Robert Kabushenga
11 February 2008
opinion
Kampala — FRANKLY I am a little confused. If we all agree that tenants on land are vulnerable to unfair treatment, what is wrong with giving them legal protection? How does this lead to land being lost? If indeed the land 'is going', can anyone tell me where to? It may also help my simple mind if I can get to know how the land 'is going' to that destination. Who is taking it there and with what intention? Surely this is not physically possible, is it? So why the distortionary manner of debate? What is the real intention of this alarmism?
The only answer I have been given to the last question is from Fr. Lawrence Kanyike, the loquacious Chaplain of St. Augustine Chapel, Makerere University. Writing in the Daily Monitor of Thursday February 7, he makes his point with unusual simplicity. It makes it clear to me that the issues at stake for those opposed to the proposed amendment to the land law have nothing to do with land or the vulnerability of tenants.
If I understand him well, he is arguing that the proposed amendment to the land law should be opposed because;
1) Peasants, whom the law seeks to protect, have never been an NRM priority. They have only been used to promote political greed for power. The Government should concentrate on providing social services to peasants and not protect them from a privileged and rapacious landed gentry.
2) The proposed amendment to the land law is a ploy by NRM to create chaos in order to remain in power.
3) The hidden intention of the amendment is power hungry politicians envious of Buganda's prominence seeking to destroy the Kabakaship.
4) Land ownership is a human right given by God and therefore cannot be regulated by mortal design.
5) Only those who can trace genealogy to burial grounds in Buganda can claim ownership.
6) Buganda is an island of civilization and on this basis can handle land matters through its cultural systems. By implication, other uncivilised and uncouth ethnic communities who owe their national identity to Buganda should get their snouts anywhere near the land trough through the amendment.
7) Land ownership in Uganda should be regulated by the customary rules of the many tribes (with their diverse cultures) that occupy the land. Let me start with the last proposition.
Land ownership should be regulated by customary rules?
What would happen in places like Sembabule that are predominantly occupied by people of a different ethnic community from Baganda? Furthermore, what happens when there is conflict between the two cultures in respect of land management? How does that protect those who may unfairly fall foul of unfair application of such rules? Who would judge objectively in such a dispute? For instance should animals roam freely (a customary rule in areas occupied by nomadic communities) to the detriment of those who engage in crop planting? Should crop planters be supplanted from the land because their cultural use of land is in conflict with that of cattle keepers?
There has to be a more objective way of administering land matters in a country that has become culturally diverse. The Constitution guarantees the right of all Ugandans to live anywhere. This cannot be proscribed by some outdated cultural bigotry.
There is another risk to this proposition. Customary regulations cannot protect a tenant from evictionon land where the landlord is a registered owner. For instance, if a rich man buys and fences off communal land in Teso for his exclusive use, no customary rules can protect anyone who may be prevented by this new owner from accessing the land for grazing.
Land ownership is a human right given by God
Let us assume that land ownership is a human right bestowed by God. It is therefore the duty of man to give it the effect of law. This is the most civilised method that man has so far devised for regulating human affairs. Indeed other human rights are legally enshrined and thus protected.
On this basis alone, there should be a law to protect these rights and criminalise the actions of those seeking to breach such a right. According to Fr. Kanyike, and others who think like him, the evidence of such a divine right to land ownership is if someone can trace their genealogy to a burial ground in the geographical location defined as Buganda.
But this is not the real issue. Land is in fact a commercial asset whose ownership can, should and is often traded. It is the modern, agreeable and least contentious method of land acquisition. I am not sure that God has a hand in it. The purpose of this argument is to mask the real intention which is to protect the commercial interest of unscrupulous landowners who want to maximise their commercial advantage in land in total disregard of other users' interests, such as tenants.
It is therefore important that the state protects the vulnerable through stringent sanctions enforceable by state organs against illegal evictions. Victims of such evictions are the wretched of the earth that cannot undertake civil legal action against the powerful that manipulate that legal system to evict them. The only recourse they have is the state which has the capacity to deal with such situations.
In the early 1990s, Mr. Grace Ibingira, a prominent Ugandan, bought and fenced off land on Entebbe Road belonging to a person with close links to the Buganda royal establishment. Tenants affected by this action waylaid President Museveni on the same road and asked him to intervene on their behalf. He did so successfully. He is yet to do the same for those in Kigo who were recently evicted to pave way for a leaseholder, recently authorised by the Buganda Land Board. This is not a good approach because not everyone can find the President for such intervention.
Therefore a legal mechanism to empower the state to protect vulnerable tenants is the best possible option. This cannot be left to the ambiguity of customary practice whose interpretation is subjective and whose application owes to the magnanimity of the relevant cultural leader or institution. Otherwise people will resort to violent means of obtaining justice.
The amendment is a plan to destroy the Kabakaship
The land debate has also taken another opportunistic twist. The argument is that the proposed amendment is a plan to destroy the Kabakaship in the same manner as happened in 1966. It is supposed to be a credible illustration of an agenda by NRM to cause chaos in order to remain in power.
First of all, this law will be passed and there will be no chaos. Failure to do so is a guarantee for anarchy in the future. But let us examine the record of NRM on the matter of stability and Buganda cultural institutions in particular. NRM provided the political and military leadership in the struggle against groups that were killing Ugandans and destroying their property.
NRM has used the state to restore dignity and security of Ugandans and their properties. In fact it has executed a deliberate policy of restoration and compensation of those who were unfairly treated by the mistakes of our history.
In the case of Buganda in particular, the record of NRM is long and positive:
August 1986: President Museveni met Baganda clan leaders (Abataka) at State House Entebbe. He advised them that the Government would set up a Constitutional Commission which would receive their demands for the restoration of the Kabakaship, Buganda's federal status and royal estates. In the same month Prince Mutebi returned home and was facilitated to tour his kingdom before returning to UK for further studies. The Baganda leaders also asked for the re-introduction of the Baganda clans' football tournament, which was done in 1987. Bika Football tournament kicked off and the finals were jointly presided over by Museveni and Mutebi at Nakivubo Stadium.
1989: Ssaabataka Mutebi set up the Buganda clan leaders' constitutional committee, chaired by the late head of the Mpologoma clan, Haji Muhamud Kateregga Ssebuganda, to synchronise Buganda's views for submission to the Odoki Commission.
1991: The Ssaabataka Supreme Council was formed and started direct talks with the Government over the return of EBYAFFE. This council, together with the Bataka Council, submitted its views to the Odoki Commission.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
