|
By Gerald Businge
PARLIAMENT on June 18, passed the Land Amendment Bill 2003 with a provision removing the ground rent of sh1,000 payable by bonafide and lawful occupants to landlords. It mandated respective district land boards to set a ground rent for their area. The amendment which drew the biggest public attention and debate was highly protested by Lands State Minister, Baguma Isoke and Minister of Lands, Water and Environment, Kahinda Otafire who wanted the fee to be determined by Land Ministry. Otafire and Isoke opposed the amendment on grounds that it would remove the protection given to Bibanja owners under the Land Act, one of the objectives of the Act. They said the government was in process of reviewing the sh1,000 token fee, which landlords have always complained is a joke and a move to dispossess them. Isoke says that granting the land boards powers to set the fee, would negatively affect tenants not only in Buganda, but throughout the country. Eddie Nsamba-Gayiiya, a land policy consultant, however, says, Parliament was right and fair to give the powers to determine the fee to the district land boards. “Having a uniform fee determined by the ministry of lands would be good, but unfortunately it was not working because land in different places has different value and is used for different things. You cannot say that land in the suburbs of Kampala should attract the same payment as land in say Kiboga,” Nsamba says. But other people have continuously argued that the above fee is not a payment for land, but a token fee to be given to the title holder/ landlord. “It is not good for the individual districts to determine the fee payable to landlords. It is tantamount to subdividing the responsibility of government to protect the bonafide and lawful occupants. It is possible that the district land boards may be manipulated by the rich landlords to set a high fee. By amending the Land Act like that, the fee is no longer a token as it is supposed to be, but a charge,” says Ignatius Besisira, Buyaga County MP. He says his colleagues who voted for the amendment are landlords. Isoke says the provision was meant to protect the interests of poor tenants who acquired the status because of the 1900 Buganda agreement between British colonialists and local chiefs and kings in Buganda, and later Toro and Ankole agreements. “Historically, this tenant was the owner of the land and should be protected,” Isoke says. Land crises are also feared if the districts set fees that some people cannot afford to pay, thus arrests and conflicts may arise given the historical land change of hands. “If some people can’t afford to pay graduated tax of even sh3000, how do you expect them to afford a high fee, the very intention of the amendment. These MPs have got money and have stopped thinking about us,” says Dennis Kalule of Kasubi. A recent World Bank report while hailing Uganda’s land policies as among those pro-development, emphasised the need for a land law that ensures the rights of the poor and improves on their economic benefits and promotes marketability of land. “If the district land boards are trusted to handle other land issues, why can’t they be able to set a fair fee for both tenants and landlords if well advised?” asks Nsamba. “I agree that it is meant as a token, but it should apply to those occupants doing say subsistence farming on the land, not those who are building mansions on it or doing large scale farming. The landowner’s interest needs to be given value. Not all landlords got the land they own free of charge, some have bought it,” Nsamba emphasises. Augustus Nuwagaba, a senior lecturer at Makerere’s Faculty of Social Sciences and land specialist agrees with Nsamba. “I believe most if not all district land boards are credible. They could also use professional services in the determination of the fee to be paid to landlords by lawful and bonafide occupants. We can’t have a uniform national fee since land has different value based on location and usage,” he says. Some people have however, countered this argument, saying that even in one district, all the land cannot have a similar value or be under one type of usage. Thus, even a uniform district fee would not solve the value and usage issues on the land. They emphasise that the problem is how land is owned, occupied and used. “Why not solve the real ownership question. How can we have a law, which says the tenants who were dispossessed legally continue to also be landowners? It is an attempt to create a win-win situation which doesn’t solve the problem,” Nuwagaba argues. Isoke says he is going to advise President Yoweri Museveni not to assent to the bill with the above provision. If the president does not assent to the Land Amendment Bill 2003, it will be referred back to parliament for consideration. MPs also voted in favour of having the land tribunals transferred from the Ministry of Lands to the ministry of Justice and providing security of tenure to spouses on family land—a provision some women have claimed answers their land concerns. The issue of tenants versus landlords’ rights has been a hot potato, especially in Buganda and the new land amendment is hardly a long-term solution in an issue that always has to be decided in favour or disfavour of either tenants or landlords. Published on: Wednesday, 2nd July, 2003
|
