Uganda’s tough land questions

Management of the Ugandan State

Compounding the effects of the bad laws is the highly fratricidal way with which we have managed the Ugandan State since independence. In our selfish exercise of State power, we have disregarded the ills of ethnicity, sectarianism, and corruption, and have even depended on them for survival.

This lopsided ethnic and sectarian participation in the State has seen key regime beneficiaries and those who “belong” derail the balanced progression in land use and trans-tribal land acquisition and ownership that we need for national cohesion and integration. The consequence has been emergence of deep-seated ethnic resentment and intense distrust of those in power, much expressed as resistance on land.

In tackling the land question, how do we deal with this political distrust of the State and the deep resentment of those who hold power? How will we, for example, restore the trust of Acholi politicians in the State that genuinely seeks Acholi land for development? How will we calm the bottled bitterness of the Baganda and others who have seen politically privileged groups grab their land while they wallow in poverty?

Without hope for corrective reforms and realignment, what do the escalating political, economic, and land acquisition and use disparities and conflicts and discontent, portend for our country? Without urgent land reforms, where will our country be 50 years from now?

To address these issues, we must firmly deal with key challenges, particularly disproportionate focus on land ownership rather than use, the inertia of custom, and dominance of politics over leadership.

Inordinate focus on ownership

Currently, our greatest land reform challenge is the irrational focus on ownership rather than use. Communities are laying claims over huge chunks of “their land” that stands idle. The corrupt are hiding ill-gotten wealth through land purchased but unused and we are speculatively holding chunks of unused land. Rather than exploit land to generate wealth and create employment, we are content with mere ownership.

This irrational pursuit of “ownership” has even turned our customary conception of land on its head. In Acholi, for example, land under custom was assigned according to use; as hunting ground, grazing ground, so-and-so’s garden etc., and never as idle ownership. The narrative was about rights of access for usage, with the question of “to whom it belongs in use” but not “who owns it” only arising when there was a use dispute.

Now, however, any community entity will lay claim over “our land”, and proudly block any development initiative on that account. In the meantime, large tracts of land remain underutilised, or even redundant, while the community suffers the contradiction of poverty amidst plenty.

Unfortunately for Uganda, this base mind-set is to be found even in the State. Our land laws and the recently launched Land Policy is largely about ownership rights- of women, of the poor, of bibanja holders etc. and little about how we must, as a country and people, collectively use this God-given resource to benefit us and transform our country.

Inertia of custom

Closely linked to the above misconception is our frigid fear of unknowns, and comfort in custom and tradition that prevent us from daring to explore and to break new grounds.

Against rapid world change, we still find comfort in defending our land in terms of subsistence and security of the poor, of ownership for women, of pre-eminence of custom etc., rather than on the challenges of ending subsistence and transforming rural life, of addressing urbanisation and youth flight from villages, of attracting investments to modernize our economies, and of building a strong, united and prosperous country.

How can we overcome this inertia of custom and free our land to enable it do for us the things that countries that effectively utilised theirs have realised?

Dominance of politics over leadership

Lastly, listening to Ugandans, many are aware of and share the same above concerns on land. However, having secured ownership of our land in law, and having suffered for long under our sectarian and predatory leaders, we cannot countenance any idea of our government leading any radical land reform to change the status quo. We would rather cling to and suffer in the security of our land holdings.

Equally, for politicians, any attempt at radical land reforms is fraught with huge political risks. Since contradictory provisions on land were enacted to appease and buy support, and politicians’ advocacy on land is much about playing to the gallery of voters, which leader will champion the radical land reforms that Uganda must embrace?

Way forward

Unless I am out of my mind, the land question in Uganda is a huge long-term challenge but one that we must address earnestly and with courage. In this, we must pursue honest, open national debate that should lead to development of a new shared vision on land and the putting in place of the institutional framework for its realisation.

Dialogue on a shared vision on land must involve everyone, proponents and opponents under the law, political and business leaders, cultural and religious institutions etc. It must also entail critical review of all land policies and laws, past and current; all known land studies, including one by Buganda Kingdom; the Uganda Vision 2040, 2025 and all development plans etc.

Since reversing current constitutional vestment of land in the citizen seems politically untenable, the State must invoke its mandate to uncompromisingly organise the country and lead development. In this, it must dictate, through strict policies and laws (e.g. Land Use Policy and Land Holding and Utilisation Act), how land in Uganda shall be used, particularly for agriculture, homestead and rural settlements, urban development, industrial and infrastructure development etc. It must also institute measures to ensure compliance, progress and full accountability.

Implementation of the above will require a well-structured, legislatively empowered, independent, and fully funded and expressly facilitated implementation body manned by competent, motivated and dedicated personnel. A Uganda Land Development Authority (ULDA), modelled in the line of Malaysia’s Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) that helped modernise that country, could be such a body.

Ending, I must again emphasize that Uganda’s land question is real and urgent, and the challenges are frightening sometimes. But then we hold our country in our hands, and no one else will come to do the things we must do. If we do not courageously address our land question, we will fail our country and history will judge us very harshly.

****

Prof. Morris Ogenga-Latigo is the former Leader of Opposition in the 8th parliament.

mwolatigo@gmail.com