Uganda’s charcoal crackdown does not amount to a nationwide ban, Police spokesperson ACP Kituuma Rusoke has clarified, saying enforcement is directed at regions covered by a 2023 presidential order.
Speaking to journalists at Police Headquarters in Naguru, Kampala, Rusoke said his earlier warnings to charcoal transporters had been misunderstood as a prohibition covering the entire country.
“I was following a directive from the President. My issue was not about the whole of Uganda, but about the areas where the restrictions apply,” Rusoke said.
His clarification comes amid concerns about arrests and vehicle impoundment for people transporting charcoal, as well as questions about how the restrictions will be enforced and what alternatives are available to households that rely on the fuel.
Uganda Charcoal Ban: Which Regions Are Affected?
The restrictions are based on Presidential Executive Order No. 3 of 2023, issued on May 19, 2023.
The directive restricts charcoal burning and trade in West Nile, Northern Uganda, Karamoja and the Teso sub-region.
Its stated objective is to address forest destruction and environmental degradation associated with charcoal production.
Rusoke said enforcement targets charcoal originating from areas covered by the restrictions rather than all charcoal production and trade across Uganda.
His remarks are significant for transporters and traders seeking to understand where the restrictions apply, particularly as police intensify operations against illegal charcoal dealing.
The warnings issued by police included possible arrest and vehicle impoundment for people transporting charcoal in restricted areas.
However, the available information does not establish whether enforcement operations have resumed following Parliament’s subsequent intervention.
Police Question How Imported Charcoal Will Be Identified
One of the challenges raised by Rusoke concerns the origin of charcoal consignments, particularly those entering Uganda from neighbouring South Sudan.
He questioned how security agencies would distinguish imported charcoal from charcoal produced in Ugandan areas where the trade is restricted.
“We need to establish how someone can differentiate between charcoal coming from South Sudan and charcoal produced in Uganda,” he said.
The question raises a practical issue for enforcement officers tasked with identifying consignments covered by the restrictions.
The available information does not specify whether police use documentation, tracking systems or other procedures to establish where charcoal was produced.
Neither does it provide figures showing the volume or value of charcoal imported from South Sudan.
The distinction matters because the crackdown targets charcoal originating from restricted regions, rather than automatically prohibiting all charcoal transported within the country.
October Operations and Parliament’s Intervention
The latest developments follow a police announcement on October 12, 2026, of intensified operations against illegal charcoal dealing in Northern Uganda.
The announcement came after charcoal consignments were seized and arrests made in Amuru and Pakwach districts.
Two days later, on October 14, Speaker of Parliament Jacob Oboth-Oboth directed the suspension of enforcement pending a government statement explaining the policy and the availability of alternative cooking energy sources.
The intervention brought renewed attention to the practical consequences of the charcoal restrictions and the need to clarify how the policy would be implemented.
The presidential directive, the police enforcement campaign and Parliament’s suspension directive are separate developments, and their respective status needs to be clearly established.
The available information does not confirm whether the government has since issued the requested statement or whether the suspension remains in force.
Households and Traders Face Questions Over Alternatives
The charcoal crackdown has implications beyond transport and enforcement because households use the fuel for cooking, while traders depend on its sale for their livelihoods.
Electricity and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) are among the alternative cooking fuels identified in the available information.
However, their cost or limited accessibility may make them difficult options for some urban households.
The source does not provide figures on how many households or traders are affected by the restrictions, nor does it quantify the cost of switching to alternative fuels.
The policy therefore places two concerns in focus: addressing the environmental damage associated with charcoal production and explaining how people who depend on the fuel can meet their cooking needs and sustain their livelihoods.
The government is expected to address implementation of the restrictions and the availability of alternative cooking fuels as Parliament considers concerns surrounding the enforcement campaign.
What’s Next for Uganda’s Charcoal Crackdown?
The next developments depend on clarification of the policy’s implementation and the government’s response to Parliament’s concerns. A confirmed date for the government statement has not been provided.
Questions also remain about how officers will verify the origin of charcoal consignments, especially those transported across borders or through areas outside the restricted regions.
The status of the suspension is another important issue that requires confirmation before transporters and traders can be given an accurate account of the enforcement position.
For now, Rusoke’s clarification establishes that the restrictions are regional rather than nationwide, while leaving practical questions about their application unanswered.
Uganda’s charcoal ban debate therefore extends beyond where the restrictions apply to how they will be enforced, how environmental protection will be pursued and how households can access affordable cooking energy.
