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.
1992: The Odoki Commission submitted its interim report to the President showing that most Baganda wanted the restoration of the Kabakaship.
1992: The Ssaabataka Supreme Council reached an agreement with President Museveni to have cultural monarchies restored prior to the debate and promulgation of the new constitution.
April 3, 1992: President Museveni in his capacity as Commander in Chief, convened an Army Council in Gulu, where it was resolved to restore cultural monarchies in areas where people still cherish them. The Government would also hand over traditional sites and estates, such as Lubiri, Bulange and Royal Tombs, to their legitimate owners.
1993: Ssaabataka appointed a Buganda negotiation team, led by Prof. Apolo
Nsibambi. The President appointed a government team, led by Maj. Gen. Elly Tumwine, to deal with the details. After several meetings involving other stakeholders such as the then Minister of State for the Presidency, Kintu Musoke, the President approved the return to Buganda of 14 estates, including Bulange, Lubiri at Mmengo, Butikkiro, Buganda Court Buildings, Kabaka's official 350 square miles of land, Namasole's
10 square miles of land, Bannaalinnya's land, Kabaka's lake, former Omuwanika and Omulamuzi's residences at Mmengo, land adjacent to Lubiri on which three ministerial houses used to stand, all Bassekabaka's tombs, Buganda Works Building at Kakeeka, Basiima House and Nnaalinnya's house at Lubaga. It was further agreed that the army could still occupy Lubiri barracks as it pays rent, pending construction of general headquarters at Bombo. The Ministry of Justice continues to rent the Mmengo courts building where the Supreme Court is housed, while Butikkiro is rented by the Government for the Uganda Joint Clinical Research Centre.
April 1993: The President convened the National Resistance Council as a political organ, which supported the Army Council resolution. Subsequently, the
President instructed Attorney General Abu Mayanja to draft constitutional amendments that removed barriers to hereditary rule and hereditary institutions.
The Constitutional Amendment Bill 1993, which cancelled the 1967 abolition of traditional Kingdoms, was passed by the NRC amidst protests from civil society such as the Uganda Law Society, then under the presidency of Solome Balungi Bbosa, and sections of the so called independent media. On July 31, 1993 Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II was enthroned as the 36th Kabaka of Buganda.
October 13, 1995: The LC5 Chairman of Mukono district, Kiwanuka-Musisi, handed over seven land titles for the Kabaka's land located in Mukono district to the Buganda Land Board. A total of 95,664.55 acres (149.48 square miles) of Kabaka's land in the district and the seven titles handed over to Buganda Land Board are part of the land so far identified and prepared by the Lands registration department.
January 28, 1997: The Government returned the Kasubi tombs and four other traditional and historical sites to the Buganda Kingdom. The sites were handed over to the Third Deputy Katikkiro of Buganda, Sheikh Ali Kulumba, by the Second Deputy Prime Minister, Brig. Moses Ali. The other sites are: Wamala tombs, Kiwewa's tombs at Masanafu, Kalema's and Muganzilwaza's Prison (Komera) in Katereke and Kyebando respectively.
October 6, 1997: The Buganda government received sh346m as final rent payment from the Ministry of Defence for the occupancy of Lubiri barracks, Kakeeka workshop and Basiima house. The Ministry of Defense vacated the three facilities at the end of the month.
November, 1997: The Directorate of Military Intelligence vacated Basiima House, which belongs to Buganda Kingdom, and moved to Mbuya army barracks.
December 19, 1997: President Museveni handed back the Lubiri to Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi, 31 years after it was first occupied by Central Government troops.
March 28, 2001: President Museveni gave sh100m to the Buganda Kingdom for the renovation of Twekobe, the Kabaka's official residence. Furthermore, the Government donated money towards the renovation of Banda Palace. Museveni promised another sh900m for the Kingdom, to be included in the 2001/2002 national budget.
July 15, 2002: Prime Minister Apolo Nsibambi said the Government had agreed to return the traditional Ssaza (county) and Gombolola (subcounty) headquarters to Kabaka Ronald Mutebi. But a moratorium of three years, beginning 2003, has been given to the respective local governments to vacate or negotiate with the Mengo government the tenancy agreement. Katikkiro Joseph Ssemogerere told the Lukiiko amid applause that the Government had decided to return the 18 Ssaza headquarters and some 30 Gombolola headquarters in Buganda Kingdom.
August 21, 2002: The Government offered sh1b to complete the renovation of
Twekobe, the official Palace of the Kabaka of Buganda.
January 8, 2003: The Government returned a 404.40 acre piece of land to the
Buganda Kingdom. The Kingdom lost Jeza Farm on Mityana Road, Mubende district in 1966, when the Obote I regime abolished kingdoms.
July 31, 2003: The Vice-President, Prof. Gilbert Bukenya, received architectural plans for the construction of the new Butikkiro from Buganda Katikkiro Joseph Ssemwogerere, the Central Government agreed to build a new Butikkiro since the old one was taken over by the Joint Clinic Research Centre.
April, 2004: The Government paid sh520m to Kabaka Ronald Mutebi as compensation for the 141 acres of land in Rubaga division to be affected by the construction of the Kampala Northern by-pass.
These are some of the steps undertaken by the NRM government in respect of Buganda. And this is what I can remember off the top of my head. There is a lot more. You cannot say that these are actions of people who want to destroy Buganda, having worked hard to restore its glory and dignity.
Baganda are superior to other communities?
The ideological foundation for those opposed to the amendment is the parochial premise of ethnicity. Fr. Kanyike takes it to even more ridiculous levels by claiming cultural superiority of Baganda over other communities. So what are the other despicable communities who support Mengo's opposition to land supposed to make of this?
Protecting peasants not priority?
Fr. Kanyike argues that NRM cannot claim to be protecting peasants in the proposed amendment because they are not a priority to them. Fr. Kanyike may not be aware that for over 10 years, children of peasants have been going to school free of charge and accessing health services at health centres at subcounty level. This makes it the leading provider of social services surpassing the church (which still charges for its social services) and all cultural institutions put together.
You can argue about the quality and other shortcomings but not the principle that it is the Government that provides them at no charge. This, and the fact that it is proposing to amend the law to protect them, is surely the best possible way to prioritise the issues of vulnerable peasants. The argument that the amendments should wait until a comprehensive land policy is in place is meaningless because legislation is part of the policymaking process.
Every time you read someone referring to 'power hungry' or 'greedy' in respect of their political opponents, take out the salt shaker before you swallow. In most cases people who make these assertions either do not have an intellectually sound argument to make or are incapable of making one. They can only engage in insolence, lies, exaggeration and obfuscation.
They can only defeat an argument by inciting negative emotions against the people making the points they do not like. That is what Fr. Kanyike and all the others opposed to the land law amendment are doing. What is obvious is that the problem is not the proposed amendment. There are other political differences that are using the land issue as a game to score points. This debate is just another platform for the Museveni critics to vent their spleen.
If, however, there are genuine issues that need to be examined, Parliament should be allowed to do its work. Incitement of the public against state institutions and national leaders should not be the way to conduct this matter.
Otherwise if the management of land excludes the broad majority with no mechanism for peaceful resolution of conflict, expect the worst.
The writer is the Chief Executive Officer of Vision Group
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 New Vision. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
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.
