastructure.
As Lands Minister Harriet Ntabazi put it, “This is not just about registration. It is about protecting the assets that belong to the people of Uganda.”
That ambition deserves support. But an inventory is only the first step. A database cannot stop land grabbing if laws are applied selectively. Digital records alone cannot prevent fraudulent titles if corruption persists.
Nor will clearer maps resolve disputes unless government agencies have both the political will and institutional capacity to enforce them fairly. Public confidence will also depend on transparency.
Citizens should know which parcels are being surveyed, how ownership is being verified and what happens when competing claims emerge. The minister’s assurance that “the programme is not a land acquisition exercise, and it will not interfere with private property rights” is therefore an important commitment.
It must remain more than a promise. The process should be open enough so that communities can see those safeguards in practice. The inventory also presents an opportunity to strengthen coordination between the Uganda Land Commission, local governments and other public institutions that have historically maintained fragmented records.
A unified system will have value only if every agency trusts it and uses it consistently. Land is more than soil. It underpins economic growth, public services, environmental protection and social stability.
Losing public land today means losing tomorrow’s schools, hospitals and roads. Uganda has begun an important exercise. Its success, however, will not be measured by the number of parcels entered into a database.
It will be measured by whether public land remains public, and whether future generations inherit stronger institutions than the ones that allowed these problems to accumulate in the first place.