The air has been thick in Parliament, this week, as government and opposition sides tussled over contents of the Land Bills. Each side claimed to speak for poor Malawians.
While I agree that both sides have a point, I believe that the greatest weakness in the whole process of passing these Land Bills has been lack of honesty in the discussions. The debates have also been inadequate for such a serious matter.
But Members of Parliament (MPs), on both sides, have themselves to blame because they spent more time haggling over implementation of their conditions of service than on tackling matters of national importance such as the Land Bills.
Sticky issues
The opposition side wanted the Bills to ensure that land under freehold should turn into leasehold category. While Minister of Lands, Atupele Muluzi, is said to have agreed with concerned committees that their proposals would be taken on board, he stands accused of back-peddling on his word in the chamber.
Then the opposition MPs objected to government’s intention to charge a fee whenever customary land is being sold. They also protested the clause that introduces government— sponsored field officers to oversee customary land management, arguing that the provision would disempower traditional authorities in land issues.
This is where I find that both sides make sense in their arguments.
Firstly, most freehold land titles were taken unjustly. This is why we have the likes of lawmaker, Bon Kalindo and his erstwhile brother-in-arms, Vincent Wandale, agitating for repossession of idle land from commercial estate owners.
But converting freehold land into leasehold will be counter-productive to Malawi’s efforts to woo foreign investment. Any serious investor looks at land laws in a country before throwing in their money. Land is a huge part of capital investment, as such, it would make no sense to give an investor land title that can last for 21 years only.
Think of those commercial farmers that might want to grow coffee, tea, macadamia or rubber trees; they need at least some 25 years for them to start making minimum profits from their investments. Consider owners of commercial buildings in our central business districts; what can befall such an investor if a cabinet minister just wakes up one morning and decides not to renew the title? And it is not always that we have judicious ministers or presidents.
But, on the other hand, we have Malawians whose arable land was unjustly taken over by commercial farmers. With our rapid population growth, such Malawians are condemned to a life -time of buying their staple food as they do not have productive land.
On customary land, it is well-documented that some traditional leaders have behaved as if the country is under feudalism. They have been selling land to investors while pushing their own subjects to the peripheral of the development agenda. This has created a growing section of internally displaced people that no longer see the meaning of life.
Dangerous path
That said, I feel that the government is biting more than it can chew in the manner it is handling the Bills. It is failing to communicate its intentions and the spirit of the Bills to the common person. The message that is going out to the masses is that, the government is stripping traditional leaders of their jurisdiction on customary land.
One can play around with chiefs’ honoraria but not their grip on land. Traditional leaders derive their powers from their continued lordship over farmland and grave— yards. Chiefs are able to put down any rebellion by simply telling their subjects that once they are bereaved, they should find somewhere to bury their dead.
In the traditional set-up, denying a chief power over land is as good as dethroning them.
Still on customary land, villagers are already paying a certain percentage of any land transaction to traditional leaders. This Bill will obligate the villagers to pay a fee to government from the little that they get from such transactions. Does it mean that the poor villager will be subject to “double-taxation”: paying both the chief and the government?
If he is expected to only pay the government, how does government expect to placate the angry chiefs whose gold-mine will collapse following the enactment of these laws?
Conversely, although freehold land ownership accounts for three percent of total land ownership, its contribution to the national economy and stability is huge. Government cannot afford to disappoint freehold title holders because that might tantamount to economic suicide.
Need for inclusive debate
This is a serious issue that touches on national sensibilities. It is to Malawians as sensitive as the Brexit debate was for people of the United Kingdom. There will be too many casualties that might not be prepared to go down without a fight. If not properly handled, its implementation might just end up being a fertile ground for more corruption.
There is need for candid and inclusive consultations. Traditional leaders need to be heard just like their subjects. Allowing 70 biased individuals to make decisions on behalf of 17 million Malawians is a serious betrayal of the nation.
Moreover, these 70 MPs have surrendered their thinking capabilities to the Democratic Progressive Party caucus.
Feedback:ichitosi@bnltimes.com
Leave a Reply