Chibita Got It Wrong
Oct 02, 2002
<b>Chibita wa Duallo’s</b> column recently on co-ownership of land not only fails to explain appropriately the concept but also distorts it and misleads the public.
TALK BACK
By Margaret Rugadya
Chibita wa Duallo’s column recently on co-ownership of land not only fails to explain appropriately the concept but also distorts it and misleads the public.
His first crime is basing his arguments on the Vice President’s speech at the Women’s Worlds Congress whom, I think is equally misinformed and is “politically†strangling co-ownership without really appreciating it technically.
True, no law in Uganda bars any woman from buying and owning land, but how many women in Uganda can afford it, apart from the likes of me, the Kazibwes of this world and a few others accounting for a small percentage of women?
Such people are acting like ostriches, hiding their heads in the sand, while the rest of their bodies are actually in the open for all to see.
Their prayer seems to be that by the time, they pull out their heads, Parliament will have passed the amendments to the Land Act 1998 without raising the issue of cownership. it affects both men and women who are propertied by using the term “spouses.â€
It is rather outrageous for Chibita, being the learned fellow that he is, to suggest that under co-ownership; “any land or houses would have to be owned jointly with his wife, by law.â€
Did he even stop for a minute to do research and find out what the proposed clause on co-ownership says? For starters, let us educate ourselves on what the co-ownerships clause is all about.
The Land Act 1998, in section 40 legislates for a requirement of consent from spouses, children who are minors and orphans (parish land committees stands in to grant consent on their behalf) and from children of majority age still dependent on their parents before transacting in any way (be it sale, exchange, pledge, mortgage, lease etc.) on land that is; the place of “ordinary residence†and from which “they derive their sustenance.â€
Please note the category of land proposed to be affected by co-ownership is that which is already affected by consent whereby both conditions of ordinary residence and derivance of sustenance must be in existence for the law to take effect, therefore Mr. Chibita do not mislead the public by asserting that any land or houses of the husband are affected. If you look critically, this only affects a matrimonial home on the ground, which is contributed to by the husband, wife and children that make up the family. If anything, the law is protecting the family unit. It is also not true that co-ownership is about women taking the property of their husbands. Rather, it is recognition of joint efforts by a couple on land they have contributed together either as husband or wife, that is why the proposed clause uses the term “spouseâ€.
You may wonder why the need for co-ownership, if the consent is already required by law. The issue is section 40 of the Land Act 1998, without a clause backing it to presume co-ownership is very difficult for implementation and could be challenged for being “unconstitutional†because it violates article 26 of the 1995 Constitution that protects all persons from deprivation of property. One cannot consent to transaction in property, for which they have no right of ownership.
When the Draft Land bill was presented in Parliament, it contained a complete section 40, with a clause on co-ownership thus had meaning and was strong. it only lost meaning and became weak after the disappearance of the co-ownership clause, in the final text of the Land Act 1997.
One wonders, why women are falling over themselves thinking that affirmative action has been given to them when in actual sense it is “byoya bya nswaâ€. This is so because consent is not so easy to enforce. should we assume that women are celebrating unrealistic achievements because the likes of Chibita, have blown things out of proportion by misinforming the public, supported by the political rhetoric, without stopping to critically analyse or research issues before penning them down?
If co-ownership is not to be granted, then Parliament should strike out section 40 from the Land Act 1998, because in its present form it is not going to be easy to enforce. The objective for which it was intended and hence put in the law books will not be achieved. Unless Parliament is going to reason like Chibita, who thinks that assuming things implies owning them?
One wonders why Chibita suggests that “other laws be used to give redress to women dispossessed of their matrimonial property.
Chibita also suggests that many cultures are unfair to women, who are dismissed out of their homes when things turn sour despite considerable contribution to property in the homes. I would like to bring it to his attention that in addition to that, all national policies geared towards eradication of poverty such as PEAP and PMA recognise that “women’s land rights are a development issue, crucial to poverty eradication. It is nice that he even acknowledges that there are species of husbands who are brilliant enough to enforce co-owership voluntarily and on their own accord without the law, the secret is in finding out what advantages or disadvantages they have reaped out of such arrangement before, engaging in any kind of rhetoric!
The debate now is not whether the concept or principle of co-ownership should be adopted or not? That was cleared by Parliament in the debate on the Land Act 1998, when the principles were unanimosly adopted. The debate now is, should it be placed in the land law or family law?
ula@africaoline.co.ug
By Margaret Rugadya
Chibita wa Duallo’s column recently on co-ownership of land not only fails to explain appropriately the concept but also distorts it and misleads the public.
His first crime is basing his arguments on the Vice President’s speech at the Women’s Worlds Congress whom, I think is equally misinformed and is “politically†strangling co-ownership without really appreciating it technically.
True, no law in Uganda bars any woman from buying and owning land, but how many women in Uganda can afford it, apart from the likes of me, the Kazibwes of this world and a few others accounting for a small percentage of women?
Such people are acting like ostriches, hiding their heads in the sand, while the rest of their bodies are actually in the open for all to see.
Their prayer seems to be that by the time, they pull out their heads, Parliament will have passed the amendments to the Land Act 1998 without raising the issue of cownership. it affects both men and women who are propertied by using the term “spouses.â€
It is rather outrageous for Chibita, being the learned fellow that he is, to suggest that under co-ownership; “any land or houses would have to be owned jointly with his wife, by law.â€
Did he even stop for a minute to do research and find out what the proposed clause on co-ownership says? For starters, let us educate ourselves on what the co-ownerships clause is all about.
The Land Act 1998, in section 40 legislates for a requirement of consent from spouses, children who are minors and orphans (parish land committees stands in to grant consent on their behalf) and from children of majority age still dependent on their parents before transacting in any way (be it sale, exchange, pledge, mortgage, lease etc.) on land that is; the place of “ordinary residence†and from which “they derive their sustenance.â€
Please note the category of land proposed to be affected by co-ownership is that which is already affected by consent whereby both conditions of ordinary residence and derivance of sustenance must be in existence for the law to take effect, therefore Mr. Chibita do not mislead the public by asserting that any land or houses of the husband are affected. If you look critically, this only affects a matrimonial home on the ground, which is contributed to by the husband, wife and children that make up the family. If anything, the law is protecting the family unit. It is also not true that co-ownership is about women taking the property of their husbands. Rather, it is recognition of joint efforts by a couple on land they have contributed together either as husband or wife, that is why the proposed clause uses the term “spouseâ€.
You may wonder why the need for co-ownership, if the consent is already required by law. The issue is section 40 of the Land Act 1998, without a clause backing it to presume co-ownership is very difficult for implementation and could be challenged for being “unconstitutional†because it violates article 26 of the 1995 Constitution that protects all persons from deprivation of property. One cannot consent to transaction in property, for which they have no right of ownership.
When the Draft Land bill was presented in Parliament, it contained a complete section 40, with a clause on co-ownership thus had meaning and was strong. it only lost meaning and became weak after the disappearance of the co-ownership clause, in the final text of the Land Act 1997.
One wonders, why women are falling over themselves thinking that affirmative action has been given to them when in actual sense it is “byoya bya nswaâ€. This is so because consent is not so easy to enforce. should we assume that women are celebrating unrealistic achievements because the likes of Chibita, have blown things out of proportion by misinforming the public, supported by the political rhetoric, without stopping to critically analyse or research issues before penning them down?
If co-ownership is not to be granted, then Parliament should strike out section 40 from the Land Act 1998, because in its present form it is not going to be easy to enforce. The objective for which it was intended and hence put in the law books will not be achieved. Unless Parliament is going to reason like Chibita, who thinks that assuming things implies owning them?
One wonders why Chibita suggests that “other laws be used to give redress to women dispossessed of their matrimonial property.
Chibita also suggests that many cultures are unfair to women, who are dismissed out of their homes when things turn sour despite considerable contribution to property in the homes. I would like to bring it to his attention that in addition to that, all national policies geared towards eradication of poverty such as PEAP and PMA recognise that “women’s land rights are a development issue, crucial to poverty eradication. It is nice that he even acknowledges that there are species of husbands who are brilliant enough to enforce co-owership voluntarily and on their own accord without the law, the secret is in finding out what advantages or disadvantages they have reaped out of such arrangement before, engaging in any kind of rhetoric!
The debate now is not whether the concept or principle of co-ownership should be adopted or not? That was cleared by Parliament in the debate on the Land Act 1998, when the principles were unanimosly adopted. The debate now is, should it be placed in the land law or family law?
ula@africaoline.co.ug