Cabinet Criticised On Compulsory Land Acquisition Proposal
Oct 14, 2003
CABINET recently took proposals to the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) among which was one to allow government to compulsorily acquire land or property belonging to individuals without immediate compensation as required by the law.
By Gerald Businge
CABINET recently took proposals to the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) among which was one to allow government to compulsorily acquire land or property belonging to individuals without immediate compensation as required by the law.
The proposal which cabinet says is intended to allow government to acquire land for investment purposes, has generated a lot criticism to cabinet from civil society organisations, the Mmengo government and several individuals.
The Uganda Land Alliance (ULA) last week expressed concern at a news conference that the above proposal will negatively affect the poor. They said government should not be allowed to take over anyone’s land without adequate and immediate compensation as currently required by the law.
In their latest Mmengo Lukiiko meeting two weeks ago, the Mmengo government criticised government for the intended move on land, saying it may leave many people without the most basic resource-land and no compensation.
However, cabinet in their proposal says changing the law as above would help government acquire land to boost investment in the country.
The constitution under article 26(2) currently requires that government’s compulsory taking of land can be made under a law that provides for prompt payment of fair compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of the property.
Cabinet is saying that immediate compensation should not be a pre-condition for the land acquisition, as it usually takes a long time for government to find the money.
Beti Kamya, Reform Agenda spokesperson says the above excuse is “nonsenseâ€, since before government undertakes any project, it should have considered compensation.
“It is a question of lack of serious planning. Compensation should be a total package with the rest of a project, say if they are constructing a road. Otherwise government could maliciously take over people’s land,†says Kamya.
ULA program manager, Margaret Rugadya says that there is fear by this proposal, confiscation of private property may become a politically popular approach for investors who may want to acquire a property but do not want to pay the market value for it.
Moses Byaruhanga, the President’s political assistant says he sees nothing wrong with the proposal on land and people criticising it may not have understood it.
“The proposal maintains adequate and immediate compensation of permanent structures. For the other non permanent property, compensation will be made in not more than one year,†Byaruhanga says.
Chibita wa Duallo, a lawyer contends that adequate and immediate compensation is good and necessary for the person whose land is being taken over, but concentrating on ‘immediate’ can be misleading considering the normal procedures of government.
During the constitutional making process for the 1995 constitution, it was found that many people felt that payment of compensation to the affected persons was often inadequate and delayed. The government chief valuer is supposed to make valuation of such property and report to government before compensation, a process that takes long.
Constituency Assembly delegates then, expressed concern that government took years to make payments and in many cases people would not be offered the actual market value of their land. The introduction of article 26 (2) in the 1995 constitution was meant to address this inadequacy.
ULA complains that apart from being denied prompt compensation, the poor taxpayers will have to later pay for such land given to investors in their tax contributions.
Harriet Busingye, coordinator ULA, says that individual property ownership is a fundamental human right as guaranteed in the 1995 constitution and any individual who has to be deprived of their property through compulsory acquisition must be paid compensation prior to the appropriation of their property. “Compensation delayed is compensation denied.â€
“The consultation should be done along with sensitisation on rights of people stating clearly the reason as to why government wants to acquire the land in question. Adequate and immediate compensation must be paid before the actual acquisition or appropriation of the land,†the land rights group says in a statement.
Ends
CABINET recently took proposals to the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) among which was one to allow government to compulsorily acquire land or property belonging to individuals without immediate compensation as required by the law.
The proposal which cabinet says is intended to allow government to acquire land for investment purposes, has generated a lot criticism to cabinet from civil society organisations, the Mmengo government and several individuals.
The Uganda Land Alliance (ULA) last week expressed concern at a news conference that the above proposal will negatively affect the poor. They said government should not be allowed to take over anyone’s land without adequate and immediate compensation as currently required by the law.
In their latest Mmengo Lukiiko meeting two weeks ago, the Mmengo government criticised government for the intended move on land, saying it may leave many people without the most basic resource-land and no compensation.
However, cabinet in their proposal says changing the law as above would help government acquire land to boost investment in the country.
The constitution under article 26(2) currently requires that government’s compulsory taking of land can be made under a law that provides for prompt payment of fair compensation prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of the property.
Cabinet is saying that immediate compensation should not be a pre-condition for the land acquisition, as it usually takes a long time for government to find the money.
Beti Kamya, Reform Agenda spokesperson says the above excuse is “nonsenseâ€, since before government undertakes any project, it should have considered compensation.
“It is a question of lack of serious planning. Compensation should be a total package with the rest of a project, say if they are constructing a road. Otherwise government could maliciously take over people’s land,†says Kamya.
ULA program manager, Margaret Rugadya says that there is fear by this proposal, confiscation of private property may become a politically popular approach for investors who may want to acquire a property but do not want to pay the market value for it.
Moses Byaruhanga, the President’s political assistant says he sees nothing wrong with the proposal on land and people criticising it may not have understood it.
“The proposal maintains adequate and immediate compensation of permanent structures. For the other non permanent property, compensation will be made in not more than one year,†Byaruhanga says.
Chibita wa Duallo, a lawyer contends that adequate and immediate compensation is good and necessary for the person whose land is being taken over, but concentrating on ‘immediate’ can be misleading considering the normal procedures of government.
During the constitutional making process for the 1995 constitution, it was found that many people felt that payment of compensation to the affected persons was often inadequate and delayed. The government chief valuer is supposed to make valuation of such property and report to government before compensation, a process that takes long.
Constituency Assembly delegates then, expressed concern that government took years to make payments and in many cases people would not be offered the actual market value of their land. The introduction of article 26 (2) in the 1995 constitution was meant to address this inadequacy.
ULA complains that apart from being denied prompt compensation, the poor taxpayers will have to later pay for such land given to investors in their tax contributions.
Harriet Busingye, coordinator ULA, says that individual property ownership is a fundamental human right as guaranteed in the 1995 constitution and any individual who has to be deprived of their property through compulsory acquisition must be paid compensation prior to the appropriation of their property. “Compensation delayed is compensation denied.â€
“The consultation should be done along with sensitisation on rights of people stating clearly the reason as to why government wants to acquire the land in question. Adequate and immediate compensation must be paid before the actual acquisition or appropriation of the land,†the land rights group says in a statement.
Ends