IS LAND OWNERSHIP A RIGHT OR A PRIVILEDGE?

In a recently published article in the local Kenyan print media, a political commentator likened the Kenyatta family’s land ownership and their status in National politics with the Bhutto family of Pakistan. I am of the view there can be no comparison between Jomo Kenyatta and Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto for reasons that I shall attempt to present in this article.

Shah Nawaz Bhutto was a close ally of the former colonial masters and his being decorated with knighthood   is a clear testimony of his loyalty and for “exemplary” services he rendered to the British colonial government. In the same article the writer quoted from a book titled “Songs of Blood and Sword” authored by  none other than the granddaughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto about how the Bhutto family acquired large tracts of land in the distant past. She wrote that “they battled…until the Bhuttos secured themselves land that stretched fifty to eighty miles”. “During colonial rule, because the Bhuttos were in good books of the Government, they received land gifts from the Government, adding to what their ancestors had already acquired”. Like the Bhuttos, many other feudal lords of Sindh and other Provinces also acquired vast tracts of land ranging between five to fifteen thousand acres.

 Pir Pagara, Mustafa Jatoi, the Lagharis, Makhdooms, Jamalis are just a few who were and continue to remain a part of a feudal agricultural establishment in independent Pakistan. These individuals and their families derive their power base from small farmers and tenants, commonly referred to as Mazaras especially in the interior of Sindh Province. The tenancy system continues on a large scale; one third of Pakistan’s farmers are tenant farmers, including almost one-half of the farmers in Sindh, the home Province of the Bhuttos. Tenant farmers have been victims of exploitation by the feudal landlords who typically collect 50% of what they produce from the land on which they have remained tenants for decades.

In 1959, accepting the recommendations of a special commission on the subject of land ownership, General  Mohammed Ayub Khan’s government issued new land reform regulations that aimed to boost agricultural output, promote social justice, and ensure security of tenure. A ceiling of 200 hectares of irrigated land and 400 hectares of non-irrigated land was placed on individual ownership. However these reforms made no serious attempts to break up large estates or to lessen the power or privileges of the elites who were owners of such large estates. Part of the reforms also attempted to provide security of tenure to tenants, consolidate existing holdings and prevent fragmentation of farm plots. An average holding of about five hectares was considered necessary for a family’s subsistence and a holding of about twenty five hectares was pronounced as a desirable ‘economic’ unit.

Zulfikar Bhutto who pursued a socialist ideology and branded his socialism as ‘Islamic Socialism’ as did other likeminded leaders in the Arab world at the time, was part of the land reforms introduced by Ayub Khan under whom he had served for many years before he engineered his exit from power. The land reforms that Bhutto is said to have introduced during his tenure cannot be said with absolute certainty were in any way successful. Did Zulfikar Ali Bhutto ever redistribute part of his family’s land to the landless? There is no evidence that he did so. Why should Uhuru Kenyatta be expected to do so ?

On the other hand Jomo Kenyatta was a Nationalist and a freedom fighter who suffered at the hands of the British colonial Government by being detained for nearly eleven years. Upon taking up leadership of an independent Kenyan nation he acted wisely for the interest of the Kenyan people and entered into an agreement with the British government that witnessed an orderly transfer of land from the white British settlers to the Kenyan state. The establishment of the Settlement Fund Trustees facilitated provision of funding by Britain for purchase of land from its nationals. This scheme proved beneficial for   many who did not wish remain in Kenya after it attained independence in 1963. Those willing to sell their farms at a valuation acceptable to both parties did so and migrated elsewhere. However, a section of Kenyans have some misgivings about that land buy out scheme, for reasons that are unjustifiable.

 Kenyatta was able to settle many landless people including some freedom fighters on the land purchased through the British funded buy out scheme administered by the Settlement Fund Trustees. Critics are often quick to blame Kenyatta for what they claim to be selective ‘dishing out of land’ to the Kikuyu people from central province only. Many Kenyans, due to either lack of knowledge or out of sheer ignorance, are unwilling to acknowledge that the largest group of people who suffered displacement was the Kikuyu ethnic community who were dispossessed of their prime land in areas spanning from Gigiri on the outskirts of Nairobi to Mweiga and other parts of the province that lie between Kinangop and Thomson’s falls. All that land was allocated to British soldier farmers and the Boers who were invited to come to Kenya by the British colonial administration. Many of the displaced people spent long years in villages established on the edges of Castle forest and were only allowed to plant certain approved crops between the rows of planted trees. Others were relocated to Mwea in Eastern Province and Marigat in Baringo district where they worked as menial laborers on the irrigation schemes that were established in those regions.

There may be no doubt that Jomo Kenyatta purchased a number of farms through negotiations on a ‘willing buyer willing seller’ basis and may have also acquired some public land by way of direct allocation, to which no individual or groups of people ever raised objections during his Presidency or in the years that followed after the end of his rule. Whatever he left behind has been lawfully inherited by his family members and unlike in the case of many other wealthy individuals who passed on in recent times, no disputes of any sorts have arisen about Kenyatta’s estate. Also in the matter of Kenyatta’s liabilities, many Kenyans may not be aware that his family settled most of his liabilities that were well documented and not subject of any dispute. I am privy to one case which I personally handled where full settlement of a debt of over KES.4 million was settled a few years after his demise.

Kenyans will continue to engage in debates about historical injustices for a long time to come but such debates and rhetoric by politicians are not likely to yield any meaningful results in the foreseeable future. The “radical land reforms” that many are advocating for seem to suggest a possible end to free enterprise and private ownership of economically viable land units. However, in the case of Pakistan, all the successive governments that followed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto after he was sentenced to death by the military ruler General Zia ul Haq, failed to implement the land reform policies that Bhutto and his predecessor attempted to introduce.

Fifty years after Kenya attained independence, large tracts of land in certain parts of Kenya that were allocated to white settlers by the British Colonial Government still remain in their possession. They still hold the original land titles. Nearly 80% of Kenya’s most productive land as well as large scale ranching farms in Laikipia district have remained in the hands of the original settlers or their descendants. Same is the case with Naivasha area where one individual recently inherited thirty thousand acres of land from his deceased father, not forgetting the large acreage owned by the Delamere family in the same region. The sanctity of those land titles have so far been respected by Kenyan leadership without engaging in any drastic acts similar to the ones witnessed in Zimbabwe.

 For some Kenyans, ownership of land by non blacks as well as any land acquired by local Kenyans after independence constitutes historical injustices for which they continually call for redress.

The only priority for the proponents of “reform agenda”, appears to be the repossession of land they claim was “acquired illegally” by Jomo Kenyatta, Daniel arap Moi and some of their close associates and family members. This seems a far-fetched idea in a country that has embraced democracy and respect for the rule of law as enshrined in the new constitution. The establishment of the National Land Commission which is mandated to deal with all land issues in the country in accordance with the letter and spirit of Sessional Paper No.3 of 2009 on National Land Policy is in its infancy and once fully operational is expected to address and offer solutions to most, if not all of the issues related to land in this country.