What is the family land rights clause?
Apr 22, 2003
Nothing was more disturbing than the tabling of the Land Act Amendment Bill 2003 in Parliament, last week.
Your Platform
By Margaret A. Rugadya
Nothing was more disturbing than the tabling of the Land Act Amendment Bill 2003 in Parliament, last week.
Chaos reigned, the lobby and canteen were active and the floor of Parliament was decisive. Some merely joined the bandwagon without really knowing what the issues are.
It is agony when you lose a home because a family member has disposed it off without considering the rest of you.
We are talking about land that we step on everyday and above which we have built our houses, have our small gardens.
Hence the consent clause in section 40 of the Land Act 1998. But how do you give consent without a recognised interest in land? A new clause was born by the natural resources committee of parliament, to assist the operations of Section 40.
The Committee merely said, that you need to avoid some unfortunate scenarios, those of you who live together as a family on this land have your interests recognised in a schedule to the title of the land on which you stay, so long as both conditions of ordinary residence and sustenance exist.
You must be in a legal marriage recognised by the laws of Uganda or be a child in that family either naturally or adopted under the laws of Uganda.
No sooner had Loyce Bwambale announced this on the floor of Parliament, than the flames went up.
Earlier petitions had actually charged the mood. Professor Ogenga Latigo (Agago County) who praised Hon. Okullu Epak on earlier efforts during the first tabling declared the amendment “misplaced, unjustifiable, a legal and a social danger.â€
The doubting Thomas’ wanted to know whether the amendment violated the individual’s right to private property stated in article 26(2) of the 1995 Constitution?
The Constitution recognises the right to private property Article 26(2). However, it also recognises the need for equity and affirmative action in article 32 for marginalised groups in general, and for women and children in particular in articles 33 and 34. Both principles have legal effect and contribute to the achievement of national goals.
The principle of equity and affirmative action exists to correct social injustice and promote social goals. In political leadership, it has been used to bring marginalised groups into the public arena so that issues affecting them influence public policy (Woman MP seats). This does not detract from the idea of equality whereby every citizen has a right to be elected in an open constituency.
Affirmative action in relation to property ownership is a similar application of the principle of equity. The family land rights amendment enables the law to correct certain imbalances in private property ownership that have led to social problems like women, children becoming homeless or landless and destitute.
It does not prevent any person from owning additional land privately or separately. The type of land that is targeted by this amendment is not the type ordinarily accepted by banks as security. Much of it is rural land, situated in commercially unviable areas.
How about polygamous marriages? The male spouse has to hold such interests with each wife and children in the place where she resides and derives sustenance with the children. Where all the wives reside together and derive sustenance from one piece of land, then the interests are held together.
There are those who think that this will disrupt the land market, just as the Hon. Minister for Lands, Baguma Isoke puts it. Let’s understand that all laws set a framework triggered off when particular circumstances come into play. For example, the law on murder exists, but is not used against every one, only those who commit murder, come under its operation.
Likewise, this amendment would only come into effect under certain circumstances, such as divorce or transactions on land.
Divorce is covered by “no survivorship†as a condition, in the amendment this ably stops whoever was imagining that they could go into serial marriages for purposes of accumulating property.
In case of a transaction on land, the bank or the borrower or the buyer has the burden of ascertaining whether this amendment affects them. For the banks there are no new additional charges, as Banks already practice “due diligence†at the borrower’s cost.
The writer is a programme officer, Uganda Land Alliance
By Margaret A. Rugadya
Nothing was more disturbing than the tabling of the Land Act Amendment Bill 2003 in Parliament, last week.
Chaos reigned, the lobby and canteen were active and the floor of Parliament was decisive. Some merely joined the bandwagon without really knowing what the issues are.
It is agony when you lose a home because a family member has disposed it off without considering the rest of you.
We are talking about land that we step on everyday and above which we have built our houses, have our small gardens.
Hence the consent clause in section 40 of the Land Act 1998. But how do you give consent without a recognised interest in land? A new clause was born by the natural resources committee of parliament, to assist the operations of Section 40.
The Committee merely said, that you need to avoid some unfortunate scenarios, those of you who live together as a family on this land have your interests recognised in a schedule to the title of the land on which you stay, so long as both conditions of ordinary residence and sustenance exist.
You must be in a legal marriage recognised by the laws of Uganda or be a child in that family either naturally or adopted under the laws of Uganda.
No sooner had Loyce Bwambale announced this on the floor of Parliament, than the flames went up.
Earlier petitions had actually charged the mood. Professor Ogenga Latigo (Agago County) who praised Hon. Okullu Epak on earlier efforts during the first tabling declared the amendment “misplaced, unjustifiable, a legal and a social danger.â€
The doubting Thomas’ wanted to know whether the amendment violated the individual’s right to private property stated in article 26(2) of the 1995 Constitution?
The Constitution recognises the right to private property Article 26(2). However, it also recognises the need for equity and affirmative action in article 32 for marginalised groups in general, and for women and children in particular in articles 33 and 34. Both principles have legal effect and contribute to the achievement of national goals.
The principle of equity and affirmative action exists to correct social injustice and promote social goals. In political leadership, it has been used to bring marginalised groups into the public arena so that issues affecting them influence public policy (Woman MP seats). This does not detract from the idea of equality whereby every citizen has a right to be elected in an open constituency.
Affirmative action in relation to property ownership is a similar application of the principle of equity. The family land rights amendment enables the law to correct certain imbalances in private property ownership that have led to social problems like women, children becoming homeless or landless and destitute.
It does not prevent any person from owning additional land privately or separately. The type of land that is targeted by this amendment is not the type ordinarily accepted by banks as security. Much of it is rural land, situated in commercially unviable areas.
How about polygamous marriages? The male spouse has to hold such interests with each wife and children in the place where she resides and derives sustenance with the children. Where all the wives reside together and derive sustenance from one piece of land, then the interests are held together.
There are those who think that this will disrupt the land market, just as the Hon. Minister for Lands, Baguma Isoke puts it. Let’s understand that all laws set a framework triggered off when particular circumstances come into play. For example, the law on murder exists, but is not used against every one, only those who commit murder, come under its operation.
Likewise, this amendment would only come into effect under certain circumstances, such as divorce or transactions on land.
Divorce is covered by “no survivorship†as a condition, in the amendment this ably stops whoever was imagining that they could go into serial marriages for purposes of accumulating property.
In case of a transaction on land, the bank or the borrower or the buyer has the burden of ascertaining whether this amendment affects them. For the banks there are no new additional charges, as Banks already practice “due diligence†at the borrower’s cost.
The writer is a programme officer, Uganda Land Alliance