By Lydia Namubiru
LAND conflicts will escalate in at least 30 districts in Uganda unless urgent measures are taken to resolve them, experts have warned. A ‘time bomb in waiting’ is how the NGO Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) calls the looming land crisis as a result of population pressure and lack of proper land policies. The conflicts include border disputes with neighbouring countries, inter-district border disputes, wrangles between landlords and tenants, and tenants resisting acquisition of land by investors. The disputes over international boundaries include Migingo island in Lake Victoria pitting Uganda against Kenya, a 9 km stretch in Yumbe between Uganda and Sudan, the Katuna border area with Rwanda and the Mutukula border area with Tanzania. Disagreements with the Democratic Republic of Congo involve Rukwanzi Island in Lake Albert, Semliki, Medigo area in Pakwach and Vurra border area in Arua. The disputes over Migingo Island and Rukwanzi Island have already led to violence. In August 2007, Congolese soldiers killed a Ugandan-based British oil worker accusing him of illegally crossing the border. And last week Kenyan slum dwellers uprooted the railway line to Uganda protesting what they called continued Ugandan occupation of Migingo Island. Disputes over district borders exist between Moroto and Katakwi, Sironko and Kapchorwa, Bundibujo and Kabarole, Moroto and Lira, Tororo and Butaleja, Butaleja and Budaka and over Namatala swamp between Mbale and Budaka districts. In Buganda region, conflicts are expected to worsen between landlords and tenants, the latter increasingly facing eviction as land becomes scarce and its value goes up. Violent evictions have pervaded the area in recent years. Land’s ministry spokesperson Dennis Obbo argues that the proposed land amendment bill will solve many of the conflicts in Buganda as it seeks to give more protection to the tenants. However, the bill has been fiercely resisted, particularly by interest groups, and it has been shelved for now. In Gulu district, returnees from internally displaced people’s camps are locked in land disputes over boundaries as original land marks have disappeared and the elders who knew them have died. In parts of Ankole and Bunyoro, royals who hold large chunks of land are embroiled in conflicts with people who have occupied their land for decades. In Kasese, three indigenous tribes are fighting over a small portion of land that was not taken over by the Government for game parks or forest reserves. “The people of Kasese have been squeezed into ‘a corridor for survival’ as the rest of the land mass is inaccessible because it is gazetted as Government protected land,” says one of the research reports by ACODE. According to the researchers, the Government holds 65% of the land in Kasese while the district’s three tribes of Bakhonzo, Basongora and Banyabindi are left to share the remaining 35%. As a result of land scarcity, the Basongora cattle keepers encroached on Queen Elizabeth National Park upon their return from the Democratic Republic of Congo where they had been chased out. Violent clashes broke out with the Uganda Wildlife Authority which tried to evict them back into the survival corridor. “To say the least, Kasese is sitting on a time bomb, which could explode anytime,” says the report. In the Eastern part of the country, the Karimojong of Moroto accuse the Teso people of Katakwi of having altered the border line in their favour in the 1960s, when Curthbeth Obwongor from Teso was minister of local government. In 1966, the altering of the border caused heated disagreements in the area. The Karimojong petitioned then President Milton Obote, who subsequently cancelled the alteration and dismissed Obwongor from parliament. The dispute, however, flared up again in 2004 when then LC5 of Moroto, Terence Achia, locked horns with his Katakwi counterpart, Steven Okure Ilemukorit, over parts of Napak, Kodike and Alekilek which the latter claimed belonged to Katakwi. “These recent claims and counter-claims by politicians are threatening to inflame the conflict and could result into generalized violence,” the report says. The situation in Kibale, which has seen bloody disputes in recent past, is far more complex than any other region and dates back to colonial days. The colonial government gave part of the Kibale land to chiefs in Buganda Kingdom. When the so-called lost counties were given back to Bunyoro kingdom after independence, the Baganda landlords fled with the land titles. As a result, the occupants on about 70% of Mailo land in the area have no security of ownership. In addition, the Government has over the decades resettled different groups of people in the area. Immigrants now comprise 50% of the district’s population, up from 10% five decades ago. A rift between the indigenous Banyoro and the immigrants has become apparent in 1990s and has continued to grow. Bulisa district is another trouble spot where oil prospects are just the latest catalyst to a looming land war. According to the area MP, Birahwa Mukutale, the British colonial government took 80% of the land in Bulisa and Bugungu to gazzet it as Murchison Falls National Park and Budongo Forest reserve. The remaining 20% was then zoned into grazing land near the lake and land for cultivation near the park. This land has been communally owned and used for over 60 years. “Unfortunately, in 2004, Bulisa was invaded by nomadic herdsmen who do not respect the zoning. As a result, there are daily conflicts between cultivators and herdsmen,” says Mukutale. In addition, the herdsmen claim they individually hold land titles for about 40 sq miles in Bulisa. But the indigenous residents refute these claims, arguing that all this land is communally owned. What should be done? Officials in the lands ministry agree with the ACODE researchers. “The hot spots are many,” says Dennis Obbo, the ministry’s publicist. “We have found that wherever there is productive use of land along an administrative border, there is conflict.” Mapping the land conflict areas and noting the unique drivers of conflict in each area should be the first step to avert war, according to Onesmus Mugyenyi, the executive director of ACODE. “We carried out this research because we wanted to show the Government that conflict mapping should be adopted as a strategy for resolving disputes. It should be done on a regular basis so as to help plan interventions.” “We are hoping that the land policy will sort out many of the problems,” says Obbo. The government is also in the process of buying land from absentee landlords to help insecure tenants acquire land titles. “The government has so far bought over 76 hectares of land with money from the Land Fund.” The Bulisa MP believes that systematic demarcation of land would also be part of the answer. The Government is currently carrying out pilot projects in the districts of Iganga, Ntungamo, Kibale and Mabale. The World Bank is set to fund the project in another 28 parishes countrywide. In this exercise, all land will be surveyed and land owners will be able to secure their tenure by registration and acquisition of land titles. The high population growth rate, which goes hand in hand with climate change, is another area that needs to addressed, according to the Africa Peer Review. Estimated at 3.2% a year, Uganda’s population growth rate is third highest in the world. The average Ugandan woman gives birth to seven children in her lifetime. By 2050, Uganda’s population is expected to reach 120 million, three-fold the current population. “This is a serious challenge that affects the growth levels in Uganda”, says the 2009 Peer Review report. “It is strongly recommended that Uganda considers adopting and implementing a national population policy as a key element in its poverty reduction strategy.” As most of the land conflicts are in highly populated areas, a population policy might also be a key element in averting an escalation of land wars in Uganda.[ref new vision]

“Turning a police state into a slave state”

A statement by Eritrea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs earlier this week strongly denied recent media claims that both Israel and Iran were carrying out ‘rival intelligence operations’ in Eritrea or that either had bases, Israel in the Dahlak Islands, and Iran at Assab. The statement said ‘invective’ against Eritrea had intensified in recent months, and went on to claim that it was coming from key western intelligence services and using “selected ‘human rights groups (Africa Watch, CPJ etc) and some NGOs” as conduits. Surprisingly, the statement made no mention of the latest human rights report, “Service for Life: State Repression and Indefinite Conscription in Eritrea .” This accuses the Eritrean Government of extensive human rights violations, including arbitrary arrest, torture, appalling detention conditions, forced labour, and severe restrictions on freedom of movement, expression, and worship. The Government has been accused of turning Eritrea into “a giant prison”. The report describes how the Government uses “a vast apparatus of official and secret detention facilities to incarcerate thousands of Eritreans without charge or trial,” and refers to torture, cruel and degrading treatment and forced labour as routine for national service conscripts and detainees. Detainees are typically held in overcrowded cells, sometimes underground, or in shipping containers which reach searing temperatures by day and freeze by night. Detainees include top government officials detained in September 2001 and held since then without charge or trial, among them Mohammed Sherifo, former vice-president of Eritrea , and two former foreign ministers as well as other ministers. Critics point out that those who try to flee unlimited national service conscription, compulsory for all between 18 and 55, risk severe punishment and the possibility of being shot while crossing the border. Because of the risk of mistreatment for those returned, as many have been from Libya , Egypt , and Malta in recent years, the UN High Commission for Refugees has advised against deporting anyone to Eritrea , for whatever reason. The Eritrean Government has been denounced for allowing a “police state to evolve into a slave state”. And this is the state that Mr. Jonathan Tepperman of Newsweek claimed is destabilizing the Horn of Africa merely out of frustration with Ethiopia ’s failure to accommodate Eritrea over the border issue!
Ethiopia’s reporting obligations and human rights reports
A two-day National Conference on the theme “ Ethiopia ’s Reporting Obligations under International and Regional Human Rights Instruments-Progress made and the Way Forward” was held this week in Addis Ababa (on 23rd and 24th April), at the United Nations Conference Centre. This National Conference was organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and the Regional Office of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide a forum for the consolidation of draft government human rights reports for submission to various international treaty bodies. The conference was a follow up to an earlier National Conference held in October 2007 under the title: “The reporting obligations of Ethiopia to United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies”. It was aimed to evaluate the achievements and identify the challenges being faced in implementation of recommendations adopted by the National Conference.
The Conference was attended by over 200 participants including representatives from federal and regional government bodies, national institutions, civil society, the United Nations Agencies, the African Union and observers from the diplomatic community. It was officially opened by Ato Berhan Hailu, Minister of Justice, who reaffirmed the commitment of the Government of Ethiopia to the promotion and protection of human rights, and identified some of the measures taken by the Government to entrench human rights in the country. He recognized the contribution that treaty reporting could make to such national efforts, and expressed the determination of the Government to continue active engagement in the treaty reporting process. Ambassador Kassa G/Hiwot, Chief Commissioner of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and Mr. Frej Fennich, Regional Representative of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner delivered welcoming speeches and Ms. Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights sent a video recorded message.
The National Conference considered a number of draft reports presented for discussion and prepared by a reporting structure adopted to enable Ethiopia to comply with its reporting obligation under human rights treaties. The structure of the project included the National Inter-Ministerial Ad-Hoc Committee, legal experts at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the drafting committee, under the overall supervision of the National Inter-Ministerial Ad Hoc Committee which was coordinating the entire reporting process enabling participation of non-governmental actors and the provision of different training opportunities for relevant actors. More than 500 men and women, representing various governmental and nongovernmental institutions, have received human rights training in the context of the Project. The Ad Hoc Committee also approved the draft reports for submission to the relevant treaty bodies. The committee of five legal experts was coordinating the gathering and processing of relevant information through contact with Regional States and Federal Government institutions and non-governmental actors. This project has allowed for the submission of the Common Core Document, the combined report to the Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and for the initial and combined report to the African Commission on Human and Peoples´ Rights.
The entire exercise was originally focused on treaty reporting but in the course of the reporting process, the United Nations Human Rights Council informed Ethiopia that it would be reviewed in December 2009 and asked for a report to be submitted by September 2009. It was considered convenient to include Ethiopia ’s draft report to the UN Human Rights Council for consideration during the 6th Universal Periodic Review (UPR) session.
The National Conference considered all five reports from the working groups and participants made detailed comments enhancing the quality of the reports. They acknowledged that the reports already contained detailed information, but it was agreed that written submissions could be made until 30th April 2009 through emails and other means. The Conference designated a group of 15 persons to serve as a drafting committee, representing all branches of the Government from Federal and Regional Government institutions, private media, NGOs, private participants, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, and legal experts. The Conference adopted the recommendations presented by the group, including the need for sustained reporting and for the establishment of a permanent institutional mechanism, and increased roles for national human rights institutions.
During the closing session, following the adoption of the recommendations by the Conference, Dr. Tekeda Alemu, State Minister for Foreign Affairs, awarded certificates of recognition and tokens of appreciation to Members of the Ad-Hoc Inter-Ministerial Committee, the Legal Experts and members of the Drafting Committee for their outstanding contributions to the successful conclusion of the Project. Concluding comments were made by Ambassador Kassa G/Hiwot, Chief Commissioner of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, and Mr. Frej Fennich, Regional Representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In his closing statement, Dr. Tekeda reiterated the commitment of the Government of Ethiopia to the idea of sustained reporting by Ethiopia to the various treaty bodies. He welcomed the recommendations of the Conference and assured participants that the ideas contained in the Declaration of the Conference would be given serious consideration by the relevant Government bodies. He also praised the collaboration between the various Government institutions, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Dr. Tekeda stressed that human rights should be free of polemics. The issue should not be over-politicized. Human rights are not an issue for public relations, and it is important for all stakeholders to resist temptations to sensationalize the issue.
It should be recalled that the reporting system established under various United Nations human rights treaties and regional instruments is designed as an overarching supervisory system allowing states which are party to these international and regional instruments to submit initial and periodic reports detailing the administrative, legislative and judicial measures taken by the states themselves. These reports are prepared on the basis of guidelines issued by the treaty bodies themselves. This is a generalized way of referring to the various committees established under the respective treaties and composed of independent experts elected by the states party to these treaties. They serve in their personal capacities, and are selected on their high reputation in various fields of endeavor. Once they receive reports from the state parties, they normally appoint rapporteurs to review the reports and request additional information from the state party as necessary. The next step is open consideration of reports in discussions, normally held in Geneva . At these sessions, the state party representative makes introductory remarks followed by questions and answers from the relevant Committee members. The representatives of the state parties respond to queries and engage in dialogue with the Committee. At the conclusion of these sessions, the Committees issue concluding observations and recommendations. The state parties are expected to consider these observations and recommendations and take them under consideration in their national plans at different levels.
The significance of this reporting by Ethiopia should be seen both in terms of discharging its treaty obligations and in the contributions from the observations and recommendations of the expert’s bodies relevant to national efforts for promotion and protection of human rights. The report and discussions that will follow presentations to the treaty bodies will also provide concrete and objective information on the situation of human rights in the country. Ethiopia has been the target of a great many allegations on human rights and of hearsay reports by third parties. This factual reporting to treaty bodies, and Ethiopia ’s report to the United Nations Human Rights Council under the Universal Periodic Review, will now be able to provide real and credible sources of information for human rights in Ethiopia .