Escalating Land Grabbing In Post-conflict Regions of Northern Uganda

LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA.

SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

Escalating Land Grabbing In Post-conflict Regions of Northern Uganda: A Need for Strengthening Good Land Governance in Acholi Region By Samuel B. Mabikke Paper presented at the International Conference on

Global Land Grabbing 6-8 April 2011 Organised by the Land Deals Politics Initiative (LDPI) in collaboration with the Journal of Peasant Studies and hosted by the Future Agricultures Consortium at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex

i


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

ESCALATING LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA A Need for Strengthening Good Land Governance in Acholi Region Abstract By Samuel B. Mabikke EM: [email protected]

PhD Candidate - Centre of Land, Water and Environmental Risk Management, Technische Universität München Munich- Germany1 Since the mid 1980s, Northern Uganda- a region of over 13 districts has been devastated by armed conflict particularly by the Lord Resistance Army (LRA) as well as old age cattle rustling by armed Karamajong rustlers in the Karamoja region. As a result of insecurity, large sections of the population were displaced into either camps or in locations generally at 3 to 10 km away from the original homes. Many farming lands were abandoned due to insecurity and as a military strategy to cut food supplies to the LRA rebels, the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) army restricted farming activities only close to the camps. Since the Government of Uganda (GoU) and the LRA rebels announced their intention to negotiate a peaceful end to the 23 year conflict, there has been gradual improvement in the security situation, even with some pockets of normalisation as the peace talks between the GoU and LRA in Juba progressed, this prompted Government to announce the return and resettlement of the Internally Displaced People (IDP), within the framework of the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) for Northern Uganda (Rugadya et al., 2008). With relative peace returning to the region, the GoU has embarked on Post Conflict Reconstruction Programs (PCRP) aimed at supporting “Returnees” from camps to settle back to their original homelands. However, given the centrality of land to livelihoods and poverty reduction in post war torn areas, it is inevitable therefore, that land may become a centre of disputes and controversy in post conflict Northern Uganda if it is not tackled according to systematic guidelines and normative frameworks. Internally Displaced People have many fears about their land. Some fears are genuine while others are growing perceptions fuelled by politicians and other actors with different interests. Wide growing threats of massive Land Grabbing by Government either directly or indirectly through military officers have become the central discussion among political and social debates. IDP and some political leaders suspect that government has intentions of grabbing land and giving it to investors. Some high ranking military officers have been cited in land grab deals in Northern Uganda. Unfortunately, even the new Land Policy does not show how the state and local government will address issues of land that needs to be obtained for public welfare, safety, and economic development and infrastructure development in the war-tone areas. Returnees from camps are frightened that this eminent domain will be used by government to grab lands illegally. The elite and government authorities with legal mandate to address land tenure issues in Northern Uganda are seen as stateorchestrated agents who are corrupt, untrustworthy and with hidden interests. Previous communal lands have been grabbed by the powerful individuals such as the army, politicians and elites living the extremely vulnerable groups of women, children, youths and elderly barely landless wonderers in their own homeland. The perceived land scarcity drives all persons into a state of jealousy protecting the little land they have hence reacting violently to any slight provocation in order to protect their land. This paper gives a detailed background to the armed conflict in northern Uganda and tries to identify how land is being grabbed in the post conflict region. It addresses the question why land grabbing has persisted basing on the existing land governance structure in northern Uganda. The paper ends by suggesting practical measures to stop land grabbing northern Uganda. Key words: Land Grabbing, Land Governance, Post Conflict Regions 1

With Support from Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (

ii

)


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

TABLE OF CONTENT

1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background to Northern Uganda ............................................................................... 2 1.2 Historical Transformation of Armed Conflicts in Northern Uganda ......................... 3 1.3 Northern Uganda: Why does it matter?...................................................................... 4 1.4 Transition from Conflict to Post- Conflict Reconstruction ........................................ 5 2 The Land Question in northern Uganda........................................................................ 6 2.1 Land - Why is it so important in post-conflict recovery? ........................................... 6 2.2 The Land Tenure System in Northern Uganda .......................................................... 7 2.2.1 Customary Tenure – Why has it failed to prevent Land Grabbing? .................. 8 2.3 Status of Customary Tenure in Acholi Region .......................................................... 8 2.3.1 How is Land Managed and Disputes solved in Acholi region? ....................... 10 2.3.2 Land Adjudication /Dispute Resolution System in Acholiland ....................... 10 3 Understanding Land Grabbing..................................................................................... 14 3.1 Definition of Land Grabbing.................................................................................... 14 3.2 International Land Deals in Uganda – opportunity or exploitation?........................ 15 3.3 Ways in which land grabbing occurs in Uganda...................................................... 16 3.3.1 Grabbing through Gradual Encroachment ....................................................... 16 3.3.2 Grabbing by Force and Intimidation ................................................................ 17 3.3.3 Grabbing through borrowing land.................................................................... 18 3.4 How do Existing Judicial Systems promote Land Grabbing?.................................. 18 3.5 How do Governments Promote Land Grabbing? ..................................................... 19 4 Why has Land Grabbing Persisted in Uganda?.......................................................... 21 4.1 Weak Land Governance ........................................................................................... 21 5 Conclusions and Practical Measures to Stop Land Grabbing ................................... 22 5.1 Improve Land Sector Governance............................................................................ 22 5.2 Capacity building in the land sector ......................................................................... 23 5.3 Stop large scale illegal land acquisitions.................................................................. 23 5.4 Harmonise Customary and State land administration systems ................................ 23 5.5 Support Traditional and State Justice Systems ........................................................ 23 5.6 Restoration and strengthening of traditional culture ................................................ 24 6 References ....................................................................................................................... 25

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Conflict Affected Districts of Northern Uganda as at 2003 ....................................... 2 Figure 2: Land Administration and Adjudication Structure in Northern Uganda.................... 11 Figure 3: Traditional Land dispute Resolution structure in Acholi ......................................... 12 Figure 4: Pathways of Domestic Land Grabbing in Uganda. .................................................. 16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Time line of Rebel Insurgence in Northern Uganda .................................................... 3 Table 2: Backlog of Land Cases at the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Gulu District.................. 13 Table 3: Land Deals in Uganda according to different Screening Sources ............................. 15

iii


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

ACRONYMS ACODE APG ARLPI CSOPNU GDP GLP GoU HSM IDP IOM ILRI LC MFPED NRA NRC NRM PEAP PRDP UBOS UGX ULC UNDP UNECE UNEP UNLA UNRF UPDA UPDF

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment Acholi Parliamentary Group Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative Civil Society Organisations for Peace in Northern Uganda Gross Domestic Product Global Land Project Government of Uganda Holy Spirit Movement Internally Displaced People International Organisation for Migration International Livestock Research Institute Local Council Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development National Resistance Army Norwegian Refugee Council National Resistance Movement Poverty Eradication Action Plan Peace Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda Uganda Bureau of Statistics Uganda Shilling Uganda Land Commission United Nations Development Programme United Nations Economic Commission for Europe United Nations Environment Programme United National Liberation Army Uganda National Rescue Front Uganda People’s Democratic Army Uganda People’s Defence Force

iv


1

SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

Introduction

Uganda is an agricultural based economy where agriculture contributes 43%, industry 18% and services 39% of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Land therefore is an essential factor of natural and human managed production systems, influencing the level of natural capital and social, economic development (UNEP, 2006). This means that access, ownership and use of land and importantly land tenure security1 offer perhaps the only survival alternative to the vast majority of poor Ugandans especially living in post conflict regions of the country. In 1997, the Government of Uganda (GoU) made a firm commitment to reduce poverty and improve the welfare Ugandan through the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). Among the four pillars of the PEAP (revised in 2000) include ensuring Good Governance and Security as well as increasing the ability of the poor to raise their incomes. Under this pillar, the PEAP identified conflict resolution and effective support to conflictafflicted areas as essential priorities and necessary part of poverty eradication. Although enormous progress has been made in reducing nationwide poverty, slashing the incidence of poverty from 56% of the population in 1992 to 31% in 2005 - largely as a result of increases in national growth, northern Uganda, however, has failed to benefit equally from this growth (GoU, 2002). Poverty remains firmly entrenched in the country’s rural areas. A greater proportion of the population living under poverty line is located in the northern part of Uganda. The statistical abstract of 2010 shows that, in absolute terms, the persons living in poverty increased from 2.9 million in 2002/03 to 3.3 million in 2005/06 (UBOS, 2010). This is largely attributed to the insecurity experienced in the region for the past two decades. While insecurity caused by five phases of rebel insurgency may be the most important factor explaining this poverty phenomenon in the Post-Conflict regions of Uganda, there are several broader social political and economic inequalities that may account for the regional inequalities (MFPED, 2003). One of the main reasons underlying these inequalities is the increasing threats to land rights caused by land grabbing in northern Uganda. The underlying reasons behind the escalating land grabbing stem from weak land governance that shrives on the failure of the prevailing land tenure systems to respond to the challenges posed by appreciation of land in a way that would enhance effective land tenure and investment security. The increase in land conflicts and tensions are likely to undermine development and successful implementation of post-conflict recovery programs aimed at reviving northern Uganda to a peaceful and vibrant economy. A report by ACODE (2009) shows that land wars are threatening over 30 districts in Uganda2. ACODE described this situation as a ‘time bomb’ waiting to explode. The trigger factor of these land wars emanates from land grabbing deals occurring in many parts of the country. The report further shows that most land conflicts include boarder disputes with neighbouring countries, inter-district boarder disputes, wrangles between landlords and tenants, and tenants resisting acquisition of land by investors-commonly viewed as land grabbers (ACODE op cit). Northern Uganda is particularly prone to land grabbing. At the moment Internally Displaced People (IDP) commonly referred to as returnees; are locked in land disputes over boundaries as original land marks have disappeared during the LRA war. Boundary conflicts have even become harder to solve as most elders who knew the boundaries have died over the period before passing on the information. For instance in Gulu district, the returnees are locked in land disputes over uncertain boundary demarcations (such as trees, stone markers etc.) that were removed during the war period. Absence of such clear demarcations often encourages land grabbers to claim full right of ownership over land purportedly seen as “idle”. As a result, land grabbing reports citing powerful individuals like military officers, politicians and a 1


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

section of wealthy Acholi are on increase in this region since the end of the LRA armed rebellion. 1.1

Background to Northern Uganda

For the past two decades, the people in northern Uganda had never known peace but had only seen security, economy, and morality of their homelands erode year after year. Armed conflict had been a decisive factor in the impoverishment of this region since the mid 1980s. This conflict was reported as sub-Saharan Africa’s longest running war that lasted for over 20 years. In 2003, Jan Egeland, the United Nations undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs told BBC: “I cannot find any other part of the world that is having an emergency on the scale of Uganda that is getting so little international attention”. The scene of wars and insecurity in northern Uganda was a result of armed rebellions, particularly by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in the 13 districts3 within the Acholi region (Kitgum, Gulu, and Pader districts), Lango region (Apac and Lira districts), Madi region (Moyo and Adjumani districts), West Nile region (Arua, Yumbe and Nebbi districts) and by armed Karamajong cattle rustling in the Karamoja region (Kotido, Moroto, Nakapiripirit districts). Figure 1: Conflict Affected Districts of Northern Uganda as at 2003

Source: Author modified from Kiwanuka W. (2010)

2


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

By political definition, the north takes into account all those districts that have suffered under armed conflict despite the fact that they are statistically categorised to be in the eastern region. This categorisation therefore adds the five districts in Teso region (namely; Soroti, Katakwi, Kumi, Kaberamaido and Pallisa) to the north. The northern conflict resulted into massive displacement of over 1.8 million people (about 90% of northern Uganda population) into either squalid condition of the camps or in locations generally at 3 to 10 km away from the original homes within the same districts. 1.2

Historical Transformation of Armed Conflicts in Northern Uganda

Since the National Resistance Movement (NRM) led by President Yoweri Museveni assumed power in 1986, northern Uganda has experienced violent conflicts and insurgency that have occurred as a result of rebel activity particularly in the Acholi and West regions and cattle rustling in the Karamoja region. The conflict has been fuelled by a combination of factors including resistance to the current government, support from external forces, the proliferation of guns in the region, poverty, and imbalances to access in economic opportunities while in Karamoja, the need to accumulate wealth (MFPED, 2003). The rebel insurgency may be categorised into five principle phases as shown below. Table 1: Time line of Rebel Insurgence in Northern Uganda Phase

Main Fighting Group

Period

Phase I

Uganda People’s Democratic Army (UPDA)

March 1986 to July 1988

Phase II

Holy Spirit Movement (HSM)

Late 1986 to end of 1987

Phase III

UPDA and Severino Likoya

January 1988- August 1989

Phase IV

Uganda Christian Democratic Army (UCDA, led by Joseph Kony), UNRF II Lord Resistance Army (led by Joseph Kony)

Late 1988 to February 1994

Phase V

March 1994 to 2006

Source: Office of the President, Gregory 1997

Some of these fighting groups have been defeated militarily by the UPDF or appeased diplomatically by the GoU. The Uganda People’s Democratic Army (UPDA) was led by Brigadier Odong Latek but finally accepted a peace agreement in 1988 (the Peace Accord). A popular resistance movement (the Holy Spirit Movement, led by Spiritualist Alice Lakwena) waged war against the NRM government but was eventually routed by the government forces in Jinja in 1987. In 1988, the HSM regrouped under the leadership of Alice Lakwena’s father Severino Likoya. At the same time, the Uganda Christian Democratic Army (UCDA) - an offshoot of the UPDA and HSM, led by Joseph Kony, a former church catechist and cousin to Alice Lakwena, continued to wage war against the GoU. The UCDA redeveloped under the leadership of Kony to form the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) that continued to engage in active combat until it was defeated by the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) in 2006. Although some of the objectives of the LRA include the need to overthrow President Museveni; the restoration of the order of legitimacy in Uganda, the need to cleanse and purify Uganda through the establishment of a government that rules in accordance with the LRA’s

3


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

‘Ten Commandments’ and restoration of the Acholi culture, the actual driving logic of these rebels still remains unclear. However, the rebellion lost popular support over the years and the LRA resorted to terrorising the population, looting shops, raping women, cutting lips and limbs of innocent civilians. Over 300,000 civilians are estimated to have died so far. The LRA’s principle means of recruiting its fighters was always based on abduction of children and youth. CSOPNU4 (2006) confirmed that more than 25,000 children had been abducted during the course of war to serve as child soldiers, sex slaves or porters and at times of heightened insecurity, up to 45,000 children ‘night-commuted’ each evening to avoid abductions by the LRA. There were more than 202 IDP camps in northern Uganda, some with a population of over 60,000 people. In some camps, the population density was as high as 1,700 people per hectare of which 50% of the IDP are under the age of 15 years and have either lost one or both of their parents. 1.3

Northern Uganda: Why does it matter?

Northern Uganda - a region that was predominantly agricultural with an economy that is largely dependent upon subsistence farming is facing serious food insecurities. The region which was once famous for production of cash crops like tobacco, cotton, rice, sesame has seen its economy collapse over the last 23 years of armed conflict. Bøås and Hatløy (2005) show that by September 2005 only 22% of households in Acholi region had access to land of some kind while more than half of the population was uncertain about their rights to land. It is evident that the northern region has borne the brunt of the war’s economic costs. Insecurity, displacement, and inadequate provision of relief combined to destroy the local economy. As a result the most vulnerable children, women, disabled and the elderly suffered most the effects of the LRA war that led to large forced migration and internal refugees in Uganda. In 2003, the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development estimated that close to 80% of all refugees in Uganda live in northern Uganda particularly in the districts of Adjumani, Moyo, Pader and Arua. Although the UPDF army has defeated the LRA rebels and relative peace is returning to the region, refugees in these settlements continue facing insecurity resulting from scarcity of resources such as land, water, food, unemployment, increased crime rate (robbery, drug abuse, prostitution), diseases (malaria, HIV/AIDS, etc). This has increased the threat to human security in northern Uganda. There were still fears that although the refugee camps are “protected” by UPDF, possible attacks by rebels are inevitable. For instance, in 1996 the LRA massacred 109 refugees in Acholi Pii Refugee Settlement in Kitgum despite the protection of the camp by the UPDF. Due to further attacks on this camp in 2002, close to 24,000 refugees were resettled from Acholi Pii to a new location in Masindi district (MFPED, 2003). This situation has kept the many people in suspicion and fear of possible reoccurrence and attacks by the rebels. These fears were worsened by the refusal of rebel leader- Joseph Kony to sign the Peace Agreement which would put a total end to the war. In September 1996 much of the rural population in northern Uganda was ordered into what were termed ‘protected camps’ (Human Rights Focus 2002; Branch 2005). As reported by (Bøås and Hatløy, op cit) the establishment of these camps were supposed to enable the Ugandan Army - the UPDF, to bring a swift conclusion to the war. By clearing out the countryside one would cut off rebel resources and give free rein to UPDF units. The entire operation was not meant to last for a long period of time. The insecurity forced large sections of the population to be displaced into ‘protected camps’ or in locations generally at 3 to 10 km away from the original homes within the same districts. The people were also forced to 4


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

abandon their farming lands as a military strategy to cut food supplies to the LRA rebels. In the end, the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) restricted farming activities only close to the camps and it (UPDF) enforced strict regulations in all IDP camps that restricted the mobility of civilians around the camps, access to major roads or to areas within a 2 km radius of the camp. Those found cultivating crops, or collecting water or firewood beyond these boundaries were considered to be in breach of these regulations and were often arrested, beaten or even killed by the UPDF soldiers. Thus 78% of a population originally dependent on subsistence farming were either forced to leave their land altogether or were unable to access it due to the threat of violence from the LRA or due to the orders of the UPDF (CSOPNU, op. cit). The people’s livelihood started to depend mainly on food aid and humanitarian support from NGOs and UN agencies. This left most of the land idle and “open for grab” to those who held power in the region. 1.4

Transition from Conflict to Post- Conflict Reconstruction

Since the Government of Uganda (GoU) and the Lord Resistance Army (LRA) rebels announced their intention to negotiate a peaceful end to the over 20 year conflict, there has been gradual improvement in the security situation, even with some pockets of normalisation as the peace talks between the GoU and LRA in Juba progressed, this prompted the government to announce the return and resettlement of the Internally Displaced People (IDP), within the framework of the Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) for Northern Uganda (Rugadya et al., 2008). In recognition of the problems and constraints facing the people of Northern Uganda, the GoU has over the years attempted to implement, alongside the national programmes, special programmes targeting this region aimed at ensuring peace and improving the lives of the people through provision of basic social and economic infrastructure. With relative peace returning to the region, the GoU embarked on Post Conflict Reconstruction Programmes (PCRP) aimed at supporting Returnees from camps to settle back to their original homelands and engage in development activities. This commitment led the GoU to officially launch the Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) in October 2007. The overall goal of the PRDP is to consolidate peace and security and lay foundation for recovery and development of northern Uganda. Land is the most important natural resource for development of northern Uganda. Given the centrality of land to livelihoods and poverty reduction, it is inevitable therefore that land has become a centre of disputes and controversy in northern Uganda. The World Bank (2007) household survey report in 6 districts of northern Uganda revealed an increase in the number of land disputes from 12.8% at the time of displacement to 15.5% during displacement and 16.4% at the start of IDP return with expectation of further increments as the IDP return progressed. Disputes mostly occur on land that was left behind upon displacement (65%), inherited land (71%) and land given as a gift (17%). The most common disputes arise out of illegal occupation of land or cultivation by unknown persons or unauthorised family members or occupation by early returnees or shifting of boundary marks from original positioning. Land conflicts have increased fears among IDP about their land in northern Uganda. Some fears are genuine while others are growing perceptions fuelled by politicians and other actors with different interests. Increased threats of direct or indirect land grabbing by government, politicians and military officers have amplified the fears among returnees. Most IDP and some politicians suspect that government has intentions of grabbing land and giving it to investors. Some high ranking military officers have already been implicated in land grabbing in the region. Although the new national land policy aims at promoting land tenure security for all people in Uganda, the policy does not show how the state and local 5


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

government will address issues of land that needs to be obtained for public welfare, safety, and economic development and infrastructure development in post conflict areas of Uganda. As a result, many returnees from camps still live in fear that this eminent domain will be used by government to grab their lands illegally. These fears are worsened by the emergence of a group of elite Acholi (enjoying superior intellectual, social and economic status) and government authorities who were entrusted with the legal mandate to address land tenure issues in northern Uganda. This class of people is commonly seen as state-orchestrated land grabbing agents who are very corrupt, untrustworthy and often having hidden interests in land. This powerful group (including army officers and politicians) has grabbed previously communal lands hence living the extremely vulnerable groups (women, children and youths, disabled and elderly) barely landless wonderers in their own homeland. Land tenure insecurity and the perceived land scarcity drives all persons into a state of jealousy protecting the little land they have hence reacting violently to any slight provocation in order to protect their land.

2 2.1

The Land Question in northern Uganda Land - Why is it so important in post-conflict recovery?

Magel and Wehrmann (2006) argue that it’s all about land rights, restrictions and responsibility. The full scope of land management needs to be clarified how land resources are to be opened and developed, to whom the land belongs and who else may still make valid claims. Therefore, the success of post conflict development programs in many developing countries primarily depends on resources available. Access to such resources is very crucial for empowering vulnerable groups like widows, orphans, disabled and elderly to recover from the effects of armed conflicts in the society. Land both as property and a resource has by far been the most important asset in Africa. It occupies a central place in the cultural, political, economic and social organisation of many nations. In Uganda, land is the single greatest resource for which a large majority of the population derives its livelihoods – because of the importance attached to land in all communities, conflicting interests in are unavoidable (Mabikke, 2010). Therefore, the sustainability of peace and post conflict recovery programs can not be successfully implemented unless the land question-that affects every one in northern Uganda is properly addressed. In order to understand the complexity of land issue Okoth-Ogendo5 (2006) tries to explains how land in Africa still remains a multiplex phenomenon. He points out that as an economic resource land is central to the organisation of sustainable livelihood. Land is a social, cultural and ontological resource; it is an important factor in the construction of social identity, the organisation of religious life and the production and reproduction of culture. From an ecological perspective, land supports more than just human livelihoods; on it depends all biotic matter, hence the sustenance of terrestrial life as we know it. From a political perspective, Okoth-Ogendo describes land as a political resource which defines power relations between and among individuals, families and communities under established systems of governance. Governance in this case must provide new answers to how social interrelationships can be conducted and how formal and informal regulations can be brought together (Magel and Silke, 2007). Absence of good land governance therefore gives rise to social evils like land grabbing to persist in societies. The increasing scarcity of land among the returnees in northern Uganda is becoming a major source of tension that urgently requires good governance solutions to avoid reoccurrence of another war based on land. Tensions are even bound to worsen due to unclear 6


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

land rights among former IDP. Unfortunately it is the most vulnerable members of societywomen, children, former abductees, and disabled - who suffer most under unclear land rights. Majority of the population in northern Uganda is extraordinarily young; with a median age of 14 for females and 13 for males (iDMC, 2008:11). This desperately youthful population that has grown up in the camps has little or no knowledge of their customary land rights. Land being the only capital returnees possess has therefore become the source of conflicts. Prior to the armed rebellion, most Acholi lived in villages and practiced subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry, but over the course of the armed conflict the livestock population decimated. Oxfam (2007) revealed that with just a few income opportunities which were in the camps, the IDP returned home with virtually no possessions to start a new life. Land has therefore become very prized and fiercely defended. In 2004, a report by a coalition of Civil Society Organisations for Peace in northern Uganda (CSOPNU) revealed that individuals who hold their land by customary tenure and have no other legal documentation - a description that fits most of the displaced population - risk losing their land, for a number of reasons. These include Government-mandated development, leases given to investors, land grabbed by relatives and neighbours or through fraud. Such customary lands have many squatters and landmines which are a big threat to returnees. These lands are surrounded with several conflicts between customary and state legal systems that exist in northern Uganda (CSOPNU, 2004:13). The plans made by the government to promote development through mechanised farming and the creation of functioning land markets6 have further exacerbated fears of land grabbing and alienated people from the government. 2.2

The Land Tenure System in Northern Uganda

In order to grapple adequately with land and property issues for IDP in Uganda, the form of land tenure in northern Uganda must be first understood. It is very important to know how the land tenure system regulates land ownership and land use in post conflict regions of Uganda. Payne (2002) shows that land tenure systems are a product of historical and cultural factors reflecting relationships between people and society and land. This perception notion has thus become a background against which land tenure has been defined and practically approached. Thus, this paper adopts a working definition of land tenure as “the relationship whether legally or customarily defined, among people as individuals or groups, with respect to land and associated natural resources” (FAO 2002:7). Geographically, north is the largest region of Uganda covering 35% of the total land surface in the country followed by central (25%), western (23%) and eastern (16%). Unfortunately the armed conflict in northern Uganda left large tracts of land unused or underutilised and undeveloped compared to other parts of Uganda. The condition of having large underutilised land often creates a perception that land in the north is free and available for grab. Land in this region formerly known as the “bread basket of Uganda” offers enormous potential for economic development. In 2007, the US Ambassador to Uganda- Steven Browning said that local officials and land experts estimate that about a third of the camp residents preferred living in towns and had decided to remain near town centers rather than returning to their rural, isolated farmlands due to fear of possible attacks despite the relative peace in the region7. The concentration of high population in urban centers has resulted into an increase in HIV/AIDS prevalence, prostitution, drug abuse and increased crime rate from unemployed youth wondering in the urban centers.

7


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

The failure of IDP to return to their rural ancestral lands further subjects their lands to greedy land grabbers who desperately look out for idle lands to grab. Hetz and Myers (2007) show that significant areas of “unused / unoccupied” land have already been given leases and/or renewed prior to the resettlement of the IDP in northern Uganda. Although Uganda has clear laws aimed at protecting people’s land rights, the recognition of such rights especially for IDP (and IDP hosts) has been complicated by the question of who is the true landowner. Literature shows that over 90% of the land in northern Uganda is owned under customary land tenure while in reality, each household owns the land as a private property. Although the laws of Uganda legally recognise customary tenure, its ability to offer land tenure security for weak social groups like widows, children, elderly and disabled in post conflict regions is still questionable. 2.2.1

Customary Tenure – Why has it failed to prevent Land Grabbing?

Until the implementation of the 1995 Constitution and the enactment of the 1998 Land Act, customary tenure was not recognised under the laws of Uganda. In many parts of Uganda, customary occupants were regarded as tenants of Crown Land 8 and as such, they were merely tenants on sufferance from the state who were susceptible to evictions after a three month notice period and compensation for any developments on the land. All land was vested in the state under the Uganda Land Commission (ULC) and it was common for politicians and government officials to award themselves leases of large portions of land to the detrimental of the customary occupiers who were given neither notice nor compensation (Mwebaze 1999:3). In many Sub-Saharan African countries, customary land tenure does not follow uniform rules. Similarly in Uganda customary tenure rules vary according to the ethnic groups and regions. The tenure may take several forms and may prescribe rights of individual use, free and open access, consecutive use or serial use9. Moreover, such use rights are often multilayered, prescribing overlapping rights in a single region or plot, at times using seasonal rotations10. For example, some analysts11differentiate between: primary right holders who distribute land rights to community members; secondary right holders who have some say over land administration due to birthright; and renters or sharecroppers, known as tertiary right holders. 2.3

Status of Customary Tenure in Acholi Region

Acholi region originally comprised of three districts of Kitgum, Gulu and Pader. The desire to improve service delivery and bring government services closer to people through decentralisation has seen several districts being curved out of this region. Since then, the GoU has created four new districts namely Amuru, Agago, Nwoya, and Lamwo bringing the total to 7 districts of Acholi region. Although the creation of new districts (under the decentralisation policy) by the NRM government has always been criticised by the opposition politicians and development agencies for increasing public expenditure while expanding the NRM political dominance in Uganda, the aim of decentralisation is to improve service delivery in the districts12 which were either too big or far from government services. Unlike other regions where new forms of land tenure were introduced by the British colonialists, northern Uganda remained out of interference from the British. Barber (1968, Ch 10-11) explains that the British colonialists saw the northern part of Uganda as a ‘problem’ area. It was described at that time as ‘a disturbed, hostile territory, in which there were some tribes powerful enough to offer stiff and prolonged resistance’ to British occupation. Therefore land rights remained to be administered through culturally accepted norms and traditions of the Acholi people. The customary tenure system provided rules that were 8


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

generally accepted as binding and authoritative by a class of persons to which it applies. The customary tenure system still provides for communal ownership, use and acquisition of land guided by local customary norms, rules, regulation and management. A parcel of land may be recognised as subdivision belonging to a person, a family or traditional institution and is owned in perpetuity (Land Act 1998, Ch 227). Customary lands are subject to rules grounded in prevailing customs that are applicable to particular communities. Following the enactment of the 1998 Land Act, customary ownership became legally equal to having title, although land held under customary tenure is subject to any local customary rules of ownership (e.g. rules on inheritance or various rights to use land which other members of the family may have). The system does not rely on the exercise of force, nor on the evidence of rights guaranteed by statute, but on the fact that they are recognised as legitimate by the community, enforced in the customary courts, or even merely by social pressure and generally known though not normally documented. Very little has ever been written on customary tenure in Acholi, which is somewhat surprising since land is by far the most important asset in this region. Local rules governing land have never been written down and are constantly changing and adapting to the current circumstances (CSOPNU, 2004:4). Nevertheless, customary tenure has survived the rigorous of displacement in the short-term and is still the preferred tenure in northern Uganda. Rugadya et al. (2008) argues that even though customary tenure has survived, its benchmarks and values are undergoing transformation. The traditional / customary instruments (rules, norms, and regulations) that used to provide security of tenure especially to vulnerable groups like widows, children, disabled and elderly have been eroded over the 23 years of forced displacement. Most elders who were the custodians of these customary instruments have died before passing them to the young generation, hence opening the Acholi culture to rapid transformation. Although the 1995 Constitution and 1998 Land Act of Uganda recognised for the first time customary tenure along side other forms of tenure (leasehold, freehold and mailo), the statutory and customary land law is unclear; the earlier laws make provision for land holders with 12 or more years of occupancy to have legitimate rights over land. Additionally statutory and customary laws conflict and are not resolved by the 1998 Land Act (Hetz and Myers, 2007:3). In nearly all countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, several legal systems interfere with each other: customary tenure and European land laws introduced by colonial powers exist side by side and thereby cause confusion at best, conflicts at worst (Magel and Wehrmann, 2006:57). A section of Acholi people have raised concerns about this legal ambiguity claiming that while the people of northern Uganda where confined to live in camps for over 20 years, some powerful individuals in the government, military and an elite group of Acholi occupied communal lands and claimed legitimate rights over the land that belonged to IDP while living in camps. A report by CSOPNU (2004) shows that until one or two generations ago, an individual could ‘claim’ land as his own by settling and using virgin ‘free’ land. Many villages were established as recently as 50 years ago with small groups of people settling in forested areas and becoming the owners of the often very large holdings (up to 400-500 acres). The legal structure inherited from the colonial era has been used to weaken customary systems and incorporate formal systems that are exploitative and not pro-poor (Okoth-Ogenga, 2006). This has normally led to tensions in the relationship between customary and statutory tenure systems. These tensions are likely to explode into more violent land conflicts at the slightest provocation of returnees which is likely to affect successful implementation of post conflict recovery programs in northern Uganda. The first step in solving these tensions would be 9


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

evaluating the entire land governance system, build capacity of the existing land institutions as well as restoring the traditional values and norms of the Acholi that have been degraded over a time. 2.3.1

How is Land Managed and Disputes solved in Acholi region?

Land management encompasses all activities associated with the management of land and natural resources that are required to achieve sustainable development. UNECE (2005) defines it as the process by which the resources of land are put into good effect. The concept of “Land Management” is a comprehensive expression for activities aiming to fulfil established goals for the use of certain land resources. These activities may have the purpose of promoting efficient land use within an existing pattern, i.e. they may be mainly of a monitoring, administrative and controlling nature (Larsson, 1997). Although most land is held under customary tenure system, land management in Acholi follows both formal and informal structures. The GoU is responsible for establishing a formal land administration system comprising of data and information collections, processes and tools for implementing the land management policies. In this paper, the term Land Administration refers to “the processes of determining, recording and disseminating information about the ownership, value and use of land when implementing land management policies (UNECE 1996; UNECE 2005)”. At the national level, the Uganda Land Commission (ULC) is mandated by the constitution (under Chapter 15-Article 238) to hold and manage any land in Uganda vested in or acquired by the Government of Uganda (GoU) in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. The ULC closely works with the District Land Boards (DLB) established in each district of Uganda. The DLB are responsible for administration of public land and therefore do not resolve any conflicts involved in land. They are only mandated to receive applications for registration of both customary and freehold. The constitution provides that DLB should be independent of the ULC in the performance of their functions and not to be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority but to take into account national and district council policy on land13. The DLB closely work with Area Land Committees (ALC). The ALC are responsible of participating in inspection of land at parish level before a title can be issued or processed by the DLB. Absence of ALC in many districts of northern Uganda has created an opportunity for land grabbers to fraudulently acquire land without any interference14.This has therefore increased a lot of threats to land and has incited Acholi to threaten hostility if the government does not stop land grabbers15. 2.3.2

Land Adjudication /Dispute Resolution System in Acholiland

The land administration and land adjudication system in northern Uganda operates along the structure and organisation of both the tradition (clans) based system and the state judicial system as illustrated in the figure below. Although these two systems are supposed to work alongside each other, most people in northern Uganda take their cases first to the clan authorities for arbitration and when this fails; they proceed to the Local Councils.

10


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

Figure 2: Land Administration and Adjudication Structure in Northern Uganda

LAND ADJUDICATION STRUCTURE LAND ADMINISTRATION STRUCTURE HIGH COURT UGANDA LAND COMMISSION (National level)

Referral

Collaborate

Appeal

CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT

DISTRICT LAND BOARDS (District Level)

Referral

Collaborate Collaborate

Appeal

SUB-COUNTY COURT COMMITTEE

AREA LAND COMMITTEE (Parish Level) Referral

Collaborate

Appeal

Collaborate

LOCAL COUNCIL II COURT

GRASSROOT LEADERS (Community Level)

Appeal

Referral

CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

Source: Author modified from ARLPI, 2010

Traditionally, the Rwot Kweri (chief of hoes) or the Won Pachu are responsible for allocating and verifying land boundaries for cultivation while clan leaders (Rwodi Kaka) carry out the dispute resolution system. These leaders are highly respected in the community are often seen as the “fountain of wisdom” regarding traditional customs relating to land. Some of these leaders are also believed to posses spiritual powers especially when performing the cleansing ceremony. Depending on the severity of the violence, the traditional dispute resolution system works alongside the formal function system. While the formal system will proceed with hearing of the dispute whatever the verdict the traditional system will also proceed with cleansing and reconciliation rites even in instances where violence has resulted in death. While the perpetrator is convicted and sentenced, still the clan members go through payment of fines, cleansing and reconciliation (Rugadya op cit). The traditional dispute resolution structure (figure below) is interlinked to the state adjudication system when it comes to providing evidence in courts.

11


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

Figure 3: Traditional Land dispute Resolution structure in Acholi

Responsibilities Rwot

Hierarchy

Lawang Rwot

Atekere

Rwot Kweri

• Leads the Council of elders that sits to decide cases referred from the lower levels. • He is elected from the Council of elders

• Handles cases reffered from Atekere. Handles matters involving death / grievious violence.He is usually an elder above 45 years, conducts an inquest in the casue of death and leads the burrial. • Conducts the Mato-oput (cleansing and reconciliation ceremony) • Elected by the Assembly of Rwot Kweri and Atekere • Handles issues reffered by Rwot Kweri. He usually leads two villages commonly called Te-Rwot Kweri • Usually an elder above 45 years • Elected by the village assembly

• Translated to mean Chief of the hoe or leader of work • Usually an elder above 45 years who handles land conflicts particulary those dealing with parcel boundary • Elected by the village assembly and can be a woman

Source: Author based on Rugadya et al., (2008)

Clan members such as Rwodi, elders, religious leaders and grassroot peace committees can offer advice and mediation to the conflicting parties. This is usually less expensive than using the formal adjudication system of courts. The conflicting parties are helped to sign an agreement as one of the instruments to promote reconciliation. Although the agreement can be signed, mediation by clan leaders is not legally binding. In cases where the parties are not satisfied with the mediation of the clan leaders, their case is usually referred to the Local Council (LC) II Courts. If it is a severe land conflict and criminal in nature, police is usually involved in the matter in order to keep law and order. The Uganda Police has a fully trained Unit that deals in land and cracks land related violence. Land cases that have failed to be resolved at the clan level are referred to the LC II courts. These courts hear fresh cases over land. The LC II court usually encourages the conflicting parties to seek the mediation of clan leaders. But if the case can not be solved at the LC II court level, the parties will be referred to the Sub-County Court Committee (SCC). At this level, it is expected that the case has passed through the clan leaders and LCII. If the case is new, the SCC will refer it to the LCII court for hearing. If the parties are not satisfied with the SCC, they can still refer the case to the Chief Magistrate’s Court (CMC). The Chief Magistrate’s Court (CMC) is an appellate court and does not listen to new cases over land. The magistrate will hear the case and make a judgement. Not all districts in northern Uganda have functioning CMC. The Chief Magistrates Courts in Gulu and Kitgum districts are overburden by a colossal backlog of cases. For instance, in Gulu, 1,045 out of a 12


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

total of 2,001 land cases as at July 2010 remained outstanding. To make matters worse fresh applications are being made at an alarmingly faster rate than those being resolved or decided. The table below shows the backlog of cases at the Chief Magistrate’s Court as at July 2010. Table 2: Backlog of Land Cases at the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Gulu District16. Type of land cases

Registered land cases from January 2003 to July 2010 444

Completed land cases as at July 2010 196

Outstanding land cases as at July 2010 248

Percentage of land cases outstanding as at July 2010 55.9%

Civil Appeals

575

274

301

52.3%

Misc applications

982

486

496

50.5%

Civil Suits

Source: UNDP, et al 2010

These courts continued to be stretched as 295,000 returnees from IDP camps continued their process of return to their places of origin. Moreover, criminal cases and civil litigation are further clogging up the courts. The backlog of cases is not entirely due to lack of capacity building at the Chief Magistrates’ Court; it is rather due to poor capacities of Sub-County Court Committees and LCII Courts that require immediate and sustained attention. The resources and capacity required for local-level tribunals to successfully manage and respond to the magnitude of demand for land disputes to be heard and decided is the touchstone issue for judicial administration (UNDP, et al 2010). Unless the judicial administrative system addresses this problem, the backlog cases are bound to pile up at all CMC. In circumstances where the parties are not satisfied with the judgment of the Chief Magistrate, they can still appeal to the High Court which is unfortunately located in Kampala (a 4-6 hour bus ride from Gulu). If the High Court feels that other structures are better fit to deal with the case, they may refer it to the appropriate structure. Over a long period of conflict in northern Uganda, customary rules regarding land and conflict resolution have constantly changed to adapt to new circumstances. In the past, customary rules were developed under conditions which were very different from those prevailing today. Traditionally, people owned land simply because they lived on it for a long time. Land was abundant and the population was relatively low. A family could simply settle on any unused land and with time, they became “owners” of the land. There were no official documents proving that they own the land. It is increasingly becoming difficult for people of northern Uganda to prove legitimate ownership of land without any form of documentation. In a few cases where the family managed to acquire a Certificate of Customary Occupancy (CCO), such certificates do not offer enough guarantee and security to be used as collateral for acquiring loans and mortgage from financial institutions due to the overriding rights that exist on customary lands. Many financial institutions prefer freehold or leasehold titles compared to CCO. Freehold and leaseholds are seen to offer more tenure security in volatile region like northern Uganda. The insecurity attached to CCO has now forced some people to opt for the formal registration and titling in northern Uganda. Unfortunately the bureaucratic and expensive process of land registration favours a few while excluding majority of returnees who barely have anything at the time of return from the camps. Those with power, money and connections have the ability to influence the registration process to suit their personal interests. The majority without the resources to bribe corrupt officials are left out; inevitably the poor suffer, and women more than men (FAO, 2007:14). 13


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

Informal land transactions are rapidly increasing especially in urban centers of northern Uganda like in Gulu and Lira towns. Unfortunately the dysfunctional and unregulated nature of land markets puts at risk all parties involved in informal land transactions. Available information in Acholi shows that youth with legitimate access and rights to land are selling plots of lands for cash without the consent or engagement of traditional authorities. Hetz and Myers (2007) confirm that these transactions have caused anxiety and conflicts within clans and traditional leadership in Acholi. The high unemployment rate in the region drives youth into a state of desperation resorting to selling family property like land (usually without consent of the elders) to raise quick capital to finance their daily income generating activities.

“They want to get rich quick. They look at land as an asset that they can easily sell. There has been a breakdown in cultural norms. The sub-region’s social fabric has been torn. It has left young people uncontrollable“ -Mr. Edwin Komakech, Resident District Commissioner, Amuru District. Source: UNDP/IOM/NRC 2010

Young men have gone into small motorcycle “boda-boda” transport business and many young women into restaurants, saloons all located in town. These small businesses are the major source of income for their daily livelihood and extended families. Acholi region also faces an increasing number of youth who can’t access their land any more even after the return from camps. Most of these youth are stigmatised by the community for the atrocities they committed under the abduction of the LRA rebels. They are given all sorts of nicknames ranging from killers, rapists, etc. This stigma forces them to head to towns in order to start a new life and avoid being associated with their former life in the villages where they are seen as “ex-rebels”. Majority of these girls end up as commercial sex workers17while boys get involved in theft, drug abuse, hooliganism and many other illegal activities.

3

Understanding Land Grabbing

The contentious issue of land grabbing has become a subject of numerous media reports in Uganda18. It is increasingly known that land grabbing is at the center of many political and social discussions. Land grabbing is rapidly growing like a cancer and if it’s not immediately treated is likely to spread and affect many people in Uganda. In the midst of a severe food and economic crisis, the “land grabbing” trend has grown as an international phenomenon. In volatile economies that have experienced violent conflicts, land grabbing is mainly associated with power differences. Powerful individuals (like politicians, military, private and foreign investors) often use weak governments to grab land in many countries of Africa and Asia. This phenomenon has become commonly known in literature as foreign large scale land acquisitions (or land grabs).This paper focuses mainly on domestic land grabs which are usually a precursor for foreign large scale land acquisitions. It explains what grabbing land is and shows why it has persisted in post conflict regions of northern Uganda. 3.1

Definition of Land Grabbing

The term land grab refers to the purchase or lease of vast tracts of land by wealthier, foodinsecure nations and private investors from mostly poor, developing countries in order to produce crops for export (Daniel and Mittal, 2009:1). This definition is based on the growing interest in large scale land acquisitions by food insecure investor countries that always appear as government-backed investments especially in developing countries. Government-backed deals can also be driven by investment opportunities rather than food security concerns. Cotula et al., (2009) discovered that in many host countries, benefits are mainly seen in the form of investor’s commitments on investment levels, employment creation and infrastructure 14


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

development – though these commitments tend to lack teeth in the overall structure of documented land deals. However, land grabbing is broader than “foreign” land acquisitions; it involves the active role played by domestic elites, government bureaucrats, family members and clan heads who assume power and certainly misuse it to grab land from vulnerable groups. For instance, in northern Uganda when a husband dies, the widow is culturally supposed to pick a “caretaker husband19” whose responsibility is to take care of the widow and orphans. He is entrusted with the caretaker-ship of all family property including land. The caretakers usually misuse this absolute power entrusted to them by clan leaders or relatives and end up deliberately grab land from the vulnerable family which they are meant to protect. Many widows have reported different kinds of abuse (like sexual abuse, domestic violence) from caretakers and in cases where the widow tried to resist abuse; they have always been thrown out of the family and all property grabbed by the caretaker. To understand the meaning of Land Grabbing in the context of Uganda, this paper defines it as; The acquisition of land by a public, private enterprise, or individual in a manner that is illegal, fraudulent, or unfair taking advantage of existing power differences, corruption, and breakdown of law and order in the society. 3.2

International Land Deals in Uganda – opportunity or exploitation?

Land grabbing in form of international investment deals has been addressed with varying feelings. Some enthusiastic advocates of “development” argue that this is the fastest way of reducing poverty especially in rural areas in Uganda while some advocates for human rights term these international land deals as a form of colonial exploitation. The GLP report (2010) shows that a cluster of such land deals are identified in the eastern part of the African continent in countries like Ethiopia, Mozambique, Uganda and Madagascar, while other large recipient countries are Sudan, Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In ten of the identified recipient countries the deals represent more than 5% of the current agricultural area – in Uganda more than 14%, in Mozambique more than 21% and in DR Congo more than 48% of the agricultural land! Thus, the consequences of these land deals can be expected to be very large for the local population and environment, with impacts such as agricultural intensification, forest degradation, and displacement of local populations, increasing local food insecurity and increasing poverty. The table below shows land deals by different investor countries in Uganda according to the GLP (2010). Table 3: Land Deals in Uganda according to different Screening Sources Screening Source ILC Blog Screening

GTZ GRAIN

Investor Country Agri SA Egyptian Agricultural Ministry Egypt Heibei Company20 China Private investors China Private investors & the government of Egypt

Allocated Land Size (ha) 170,000 200 809.,71 40,500 4,046 840,127

Source: Extracted from GLP Report (2010)

15

Purpose

Types of Crops

Test Farm

Wheat

Food production

Maize, wheat Poultry, Cattle, maize, rice, wheat Rice, cereals Wheat and maize for export

Food production


3.3

SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

Ways in which domestic land grabbing occurs in Uganda

It is widely known that land is a limited resource while world population is rapidly increasing hence causing global fears of food insecurity and energy. These fears have prompted many countries to invest and increase their wealth in land development. Investing in land is seen as a safe investment compared to other movable assets. Naturally rich people are purchasing poor people’s land in order to get richer. Other people use their influence and power to gradually acquire land that belongs to others. This is always done in different ways. These pathways may be direct or indirect channels for land grabbing in many countries. The effects of land grabbing can easily be seen in form of landlessness, increased poverty, land conflicts etc in the society. Figure 4: Pathways of Domestic Land Grabbing in Uganda.

Grabbing by exploiting Dependency e.g. Guardians of orphaned children

Grabbing using the existing Justice System e.g. Weak Courts, Local Council

Grabbing by use of Force and Intimidation e.g. Millitary Influence, Witchcraft etc.

Grabbing through Seizing Opportunity e.g. After death of head of family

Grabbing through Borrowing Land e.g. for Share cropping

Grabbing through gradual Encroachment e.g. State Forets, Wetlands, Parks

Effects in the Society Extreme Poverty, Land Conflicts, Landlessness, Unequitable service delivery in Land Institutions, Dicourages investment

Weak Land Governance Principles (concerning inneficient, illigitimate, unaccountable, inequitable, inconsistent, unpredictable, exclusive) in the Land Sector that support Corruption.

Source: Author based on LEMU report (2009)

3.3.1

Grabbing through Gradual Encroachment

Encroachment is the entry of people with their activities into land without permission. The entry can be deliberate or unknowingly for the purpose of grazing cattle, cultivation, settlement, construction or any other human activities. A research carried out by LEMU (2009) in seven districts of northern and eastern Uganda shows that land grabbing does not always happen at once. Frequently, the grabber tests their targeted victims by first encroaching one or two metres into their field. The victims (mostly the elderly, disabled, widows and orphans) may only discover it after several months or more than a year. Encroachment usually happens on land that is not under use or left to fallow. For instance, gradual encroachment on public land (like gazetted forest reserves and national parks) is on increase in many districts of Uganda.

16


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

In Buliisa district pastoralists fraudulently acquired title deeds of over 1,000 hectares of communally owned land with the aid of some government officials. This created tension between the pastoralists and local Bagungu tribes; there were several clashes between opposing tribes over the hitherto communally owned land. The pastoralists started migrating into the area around 2006. The entire land in dispute including that without title deeds measures around 8 square miles around block 2, where U.K.-based Tullow Oil PLC (TLW.LN), the operator of the block, is preparing to develop the Kasemene oil field in the fourth quarter of 2011. Based on a court ruling that the pastoralists were occupying the land illegally, the Ugandan army evicted hundreds of immigrant families from communally owned land in the oil-rich Buliisa district in a bid to diffuse the tensions with the locals. However the motive of using the army in this eviction remains suspicious to the local community in this oil-rich region of Uganda. Information shows that Lieutenant Colonel Muhoozi Museveni Keinerugaba, the son of the Ugandan president, is the overall commander of the elite Special Forces unit, which is in charge of the security of the oil wells, while General Salim Saleh, the president's brother, owns Saracen security group, which provides private security services to oil exploration companies operating in the country. Some politicians and activists have questioned this power-relation in the communally owned land in this region. In June 2004, the State Minister for disaster preparedness and refugees Christine Amongin Aporu warned politicians against illegally grabbing refugee settlement land. She said there was mass encroachment of refugee settlements in Oruchinga, Nakivaale and Rwam-wanja in western Uganda. More cases implicating government officials involved in land grabbing are on increase in the Ugandan media and political discussions today. 3.3.2

Grabbing by Force and Intimidation

In Pader district, tension is growing high between the army and residents of Akemo-Koch village over land encroachment. The residents accused UPDF soldiers in the area of raiding, intimidation and cutting down their food plantations to construct kraals for cattle belonging to some army officers. The area LCI Chairperson of Akemo-Koch Peter Ochora reported that an officer who only identified himself as Labongo led the soldiers. Labongo claimed that the office of the Prime Minister gave the Ministry of Defence six square kilometres of land in the area for army use. Some people have threatened to take back their land at any cost. But Lt. Caesar Olweny, the UPDF 5th Division spokesperson, said the villagers were misinformed about what was going on in Akemo-Koch. He said the land under dispute belongs to the army and civilians are allowed to stay there for free. It is however not clear how the army acquired the land in question. Such disputes where both parties believe they are in the right are very difficult to be solved; the party with more power deliberately attempts to grab land. In a World Bank report compiled by Rugadya et al. (2008:66) revealed that landlords in areas where the UPDF army detaches and camps were located, claim for compensation on grounds of the army’s illegal occupation of their lands in breach of their land rights as owners, the army’s destruction of their land with construction of protective ditches “ndaki”, destruction of housing, farms and produce that came with UPDF’s occupation of land. The report shows that the army depleted natural resources which they (- the army) never paid for. The army ferried timber, charcoal, firewood to Kampala for sale. In other instances, the UPDF army cultivated private land that they occupied. Such land occupied by powerful military officers was deliberately grabbed in an act of intimidation from the local people.

17


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

In Lango, most widows and almost all divorced women face land rights violation. Often their in-laws take over the land and many widows do not have the physical strength to resist the land grab. Clan authorities show that they protect widows and orphans while in practice they often side with the land grabbers. Where they rule in favour of the widow, the land grabbers simply ignores the decision and nothing is followed up. Usually the vulnerable groups like widows and orphans do not want to risk the wrath of the clan by going to the state courts for protection and even if they do, justice is very difficult to achieve. The weak individuals normally tend to keep quiet in order not to antagonise their neighbours. They usually feel that it’s better to ‘compromise’ for the sake of peace rather than facing the wrath of clan leaders who usually side with the rich land grabbers. As a result the intimidation by the clan elders favours the land grabber to progressively take more land (LEMU, 2009). The Ugandan media has been on the forefront to expose public land grab deals where veteran ex-military officials have seized land for their own development projects like setting up markets, lock-up shops, buildings etc. In May 2006 over 50 army veterans grabbed Wandegeya Children's Park land. The veterans led by Captain Kigozi and Major Walusimbi vowed not to leave the land, they displayed yellow banners21 inscribed 'Kawempe NRA veterans' at the park. The veterans claim to have fought for the NRA/NRM Ten-point programme but had not benefited from the NRM regime; their leader - Kigozi agued that they grabbed the park as a consolation22. Over the past years the veterans have developed a tendency of behaving as untouchables in several things they do and engaging in acts society has viewed as illegal. They have severally used force in commandeering plots of land as work places in and around the city and refusing to move even when city and other relevant authorities have challenged them on this. The challenge posed by the NRM liberation war veterans in grabbing public land still remains a problem unresolved and it threatens to grow in intensity with time. 3.3.3

Grabbing through borrowing land

Borrowing land is common in many communities in Uganda. Land is usually borrowed for a short period of one or two seasons and mainly by a relative or a close family friend. Just like customary rights, this system is based on informal oral agreements between the lender and borrower. After some time, the borrower may refuse to return the field and maintains a continuous presence on the land. This is very common were in-laws ask from widows temporally land for farming. The grabbers usually take advantage of the circumstance when their targets become vulnerable, for instance, after the death of a husband. In northern Uganda, a widow may have her land grabbed by in-laws just because she refused to take a clan member as her new ‘partner’. The in-laws usually accuse the widow of being ‘responsible’ of the husband’s death especially where she has no children or had only girls. Although the law protects women, they are always sidelined by traditions. The key to successful land grabbing is to make the victim give up. A variety of forms of intimidation are used, which rest on making the victim feel powerless, afraid, worthless and believing that the land grabber can act with impunity23. 3.4

How do Existing Judicial Systems promote Land Grabbing?

There are two systems of justice in northern Uganda namely; traditional and conventional system of justice. Before the people of Acholi were forcibly split up by war, practically all conflicts in Acholi were settled amicably through a well developed mechanism for the prompt resolution of conflict as soon as they arose. The traditional system of governance was firmly rooted into their religious beliefs, norms, and customs which demanded peace and stability in 18


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

Acholi region at all times. The structure was maintained by the real anointed chiefs of the Acholi people, known as the rwodi moo. The rich body of traditional systems of law and justice in northern Uganda reflects principles of conflict management with both retributive and restorative elements where the objective is to reintegrate the perpetrators into their communities and reconcile them with the victims, through a process of establishing the truth, confession, reparation, repentance and forgiveness (Latigo, 2008). The traditional system of justice has totally been weakened over the period of armed conflict. Land grabbing tends to flourish were there is a weak judicial system. Although the conventional judicial systems empowers the clans and Local Council (LC) II courts to resolve land conflicts, the weakness of clans and LC II courts offers an opportunity for land grabbers to explore. Most Local Councils and clan elders lack the capacity to arbitrate land disputes especially when there is a big power difference between the land grabber and the victim. They find it difficult to judge against the powerful e.g. the rich whose “generosity” they depend on for funerals. Institutionalised corruption has also affected the entire judicial system. A study done by LEMU (2009) revealed that land grabbers rarely initiated cases at the LC or Clan court. They deliberately let the victim bring the case against them but use their “power” to defeat it. This can be done simply by bribery. In every village in Lango most people accused the LC and clan authorities of corruption, and both admitted openly to accepting bribes although the government forbids them to charge any fees for dispute resolution. Although cases can be forwarded to the Magistrate’s court, most victims fear to forward land conflict to this level. Despite the official costs of litigation being reasonable (UGX 30,000 about 13 US$)24 and can be recoverable by the winning side, most people cannot afford to seek legal recourse for land disputes. In addition to the litigation fees the disputing parties must meet the costs of the Chief Magistrate’s movement in the event that the Chief Magistrate is compelled to visit the disputed site. These costs are around UGX 100,000 (about 43 US$) mainly for transport and security (UNDP, op. cit). Even at grassroots level, the Local Councils which have no rights to charge fees at all to ‘hear’ land cases instead charge around UGX 5,000 (2 US$); LC II Courts charge around UGX 30,000 (13 US$); and Sub-County Courts on average charge UGX 50,000(22 US$). Further costs incurred are dependent on the number of witnesses summoned; witnesses usually demand an allowance for transport and accommodation. The entire litigation process is complicated by “facilitators” who act as intermediaries between the victims and courts. In order for them to quicken the case for hearing in the court, they often charge the victim much more than the official fees. Therefore, taking a case as far as the sub-county can cost 2-3 months of total family income and may not result into fair justice for victims . The complexity of the exiting judicial systems gives land grabbers the opportunity to exercise power, corruption, and intimidate victims; usually forcing their victims to give up on the case in order to “live at peace” with other members of the community. 3.5

How do Governments Promote Land Grabbing?

Many governments in developing countries have indirectly promoted massive land grabs through legitimisation and promotion of large scale land acquisitions to foreign investors and private sector in form of concessions /leaseholds. Hertz and Myers, (2007) show that already significant areas of “un-used/unoccupied” land have been given leases and/or renewed prior to resettlement of IDP in northern Uganda. These land allocations dominate in the western area of Amuru district. These concessions have spurred major discussions on land grabbing in Acholi land. Central to these concerns has been highly public pressure from central government for opening up of Acholi land for “development” since early 2007 to allocate 19


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

land in Amuru district to the Madhvani Group25 for a large-scale sugar cane plantation. Reports from aggrieved Acholi Parliamentary Group (APG) - a group of Acholi parliamentarians accuse the GoU for assisting investors to grab land in northern Uganda. According to APG, the Central Government’s support for alienating land for commercial sugar cane farming in the north has been accompanied by powerful individuals gaining, or attempting to gain, private title to land that overwhelmingly belongs to communal landholding groups. Constant von Oppeln and Schneider (2009) notes that state actors and private investors from industrial and threshold countries secure huge tracts of farmland in developing countries with long-term leases and deeds of sale in order to grow food and energy crops there for export. Private investors are often welcomed by the local elites who have a vested interest in lucrative land deals. This situation is precarious: investment in agriculture is necessary, but it must take a pro-poor approach and cannot take the form of neo-colonial land seizure. Many land grabbers deliberately reject these allegations. They claim to be promoters of development on previously unused land and that they are therefore making a contribution towards global food security. Similarly, this claim is often heard that land in northern Uganda is abundant, available and sometimes characterized as “empty” and thus should be opened up for “development”. In January 2008, the APG raised concerns against the Minister of Lands - Omara Atubo, who allegedly authored a letter to Amuru District Land Board in support of an expedited land transaction for an army officer, urging the Land Board to act quickly in allocating the land. According to the minister’s letter dated 7th January 2008, Major General Julius Oketa had applied to be issued with a certificate of title for approximately 10,000 hectares of land located in Amuru district for a sugar industry. The letter shows that there was no functional Area Land Committees (ALC) in place which would inspect the land before issuing the title. The APG argue that the minister used his influence to intimidate the Amuru District Land Board to consider the issuance of a title to the army general and treat the application as a special case. A similar case of alleged land grabbing is cited in the petition presented to the Speaker of the Parliament, filed by Hon. Okello-Okello John Livingstone – chairman APG. Okello reported several attempts of land grabbing involving senior government officials in northern Uganda. In 1992 the GoU signed a protocol with the Government of Libya giving away the following large chunks of land namely; • Bukaleba Beef Ranch 4,000 hectares, • Aswa Ranch 46,000 hectares • Maruzi Ranch 16,376 hectares. In May 2003, a programme entitled Security and Production Programme (SPP) was produced. The proposal was to plan and turn Internally Displaced People (IDP) camps into permanent settlements. The three districts of Acholi then - Gulu, Kitgum and Pader - convened a meeting of about 380 selected people in Kitgum in October 2003 and the proposal was unanimously rejected. Some of the arguments were that the land on which the GoU setup IDP camps was illegally grabbed from the people. The government did not compensate the owners of the land on which the camps were established. The implementing agents of the SPP programme were listed as: Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health. However, the author of this programme is difficult to pin-point.

20


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

The APG report revealed that a large chunk of land measuring ten (10) square miles was surveyed by unknown people under the protection of UPDF at a place called Got Apwoyo in Purongo sub-county, Nwoya County, Amuru District. In addition, APG also saw two large farms being guarded by UPDF soldiers. One was reported to belong to Colonel Walter Ochora, Resident District Commissioner (RDC) of Gulu, and the other to Colonel Charles Otema Awany, the 4th Division Commander. Basing on many other similar cases, it is becoming difficult to exonerate the government, its officials and the army from land grabbing in Uganda26.

4

Why has Land Grabbing Persisted in Uganda?

Despite all efforts by the GoU to reduce poverty, revive the economy and promote development in post conflict regions of northern Uganda, land grabbing has continued to flourish. The solution to the land grabbing problem requires a critical governance approach. In many countries land is a critical governance issue. Land is closely linked to individual and community identity, history and culture, as well as being a source of livelihood and for many poor people, their only form of social security. Land is more than just an asset, and as such, decisions regarding use of and control over land and natural resources are extremely sensitive, and are often highly political with different societal groups having different views (FAO, 2009:7). 4.1

Weak Land Governance

Land grabbing persists where the society is characterised by weak land governance. Weak governance, whether in formal land administration or customary tenure arrangements, means that land rights of the poor are not protected. It affects the poor in particular and may leave them marginalised and outside the law (FAO, 2007:1). The vulnerable groups like widows, elderly and orphans in northern Uganda particularly, lack the money to pay the bribes needed to benefit from the corruption or to pay for legal protection to defend their rights to land. Most of them do not even know their rights given the customary nature of ownership that has never been documented. The poor normally don’t know how to defend their rights because of illiteracy or marginalisation caused by the war. Although some returnees (ex-abducted LRA rebels) have been given amnesty and encouraged to return to their original lands, they do not know how to defend for their land rights especially when they find their ancestral lands already grabbed by powerful people. Land grabbing tends to flourish where the law is complex, inconsistent or obsolete. Although the laws and the constitution of Uganda recognise people’s customary rights to land and recognises the powers of the customary authorities to determine any land disputes according to customary rules (provided they do not discriminate e.g. against women, disabled), land grabbing in almost every village is rampant. In Lango, between a half and three-quarters of all widows face difficulties in enjoying their legal land rights; over 80% of divorcees or unmarried women are denied their legal rights to land27. About 56% of the land cases at the Magistrate’s Courts are still awaiting judgment28. The findings of (LEMU, op cit) shows that delaying tactics are commonly used by land grabbers, they know the poor cannot keep paying transport and other costs to the district for more adjournments and they will eventually give up. Corruption is one common factor in governance problems. Land agencies in Uganda are particularly vulnerable to corruption and other practices of weak land governance especially when the conflict involves powerful versus weak individuals. Those who have the money, status and connections or are feared because they have weapons are likely to interfere the 21


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

decision making in the land institutions. For instance in cases when district officials grant themselves leases on other people’s land, or when the powerful expropriate large areas of land. Despite the existence of legally recognised land administration structures in Uganda, the structures are used to serve the interest of those in control for example, by the illegal transfer of state lands and common lands into the private possessions of those in control or their allies. Weak land governance results into unjust compensation for those whose land is expropriated for eminent domain. Land grabbing continues to persist in northern Uganda due to lack of institutional capacity. In particular, the functioning of land administration and adjudication institutions was totally destroyed during the period of armed conflict. For instance, the functioning of the traditional institution, capacity and culture of work has been lost and this has created a perfect environment for land grabbing to flourish. The existence of weak land and credit markets favours those with money, power and connection to grab land from returnees. The land grabbers intentionally purchase at cheap cost an informally owned land parcel from desperate Acholi youth without necessarily establishing whether the seller has the right to sell the parcel. New waves of violence within the families are increasing throughout northern Uganda. As a result, the affected families become victims to the land grabber who normally issues eviction threats to the victims. In such cases, the families usually choose to negotiate for pardon from their new “landlord- the grabber” who may allocate a small portion of land for the family to squat on.

5

Conclusions and Practical Measures to Stop Land Grabbing

Land grabbing is one single biggest cause of extreme poverty in Uganda. However unlike other causes of poverty, land grabbing is illegal and the government has institutions placed at all levels to fight this “cancer” that is spreading very fast as a result of greed in the society. What demands an explanation is why the greedy are given impunity to trample the vulnerable into destitution? Failure to stop land grabbing will absolutely affect most efforts of the GoU and international actors in reconstruction and recovery of northern Uganda from the effects of the LRA conflict. In order to stop land grabbing, it’s important to; 5.1

Improve Land Sector Governance

Weak land governance is the cause of many land tenure-related problems. Improving land governance often means improving land tenure problems. Efforts should be directed towards moving from a less secure customary tenure to a more secure tenure system. Although there is a widespread belief that land in northern Uganda is held under communal customary system, in reality most families own their farm lands as private property. There is an urgent need to undertake land titling in order to reduce the high level and nature of threats to indigenous customary ownership. Titling should be pursued in a manner that is complementary to the customary tenure rather than a total replacement of the customary tenure. Government must transparently clarify it’s intensions of land registration in northern Uganda. This will reduce the high level of misgiving over demarcation and land registration efforts done by the GoU. The state and local government should openly address how issues of land that needs to be obtained for public welfare, safety, and economic development and infrastructure development will be legally handled and fair compensation implemented. Many returnees from camps are still frightened that this eminent domain will be used by government to grab lands illegally. Although some fears are real while others are growing 22


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

perceptions fuelled by politicians and other actors with different interests, the GoU should promote a more transparent, accountable and inclusive system to remove any forms of doubt. 5.2

Capacity building in the land sector

In order to achieve good land governance, priority should be given to capacity building in land administration agencies to improve efficiency, effectiveness and competence. Where necessary, recruitment of competent staffs should be immediately addressed. For instance, the District Surveyor for Lira district serves the whole of Lango region and that of Gulu serves the whole of Acholi region. The capacity of Lira office to respond to the enormous applications for titling rural land is very low and the capacity to deliver in relation to the demand posed since the return process from camps begun is extremely low leading to many unprocessed applications. In order to reduce administrative corruption, Land administration institutions must be subjected to independent auditing and should publish their accounts and performance indicators. This information should be made available and accessible to the public without discrimination and intimidation of marginalised groups in northern Uganda. 5.3

Stop large scale illegal land acquisitions

If the government and International community are committed to putting a brake on land grabbing in northern Uganda, the GoU should immediately stop large scale illegal land acquisitions that are carried out without the involvement of Area Land Committees (ALC) and wide stakeholder participation. In principle, ALC must be established and facilitated to carry out land inspections and consultations with village elders before leasing large plots of land. The government must immediately suspend further land acquisitions and investments in agro fuels. An independent Commission of Inquiring must be instituted to investigate people’s concerns about the involvement of top army (UPDF) officers in land grabbing. Legal action should be taken against officers implicated in land grabbing without impunity. The victims of land grabbing must be able to find justice without delay because justice delayed is justice denied! 5.4

Harmonise Customary and State land administration systems

Since land is mainly held under customary tenure, customary institutions must be strengthened to improve internal administration of land and adjudication of disputes. The two parallel legal and judicial systems (customary and state land administration) dealing with land issues in northern Uganda should be harmonised to avoid unresolved contradictions. Although the state land administration recognises the customary judicial system, the two systems still remain operating parallel to each other. This could be a potential source of conflict over land in the future and is likely to give powerful groups in the society an advantage over their targeted victims. Although there are many laws to protect the vulnerable from land rights violation, the implementation of such laws in post conflict regions requires urgent attention. 5.5

Support Traditional and State Justice Systems

Many victims of land grabbing can not afford the costs of state litigation. Even though the case requires being resolved through traditional justice, the victims are expected to facilitate the process of bringing witnesses and mobilising of the traditional leaders. This is sometimes too expensive for widows, orphans, disabled and elderly persons to achieve fair listening. Financial support should be given to courts in order to reduce the costs of litigation for the poor. For example, in cases where the Chief Magistrate is compelled to visit the disputed site,

23


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

the disputing parties must meet the costs of the Chief Magistrate’s movement29; such costs must be paid by the government in order for the poor victims to have a fair judgement. In order to reduce the backlogs at the Chief Magistrate Court, the dysfunctional LC II and Sub-County Court committees should be revived and facilitated to effectively perform their duties. A comprehensive appraisal of LC II Courts and Sub-County Court Committees should be carried out; this appraisal should be quickly followed by intensive and long-term training, provision of necessary equipment, and re-staffing where necessary. The poor capacities of these LC II and Sub- County Court committees require immediate and sustained attention. 5.6

Restoration and strengthening of traditional culture

A community that does not cherish and promote its culture is usually bound to extinction. The role of culture in social cohesion, conflict resolution and sustainable resource utilisation can not be overemphasised. Acholi culture and traditional systems of justice should be restored and promoted. Restoration of social norms, values and beliefs offers opportunities to correct social ills in the community. These traditional systems need to be documented and preserved for the future generation. Many elders who knew and remembered the traditions of their people have died before passing on this knowledge to be written down and preserved. Several attempts should be made to promote the Acholi traditions among the youth in order to appreciate and promote their cultural heritage. However all traditions that promote any form of discrimination against women, children, elderly and disabled should be strongly discouraged and such acts of discrimination be condemned.

24


6

SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

References

Barber, J., (1968) Imperial Frontiers (Nairobi: East African Publishing House) Bøås, M. and Hatløy, A. (2005) Northern Uganda IDP Profiling: Vol. 2 Northern Uganda IDP Study, September 2005, Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies: Oslo. Branch, Adam (2005) ‘Neither peace, nor justice: political violence and the peasantry in Northern Uganda, 1986-1998’, African Studies Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 2 (online URL: http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v8/v8i2a1.htm) Constant von Oppeln and Schneider, R. (2009) Land grabbing- Poor People are losing the Ground beneath their feet. Welt Hunger Hilfe No. 8 /April 2009. Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Leonard, R. and Keeley, J., (2009) Land Grab or Development Opportunity? Agricultural Investment and International Land Deals In Africa, IIED/FAO/IFAD, London/Rome. ISBN: 978-1-84369-741-1 CSOPNU (2004) Land Matters in Displacement: The importance of Land Rights in Acholiland and what Threatens them. CSOPNU (2006) Counting the Cost – Twenty years of war in northern Uganda, Report by the Civil Society Organizations for Peace in Northern Uganda. Daniel, S. and Mittal, A. (2009) The Great Land Grab, Rush for World’s Farmland threatens Food Security for the Poor. The Oakland Institute FAO (2002) Land Tenure and Rural Development. Land Tenure Series 3, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO- Rome Italy) FAO (2007) Good governance in land tenure and administration. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO- Rome Italy) FAO (2009) Towards Improved Land Governance: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO- Rome Italy) GLP (2010) Land Grab in Africa: Emerging land system drivers in a teleconnected world. Global Land Project, University of Copenhagen- Denmark GoU (2002) Poverty Eradication Action Plan: Prepared for the Consultative Group Meeting, Government of Uganda, December 2002. Hetz,P.E. and Myers, G. (2007) Land Matters in Northern Uganda, Anything Grows, Anything Goes, Post-conflicts “Conflicts” lie in Land. Human Rights Focus (2002) Between Two Fires: the Plight of the IDP in Northern Uganda, Gulu: HURIFO. iDMC (2008) Uganda: Uncertain Future for IDPs while Peace remains elusive, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, 24 April 2008, p.11. Larsson, G. (1997) Land Management. Public Policy, Control and Participation. The Swedish Council for Building Research T8:1997. Stockholm. 25


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

Latigo J. Ojera (2008) Northern Uganda: tradition-based practices in the Acholi region. Extracted from the Traditional Justice and Reconciliation after violent conflict. Learning from African Experiences, IDEA LEMU (2009) Why is customary protection failing to prevent land grabbing? Bulletin from Land and Equity Movement in Uganda Mabikke S, (2010) Implications of Land Governance on Rural Development in Uganda, A Case study of Nakasongola District, published by Lambert Publishers, SaarbrückenGermany. Magel. H, F. Silke (2007) Good Governance – What does it mean for Surveyor’s Profession and Contributions? Magel. H, B. Wehrmann (2006) “It’s all about Land” or “How International Networks Approach the Land Question” ZFV Issue 5/2006 Vol.131 Zeitschrift für Geodäsie, Geoinformation und Landmanagemen. MFPED (2003) Post-conflict Reconstruction: The Case of Northern Uganda, Discussion Paper 7 Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Mwebaze. R, (1999) How to integrate Statutory and Customary Tenure? The Uganda Case. Paper presented at the DFID workshop on Land Rights and Sustainable Development in sub-Saharan Africa. 16-19 February 1999. Okoth-Ogendo H.W.O (2006) Land Rights in Africa, Interrogating the Tenure Security discourse: Key note address to the Workshop on Land Tenure Security for Poverty Reduction in Eastern and Southern Africa, Kampala 27-29 June 2006. Oxfam (2007) The Building Blocks of Sustainable Peace: The Views of Internally Displaced People in Northern Uganda. Oxfam Briefing Paper 106. Payne. Geoffrey (ed.) (2002) Land Rights and Innovation, ITDG Publishing, London. Rugadya M, E Nsamba-Gayiiya, H Kamusiime (2008) Northern Uganda Land Study, Analysing Post Conflict Land Policy and Land Administration: A survey of IDP Return and Resettlement issues and lessons. Acholi and Lango Regions. UBOS (2010) Statistical Abstract 2010, Uganda Bureau of Statistics. UNDP, IOM and NRC (2010) Land or Else, Land-Based Conflict, Vulnerability and Disintegration in Northern Uganda UNEP (2006) Africa Environment Outlook -2, Our Environment, Our Wealth. United Nations Environment Programme UNECE (2005): Land Administration in the UNECE Region – Development trends and main principles. UNECE, Geneva. http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2005/wpla/ECE-HBP-140-e.pdf

26


SAMUEL B. MABIKKE

End Notes 1

2

3

4

5 6

7 8

9

10

11

12

13 14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21 22 23 24 25

26

27 28 29

Tenure security refers to the certainty that a person’s rights to land will be recognised by others and protected in cases of specific challenges (FAO 2002:18). The New Vision Friday 24th, April 2009. http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/679164 accessed 10th January 2011 These 13 districts are geographically defined based on the statistical demarcation by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics CSOPNU is a coalition of more than 50 Ugandan and International NGOs working in women, men and children affected by the conflict in northern Uganda H.W.O. Okoth-Ogendo, is a Professor of Public Law at the University of Nairobi. See Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (2006), Position Paper on Service Delivery on National Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda (PRDP) 2006–2009. Sustaining Positive Momentum in Northern Uganda http://northernuganda.usvpp.gov/momentum.html This was the case in Buganda where about 9,000 square miles of land were vested in the Queen of England as “wasted lands” under the 1900 Buganda Agreement. These were referred to as “Crown” land John W. Bruce, “African tenure models at the turn of the century: individual property models and common property models,” Paper prepared for a Conference on Land Tenure Models for Twenty-firstCentury Africa,” September 8-10, the Hague, the Netherlands, 459 Jean-Philippe Platteau, “The Gradual Erosion of the Social Security Function of Customary Land Tenure Arrangements of Lineage-Based Societies” United Nations University/World Institute for Development Economics Research, Discussion Paper 2002/26, 3. E.g., Stephen Leisz, “Madagascar Country Profile,” Ed. John Bruce Profiles of Land Tenure, Africa: 1996, Research Paper no. 130, 233 By 1986 when the NRM (formerly NRA) came to power, Uganda had 68 districts. The number has risen to 112 by 2011 under the same government. Refer to Chapter 15 Article 241 Section 2 of the Uganda Constitution. It is upon such shortfalls that the Minister of Lands has been accused of supporting land grabbers in Uganda. See letter http://www.scribd.com/doc/12824193/Hon-Omara-Atubos-Letter-to-Amuru-DistrictLand-Board Acholi land next point of hostility http://www.independent.co.ug/index.php/column/comment/70comment/452-acholi-land-next-point-of-hostility The data provided in this table was provided by Gulu District’s Chief Magistrate Omodo Nyanga Joseph on 12 August 2010. UNDP /IOM Report (2010) estimates between 200 -300 female ex-LRA commercial sex workers in Kasubi parish, which is nearby the UPDF’s northern barracks in Gulu municipality See The Independent -“Acholi Land next point of hostility, January 04, 2009”, Daily Nation- “Uganda oil finds trigger land grab near fields, June 25, 2010”, Daily Monitor- “Bukoto Families accuse soldier of land-grabbing, December 17, 2010”, The New Vision- “Government to probe Church land grab, January 07, 2011”. The “caretaker husbands” usually ended up marrying the widows. However due to HIV/AIDS, this practice is becoming less common in Uganda. Signed for the first 1000 ha further farms planned. Yellow is the colour of the ruling NRM Government led by President Museveni See The New Vision 30 May 2006 http://allafrica.com/stories/200605311460.html LEMU op. cit. Part of the problem is that all courts are charging illegal fees much more that the official fees stated. The Madhvani Group is one of the largest diversified private-sector groups in East Africa. The Group is the largest private-sector investor in agriculture and agro-processing industry in Uganda. For more explanation see APG Statement to Parliament on issues of Land in Acholi http://www.upcparty.net/memboard/acholi_statement.htm accessed 7 January 2011. LEMU (2009). Why is the legal system failing to protect people’s land rights? See Table 2: Backlog of Land Cases at the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Gulu District For more details see UNDP/IOM/ NRC (2010:35)

27