Customary Land Tenure in Liberia - Land Tenure and Property ...

8
1.3 HISTORY OF LAND TENURE IN LIBERIA
1.3.1 Overview of Customary Tenure
When Americo-Liberian settlers arrived in Liberia in 1821, they encountered societies with indigenous systems
based on local practices, customs, and rules. In areas under their control, the settlers imposed a land tenure
system based on fee simple ownership which extended about 40 to 55 miles inland. The rest of the lands in the
interior remained under the governance of customary land tenure systems (Unruh, 2009). Thus, a dual system
emerged under which the coastal areas of the country adopted statutory tenure systems, while the system in the
interior continued to operate according to customary rules and norms (Unruh, 2009; Wily, 2007).
Through force and coercion, the Liberian government subjugated and exerted sovereignty over what became the
country‟s interior. By 1923, the area was largely under its administrative, judicial, and legal authority. Despite this,
Unruh (2009) notes that the “customary tenure system continued and was sanctioned as a distinct tenure system
by the Liberian government.” As a result, customary rules for land and resources were left largely intact and the
settlement patterns of indigenous communities with discrete land areas was unaltered (Unruh, 2008).
According to Wily (2007), the customary rules that governed land and natural resources were similar across the
area that comprises modern-day Liberia. These systems were based on usufruct rights under which land was held
to be inalienable. Unruh (2008, p. 6-7) asserts that customary land tenure in Liberia is based on two principles:
(1) that “customary group connection to specific land areas in Liberia is based on the idea of early and later
arrivals”, and (2) that “land cannot be subdivided or inherited individually, and that lineage lands belong to the
dead, living, and unborn”. Ethnographic research including descriptions of customary land sheds further light on
the tenure regimes in specific clans.
Research by Blanchard (1967) on the Mano and Kpelle of the Wolota Clan in Bong County reveals that land was
accessed through family groups within their respective towns. Prior to the 1920s, the people of Wolota Clan
were divided into autonomous town clusters, which were often at war with one another. These towns were
further divided into „sibs,‟ which were comprised of family groups who traced their lineage through the male line
to a common ancestor. “Public property,” or property held in common (i.e., undeveloped land, paths, and water
resources), was controlled by elders. Within the clan, each cluster of towns had recognized boundaries. Within
the cluster, each town had its own allocated land. And each sib within each town had land to meet its members‟
needs. After “pacification” of the interior, however, the property regime in Wolota Clan underwent a dramatic
shift. In some cases, Town Elders assumed the responsibility of distributing land. Most of the land, though, was
eventually divided into private plots and held under TCs (Blanchard, 1967).
In her review of ethnographic research on customary land law, Rose (2011) cites Currens‟ research on the Loma
of Lofa County – the only study that she found to detail customary land use rules. According to Currens‟
research, the Loma determine rights to land according to kinship with and descent from a common ancestor.
Land and property pass to a man‟s next oldest brother, rather than to his wife and children. However, cash crops
– primarily coffee and cocoa groves – tend to fall outside of these customary inheritance rules, passing on to
sons rather than brothers (Rose, 2011).
Rose (2011) summarizes her overall findings drawn from ethnographic research on pre-war customary land
tenure in Liberia:
(A)uthorities used client-patron relations or intermarriages to confer land rights to others and to increase
their power; land was not scarce; land access and settlement were flexible; individuals controlled farms;
farmers were concerned with the control of crops and trees on their land but did not raise land
ownership questions; farmers could claim any land not already marked by another farmer for that year‟s
swidden, any forest contiguous to their previous season‟s rice field, and any land that they had improved
(e.g., by planting trees) (p. 13).
However, Rose‟s review of the literature also reveals changes in rural land tenure, instigated in particular by
growing interest in land by outsiders and even politically influential local elites, or so-called “big men” (2011). In
CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE IN LIBERIA