Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 625234,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/625234/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 90,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. A. B. Duale",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 15,
        "legal_name": "Aden Bare Duale",
        "slug": "aden-duale"
    },
    "content": "Clause 39 of the Bill recognises the State, under Article 66 of the Constitution. The State is given the powers to regulate the use of the land or interest in or the right over the land. These interests include the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health and land use planning. So, under Clause 39, the land belongs to the community but the State has certain overriding provisions. Hon. Speaker, these provisions include in the interest of defence. If it is about national security, the State can take that land and put up a military base for purposes of defending the country. The State can do so in the interest of public safety. If the Government anticipates a volcanic eruption to take place on a certain piece of land, the State can acquire it. The State can also acquire a piece of land in order to maintain public order. You can claim that a certain piece of land is your community’s shrine, and that you meet there periodically to worship when the truth is that you use such functions to cause public disorder. In such instances, the State can reclaim parts of such community land to maintain public order. The State can also reclaim community land if it turns out to be a threat to public morality. If you decide to create a park on your community land and use it for immoral activities, like moving around while you are nude – the State can decide that such activities are a threat to public morality and reclaim such land. If that land is a threat to public health and land use planning, the State has overriding provisions. Despite the vesting of the management and administration of land on registered communities, Clause 39 also subjects the management of community land to national Government laws and policies. This relates to policies relating to fishing, hunting and gathering, protection of animals and wildlife, water and forestry. You can rightly claim that ancestral land belongs to your community but if it is put to a kind of use that contradicts the laws that we have passed in this House, the State has overriding powers. Clauses 40, 41 and 42 mainly deal with settlement of disputes relating to community land through traditional dispute resolution mechanisms. The Bill recognises the fact that neighbouring communities as well as individuals within communities can have disputes over land. Clauses 40, 41 and 42 provide guidelines on how to settle such disputes. Clauses 43 to 48 contain general provisions, including offences of occupying community land unlawfully and general penalties for such offences. The clauses also provide for repeals, savings and transitional regulations. Therefore, I request Hon. Members to support this Bill because it is a constitutional Bill. It is very important. Eighty per cent of the disputes that we have in all the 47 counties are about land and moreso community land. In the last Parliament, this House passed the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) Act but it has taken the IEBC many years to operationalise the boundaries. They are only focusing on the electoral part. We have a serious time bomb. There are serious constituency and boundary issues. We have serious boundary issues between Makueni and Taita Taveta counties, between Garissa and Wajir counties, between Isiolo and Meru counties, between Baringo and Turkana counties as well as in parts of Kitui, Murang’a and Kiambu counties. Kiambu County has expanded to Murang’a County and Murang’a County has expanded to Kiambu County, according to different arguments. All the 47 counties have disputes. There is also a serious boundary issue between Kisumu and Vihiga counties over the Maseno area. We have serious disputes. I do not know why the IEBC is only dealing with the electoral part of its functions. They must operationalise the boundary commission, which is their function. I am sure that once we enact all the subsequent laws, including this important Community Land Bill, we will resolve such disputes. This subject The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}