Sunday, November 27, 2011

The Land Question rears its ugly head again

The Government of Kenya may have acted within the letter of the law when it came to the demolition of houses constructed on land it claimed as its own, but no one with an ounce of humanity in them could deny that the spirit of the law was flouted egregiously. The images of grown men and women in tears and the confused, shattered faces of children out in the rain and cold should have turned the hardened heart of the state. There should, at the very least, been an acknowledgment that the persons who had purported to purchase land in Syokimau could not have done so without the active connivance of officers of the government.

The Land Question in Kenya is proving to be the nut that cannot be cracked. The Ministry of Lands published the National Land Policy in 2009 against the opposition of well-connected robber-barons of the Moi and Kenyatta Eras. The spirit of the Policy was entrenched in the Constitution ratified a year later and formed the basis of Chapter Five. However, many men and women have been victims of fraud when it comes to their dealings in land and the pain and suffering some of them are enduring today can be traced back to the dark days when Ardhi House was home to every shade of crook and conman known to man. While the Law Society of Kenya is lauded for having highlighted the shortcomings of the Ministry in the middle of this year, it is not absolved of involvement in the state of affairs there as man advocates of good standing were and continue to be involved in the shady goings-on that have landed the victims of the demolitions in the plight they find themselves today.

Land has always been used as a political weapon in Kenya, and the land clashes that rocked parts of the Rift Valley and Coast Provinces before the 2002 general elections can be traced to decisions that were made and enforced by Presidents Moi and Kenyatta during their long reigns. President Kibaki failed in acting speedily to reverse the rot that permeated the Ministry of Lands. However, with the National Land Policy and his spirited campaign for the Constitution, surely we must admit that he has redeemed himself. If the reforms that he has initiated come to pass, he will have done more to change the manner that we address the Land Question for a generation, at least. While we must sympathise with the victims of the demolitions today, we must be patient for all the reforms to be implemented in the land sector. The incidences where the Commissioner of Lands denies the authenticity of title deeds will be things of the past.

As always, politicians have taken advantage of the plights of their constituents to make hay while the demolition sun is shining. Hon Wavinya Ndeti and Hon Ferdinand Waititu have decided to take a front-line role in calling for enquiries into the demolitions and the circumstances surrounding the allocation of the land to the victims. They forget that over the four odd years they have been Members of Parliament, they have done little in the way of calling for or pursuing reforms that will protect their constituents from the actions of the very same government they serve as Assistant Ministers. Their utterances run the risk of inflaming already fraught emotions and igniting a fire that no one can put out save the government and its use of force. Going into an election year it may seem as smart politics to incite people against their government, but the effects may be much larger than the MPs intend. If they are not careful they may incite violence among the people that may lead to a situation as was witnessed after the last general elections. President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga must step in and guide the process even f it means spending tax-payers money to assist the victims resettle elsewhere. It is the only way that we can avoid the mistakes of 2007 and 2008 and instill a sense of confidence in the government and its institutions.

No comments:

Mr. Omtatah's faith and our rights

Clause (2) of Article 32 of the Constitution states that, " Every person has the right, either individually or in community with others...