Land bill is intended to create harmony
Sep 24, 2009
IT was reported that while officiating at the centenary celebrations of the Catholic church in Masaka last Sunday, Bishop John Baptist Kaggwa of Masaka requested the Government to stay the Land Amendment Bill currently before Parliament.
By Moses Byaruhanga
IT was reported that while officiating at the centenary celebrations of the Catholic church in Masaka last Sunday, Bishop John Baptist Kaggwa of Masaka requested the Government to stay the Land Amendment Bill currently before Parliament.
The Land Amendment Bill was tabled in Parliament in 2007. For two years debate has been going on. Lands minister Omara Atubo, with colleagues like Atwooki Kasirivu and James Kinobe, led teams that explained the bill to the population throughout the country.
Further, the parliamentary committee where the bill was referred also traversed the country, had hearings and received memoranda on the bill. Mengo had a committee that was mainly telling lies about the bill that people’s land would be grabbed if the bill became law. In response some bibanja holders formed associations in defence of the bill.
The President also set up a task force sensitising the population in Buganda about the bill. The task force went to all sub counties in Buganda explaining the bill. A majority of the bibanja holders who have been victims of evictions want the bill passed yesterday. This bill is intended to liberate the poor peasants from rampant evictions. Am surprised the Bishop Kaggwa is not talking for the poor whom Jesus came to liberate.
In 1900 when land in Buganda was parceled out to landlords including religious institutions, they gave out land which was already occupied. For instance by 1900 population density in Busiro county was 279 persons per square mile.
It is these persons whose land was given away who started paying busulu to the new landlords. Prof. Mahmood Mamdani in his book, Politics and Class Formation in Uganda (1999) writes: “Their incomes (landlords) was to be derived neither from their own labour nor from supervising the labour of others, but from the rent they were to extract from a tenant peasantryâ€. This explains the tenant issue in Buganda that the land that was given to mailo owners had occupants on it who were made tenants and had to rent it from the new allocatees.
The Constitution, in article 237 (8), recognises the rights of the bibanja holders as bona fide occupants. They cannot just be wished away as the opposers of the bill would want us to believe. Many landlords would want it to be easy to evict the bibanja holders whose tenancy dates back to 1900 as pointed out above. Many simply pay peanuts to the bibanja holders as compensation.
How does the bill liberate the bibanja holders? Because of peace and security in the country, a lot of developments are going on. People are selling their land to investors both local and foreign.
Some of the buyers tell the bibanja holders that I bought land from so and so. I don’t know you who is on my land and gives them notice to vacate the land they have occupied from time memorial. Some of the buyers go to court claiming their land has trespassers on it asking court to help them get rid of them.
When court summons the so-called trespassers to court through the buyer, the buyer does not give the summons to the tenants and claims in court that the tenants refused the summons.
The buyer or new owner gets an exparte judgment directing those on his land to vacate. Thereafter, the buyer gets court bailiffs to effect a court order ordering the tenants to vacate. The tenants are thus evicted sometimes on the same day the order is given. This is what is happening and I hope the bishop would have it stopped because the tenants are treated unfairly and unjustly. In the bill we are liberating the tenant like this: the bill provides that when court is hearing a land case, it should visit the area where the said land is located.
Therefore, the question of the tenants not receiving court summons does not arise. Even if the plaintiff does not give summons to the tenants claiming that they refused summons, the tenants will get to know that there is a case in court when court visits the land in question, hence they will be able to defend themselves.
Secondly, the bill provides that when court makes a judgment against the tenants, the tenants are given six months within which to leave and within that time they must be given adequate compensation. This will eliminate cases where someone gets a court order today and evicts people the same day without compensating them and giving them time to find where to go. The other form of liberation is that the bill provides that when one engages in unlawful evictions either the court bailiff, the land owner or the Police carrying out the evictions, such a person can be jailed for seven years. The above in the crux of the bill.
Anybody who opposes the above is really anti-people because the bill is intended to bring harmony between landlords and tenants. Under the bill the landlord cannot simply evict tenants.
Bishop Kaggwa wants the bill stayed further. We have to pass the bill now in order to liberate the bibanja holders.
Some contributors to the debate on the land amendments bill refer to land in Buganda as a cultural issue. I disagree. Mamdani in his book refers to the above and calls this relation between landlords and tenants a class relation. In fact the cultural group which was in charge of cultural land; obutaka, the bataka were not considered in the 1900 agreement.
In his book, The Mailo System in Buganda H.W. West says: “It has been noted that at the time of the early implementation of the 1900 agreement, little notice was taken of old rights of occupation and the rights of the old Bataka were repeatedly ignored†(lifted from President Museveni’s address to Parliament in 1998).
The Bataka petitioned for the revision of the 1900 Agreement. But according to Mamdani the Bataka’s request was rejected by the Lukiiko. What culture does is make some people, land owners and others tenants? I appeal to the bishop to support the bill because it gives security of tenure to the bibanja holders while at the same time recognises the ownership of landlords. Staying the bill will create disharmony.
The writer is the special presidential assistant on political affairs
IT was reported that while officiating at the centenary celebrations of the Catholic church in Masaka last Sunday, Bishop John Baptist Kaggwa of Masaka requested the Government to stay the Land Amendment Bill currently before Parliament.
The Land Amendment Bill was tabled in Parliament in 2007. For two years debate has been going on. Lands minister Omara Atubo, with colleagues like Atwooki Kasirivu and James Kinobe, led teams that explained the bill to the population throughout the country.
Further, the parliamentary committee where the bill was referred also traversed the country, had hearings and received memoranda on the bill. Mengo had a committee that was mainly telling lies about the bill that people’s land would be grabbed if the bill became law. In response some bibanja holders formed associations in defence of the bill.
The President also set up a task force sensitising the population in Buganda about the bill. The task force went to all sub counties in Buganda explaining the bill. A majority of the bibanja holders who have been victims of evictions want the bill passed yesterday. This bill is intended to liberate the poor peasants from rampant evictions. Am surprised the Bishop Kaggwa is not talking for the poor whom Jesus came to liberate.
In 1900 when land in Buganda was parceled out to landlords including religious institutions, they gave out land which was already occupied. For instance by 1900 population density in Busiro county was 279 persons per square mile.
It is these persons whose land was given away who started paying busulu to the new landlords. Prof. Mahmood Mamdani in his book, Politics and Class Formation in Uganda (1999) writes: “Their incomes (landlords) was to be derived neither from their own labour nor from supervising the labour of others, but from the rent they were to extract from a tenant peasantryâ€. This explains the tenant issue in Buganda that the land that was given to mailo owners had occupants on it who were made tenants and had to rent it from the new allocatees.
The Constitution, in article 237 (8), recognises the rights of the bibanja holders as bona fide occupants. They cannot just be wished away as the opposers of the bill would want us to believe. Many landlords would want it to be easy to evict the bibanja holders whose tenancy dates back to 1900 as pointed out above. Many simply pay peanuts to the bibanja holders as compensation.
How does the bill liberate the bibanja holders? Because of peace and security in the country, a lot of developments are going on. People are selling their land to investors both local and foreign.
Some of the buyers tell the bibanja holders that I bought land from so and so. I don’t know you who is on my land and gives them notice to vacate the land they have occupied from time memorial. Some of the buyers go to court claiming their land has trespassers on it asking court to help them get rid of them.
When court summons the so-called trespassers to court through the buyer, the buyer does not give the summons to the tenants and claims in court that the tenants refused the summons.
The buyer or new owner gets an exparte judgment directing those on his land to vacate. Thereafter, the buyer gets court bailiffs to effect a court order ordering the tenants to vacate. The tenants are thus evicted sometimes on the same day the order is given. This is what is happening and I hope the bishop would have it stopped because the tenants are treated unfairly and unjustly. In the bill we are liberating the tenant like this: the bill provides that when court is hearing a land case, it should visit the area where the said land is located.
Therefore, the question of the tenants not receiving court summons does not arise. Even if the plaintiff does not give summons to the tenants claiming that they refused summons, the tenants will get to know that there is a case in court when court visits the land in question, hence they will be able to defend themselves.
Secondly, the bill provides that when court makes a judgment against the tenants, the tenants are given six months within which to leave and within that time they must be given adequate compensation. This will eliminate cases where someone gets a court order today and evicts people the same day without compensating them and giving them time to find where to go. The other form of liberation is that the bill provides that when one engages in unlawful evictions either the court bailiff, the land owner or the Police carrying out the evictions, such a person can be jailed for seven years. The above in the crux of the bill.
Anybody who opposes the above is really anti-people because the bill is intended to bring harmony between landlords and tenants. Under the bill the landlord cannot simply evict tenants.
Bishop Kaggwa wants the bill stayed further. We have to pass the bill now in order to liberate the bibanja holders.
Some contributors to the debate on the land amendments bill refer to land in Buganda as a cultural issue. I disagree. Mamdani in his book refers to the above and calls this relation between landlords and tenants a class relation. In fact the cultural group which was in charge of cultural land; obutaka, the bataka were not considered in the 1900 agreement.
In his book, The Mailo System in Buganda H.W. West says: “It has been noted that at the time of the early implementation of the 1900 agreement, little notice was taken of old rights of occupation and the rights of the old Bataka were repeatedly ignored†(lifted from President Museveni’s address to Parliament in 1998).
The Bataka petitioned for the revision of the 1900 Agreement. But according to Mamdani the Bataka’s request was rejected by the Lukiiko. What culture does is make some people, land owners and others tenants? I appeal to the bishop to support the bill because it gives security of tenure to the bibanja holders while at the same time recognises the ownership of landlords. Staying the bill will create disharmony.
The writer is the special presidential assistant on political affairs