Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 641723,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/641723/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 189,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ogolla",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1264,
        "legal_name": "Gideon Ochanda Ogolla",
        "slug": "gideon-ochanda-ogolla"
    },
    "content": "portions of land can be put aside for taking care of interests that are unforeseen and circumstances for which we are demarcating or portioning out interests on land. This is good but one has to check it in terms of the history that we have had in settling people. The big question is: “Who do you settle? Who qualifies to be settled on land that is put aside for such purposes?” We have the history of the political problems that we had before. If we are setting aside land so that if anybody is evicted from his or her land – bought or ancestral – can be settled elsewhere because we have a settlement fund and a settlement arrangement it might not be right. This is something which has to be checked properly. It is about who are to be settled, at what stage and under what circumstances. This is a critical matter that the Bill might have to address. Another issue that this Bill has addressed very well is eviction. Evictions have been bad. We have had evictions carried out at night and we have had a lot of property destroyed. People have been left homeless. The Bill has come up with clear indications. If we are at all to do eviction, they must be orderly. Adequate notices must be given in a manner that everybody can access them. The Bill does very well on evictions, particularly with regard to informal settlements in urban areas. This has been a big problem. Part of it was occasioned by the former local authorities. If we are not careful, even the current county governments can do things like raiding informal settlements overnight without notice simply because people were squatting in one area or another. The Bill looks at how well we handle evictions. The biggest issue I have with the Bill is in three or two areas. One is Clause 151 in its entirety, and how this is related to Article 68(c)(i) of the Constitution. Our Constitution indicates that for purposes of minimum and maximum acreages that one can hold, the National Assembly shall come up with legislation. The Constitution says that Parliament shall enact legislation to prescribe minimum and maximum land holding acreages in respect of private land but this Bill is telling us that it is the CS who shall do this. That is a contradiction that needs to be looked at. It is not the CS but Parliament that shall come up with legislation. The Bill is telling us that it is the CS who should come up with guidelines. If it is the CS to come up with the guidelines and the Constitution is on the other hand telling us it is Parliament to enact legislation, there is a very serious contradiction to be cured. That is regardless of the many things that follow under Section 159 of the legislation. The other thing I have a problem with in the Bill is what we call “control land.” If one looks at it in a very keen way, he or she will find that it is over a million acres. We can talk about control of land in terms of borders. We are talking about a radius of 25 kilometres. This is a very big chunk of land that is between the border inwards. It is different from what we normally refer to as “the border area” between two countries. Looking at it critically, a lot of that land will fall on what we call “community land areas.” In the Western Region of this country, part of Busia County and some areas touching Mt. Elgon are freehold lands. This Bill is telling us that those areas need to be controlled. For purposes of security, it makes sense but in terms of transiting from the freehold arrangement to what this Bill is calling “controlled lands” it does not make sense. The Bill allows the use of controlled land but it says that you must have a minimum of 50 acres. What happens to someone in Teso with three acres of land touching the border? That land is obviously within the 25 kilometres of the controlled area that we are talking about. I have a big problem with Clause 58 of this Bill and all its attendant sub-clauses and provisions that support the issue of control land. This has to be looked at very seriously. 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."
}