Its unfortunate that this situation can also lead the down trodden people to look for the ways of survival which most of the time leads to unrest. The prevailing land wrangles in Uganda need a proper insight in order to find their causes and remedies. It seems the 1995 constitution should be blamed for the time bomb it planted.

Yet it also sounds enough to note that when the masses turn rowdy, crafty spiritually distorted and massive evictions among others are clear signs of political decay and call for urgent action to revamp the situation. The 1995 constitution provided a law which guaranteed liberty of where one would forcibly occupy another's land and refuse to be evacuated without notice of the land lord. These came to be known as the bona fide occupants. This is evident with the act stating that if one settles on land and for twelve years, one turns to be a bona fide occupant. This is synonymous to saying that if one stole another's car without being brought to book for 12 years, then the latter becomes the bona fide owner of the car!!.

This became another scenario of legitimatising land theft. However if not then justice would ask the later how that piece of land was acquired. Earlier, in Buganda for example, the original land lord coordinated with Omutongole (local village leaders) to confirm tenancy of the tenant. By so doing , the illegal entrants into the area were eliminated.

Contrary to the situation today where everything is politicised and political might depends on the numbers thus more you compromise with illegal tenants who have always multiplied in numbers, the local authorities have more votes to to depend on political survival, hence side lining the rights of their few land lords who stand to lose on the dark side of democracy to the usually many squatters. In fact the law advises that if the land lord denies the tenant access, then the denied person is free to use the local council to intervene. This was seemingly meant to portray the government as pro-people if it wasn't for the contradiction of individual big wigs from central government that are doing massive evictions in the name of development and investments.

It is in this era that we have heard claims of lease holders on public land; most surprisingly with guns and political authorities behind them, an honour that the original land lords have not been granted hence, creating hatred and high tension between the two parties. this is the prevailing situation in Buliisa between the Bagungu and the Balaalo and also in Buganda between the Baganda and again with the Balaalo.

Despite granting bona fide occupancy to 12 year settlers, the new lease holders have ironically cleared their land of tenants. It is not news of people holding clear land titles which were not granted by rightful land lords or issued with their consent. The question is ' suppose there are no more local councils systems and guns to protect these new lease holders, what will the evicted do in reaction and what will the land lords do with the unlawful squatters?

As events unfold, it really leaves one wondering whether we are in a lawfully organised state or in a state of anarchy. First the legal implications stand test, how fair is to determine the unit price of a leased plot of land when there is no law to regulate how much the already impoverished citizens should pay for essential goods and utilities.

The law seems also to lack balance when it levies 1000= annual fee on to the country's most valued investment(land). In a free economy, it leaves a lot of doubt in the balance of the law, why it has to regulate the fee on land as though it was designed to curse those who own it. This renders it unfair transaction to set so meagre a fee for an unwilling seller because no right thinking owner would treat one's land with such a value.

Secondly, in line with that unfair law, the local councils in search for votes, favours the tenants thus ending up administering injustice to the marginalised landlords in the guise of implementing the law. It could make sound reason if it were to truly compensate the many marginalised by the past land acts.

Announcements and directives have always been clear against landlords and individuals evicting people from their plots yet ironically it is the same government turning a blind eye when the senior officers evict the helpless masses for selfish ends. the most recent scenario was the case in Dandira in Mukono where one Juma Seiko, an ADC to the state minister of micro finance demolished an entire village plus a school all in the name of bigger investment. The other was where squatters were evicted from the forest reserving it for the public interests, but it was very disappointing when one heard the president was determined to have the forest cleared for sugar cane farming.

It was also advanced that the 1900 agreement had unfairly distributed land to the few landlords and left out so many landless hence the remedy in proposing 1000= fee for lease holders which sounds fair enough but not administratively applicable. But this is a mere flatter to the law if both have to be held comparatively to the unfolding events nowadays. For today there are more land conflicts and tension than ever before. In fact the difference is that there was a clear cut line between who was a land lord and a tenant. Mailo land to the land lords and plots (ekibanja) to the tenants.The administration was by then easy to the created hierarchy of Abataka, Abatongole and then the Bakopi. Revenue could come from envujjo / busulu and no one was complaining.

With the above issues in mind, our government has got to save us this time bomb by taking examples from other countries which have managed to solve the land issues fairly. In a free market economy, every one is free to levy a price of his commodity, so how fair is for the government to levy a standard 1000= for an acre and even go ahead to to authorise an investment unto another's investment without mutual agreement.

Is it a crime for one to invest in land in Uganda?