President Uhuru Kenyatta failed to take opportunity to address historical injustices on land
What you need to know:
- The President should know that ad hoc decrees have little chance of succeeding, and are unsustainable.
- The President failed to take up the challenge of addressing land issues in a systematic manner.
I don’t know if the decision by President Kenyatta to revoke the title deeds of unscrupulous speculators in Lamu is legal or constitutional (it is probably neither), but I must commend him for tackling head-on an issue that has been a thorn in the flesh of coastal people for decades.
However, the President should know that ad hoc decrees that are not rooted in institutions, such as the Constitution, or in law, have little chance of succeeding, and are unsustainable. When this rogue bunch of speculators is punished, another bunch will crop up.
That is why it is important for the President to recognise the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission’s report and the Ndung’u Commission report, which list land injustices at the Coast and other marginalised regions.
While those mentioned adversely in these reports cannot be assumed to be guilty, there is merit in looking at the cases afresh, and having them investigated so that injustices related to land are dealt with once and for all.
Coastal communities have viewed successive regimes (including those that colonised them) as predatory forces that sought to alienate them from their land and way of life.
Post-independence governments, including that of Uhuru’s father, did very little to allay these fears. On the contrary, the coastal region suffered disproportionately from poor educational facilities, lack of access to jobs and opportunities, particularly in the civil service, and discrimination in the issuance of national IDs.
Poor education and lack of employment in the formal sector meant that landless peasants had few livelihood options. Thus many found themselves caught in a cycle of desperation and poverty.
FAILED TO ENGAGE
Efforts by local populations to force the government to address their issues have come to naught. The Mombasa Republican Council, a peasant movement made up of both Christians and Muslims, was vilified and criminalised by the State.
Both the opposition ODM and the ruling PNU parties failed to engage with the MRC or to address their issues, even when ODM held the land docket in the coalition government formed in 2008. This has created the general feeling that “Pwani si Kenya” – that the coast is regarded as being an alien territory.
This is evident in the lack of government visibility at the Coast. Police presence, functioning government clinics and well-equipped government schools are a rarity in most coastal areas.
The attacks on Mpeketoni may be the result of Kenya’s uneven development model, which not only favoured certain areas within the country, but also certain ethnic groups within marginalised regions.
As researcher Paul Goldsmith has noted, Mpeketoni’s largely Kikuyu population, which was settled there by the government in the late 1960s, benefited from a level of institutional support that local populations did not receive.
The new settlers received supplies to till the land and were issued with title deeds while the indigenous populations received neither. Because of the inherently tolerant nature of coastal communities, both locals and “outsiders” lived together as amicable neighbours.
SCRAMBLE TO OWN LAND
But this tolerance is being increasingly tested. People living in and near Lamu, for instance, believe that the Lamu port project will further disenfranchise them as upcountry people scramble to own land near the port and to get jobs at the port and related industries.
Having experienced government neglect, discrimination, disenfranchisement and criminalisation it would not be surprising if there is a domestic element in the attacks in Lamu County.
Coastal communities, like most marginalised groups, were hoping that land reform would be accelerated after the promulgation of the new Constitution and that indigenous populations would be assured that they would benefit from projects in the region.
This is clearly not happening fast enough, and in some cases, is even being reversed by speculators out to make a quick buck.
The President failed to take up the challenge of addressing land issues in a systematic manner. His recent decree threatens to take us back to the time when the President dished out — or denied — land to people based on personal or commercial interests.
