‘Land move violates rights’
Nov 14, 2003
THE Government has been cautioned against the Cabinet proposal on compulsory acquisition of land and property prior to compensation.
THE Government has been cautioned against the Cabinet proposal on compulsory acquisition of land and property prior to compensation.
Eng. Eddie Nsamba Gayiiya, the former Chief Government Valuer, said in a paper on the ‘doctrine of eminent domain (compulsory acquisition of land by government)- the policy, law and practice in the case of Uganda’, that the move would violet the Constitution and human rights.
He presented the paper in Kampala at a public dialogue on the Cabinet proposal to acquire land before compensation, organised by the Uganda Land Alliance (ULA) on Thursday.
“Governments irrespective of their political persuasion, reserve to themselves the power to acquire private property compulsorily but the purpose must be clearly stipulated and it must be for public benefit,†he said.
“Unless the owner is adequately compensated and fairly, compulsory acquisition of property is not generally objectionable on human rights grounds,†he said.
Gayiiya said there was no justification for the proposal because the concept of compulsory acquisition of property would be used as a disguised form of welfare for the rich under the guise of investment.
He proposed that the Government should pursue a national resettlement policy scheme instead of the suggested move.
Eng. Eddie Nsamba Gayiiya, the former Chief Government Valuer, said in a paper on the ‘doctrine of eminent domain (compulsory acquisition of land by government)- the policy, law and practice in the case of Uganda’, that the move would violet the Constitution and human rights.
He presented the paper in Kampala at a public dialogue on the Cabinet proposal to acquire land before compensation, organised by the Uganda Land Alliance (ULA) on Thursday.
“Governments irrespective of their political persuasion, reserve to themselves the power to acquire private property compulsorily but the purpose must be clearly stipulated and it must be for public benefit,†he said.
“Unless the owner is adequately compensated and fairly, compulsory acquisition of property is not generally objectionable on human rights grounds,†he said.
Gayiiya said there was no justification for the proposal because the concept of compulsory acquisition of property would be used as a disguised form of welfare for the rich under the guise of investment.
He proposed that the Government should pursue a national resettlement policy scheme instead of the suggested move.