Disagreements a threat to land reforms

Kenya has made gains in its quest for land reform in the past decade and now prides itself on a new policy and legal framework.

The Lands Ministry and the National Land Commission are responsible for the implementation of the reforms. However, this may be affected by the frequent conflicts between them.

There is a need to revisit the legal framework and respective operational institutional structures.

Besides the Housing and Urban Development dockets, the ministry has a Directorate of Lands under which are five departments, each under a director.

Under each of the directors are several senior technical and administrative officers, some at the head office in Nairobi and others at county level.

The National Land Commission has established a rather bloated structure, with 12 directorates, besides the CEO’s office.

Under each directorate are several ranks of senior technical and administrative officers along with support staff.

The commission is in the process of establishing county land management boards around the country. One must remember that at county level there remain organs such as land control boards and land registries.

A quick glance reveals overlaps between these two parallel structures. Why was the commission allowed to recruit without a pre-audit of the technical skills available in the ministry that could be deployed for related tasks?

Why didn’t the ministry, the commission, and the Public Service Commission collaborate to rationalise the new recruitment?

The wars in the ministry have revolved around issuance of title deeds, administration of settlement programmes, and processing of leases and development applications.

VESTED INTERESTS

Traditionally, these are the areas around which officer discretion has been broadly exercised, where decisions to allocate or extend land leases could determine ownership of millions worth of property.

These are lucrative areas where vested interests are driven or ring-fenced. From a priority perspective, why is the commission so fixated on these areas while complaints of grabbing of public land increase?

When it comes to these areas, the ministry too acts rather mean, seeking to keep out the commission even where the law states otherwise.

Yet it is within these areas that major processes that economically empower the rural and urban landowners and businesses are determined.

Unless the government and stakeholders wake up to the evident tell-tale signs, progress on land reforms will stall.

Let me illustrate.

When title deeds were issued at the Coast, the commission challenged them. When the land registry had to be reorganised, the commission challenged its closure in court.

Currently, there are parallel efforts to establish land information management systems.

There has also been a silent war on who should administer settlement programmes.

This means that the issuance of title deeds for community land will remain contested.

The new county land management boards are already beginning to assume some duties that they should not perform. This is a recipe for future conflicts.

There is an urgent need for clarity in land governance and a clear chain of command. This means revisiting our laws. After two years of experiment, we now know what will work and what will not.

Mr Mwathane is a surveyor. [email protected]