Iguru doesn't support the land Bill
Apr 02, 2008
EDITOR—I wish to respond to a statement on March 26 attributed to MP Kabakumba Masiko that Omukama Solomon Iguru supports the land amendment Bill. It is true that the Omukama, at the Tarehe Sita celebrations in Masindi, said Bunyoro supports the land amendment Bill.
EDITOR—I wish to respond to a statement on March 26 attributed to MP Kabakumba Masiko that Omukama Solomon Iguru supports the land amendment Bill. It is true that the Omukama, at the Tarehe Sita celebrations in Masindi, said Bunyoro supports the land amendment Bill. But events thereafter and before suggest otherwise. In the past the Omukama has attempted, with mixed results, to evict squatters from his land in Kyangwali, Miduma-Kijunjubwa and Kyempisi ranch.
The fracases that resulted are well documented. In the Midduma incident, his care-taker, one Kagoro was chased away by the tenants and his Bujenje ssaza chief, Byamaani, was hospitalised with injuries sustained from severe beatings by the tenants.
The subsequent reprisal by the Omukama’s guards is a story for another day. One of the tenets of the amendment Bill is to criminalise anybody that evicts or attempts and helps to evict tenants unlawfully.
The other seeks to legalise only one ground for eviction and that is failure to pay the nominal rent. Is it possible for anybody with the above background to support such a bill? On March 14 and 15, there were two consultative meetings in Masindi and Hoima, respectively.
The one in Masindi was organised by the District Local Government as a follow- up from the instructions of the lands permanent secretary to collect people’s views on the proposed land amendments and it was the only agenda for the day.
It was attended by over 300 people, including MPs, the kingdom’s officials and members of the district land board. However, Kabakumba did not attend this meeting where all the speakers spoke against the Amendment Bill because it does not address the peculiar land problems in Bunyoro.
The second meeting in Hoima was organised by the Kitara Heritage Development Agency (KHEDA) in conjunction with the Kingdom. On the Agenda was the Land Bill, National Oil and gas Policy plus Regional tier. Kabakumba attended this meeting.
To the best of my recollection, there were only two men who were in agreement that there is need for an amendment bill but even then they concurred that the proposed amendment was not the one that Bunyoro desired. The other people who supported the Bill were Kabakumba herself and MP Kabonesa. Kabonesa was booed during her submission.
The other speakers, including the kingdom’s officials like the Deputy Kingdom Prime Minister and the Principal Private Secretary, Mr Yolamu Nsamba, the Ssaza chief Mr Byamaani spoke against the Bill. How then can the Omukama’s officials preach a different gospel from that of the Omukama himself?
Could it be that the Omukama was misinformed or even misquoted by those purporting to speak on his behalf? The kingdom’s Press Secretary, Mr Ford Mirima, when asked to comment on the matter, vehemently refuted the claims.
I hope KHEDA will publish the minutes and resolutions of the meeting at an appropriate time to give a true reflection of what happened.
One wonders why Bunyoro would be indecisive in refusing the proposed amendment bill. In conclusion, Bunyoro’s rejection of the proposed land amendment Bill is strongly based on historical concerns. No amount of cover-up will help matters.
Rogers Byamukama
rogers_99b@yahoo.com
The fracases that resulted are well documented. In the Midduma incident, his care-taker, one Kagoro was chased away by the tenants and his Bujenje ssaza chief, Byamaani, was hospitalised with injuries sustained from severe beatings by the tenants.
The subsequent reprisal by the Omukama’s guards is a story for another day. One of the tenets of the amendment Bill is to criminalise anybody that evicts or attempts and helps to evict tenants unlawfully.
The other seeks to legalise only one ground for eviction and that is failure to pay the nominal rent. Is it possible for anybody with the above background to support such a bill? On March 14 and 15, there were two consultative meetings in Masindi and Hoima, respectively.
The one in Masindi was organised by the District Local Government as a follow- up from the instructions of the lands permanent secretary to collect people’s views on the proposed land amendments and it was the only agenda for the day.
It was attended by over 300 people, including MPs, the kingdom’s officials and members of the district land board. However, Kabakumba did not attend this meeting where all the speakers spoke against the Amendment Bill because it does not address the peculiar land problems in Bunyoro.
The second meeting in Hoima was organised by the Kitara Heritage Development Agency (KHEDA) in conjunction with the Kingdom. On the Agenda was the Land Bill, National Oil and gas Policy plus Regional tier. Kabakumba attended this meeting.
To the best of my recollection, there were only two men who were in agreement that there is need for an amendment bill but even then they concurred that the proposed amendment was not the one that Bunyoro desired. The other people who supported the Bill were Kabakumba herself and MP Kabonesa. Kabonesa was booed during her submission.
The other speakers, including the kingdom’s officials like the Deputy Kingdom Prime Minister and the Principal Private Secretary, Mr Yolamu Nsamba, the Ssaza chief Mr Byamaani spoke against the Bill. How then can the Omukama’s officials preach a different gospel from that of the Omukama himself?
Could it be that the Omukama was misinformed or even misquoted by those purporting to speak on his behalf? The kingdom’s Press Secretary, Mr Ford Mirima, when asked to comment on the matter, vehemently refuted the claims.
I hope KHEDA will publish the minutes and resolutions of the meeting at an appropriate time to give a true reflection of what happened.
One wonders why Bunyoro would be indecisive in refusing the proposed amendment bill. In conclusion, Bunyoro’s rejection of the proposed land amendment Bill is strongly based on historical concerns. No amount of cover-up will help matters.
Rogers Byamukama
rogers_99b@yahoo.com