Content uploaded by Samuel B. Mabikke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Samuel B. Mabikke on Apr 24, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
i
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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
ii
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: mabikkes@gmail.com
PhD Candidate - Centre of Land, Water and Environmental Risk Management,
Technische Universität München
Munich- Germany
1
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 state-
orchestrated 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 ( )
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
iii
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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
iv
ACRONYMS
ACODE : Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment
APG : Acholi Parliamentary Group
ARLPI : Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative
CSOPNU : Civil Society Organisations for Peace in Northern Uganda
GDP : Gross Domestic Product
GLP : Global Land Project
GoU : Government of Uganda
HSM : Holy Spirit Movement
IDP : Internally Displaced People
IOM : International Organisation for Migration
ILRI : International Livestock Research Institute
LC : Local Council
MFPED : Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
NRA : National Resistance Army
NRC : Norwegian Refugee Council
NRM : National Resistance Movement
PEAP : Poverty Eradication Action Plan
PRDP : Peace Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda
UBOS : Uganda Bureau of Statistics
UGX : Uganda Shilling
ULC : Uganda Land Commission
UNDP : United Nations Development Programme
UNECE : United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNEP : United Nations Environment Programme
UNLA : United National Liberation Army
UNRF : Uganda National Rescue Front
UPDA : Uganda People’s Democratic Army
UPDF : Uganda People’s Defence Force
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
1
1 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 security
1
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 conflict-
afflicted 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 Uganda
2
. 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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
2
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 districts
3
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)
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
3
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
Late 1988 to February 1994
Phase V Lord Resistance Army (led by Joseph Kony) 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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
4
‘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. CSOPNU
4
(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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
5
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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
6
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 The Land Question in northern Uganda
2.1 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-Ogendo
5
(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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
7
land rights among former IDP. Unfortunately it is the most vulnerable members of society-
women, 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
markets
6
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
region
7
. 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.
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
8
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 use
9
. Moreover, such use rights are often multilayered,
prescribing overlapping rights in a single region or plot, at times using seasonal rotations
10
.
For example, some analysts
11
differentiate 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 districts
12
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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
9
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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
10
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
land
13
. 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 interference
14
.This has
therefore increased a lot of threats to land and has incited Acholi to threaten hostility if the
government does not stop land grabbers
15
.
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.
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
11
HIGH CO URT
CHIEF MAGISTRATE
COURT
SUB-COUNTY CO URT
COMMITTEE
LOCAL COUNCIL II
COURT
CULTURAL
INSTITUTIO NS
Referral
Referral
Referral
Referral
Appeal
Appeal
Appeal
Appeal
UGANDA LAND
COMMISSION
(National level)
DISTRICT LAND BOARDS
(District Level)
AREA LAND COM MITTEE
(Parish Level)
GRASSROOT LEADERS
(Community Level)
Collaborate
Collaborate
Collaborate
Collaborate
Collaborate
LAND ADM INISTRATION
STRUCTURE
LAND ADJUDICATION
STRUCTURE
Figure 2: Land Administration and Adjudication Structure in Northern Uganda
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.
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
12
Figure 3: Traditional Land dispute Resolution structure in Acholi
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
Rwot Kweri
Atekere
Lawang
Rwot
Rwot
Hierarchy
• 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
Responsibilities
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
13
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 District
16
.
Type of land
cases
Registered land cases
from January 2003 to
July 2010
Completed land
cases as at July
2010
Outstanding
land cases as
at July 2010
Percentage of land
cases outstanding as
at July 2010
Civil Suits 444 196 248 55.9%
Civil Appeals
575 274 301 52.3%
Misc
applications
982 486 496 50.5%
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).
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
14
“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
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.
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 workers
17
while 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
Uganda
18
. 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, food-
insecure 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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
15
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
husband
19
” 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
Investor Country Allocated Land
Size (ha)
Purpose
Types of Crops
Agri SA 170,000
Egyptian Agricultural
Ministry
200
Test Farm
Wheat
ILC Blog
Screening
Egypt 809.,71
Food production
Maize, wheat
GTZ
Heibei Company
20
China
40,500
Poultry, Cattle,
maize, rice, wheat
Private investors China 4,046
Rice, cereals
GRAIN Private investors & the
government of Egypt
840,127
Food production
Wheat and maize
for export
Source: Extracted from GLP Report (2010)
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
16
3.3 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.
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.
Grabbing through gradual Encroachment
e.g. State Forets, Wetlands, Parks
Grabbing through Borrowing Land
e.g. for Share cropping
Grabbing through Seizing Opportunity
e.g. After death of head of family
Grabbing by use of Force and Intimidation
e.g. Millitary Influence, Witchcraft etc.
Grabbing using the existing Justice System
e.g. Weak Courts, Local Council
Grabbing by exploiting Dependency
e.g. Guardians of orphaned children
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.
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
17
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.
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
18
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 banners
21
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 consolation
22
. 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 impunity
23
.
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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
19
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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
20
land in Amuru district to the Madhvani Group
25
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 land-
holding 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 7
th
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.
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
21
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 Uganda
26
.
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 land
27
. About 56% of the land cases at the
Magistrate’s Courts are still awaiting judgment
28
. 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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
22
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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
23
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,
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
24
the disputing parties must meet the costs of the Chief Magistrate’s movement
29
; 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.
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
25
6 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.
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
26
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, Saarbrücken-
Germany.
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
LAND GRABBING IN POST CONFLICT REGIONS OF NORTHERN UGANDA. SAMUEL B. MABIKKE
27
End Notes
1
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).
2
The New Vision Friday 24th, April 2009. http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/679164 accessed 10th
January 2011
3
These 13 districts are geographically defined based on the statistical demarcation by the Uganda Bureau
of Statistics
4
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
5
H.W.O. Okoth-Ogendo, is a Professor of Public Law at the University of Nairobi.
6
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.
7
Sustaining Positive Momentum in Northern Uganda http://northernuganda.usvpp.gov/momentum.html
8
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
9
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-first-
Century Africa,” September 8-10, the Hague, the Netherlands, 459
10
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.
11
E.g., Stephen Leisz, “Madagascar Country Profile,” Ed. John Bruce Profiles of Land Tenure, Africa:
1996, Research Paper no. 130, 233
12
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.
13
Refer to Chapter 15 Article 241 Section 2 of the Uganda Constitution.
14
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-District-
Land-Board
15
Acholi land next point of hostility http://www.independent.co.ug/index.php/column/comment/70-
comment/452-acholi-land-next-point-of-hostility
16
The data provided in this table was provided by Gulu District’s Chief Magistrate Omodo Nyanga Joseph
on 12 August 2010.
17
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
18
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”.
19
The “caretaker husbands” usually ended up marrying the widows. However due to HIV/AIDS, this
practice is becoming less common in Uganda.
20
Signed for the first 1000 ha further farms planned.
21
Yellow is the colour of the ruling NRM Government led by President Museveni
22
See The New Vision 30 May 2006 http://allafrica.com/stories/200605311460.html
23
LEMU op. cit.
24
Part of the problem is that all courts are charging illegal fees much more that the official fees stated.
25
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.
26
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.
27
LEMU (2009). Why is the legal system failing to protect people’s land rights?
28
See Table 2: Backlog of Land Cases at the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Gulu District
29
For more details see UNDP/IOM/ NRC (2010:35)
