Legislators have sided with the landlords
Jun 26, 2003
THE Land Act (Amendment) Bill passed by Parliament, June 18, granting powers to the District Land Boards (DLBs) to set busulu (rent) payable by bibanja owners (land tenants) is a recipe for disaster.
Midweek Opinion with John Kakande
THE Land Act (Amendment) Bill passed by Parliament, June 18, granting powers to the District Land Boards (DLBs) to set busulu (rent) payable by bibanja owners (land tenants) is a recipe for disaster.
The Bill has also exposed the MPs’ insensitivity to the concerns and problems of the rural poor and lack of analysis of the wider implications of the Bills they are passing.
The nullification of the Referendum Act 2000 and some Political Parties and Organisations Act by the Constitutional Court should have taught the MPs to be careful when handling Bills. The Land Bill does not show that MPs have learnt anything. Did the Bugweri MP Abdu Katuntu have a valid point when he spoke of “potato growers†in the House?
I was surprised that Ken Lukyamuzi, who has been involved in protracted battles to stop landlords in Ndeeba from evicting bibanja owners, has chosen to advance the landlord interests with his busulu amendment. It has serious social, economic and political implications.
It is a capitulation to landlord interests. The wise thing to do now is for President Museveni to refer the Bill back to Parliament for reconsideration. If Museveni were to assent to this Bill, he would be going against the pledge he made when he stated in his April 7, 1993 missive to Mengo:
“...I will not rest until this injustice (landlord-basenze relationship) is resolved....As we return ebyaffe to Baganda noble (abakungu), we must also return ebyabwe to the peasants (basenze) without injuring the abakungu.â€
In 1928, the colonial administration enacted the busulu (ground rent) and envujjo (commodity rent) law to stop extortion by landlords. This followed political unrest in Buganda caused by excessive busulu. The implication of the new Bill is that for the first time since 1928, the Central Government will not have any direct say in regulating busulu.
The DLBs, unelected, not accountable to the population and controlled by the landlords, would set the busulu. Just like Parliament, the DLBs are likely to advance landlord interests. What landlords want is to charge a commercial rate, to commercialise busulu.
In a situation where many people fail to pay Graduated Tax, it is reasonable to expect that many bibanja owners would default on busulu, rendering them liable to eviction. It is important to realise that the moment busulu becomes commercialised, as landlords seek to do, Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) would swing into action. A land tax for landlords would become inevitable. The economic and political consequences of this are imaginably enormous.
Debate on the Land Bill has showed how the landlords’ power and political influence has grown.
THE Land Act (Amendment) Bill passed by Parliament, June 18, granting powers to the District Land Boards (DLBs) to set busulu (rent) payable by bibanja owners (land tenants) is a recipe for disaster.
The Bill has also exposed the MPs’ insensitivity to the concerns and problems of the rural poor and lack of analysis of the wider implications of the Bills they are passing.
The nullification of the Referendum Act 2000 and some Political Parties and Organisations Act by the Constitutional Court should have taught the MPs to be careful when handling Bills. The Land Bill does not show that MPs have learnt anything. Did the Bugweri MP Abdu Katuntu have a valid point when he spoke of “potato growers†in the House?
I was surprised that Ken Lukyamuzi, who has been involved in protracted battles to stop landlords in Ndeeba from evicting bibanja owners, has chosen to advance the landlord interests with his busulu amendment. It has serious social, economic and political implications.
It is a capitulation to landlord interests. The wise thing to do now is for President Museveni to refer the Bill back to Parliament for reconsideration. If Museveni were to assent to this Bill, he would be going against the pledge he made when he stated in his April 7, 1993 missive to Mengo:
“...I will not rest until this injustice (landlord-basenze relationship) is resolved....As we return ebyaffe to Baganda noble (abakungu), we must also return ebyabwe to the peasants (basenze) without injuring the abakungu.â€
In 1928, the colonial administration enacted the busulu (ground rent) and envujjo (commodity rent) law to stop extortion by landlords. This followed political unrest in Buganda caused by excessive busulu. The implication of the new Bill is that for the first time since 1928, the Central Government will not have any direct say in regulating busulu.
The DLBs, unelected, not accountable to the population and controlled by the landlords, would set the busulu. Just like Parliament, the DLBs are likely to advance landlord interests. What landlords want is to charge a commercial rate, to commercialise busulu.
In a situation where many people fail to pay Graduated Tax, it is reasonable to expect that many bibanja owners would default on busulu, rendering them liable to eviction. It is important to realise that the moment busulu becomes commercialised, as landlords seek to do, Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) would swing into action. A land tax for landlords would become inevitable. The economic and political consequences of this are imaginably enormous.
Debate on the Land Bill has showed how the landlords’ power and political influence has grown.