Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025 targets organic seeds, aiming to replace them with modified seeds, say smallholder farmers.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

Ssetabi Rauben, a smallholder farmer from Kicuculo village in Mubende district, has a deep connection to farming that dates back to his youth. His personal journey into farming, driven by his family’s need for a livelihood, is a testament to the importance of smallholder farmers in our agricultural system. Ssetabi’s story is just one of many that highlight the potential impact of the EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025 on individual farmers.

“With no chance for going further in education, my father gave me land to start a living, and I had to move on. I didn’t go far with my education, so the only resort was to do agriculture since it was my family’s source of living,” He said in an interview with the Witness Radio team.

At 26, Ssetabi, a father of one, dedicates most of his two-acre farm to maize and beans. However, his future in farming, a field he knows best, is under threat. The local seeds he relies on may be outlawed by the 2025 Seed and Plant Varieties Bill of the EAC, potentially dimming his hopes.

The Seeds and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025, recently introduced by the Council of Ministers of the East African Community (EAC), is part of a long-term drive to unify seed regulations across the region.

The draft Bill, as witnessed by Witness Radio, aims to provide for the coordination of evaluation, release, and registration of plant varieties among Partner States; to establish standard processes for seed certification and protection of plant varieties within the Community; and to provide for related matters. According to its promoters, the Bill, based on Article 106 of the Treaty, aims to provide for seed certification, testing, and marketing, thereby facilitating and creating an enabling environment for private sector seed multiplication and distribution.

However, the bill has sparked opposition from civil society organizations, farmer networks, and development partners across the EAC. They argue that it could consolidate corporate control over seeds, curtail the rights of smallholder farmers, and jeopardize agro-biodiversity.

Further, analysis by experts reveals that provisions that risk restricting farmers’ traditional practices of saving, exchanging, and selling seed could have far-reaching consequences for food security, agro-biodiversity, and the livelihoods of millions of rural households.

According to civil society organizations, the Bill threatens to criminalize or restrict traditional practices like breeding, saving, sharing, exchanging, and selling farm-saved seeds. It supports breeders’ rights instead of farmers’ rights. The Bill places a heavy focus on commercial and certified seeds, which could undermine the diverse, locally adapted varieties essential for resilience against climate change, pests, and diseases. This overlooks the importance of farmer-managed seed systems, which are not only central to rural livelihoods and food sovereignty but also an integral part of our cultural heritage.

Many voices warn of serious weaknesses of the bill, which lead to further marginalization of indigenous and smallholder farmers and offer no legal recognition or protection for local farmer-managed seed systems. Despite this, smallholder farmers who are likely to be affected produce the highest amounts of food in the world.

In a critical discussion about the draft bill by Civil Society Organisations and smallholder farmers across East Africa and beyond, several experts on the topic voiced their concerns. Their united front of opposition, a powerful force against the bill, underscores the collective voice’s strength in shaping the bill’s fate.

Dr Peter Munyi, a professional lawyer with extensive experience in agricultural law, explained that the draft stipulates strict testing procedures for seed varieties, with criteria such as distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability being decisive for seed approval. He, however, mentioned that indigenous or farmer-managed seed systems, which are crucial for biodiversity and local food security, are often unable to meet these criteria.

He added, “The testing takes place in laboratories and the value for use and cultivation entails multi-location trials, which is also very expensive, and the only people who can really afford these tests would be commercial seed breeders, perhaps research institutions that USDA and other agencies also fund.”

Mariam Mayet, Executive Director of the African Center for Biodiversity, revealed that the bill is discriminatory and inequitable in its approach because it doesn’t treat all farmers and seeds equally. Her insights add weight to the concerns raised by smallholder farmers and civil society organizations.

Considering the reality of the lives of small-holding farmers, such as Mr. Ssetabi, it is clear that the bill would place an unreasonable burden on the local small farming community.

“We plant and replant our seeds. Our system, inherited from our fathers, has always involved

harvesting, selecting the best breeds, and replanting them; now, if there is a shift as the bill proposes. It’s challenging for people like me because seeds can be expensive at times. Having to buy new seeds every planting season will deepen us into poverty, and people will soon abandon agriculture for those with money.” This financial burden is a stark reality for smallholder farmers like Ssetabi, and the bill only exacerbates their economic struggles.

Considering that smallholder farmers like Ssetabi contribute significantly to the World’s food production, the potential impact of the bill on food security is a cause for concern. Once this bill is passed, there will be a burden on food security and, hence, an increase in poverty levels. The bill’s potential impact on food security cannot be overstated, making it a critical issue for all stakeholders.

Smallholder farming accounts for approximately 75 percent of agricultural production and over 75 percent of employment in East Africa, with up to 70–80 % of seeds planted originating from farmer-managed seed systems. The bill must be reconsidered in light of these implications to prevent a potential crisis. The significant role of smallholder farmers in East Africa’s agricultural sector underscores the urgency of this issue.

“Yet, these systems are in no way recognized in the draft Bill, and the provisions of the bill would install new barriers for farmers’ seed systems and prohibit the saving, reuse, exchange, selling, and sharing in the seed system”. A civil society network raised the alarm.

Ssetabi says. “Some of us rent land, so this is another challenge. Such seeds also need fertilizers.

Now, look at the costs of renting land, seeds, and fertilizers. Don’t you think this is a ploy to remove us from the farming system?” He questioned.

The concern over the bill extends beyond Uganda to other countries where it is being introduced. In Kenya, for example, farmers and the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS)—a government parastatal mandated to ensure the quality of agricultural inputs and produce, thereby safeguarding the economy, the environment, and human health—rejected the bill. They warned that its enactment could weaken government oversight and expose farmers to substandard and counterfeit seeds.

“Giving seed producers the responsibility to determine the quality of their own seeds will erode government oversight and compromise seed quality,” The Managing Director of KEPHIS, Prof Theophilus Mutui, mentioned in an article published by the Eastleigh Voice.

Civil society organizations appeal that if the bill is to proceed, it must include strong, explicit protections for smallholder farmers, particularly around exceptions to breeders’ rights.

Additionally, stakeholders should advocate for a separate legal framework or policy that recognises and supports farmer-managed seed systems. Without such measures, the region risks enshrining a seed regime that deepens inequality, erodes biodiversity, and undermines the right to food.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

More than 500 Masindi residents live in fear as a tycoon targets their land.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

Kyamaiso, Masindi District: Katushabe Charles is one of hundreds facing uncertainty after a businessman claimed ownership of land they’ve occupied for decades.

“He has issued threats, arrested some of us, and warned us that he doesn’t want us on this land anymore,” Katushabe, a father of seven and village defense secretary, said, emphasizing the community’s fears of eviction and displacement.

In 2002, Katushabe bought 30 acres of land and took possession with the intention of practicing large-scale agriculture. “I acquired this land from the citizens of Kyamaiso village, and I have lived here for over a period of twenty-four years,” The 50-year-old caretaker of a family of 9 told our journalist.

On his land, he says he grows sugarcane and other crops, such as cassava, which he sells to sustain his family. “I earn some good money from these crops, and I can ably take care of my children, pay their school fees, and look after my family.” He said.

Katushabe is among the 500 families whose survival is at risk after Masindi-based businessman Ahamed Ssewagudde surfaced claiming ownership of their land, on which they have lived for decades.

Witness Radio investigations reveal that the contested land spans 68.79 hectares (170 acres) and covers the villages of Kitinwa, Kyakatera, and Kyamaiso in the Kijunjubwa, Bikozi, and Bwijanga sub-counties.

Residents say some families have occupied the contested land since the 1960s, highlighting their deep roots and long-standing connection to the land.

Sylvia Karungi, a resident of Kyamaiso village, says the alleged land claimant does not have documents to prove ownership, building trust and confidence in the residents’ claims.

“He says he and his family own this land, but this is not true. We have been here for many years. They only have land in another village, Kyangamwoyo, but on this land, they have no proof of ownership,” she said.

Mr. Wobusoboozi Pius, another affected resident, accuses Ssewagudde of using the area police to intimidate and criminalize those opposing the alleged land grabbing.

“He first accused about eight individuals, claiming they had encroached on his land. He relies on police and courts, yet he does not have the rightful documents,” Wobusoboozi told Witness Radio.

However, Ahmed Ssewagudde maintains that his father acquired the land in 1968 and that the current occupants are encroachers who took advantage of his father’s absence.

He says the dispute is not new and has been in court for more than two decades.

“For over a period of twenty-three years, I have been in court with those people, and I have always won the cases, even though they do not want to accept the truth,” Ssewagudde said in an interview with our journalist. Ssewagudde added that evictions will proceed through legal channels.

“We are working on the legal process with my team to get the necessary documents and land title. We shall evict them because no one is above the law. I will only follow the directives of the court.” The tycoon told our journalist.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Kiryandongo farmer accuses minister of grabbing 100-acre land

Published

on

Farmer Edward Balikagira at Kinyara II Village in Kigumba Sub-county in Kiryandongo District during an interview with Monitor. PHOTO/DAN WANDERA

A Kiryandongo farmer accuses Minister for Karamoja Affairs Peter Lokeris of illegally occupying his 100-acre plot, sparking a decades-long dispute now under State House scrutiny. Despite interventions, the conflict remains unresolved amid conflicting claims and documentation. Source: https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/kiryandongo-farmer-accuses-minister-of-grabbing-100-acre-land-5447308

Edward Balikagira from Kinyara II Village in Kiryandongo District alleges that Minister Peter Lokeris has forcefully taken over his 100-acre land, which he bought in 1996 from the late John Bitunda Bitagasa.

Balikagira holds a 1996 handwritten sale agreement in Runyoro, detailing payment of Shs170,000, 12 goats, a bicycle, and a blanket, witnessed by local land executives.

Lokeris rejects the accusations, stating he legally obtained the land in 1996 and has occupied it peacefully for over 20 years without issues. He questions Balikagira’s ownership documents.

Balikagira recounts that in 2007, as land committee chair, he negotiated with Lokeris for adjacent land at Shs500,000 per acre, but the deal fell through due to delays.

Tensions peaked in 2022 when Balikagira was arrested for alleged trespassing during the Covid-19 lockdown. A State House fact-finding meeting followed, where Lokeris reportedly admitted to applying for only 100 acres and agreed to return any excess.

A June 2022 State House letter to the Kiryandongo RDC, signed by Nathan Bwogi, halted all activities on the disputed land and noted ongoing fencing by Lokeris’s associates, warning of potential violence.

Despite this, Balikagira says the issue lingers without court action, citing the minister’s influence. Local leaders and the Deputy RDC confirm ongoing administrative reviews but no closure.

Land wrangles like this are rampant in Uganda, especially in Kiryandongo’s former ranch areas, with police reporting a surge in such cases.

Source: Daily Monitor

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

“We are facing increased violent land dispossessions and climate injustices” – African women.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team

 

Stories of displacement, land loss, and resilience filled the room as 45 women from six African countries gathered for the East Africa Women’s Land and Climate Justice Convergence in Nairobi, organized to raise awareness and explore resistance strategies against land dispossession and climate injustice.

 

Representing communities from Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, the women came together not only to learn but also to speak, listen, heal, and feel the weight of their struggles, resisting destructive extractive projects and reclaiming what belongs to them, despite the immense impacts they have endured.

 

Africa is often described as having vast unused or underutilized land. This narrative has attracted investors, especially from the Global North, into large-scale industrial agriculture and other land-based investments. However, a 2025 report by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), PLAAS, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy challenged this claim, showing that such narratives have fueled large-scale land grabs, ecological destruction, and community dispossession across the continent.

 

In Uganda, the land eviction crisis has intensified due to increasing land-based investments that have dispossessed local communities with impunity, with oil development activities among them. According to human rights groups, this has led to more than 100,000 people in Uganda and Tanzania permanently losing their land to make way for the pipeline and related projects.

 

Jenniffer Kiiza, a resident of Hoima, is among those whose land was taken for oil development.

 

“The project has had severe negative impacts, especially on vulnerable groups like women,” she said, highlighting how delayed compensation, gender-based violence, and food insecurity disproportionately affect women and their families.

 

“We face dispossession, and sadly, we are paid very little money, which comes late and is no longer enough to buy land elsewhere. Hunger and malnutrition in adults and babies have increased, and this is affecting us as women and our families.” Kiiza added.

 

Kiiza has continued to speak out despite growing repression against dissent, advocating for justice for her community, especially women, even as opposing such mega-projects comes at a high cost.

 

“These developments have caused hunger, increased gender-based violence, family breakdowns, school dropouts, and early marriages. There has also been a rise in prostitution, as women struggle to provide for their children after losing their land.” She added.

 

Meanwhile, in Uganda alone, the Uganda Police’s Annual Crimes Report, 2025, released early April, recorded 663 cases of land fraud, an indicator of the country’s escalating land crisis.

 

In Zimbabwe’s Midlands province, particularly in Shurugwi, communities are facing similar challenges linked to mining activities, including land dispossession and environmental harm.

Jeyche Belenia, a women’s rights defender from a community affected by Unki Mine, shared her experience during the convergence.

 

“We are facing many challenges from the miners. Chinese investors are coming into our area and evicting us. They tell us to leave, and if we refuse, they come with bulldozers and destroy everything, including our homes. We are left with no shelter and nowhere to go,” she said.

She added that abandoned open pits left by mining companies have become deadly hazards.

 

“When it rains, the pits fill with water. Our livestock fall into them, and even our children have fallen in. We are losing both animals and lives, and the danger is ever-present,” She added.

 

Communities in Zimbabwe also report water pollution from mining activities, which threatens their health and livelihoods. “The water we use is our source of livelihood, serving domestic needs, drinking, and our animals. However, after consuming it, we have experienced illnesses like cholera, and pregnant women face severe complications,” she added.

 

Her revelations echo concerns raised at the 2025 Zimbabwe Alternative Mining Indaba (ZAMI). The 14th edition of the Indaba, convened by the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Organization (ZELO) and partners in September 2025, highlighted multiple challenges within a sector that contributes about 12% to 13.3% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

 

In its December 2025 communiqué, ZAMI noted that unsustainable resource extraction is driving widespread environmental damage, including water pollution, habitat loss, soil degradation, and deforestation.

 

It further pointed to displacement, inadequate compensation, and the absence of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), particularly affecting marginalized communities whose exclusion from governance processes has resulted in violence, disempowerment, and the entrenchment of poverty in resource-rich areas, worsened by weak oversight that has enabled environmental violations and illicit financial flows.

 

Amid these challenges affecting their communities, the women shared, the convergence concluded with a renewed sense of solidarity, forming a network of resilient women committed to defending Africa’s commons—land, forests, water, and cultural systems—now under increasing threat.

 

According to the organizers, the meeting was particularly significant in creating a platform for women to share lived realities that are often excluded from formal land governance discussions. Participants exchanged insights on the challenges they face and identified collective strategies to strengthen their land rights.

 

The convergence brought together women to reflect on their experiences with customary and communal land tenure systems. We will continue to build on this knowledge and strengthen solidarity plans at both national and regional levels with the women,” WoMin’s Sizaltina Cutaia told Witness Radio.

 

Participants described the gathering as a transformative learning space that not only exposed shared struggles but also equipped them with the skills and knowledge to defend their rights collectively.

 

“And a message I can give to a woman in the struggle is to keep fighting for her goal. She should not give up, but continue until she achieves what she wants. This cuts across countries and brings us together through networking. When we unite as women, we realize we share one goal—as mothers in our communities and countries—because land is our motherland,” said Sara Possass from the Kogiya Community.

 

Despite powerful companies taking over their land, women defenders say they are determined to continue resisting and reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

 

“We are fighting back so that we can reclaim our natural resources, including land and water. Many women are facing serious health challenges, including stress and stroke, as a result of these struggles. But we are not going back. We are fighting to reclaim our commons through demonstrations, cultural resistance, and petitions led by marginalized communities.” Jeyche mentioned.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter