Acholi fears of land grabbing are genuine
Feb 11, 2007
MOSES Byaruhanga’s commentary on land issues in northern Uganda (<i>Daily Monitor,/i>, January 6, page 12) failed to grasp the actual threat to land rights.
Margaret Rugadya
MOSES Byaruhanga’s commentary on land issues in northern Uganda (Daily Monitor,/i>, January 6, page 12) failed to grasp the actual threat to land rights. He wrote: “Acholi MPs have failed to pin government in their allegations of land grabbing in the regionâ€, and quoted several sections of the Land Act on bonafide occupants and the Land Fund as being sufficiently protective, yet in actual sense they do not even apply to the situation pertaining.
Land grabbing in northern Uganda is not actual yet but the threat is real. The people perceive the imminent grabbing through observing the government actions although, as Chua MP Okello Okello stated, it is nearly impossible for the moment “to pin governmentâ€, even though on ground threats and questionable acts that depict intention are real.
The first glaring shortcoming of the government in the recovery of northern Uganda after the war is the absence of a focused and definitive agenda on security of tenure of land. In all plans and policies for IDP return, including the one launched by Prime Minister Apolo Nsibambi in the last quarter of 2006, land tenure security is lacking.
Four scenarios have emerged from our research that account for the people’s perceived intent to grab land by government:
The Bahima pastoralists who have refused to vacate Teso swamps despite several warnings from politicians.
The media and civil society organisations revealed the existence of a resettlement plan under the urbanisation policy designed to convert the whole of northern Uganda into rural growth centres as a way of tackling mass poverty. This has been interpreted to imply massive acquisition of land in northern and eastern Uganda (either forcefully or mischievously).
In Acholi and Lango, there are documented instances where officials in the army have ploughed large chunks of land (whose owners are still in camps) and established army detachments to protect the farms. There are fears about the ability of the owner of such land to regain it upon return.
Lastly, the issue of “decongestion of camps†has created confusion.
The four instances stem from ill feeling and scepticism associated with actions seen or believed to be about to happen. Therefore, the issue is security of tenure (or the ability to safeguard one’s land from external threat) and not pinning the Government.
While provisions on bonafide occupants and the Land Fund are good, it is worth noting that the Land Act was responding to post-conflict situations. It is therefore largely skewed to historical land issues and contemporary political necessities and demands.
Section 30 of the Land Act grants adverse possession rights after 12 years of un-interrupted occupancy to squatters. However, the right of adversary possession is only valid in instances where the land in question is alienated in freehold, leasehold or ‘mailo’ tenure. The concept of bonafide occupants does not arise on customary tenure in Teso, Lango and Acholi where land is largely held on customary tenure. In addition, such occupancy must be uninterrupted or unchallenged in anyway for 12 consecutive years before the commencement of the 1995 Constitution.
All occupancy claiming to utilise this provision happened after the proviso date. Therefore they are invalid and construed out of misunderstanding of the law.
The Land Act (S.41) provides for the establishment of a Land Fund, whose management is entrusted to the Uganda Land Commission. Amongst its functions is to settle people who have been rendered landless by government action, natural disaster or any other cause. The Government is specifically mandated to purchase or acquire land and pay prompt and fair compensation. But since its establishment, the Fund has lacked an appropriate administrative or institutional framework and this, coupled with inadequate resources, has made it unable to undertake its operations.
The Land Commission lacks the capacity to manage the fund (according to the Land Act Implementation Studies of 1999 by the lands ministry). Consequently, donors have declined to invest in this particular area. The Land Fund has been largely driven as a political protégé that serves the interests of the government in solving land issues it considers pertinent at a particular time mainly for political correctness.
For northern Uganda to utilise such a fund in resettling IDPs, it must be politically sanctioned. This requires harnessing the political will to indulge in such a process.Currently such political will is still lacking.
The writer is the Manager of the Policy Analysis Unit, Associates for Development
MOSES Byaruhanga’s commentary on land issues in northern Uganda (Daily Monitor,/i>, January 6, page 12) failed to grasp the actual threat to land rights. He wrote: “Acholi MPs have failed to pin government in their allegations of land grabbing in the regionâ€, and quoted several sections of the Land Act on bonafide occupants and the Land Fund as being sufficiently protective, yet in actual sense they do not even apply to the situation pertaining.
Land grabbing in northern Uganda is not actual yet but the threat is real. The people perceive the imminent grabbing through observing the government actions although, as Chua MP Okello Okello stated, it is nearly impossible for the moment “to pin governmentâ€, even though on ground threats and questionable acts that depict intention are real.
The first glaring shortcoming of the government in the recovery of northern Uganda after the war is the absence of a focused and definitive agenda on security of tenure of land. In all plans and policies for IDP return, including the one launched by Prime Minister Apolo Nsibambi in the last quarter of 2006, land tenure security is lacking.
Four scenarios have emerged from our research that account for the people’s perceived intent to grab land by government:
The Bahima pastoralists who have refused to vacate Teso swamps despite several warnings from politicians.
The media and civil society organisations revealed the existence of a resettlement plan under the urbanisation policy designed to convert the whole of northern Uganda into rural growth centres as a way of tackling mass poverty. This has been interpreted to imply massive acquisition of land in northern and eastern Uganda (either forcefully or mischievously).
In Acholi and Lango, there are documented instances where officials in the army have ploughed large chunks of land (whose owners are still in camps) and established army detachments to protect the farms. There are fears about the ability of the owner of such land to regain it upon return.
Lastly, the issue of “decongestion of camps†has created confusion.
The four instances stem from ill feeling and scepticism associated with actions seen or believed to be about to happen. Therefore, the issue is security of tenure (or the ability to safeguard one’s land from external threat) and not pinning the Government.
While provisions on bonafide occupants and the Land Fund are good, it is worth noting that the Land Act was responding to post-conflict situations. It is therefore largely skewed to historical land issues and contemporary political necessities and demands.
Section 30 of the Land Act grants adverse possession rights after 12 years of un-interrupted occupancy to squatters. However, the right of adversary possession is only valid in instances where the land in question is alienated in freehold, leasehold or ‘mailo’ tenure. The concept of bonafide occupants does not arise on customary tenure in Teso, Lango and Acholi where land is largely held on customary tenure. In addition, such occupancy must be uninterrupted or unchallenged in anyway for 12 consecutive years before the commencement of the 1995 Constitution.
All occupancy claiming to utilise this provision happened after the proviso date. Therefore they are invalid and construed out of misunderstanding of the law.
The Land Act (S.41) provides for the establishment of a Land Fund, whose management is entrusted to the Uganda Land Commission. Amongst its functions is to settle people who have been rendered landless by government action, natural disaster or any other cause. The Government is specifically mandated to purchase or acquire land and pay prompt and fair compensation. But since its establishment, the Fund has lacked an appropriate administrative or institutional framework and this, coupled with inadequate resources, has made it unable to undertake its operations.
The Land Commission lacks the capacity to manage the fund (according to the Land Act Implementation Studies of 1999 by the lands ministry). Consequently, donors have declined to invest in this particular area. The Land Fund has been largely driven as a political protégé that serves the interests of the government in solving land issues it considers pertinent at a particular time mainly for political correctness.
For northern Uganda to utilise such a fund in resettling IDPs, it must be politically sanctioned. This requires harnessing the political will to indulge in such a process.Currently such political will is still lacking.
The writer is the Manager of the Policy Analysis Unit, Associates for Development