Connect with us

WITNESS RADIO MILESTONES

Reasons for the landless Buganda Land Board

Published

on

Once upon a time, there was a public body which went by the name, the Buganda Land Board. This body was set up under Chapter X11 of the 1962 Constitution to manage public land in Buganda. This public body had its roots in the 1900 Agreement (Uganda/Buganda Agreement) under which various chunks of land of varying sizes were grabbed from natives and given away to various individuals, chieftains and religious groups.  The chunks of land given away were neither surveyed nor did they have any known tenancy category in the Kiganda culture.  The colonial authorities eventually regularised this land grabbing and in 1908 enacted a legislation known as The Land Law of June 15, 1908. This law created two tenancies.  Under Section 2 thereof, a tenancy known as Mailo was created.  The section specifically stated to hold land in a manner described in that section “will be known as holding Mailo, and land of this description will be called Mailo”. Section 5 created a second tenancy which was described as that land which a chieftainship shall hold for the time he shall hold the chieftainship. It stipulated that he shall be entitled to take all the profits from that land, but when he leaves that chieftainship, the successor chief will take over the land. In the words of Section 5(c) “to hold land in this manner, will be called to hold official mailo.” The actual demarcation of both the mailoand the official mailo tenancies was not done until five years later when the Buganda Agreement (Allotment and Survey) Law of 1913 was enacted.

Since the mailo was under the control of individuals, or bodies to which it was allocated, it was necessary to put in place a statutory public body to manage the official mailo and herein lay the origin of the Buganda Land Board.  The chieftainships holding official mailo were diverse, covering saza chiefs, gombolola chiefs, land held under chieftainships of the Katikiro, Omulamuzi, Omuwanika and others described in the 1900 Agreement and elsewhere in the subsequent laws as official mailo.  Indeed even the chunk of land allocated to the Kabaka under the 1900 Agreement was converted to official mailo under Section 2(b) of the June 15, 1908 Land Law. The Buganda Land Board under whose authority the administration of the officialmailo was placed was a statutory body of the Uganda Protectorate. It should be noted that at the conclusion of 1900 Agreement, the Uganda Protectorate consisted of only one province and that was the Buganda Kingdom. The 1900 Agreement in Article 3 envisaged “other Provinces” which were in future to be added to the Province of Buganda Kingdom and indeed when the final demarcations of the Uganda Protectorate were made, three other provinces namely; the Western Province, the Eastern and the Northern provinces had all been created and the four formed the Uganda Protectorate which eventually emerged into the current independent Republic of Uganda.

When the Uganda Protectorate gained Independence, the Constitution of the newly independent State of Uganda, so fit to dedicate the whole chapter on the administration of Public Land.  This was Chapter XII and under Article 118, Public Land in Uganda was to be administered by three sets of bodies.  The areas of Uganda which were administered under federo units, public land was under Land Boards, while those under districts; public land was administered by District Land Boards.  The rest of Uganda, Land was administered by the Uganda Land Commission. The Buganda Land Board was under Article 118(3) recognised as the body administering public land in the Buganda Kingdom.  It should be clarified that the public land in Buganda under the Buganda Land Board went under the nomenclature of official mailo.  All the Statutory bodies administering public land in Uganda namely; Uganda Land Commission, Federal Land Boards and District Land Boards,  were Constitutionally subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor General and, therefore, accountable to the public.

The wind of change which blew across the political terrain of the country swept away the 1962 Constitution and a new Constitution known as the 1967 Republic Constitution was promulgated. Like the 1962 Constitution, the 1967 one, also dedicated a whole Chapter on the administration of public land. This was Chapter XII and Article 108 under that chapter   specifically set out the Land Commission of Uganda as the body to administer all the public land in Uganda. For clarity, Article 108 (5) specified the various land entities vested in the Land Commission. These included  every official estate held by a corporation sole by virtue of the provisions of the official estate Act and any land which immediately before the commencement of the 1967 Republican Constitution was vested in the land board of a kingdom or a district. Thus, the public land which had under the 1962 Constitution been administered by the various Land Boards of federal units or districts were transferred to one single public body namely;  The Land Commission of Uganda.

Thus, the official mailo under the Buganda Land Board was never confiscated; it was simply under the constitutional order of the day transferred to a public body under which the administration of all public land in Uganda was consolidated.

The duplicity of giving different names to public land depending on its location in Uganda, for example, Buganda Kingdom where it had been called official mailo was streamlined with all other public land in the country under one body namely; The Uganda Land Commission.

It was public land being managed by Buganda Land Board whose administration was transferred to the Uganda Land Commission. The 1967 Constitution like the one of 1962 created the position of an Auditor General for Uganda to which all public offices and institutions had to submit for scrutiny and were, therefore, subject to public accountability.

For avoidance of doubt, the 1967 Constitution, created Article 126 for the continuance in force of the system of mailo to emphasise the difference from the public land which had been called official and which by the constitution had been streamlined by being moved from the Buganda Land Board to the Uganda Land Commission.

The current Buganda Land Board is not a successor in title to the Buganda Land Board of the 1962 Constitution.  It is not a statutory body and has no mandate to administer any public land by whatever name called.  Its legal status going by its instrument of registration is that of a private limited liability company with one (1) shareholder. It has no accountability to the public and no queries can be raised by a public body on how the company is run.  It cannot legally claim ownership of public property by virtue of the Traditional Rulers (Restitution of Assets and Properties) Act 1993.

That Act having been enacted before the coming into force of the 1995 Constitution, must be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions which may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the constitution.

The 1995 Constitution cannot be construed to resituate public assets to institutions by whatever name called which never owned them in the first place, from whom they have never been confiscated and by whom no official public accountability is exacted by the Constitution. Public assets can only be managed by individuals or body of individuals or corporations which can be scrutinised by the Auditor General and, therefore, accountable to the Public.

The Constitution has vested the administration of public land in the Uganda Land Commission, District Land Boards, or Regional Land Boards and all these public bodies are scrutinisable by the Auditor General and, therefore, accountable to the public.   Under the 1967 Constitution, when all public land had been put under the Land Commission, any monies accruing from the Land so vested under the commission had to be paid to such authority as Parliament may prescribe. This mandate now falls to the three bodies indicated above which are constitutionally recognised to administer public land in Uganda. Buganda Land Board being a private limited company has no obligation to account for any monies or benefit derived from the Land under its administration.

It is in this scheme of things that it is imperative for Buganda Land Board Limited to return the land it is illegally holding and profiteering from unjustly.  Public Assets cannot be in the hands of a private limited company.

The handlers of the Buganda Kingdom, must be humble and realise the Constitutional mistake of holding onto Land Titles and assuming proprietorship where no law obtains conferring ownership of public land to a cultural institution. This is the decent way to do it and this action shall go a long way in restoring respectability of the cultural leadership.

The ball is squarely in the hands of the sole shareholder of the Buganda Land Board Company Limited who has the unique historical opportunity to redeem the tremendous goodwill which surrounded the return of traditional/cultural rulers to the Uganda political scene, but which, if left with no action taken, shall surely disappear into oblivion.

Extracted from the New Vision

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

WITNESS RADIO MILESTONES

UNCCD COP17 kicks off in Mongolia, drawing nations together to tackle urgent issues of land, drought, and food security.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team

ULAANBAATAR, Mongolia – Over the next two weeks, the World’s spotlight is on Mongolia, where governments, environmental experts, civil society, pastoralists, and others unite for the 17th UNCCD COP to confront land degradation challenges.

The conference, starting today in Ulaanbaatar and running through August 28 under the banner “Restoring land, restoring hope,” brings delegates together to tackle land degradation, desertification, drought, sustainable land management, food security, and vital funding to revive damaged ecosystems.

This gathering comes at a critical moment as land degradation and drought threaten food supplies, water security, biodiversity, and the livelihoods of millions worldwide.

The UN Convention to Combat Desertification was established in response to land degradation, particularly in dry and drought-prone areas, and its consequences for communities and economies.

The Convention was adopted in Paris on 17 June 1994 and entered into force in December 1996. It is the first and only internationally legally binding framework to address desertification. It is based on participation, partnership, and decentralization, which form the backbone of Good Governance.

Mongolia welcomes COP17 while facing immense strain on its land and rangelands. Nearly 77 percent of its territory is degraded. Pastoralism remains the heartbeat of Mongolia’s economy and culture, making rangeland stewardship more crucial than ever.

Speaking at the opening press conference, UNCCD Executive Secretary Yasmine Fouad said Mongolia’s own experience makes it an important setting for discussions on land restoration and pastoralism.

“77% of the land of Mongolia is facing land degradation, and the economy here, with all the number of people, is really depending on the issue of rangeland,” Fouad said.

Ahead of the UNCCD event, Mongolia hosted a Pastoralism gathering. Fouad noted that the three-day global gathering brought together representatives from over 100 countries. It produced a Declaration outlining the needs and priorities of pastoralists worldwide, with a special focus on women.

“The interesting part is how seriously Mongolia took this by convening the Global Pastoralism Gathering over three days, bringing together representatives from more than 100 countries. They came out with a Declaration highlighting the needs and priorities of pastoralists around the world, with a special emphasis on women. This means that this COP, and the Convention itself, will continue to be a human-centered convention. It will continue to serve people, with women remaining at the top of that agenda.” Sher added.

According to Mongolia’s government, around 80 percent of the nation is pasture land, supporting about 60 million livestock. Finding harmony between agriculture and pastoralism is becoming more challenging.

Mongolia’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Sandag-Ochir Tsend, said deciding how much land to allocate to agriculture and how much to keep available for pastoralism is one of the country’s major challenges.

He explained that Mongolian herders traditionally move their livestock across different areas during the four seasons. This creates tensions over land allocation and use.

“Deciding how much land to use for agriculture and how much for rangeland is difficult. Because of this, agriculture and herding lifestyles cause conflicts,” Tsend added.

Tsend said COP17 offers an opportunity to reconsider land management amid soil degradation, climate change, and other pressures.

“We must change our approach to these issues, including government policy and finance. I see this conference as the start of a solution,” he added.

COP17’s significance stretches far beyond Mongolia, as land underpins global food production and freshwater resources and is deeply intertwined with biodiversity and climate.

Dr. Osama Ibrahim Faqeeha, Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Minister for Environment, Water and Agriculture and adviser to the COP16 presidency, said humanity’s dependence on land is much greater than is often recognized. He said about 95 percent of the World’s food comes from land, while 99.7 percent of human calories are ultimately derived from land.

“Our main focus is to raise global awareness about the importance of land. Our cities, forests, farms, food, and freshwater all depend on land, yet we have treated it as infinite. We have failed to understand the links between land, ocean, atmosphere, and climate. At COP16, we brought these connections together because degrading land undermines food and water security and drives biodiversity loss. About 60% of biodiversity loss is due to habitat loss, closely linked to land degradation,” Hon Faqeeha added.

UNCCD officials revealed that roughly 40 percent of the World’s land is degraded, impacting up to 2 billion hectares. Each year, another 100 million hectares of farms, forests, and rangelands degrade. Meanwhile, drought affects about 1.8 billion people, with farming communities bearing the brunt of the hardship.

Faqeeha called for a shift towards sustainable land management and faster restoration of degraded land.

“Many resource-related conflicts and migration are linked to drought. About 3.5 billion people are affected by land degradation, and 1.8 billion by drought. Farming communities bear eighty percent of drought impacts, and 85 percent of those affected live in low- and lower-middle-income countries. There is a significant social dimension.

“The task is huge. We cannot continue business as usual. The mission of this Convention is to transform land management. We need to shift to sustainable land management and accelerate restoration,” he added.

COP17 also arrives with unresolved issues carried over from the last UNCCD conference.

At COP16 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in December 2024, countries adopted resolutions and launched initiatives covering sustainable agricultural land management, food security, Indigenous peoples, civil society and drought. However, they failed to agree on a major drought decision or a multilateral agreement to address drought’s consequences.

In his welcome address to COP16 on December 2, 2024, UNCCD Secretary-General Ibrahim Thiaw had urged delegates to adopt a bold decision on drought, describing it as one of the most pervasive and disruptive environmental challenges.

The negotiations ended without this agreement, leaving the issue to be taken up at COP17 in Mongolia. Fouad told journalists that countries had already shown a willingness to return to the issue.

“The role of the COP17 presidency is to build consensus and facilitate discussion till a drought decision is gavelled,” she said.

She added that the secretariat hopes countries will agree on a drought decision that reflects the urgency and scale of the problem while providing the space and finance necessary for implementation.

Continue Reading

WITNESS RADIO MILESTONES

Karamoja stands on the brink, with nearly half a million people gripped by acute hunger.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

Nearly half a million people in Uganda’s Karamoja sub-region are facing acute hunger as repeated climate shocks, poor harvests and environmental degradation continue to erode food production and livelihoods, according to the latest integrated food security phase classification (IPC) analysis.

The IPC assessment found that 473,000 people, nearly one in every three people assessed, experienced crisis (IPC phase 3) or worse levels of acute food insecurity between April and July 2026. Of these, about 41,000 people were classified in emergency (IPC phase 4), requiring urgent food assistance and livelihood support.

The assessment paints a grim picture: relentless dry spells, sudden floods, and waves of crop and livestock diseases have battered Karamoja, leaving families struggling to recover season after season. Soaring food prices and scarce quality farming supplies have only deepened the crisis.

The IPC also found that only 54.1 percent of households had food stocks at the time of the survey, with supplies in most districts expected to last for less than one month.

The assessment reveals that swarms of crop pests, outbreaks of livestock disease, and wildlife ravaging fields, combined with a shortage of quality seeds, have slashed agricultural yields and left countless families exposed and vulnerable.

In response to the findings, Oxfam sounded the alarm: families in Karamoja are racing through their dwindling food stores and scrambling for safe water. Prolonged drought and vanishing pastures now threaten the livestock that so many depend on for survival.

“People in Karamoja are not just running out of food; they are also running out of options. Climate shocks and long-standing inequalities, including low investment in education and water infrastructure, have steadily stripped away their ability to cope,” Said Francis Shanty Odokorach, Oxfam’s country director in Uganda.

The nutrition outlook is just as dire. The IPC foresees 122,100 children under five needing urgent treatment for acute malnutrition between March 2026 and February 2027, with 30,600 of them facing the most severe cases. An additional 8,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women are expected to need vital nutrition support during this time.

The assessment places Kaabong and Kotido districts in the critical phase of acute malnutrition, underscoring the depth of the crisis. In Kotido, relentless drought has left families desperately searching for enough to eat.

“The ground is all dry and bare. You can visibly see people, especially children, very hungry. Families have run out of food early and are now forced to skip meals. Livestock are also suffering from a lack of water and pasture,” Said Lokiru Musa Hassan, Oxfam project officer working in Napumpum sub-county.

Though the IPC predicts a slight reprieve during the August 2026 to February 2027 harvest, hope remains fragile. Around 352,000 people are still expected to endure crisis or worse, especially in Kaabong, Karenga, Kotido, and Moroto, where relentless climate shocks keep sabotaging recovery.

While acute malnutrition has dipped slightly since 2025, the IPC cautions that these hard-won gains could vanish with the next wave of extreme weather, disease, or funding gaps. Without ongoing aid and real investment in climate resilience, many families may fall even further into hunger.

To confront the crisis, Oxfam has announced a two-phase plan across five districts, delivering emergency food, cash, safe water, drought-resistant seeds, and livestock support. The organization also aims to boost climate-smart farming, water harvesting, livelihood recovery, and local early warning systems.

“This response must be shaped with communities, not simply delivered to them. Women, young people, older people and people with disabilities must be able to access assistance safely, provide feedback and influence the decisions that affect their lives,” Odokorach said.

With climate change tightening its grip on Uganda’s drylands, humanitarian agencies stress that emergency relief alone is not enough. Only lasting investments in resilient agriculture, water systems, and community-driven climate adaptation can help Karamoja escape the cycle of hunger.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Uganda moves toward a Bamboo Policy to boost environmental conservation and green growth.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

 

Uganda’s move to develop a national bamboo policy aims to boost environmental conservation and create green jobs, addressing the country’s urgent unemployment issues among the working class.

 

Bamboo is a critical tool in fighting climate change due to its rapid growth, high carbon sequestration capacity, and ability to produce 35% more oxygen than equivalent trees. As a fast-growing, renewable resource, it restores degraded land, provides sustainable materials that replace emission-intensive products like concrete, and offers a resilient, low-carbon bioenergy source. 

 

Bamboo’s potential is outlined in the existing National Bamboo Strategy. Still, stakeholders stress that a formal policy involving entrepreneurs, farmers, and processors is essential to remove regulatory uncertainty and foster sector growth.

 

“The strategy is a good document, but it was developed largely through desk research. It did not fully involve entrepreneurs, farmers, and processors who are already working in the bamboo industry,” said Sjaak de Blois, chairman of Bamboo Uganda, encouraging stakeholders to see their role as vital.

 

The bamboo policy is currently at an early consultative stage, with no draft yet submitted to the cabinet or parliament. Recent consultations brought together representatives from eight government ministries, private-sector bamboo actors, and development partners to begin aligning the strategy with practical regulatory needs.

 

“What we have now is the starting point,” De Blois mentioned. “The next step is to take the strategy and make it more practical, more market-driven, and more Ugandan. The next step is to move from having a plan to adopting a policy.

 

Bamboo currently falls under several regulatory frameworks, with no single authority overseeing the sector. The policy push is being driven in part by Bamboo Uganda, a membership-based organization bringing together bamboo farmers and processors, among others. The organization aims to play a coordinating role similar to that historically played by the Uganda Coffee Development Authority in the coffee sector.

 

“If you want to make a sector meaningful for a country, you need coordination. Coffee became what it is because of an institution that aligned farmers, traders, exporters, and regulators. Bamboo needs the same kind of coordination.” He said.

 

The policy process is supported by the Belgian development agency, which is funding consultations and facilitating dialogue between the government and the private sector.

Industry players say the absence of clear regulations has constrained investment despite growing demand.

“At the moment, bamboo is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. As a farmer, you talk to forestry, as a charcoal producer, you talk to energy, as a builder, you talk to works. There is no single framework that enables the industry to function.” De Blois added.

 

Supporters of the policy argue that bamboo could play a significant role in environmental conservation. Bamboo grows rapidly, regenerates after harvesting, and can be harvested annually for decades, reducing pressure on natural forests.

 

According to Global Forest Watch (GFW), Uganda lost 1.2 million hectares of tree cover between 2001 and 2024, representing a 15% decline from the 2000 baseline. Bamboo has been identified as a key species for restoration.

 

“One acre of bamboo that is harvested sustainably can prevent the destruction of hundreds of acres of natural forest,” De Blois said. “If we get this right, bamboo can help reverse deforestation rather than contribute to it.”

 

Ms. Susan Kaikara, from the Ministry of Water and Environment, emphasized bamboo’s potential to drive Uganda’s green-growth agenda.

 

“Establishing a coherent national policy framework will strengthen coordination, inspire investment, and unlock bamboo’s full potential as a pillar of Uganda’s green economy,” she said.

 

Uganda’s charcoal market alone is estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually, much of it supplied through unsustainable wood harvesting. Industry actors say certified bamboo charcoal plantations could offer a cleaner alternative.

 

“If they allow us to certify bamboo charcoal plantations, then we can get a trade license to compete or to work together with the existing market. We will reverse deforestation. We would enter an industry of about 500,000 hectares, creating smart, green jobs. We can digitalize them to make them attractive through bamboo agroforestry. So again, those things need a policy.” He adds.

 

Bamboo is also viewed as a climate-friendly crop due to its high capacity for carbon sequestration. Its rapid growth enables it to absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, while its extensive root system improves soil structure and increases long-term carbon storage.

 

“When you look at carbon sequestration, bamboo offers several advantages. Residues from harvested bamboo can be converted into biochar, locking carbon into the soil for long periods. When you also see the sequestration per acre compared to many other trees, it is five or six times higher. So, we sequester a lot,” De Blois said

 

Stakeholders say that if the policy process progresses as planned, bamboo could emerge as one of Uganda’s key green growth sectors within the next decade.

 

“Policy making takes time. But what is important is that we have started the conversation with all the right ministries in the room. From here, it is about taking steady, practical steps.” He concluded.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates