When Emelyne Uwamahoro rented space in one of Kigali’s busiest commercial buildings, she expected the usual challenges of running a small business. Instead, she soon found herself dealing with flooding during heavy rains that disrupted operations and damaged her merchandise. Shortly after opening her clothing and jewellery shop, water began seeping into the premises whenever it rained. A sewerage pipe running from upper floors also passed through the space, creating constant noise as wastewater flowed through it. ALSO READ: RDB Building temporarily closed over safety concerns “I kept asking the management to solve the issue, but nothing changed,” Uwamahoro recalled. Frustrated, she hired a handyman to investigate. What he discovered surprised her. “He explained that the space I was renting was not originally designed to be a shop. The building owners had modified the floors to create additional commercial units,” she said. For Uwamahoro, the experience raised questions about what happens when buildings evolve beyond their original designs. For engineers and regulators, it highlights a broader challenge facing fast-growing cities: ensuring construction remains consistent with approved plans. The issue has gained renewed attention following the temporary closure of the Rwanda Development Board (RDB) headquarters over safety concerns. While such high-profile cases are relatively rare, experts say they point to a wider problem that often emerges quietly during construction or long after buildings are occupied. From unauthorised modifications and rooftop additions to converted annexes and expanded rental units, pressure to maximise space and increase returns can lead developers to deviate from approved plans. The result is not always a dramatic structural failure. More often, it is a gradual erosion of safety, functionality and compliance—problems occupants may notice long before regulators intervene. The hidden cost of maximising space The desire to generate more income from property is understandable, especially in urban areas where land is scarce and expensive. However, experts warn that problems arise when buildings are modified without proper technical assessment or approval. ALSO READ: Kigali City banks on ‘rehousing model’ to reduce unplanned settlements In some cases, developers subdivide commercial spaces to accommodate more tenants. Others add rooftop bars, restaurants, pergolas or extra floors that were never part of the original design. There are also instances where permits issued for renovations, annexes, storage facilities or agricultural structures are later used to construct entirely different buildings. Jerome Mugwiza experienced the consequences of such changes first-hand. He rented a house in Kimironko that had originally been built as boys’ quarters before being expanded into a full rental property. “Whenever it rained, the place would flood and the rooms were always damp because the space was cramped and poorly designed,” Mugwiza said. “When I complained, the landlord would either tell me to find another house or say he needed to increase the rent to fix the issues. It became a constant inconvenience.” ALSO READ: Noncompliance to construction rules undermining infrastructure devt While such cases may not attract immediate public attention, experts warn that unauthorised modifications can create risks that become more costly and difficult to address over time. Philbert Mbanza, President of the Institution of Engineers Rwanda (IER), said deviations from approved plans can compromise structural integrity and expose owners to financial and legal consequences. “Changes to an approved design may affect a building’s load-bearing capacity and overall safety,” Mbanza said. “They can also lead to costly rework, demolition, redesign and project delays. In severe cases, they may result in suspension, cancellation or legal liability if damage or injuries occur.” According to Mbanza, the main drivers of non-compliance include cost-cutting pressures, weak supervision, limited technical expertise and deliberate efforts to maximise usable space beyond approved plans. When buildings depart from the blueprint Construction professionals emphasise that structural defects rarely stem from a single mistake. Abraham Makinde, Director of Dellman & Co Ltd, said most building problems arise from a combination of factors. “Poor workmanship, lack of supervision, use of substandard materials and failure to follow approved structural designs are among the most common causes,” Makinde said. ALSO READ: How bad design, drainage make retaining walls a hidden risk “I have also seen situations where developers move too quickly and skip important steps such as soil investigations or quality testing. These may seem like small shortcuts at the beginning of a project, but they can create serious problems later on.” Makinde noted that approved plans undergo technical review to ensure a building is safe and suitable for its intended purpose. “When changes are made without approval, that layer of oversight is removed,” he said. “Some developers make changes to increase usable space, reduce costs or respond to market demand during construction. The problem is that even minor adjustments can affect structural integrity if not properly assessed by engineers.” Mbanza identified several warning signs, including the addition of extra floors, reduction in reinforcement steel, use of lower-strength concrete, substitution of approved materials, and removal of structural elements such as beams, walls or columns without engineering review. ALSO READ: How property owners can avoid termination of land ownership contracts “A useful rule of thumb is that if a cost-saving measure alters the approved structural design, material specification or load path, it should be reviewed by a qualified engineer before implementation,” he said. A shared responsibility When buildings develop defects or raise safety concerns, questions inevitably arise about accountability. Industry experts argue that responsibility rarely rests with a single party. “If the defect results from inadequate design, responsibility generally lies with the designer or consulting engineer,” Mbanza explained. “If it arises from poor workmanship, use of substandard materials or failure to follow approved specifications, the contractor bears primary responsibility.” Developers and property owners also have obligations, including hiring qualified professionals, ensuring adequate supervision and avoiding unauthorised modifications. ALSO READ: Kigali: Over 1,400 illegally built houses face demolition Regulators are responsible for approving designs, conducting inspections and enforcing compliance. “In practice, defects often result from a combination of failures across multiple parties rather than a single actor,” Mbanza said. Makinde shares a similar view. “A developer cannot completely shift responsibility to a contractor, just as a contractor cannot disregard professional standards because a client is seeking lower costs,” he said. “At the end of the day, if a building fails, it is usually because there was a breakdown somewhere in that chain.” Professional engineer and entrepreneur Papias Kazawadi Dedeki argues that a common misconception is that Rwanda lacks adequate laws and regulations to ensure safe construction. “The biggest challenge is not the absence of laws, regulations or standards,” Kazawadi said. “The challenge is ensuring compliance and making sure every actor understands and fulfils their responsibilities.” According to Kazawadi, some developers still hire unqualified individuals or prioritise cost savings over competence. ALSO READ: 13 construction faults and their penalties in Rwanda “Many developers later claim they were unaware of the requirements or that someone else managed the construction process,” he said. “But ignorance cannot be used as a defence.” He stressed that property owners are responsible for engaging competent professionals who are registered and authorised to practise. Strengthening enforcement Authorities maintain that Rwanda’s construction oversight framework has improved significantly over the years. Emma-Claudine Ntirenganya, Director General for Communication and Community Education at the City of Kigali, said construction projects undergo inspections at key stages. Before work begins, developers must obtain permits and technical approvals. Further inspections are conducted after foundation works are completed, before additional construction proceeds, and again upon project completion before occupancy permits are issued. “The majority of developers comply with approved plans and applicable regulations,” Ntirenganya said. “However, there are instances where some developers make unauthorised changes during the construction process.” To address such cases, the City carries out inspections at critical stages and uses Rwanda’s fully digitised building permit system, Kubaka, to track approved plans and project information throughout the construction lifecycle. When violations are detected, construction may be suspended until corrective measures are taken, with legal or administrative sanctions applied where necessary. “Obtaining a permit is not a one-time approval to do anything on site,” Ntirenganya said. “Construction must remain consistent with what has been approved.” The City has also introduced digital monitoring tools that use satellite imagery to identify new construction activities and verify whether the required approvals have been obtained. According to Ntirenganya, these technologies complement physical inspections and enable authorities to detect potential non-compliance earlier. She rejected suggestions that violations necessarily reflect weak enforcement, arguing that identifying breaches and taking corrective action demonstrates that oversight mechanisms are functioning effectively. Beyond enforcement Experts argue that enforcement alone will not address all challenges facing the construction sector. Kazawadi stresses that public awareness is just as important as enforcement, noting that many stakeholders—including property owners, contractors and suppliers—do not fully understand their responsibilities or the consequences of non-compliance. “There needs to be a stronger culture of awareness and accountability,” Kazawadi said. “If engineers know they will be held accountable, if contractors understand the consequences of non-compliance, and if developers appreciate the long-term costs of cutting corners, compliance will improve.” He also advocates a more comprehensive policy framework that better aligns stakeholders across Rwanda’s built environment, including suppliers, manufacturers, contractors, consultants and regulators. Mbanza likewise emphasised the need for stronger inspections, enhanced technical capacity, and continued investment in professional certification and public education. On a scale of one to five, he rates Rwanda’s current system at about three. “The framework exists,” Mbanza said. “What matters now is strengthening implementation, accountability and consistency.” Building confidence in the future As Kigali continues to expand and demand for commercial and residential space increases, pressure to maximise available land is unlikely to ease. The challenge for authorities, developers and industry professionals is ensuring that growth remains aligned with safety standards. For tenants such as Uwamahoro and Mugwiza, the issue extends beyond regulations and technical requirements to the quality and safety of the spaces where people live, work and invest. Recent building safety concerns suggest that Rwanda’s main challenge is no longer establishing rules for safe construction. The regulatory framework, standards and approval systems are already in place. The focus now is on ensuring consistent compliance throughout the construction process and beyond. Building safety depends not only on approvals but also on adherence to standards from foundation works to occupation—and throughout a building’s lifespan.
