52-Year-Old Widow Appeals for Help After Forceful Eviction from Family Land in Arua
Candiru seated with her two children shortly after the May 11 forceful eviction. At the background is the fenced plot from which she was evicted. Photo Credit; Andrew Cohen Amvesi
ARUA – A 52-year-old widow is appealing for urgent intervention after she and her two children were forcefully evicted from their grass-thatched house in Odianyadri village, Vurra Sub County, Arua District.
Rose Candiru, a mother of two, lost her husband in 2008 and returned to settle on a piece of land originally allocated to her by her late father. For years, she has been raising her children on the plot, earning a living by selling plastic bottles in Arua Town and at Odia Trading Centre to pay for food and school fees.
Last week, while Candiru was in Arua Town conducting her business, she received a distressing call from a neighbor informing her that a group of youths had been hired to evict her. Upon returning, she found all her household belongings thrown out and piled under a mango tree. She and her two children; a boy and a girl have since been sleeping in the open.
Candiru later sought refuge at Miracle Revival Pentecostal Church in Arua City, where she and her children are currently sheltering.

The eviction is alleged to have been spearheaded by Daniel Asikia Anguyo, a humanitarian worker who claims ownership of the land. The contested plot contains eight tombs of Candiru’s relatives.
Candiru says Anguyo began by fencing off the land despite her protests. Once the fencing was complete, he allegedly brought people who broke the lock on her house and threw out her property while she was away.
“I complained several times, but Anguyo ignored me until he completed the fencing. He claims he bought the plot from my brother, Mike Droma. I wonder how this could happen without my knowledge,” Candiru said.
She added: “Now I don’t know where to go with my children. I have no money to pay rent. I appeal to the government to help me recover my plot.”
Candiru has since registered a case of malicious damage to property and criminal trespass at Arua Police Station (SD Ref: 27/13/05/2026).
Anguyo’s Side
When contacted, Anguyo denied personally carrying out the eviction. He insisted the eviction was executed by the Local Council I (LCI) authorities and not by him.
“That land does not belong to that lady,” Anguyo said. “The person who sold the land is Droma Mike. I bought it from Agnes, who had bought it from Droma. All due procedures were followed, and the matter was resolved with local politicians.”

He added that Candiru was illegally occupying the land and that multiple notices had been served to her by the LCI and elders to vacate.
Conflicting Accounts
However, Mike Droma, the man accused of selling the land, offered a different version. He confirmed selling a plot to Nancy Atibaru in March 2016 for Shs3 million, but insists it was a different piece of land located metres away from Candiru’s plot.
“Atibaru later brought Anguyo and sold him the plot where Candiru was staying for Shs12 million, leaving the original plot I sold to her,” Droma said. “The two plots have different measurements.”

Alfred Ayikobua, the Odianyadri Village LCI Chairperson, confirmed witnessing the eviction on May 11, 2026, alongside other local leaders and Candiru’s elder sister. He stated that he only got involved after the matter had already escalated.
Luiji Alima, a 56-year-old neighbor, confirmed that several of Candiru’s relatives are buried on the contested land. He expressed concern over the manner in which the widow and her children were evicted.
When contacted, Nancy Atibaru said the land in question does not belong to her but to a one Onziru Agnes.
Official Position
Arua Resident District Commissioner (RDC) Gore Goffin acknowledged that his office was aware of the long-standing land conflict. He said efforts were made to resolve the matter amicably but failed.
Goffin advised the aggrieved parties to seek a lasting solution through the courts. He, however, clarified that the eviction was carried out without his office’s knowledge.