For the best experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
I have followed with keen interest the debate on the proposed three land bills, which revolves around whether they are designed to further the cause of public interest.
I have read and analysed the contents of the bills, which have since been collapsed into the Omnibus Land Reforms Bill 2015.
Most critics have argued that the three proposed legislations, namely Community Land Bill, Physical Planning Bill 2015 and Land Laws (Amendment) Bill 2015, are unconstitutional and allege they are designed to take away the gains Kenyans made when they adopted the new Constitution.
These are among the bills that ought to have been passed into law by August 27 this year. However, this did not happen and Parliament had to extend the deadline by one year.
Article 67 of the Constitution defines the roles of the National Land Commission as (a) to manage public land on behalf of national and county governments and (b) to recommend a national land policy to the national government. NLC has resorted to twisting and manipulating the interpretation of two sub articles.
The words “recommend” and “manage on behalf” do not in any way mean that the two levels of governmentsare not entitled to push for enactment of laws that help to resolve the decades-old land crisis in Kenya.
For starters, the land in Kenya is classified in three broad categories, namely community, public and private. One of the key highlights of Community Land Bill is that for first time in our history, different communities in Kenya would be issued with title deeds. This will be key milestone which will bring to an end the recurring land-related violence that had been mainly caused by the disputes over the boundaries pitting the neighbouring ethnic groups.
The other advantage is that each community will be at liberty to use their title to borrow money from banks and invest the monies in rolling out income-generating projects.