Talk us through your previous ministerial appointment to the Lands docket…
Being appointed Minister of Lands took me by surprise. I didn’t plan for it. I didn’t lobby for it. President Museveni rang me and said, ‘I’m taking you, come and serve with me. The country is for all of us’.
I remember my first day in office. I was wondering what I was supposed to do because there was nobody to induct me. So, I asked: Why are people suffering in these land issues?
Number one, corruption. I knew corruption comes when there is no structure and no procedure for doing things. Number two, I said I must find out what happens in these land registries. I made my first visit around Kampala.
I went to Masindi, Lira and found that there was little business and very little organisational structure. People were never in the office, and no work was being done. I had not given them advance notice that I was coming.
So, I asked which was the biggest land office in Uganda. I was told Wakiso, which brings in Shs3b per day into the coffers of the government in terms of Stamp Duty, mortgage registration and transfers. I decided to start from there.
I did my research because I wanted to find out what happens there [at the Wakiso land office]. One word came out: Mess. […] I ordered the closure of the office until Tuesday of the following week.
During the period, security was deployed there. […] The office was reopened under circumstances I can’t explain here. The good thing is it was opened, and everybody was ordered to go back, but a task force was immediately put in place.
As I talk now, Wakiso land office, especially the Busiro section, is a centre of excellence. It is a one-stop centre. There is a bank there. As soon as they assess what you have to pay, it is paid at the bank, and the transaction is done. I understand the mortgage can be done the same day you submit.
Having done Busiro, I decided to go to Bukalasa [in Luweero District], where I found another mess. I did the same-dismissed people who were there. I was told it can’t be done and that there was someone untouchable. I went for him.
Now, Bukalasa is nearly completed. The biggest land practices are Wakiso, Bukalasa and Mukono. If you get those right, then you have sorted out almost everything.
There is still work to be done, but we had to start somewhere. Now those same offices testify that from the Shs100m they were collecting before my actions, the three land offices-Wakiso, Bukalasa and Mukono-now collect Shs1 trillion in Stamp Duty.
How have you been applying the law as the Lands minister?
Section 48 of the Registration of Titles Act, I think, prioritises titles. The first prevails over the others. So, mine was to say: Bring your titles […] I would say this is the right one, and then order the cancellation of the others.
Now [President Museveni] has directed the perfection of the Land Information System, where everything is digitalised. You enter the title; the system tells you whether there is already an existing one. You want to get a title in a forest, the system tells you this is a forest, you can’t have a title in it.
Now, the main issues are that the majority of the people on the land have no titles. They are legal, bona fide occupants. But the law gives them security of occupancy, and that has created another problem.
You have now created two owners on the same piece of land. I have a title which is recognised by the Constitution. That is the only way land is vested in me. But there are people occupying that land, and another Article grants them security of occupancy. So, his occupancy is guaranteed constitutionally.
That is where the clash is. People have refused to recognise the limitations put on the title by the Land Act. It says if the legal bona fide occupant pays the rent, then don’t touch him. But how much is that rent? Shs5,000. Even the cost of collecting that rent is higher.
So, the title holders quote the Registration Act, which states that the person whose name appears on the title is the owner of the land. But the man occupying the land, says the Constitution guarantees me occupancy and that’s fortified by the Land Act.
So, now the Kibanja holder [bona fide occupant] doesn’t have the title to take to the bank to get credit or a loan. But also, the title owner can’t get a loan from the bank because the land is full of bona fide occupants.
The problem is legal-you can’t have two people on the same piece of land, both claiming ownership of the land and both recognised by the law. That must be separated, and it requires a constitutional provision.
There are four tenures. The Bibanja holders have no land invested in them. So, they are discriminated against constitutionally. They have never put in place a law where the Bibanja holders would have titles. There must be a constitutional amendment to ensure that it is revised.
When you look at all tenures, they all end up being freehold. There is a provision that allows a leasehold to be converted to freehold. Customary can be converted to freehold, freehold is freehold, Mailo is freehold.
Let us have a constitutional amendment: Let us have one tenure, and whoever is on the Kibanja should get a title. I see no problem with each Kibanja holder getting a title of the land he is occupying and getting a freehold title for it.
I think the issue is the compensation value, but we can say give me Shs5,000 for 100 years, which can’t even get to Shs1m. It is useless keeping things the way they are because of compensation value.
The chief government valuer three years ago came out with the valuation of Shs47 trillion-that’s what the government requires to compensate landlords so that Bibanja holders can have titles. I confronted him and asked on what basis he came up with this? What is the beneficial interest that justifies paying these trillions?
First of all, when there is a Kibanja holder, there is no beneficial value except Shs5,000. Eventually, when you investigate you find that there are those behind him who don’t want this thing to happen.
Is that all to Uganda’s land question?
There is somebody who owns land, but we don’t know under which law he owns it. Ninety-one square miles of land belong to the traditional ruler [Kabaka] of Buganda. I always ask them under which law does he own the land? Then they tell me there was a Restitution Act. How can you restitute what wasn’t taken?
The law is very clear that what is restored is what was confiscated by the 1967 Constitution. There is nothing that was confiscated from them under the 1967 Constitution.
Even a simple look at the history is clear: the beginning was the 1900 agreement, which divided Buganda into two-half private mailo, half went to government, it became public land.
Now private mailo was divided into two-official mailo and private mailo. Official mailo was the public land on which the Ssazzas, Gombolala resided. The official mailo was governed by the 1919 official ordinance, which clearly states how that land is governed. It is that Act that governed that land until 1967.
The other one that went to the public was under the Crown Ordinance of 1903, and in 1962, when we were about to get independence, the government put in place the Public Land Ordinance. It converted the Crown Lands into freehold and created district land boards and federal land boards in which the public land was transferred.
Buganda, for example, the government created federal body called the Buganda Land Board; not this one you are hearing about: The limited one. This one was a statutory body and it was in all federal units of the body.
Then, in 1966, what I call a successful revolution happened, and all these federal units were swept away. So public land came from the federal boards to the Uganda Land Commission. So, which land was confiscated from them? Nothing.
There must be an amendment to bring the Traditional Rulers Act to conform with the Constitution. Anybody, who claims that he has land and claims that the Traditional Rulers Act to be his authority, he has air.
What will be your modus operandi as Uganda’s Attorney General?
I think my fidelity to the law is going to be key. As head of the bar, I’m supposed to ensure that the Bar has a good relationship with the Judiciary and with [the] government. The issue is the performance of the Judiciary. The lawyers aren’t satisfied, and the public is unsatisfied.
The song of the Judiciary was that they don’t have enough judges. They don’t have enough retirement packages. Even their current package isn’t good. Even the premises they operate in aren’t good.
Ugandan judges, when you look at the African continent, are the best paid. And when they are retired, they go with three-quarters of their emoluments up to the time of their departure from this world.
The number of judicial officials has increased. Office accommodation has improved. […] The Judiciary has run out of excuses. Why aren’t they performing? We have given suggestions. The law already provides that where such a situation exists, I think the Chief Justice can turn to the Bar, and any litigant can be appointed as an acting judge.
For example, 30 advocates can be appointed as acting judges in the lands [division], and they go back to their Bar. The Judiciary will remain with its lean staff, and the government will not have to recruit bodyguards or buy new cars.
At the stroke of a pen, a temporary budget, which is not part of the current one, will cover these 30 lawyers who are now acting judges, and the backlog will be eliminated within two or three years.
Why isn’t this done, and instead, you ask for a bigger perk? You ask for bigger cars. You ask for bigger numbers. This is not sustainable.