Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 625285,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/625285/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 141,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Oyugi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 444,
        "legal_name": "Augostinho Neto Oyugi",
        "slug": "augostinho-neto-oyugi"
    },
    "content": "The second thing is the definition of “community of interest”. I have read the fact that Article 63(1) of the Constitution does not respect community of interest, which does not mean only interests in land. The community of interest that this particular Bill tries to seek to define only limits the definition of “community interest” as those that are inherent in land. Some of these things need to be tidied up. If the particular definitions are not tidied up, the Community Land Bill will fall on its face because people who are not communities will become community land owners. We will lose it from the word “go”. Clause 7 of this Bill warns people to lay claim of interest. That will again go counter to the aspirations of Article 63 of the Constitution because it does not anticipate that you will have to lay claim. It only shows that you ought to be a community and have community land in the manner that is anticipated. There are several other things. I am happy that the Members of the Departmental Committee have said that there are very good amendments. However, Clause 12 makes a very interesting distinction. It explains how community land could be held as communal land, family land, reserve land or any other category. The particular Clause 15 that purports to give the CS powers in classifying and registering land takes away what the Bill has already given in Clause 12. Clause 12 tries to distinguish what that holding ought to be. So, what is this that we are giving the Cabinet Secretary (CS) under Clause 15 to do? I think a registration regime ought to proceed from what you have defined in Clause 12. I am happy you have noted that the Committee on Delegated Legislation - which I also sit in - has the power to annul a couple of regulations that are made by the CS. But some of them have always gone ahead, done the regulations and implemented them even without the approval of Parliament! That then puts the House of Parliament at such a crazy position. So, for purposes of safeguarding those interests, it is true that the CS ought to make regulations. But I think that it is already distinguished in Clause 12. There is something that is curious in Clause 12 of this Bill. It is giving the communities permission to plan on how they want to use their land and then take it to the county governments for approval, I thought this is a reverse. I am hoping the Member for Samburu North did invoke the principle of eminent domain and such other things. Although the community owns the land, I think in terms of user rights, user issues and how they want to deal with the land, they ought to gain approvals from the county government. Although it is trust land, you can only deal with land in a manner that you propose, but not without authority from the various organs. Otherwise, you will have various communities dealing with land in various manners and that will not be very tidy. Clause 22 is my interest. I have heard several Members speak to the fact that conversion of land under Clause 22 is a good thing. This is my worry! The Hon. Chair of the Departmental Committee on Lands did speak to the fact that land is ordinarily in three holdings. It is either private, public or community land. The moment you start dealing with community land in a manner that is possible to convert, then you have a big problem because you have many people with interests. You will end up with little cartels or a few groups of people, especially if it proceeds in the definition of this Bill where you have a registered community which is not the ancestral community as we know it. You will have all the community land being converted in a manner that may not be very good to this community. Clause 29 talks about grazing rights and limiting those rights. The moment you have rights being taken away in the manner Clause 29 supposes, you are denying the livelihood of a 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."
}