ULC must double-check
Jan 12, 2004
THE UGANDA Land Commission has refused a directive from the President’s Office to place a caveat on all government land. It has continued to sell off government land to private developers, arguing that it has permission from the relevant ministries to do so.
THE UGANDA Land Commission has refused a directive from the President’s Office to place a caveat on all government land. It has continued to sell off government land to private developers, arguing that it has permission from the relevant ministries to do so.
Now another plot has been carved out of the Radio Uganda land at Bugolobi and sold off.
This is happening all over Uganda. Land that was reserved by government in the national interest is being sold off by unscrupulous civil servants for personal gain.
The ministry officials write to the ULC saying that the land is no longer needed and the ULC then organises land titles.
Suspiciously the ULC refuses to disclose the names of the new owners. They tell journalists that the owner’s name is only available with details of the land title. But this is a Catch-22 as the land title is newly created with unknown reference numbers.
The ULC argues that government cannot place a caveat on itself. But the ULC is being deliberately obtuse. Why can’t the ULC place the caveat in the name of the President’s Office even if it cannot put the caveat in the name of the government?
Government land must be protected. If the ULC refuses to place caveats on government land, it should at least put in place a mechanism to double-check that it is no longer needed before it is sold.
If it continues to dispose of government land and to flaunt the legitimate concern of the President’s Office, it will have become very clear that the ULC has a vested interest in the continued disposal of public land to private developers.
Now another plot has been carved out of the Radio Uganda land at Bugolobi and sold off.
This is happening all over Uganda. Land that was reserved by government in the national interest is being sold off by unscrupulous civil servants for personal gain.
The ministry officials write to the ULC saying that the land is no longer needed and the ULC then organises land titles.
Suspiciously the ULC refuses to disclose the names of the new owners. They tell journalists that the owner’s name is only available with details of the land title. But this is a Catch-22 as the land title is newly created with unknown reference numbers.
The ULC argues that government cannot place a caveat on itself. But the ULC is being deliberately obtuse. Why can’t the ULC place the caveat in the name of the President’s Office even if it cannot put the caveat in the name of the government?
Government land must be protected. If the ULC refuses to place caveats on government land, it should at least put in place a mechanism to double-check that it is no longer needed before it is sold.
If it continues to dispose of government land and to flaunt the legitimate concern of the President’s Office, it will have become very clear that the ULC has a vested interest in the continued disposal of public land to private developers.