Buganda MPs accused of failing to get common position on Bill

Parliament met on Wednesday, November 18 at 2:00pm to continue debating the Land Amendment Bill. The Speaker, Edward Ssekandi, chaired the session. Below are the proceedings.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR

THE SPEAKER: Hon. Members, as I appealed to you yesterday, you need time to scrutinise the Land (Amendment) Bill so that you can help in making it a good Bill, by chucking out what you think should not be there.
However, I would like to advise that when dealing with this Bill, you should also look at other laws, which we have had in the country in respect of land. For example, as I looked through my books, I came across the Busuulu and Envujjo Law. I do not know whether members have internalised this law because I heard many complaining that this Bill is criminalising acts dealing with land. What I would like to say is that this law, which was enacted in 1928, also has offences and penalties. What I am saying is that even in the Busuulu and Envujjo Law, some criminal acts were recognised.
For instance - and I would like to read Section 18 of this law, which was effective from January 1928 - it says: “The following acts or omissions shall be offences against this law on the part of the tenant if: He refuses or neglects, without good cause, to render the Envujjo; or he sublets his holding or any part thereof for purpose of profit; he misuses the right given under Section 9 to cut timbers, gather firewood for his own use; on vacating his kibanja, he fails to leave the land and building in a good condition; during the time he occupies his kibanja, he fails to keep that kibanja in good condition, or fails to properly look after the land…”
On the part of the mailo land owner, the law says thus: “… if he demands Busuulu before it is payable, or if he prevents or hinders the tenant from cultivating food or other produce or scheduled crops in accordance with the provisions of Section 4; seeks to evict the tenant without an order of court or during the prosecution of an appeal by a tenant under Section 11 or until the time for the appeal has expired.”
So you can see that for eviction to be effected even under the Envujjo law, you had to go to court. The quotation continues: “… he disturbs the possession of a tenant succeeding into a kibanja in accordance with native custom.”
Section 19 of this law says: “For every offence against this law as aforesaid, there may be effected a penalty not exceeding Shs 100 or in default of payment, the court may, in its discretion, order an offender to be punished with imprisonment of the limit of three months.”
What I am trying to say is that this thing has been there and what you have to do is to consider reasonableness of the punishment that may be captured in this Bill. Please make wide consultations of other laws. You could also look at the Land Reform Decree of 1975 – there may be some good things that can help us improve this law.

John Odit (UPC Erute South, Lira district)
Looking at what transpired in the House, I would like to point out that I saw glaring differences in the opinions of MPs from the various regions of this country. The uniting fact only came on the matter of customary land tenure system.
Whereas the people from the north and east were fully united that they stand by their local community to defend the customary land tenure system and the control of the land tenure system by their people, the west was quiet. Apparently, all their land issues were sorted out a long time ago. So, they have no problem.
When we come to Buganda, there is serious katogo (chaos). There are MPs who are saying the position is that the land should go and that the Bill should have come much earlier than today. At the same time, a few Baganda MPs are saying that the Bill is very cruel and that it is even challenging the authority of the Kabaka. These are leaders from the same region coming with different positions.
Central region, let us plead with you; if you have not yet harmonised your position, the best thing you can do is to go for a retreat and consult yourselves. You have caused sufficient confusion in this country. Even in 1967, the Constitution amendment that you are talking about now – the Bill was tabled by Godfrey Binaisa. At Committee Stage, Dr. Luyimbazi Zaake went through the constitutional amendment process and nobody else. Later on, they started complaining that Obote grabbed their land. It was these two individual Baganda who sponsored the whole Bill. As if that were not enough, we are told Besweri Mulondo was responsible in the CA (Constituent Assembly) and nobody else.
Today, we are talking about the Land Bill; a very contentious issue. If you listen to the radios, the public, especially in the central region, does not know what exactly is happening. The MPs from the same region are speaking in different languages and the local community is complaining and making statements to the contrary. With this kind of position, members, where are we leading our country? This is a big challenge, especially for our colleagues who come from the central region. If this Bill is passed into law in its present form, you should not turn around later on to complain. We have been given sufficient time and we have brought the views of our people, but some of you are talking to the contrary.
In the case of Lango, the question of land was dealt with in 1956 when there was an attempt by the British to reform the land system, grab the land from Lango and pass it on to the colonial government. Nobody accepted that except one individual called Yayiro Apenyo, who was an agent of the British at the time. His car was burnt and the district commissioner, who was a Mzungu, stoned. The question of land was fair at the time, but today, there are no land disputes in Lango except for a few people who have complaints about gardens; these could be one or two plots, but the matter is sorted out by clan leaders.

HUSSEIN KYANJO (JEEMA, Makindye Division West, Kampala): I stand to oppose this motion for the following reasons:
One, anyone who carefully read the recommendations of the committee report would have known that these recommendations were sending us for more consultations.
The people I represent and indeed those that I have been able to consult throughout Buganda oppose this Bill because they think that the Bill confers a lot of powers to the bibanja owners as opposed to registered owners.
Secondly, my people argue that land is a commercial item and that if you want to fix Busuulu, either by the minister or the land boards, you should be prepared to indicate the size of that land and also that you should go ahead and fix rent of the houses for all commercial items all over the country. If not, then the activities that are supposed to take place on such pieces of land should be specified. Otherwise, we are looking for war; where one would have paid a very big Busuulu, for example, of sh1m in a year, but he constructs a shade where he sells timber and earns sh50m in that same year.
My people have asked me to give their views, that indeed, if it was extremely necessary for Busuulu to be fixed, then we must seriously think about reintroducing Envujjo.
Thirdly, my people agree that while there are evictions, there is also rampant forceful occupation of land by favoured or powerful people. The land at Kawanda was forcefully occupied; the land at Wakaliga was forcefully occupied; the land at Makerere Kivulu was forcefully occupied; many wetlands around town have been forcefully occupied; and the Bill says nothing about them. 
Fourthly, some of the people I consulted opposed the donation of land to bona fide occupants by the Constitution of 1995. Erina Nantale lived in exile in Germany since 1978 with her parents. When her parents died, she returned home with her father’s title, but found that the whole land at Makindye, Sabagabo, was occupied. She is helpless and the law is looking in a different direction.
The people I consulted demand that Parliament defines “occupants” because in Buganda you are either a kibanja holder or a title holder, and the rest are English words. My people oppose the transfer of bona fide interests without the consent of the registered owner.
The people I consulted also want to know the qualifications for candidates for the Land Fund. Otherwise, the argument is, Kyanjo did not occupy the land of his father; he has five children and they do not have land. So, who is qualified to receive this money? 
Some bibanja owners want to accept compensation, but they find difficulty in compromising with the land owners because there is no figure that is known. Therefore, they say that if you can fix Busuulu, fix the compensation rate so that it can be known. Others do not want compensation; they are not productive and yet they hold on to large chunks of land and even deny registered owners access to unused land. They do not even accept the extended rights of the biological children of the land owners, and this is sad.



CHRISTOPHER KIBANZANGA (FDC, Busongora County South, Kasese): I come from Kasese and it is a national park corridor. We have Rwenzori National Park; we have Queen Elizabeth National Park; Kibaale and Semliki national parks. We also have forest and game reserves and there are also game corridors. We also have the former landlords. I call them former landlords because we defeated them.
Let me thank the Leader of Government Business for having agreed to delete 32(b). That is how a country is led. You lead a country through compromise; it is give and take and I thank you very much for that.
How do we the people of Kasese understand this Bill? The Bill is regulating our relationship with our landlords. The Bill is regulating how we can be evicted. For us the people of Kasese, our problem is not about evictions. Our problem is how we own land that we shall call our own. Security of tenure is our biggest problem. Do not regulate my eviction or relationship with a landlord who does not even know how he acquired me as his tenant.
In the spirit of give and take, I pray that section –(Interruption) 

PROF. NSIBAMBI: Thank you, Mr Speaker and colleague, for giving way. I want to make it clear that what I stated is a government position. It is not my personal decision. That must be made clear and all those who are crucifying hon. Omara Atubo are wrong because he is representing a government position. Period!

KIBANZANGA: Thank you, Leader of Government Business –(Interruption)

ATUBO: Mr Speaker, I am enjoying keeping quiet because I will have plenty of time to speak even if it means speaking for two days. So, those who think they are crucifying me should wait for me. (Interjection) Is it in order -(Interruption)

KIBANZANGA: I am even annoyed. Mr Speaker and honourable members, Section 31, clause 3(d) suggests that the minister will define how much I should pay my land lord. The people of Kasese are not ready to even pay a coin to any land lord under the sun. You can go to heaven and fix these nominal rates, but we shall not pay. So, I request that you simply delete this thing because it cannot work in Kasese.
When you go to 32(a), it prescribes how I can be evicted and reasons why I can be evicted, and that includes failure to pay. Even before the President assents to this Bill, I declare that we have failed to pay. We are defaulters because we are not going to pay anybody. Before God and man we are tenants of no person except ourselves.
Section 35 describes our punishment if we defaulted in payment. Go and increase the prisons in Kasese and Bundibugyo because we have already received this punishment.
I cannot understand that in the 21st Century people like us bring such a Bill on land. Land is a prime factor of production. The question we should be answering right now is how to make land productive for our country. How do we make the labour of our people on land rewarding? If you are protecting peasants on land; if you are protecting landlords, so what if land is not productive? The question today is how we can make land productive; the question today is how we can make the labour of our people on land rewarding
Economically, the Bill is retrogressive and bankrupt. It cannot help people to generate wealth out of their land. Socially, the Bill is disruptive. We were mending fences with our neighbours and former landlords, but now when you bring this it is disrupting the process of harmonious living with our friends.

MATHIAS NSUBUGA (DP, Bukoto County South, Masaka): I stand here as a Member of Parliament for Bukoto South constituency in Masaka District to oppose this Bill. I held consultations in my constituency and my people asked me to reject this Bill. Last year, all the leaders from Buganda in Parliament went to Entebbe and met His Excellency the President. Only you, Mr Speaker, were not present. But the Prime Minister, the Vice-President and all other Members of Parliament from Buganda met with the President in Entebbe.
During that meeting, His Excellency, the President realised that there were loopholes in this Bill. Indeed, before we left, Hon. John Kawanga and Hon. Peter Nyombi were asked to go and look at all the relevant laws right from 1928 so that they can come up with a synchronised position to be able to have a fair Bill. When we came back, we then heard the President calling NRM Members from Buganda and giving them a different version.
By the way, I am a member of this committee; but this report was compiled in November last year. So, when these sessional committees were constituted, those of us who were new on this committee asked for this report. We thought that a report that was delayed by His Excellency the President because he saw that it required some amendments needed a second look.
Today, we are legislating for the country, and we forget that we are supposed to have certificates of occupancy when we pass this law. Let me give an example. When we were in Entebbe, I asked the President, “Your Excellency, if somebody is a lawful tenant on my land and to be recognised they should have a certificate of occupancy, who is going to pay for that certificate? Before you issue a certificate of occupancy, you have to measure that land?” The President answered that, “I did not know; these people from lands did not even inform me”. That is what he said. So, if we pass this law, what is going to happen?
In the Bill, we talk about the minister determining Busuulu. Can you imagine a political appointee – do not think about this regime alone. Those of you who were present in the previous regimes know what it means for a political appointee to determine Busuulu. If this had been the case, many of you who were in exile would not have found your bibanja on return.

THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member that is exactly what I have been telling you. You are not obliged to follow what is in the Bill. If you think the minister should not determine Busuulu, make a proposal. You can propose that we set up a board of valuers. It is up to you to amend this law.

COL (RTD) TOM BUTIME (NRM, Mwenge County North, Kyenjojo): Mr Speaker I support this motion. I have looked at the statement from the Minister of Lands which he delivered on 12th November. On page 3, the minister says that the landlord who does not intend to unilaterally evict lawful and/or bona fide occupants will not be affected by the provisions of this Bill. However, landlords interested in illegal evictions, including those driven by economic reasons, will be affected by these amendments.
He goes on to say that, “In Uganda, the registered owners of land are estimated to be 600,000 and the tenants or customary owners are estimated to be 20 million. Therefore, government cannot afford to turn a blind eye when the majority of the population is suffering”. For me this is a fundamental statement. It is for these 20 million people that a solution must be found, to give them stability and existence on those small pieces of land where they are. They can then also earn the required decent and stable existence on that land. I think this is a fundamental Bill, almost a little superior to the 1998 Land Act.
Mr Speaker, in the Constitution, the famous Article 237 states that, “Land in Uganda belongs to the citizens of Uganda and shall vest in them in accordance with the land tenure systems provided ….” The systems are stipulated as customary, freehold, Mailo and leasehold. Now, who is this Ugandan who does not fall in this category of ownership that we are trying to cater for? It is the lawful tenant or the bona fide occupant.
Yesterday, Hon. Cecilia Ogwal asked, “Are we trying to create another tenure system?” The Speaker was very quick to explain to her that this particular terminology of bona fide occupants has been interpreted, and she stopped there. However, it is that same question, which lingers in my mind, but that is not the problem. We have to find a solution that will settle the lawful tenants and bona fide occupants. How do you cause these people to have ownership? For the time being, it is to stop them from being evicted and the rest can follow later.
What bothers me is that there will always be a cold war between the tenant and the land owner. In other words, I feel that this law does not go far enough. There is a need to go beyond this. However, as the minister explained in his statement, this law is not talking about the 9,000 square miles or the Balaalo; it is about evictions, and I agree with him. Later, something beyond this will come.
What is important for me is that every piece of land in Uganda should belong to Ugandan citizens. That is why some time back, hon. Okello-Okello was saying that every Ugandan already owns land; who are we to say, there will be land owners and tenants? I think in future it will be necessary to amend the Constitution to say, “All land in Uganda belongs to the citizens of Uganda, and the state shall enable every Uganda to own land”. South Africa is trying as much as possible to create this kind of situation. It can take us a thousand years, it does not matter, but every citizen of Uganda should own land. It may be one acre or two, but that is the only way we are going to solve this problem. Otherwise, we are going to create a perpetual system of some people owning land and others never owning it. That will be most unfortunate –(interruption)

ANTHONY YIGA (NRM, Kalungu County West, Masaka): It is unfortunate that the MPs from Buganda have no common position. So, we choose that we shall individually discuss this issue depending on where we come from and the views of the people we represent in our constituencies.
In my constituency, there is a problem of land evictions. Many people are really worried, especially those who do not have money to buy the bibanja where they are. So when we see a law which will assist them to prolong their stay on the pieces of land where they are, the people of Kalungu and I would certainly support this endeavour. For that matter, I support the motion.
Yesterday, I heard my brother, Lukwago, making his submission. I come from the same constituency with Lukwago; he hails from Masaka, Kalungu West constituency, and we come from neighbouring villages. He knows that there is a problem of evictions in Masaka. I was surprised when he made his presentation yesterday, but I forgave him –(Laughter)- because the nature of the land problems in Kampala Central are not the same as those in Kalungu, Kabungu and the like. The situation is different there. So, I am talking for these peasants who have to handle their hoe to go and cultivate bananas so that –(Lukwago rose_)- but you had your chance yesterday; let me also present. Our situations are different.
Yesterday some colleagues were saying that by having this Bill, we are belittling our king, but this is not the case. In my constituency, I have got a sub-county chief of the Buganda government who is evicting people.