Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 627636,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/627636/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 184,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Ottichilo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 131,
        "legal_name": "Wilber Ottichilo Khasilwa",
        "slug": "wilber-ottichilo"
    },
    "content": "Having said that, I have quite a number of comments to make regarding the Bill and specifically the issues that I am going to flag out that need to be given due consideration. The first thing has to do with the terminologies used in the Bill. They must be very clear. For example, the definition given of “community” needs to be re-looked into. The way it is may be very confusing and could cause a lot of problems later during the implementation process of the law. A “community” is defined as an organized group of users of community land. What we need to ask ourselves is: In practice, do all the people use community land in an organized way? Do they behave in an organised manner in terms of land use? The issue of a group of users is very important and, therefore, we must look at the definition. I find this definition not very particular and clear. Also, when it comes to “community land”, it has been defined in the Constitution under Article 63(2), but we need to go further and give what we mean when defining community land. Otherwise, we may land in a lot of problems. The definition of “community” and “community land” need to be looked into and more consultation should be done. Equally, there is this term “community reserve land”. Again, this is very confusing and opens a lot of interpretation. If I read it, this is how it has been structured:- “Community reserve land” means any land set aside for communal or land allocated by the registered community for individual occupation and use”. I want us to look at the issue of individual occupation and use. That can bring a lot of problems. As we look at this Bill, we must look at the practical aspect of it and go back to history to see what happened. I am happy some of the Members in this House come from those eras. We used to have Group Ranches Act, which was, indeed, to implement what this Bill is expecting to implement. The Group Ranches Act provided that people can be given small parcels of land for settlement. Later on, members of the group ranches started agitating for sub-division of group ranches. I can remember very well the way group ranches were structured and demarcated and they took into consideration all the ecological considerations. They looked at the grazing systems and were real ecologically viable entities. But what happened when they became group ranches and when we brought in families or clans together? Immediately, there were fights. People started wanting to have their own land. There was even the issue of land use. Some families said that they did not have large stocks of livestock and, therefore, the other families were overusing the land more than them. In that scenario, disputes arose. That is why when you go to Narok and Kajiado, all these group ranches have been sub- divided. Therefore, we must be very careful because this law could be a way of opening a Pandora’s box whereby we will end up sub-dividing all the range lands which are not sustainable in terms of arable land use. The other terminology which again I want to be re-examined is “fragile ecosystem”. It is defined as:- “Fragile ecosystem” means an ecosystem hosting threatened biodiversity. 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."
}