How Kigali Was Branded for Investors, Not Rwandans

According to extensive ethnographic research published by the University of California Press, Kigali’s transformation was not primarily designed for the people who live there. It was engineered as a brand, a product tailored for foreign investors, donors, and global institutions, even if that meant demolishing real neighborhoods, erasing livelihoods, and displacing thousands of residents.

A City Rebuilt, or Rebranded?

The dominant global narrative claims Kigali was rebuilt after the 1994 genocide. Yet the research reveals a striking contradiction: the most aggressive destruction of Kigali did not occur in the 1990s, but well after 2008.

Beginning in July 2008, large-scale demolitions swept through the city. Entire neighborhoods were cleared in successive waves, Kiyovu cy’abakene, Gacuriro, Kimicanga, Nyabugogo Market, Kazaire, and later Bannyahe, as recently as 2022. These were not emergency post-war clearances. They were deliberate interventions tied to a new urban vision.

That vision was shaped with the help of American and Singaporean design and planning firms, hired by the Rwandan government in the early 2000s. Their task was explicit: transform Kigali’s image into a competitive destination for global capital.

In promotional materials, Kigali was presented as a “tabula rasa,” a blank slate ready for sustainable investment. But in reality, the city was never blank. It was lived in, built, and maintained by ordinary Rwandans.

To make the brand real, the city itself had to be reshaped, often through destruction.

Sustainability as a Justification for Displacement

The demolitions were rarely described as evictions. Instead, they were framed in the language of “green,” “modern,” and “sustainable” urbanism.

Neighborhoods were labeled “informal,” “unplanned,” or “environmentally unsustainable,” even when residents had paid for sanitation, electricity, and durable housing, and in many cases held legal land titles. Once classified as unsustainable, areas could be expropriated at low compensation and cleared for redevelopment aligned with the master plan.