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 Batwaprotections due to indigenous peoples in International Law. The Batwa are not accorded theseprotections. In fact, the Constitution defines indigenous communities in Uganda in a way thatmakes every community in Uganda indigenous. Wiessener argues that it is imperative todelimit what exactly constitutes an ‘indigenous people’. 90 Now that there seems to be no suchdelimitation in the Constitution, the Batwa, who are in reality more indigenous than othergroups, are not given the special protection they deserve.Article 32 provides that ‘the State shall take affirmative action in favour of groups marginalisedon the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason created by history, tradition orcustom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances which exist against them.’ This provision isbroad based, not conclusive or exhaustive. It follows that the Batwa can be read into theprovision as marginalised, and therefore entitled to affirmative action. Of course the best wayforward would be their recognition as indigenous people. Indeed, the Batwa define themselvesas indigenous and are recognised (including in language) by others as the first inhabitants, aconcept that the Constitution does not address. The Batwa certainly are marginalised andentitled to the protections afforded by the Constitution, and Batwa rights to lands andresources should be recognised in a manner that is broadly consistent with the internationalnorms pertaining to indigenous peoples.Parliament is enjoined to make relevant laws to give full effect to clause (1) of the Article 32. Allin all, despite the existence of some general provisions in the Constitution, the Batwa remainmarginalised and discriminated against with no access to land resources. The politics ofnumbers operates against them. They have not yet sought recourse in relation to the abovementionedconstitutional provisions, nor have they sought to invoke persuasive aboriginal titlejurisprudence norms in the court system.4.1.1.2 Vesting land in the citizens: land rights for all?Article 237 of the Constitution vests land in the citizens of Uganda to be held in accordancewith customary, freehold, mailo and leasehold land tenure systems. With the exception ofleasehold, all the other systems had been abolished by the 1975 Land Reform Decree, and werereinstated by the 1995 Constitution.The Article explicitly states that ‘land in Uganda belongs to the citizens of Uganda’; the claim toownership, however, must be on the basis of one of the tenure systems mentioned above. Thisreplaces the earlier draconian paradigm of the state owning all land as public land. Had it notbeen for the 1947 and 1952 legislations that extinguished their customary ownership rights, theBatwa would be in a better position to assert them under the 1995 Constitution.The framers of the Constitution placed great importance on the protection of customary landowners. According to Article 237 (4), all Ugandan citizens owning land under customary tenuremay acquire a certificate of ownership of their land, and land under customary tenure may beconverted to freehold landownership by registration. Clearly this ought to have afforded theBatwa protection against eviction as customary tenants. However, the Batwa had customarilyowned land that is of special interest to the government – forest land. This leads to a conflictbetween the Constitution and other environmental laws that prohibit habitation in forests. The90 Wiessener (1999), p 3.Nakayi 18January 2009