Live and Let Live: The wretched of the earth in Acholi also deserve distributive justice
Ugandan Member of Parliament Simon Oyet (FDC, Nwoya) should be commended for his stand on behalf of the wretched of the earth regarding the land question in Acholi. Find it here:
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/news/Brigadier_evicts_100_families_68661.shtml
All Acholi, including those among us here who are also involved in massive land enclosures and speculations in Acholi, must think about the rest of those less fortunate and their children and their children.
This by no means is to discourage individual progress. But to think of gradually easing Acholi society into the kind of ravenous market society that some among us think we must hurtle it towards.
My position is that, Acholi communal land has been husbanded by our forbearers for centuries and access and use were well-regulated to ensure equity and social equality. This is not to say that there were no poorer folks as a result of laziness or some other disadvantages, but no one was landless or unable to grow their own food.
The British introduced us to capitalist mode of production more than 100 years ago. However, Acholi elites from that era up to about when Yoweri Museveni seized power did not behave like the elites we have today. Did we not have brigadiers, generals, professors, wealthy businessmen and women? Of course we did.
We must stop to think; why Acholi elites like ladit Peter Abe, ladit Peter Oola, ladit Obadiyah Lalaobo, Nua Tukdel Ochora, Ezira Kibwota, Ananiya Akera, Otema Allimadi, Alipayo Oloya, Alex Ojera, Elijah Latim, Gino Obonyo, Opoka Tycoon Obuli, etc., never shared out Acholi land among themselves in tens of thousands of hectares? They did not want to disregard the interests of the rest. If they wanted,they could have, just like those who disregard the greater common good today. However, they chose to acquire just as much as they needed, and through the consent of their respective communities.
In other words, they led and lived by the maxim that live and let live.They could do so because they believed in fairness; and I want to say that I am personally a believer in fairness. I believe that every Acholi man, woman, and child born or still to be born; poor or rich, has equal rights to the fortunes that can be had from our land. If such an asset as land in which they have inalienable stakes is to be liquidated, they ought to benefit from it commensurately.
If land must be the only asset they have between eternal poverty and a decent, dignified living, then there must be someone or group of people to ensure that everyone benefits fairly. I want to be an advocate for such a notion, support such a group or ally with such a person determined to make it happen for the poor in our society.
Given the poverty and deprivation of the last 22 years; given that less than 50% of our population is literate; and given that less than 5% of Acholi would afford to survive in an open land market, I am opposed to large, non-residential, private land holding on freehold tenure rather than leasehold. The modalities for conversions of rural, communal lands into freeholds, private real estates have not been debated, or agreed upon in Acholi. Scuh a major and far-reaching policy shift, which requires both political, ideological and legislative debates, cannot be arbitrarily and unilaterally decided by fiat and bureaucratic discretions of unelected, unaccountable, clueless bunch of obseqious political running dogs at the district and area land boards.
In addition, there has not been any recent land use planning, regulation and zoning in Acholi that should guide and order the patterns of development in the region. It is therefore ludicruous and a failure of local governance level leadership that the politically connected and powerful can at a whim, stake out their claims anywehere and anyhow in Acholi, as if Acholiland were the last unmapped and unexplored frontiers, where you can claim as much as you want. Acholi needs to put a limit to such arbitrary acquisition and how much an individual can alinate, say 1,000 hectares at most with leases capped at 50 years.
Until the gaps between the poor and the rich in Acholi is bridged, which may take another 50 years, no Acholi communal land should be transformed, converted and transferred to freehold tenures. Not only are the district land authorities without the legal authority to do so, it would be both unconstitutional and illegal. This is because the law in Uganda recongises only three legal estates; mailo (freehold), leaeholds, and customary / communal tenure. Moreover, land tenure systems are not uniform across the country. Of the three recognised legal estates, only leaseholds and customary tenures are operational in Acholi outside of urban settlements. Therefore, there is neither an enabling law in private property regime in Uganda nor any statutory instruments the district landboards can rely upon for conversion of customary lands to freehold estates.
While the crisis in Acholi runs its course, those large land owners who have managed to bulldoze their way into alienating such lands must be taxed for market values of their holdings. We need to think fairness. There is no other way about it on land. And the rights and interests of individuals and collective members of communities to whom the land belong, must be protected.
http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/news/Brigadier_evicts_100_families_68661.shtml
All Acholi, including those among us here who are also involved in massive land enclosures and speculations in Acholi, must think about the rest of those less fortunate and their children and their children.
This by no means is to discourage individual progress. But to think of gradually easing Acholi society into the kind of ravenous market society that some among us think we must hurtle it towards.
My position is that, Acholi communal land has been husbanded by our forbearers for centuries and access and use were well-regulated to ensure equity and social equality. This is not to say that there were no poorer folks as a result of laziness or some other disadvantages, but no one was landless or unable to grow their own food.
The British introduced us to capitalist mode of production more than 100 years ago. However, Acholi elites from that era up to about when Yoweri Museveni seized power did not behave like the elites we have today. Did we not have brigadiers, generals, professors, wealthy businessmen and women? Of course we did.
We must stop to think; why Acholi elites like ladit Peter Abe, ladit Peter Oola, ladit Obadiyah Lalaobo, Nua Tukdel Ochora, Ezira Kibwota, Ananiya Akera, Otema Allimadi, Alipayo Oloya, Alex Ojera, Elijah Latim, Gino Obonyo, Opoka Tycoon Obuli, etc., never shared out Acholi land among themselves in tens of thousands of hectares? They did not want to disregard the interests of the rest. If they wanted,they could have, just like those who disregard the greater common good today. However, they chose to acquire just as much as they needed, and through the consent of their respective communities.
In other words, they led and lived by the maxim that live and let live.They could do so because they believed in fairness; and I want to say that I am personally a believer in fairness. I believe that every Acholi man, woman, and child born or still to be born; poor or rich, has equal rights to the fortunes that can be had from our land. If such an asset as land in which they have inalienable stakes is to be liquidated, they ought to benefit from it commensurately.
If land must be the only asset they have between eternal poverty and a decent, dignified living, then there must be someone or group of people to ensure that everyone benefits fairly. I want to be an advocate for such a notion, support such a group or ally with such a person determined to make it happen for the poor in our society.
Given the poverty and deprivation of the last 22 years; given that less than 50% of our population is literate; and given that less than 5% of Acholi would afford to survive in an open land market, I am opposed to large, non-residential, private land holding on freehold tenure rather than leasehold. The modalities for conversions of rural, communal lands into freeholds, private real estates have not been debated, or agreed upon in Acholi. Scuh a major and far-reaching policy shift, which requires both political, ideological and legislative debates, cannot be arbitrarily and unilaterally decided by fiat and bureaucratic discretions of unelected, unaccountable, clueless bunch of obseqious political running dogs at the district and area land boards.
In addition, there has not been any recent land use planning, regulation and zoning in Acholi that should guide and order the patterns of development in the region. It is therefore ludicruous and a failure of local governance level leadership that the politically connected and powerful can at a whim, stake out their claims anywehere and anyhow in Acholi, as if Acholiland were the last unmapped and unexplored frontiers, where you can claim as much as you want. Acholi needs to put a limit to such arbitrary acquisition and how much an individual can alinate, say 1,000 hectares at most with leases capped at 50 years.
Until the gaps between the poor and the rich in Acholi is bridged, which may take another 50 years, no Acholi communal land should be transformed, converted and transferred to freehold tenures. Not only are the district land authorities without the legal authority to do so, it would be both unconstitutional and illegal. This is because the law in Uganda recongises only three legal estates; mailo (freehold), leaeholds, and customary / communal tenure. Moreover, land tenure systems are not uniform across the country. Of the three recognised legal estates, only leaseholds and customary tenures are operational in Acholi outside of urban settlements. Therefore, there is neither an enabling law in private property regime in Uganda nor any statutory instruments the district landboards can rely upon for conversion of customary lands to freehold estates.
While the crisis in Acholi runs its course, those large land owners who have managed to bulldoze their way into alienating such lands must be taxed for market values of their holdings. We need to think fairness. There is no other way about it on land. And the rights and interests of individuals and collective members of communities to whom the land belong, must be protected.
Comments