Connect with us

NGO WORK

Kampala District Land Board Chairperson Nsimbambi Reveals City Land Grabbers’ Techniques

Published

on

The investigations into Land management in Uganda are on-going by the judicial Commission of inquiry chaired by Justice Catherine Bamugemereire.

Among the witnesses that have appeared before a seven-member commission so far, is Yusuf Nsibambi, the chairperson, Kampala District Land Board.

But when he interfaced with the Commission on May19th 2017, Nsibambi, sounded frustrated not only for being paid peanuts with his commissioners, but also informed the committee about what he termed as a “curtail” in which land grabbers in Kampala associate themselves, thus revealing the techniques they apply to dupe his board with a view of siphoning tax payers’ money in connivance with various government officials.

Although he raised many other issues, the second outstanding one is lack of financial support to the board. He revealed that whereas his board fetches more than Shs 8bn annually into Kampala Capital City Authority’s coffers, the Authority fails to prioritize the remuneration of the board members to the extent that he is being paid just Shs 350,000 in his capacity as their chairperson per month.

Nsibambi thus suggested that its perhaps low earnings by his board members that leads not only corruption tendencies amongst members, but inefficiency in service delivery by his team.

witnessradio.org, brings you Nsibambi’s presentation before the Commission of Inquiry on these two particular issues verbatim.

To me, I would request this Commission to investigate further the issue of land grabbers and speculators (in Kampala) even if it involves me or the board.

It is almost curtail in Kampala because I don’t know about other boards elsewhere that there are people who have schemes of grabbing land of the vulnerable and public properties. This curtail  has established structures at the Ministry of lands, within city hall, it is fuelled, so powerful and they have control of all the structures to the extent that they actually have an inventory of land which we may also not be having as a board.

Specifically for land under our control, there are people who have running genuine leases but may be not in Uganda especially Asians, but members of this curtail would access information I don’t know whether from Ministry of lands or registry and would hide a file to appear that this land has no claimant or the lease expired.

They would even come and even add documents to your won file giving a position which is not the true position on the ground. Given that we are not facilitated and the board basically is not a permanent board, they would support a lease application supported by the area land committee recommending that the land is available or the lease expired.

So, when you carry out a search and you go to the Ministry of Lands, you would get a folio of an expired lease. When you go on ground if you have a site visit, they would organize a site visit with the person claiming to be the chairman of LC1… So, in the process, you would issue a report of lease offer, but after two weeks, you get a person saying now I am the true owner of land.

He sues the District land board and KCCA as the party that received money and within one or two months, there is judgment yet other cases are taking years and the rewards in judgments are in billions.

So, the person who lost that land, the land grabber is also suing to be awarded billions and we have about Shs 10bn as a result of judgments of this nature, but we are still questioning them.

The speculators have titles. I know this curtail is very dangerous because the settlements are carried out by insiders in KCCA without even involving us. Actually, this is the greatest challenge that I would seek your indulgence to investigate further because cases are swiftly heard and determined by courts.

We shall provide you with those cases in camera.

Lack of financial support

The board members are paid meager allowances which are not commensurate to our workload. I raise this personally because if you look at the chairperson (me) get Shs 50,000 per sitting, retainer of Shs 350,000 per month, fuel allowance of Shs 180,000 and gratuity of 40% .

Members (of the board) get Shs 50,000 per sitting, Shs 350,000 per month, and Shs 180,000 for fuel.

So, I sometimes, find it hard to raise the quorum which slows our work and sometimes fail to convene meetings because members feel that their entitlements are not enough.

The board gets an imprest  of Shs 419,000  a month and this is supposed to cater for all procurements including site visits which makes our work quite difficult. For effective discharge of the board work, we have repeatedly requested support in the following areas but in vain

We requested for a 14-seater vehicle for us to carry out such visits which are very important in ascertaining who owns what and the nature of land. We often get assistance from the applicants which make it difficult for us to deny an application from a person who gave us a lift.

We requested for a digital camera to enable us take shots in the field but we have never received it seven years later…

We raise a lot of revenue from our work, for example last year, we rose close to Shs8bn, but that money goes to KCCA fund because we are not mandated to manage funds.

In our second part of Nsibambi’s testimonies before the Commission of Inquiry, we will inform you his suggestions on Buganda Land Board and the land policy

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NGO WORK

Climate wash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights

Published

on

Climate wash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights reveals how the Bank is appropriating climate commitments made at the Conference of the Parties (COP) to justify its multibillion-dollar initiative to “formalize” land tenure across the Global South. While the Bank claims that it is necessary “to access land for climate action,” Climatewash uncovers that its true aim is to open lands to agribusiness, mining of “transition minerals,” and false solutions like carbon credits – fueling dispossession and environmental destruction. Alongside plans to spend US$10 billion on land programs, the World Bank has also pledged to double its agribusiness investments to US$9 billion annually by 2030.

This report details how the Bank’s land programs and policy prescriptions to governments dismantle collective land tenure systems and promote individual titling and land markets as the norm, paving the way for private investment and corporate takeover. These reforms, often financed through loans taken by governments, force countries into debt while pushing a “structural transformation” that displaces smallholder farmers, undermines food sovereignty, and prioritizes industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

Drawing on a thorough analysis of World Bank programs from around the world, including case studies from Indonesia, Malawi, Madagascar, the Philippines, and Argentina, Climatewash documents how the Bank’s interventions are already displacing communities and entrenching land inequality. The report debunks the Bank’s climate action rhetoric. It details how the Bank’s efforts to consolidate land for industrial agriculture, mining, and carbon offsetting directly contradict the recommendations of the IPCC, which emphasizes the protection of lands from conversion and overexploitation and promotes practices such as agroecology as crucial climate solutions.

Read full report: Climatewash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights

Source: The Oakland Institute

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Africa’s Land Is Not Empty: New Report Debunks the Myth of “Unused Land” and Calls for a Just Future for the Continent’s Farmland

Published

on

A new report challenges one of the most persistent and harmful myths shaping Africa’s development agenda — the idea that the continent holds vast expanses of “unused” or “underutilised” land waiting to be transformed into industrial farms or carbon markets.

Titled Land Availability and Land-Use Changes in Africa (2025), the study exposes how this colonial-era narrative continues to justify large-scale land acquisitions, displacements, and ecological destruction in the name of progress.

Drawing on extensive literature reviews, satellite data, and interviews with farmers in Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, the report systematically dismantles five false assumptions that underpin the “land abundance” narrative:

  1. That Africa has vast quantities of unused arable land available for cultivation

  2. That modern technology can solve Africa’s food crisis

  3. That smallholder farmers are unproductive and incapable of feeding the continent

  4. That markets and higher yields automatically improve food access and nutrition

  5. That industrial agriculture will generate millions of decent jobs

Each of these claims, the report finds, is deeply flawed. Much of the land labelled as “vacant” is, in reality, used for grazing, shifting cultivation, foraging, or sacred and ecological purposes. These multifunctional landscapes sustain millions of people and are far from empty.

The study also shows that Africa’s food systems are already dominated by small-scale farmers, who produce up to 80% of the continent’s food on 80% of its farmland. Rather than being inefficient, their agroecological practices are more resilient, locally adapted, and socially rooted than the industrial models promoted by external donors and corporations.

Meanwhile, the promise that industrial agriculture will lift millions out of poverty has not materialised. Mechanisation and land consolidation have displaced labour, while dependency on imported seeds and fertilisers has trapped farmers in cycles of debt and dependency.

A Continent Under Pressure

Beyond these myths, the report reveals a growing land squeeze as multiple global agendas compete for Africa’s territory: the expansion of mining for critical minerals, large-scale carbon-offset schemes, deforestation for timber and commodities, rapid urbanisation, and population growth.

Between 2010 and 2020, Africa lost more than 3.9 million hectares of forest annually — the highest deforestation rate in the world. Grasslands, vital carbon sinks and grazing ecosystems, are disappearing at similar speed.

Powerful actors — from African governments and Gulf states to Chinese investors, multinational agribusinesses, and climate-finance institutions — are driving this race for land through opaque deals that sideline local communities and ignore customary tenure rights.

A Call for a New Vision

The report calls for a radical shift away from high-tech, market-driven, land-intensive models toward people-centred, ecologically grounded alternatives. Its key policy recommendations include:

  • Promoting agroecology as a pathway for food sovereignty, ecological regeneration, and rural livelihoods.

  • Reducing pressure on land by improving agroecological productivity, cutting food waste, and prioritising equitable distribution.

  • Rejecting carbon market schemes that commodify land and displace communities.

  • Legally recognising customary land rights, particularly for women and Indigenous peoples.

  • Upholding the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all land-based investments.

This report makes it clear: Africa’s land is not “empty” — it is lived on, worked on, and cared for. The future of African land must not be dictated by global capital or outdated development theories, but shaped by the people who depend on it.

Download the Report

Read the full report Land Availability and Land-Use Changes in Africa (2025) to explore the evidence and policy recommendations in detail.

Source: Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Discover How Foreign Interests and Resource Extraction Continue to Drive Congo’s Crisis

Published

on

Whereas Donald Trump hailed the “peace” agreement between Rwanda and DRC as marking the end of a deadly three-decade war, a new report from the Oakland Institute, Shafted: The Scramble for Critical Minerals in the DRC, exposes it as the latest US maneuver to control Congolese critical minerals.

Under the Guise of Peace

After three decades of deadly wars and atrocities, the June 2025 “peace” deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) lays bare the United States’ role in entrenching the extraction of minerals under the guise of diplomacy. For decades, US backing of Rwanda and Uganda has fueled the violence, which has ripped millions of Congolese lives apart while enabling the looting of the country’s mineral wealth. Today, Washington presents itself as a broker of peace, yet its longstanding support for Rwanda made it possible for M23 to seize territory, capture key mining sites, and forced Kinshasa to the negotiation table with hands tied behind its back. By legitimizing Rwanda’s territorial advances, the US-brokered agreement effectively rewards aggression while sidelining accountability, justice for victims, and the sovereignty of the Congolese people.

The incorporation of “formalized” mineral supply chains from eastern DRC to Rwanda exposes the pact’s true aim: Securing access to and control over minerals under the guise of diplomacy and “regional integration.” Framed as peacemaking, this is part of United States’ broader geopolitical struggle with China for control over critical resources. Far from fostering peace – over a thousand civilians have been killed since the deal was signed while parallel negotiations with Rwanda’s rebel force have collapsed – this arrangement risks deepening Congo’s subjugation. Striking deals with the Trump administration and US firms, the DRC government is surrendering to a new era of exploitation while the raging war continues, driving the unbearable suffering of the Congolese people.

Introduction

The conflict in eastern DRC, which dates back three decades to the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide and subsequent Congo Wars, has claimed over six million lives, displaced millions more, and inflicted widespread suffering. Since late 2021, Rwanda and its proxy militia, M23, have stormed through mineral-rich lands and regional capitals, inflicting brutal violence and triggering mass displacement. While billions of dollars in natural resources are extracted from the area, Congolese communities toil in extreme poverty.

On June 27, 2025, a “peace” agreement was signed between Rwanda and the DRC under the auspices of the Trump administration, with diplomatic assistance from Qatar.1 The deal included pledges to respect the territorial integrity of both countries, to promote peaceful relations through the disarmament of armed groups, the return of refugees, and the creation of a joint security mechanism. A key clause commits the countries to launch a regional economic integration framework that would entail “mutually beneficial partnerships and investment opportunities,” specifically for the extraction of the DRC’s mineral wealth by US private interests.

Placing the deal in a historical perspective – after three decades of conflict and over seven decades of US chess game around Congolese minerals – this report examines its implications for the Congolese people as well as the interests involved in the plunder of the country’s resources.

The report begins by retracing 30 years of war, fueled by the looting of Congo’s mineral wealth and devastating for the people of eastern DRC. It then examines how US policy in Central Africa, from the Cold War to the present, has been shaped by its interest in Congolese minerals, sustained alliances with Rwanda and Uganda, and a consistent pattern of overlooking atrocities in support of these allies.

The report then analyses the implications of the regional economic integration aspect of the deal, which aims to link mineral supply chains in the DRC and Rwanda with US investors. The last sections examine the prospect for lasting peace and security resulting from the deal and the impact of growing involvement of US private actors in DRC and Rwanda.

Original Source: Oakland Institute

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter