download document - Rights and Resources Initiative

Historical and contemporary land laws and their impact on indigenous peoples’ land rights in Uganda:The case of the BatwaIt is important to determine whether the attainment of territorial sovereignty by the colonialmasters over geographical areas occupied by the Batwa extinguished pre-existing rights inland. One case that addressed this question is that of Mabo and others vs Queensland, 52 inwhich it was found that: ‘a mere change in sovereignty does not extinguish native title to land’.Similarly, the Supreme Court of Belize, in the ‘Maya’ case, 53 held that:the acquisition of sovereignty over Belize, first by the Crown and later by independentgovernments, did not displace, discharge or extinguish pre-existing interests in and rightsto land … 54In the light of these authorities, the colonial definition of the boundaries of Uganda andsubsequent independence do not in themselves extinguish the pre-existing customary rights ofthe Batwa to land.Nevertheless, the British sought to extend and consolidate their rule and influence through thesigning of treaties. After the Anglo-German Agreement of July 1890, IBEACO’s representativesigned a treaty with the Kingdom of Buganda purportedly granting the Kabaka and hiskingdom protection. The Kabaka in return acknowledged the supremacy of the company. 55In 1894 Uganda was declared a Protectorate by Britain. The British adopted a system ofindirect rule using Buganda Kingdom as the nucleus from which to extend their influence tothe rest of Uganda. 56 Thus the laws passed in Buganda would eventually have an impact on thewhole country, including the Batwa. During this time the Batwa are barely mentioned, owing tothe fact that their area was under German control.3.1.1 The land regulations of 1897The Land Regulations of 1897 57 introduced individual ownership through land alienation in theplace of customary holdings. Since customary land rights were not defined in state law, theland rights that developed during colonial rule were based on western jurisprudence andnotions of property relations. The Land Regulations gave the Governor power to grant acertificate to any person to hold land for 21 years. 58 Land lawfully held prior to the regulations,or occupied by any person under customary title, would not be granted. Batwa customaryownership rights were thus safeguarded. However, the requirement for ‘documentary title’ asevidence of ownership of land has persisted to the detriment of the Batwa, who don’t possessdocuments of title, and for whom documentary title could not have applied to theircommunally owned land.52 High Court of Australia, ‘Mabo vs Queensland (No. 2)’, 1992, 145 CFR IFC 92/04, specifically paragraphs 61–62.53 Supreme Court of Belize, Aurelio Cal on behalf of the Maya Village of Santa Cruz and others v The AttorneyGeneral of Belize and others, Claim No. 171, 2007.54 Ibid., paragraphs 77–8.55 Cannon (1961).56 Morris and Read (1966), p 4. ‘Uganda’ is a Swahili word.57 Laws of Uganda Protectorate, Revised Edition, 1923, Vol. 23, Chapter 97. This was regulation N0. 4 of 1897,commencing on 10 July.58 Ibid., Regulation No. 9.Nakayi 11January 2009