Is govt move to amend Article 26 of the Constitution justified?

Government has on many occasions through the Minister of Lands and Urban Development, Betty Amongi stated that amending Article 26 of the Constitution, a proposal which is now before Parliament, is in the public interest and that it would speed up development.
In the words of the minister: “The amendment seeks to give government leeway to use the land gazetted for public infrastructure development after depositing compensation money agreed by the chief government valuer to court pending determination by court of any dispute relating to compensation.” She further says that “currently, once the owner of the land rejects the government compensation or challenges it in court, work on the government projects on such land are paralised pending court ruling.” The byword here is “public infrastructure and development” and assuming that this amendment is being done in the interest of the people, and for the development of the country, this would indeed be a noble idea, for which people should give their support.
However, the people for whose benefit Article 26 is being amended do not think that the above is in their interest.

People have questioned the government’s real motive behind this move and they do not appear to have accepted the explanation given. They say that there are many ways of bringing development to a country and not necessarily through acquiring private land. Therefore, since this amendment is being proposed in their name, and for their benefit, it would be prudent to seek their views and support.
In the first instance, people have noted that there is already public land that has been bequeathed to government for development and for the benefit of the people, such as land which house schools, universities, hospitals, museums and many others not yet developed. They also take particular note that existing developments that were benefiting the people, have in the past been deliberately destroyed, to make way for private investment, and therefore for private interest. A case in point is Shimoni Primary and Demonstration school land, and many other public land on record that are now in private hands.

Secondly, people have also maintained that the present land law is more than adequate to enable government to carry out its development work.

That, in the past, whenever, government demonstrated a clear plan to develop an area, whether in putting up a school, a hospital, a university, installing electric poles, roads, railways, etc, government has never failed to negotiate with the land owners, for such use, after reaching agreement and the payment of adequate compensation. The reasons people have given for the delay of government projects is, therefore, not the delay in acquisition and the payment of compensation, but corruption in the system due to insider dealings, demand for kickbacks, dubious ownership of land and late payments of compensation by government. They question whether if government has failed to pay private land owners where agreement has been reached, what about in a situation where compensation has not been agreed such as the one that government is now proposing.
The only argument that the government has advanced over and above everything else is “faster land acquisition based on valuation by the Chief Government Valuer”, regardless of whether any agreement has been reached or not. To that, people have suggested that government should instead work on the reasons mentioned above for the delay. Furthermore, the delay could also be due to the case backlog in the court system that do not deal with cases of compensation promptly. For that reason, the government can either clean up the court system or set up a special land tribunal, which could deal with such issues without too much delay, and would also help in settling the rampant land disputes in the country. Therefore, it is these areas that government should be working on rather than tampering with a law that is likely to be abused and leave people worse off.
It is important to note that to a Ugandan, land is their life, their children’s lives and the lives of those who are not yet born.

To the rural poor, land maybe their only viable possession. People feel they should have a say in how their land is disposed off, and essentially, this Bill seeks to deny them that option. Ultimately, by the very act of amending Article 26, government is seeking to deny Ugandans their fundamental human rights, and that’s where the problem lies.

Government should strive to develop the country by supporting 70 per cent of its people who are involved in agriculture, with modern commercial farm implements to develop their own land. Outside private investors will only be attracted in a country when government starts to build an enabling environment such as good governance, observing human rights, developing the country’s human capital, ensuring efficiency in government departments, and building strong institutions. This is how government is going to bring development to its people, not by forcefully taking over their private land. After all, long-term investors would not want to invest in land with underlying conflict, whose acquisition is questionable, Apaa land in northern region is a case in point.
Government’s record is being tested and short of proving it can solve endemic corruption, insider dealings, open theft of public assets, practicing good governance, observance of human rights, its actions and motives will remain questionable.

Ms Nyeko-Jones is a UK solicitor/economist/author.