arcadia report on international legal precedents on the ......precedents on customary land tenure by...
TRANSCRIPT
INTERNATIONALLEGALPRECEDENTSONTHE
PROTECTIONOFTHERIGHTTOCUSTOMARYTENURE
FrancisGimaraandZacharyLomoArcadiaAdvocates
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
ii
COVERPAGEPICTUREACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thecoverpagepicture:SOURCE,IRINNEWS:
http://www.irinnews.org/report/95322/uganda-land-disputes-threaten-northern-peace.
19April2012
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
iii
TableofContents
COVERPAGEPICTUREACKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................................iiTABLEOFACRONYMS.......................................................................................................................................................iTABLEOFCASESANDLEGISLATION.......................................................................................................................ii1 EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................................................11.1 MajorFindings....................................................................................................................................................11.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................................................3
2 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................................42.1 TermsofReference...........................................................................................................................................42.2 KeyconceptsandTerminologies................................................................................................................42.2.1 Internationallegalprecedent..............................................................................................................52.2.2 Customarylandtenure...........................................................................................................................5
2.3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................................72.4 LandtenuresystemsinUganda:anoverview......................................................................................8
3 INTERNATIONALLEGALPRECEDENTSONCUSTOMARYLANDTENURE....................................103.1 RecognitionofCustomaryLandTenure................................................................................................103.2 TheDutyofStatestoProtecttherightstoCustomaryLandTenure........................................18
4 TREATYANDDECLARATORYBASEDPROTECTIONOFCUSTOMARYLANDTENURE............204.1 TreatyBasedProtectionofCustomaryLandTenure......................................................................204.1.1 TheILOIndigenousandTribalPeoplesConvention...............................................................204.1.2 AfricanCharteronHumanandPeoples’Rights(ACHPR).....................................................214.1.3 InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).............................................22
4.2 Declarations.......................................................................................................................................................234.2.1 TheUnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples(UNDRIP)......23
5 CHARACTERANDSTATUSOFCUSTOMARYLANDTENURE...............................................................245.1 TheStatusofCustomaryLandtenureinInternationalLaw.........................................................245.1.1 Customarylandtenure,colonialism,andthedoctrineofterranullius...........................255.1.2 InternationalLawandIndigenousCustomaryLandTenure...............................................26
5.2 CharacterandStatusofCustomaryLandTenureinDomesticLaw..........................................285.2.1 CustomaryLandTenure:RecognisedbutDistortedandrelegated..................................285.2.2 TheAuthenticNatureofAfricanCustomaryLandTenureandLaw................................36
6 CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................47
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
iv
6.1 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................................476.2 Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................48
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
i
TABLEOFACRONYMS
ACHPR AfricanCharteronHumanandPeoplesRights
ACHPR AfricanCommissiononHumanandPeoplesRights
ACtHPR AfricanCourtonHumanandPeoplesRights
CCJ CaribbeanCourtofJustice
CRC ConventionontheRightsoftheChild
FAO FoodandAgriculturalOrganisation
IACHR Inter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights
IACtHR Inter-AmericanCourtonHumanRights
ICJ InternationalCourtofJustice
ICCPR InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights
ICERD InternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination
ILO InternationalLabourOrganisation
JASLF JointAcholiSub-regionLeaders’Forum
UNDRIP UnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
ii
TABLEOFCASESANDLEGISLATION
INTERNATIONALCASES
AfricanCommissionforHumanandPeoplesRightsvRepublicofKenya,ApplicationNo.006/2012
TheMayagna(Sumo)AwasTingniCommunityvNicaragua,Inter-Am.CtH.R.(Ser.C),No.79/2001.MayaLeaders&OthersvTheAttorneyGeneralofBelize,CCJAppealNoBZCV2014/002.YakyeAxaCommunityvParaguay,(2006)Ser.C.No.142.
DOMESTICCASES
UGANDA
KampalaDistrictLandBoardvVenansioBabwayaka&Others,SupremeCourtAppealNo2
of2007.
KampalaDistrictLandBoard&AnothervNationalHousing&ConstructionCorporation,Civil
AppealNo2of2004.
TifuLukwagovSamwiriMuddeKizza&Nabitaka,CivilAppealNo.13of1996.
PaulKisekkaSsakuvSeventhDayAdventists,CivilAppealNo8of1993.
MarkoMatovu&2OthersvMohammedSseviirand2Others,CivilAppealNo7of1978.
BalamuBweitegaineKiiza&IsmaRubonavZephaniaKadoobaKiiza,CivialAppealNo59of
2009.
SOUTHAFRICA
Alexkor&theRepublicofSouthAfricavRichtersveldCommunity,(CCT19,03)[2003]ZACC
18;2004(5)SA460(CC).
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
iii
LEGISLATION
BOTSWANA
TheTribalLandsAct,Chapter32:02of1968
KENYA
LandAct,No.6of2012
TANZANIA
TheLandAct,No4(Chapter113)of1999.
TheVillageLandAct(Chapter114),1999.
UGANDA
TheConstitutionoftheRepublicofUganda,1995.
TheLandAct,Chapter227.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
iv
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
1
1 EXECUTIVESUMMARY
1. Thisreportpresentsthefindingsofareviewofinternationallegalprecedentsonthe
protectionoftherighttocustomarylandtenure.Inaddition,itpresentsrecommendations
for both government of Uganda and other key stakeholders onwhy and how customary
land tenure as practiced by certain communities in Uganda, especially the Acholi in
NorthernUganda,maybeprotectedasacollectiveandindividualrighttoproperty.
2. Themajor findings and recommendations are summarised in subsections 1.1 and
1.2.Section2ofthereportexplainsthebackgroundtotheassignment–describestheterms
of reference and clarifies the key concepts and terms used in the report. Subsection 2.3
explains themethodology andmethods of data collection; an overviewof land tenure in
Uganda is provided in subsection 2.4. Section 3 discusses some key international legal
precedents on customary land tenure by international human rights courts and key
internationaltreatiesanddeclarationsoncustomarylandtenurearedescribedinsection4.
Section5concludesandgivessomerecommendations.
1.1 MajorFindings
3. First,therearenoexplicitinternationallegalprecedentsinthesenseofdecisionsof
an international court, as opposed to regional courts, on the protection of the right to
customarylandtenureasunderstoodinthisreport.
4. Second, international regional judicial andquasi-judicial bodieshaveunequivocally
recognised and affirmed the customary land tenure of indigenous and aboriginal peoples
butnotofpeopleandcommunitiesnotclassifiedasindigenousoraboriginalsuchasmost
thepeopleofUganda,savetheBatwawhoformerlylivedintheBwindiimpenetrableforest
inwesternUganda.
5. Third,internationalregionalhumanrightscourtsandeconomiccommunitycourtsof
justice have held that customary land tenure as practiced by certain communities in the
countries they live in is a tenure that is equal to other tenure systems and must be
protectedbytheState.Theabsenceofregistrationofcustomarylandtenuredoesnotmake
itinferiortootherformsoflandtenuresuchasleaseholdorfreehold.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
2
6. Fourth,incountrieswerecustomarylandtenurehasbeenexplicitlyprotectedbythe
constitution, international regional human rights courts have held that that gives rise to
collective and individual property rights for the communities that practice it within the
meaningoftheprovisionoftheconstitutionwhichguaranteestherighttoproperty.
7. Fifth, international regional human rights courts have held that where customary
land tenure is notprotectedby the constitution, the Statehas aduty toensure that it is
protectedandregistered.
8. Sixth,internationalregionalhumanrightscourtshaveheldthatStateshaveadutyto
consultwithindigenouscommunitiesthatpracticecustomarylandtenureandobtaintheir
free,prior,andinformedconsent,pertheircustomsandtraditions,beforeittakestheirland
foreconomicdevelopmentactivities.
9. Seventh,thelegalprecedentssetbyinternationalregionalhumanrightscourtsthat
recognise the right to customary land tenure and the customary law that regulate it are
narrowlyfocusedonindigenouspeoplesasdefinedininternationallegalinstruments.
10. Eighth,internationallawandcolonialismcontributedtotheerosionanddistortionof
customary land tenure in Sub-Saharan Africa. Post-colonial African States entrenched the
distorted and inferior status of customary land tenure and law in legal framework they
inheritedfromcolonialpowers.
11. Ninth, someAfrican countries have recognised customary tenure in their lawsbut
restricteditsscope,therebyperpetuatingitsinferiorstatus.
12. Courts in Uganda have not robustly engaged with customary land tenure, as for
example,theirSouthAfricancounterparts.Wherecustomarylandtenureissuesarisebefore
thecourts, thefocus isnarrowlyonprovingthatsuchacustomon landrightsexist inthe
particularcommunitywherethedisputedlandislocated.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
3
13. Thereare treatybasedprotectionsof the right to customary land tenure, suchas
theILOIndigenousandTribalPeoplesConventionof1989(No.169)andtheConventionon
the Protection of Biodiversity but these instruments are narrowly focused on indigenous
peoples.
1.2 Recommendations
14. AmendArticle237of theConstitutionandSections1, 3, 8 and27of the Land
Act,1998,asamended,toexplicitlyprovidethat:
14.1. land under customary land tenure in Ugandan communities is an
intergenerationalasset;
14.2. customary land ownership is on the notion of ancestral ties between the land
andthepersonwhowasbornthereandremainsattachedtheretoandmustone
dayreturnhithertobeunitedwithhisorherancestors;
14.3. customary land tenure is equal in validity and weight to other forms of land
tenure,evenwhereitisnotregistered;
14.4. customary land tenure can give rise to both individual and collective property
rightsprotectedbytheConstitutionofUganda;
14.5. anylandtenuremaybeconvertedfromonecategorytoanother;
14.6. customary law is an original and independent source of norms within the
Ugandanlegalsystem;
14.7. vests landmanagement in the three-tier communitymechanisms – the family,
clan, and community are best suited to handling all land matters in each
community;and
14.8. customarylandtobesurveyed,delimited,anddemarcated.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
4
15. Train judges and lawyers in Uganda on the authentic character and nature of
customarylandtenureandlaw.
2 BACKGROUND
16. This study derives from the terms of reference explained in subsection 2.1 and is
partofabroaderprojectoftheJointAcholiSub-RegionalLeadersForum(JASLF).TheJASLF
rolledoutapilotprojectontheprotectionofrightstocustomarylandtenureinAcholiLand
in 2015. The project is funded by the Democratic Governance Facility (DGF), and
implemented through Trócaire, Uganda. The project aims to, among other things,
investigateexistingandpossiblelegalmechanismstosecurecustomarylandrightsinAcholi
land.
17. Thekey termsandexpressionsuponwhich thestudywas framedareexplained in
subsection 2.2 and the methodology, i.e., the underlying theoretical assumptions and
methodsofdatacollectionareexplicatedinsubsection2.3.Abriefoverviewoflandtenure
inUgandaisprovidedinsubsection2.4.
2.1 TermsofReference
18. ArcadiaAdvocateswascontractedbyTROCAIREUgandatoundertake“deskresearch
oninternationallegalprecedentsforprotectingrightstocustomarylandtenure”andbased
onitsfindings,suggest“recommendations/advocacypoints/policyoptionsforgovernment
andotherkeystakeholders.”
19. Thisreportisakeydeliverableinfulfilmentofthetermsofreference.
2.2 KeyconceptsandTerminologies
20. The key terminologies used to framework the activity of this consultancy,
internationallegalprecedent,customarylandtenure,andassociatedtermsareclarified.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
5
2.2.1 Internationallegalprecedent
21. Alegalprecedentisacourtcreatedlawandtracesitsorigintothecommonlawlegal
system.It issometimesreferredtobyitsLatinarticulation,staredecisiswhichmeansthat
‘priordecisionsaretobefollowed,notdisregarded’1or‘tostandwithdecidedmatters.’2A
legal precedent generally sets a new point of law that has never been considered by
previousjudicialdecisions.
22. In this report, international legal precedent means decisions of international and
regionaljudicialbodies,suchastheInternationalCourtofJustice(ICJ),theAfricanCourtof
HumanandPeoplesRights (ACtHPR), the Inter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights (IACtHR),
andtheCaribbeanCourtofJustice(CCJ)thatsetnewrulesorpointsoflawonthecharacter
andscopeofcustomarylandtenureandlaw.
23. The decisions of quasi-judicial international human rights bodies, such as
international human rights commissions, e.g., the African Commission on Human Rights
(ACHPR) that set new legal ground on the questions about customary land tenure as
practiced by various communities, including indigenous peoples, are also treated as legal
precedent.
24. International agreements or treaties that address the question of customary land
tenurearenot,technically,legalprecedentasunderstood.
2.2.2 Customarylandtenure
25. Customary land tenure, as used in this report,means a systemof land ownership
and use based on the customary law of a given community, whether rural or urban, in
Uganda.
24.1. Theconceptsofownershipanduse insuchcommunitiesoftendonothave
the same meaning as in western, especially English land law, which is defined by the
1 See, e.g., Herman Oliphant, ‘A Return to Stare Decisis’ (1927) 14 American Bar Association Journal 71, at p. 72. 2 See, e.g., Paul M. Perell, ‘Stare Decisis and the Techniques of Legal Reasoning and Legal Argument’ (1987) 2 (2), Legal Research Update 11, as reproduced with permission by The Canadian Legal Research and Writing Guide, online:< http://legalresearch.org/writing-analysis/stare-decisis-techniques/>.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
6
customs and traditions of the English people. It is often forgotten that ‘leasehold’ and
‘freehold’ are land tenure systemsbasedon English customand law. Theonly difference
withAfrican customary land tenure and law is that the former are reduced towritingon
paperwhilethelatternot.
24.2. Insomeofthecommunities,suchastheAcholiofnorthernUgandaandthe
KakwaandLugbaraofWestNile,forexample,ownershipanduseoflandisnotafunctionof
occupation in the sense of physical presence as required by English land law. Thus, a
communitymayownvasttracksoflandonwhichtheydonotphysicallyliveorevengrow
crops but still own it because they use it for other livelihood activities such as hunting,
grazing, and collecting a variety of herbs and foods and have the right to exclude other
people,notmembersoftheircommunity,fromaccessingandharvestingresourcesonthe
land.
24.3. CustomarylandtenureinbothruralandurbanareasofUgandaisregulated
bythecustomarylawofeachcommunity,whichprovideforbothcommunalownershipand
subdivisions based on clan, family, and the individual is in perpetuity. Ownership of land
undercustomarylawofbothruralandurbancommunitiesinUgandaisnotatomised,i.e.,
individualisedinthesenseoftheEnglishorAmericansystemorcommonlawsystem.
26. Thus,customarylandtenureandthecustomarylawofmanycommunitiesinUganda
are intertwined.Boththetenuresystemandthe lawsandnormsofthecommunitiesthat
regulatethemarenotstatic;theyareorganicandevolve.
27. This report adopts the position of the South African Constitutional Court onwhat
constitutesthecustomarylawofagivencommunity,namelythatit ‘isnotafixedbodyof
formally classified and easily ascertainable rules’ because ‘[b]y its very nature’ customary
law ‘evolves as the people who live by its norms change their patterns of life.’3Thus,
customarylaw‘isasystemoflawthatwasknowntothecommunity,practisedandpassed
onfromgenerationtogeneration.Itisasystemoflawthathasitsownvaluesandnorms.’
3 Alexkor & The Republic of South Africa v Richtersveld Community (CCT19/03) [2003] ZACC 18; Others 2004 5 SA 460 (CC), at para. 52.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
7
28. The legitimacy of ownership of land under customary land tenure is derived, not
fromregistration,whichisaforeignidea,butfromthesovereigntyofthepeopleandtheir
laws.
29. In this report, customary land tenure is not a synonym for indigenous tenure as
suggestedbysomescholarsofcustomarylandtenure.4Indigeneityisoftennotthecriterion
withwhich thedifferent communities of people referred to as indigenouspeoplesdefine
themselves.TheAcholi,Kakwa, Lango,Baganda,Banyoroetc.ofUganda, forexample,do
notseethemselvesfirstas indigenouspeoples;rathertheyoftencall themselveswiththe
namesoftheircommunitiesornationalities.Therefore,thisreportusestheterms‘people’
and ‘community’ as the premise of discussing customary land tenure beyond indigenous
peoples.
2.3 METHODOLOGY
30. Dataforthisreportwerecollectedusingqualitativemethodsandespeciallycontent
analysis method. This involved a review and analysis of primary sources such as
constitutions, legislation on land use and tenure, and decided cases. Secondary sources
includedarticles, reports,andbooks thatexplicitlyor implicitlydealtwithcustomary land
tenure.
31. A socio-legal approachwas theunderlying theoretical approach that informed the
analyses in this report. A socio-legal approach asserts that law is a product of social,
economic,politicalrealitiesandtherefore,theanalysisof lawmustbedirectly linkedwith
the ‘analysis of the social situation inwhich law applies.’5A socio-legal approach sharply
contrastswithalegalpositivistapproachbecauselegalpositivism’sfidelitytothelawasis
and its claim that law is a social fact free from moral imperatives ignores the vast
asymmetries of power relations that define relationships between peoples; indeed, legal
positivismwascentraltofacilitatingtheespousingofconceptssuchasterranullius,which 4 See, e.g., Liz Alden Wily, ‘Customary Land Tenure in the Modern World: Rights to Resources in Crisis: Reviewing the Fate of Customary Tenure in Africa – Brief # 1 of 5’ (2012), online: https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/7713/customary%20land%20tenure%20in%20the%20modern%20world.pdf?sequence=1>. 5 See, e.g., David N. Schiff, ‘Socio-Legal Theory: Social Structure and Law’ (1976), 39 The Modern Law Review 287 – 310.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
8
allowed European imperial powers to proclaim conquered African lands as empty
unoccupiedlandsfreetothetakingdespitefindingcommunitiesofpeopleontheselands.
32. Aswith any qualitative study, some caveats are in order. The quality of data in a
qualitativemethodsofdatacollectiondepend largelyon the individual researchskillsand
may be prone to personal world views. This limitation notwithstanding, however, a
qualitativemethodofdatacollectionallowedusobtaindata thatsufficiently revealedthe
character and status of customary land tenure both in the international and domestic
spheres.
2.4 LandtenuresystemsinUganda:anoverview
33. AbriefoverviewoflandtenureinUgandaisnecessarytoprovideacontextforthis
reporton international legal precedentson theprotectionof the right to customary land
tenure.LandtenureinUgandais,asisthecaseinotherAfricancountries,alegacyofBritish
imperial conquest, rule, suppression, and subversion of formerly autonomous and
independentcommunities.
34. The British imperial powers negotiated with the monarchical rulers of Buganda,
Toro, and Ankole agreements that renown customary land tenure scholar, late Professor
Okoth-Ogendo, argues in effect ‘carved out Uganda into a private estate to be shared
amongst them and the British government.’6This carving out was achieved through the
1900BugandaandToroAgreements, the1901AnkoleAgreement,which introducednew
land tenure systems that ‘gave local rulers and their functionaries estates’ – mailo in
BugandaandnativefreeholdinToroandAnkole,subjectto‘certainobligationsinrespectof
customary‘tenants.’’7
34.1. ThenewlandtenuresystemsintroducedbytheBritishcolonialpowerswere
entrenchedinlaw.Thus,in1908thePossessionofLandLawwasenactedandsubsequently,
in Buganda, the Busuulu and Envujo Law was passed in 1928 to clearly define the
6 Hastings W. Opinya Okoth-Ogendo, ‘Land Policy Development in East Africa: A Survey of Recent Trends’ (1999), online < http://mokoro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/land_policy_dev_east_africa_overview.pdf>. 7 Ibid., at p.2
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
9
relationshipbetween thenew landownersand their tenantsand the rentpayable to the
mailo landlords.8The lands in non-monarchical areas, such as in northern Uganda, were
declaredbytheBritishcolonialpowerscrownland.
34.2. The effect of the new land ownership system the British introducedwas a
mixtureoftenures,namely,‘feudaltenuresinterlacedwithpublicandcustomaryholdings.’9
Crucially,withinthismix,customarylandtenurewastreatedasaninferiorsystemsubjectto
passingrepugnancetests.Post-IndependenceregimesinUgandasimplyentrenchedthese
tenureregimes.AttemptstoreformlandtenureinUganda,especiallythroughtheLandAct,
1969andthe1975LandReformDecreewere futile.TheDecreeabolishedthe feudaland
customarytenuresystemsandvestedalllandinUgandatotheState,whichthengaveitout
toasleaseholds.10
34.3. The1995ConstitutionofUganda,consideredalandmarkachievementinthe
constitutional historyofUganda, and the1998 LandAct, as amended, simply entrenched
this mixed bag of tenures introduced by the colonial State. And while Article 237 (1)
stipulatesthat‘[l]andinUgandabelongstothecitizensofUgandaandshallvestinthemin
accordancewiththelandtenuresystemsprovidedforinthisConstitution,’thesaidtypesof
tenure, mailo, freehold, leasehold, and customary tenure are nothing new but the old
systeminnewwineskins.
35. Theonlydifferencewiththepastisthat,intheory,theConstitutionandtheLandAct
1998, as amended, recognise and protects customary land tenure. But as shall be
demonstrated in Section5.2, theConstitution and the LandAct still treat customary land
tenure as inferior to leasehold, freehold, andmailo holdings.Moreover, our courts have
continuedtotreatcustomarylandtenureasaninferiortypeofownershipincomparisonto
leaseholdorfreehold.ThecourtsinUganda,unliketheSouthAfricancourts11forexample,
8 Ibid. 9 Ibid., at p.3. 10 See, e.g., 11 See, e.g., Tongoane & Others v Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs & Others 2010 6 SA 2014; Shilubana & Others v Nwamitwa 2009 2 SA 66 (CC); and Alexkor and the Republic of South Africa v Richtersveld Community and Others 2004 5 SA 460 (CC).
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
10
havewoefullyfailedtodevelopandelaboratewhatconstitutescustomarylandtenureand
customarylawandinsteadadaptoldcolonialbasedtestsofprovingcustomarylaw.12
3 INTERNATIONALLEGALPRECEDENTSONCUSTOMARYLANDTENURE
36. Questions about the ownership and control of lands and resources hitherto
exclusivelyownedandusedbyvariouscommunitiesindigenoustoAfrica,theAmericas,and
the Caribbean under their customary land tenure and law have been litigated in
internationalregionalhumanrightscourts.
37. Someof the key issues concern the nature and content of customary land tenure
andthelegalconsequencesofannexationofcommunity landsbythecolonialpowersand
subsequentpost-colonialgovernments.Anotherkeyissueiswhethercustomarylandtenure
rights are protected by the constitutional guarantees for the right to private property in
domesticconstitutions.
38. International regional human rights courts, and some domestic courts, have
recognisedandaffirmedcustomarylandtenureasadistinctsystemoflandownershipand
usethatisrootedinthehistoryandcultureoftheaffectedpeopleorcommunity.Thecourts
havealsoexplicitlyrecognisedandaffirmedthedutyoftheStatetoprotectcustomaryland
tenure by among other things ensuring that there is a clear legal process of registering
customarylandtenurerights.
3.1 RecognitionofCustomaryLandTenure
39. Westartwith themost recent case,AfricanCommission forHumanandPeoples
RightsvRepublicofKenyadecidedbytheACtHPRon26May2017.13Thefocushereison
thedecisionoftheCourtonthemerits.
12 See, e.g., Kampala District Land Board Vs Venansio Babweyaka and Ors SCCA No. of 2 of 2007, where the Supreme Court, the highest Court in Uganda, limits the determination of the character and content of customary land tenure and customary law to expert opinion; Marko Matovu & 2 Others vs Mohammed Sseviiri & Another Civil Appeal No 7/788 (CA), where the Court of Appeal simply glossed over what constitutes customary tenure.13 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya, Application No. 006/2012.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
11
45.1. Inthiscase,theOgiekpeopleoftheMauForestinKenyaandothersettlersinthe
MauForestweregivenevictionnoticeinOctober2009bytheKenyaForestServicetoleave
within 30 days. Two NGOs filed a communication with the ACHPR about the impending
evictionoftheOgiekcommunityfromMauForest.
45.2. TheACHPRissuedanorderforinterimmeasuresrequestingKenyatosuspendthe
implementation of the eviction notice because of its ‘far-reaching implications on the
political,socialandeconomicsurvivaloftheOgiekCommunityanditspotentialirreparable
harm’.14
45.3. KenyafailedtorespondtotheorderforinterimmeasuresissuedbytheACHPRand
on12July2012,threeyearsafteritissuedtheorder,theACHPRfiledthisapplicationtothe
ACtHPRonbehalfoftheOgiekpeopleoftheMauForest.
45.4. In its application, the ACHPR claims, among other things, that the Ogiek are an
indigenousminorityethnicgroupinKenyamanyofwhominhabittheMauForestandtheir
evictionfromtheforestbytheKenyaForestryServicesfailedtoconsidertheimportanceof
theMau Forest for their survival.15And crucially, theACHPR claims that ‘theOgieks have
been subjected to several eviction measures since the colonial period, which continued
after independence’16and the eviction notice of October 2009 ‘is a perpetuation of the
historicalinjusticessufferedbytheOgieks.’17
45.5. The ACHPR claims that Kenya’s action to evict the Ogiek from the Mau Forest,
whichistheirancestralhome,violatesarticles1,2,4,8,14,17(2)and(3),21,and22ofthe
AfricanCharteronHumanandPeoplesRights,hereinaftertheCharter.
45.6. TheACHPRprayed, amongst other things, that theACtHPRorders Kenya to ‘halt
the evictions’ of the Ogiek ‘from the East of Mau Forest and refrain from harassing,
intimidating or interfering with the community’s traditional livelihoods’ and that Kenya
should ‘[r]ecognise the Ogieks’ historic land, and issue’ them ‘with legal title that is
14 Ibid., at paragraph 4. 15Ibid.,atparas.6and8.16Ibid.,atpara.8.17Ibid.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
12
preceded by consultative demarcation of the land by the Government and the Ogiek
Community.’Inaddition,theACHPRrequestedtheCourttoorderKenyato‘reviseitslaws
toaccommodatecommunalownershipofproperty.’18
45.7. Kenya,therespondent,inresponse,justifiedtheevictionsontheneedtopreserve
thenaturalecosystemoftheMauForestandrejectedtheACHPR’sclaimthattheOgiekare
anindigenousgroup.
45.8. TherewerenolegalissuesframedbythepartieswiththehelpoftheCourtbutit
appearsfromtheCourt’sassessmentsandrulingsthatsomeofthemainissuesconcerned
whethertheOgiekpeopleconstituteanindigenouscommunitywiththeMauForestastheir
ancestral home and therefore they can claim property rights to the land and forest
resources based on their customary law; and whether failure by the respondent to
recognise the Ogiek as an indigenous community denies them the right to communal
ownershipoftheirlands.
40. TheACtHPRheldthattheOgieksconstitutean'indigenouspopulationthat ispart
of the Kenyanpeople having a particular status anddeserving special protectionderiving
fromtheirvulnerability’19becausetheycertifythecriteriaforindigeneity.
46.1. Inthefirstplace,theOgieks‘havepriorityintimewithrespecttothe
occupation of theMau Forest’20; indeed, the evidence before Court affirm that ‘theMau
Forest is the Ogieks’ ancestral home’21and the ‘Ogieks as a hunter-gatherer community,
haveforcenturiesdependedontheMauForestfortheirresidenceandasasourceoftheir
livelihood.’22
46.2. In thesecondplace, theOgieks ‘exhibitavoluntaryperpetuationof
their cultural distinctiveness, which includes aspects of language, social organisation,
religious,culturalandspiritualvalues,modesofproduction,laws..’23
18Ibid.,atpara.41.19Ibid.,atpara.112.20Ibid.,atpara.109.21Ibid.22Ibid.23Ibid.,atpara.110
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
13
46.3. In the third place, ‘the Ogieks have suffered from continued
subjugation and marginalisation.’ Their suffering emanates from ‘evictions from their
ancestrallandsandforcedassimilationandtheverylackofrecognitionoftheirstatusasa
tribe or indigenous population attest to their persistent marginalisation that the Ogieks
haveexperiencedfordecades.’24
46.4. TheCourtfurtherheldthatbasedonArticle14oftheCharterandthe
provisionsoftheUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenous
Peoples,theOgieks‘havetherighttooccupytheirancestralland,aswellasuseandenjoy
thesaidlands.’25Moreover,‘byexpellingtheOgieksfromtheirancestrallandsagainsttheir
will,without prior consultation andwithout respecting the conditions of expulsion in the
interest of public need, the Respondent violated their rights to land…as guaranteed by
Article 14 of the Charter read in light of theUnitedNationsDeclaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples of 2007.’26The Court further ruled that Article 14 of the Charter
protectsbothindividualandcollectiverightstoproperty.27
41. TheACtHPR’sdecision,however,fallsshortinonefundamentalrespect:itdismally
fails to unequivocally pronounce itself on the nature or character, content, and status of
customarylandtenureandthecustomarylawthatregulatesitinthelightoftheCharter.It
reliestoomuchonprovisionsof international instrumentsanddeclarationson indigenous
communitiestogivecontentandmeaningtotheCharter.28
42. Inthiscontext,theACtHPRfailedtodevelopandclarifythecharacter,content,and
scopeofAfricancustomarylandtenureandlawasanautonomousbodyofnormsandrules
thatregulatetheownership,use,andtransferforlandinthelightoftheprovisionsofthe
Charter,especiallyArticle14.TheCourtsimplyglossedoverthisfundamental issueswhen
interpretingArticle14 in the lightofArticle26 (2)of theUNDeclarationon theRightsof
24Ibid.,atpara.111.25Ibid.,atpara.128.26Ibid.,atpara.131.27Ibid.,atpara.123.28 Similar criticism has been made with respect to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Right; see e.g., Wilmien Wicomb & Henk Smith, ‘Customary Communities as ‘Peoples’ and their Customary Tenure as ‘Culture’: What we can do with the Endorois Decision’ (2011), 11 African Human Rights Law Journal 422 – 446, at pp 432 – 435; 437 – 439.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
14
IndigenousPeoplesnotingthattherighttopropertyinthetraditionalsense,shouldnotbe
excludedfromtheinterpretation.29
43. Forthesereasons,theprecedentsetbytheACtHPRmaybeoflimitedvaluetothe
questionofcustomarylandtenureinAfrica.
44. In the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua30, the applicant
community sought, through the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights (IACHR),
recognitionandprotectionoftheirrighttocustomaryland.
50.1. One of the main contentions of the IACHR is that ‘the Mayagna Awas Tingni
Community has communal property rights to land and natural resources based on
traditional patterns of us and occupation of ancestral territory. Their rights “exist even
withoutStateactionswhichspecifythem”.
50.2. The IACHR further submitted that traditional land tenure is linked to historical
continuity…’31andthe‘overallterritoryofthecommunityispossessedcollectively,andthe
individualsandfamiliesenjoysubsidiaryrightsofuseandoccupation.’32Thus,Nicaraguais
in breach of Article 21 of the American Convention which guarantees the protection of
propertyrights.
50.3. Nicaragua, inresponse,arguedthat theMayagnaAwasTingniCommunitycannot
claimcustomary land tenure rightsbecause,amongothers, ‘theypossess landswhichare
not ancestral and on part of which title has already been obtained by other indigenous
communities,orotherclaimthattheyhaveancestralpossessionrightspredatingthealleged
rightsoftheAwasTingni…’33
51. TheCourtheld,amongothers,that‘article21oftheConventionprotectstherights
toproperty ina sensewhich includes,amongothers, the rightofmembersof indigenous
29Ibid.,atpara.127.30 The Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Judgment of 31 August 2001, Inter- Am. Ct H.R. (Ser. C), No. 79/2001. 31 Ibid., at para. 140 (a). 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid., at para. 141 (a).
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
15
communitieswithintheframeworkofcommunalpropertywhich isalsorecognizedbythe
constitutionofNicaragua.’34TheCourtobservedthat‘[a]mongindigenouspeoplesthereisa
communitariantraditionregardingcommunalformofcollectivepropertyoftheland,inthe
sensethatownershipoflandisnotcentredonanindividualbutratheronthegroupandits
community…’35
51.1. TheCourtfurthernotedthat
[i]ndigenous groups, by the fact of their very existence have the right to livefreely intheirownproperty;theclosetiesof indigenouspeopleswiththelandmustberecognizedandunderstoodasthefundamentalbasisoftheircultures,their spiritual life, their integrity, and their economic survival. For indigenouscommunities, relations to the land are notmerely amatter of possession andproduction but a material and spiritual element which they must fully enjoy,eventopreservetheirculturallegacyandtransmitittofuturegenerations.36
51.2. Andcrucially,theCourtaddressedthequestionofownershipoflandbyindigenous
communitiesintheabsenceoftitle:
‘[i]ndigenous peoples’ customary law must be especially taken intoaccountforpurposesofthisanalysis.Asaresultofcustomarypractices,possessionofthelandshouldsufficeforindigenouscommunitieslackingrealtitletothepropertyofthelandtoobtainofficialrecognitionofthatproperty,andforconsequentregistration.’37
51.3. The Court held that members of the Awas Tingni Community have communal
property rights to the lands they currently inhabit under Article 5 of the Constitution of
Nicaraguaandthat‘inlightofArticle21oftheConvention’,Nicaragua‘violatedtherightsof
members of the Mayagna Awas Tingni Community to the use and enjoyment of their
property, and that it has granted concessions to third parties to utilize the property and
resourceslocatedanareawhichcouldcorrespond,fullyorinpart,tothelandswhichmust
bedelimited,demarcatedandtitled.’38
34 Ibid., at para. 148. 35 Ibid., at para. 149. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., at para. 151. 38 Ibid., at para. 153.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
16
52. In the Case of the Yakye Axa Community v Paraguay39 , the IACHR filed an
applicationagainstParaguayonbehalfoftheYakyeAxaCommunityintheIACtHR,claiming,
among others, that Paraguay violated the Community’s right to property protected by
Article21oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights.
52.1. TheIACHRallegedthatParaguayfailedtoprotecttheancestralpropertyrightsof
theYakyeAxaCommunityandthishasmadeitimpossibleforthethemtoownandpossess
theirterritory.40
52.2. ParaguayinresponsesubmittedthatitrecognisedYakyeAxaCommunity’srightto
theirancestrallandsbutarguesthatthecommunityhasnoownershiporpossessionofthe
landtheyclaim.41
53. The IACtHR held that Paraguay violated the Yakye Axa Community right to their
ancestral lands and territory, which are protected under Article 21 of the American
ConventiononHumanRights,becauseitfailedtotake‘thenecessarydomestic legalsteps
toensureeffectiveuseandenjoymentbymembersof theYakyeAxaCommunityof their
traditional lands, and thishas threatened the freedevelopmentand transmissionof their
traditionalpracticesandculture’42tofuturegenerations.
53.1. TheIACtHR‘underlinedthecloserelationshipofindigenouspeopleswiththeland
mustbeacknowledgedandunderstoodasthefundamentalbasisfortheirculture,spiritual
life, wholeness, economic survival, and preservation and transmission to future
generations.’43
53.2. TheCourtconcludedthat‘theclosetiesofindigenouspeopleswiththeirtraditional
territoriesandthenatural resources thereinassociatedwith theirculture,aswellas the
39(2006)Ser.C.No.142.40Ibid.,atpara.2.41Ibid.,atpara.122.42Ibid.,atpara.155and156.43Ibid.,atpara.131.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
17
components derived from them, must be safeguarded by Article 21 of the American
Convention.’44
54. In theMayaLeaders&OthersvTheAttorneyGeneralofBelize45,decidedby the
CaribbeanCourtof Justice (CCJ)on30October2015, theAppellants in thiscaseappealed
againstajudgmentoftheCourtofAppealofBelizetotheCaribbeanCourtofJustice(CCJ).46
54.1. The Appellants ‘claim that Belize…by its actions or omissions violated their
customary land tenure rights protected by Section 3 (a), 3(d), 16 and 17 of the
Constitution.’47The actions andomissions that constituted the alleged violations ofMaya
customary land tenure rights by the Government of Belize included, for example, two
decadesofissuing‘leases,licenses,permits,andconcessionspermittingoildrilling,logging,
surveying,andcattlegrazingbythirdpartiesoverlandsituateinMayavillages…’48
54.2. Inaddition,theAppellantsclaimthattheGovernmentofBelizefailed‘toprovidea
mechanism to recognize and protectMaya customary land tenure despite the Ten-Point
Agreementof2008,the2004recommendationsoftheIACHR,andthe2007decisioninthe
MayaLandRightsCase’49inwhichtheHighCourtofBelizeheldthat‘theredoesexistinthe
ToledoDistrict,Mayacustomarylandtenure.’50
55. The CCJ, having reviewed the history of litigation of this case, the formal
agreements between the Government and the leadership of the Maya community, the
decision of the courts in Belize, and the findings and recommendations of the IACHR,
concludedthat 44Ibid.,atpara.137.45 The Maya Leaders Alliance, the Toledo Alcaldes Association & 23 Others v the Attorney General of Belize, CCJ Appeal No BZCV 2014/002 46 The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is a regional international court of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) akin to the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) of the East African Community (EAC). CARICOM is a 15 member organisation comprising: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. Source:< http://caricom.org/about-caricom/who-we-are/our-governance/members-and-associate-members/>. 47 Ibid., at para. 2.< 48 Ibid, at para. 14. 49 Ibid., at para. 18. The Maya Land Rights case comprise two constitutional petitions, Aurelio Cal v Attorney General of Belize, No 171 of 3 April 2007 and Manuel Coy v Attorney General of Belize, No.172 of 3 April 2007. 50 Ibid., at para. 18
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
18
the Government of Belize was under a duty to take positive steps torecognizeMayacustomarylandtenureandthelandrightsflowingtherefromand, without detriment to other indigenous communities, to delimit,demarcateandtitleorotherwiseestablishthelegalmechanismnecessarytoclarifyandprotecttheserightsinthegenerallawofthecountry.51
55.1. TheCCJfoundthat‘Belizeanlandlawdoesnotextentprotectiontoindividualand
collective land rightswhichariseunder theMayasystemofcustomary land tenure.’52And
whileBelizewas‘alertedtothisdeficiencyasfarbackas1998’whentheMayaCommunity
filedapetitionwiththeIACHR,Belizelandlawremainsunchanged.53TheCourtstatedthat
theinordinatedelaybytheGovernmentofBelizein‘resolvingtheissuesofindigenoustitle
cannotgounchecked’evenifreconciling‘twocompetingsystemsoflandtenure’isfraught
with‘complexitiesandintricacies.’54
3.2 TheDutyofStatestoProtecttherightstoCustomaryLandTenure
56. In addition to the duty of States to recognise customary land tenure, the cases
reviewed explicitly hold that the State has a duty to protect customary land tenure by
puttinginplacealegalmechanismandmeasuresthatwillguaranteetherightsofcustomary
landtenureholdersandprovideremediesincaseofinfringementofthoserights.
56.1. IntheMayaLeadersAssociation&23OthersvTheAttorneyGeneralofBelize
case,theCCJconcludedthat
Thenatureoftraditionalorcustomaryrightsinland,thehistoryoflitigation,the informal aswell as the formal acknowledgments by the State, and thefact thatsuchrightsnonetheless remain invisible in thegeneral lawsof thecountry, suggest the obligation to put in place special measures to giverecognitionandeffecttotheserightssothattheprotectionofthe lawmaybeenjoyed.55
56.2. TheCourtemphasizedthatthedutyofBelizetoprotectthecustomaryland
tenurerightsoftheMaya‘flowsfromtherecognitionthatMayacustomarylandtenure,a
51 Ibid., at para. 59. 52Ibid.,atpara.57.53Ibid.54Ibid.55Ibid.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
19
speciesofpropertyrightsnotprovidedforinthecurrentlegalsystemofBelize,isprotected
undersections3(d)and17oftheConstitution.’56
56.3. IntheMayagna(Sumo)AwasTingniCommunityvNicaragua,theIACtHR
unanimouslyheldthatNicaragua
…must adopt in its domestic law, pursuant to Article 2 of the AmericanConvention on Human Rights, legislative, administrative, and any othermeasures necessary to create an effective mechanism for delimitation,demarcation, and titling of the property of indigenous communities, inaccordancewiththeircustomarylaw,values,customs,andmores…57
56.3. The Court emphasized that while Nicaragua undertakes to delimit,
demarcate,andtitlethelandsoftheMayagnaAwasTingniCommunity,
‘itmustabstainfromanyactsthatmightleadtheagentsofStateitself,orthirdpartiesactingwith itsacquiescenceor itstolerance,toaffecttheexistence,value,useorenjoymentoftheproperty located inthegeographic area where the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) AwasTingniCommunityliveandcarryouttheiractivities…’58
56.4. The decision of the ACtHPR in ACHPR v Kenya, as noted already, does not
directly deal with the questions of customary land tenure but the Court did emphasize
Kenya’s duty to provide effective remedies for the Ogiek community as an indigenous
Kenyanpopulation.
56.5. TheCourtnotedthatitisnotenoughthatKenyahasenactedlaws,including
a new constitution that outlaw discrimination. It observed that given the ‘persisting
eviction of the Ogieks, the failure of the authorities of the Respondent to stop such
evictionsandtocomplywiththedecisionsofthenationalcourtsdemonstratethatthenew
Constitutionandthe institutionswhichtheRespondenthassetuptoremedypastoron-
goinginjusticesarenotfullyeffective.’59
56Ibid.,atpara.60.57Ibid,atparas.173(3),164,and138.58Ibid.,atpara.173(4)and155.59Ibid.,atpara.144.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
20
4 TREATYANDDECLARATORYBASEDPROTECTIONOFCUSTOMARYLANDTENURE
57. Inadditiontolegalprecedentssetbyregionalinternationalhumanrightscourtson
theprotectionoftherighttocustomarylandtenureofindigenouscommunities,thereare
specifictreatiesanddeclarationsoftheUnitedNationsthatexplicitlyandimplicitlyprotect
thecustomarylandtenuresystemsoftheindigenouscommunities.
4.1 TreatyBasedProtectionofCustomaryLandTenure
58. The International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
Convention,theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR),andtheAfrican
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) are considered in the subsections and
paragraphsthatfollow.
4.1.1 TheILOIndigenousandTribalPeoplesConvention
59. The ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169)makes explicit
provisionsfortheprotectionofthecustomarylandtenureofindigenouspeoples.PartIIof
theConventionisdevotedtolandandArticles13and14arethemostrelevant.
59.1. Indigenouspeoples’specialattachmenttotheirlandsandterritoriesasboth
sourcesandmeansofpractisingtheirculturesandspiritualvaluesisguaranteedbyArticle
13andArticle14(1)enjoinsStatespartiestoConventiontorecogniseindigenousandtribal
peoples right to ownership and possession of the lands that they have traditionally
occupied.
59.2. Inaddition,underArticle14(2)and14(3)governmentshaveadutyto‘take
stepstoidentifythelands’whicharetraditionallyoccupiedbyindigenousandtribalpeoples
andguarantee the rightofownershipandpossessionof the land so identifiedandput in
place adequate procedures within their national legal systems to resolve land claims by
indigenousandtribalpeoples.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
21
4.1.2 AfricanCharteronHumanandPeoples’Rights(ACHPR)
60. TheAfrican Charter onHuman and Peoples’ Rights have no explicit provision that
addressescustomarylandtenure,albeitthepreamblereferstotheuniquecircumstancesof
theAfricanpeoples.
60.1. Article14oftheCharterontherighttopropertyhasbeeninterpretedbythe
African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR) to include both individual and
collectiverighttoproperty.
60.2. Unfortunately,theCourt,initsrecentdecisionofTheAfricanCommissionfor
HumanandPeoplesRightvRepublicofKenya,failstoelaborateonthisaspectinthelightof
theuniquecircumstancesoftheAfricanpeople,especiallysincealmost80percentofland
ownershipinSub-SaharanAfricaisinformofcommunalorcustomarytenure.
60.3. TheCourt,sadly,paysdeferencetoUnitedNationsDeclarationsontheRights
of Indigenous Peoples. That is not to say that the Court should not address itself to
international lawand jurisprudence.Far from it.Rather theCourtshouldgiveprecedence
andprioritytoAfrica’suniquecircumstancestodevelopits jurisprudencethatwill liberate
itspeoplefromcontinueddominationbyforeigninterests.
60.4. The I.C.J.hasnothandledanycasethatexplicitlyaddressesthequestionof
therightofcommunitiestotheircustomarylandtenuresystems.Ithas,however,handled
casesonquestionsoftherightofcommunitiestoself-determination,suchastheWestern
SaharaCase.60In this case, the I.C.J.wasasked toaddress,amongotherquestions, ‘[w]as
Western Sahara (Rio deOro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a
territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)?’ The Court answered that question in the
negative:
Whateverdifferencesofopiniontheremaybeamongjurists,theStatepractice of the relevant period indicates that territory inhabited bytribes or peoples having a social and political organizationwere notregarded terrae nullius. … the information furnished to the Court
60 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p.12, at para. 1.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
22
showsthatatthetimeofcolonizationWesternSaharawas inhabitedbypeopleswhich,ifnomadic,weresociallyandpoliticallyorganizedintribes and under chiefs competent to represent them. It also showsthat,incolonizingWesternSaharaSpaindidnotproceedonthebasisthatitwasestablishingitssovereigntyoverterraenullius.’61
60.5. Whilenotexplicitlydealingwithcustomarylandtenure,theconceptofterra
nullius is relevant to the discussion of customary land tenure because of how it
contributed and facilitated colonialism andprovided justifications for eroding the laws,
customs, and land tenure systems of the communities who territories or land were
expropriatedbyEuropeancolonialpowers.WeshallreturntoinSection5ofthisreport.
4.1.3 InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)
61. TheICCPR62hasnoexplicitprovisionontherighttocustomarylandtenure.61.1. But customary land tenure rights may read from certain articles of the
Convention,suchasArticles1(1),1(2),2(1),and27.
61.2. Article 1 (1) guarantees to all peoples the right to self-determination. This
rights includes the freedomof all peoples todetermine their political destiny andpursue
theirsocio-economicdevelopment.Since landisan importantfactorofproduction, itmay
thearguedthatArticle1(1)alsocontainstherightofallpeoples,includingAfricanpeoples,
todeterminetheir landtenuresystem.Inthiscontext,customarylandtenureandlaware
criticalelementsofself-determinationforthosecommunitiesthatpracticethisformofland
tenure.
61.3. Article1(2) guarantees to all peoples the right toownanddisposeof their
naturalwealthandresourcesaspartoftheirrighttoself-determination.Whilethisarticle
doesnotexplicitlystateunderwhattypeoftenurethismayberealised,wesubmitthatthe
ownershipanduseoflandshouldbedefinedandregulatedthrougheachpeople’scustoms,
61 Ibid., at paras 80 – 81. 62 United Nations, 999 United Nations Treaty Series 171.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
23
traditions, and laws. In this light, a right to customary land tenuremay be read into this
article.63
61.4. Article 27 guarantees the rights of minorities to ‘enjoy their own culture,
professandpracticetheirownreligion,or tousetheirown language.’64Andwhile itdoes
not explicitlymake reference to customary land tenure rights or state inwhatways and
forms the minority groups will exercises their right to culture, a case of their right to
customarylandtenuremaybemadeasanexpressionandexerciseoftheirculture.
61.5. TheCommitteethatsupervisestheICCPR,theHumanRightsCommittee,has
in its General Comment on Article 27 stated that the article includes indigenous peoples
righttoland.65
4.2 Declarations
62. OnlytheUnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples(UNDRIP)is
considered.
4.2.1 TheUnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples(UNDRIP)
63. The UNDRIP was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13
September200766andwhilenotatreaty,thereforenotbindingonStates,providessome
valuableprinciplesontheprotectionofthecustomarylandrightsofindigenouspeople.
63.1. Article26(1)oftheUNDRIPguaranteesforindigenouspeoplestheirrightto
their ‘lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or
otherwiseusedoracquired.’
63 See, e.g. Jeremie Gilbert, ‘The Right to Freely Dispose of Natural Resources: Utopia or Forgotten Right’ (2013), 31 (2) Netherland Quarterly of Human Rights 314 – 341. 64 United Nations, supra, note 62, at p.179. 65 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23: The Rights of Minorities ( Art. 27):-08/04/94, Online http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f21%2fRev.1%2fAdd.5&Lang=en>. 66Availableat:<http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf>.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
24
63.2. Article 26 (1) enjoins States to ‘give legal recognition and protection’ to
indigenouspeoples‘lands,territoriesandresources.Andcrucially,suchrecognition‘shallbe
conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the
indigenouspeoplesconcerned’(emphasissupplied).
63.3. In addition,Article 27enjoins States to give ‘due recognition to indigenous
peoples’laws,traditions,customsandlandtenuresystems…’(emphasissupplied).
5 CHARACTERANDSTATUSOFCUSTOMARYLANDTENURE64. What, then, is the character and status of customary land tenure both in
internationalanddomesticlaw?
64.1. FromtherecentdecisionsoftheIACtHRandtheCCJcustomarylandtenureis
recognisedasadistinct formof landownershipanduse thatgives rise toboth individual
andcollectiverightstopropertydeservingofprotectionbytheStateinthesamewaythat
otherpropertyrightsareprotectedbylaw.
64.2. Butdespite the landmarkdecisionsof internationalhuman rights courtson
customarylandtenure,thecharacterandstatusofcustomarylawinbothinternationallaw
anddomesticlawremainsdistortedandmisunderstood.
5.1 TheStatusofCustomaryLandtenureinInternationalLaw
65. The status of customary land tenure in international law today is ambiguous.
InternationallawfacilitatedtheexpropriationoflandsownedbyAfricansandvestedthem
inEuropeancolonialpowersanddistortedcustomarylandtenureandlaw.AfterWorldWar
II,however,internationallawwasreformedinwaysthatattemptedtoredeemandrestore
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
25
toAfricanpeoplesexpropriatedlandsbyEuropeanpowersandthecustomarylandtenure
systemandlawunderwhichitoperated.
66. Towhat extent has post-WorldWar II international law accorded customary land
tenureastatusthatisequaltootherformsoflandtenure?Abriefreviewoftherelationship
betweeninternationallaw,colonialism,customarylandtenureisnecessary.
5.1.1 Customarylandtenure,colonialism,andthedoctrineofterranullius
67. Internationallaw,especiallypositivistinternationallaw,i.e.,lawasisasopposedto
lawasoughttobe,doesnotrecognisecustomarylawandthelandtenuresystembasedon
it. Indeed, international law developed the doctrine of terra nullius in the 18th Century
which posited that any land outside Europe, which was unoccupied or unsettled in the
European sense, i.e.., without houses, cultivated pastures, developed towns, roads, and
farms, was land that belonged to no one and could be acquired as new territory by a
sovereign European State.67In its original formulation, terra nullius was said to be only
limitedtoterritories thatwereuninhabited. Indeed, in theWesternSaharacase, the I.C.J.
heldamongothers,thatregardlessofthedifferencesofopinionbetweenjurists,‘theState
practiceoftherelevantperiodindicatethatterritoryinhabitedbytribesorpeopleshavinga
socialandpoliticalorganisationwerenotregardedterraenullius.’68
67.1. Internationallawthereforecannotbeseparatedfromthecolonialencounter,
which encounter is at the core of the denigration of African value systems, including
customary land tenure and law. Indeed, Antony Anghie argues that ‘the colonial
confrontation was central to the formation of international law.’69In other words, the
Europeanconquestofnon-Europeanpeoplesgavebirthtointernationallaw,whichinturn
allowedthemtolegitimatetheirconquestofnon-Europeanpeoples.
67 See, e.g., Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature Natural Law and on Luxury (Liberty Fund Inc. 2008), Book I, pp.100 ff. 68 Western Sahara Case, supra, note 60, at para. 80. 69 Antony Anghie, ‘Colonialism and the Birth of International Law: Sovereignty, Economy, and the Mandate System of the Lead of Nations’ (2004), 34 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 513, at p.516.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
26
67.2. International law ‘sanctioned conquest and exploitation’70of non-European
peoplesandexpropriationoftheirlandsandthatincludedthesuppressionandsubversion
ofcustomarylandtenureandlawofthepeoplesconquered.71
67.3. Positive international law effectively ‘eroded’ the ‘moral fibre of many
indigenous communities by ignoring the social origins of indigenous law and concerning
itself mainly with the inner workings of westernised legal code.’ 72 In other words,
internationallaw,especiallylegalpositivistinternationallaw,condemned‘indigenouslawto
theobscurityofasub-legalorder.’73
5.1.2 InternationalLawandIndigenousCustomaryLandTenure
67.4. AfterWorldWar I andWorldWar II, attemptsweremade to displace ‘the
positivistinternationallawofconquest’withaninternationallawthat,whilecontinuingthe
mission of civilizing non-European peoples, prepared the conquered peoples for
independence.74
67.5. These attempts, especially under the auspices of theUnitedNations never
fully redeemed customary land tenure and law of the non-European peoples from its
‘invisible’ status. And even where attempts have been made to protect customary land
tenure using international treaties, especially human rights treaties, the focus is on
indigenousoraboriginalcommunitieslandtenure.TheInternationalLabourOrganisation’s
IndigenousandTribalPeoples’Convention,1989(No.169)isaclassicexample.
70 Ibid., at p. 563. 71 See, e.g., Hastings W. Opinya Okoth-Ogendo, ‘The Tragic of African Commons: A Century of Exploitation, Suppression and Subversion’ (2003), 1 University of Nairobi Law Journal, 107 – 117. 72 Gerrit Pienaar, ‘The Methodology Used to Interpret Customary Land Tenure’ (2012), 15 (3) PER/PELJ 153 – 183, at p. 159. 73 Ibid. 74 Anghie, supra, note 69, at pp. 565 – 6.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
27
67.6. Indeed, the regional international human rights courts have followed this
narrowfocusontheprotectionofthecustomarylandtenurerightsofindigenouspeoples.
The IACtHR’s, forexample,hasconcludedthat ‘[i]t isbeyonddoubt that international law
recognises and protects the rights of indigenous peoples’, presumably to their lands and
territories,anddrawsthisconclusionfromareadingoftheUniversalDeclarationofHuman
Rights (UDHR) and general human rights treaties such as the Genocide Convention, the
ICCPR, the InternationalCovenantof theEliminationofAll FormsofRacialDiscrimination
(ICERD),andtheConventionontheRightsoftheChild(CRC).75
67.7. InternationalorganisationssuchastheInternationalBankforReconstruction
and Development (IBRD), often referred to as the World Bank (WB) and the Food and
Agricultural Organisation (FAO) have recently developed interest in customary land
tenure.76
67.7.1. This interest, however, focuses mainly on technical difficulties with
registrationofcustomarylandrightsandhowtoconvertthemintomarketablecommodities
inaneo-liberaleconomicandmarketsystem.77
67.7.2. The nature and content of customary tenure is often glossed over and
conclusionaboutculturalnormsdenyingwomenlandrightshastilydrawnbetrayingbotha
marked lack of understanding of customs of the various African peoples and an inherent
bias and disproportionate focus on the negative aspects of the customary laws of the
variousAfricancommunities.78
67.8. Thus,thefundamentalissueconcerningthenatureandcontentofcustomary
landtenureareignoredandsometimesconflatedwiththeissueofthesourceofthevalidity
ofcustomarylandtenureandlaw.
75 See, e.g., The Maya Leaders & Others Case, supra, note 45 at para. 53.76 A host of World Bank sponsored studies on customary land tenure have been published, see, e.g., Shem Migot-Adholla et al, ‘Indigenous Land Rights Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Constraint on Productivity?’ (1991), 5 (1), World Bank Economic Review , 155 - 175; 77 See, e.g., Frank F.K. Byamugisha, Securing Africa’s Land for Shared Prosperity: A Program to Scale Up Reforms and Investment (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington D.C., 2013); Rachel S. Knight, Statutory Recognition of Customary Land Rights in Africa (Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), Rome, 2010). 78 See, e.g., Frank Byamugisha, supra, note 74 at p.2.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
28
67.9. Onemainconclusion:internationallawandprecedentscannotbethemeans
to redeemand restore customary land tenureand lawas anautonomous systemof land
ownershipanduseofothercommunitiesnotclassifiedas ‘indigenousand tribalpeoples’.
Thisisbecauseinternationalprecedentsandtreatiesoncustomarylandtenurearenarrowly
focusedonindigenouspeoples.
5.2 CharacterandStatusofCustomaryLandTenureinDomesticLaw
68. Thecharacterandstatusofcustomary landtenureremainsdistorted inmanySub-
Saharan African countries. The distortion, as already noted, is traced to colonialism and
perpetuatedbypost-colonialStatesandsomewestern-educationintellectualsandelite.
69. Theauthenticnatureandcharacterofcustomary landtenureand lawneedstobe
restored.ThiswillrequirededicatednewAfricanscholarstoemergeandfillthegapleftby
scholars,suchasthelateHastingsW.OpinyaOkoth-OgendoofKenya,whoablydeveloped
conceptualandanalyticaltoolstointerrogateissuesoflanduse,especiallycustomaryland
tenureontheAfricancontinent.
5.2.1 CustomaryLandTenure:RecognisedbutDistortedandrelegated
70. ThecolonialpowersdistortedthenatureandstatusofcustomarylandtenureinSub-
SaharanAfricaandtreateditasinferior,forexample,totheEnglishleaseholdandfreehold
tenuresystems.79
71. Twomain reasons account for this distorted conceptionof customary land tenure
and law in Africa. The first, as already point, is the influence of legal positivism, and
especially international legal positivism produced by the colonial encounter. The second
reason, implicitly related to legal positivism, is the fallacious assumptions underlying
westerntheoriesofpropertysuperimposedonAfricanrealities.80
79 Okoth-Ogendo, supra, note 71. 80 On this aspect, see, e.g., Garret Harding, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ (1968), 162 (3859) Science 1243 – 1248.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
29
71.1. In the firstplace,western theoriesofpropertyassume thatproperty rights
must only and always derive from a sovereign. Since African communities were not
consideredsovereigninthesenseofEuropeansovereignty,theycannotandcouldnothave
theauthoritytodefineandassignpropertyrights.81
71.2. In the secondplace, African communities do not have legal persona in the
sense of a sovereign European State having legal personality. Therefore, they lacked the
legalcapacitytodefinepropertyrightsandrulesformanagingtheserights.
71.3. In the third place, decision-making rules applied in various African
communitiesdemandedcollectiveparticipationbyallmembers.Thiswasimpracticableand
inefficient.
71.4. Finally, customary lawand land tenure arebasedon an inclusivenotionof
property and cannot be used at the time to define boundaries of exclusive rights as
understoodinthewesternatomisedindividual.
71.5. Okoth-Ogendo82and Bromley and Cernea83have demonstrated that these
assumptions are based on a marked lack of or ‘inadequate understanding of the nature
customarylandtenureandlaw,theregimewhichgivesitsstructureandcontent.’84
72. Okoth-Ogendo,renownKenyanscholarofcustomarylandtenuresystem,has
argued that the colonial powers ‘contemptuously denied the juridical content’ of
customarylandtenureor‘AfricanCommons’through‘systematicadministrative,judicial
and legislative subversion designed to foreclose any possibility of their renaissance.’85
WicombandSmithhavesimilarlyobservedthat
Indigenouslawandcustomarylegalsystemswereregardedasinferior,were never extended to areas covered by colonial laws and, when
81 See, e.g., Okoth-Ogendo, supra, note 71, at p. 109. 82 Ibid. 83 David W. Bromley & Michael M. Cernea, The Management of Common Property Natural Resources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies (1989), World Bank Discussion Paper No. 57.84 Okoth-Ogendo, supra note 71, at p.109. 85 Ibid., at p. 107; also, see, e.g., Jeanmarie Fenrich, Paolo Galizzi, and Tracey E. Higgins, The Future of African Customary Law (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2011), p.323.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
30
applied, itwasdoneonlytotheextentthattheywerenotrepugnanttoWesternjusticeandmoralityorinconsistentwithanywrittenlaw.86
72.1. Unfortunately,post-colonialAfricanStates,especiallySub-Saharancountries
includingUganda,entrenchedthisdistortedviewandpositionofcustomarylandtenureand
law in subsequent legislation and practice, without questioning the underlying
assumptions.87
72.2. InthecaseofUganda,forexample,thenowrepealedPublicLandsAct,1969
and regulations thereunder, namely the Public Land (Restriction of Customary Tenure)
Order,1969,SINo.139/1969andtheLandReformDecree,1975andregulations,purported
to recognise customary land tenure inUgandabut at the same time imposed restrictions
whichnegatedtheveryconceptandnatureofcustomarylandtenure.Theideaofcreating
customary land tenure on public land is nothing new but a continuation of the colonial
practice.Whatarenowconsideredpublic landswere landownedandusedby indigenous
communities.When these landswere expropriated by the colonial powers, they became
publiclands.
72.3. Thekeyquestionthen,is,ifcolonialexpropriationextinguishedtherightsof
communitiestothe landtheyonceowned,howcanonecreatecustomary landtenureon
thatsamelandwhichisnolongersubjecttocustomarylaw?Whosecustomarylawisbeing
appliedtosuchland?
72.4. The 1995 Constitution and the 1998 Land Act, as amended, purports to
answer these questions and restore customary land tenure and protect it as one of the
formsoflandownershipinUganda.Onacriticalreview,however,theConstitutionandthe
LandAct,1998, treat customary land tenureand lawas inferior towestern formsof land
tenure systembecause they allow the conversionof customary land tenure into freehold
tenure.Article237 (4) (b)of theConstitutionprovides that ‘landunder customary tenure
maybeconvertedtofreeholdlandownershipbyregistration.’Section9(1)oftheLandAct 86Wilmien Wicomb and Henk Smith, ‘Customary communities and ‘peoples’ and their customary tenure as ‘culture: What we can do with the Endorois decision’ (2011), 11 African Human Rights Law Journal, 422, at pp. 425 – 426.87 Okoth-Ogendo, supra, note 71, at p. 10; Lorenzo Cotula (ed.) Changes in “Customary” Land Tenure Systems Across Africa (Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SMI (Distribution Services) Ltd, 2007), at p.10.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
31
1998,asamended,stipulatesthat ‘[a]nyperson, family,communityorassociationholding
landundercustomarytenureonformerpubliclandmayconvertthecustomarytenureinto
freeholdtenure…’88Theseprovisionsreinforcetheinferiorstatusofcustomarylandtenure
inUganda.
72.5. If both freehold and customary tenure are forms of land ownership in
perpetuity,89why convert customary tenure into freehold? The simply answer is that the
draftersof theConstitutionand the LandActwere influencedby inherited colonial views
thatfreeholdtenureisasuperiortenuretocustomarytenure.Foramorecogentreason,it
willbenecessarytoreviewtherecordofthedeliberationsoftheConstituentAssemblythat
draftedtheConstitutionandontheBill thatwaspassedtobecometheLandAct,1998to
establish why the drafted deemed it necessary to include a provision that allowed
conversionofcustomarylandtenureintofreehold.
72.6. The courts and advocates in Uganda, while recognising customary land
tenure, have not, unlike South African courts, elaborated on its character and content.
Instead, they focusproving that a customexists that creates customary land tenure.And
onceitisestablishedthatthepartyrelyingoncustomarylawtolayclaimonapieceofland
failedtobringexpertsincustomarylandtenureandlaw,thatisendofstory.
72.7. Indeed,boththecourtsandadvocatespayverylittleattention,ifatall,tothe
natureofcustomarylawonwhichcustomarytenureisbasedandoftenconflatecustomary
lawandthelandtenurewiththeEnglishcommonlawtenure,whichinterestinlandmaybe
acquiredbylonguseandcarryingoutcertainactivitiesontheland.
72.8. And crucially, the courts in Uganda still follow old tests for establishing
customary law developed by colonial courts and experts, namely through the work of
writers on customary law and other authoritative sources. While this approach is not
invidious per se, it ignores the inherent flaws and biases of text book authors, especially
western authors, or African experts wholly socialised into western worldviews and
contemptuous of their own African heritage, who often view customary law and tenure
88 The Land Act, Chapter 227. 89 Ibid., at sections 3(1)(h) and 3(2)(a).
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
32
through the lens of their own legal conceptions of property ownership and relationships
thatarecompletelyalientoAfricanconceptionsofownershipandrelationsaroundlandand
otherresources.
72.8.1. Thus,inastringofcasesdecidedbyboththeSupremeCourtandtheCourt
ofAppeal,inwhichissuesofcustomarylandtenurewereraised,thefocusisonprovingthe
existence of a custom by the party claiming a customary land tenure on disputed land:
KampalaDistrictLandBoardvVenansioBabwayaka&Others,SupremeCourtAppealNo2
of 2007; Kampala District Land Board & Another v National Housing & Construction
Corporation,CivilAppealNo2of2004,Tifu Lukwagov SamwiriMuddeKizza&Nabitaka,
CivilAppealNo.13of1996,PaulKisekkaSsakuvSeventhDayAdventists,CivilAppealNo8
of1993,MarkoMatovu&2OthersvMohammedSseviirand2Others,CivilAppealNo7of
1978,andBalamuBweitegaineKiiza&IsmaRubonavZephaniaKadoobaKiiza,CivialAppeal
No59of2009.
72.8.2. In KampalaDistrict Land Board v Venansio Babwayaka&Others, Supreme
CourtAppealNo2of2007,forexample,theappellantsappealedtotheSupremeCourton
thegrounds,amongothers,thatthelearnedjusticesoftheCourtofAppealerredinlawand
factwhentheyheldthattherespondentsarecustomaryownersofthesuitland.
72.8.3. TheCourtheld,amongothers,thattherespondentshadnotdischargedthe
burden of proving that they held customary land interests on the suit land because they
failedtoprovideevidenceofexpertopinionto‘showunderwhatkindofcustomorpractice
theyoccupiedthe landandwhetherthatcustomhadbeenrecognizedandregulatedbya
grouporclassofpersonslivinginthatarea.’
72.8.4. The Court, citingwith approval the decision of Duffus, J.A., in the case of
KinyanjuiKimanivMuiraGikanga,held:
It iswell established thatwhereAfrica customary law is neitherwellknownordocumented,itmustbeestablishedfortheCourt’sguidancebythepartyintendingtorelyonit.Itisalsotritelawthatasamatterof practice and convenience in civil cases customary law, if it isincapableofbeingjudiciallynoticed,shouldbeprovedbyevidenceofexpertopinion.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
33
72.8.5. TherelianceonexpertopinionasthemainmeansofestablishinganAfrican
custom that facilitates the conveyance of land is problematic because it perpetuates the
colonialnotionofcustomarylaw,oftenseenthroughtheprismofEnglishcommonlaw.In
most communities in Uganda, there are people, whether elders or other, who have
knowledgeofthecustomsandlawsofthecommunityoneveryaspectoflife,includingland
ownershipanduse.Thesearepeoplewhohavetheexpertiseoncustomarylandtenureand
law. Indeed, thewesterneducatedexpert,usuallygleanshisorherknowledgeonAfrican
customarylawbyamongotherthingsinterviewinglocalcommunityexperts.
73. In other African countries, such as Botswana, Tanzania, and Kenya, for example,
customary land tenure is recognised but as with the case of Uganda, it is restricted and
distorted.
73.1. Botswanapurportstorecogniseandprotectcustomarylandtenurethrough
the enactment of the Tribal Lands Act, Chapter 32:02 of 1968 but section 10 of the Act
stipulates that ‘[a]ll the rights and title to land in each tribal area…shall vest in the land
boards…’andthelandboardshallholdthese‘intrustforthebenefitandadvantageofthe
citizens of Botswana and for the purpose of promoting the economic and social
developmentofallthepeoplesofBotswana.’
73.1.1. Technically, theTribal LandsActexpropriated indigenouspeoples’ landand
vested it in a landboardalien to the tribal communities and the ideaof holding lands in
trustnotonly forthetribalcommunitiesbutalsoall thecitizensofBotswana isacolonial
creation.90
73.1.2. Thus,while customary land tenure is recognised under Botswana law, it is
treatedasaninferiorcategoryoflandownershipandnotunderstooditisownright.
73.2. In the caseof Tanzania, the situation is evenmore complicatedbecauseof
severallawsthatregulatelandmatters.ThefocushereisontheLandAct,No4of1999and
theVillage LandAct (Chapter114),1999. Section3 (1)of the LandAct stipulates that ‘all
90 See, e.g., Okoth-Ogendo, supra, note 71, at p. 110.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
34
land inTanzania ispublic landvested in thepresidentas trusteeonbehalfofall citizens.’
Thus,inTanzania,peopleonlyhave‘occupancyrights’,whethercustomaryorotherwise.91
73.2.1. InadditiontotheLandAct,cap113,Tanzaniahasanotherlegislationonland,
the Village Land Act, Chapter 114, which regulates, among others, ‘customary right of
occupancy’.TheActdefines‘customaryrightofoccupancy’asa‘rightofoccupancycreated
bymeansof the issuingacertificateof customary rightofoccupancyunder section27of
thisAct.’Itfurtherprovidesthatacustomaryrightofoccupancyincludesa‘deemedrightof
occupancy’ and a ‘deemed right of occupancy’means ‘the title of a Tanzanian citizen of
AfricandescentoracommunityofTanzaniancitizensofAfricandescentusingoroccupying
landunderandinaccordancewithcustomarylaw.’
73.2.2. Customary law is defined by section 4 of the Interpretation of Laws Act,
Chapter1,as
anyruleorbodyofruleswherebyrightsanddutiesareacquiredorimposed,establishedbyusageinanyAfricancommunityinTanzaniaandacceptedassuch community in general as having the force of law, including anydeclarations or modifications of customary lawmade or deemed to havebeenmadeundersection12oftheJudicatureandApplicationofLawsAct,and reference to “native law” or to “native law and custom” shall besimilarlyconstrued.’73.2.3. Section18definesthe‘incidents’ofcustomaryrightofoccupancy.Themost
relevantprovisionforthisreportissubsection1,whichstipulatesthat‘[a]customaryright
ofoccupancyisineveryrespectofequalstatusandeffecttoagrantedrightofoccupancy’.
73.2.4. Section 20 (2) of the Village Act provides in effect that the customs,
traditions,andpracticesofagivencommunityshallinformanydecisionstakeninrespectof
landheldundercustomarytenure,providedthattheyaccordwiththenationallandpolicy
andanywrittenlaw.
91 For a discussion of statutory recognition of customary tenure in Tanzania, see, e.g., Knight, supra, note 77, at p. 150 – 214.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
35
73.2.5. While the law recognises customary tenure, itnotonly limits its scopebut
alsodistortsisauthenticcharacterbyintroducingthecolonialteststhatcustomarylawmust
pass tobeacceptable. Inotherwords, justas is thecasewithBotswanaandUganda, the
misconceptionsofcustomarylawandcustomarytenureareentrenchedinlegislation.
73.3. Kenya’sLandAct,No.6of2012,recognisesfourtypesoflandtenure,oneof
whichiscustomarylandrights.92Section2definescustomarylandtomean‘privatelandon
whichoneormoremembersofthefamilyhavecustomaryrightsofownership.’Thesame
section defines customary land rights as ‘rights conferred by or derived from Kenyan
customarylawwhetherformallyrecognisedbylegislationornot’.
73.3.1. CustomarytenureinKenyaenjoysequalstatuswithotherformsoftenure.
Section5(2)providesthat‘[t]hereshallbeequalrecognitionandenforcementoflandrights
arisingunderalltenuresystemsandnon-discriminationinownershipof,andaccesstoland
underalltenuresystems.’
73.3.2. Unlike Uganda, where customary land tenure is the only one that can be
converted intofreeholdtenure,section9(1)ofKenya’sLandActprovidesthat ‘[a]ny land
maybeconvertedfromonecategorytoanother’butthismustbedoneinaccordancewith
theprovisionoftheActor‘anyotherwrittenlaw.’
73.3.3. Despite the apparent equality accorded customary land tenure in Kenya’s
LandAct, it is theonly tenure subjected topassing theoldcolonial testof repugnancy to
western civilisation. Customary tenure in Kenya is only valid if it is ‘consistent with the
constitution.’
74. Indeed, the recognitionof customary land tenure inmost of theAfrican countries
southoftheSaharaDesertissubjecttoitbeing‘consistentwiththeconstitution’orwritten
law. In other words, customary land tenuremust still pass the repugnancy test that the
colonialpowersimposedonAfricanvaluessystemstheyconsiderinferiortotheirown.But
92 Section 5 (1).
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
36
the repugnancy test has been reformulated in constitutional language. The post-
independence constitutionsofmostof these countrieshavedraftedbeenwith theactive
participation of western countries who ensured that these documents entrenched their
dominant world views, with their inherent biases towards other world views, especially
thosethatchallengetheirhegemonyoverpeoples.
5.2.2 TheAuthenticNatureofAfricanCustomaryLandTenureandLaw
75. ArestorationofcustomarylandtenureinUgandamuststartwithanauthenticgrasp
ofitsnatureandlaw,i.e.,wemustobjectivelyunderstanditasthecommunitiesunderstand
withoutsuperimposingforeignconceptionsofpropertylaw.
76. The late Professor Okoth-Ogendo is possibly the one scholar who cogently
understoodorgraspedthecharacterandcontentofAfricancustomarylandtenureandlaw.
He starts from thebasics, how the variousAfrican communitiesunderstood landand the
resources associatedwith it: land ‘is held as a transgenerational asset’which is ‘available
exclusivelytospecificcommunities,lineagesorfamiliesoperatingascorporateentities.’93
76.1. Okoth-Ogendo explains that the ‘internal mechanism for the management
andaccessto’landor‘bodyofCommons’,ashepreferstocallit,‘wasandremaincomplex’
but provides a structural and normative analysis which reveal its authentic scope and
meaning.
76.2. Structurally,landinAfricancommunities
‘was managed and protected by a social hierarchy organized in theformofan invertedpyramidwith the tip representing the family, themiddle the clan and lineage, and thebase the community. These aredecision-making levels designed to respond to the issues regardingallocation, use and management of resources comprised within thecommonsonthebasisofascaleofneed,function,andprocess.’
76.3. ‘Atthenormativelevel’,inAfricancommunities
93 Ibid., at p. 108.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
37
‘access to the resources of the Commonswas open to individualsandgroupswhoqualifyonthebasisofsociallydefinedmembershipcriteriareinforced,internally,byobligationswhichareassumedonthe basis of reciprocity and to each member of the socialhierarchy.’94
76.4. Thecommunitiesunderstood thesemechanismswelland landwasused in
function, i.e., in ‘specific ways, including cultivation, grazing, hunting transit, recreation,
fishing,andbiodiversityconservation.’
77. Tounderstandcustomarylandtenureandlawinitsauthenticnatureandprotectit
bylegislationrequiresanapproachthatdoesnotconflateitwithotherformsoflandtenure,
especiallythetypeofcustomarylandtenuredevelopedthroughtheEnglishcommonlawin
countriesthatwereonceestatesofBritishcolonialpower.
78. The jurisprudenceofSouthAfricancourtsprovidesusefulguidance in this respect.
SouthAfricancourtshaverobustlyengagedwithissuesaroundcustomarylandtenureand
delivered landmark decisions that clarify the character and content of customary land
tenureinSouthAfrica.WeshallfocushereontheAlexkor&theRepublicofSouthAfricav
RichtersveldCommunity.95
78.1. InAlexkor&theRepublicofSouthAfricavRichtersveldCommunity&Others,
theSouthAfricanConstitutionalCourtelaboratedat lengthon thenatureand contentof
customary tenure and associated rights to ownership of land by certain South African
communities. In thiscase, therespondents,Richtersveldcommunity,claimeda restitution
oftheirlandundertheLandRestitutionAct,No.22of1994.Theclaimedlandwasnotthe
whole of the Richtersveld, which is ‘a large area of land in north-western corner of the
NorthernCape’96butastrip‘alongthewestcoastfromtheGariep(Orange)Riverinnorthto
justbelowPortNollothinthesouth.’97
94 Ibid. 95(CCT 19,03) [2003] ZACC 18; 2004(5)SA460(CC).96 Supra, note 95, at para. 4. 97 Ibid., at para. 5.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
38
78.1.1. ThemainissuesbeforetheLandClaimsCourt(LCC)were,first,whetherthe
Richtersveldcommunitymet therequirementofsection2 (1)of theLandRestitutionAct;
and second,whether the ‘Richtersveld community constituteda communityorpartyof a
community dispossessed of a right in land after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially
discriminatorylawsorpractices.’98Thecommunityhadclaimedthatit‘wasdispossessedof
ownership (undercommon lawor indigenous law)or the right toexclusiveandbeneficial
occupationanduseofthesubjectlandincludingtheexploitationofitsnaturalresources.’99
78.1.2. The LCC held that the Richtersveld community met the requirement of
Section2(1)oftheLandRestitutionActandweredispossessedoftheir landafter19June
1913butthey‘failedtoprovethatthisdispossessionwastheresultofdiscriminatorylaws
orpractices.’100
78.1.3. OnappealtotheSupremeCourtofAppeal(SCA),theCourt‘foundthatthe
RichtersveldcommunityhadbeeninexclusivepossessionofthewholeoftheRichtersveld,
includingthesubjectlandpriortoandafteritsannexationbytheCrownin1847’andheld
that‘therightsofthecommunitytotheland(includingmineralsandpreciousstones)were
akin to those held under common law ownership and that they constitute “customary
interest” as defined in the Act.’101The SCA further held that ‘the manner in which the
Richtersveld community was dispossessed of the subject land amounted to racially
discriminatorypracticesasdefinedbytheAct.’102
78.1.4. Theappellants,AlexkorandthegovernmentofSouthAfrica,onappealtothe
ConstitutionalCourtcontendedthat ‘any rights in thesubject landwhich theRichtersveld
communitymighthaveheldpriortotheannexationofthatlandbytheBritishCrownwere
terminatedbyreasonofsuchannexation.’103Moreover,‘inanyevent,thedispossessionof
thesubjectlandafter19June1913wasnottheconsequenceofraciallydiscriminatorylaws
andpractices.’104
98Ibid.,atpara.7.99 Ibid. 100 Ibid., at para. 8. 101 Ibid., at para. 9. 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid., at para. 10. 104 Ibid.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
39
78.1.5. Seven questionswere argued in appeal in the Constitutional Court butwe
shallrestrictourselvestothemostrelevantforthisreport:‘thenaturesofrightsintheland
of the Richtersveld community prior to annexation’. 105 The Richtersveld community
contendedthat‘itsindigenouslawownershipconstitutedarealrightinlandinindigenous
laworattheveryleasta“customarylawinterest”withinthedefinitionofarightinland.’106
78.1.6. TheCourtstartedbynotingthat:
ThenatureandcontentoftherightsthattheRichtersveldcommunityheldinthesubjectlandpriortoannexationmustbedeterminedbyreferencetoindigenouslaw.Thatisthelawwhichgoverneditslandrights.Thoserightscannotbedeterminedbyreferencetocommonlaw.ThePrivyCouncilhasheld,andweagree,thatadisputebetweenindigenouspeopleastotherighttooccupyapieceoflandhastobedeterminedaccordingtoindigenouslaw“withoutimportingEnglishConceptionsofpropertylaw.”107
78.1.7. TheCourtfurthernotedthatWhile in the past indigenous law was seen through thecommon law lens, itmust be seen as an integral part of ourlaw.Likealllaw,itdependsonitsultimateforceandvalidityonthe constitution. Its validity must now be determined byreferencenottocommonlaw,buttotheconstitution.
78.1.8. TheCourtemphasizedthattounderstandindigenousrightstolandproperly,
‘these rights must be considered in their own terms and not through the prism of the
commonlaw.’108TheCourtaddressedthedangersofdoingso.Itnotedthat‘[t]hedangersof
lookingatindigenouslawthroughacommonlawprismareobvious.Thetwosystemsoflaw
developed in different situations, under different cultures and in response to different
conditions.’TheCourtbuttressthisassertionwiththePrivyCouncil’sobservationinAmodu
TijanivTheSecretary,SouthernNigeria:
“TheirLordshipsmakethepreliminaryobservationthatininterpretingthenativetitletoland,notonlyinSouthernNigeria,butotherpartsof
105Ibid.,atpara.18(c).106Ibid.,atpara.49.107 Ibid., at para. 50. 108 Ibid., at para. 55.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
40
the British Empire, much caution is essential. There is a tendency,operating at timesunconsciously, to render that title conceptually interms which are appropriate only to systems which have grown upunderEnglish law.Butthistendencyhastobeheld incheckclosely…The title, such as it is, may not be that of the individual, as in thiscountry it nearly always is in some form, but may be that of acommunity….Toascertainhowfarthislatterdevelopmentofrighthasprogressed involves the study of the history of the particularcommunityanditsusagesineachcase.”109
78.1.9. TheCourtconcludedthatthat, ‘[t]hedeterminationoftherealcharacterof
indigenous title to land therefore “involves the study of the history of a particular
communityanditsusages.”Sodoesthedeterminationofitscontent.’
78.1.10. TheCourtheld,interalia,that
‘therealcharacterofthetitlethattheRichtersveldcommunitypossessed in the subject land was a right of communalownership under indigenous law. The content of that rightincludedtherighttoexclusiveoccupationanduseofthesubjectlandbythemembersofthecommunity.Thecommunityhadtherighttouseitswater,touseitslandforgrazingandhuntingandtoexploititsnaturalresources,aboveandbeneaththesurface.Itfollows therefore that prior to annexation the RichtersveldCommunity had a right of ownership in the subject land underindigenouslaw.’
79. Thus, the South African Constitutional Court explicitly recognises and affirms the
customary landtenuresystemofthe indigenouscommunitiesofSouthAfrica. Itdoesnot,
however, address the doctrine of terra nullius and how it continues to dictate land
ownershipinSouthAfrica.
80. A restoration of customary land tenure necessitates overturning the doctrine of
terra nullius,which, as discussed earlier, claims that lands thatwere not occupied in the
European sense of erecting houses on it, cultivating it, etc., were free for the taking by
Europeanpowers.Theoneprecedentthathasaddressedthedoctrineofterranulliusand 109 Ibid., at para. 56.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
41
most relevant to this report is the case of Mabo v The State of Queensland (No.2),110
hereinafter,theMabocase.Itisnecessarytoreviewbothcases,i.e.,MaboNo.1andMabo
No.2.
80.1. InMabo No. 1, i.e.,Mabo& Another v State of Queensland (No.1)111, the
plaintiffs, members of the Mer indigenous community inhabiting the Mer Islands, also
knownasMurrayIslandsbythecolonialauthorities,soughtlegalrecognitionandprotection
oftheirtraditionallandrightswhichtheyclaimtopossessinandovertheMerIslands.They
claim that ‘since time immemorial, the Meriam people have continuously inhabited and
exclusivelypossessedtheTorresStraitIslandsofMer(knownasMurray),DawarandWaier
and their surrounding seas, seabeds, fringing reefs.’112In addition, they claimed that that
‘since time immemorial, they havemaintained a system of laws, customs, traditions and
practicesoftheirownfordeterminingquestionsconcerningownershipof,anddealingwith,
land,seas,seabedsandreefs.’113
80.1.1. In response, the State of Queensland, while acknowledging that the Mer
IslandshavebeeninhabitedfromtimeimmemorialbypeoplecommonlyknownastheMer
orMurray Islanders,denied that thesepeoplehad lands rights to the lands they claim. It
then amended its defence, following the enactment of the Queensland Coast Islands
Declaratory Act, 1985, three years after the suit was instituted, which in effect,
retrospectively,triedtoabolishnativetitlerights,includingtheplaintiffs’Mercommunity.
80.1.2. Theplaintiffsobjected to theState’s amendeddefencebasedon the1985
ActandtwomainquestionsbeforetheAustralianHighCourtfordeterminationwere,first,
what effect, if any, did theQueensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act, 1985, have on the
plaintiffs’ interests in the land areas of the Mer or Murray Islands, and second, what
materialinconsistency,ifany,betweenthe1985Actandprovisionsofsections9and10of
theRacialDiscriminationAct,1975.
110 [1992] 175 CLR 1, HCA 23. 111 [1988] 166 CLR 168, [1988] HCA 69. 112 Ibid, at para. 2, judgment of Brennan, Toohey, and Gaudron JJ. 113 Ibid., at para. 2., judgement of Mason, C.J.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
42
80.1.3. Counsel for the State of Queensland submitted that the 1985 Act ‘has the
effect that those rights which might have otherwise survived annexation in 1879 are
deemednottohavesurvivedand,forpurposesof1985,nevertohavesurvived.’114
80.1.4. TheCourtheldthatonitstrueconstruction,the1985Actextinguishedallthe
traditional legal rights inorover theMerorMurray Islands,whichwouldotherwisehave
survivedannexationandconfirmsallrightsinorovertheMerorMurrayIslandwhichwere
purportedlydisposedofunderCrownlands legislationafterannexation.115Inotherwords,
the1985Act‘extinguishesalllegalrightswhichtaketheiroriginfromnativelawandcustom
while confirmingall legal rightswhich take theirorigin fromthe relevant statutory lawof
Queensland,namely,Crownlandslegislation.’116
80.1.5. Onwhethertherewasanymaterialinconsistencebetweenthe1985Actand
sections 9 and 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Court found material
inconsistency between the 1985 Act and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 because the
1985 Act extinguished the rights ofMeriam people in and over theMurray Island while
preservingtherightsofotherpeoples.Itheld,amongothers,that
Byextinguishingthetraditional legalrightsvested intheMeriampeople,the1985ActabrogatedtheimmunityoftheMeriampeoplefromarbitrarydeprivation of their legal rights in and over theMurray Islands. The Actthus impaired their human rights while leaving unimpaired thecorrespondinghumanrightsofthosewhoserightsinandovertheMurrayIslandsdidnottaketheiroriginfromthelawsandcustomsoftheMeriampeople. If we accord to the traditional rights of theMeriam people thestatusof recognised legal rightsunderQueensland law, the1985ActhastheeffectofprecludingtheMeriampeoplefromenjoyingsome,ifnotall,of their legalrights inandovertheMurray Islandswhile leavingallotherpersonsunaffected in theenjoymentof their legal rights inandover theMurrayIslands.117
80.1.6. TheCourtheldthatattemptstoextinguishthetraditionallegalrightsofthe
MeriampeopleinandovertheMurrayIslandsbythe1985Actis‘undone’bysection10(1) 114 Ibid., at para. 3 of the judgment of Brennan, Toohey, and Gaudron JJ. 115 Ibid., at para. 11. 116 Ibid., at para. 12. 117 Ibid., at para. 20, judgment of Brennan J.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
43
of the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975. In other words, the 1985 Act’s attempts to
extinguishtherightsoftheMeriampeopleinthelandoftheMurrayIslandsisvoidunder
section10(1)oftheRacialDiscriminationAct,1975.
80.2. InMaboNo.2, i.e.,MabovTheStateofQueensland (No.2),Australia’sHighCourt
hadtoaddressoneof thekey legal issuesthat thepartiesagreednottobeaddressedby
court,inMaboNo.1,namely,whethertheannexationoftheMurrayIslandin1August1879
vested in the Crown absolute ownership of, legal possession of, and exclusive power to
confertitletoallthelandintheMurrayIslands.118
80.2.1. TheStateofQueenslandarguedineffectthattheannexationoftheMurray
IslandhadvestedintheCrownabsoluteownership,legalpossessionof,andexclusivepower
toconfertitleto,alllandintheMurrayIsland.’Inotherwords,theQueenofEngland‘took
the landoccupiedby theMeriampeopleon1August1879without themknowingof the
expropriation’and‘theywerenolongerentitledwiththeconsentoftheCrowntocontinue
occupyingthelandtheyhadoccupiedforcenturies.’119
80.2.2. Thedefendant’sargumentswerebasedon thedoctrineofexclusive
crown ownership which posits that ‘when the crown assumed sovereignty over an
Australian colony, it became the universal and absolute beneficial owner of all the land
therein.’TheCourtcalledintoquestionthisproposition:
If the conclusion atwhich StephenC.J. arrived inAttorney-General vBrownbe right, the interestof indigenous inhabitants in the colonialland were extinguished so soon as the British subjects settled in acolony, though the indigenous inhabitants had neither ceded theirlands to the Crown nor suffered them to be taken as the spoils ofconquest. According to the cases, the common law itself took fromindigenous inhabitants any rights to occupy their traditional land,exposed them to deprivation of the religious, cultural and economicsustenancewhichthelandprovides,vestedthelandeffectivelyinthecontrolofthe imperialauthoritieswithoutanyrighttocompensationandmadetheindigenousinhabitantsintrudersintheirownhomesandmendicantsforaplacetolive.Judgedbyanycivilizedstandard,sucha
118 Ibid., at para. 23, judgment of Brennan J. 119Ibid.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
44
lawisunjustanditsclaimtobepartofthecommonlawtobeappliedincontemporaryAustraliamustbequestion.120
80.2.3. TheCourt,havingrejectedthedoctrineofexclusiveCrownownershipofland
incoloniesforbeingunjust,turnedtoconsider‘whetherbythecommonlaw’ofAustralia,
‘therightsand interestsoftheMeriampeopletodayaretobedeterminedonthefooting
thattheirancestorslostthetraditionalrightsandinterestsinthelandofMurrayIslandson
1August1879.’121
80.2.4. In answering this question the Court, reviewed at length, the various
theoriesanddoctrinesusedtojustifytheexpropriationofforeignlandbyEuropeanpowers,
includingthedoctrineofterranulliusandthejustificationfortheapplicationofthetheory
of terra nullius to inhabited territory122and the common law doctrine that sovereign
acquiredabsolutebeneficialownershipofalllandinthecolonies.123
80.2.4.1. The Court, noted that ‘[i]nternational law recognized conquest,
cession,andoccupationofterritorythatwasterranulliusasthreeoftheeffectivewaysof
acquiring sovereignty.’124The Court further observed that the Europeannations parcelled
out territories newly ‘discovered’ amongst themselves and ‘[t]o these territories the
Europeancolonialnationsapplied thedoctrine relating to theacquisitionof territory that
wasterranullius’and‘recognizedthesovereigntyoftherespectiveEuropeannationsover
the territory of “backward peoples” and by State practice, permitted the acquisition of
sovereigntyofsuchterritorybyoccupationratherthanbyconquest.’125
80.2.4.2. TheCourtexaminedsomeofthe justificationsfortheapplicationof
thetheoryofterranulliustoinhabitedlandsorterritorybutfocusedonthejustificationthat
the ‘new territories could be claimed by occupation if the land were uncultivated, for
Europeanshadarighttobringslandsintoproductioniftheywereleftuncultivatedbythe
120 Ibid., at para. 28, judgment of Brennan J. 121 Ibid. 122 Ibid., at para. 33 – 46. 123 Ibid., at para. 31ff. 124 Ibid., at para. 33.125 Ibid.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
45
indigenous inhabitants.’126This, the Court noted, was an expanded version of Vattel’s
originalconceptualisationofterranulliustoconstituteonlyuninhabitedterritoryorlands.127
80.2.4.3. TheCourtfurtherobservedthattheexpandedtheoryofterranullius
wasfurtherbuttressedwithanothertheory,namelythattheindigenousinhabitantsofthe
territories expropriated were backwards or barbarians or ‘so low on the scale of social
organization’ to deny them their proprietary rights in the lands they have inhabited for
millennia:
Astheindigenousinhabitantsofasettledcolonywereregarded“lowinthe scale of social organization”, they and their occupancy of coloniallandwere ignored in considering the title to land in a settled colony.Ignoring those rights and interests, the Crown’s sovereignty over aterritorywhich had been acquired under the enlarged notion of terranulliuswas equatedwith the Crown’s ownership of the lands therein,because, as Stephen C.J. said, therewas “no other proprietor of suchlands.128
80.2.4.4. TheCourtrejectedthistheorybecauseitwasbasedondiscrimination
anddenigrationoftheindigenousinhabitants:
Thetheorythattheindigenousinhabitantsofa“settled”colonyhadnoproprietary interest in the land thus depended on discriminatorydenigrationofthe indigenous inhabitants, theirsocialorganizationandcustoms.Asthebasisofthetheory is false infactandunacceptable inoursociety,there isachoiceof legalprincipletobemadeinthiscase.This Court can either apply the existing authorities and proceed toinquire whether theMeriam people are higher “in the scale of socialorganization”thantheAustralianAborigineswhoseclaimswere“utterlydisregarded” by existing authorities or the Court can overrule existingauthorities, discarding the distinction between inhabited colonies thatwereterranulliusandthosewhichwerenot.12980.2.4.5. TheCourt, approvingly adopting thedictumof JudgeAmmoun,Vice
Presidentof the InternationalCourtof Justice (ICJ) intheWesternSaharaCase, ‘that“the
conceptofterranullius,employedatallperiods, tothebrinkofthetwentiethcentury, to
126 Ibid. 127 Ibid. 128Ibid., at para. 39, judgment of Brenna J.129 Ibid.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
46
justify conquest and colonization, stands condemned’, concludes that the theory of terra
nulliusno‘longercommandsgeneralsupport’.130
80.2.5. The Court also rejected the common law doctrine that the sovereign or
Crown acquired absolute beneficial ownership of all land in the inhabited territories by
indigenouspeopleseitherbecausethereisallegedly“nootherproprietor”or‘alllandinthe
colonyisthepatrimonyofthenation’:
ItwasbyfasteningonthenotionthatasettledcolonywasterranulliusthatitwaspossibletopredicateoftheCrowntheacquisitionoflandina colony alreadyoccupiedby indigenous inhabitants. Itwas only thehypothesis that therewasnobody inoccupationthat itcouldbesaidthat the Crown was the owner because there was no other. If thathypothesis is rejected, thenotion that sovereignty carriedownershipinitswakemustberejectedtoo.131
80.3. Afterathoroughreviewofthevarioustheoreticalanddoctrinaljustifications
forexpropriatingthelandsinhabitedbynon-Europeansintheterritoriestheyoccupied,and
especiallytheMeriampeople,theCourtheld,amongothers,that:
the Meriam people are entitled as against the whole world topossession,occupation,useandenjoymentoftheislandofMerexceptfortheparceloflandleasedtotheTrusteesotheAustralianBoardofMissions and those parcels of land (if any) which have validlyappropriated for use for administrative purposes the use ofwhich isinconsistentwiththecontinuedenjoymentoftherightsandprivilegesoftheMeriampeopleundernativetitle.
80.4. The implicationof thisholding is that theCourtoverturns thecenturiesold
theoryofterranulliusandrecognisesthetitleoftheMeriampeopletothelandstheyhave
inhabitedforcenturies.
130 Ibid., at para. 40. 131 Ibid.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
47
6 CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
81. First, customary land tenure as practiced by indigenous peoples is recognised by
international legalprecedentscreatedbyregionalhumanrightsandeconomiccommunity
courtsasanautonomousformof landownershipandusewhosevalidityderivesfromthe
lawandcustomsoftherespectiveindigenouscommunities.Thesecourtsalsorecognisethat
customarylandtenurecangiverisetobothindividualandcollectivepropertyrightswhich
areprotectedbytherespectiveregionalhumanrightsinstrumentsand,insomecases,the
constitutionsofrespectivecountries.Furthermore,theseprecedentsaffirmtheobligations
of States to recognise and protect the customary land tenure rights of the indigenous
communitiesintheirterritories,includingtheobligationtodelimit,demarcate,andregister
the lands of the indigenous peoples and provide effective remedies in law so that
indigenouspeoplescanvindicatetheirrightstotheirlandswhenviolated.
81.1. There are also specific international treaties that guarantee the right to
customary landtenureof indigenouspeoples. Inadditiontospecific internationaltreaties,
certainprovisionsofinternationalhumanrightsinstruments,suchastheAfricanCharteron
HumanandPeoplesRightsandtheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,can
be interpreted to extend protection to customary land tenure rights for any given
communityinSub-SaharanAfrican,includingtheAcholicommunityinnorthernUganda.
81.2. The character and status of customary land tenure in international law,
however,remainsinferioranddistorted.International law,especiallythroughthedoctrine
of terra nullius, facilitated colonialism and created the fiction that indigenous inhabitants
did not possess proprietary interests in the lands they lived in for centuries. This in turn
allowedtheimpositionofcoloniallawsandlegalsystemontheterritoryofthecommunities
and systematically eroded and, in some contexts, explicitly outlawed or denied the
existenceofthecustomsandlawsoftheinhabitants.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
48
81.3. Themajor shortcoming of the international legal precedents on customary
land tenure rights and specific treaties on indigenous and tribal peoples is that they
exclusively focus on indigenous and tribal peoples. Other communities, not technically
indigenous and tribal peoples, such asmany of the communities in Uganda, such as the
Acholi,maynotbedirectlycoveredbytheseprecedents,savethoseofgeneralhumanrights
instruments.
81.4. Despite thismajor flaw,however, the ideasgeneratedby theseprecedents
provides useful roadmaps that may be innovatively deployed to make the case for
advancing theprotectionof thecustomary land tenure rightsof communities suchas the
AcholiofnorthernUganda.
82. Second,someAfricancountries,includingUganda,recognisecustomarylandtenure
and have taken steps to protect it in both their constitutions and land legislation. These
laws, however, entrench the colonial distortions of customary land tenure and law and
perpetuate the doctrine of terra nullius and certain common law doctrines that denied
indigenous inhabitants proprietary interests in the land they inhabited based on
‘discriminatory denigration of the indigenous inhabitants, their social organization, and
custom.’
82.1. Insomeofthecourtcases,especiallyinUganda,bothcourtsandlawyersfail
tograsp that customary land tenureand titlearenota creatureof statuteor theEnglish
common law. Thus, they confuseor conflate ownership andoccupation as understood in
Englishcommonlawandpropertylawwiththeauthenticunderstandingoftheseconcepts
bythespecificindigenouscommunities.
6.2 Recommendations83. Inthelightofthereviewofinternationallegalprecedentsoncustomarylandtenure
rights, thenatureand statusof customary land tenure in international anddomestic law,
anddoctrinalworkofscholars,fourmainrecommendationsaresuggested:
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
49
84. First,amendArticle237oftheConstitutionofUganda1995andsections1,3,and27
oftheLandAct,1998,asamended,to:
84.1. provide that customary land tenure in is an intergenerational asset amongst
certain communities of Uganda that is managed at different levels of social
organisationwithineachcommunity;
84.2. provide that customary land tenure is based on a notion of ancestral ties
betweenthe landandpersonwhowasborn thereandremainsattachedthere
andmustonedayreturntothelandtobeunitedwithhisorherancestors;this
linkisthebasisoftitleandownershipoftheland;thus,thereshouldbeexplicit
provision in the law that customary land tenureof thevarious communitiesof
Ugandaisnotcreatedbygrantnorisitacommonlawtenure;
84.3. provide that customary land tenure is equal in status, validity, and weight to
other formsof land tenure,even if it isnot registered; forcenturies,European
colonial powers and their intellectuals crafted the fiction that indigenous
inhabitants in the territories theyexpropriatedhadneitherproprietary interest
inthelandtheyinhabitednoranylawregulatingaccesstoandownershipofland
akintotheirown;
84.4. provide that customary land tenure can give raise to individual and collective
property rights capable of protection by Article 26 of the Constitution on the
righttoproperty;
84.5. vest management of land in the traditional three-tier community mechanism
comprising the family, the clan, and the community; this tested and resilient
mechanism should be protected and not denigrated; imposition of new
administrativestructuresoutsidethesethreelevelsofsocialorganisationineach
communitywillonlyunderminetheinstitutionofcustomarylandtenureandlaw;
84.6. provide that the customary law of the various communities is an original and
independent source of norms within the Ugandan legal system because the
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
50
customary law of the various communities in Uganda rare not static; they are
‘living’andorganicandobservedbythepeoplewhocreatedit;
84.6.1. the colonial powers denigrated African custom on the basis that it was
repugnant to their civilisation. Western scholarship is replete with
accusationsagainstcommunitycustoms,manyofwhichtheymisunderstood
orcriticisedfromtheperspectiveoftheirowncultureandworldview;
84.6.2. Sadly, African elite have bought into the denigration of their own cultures
andenactedconstitutionsthatplaceunduerestrictionsonAfrican lawsand
custom. Whatever justifications and doctrines were used by the colonial
powers to refuse to recogniseour laws, customs, and rights in land,unjust
anddiscriminatorydoctrinesdenigratingourvaluesystemsshouldnolonger
beaccepted.
84.7. provide for thesurvey,delimitation,anddemarcationofcustomary landof the
various communitiesofUganda. Thiswill enhance the recognitionof the landof
eachcommunityandprotectagainstlandgrabbing.Registrationandcertificates
ofownershipshouldnotbemademandatory;norshouldtherebefixeddatesor
deadlinesforcommunitiestosurveyanddemarcatetheirlands;
84.8. provideforprotectionagainstarbitrarycompulsoryacquisitionoflandownedby
communitiesundertheircustomsandlaws.Whereagivencommunity’s landis
neededforlegitimatepublicinterestprojects,provisionshouldbemadeforprior
consultation and informed consent without intimidation of any kind by the
authorities.
85. Second, trainUgandan judgesand lawyerson theauthenticnatureandcontentof
customary land tenure to eliminate the continued treatment of customary tenure as an
inferiorformofownershipandendconfusingitwithcommonlawnotionsofownershipand
occupation.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
51
86. Third, enact specific legislation, e.g., a Land Restitution Act, to overturn and
eradicatethedoctrineofterranulliuswhichcontinuestoinfluencetheapproachtodealing
with customary land tenure in Uganda. This legislation should explicitly recognise the
proprietary character of customary land ownership on its own right. This will rectify the
injustice that customary communities have suffered for over a centurywhen the colonial
powers deliberately refused to recognise the proprietary character of African communal
landownership.
87. Fourth, there is urgent need for Ugandan scholars to undertake research on
customarylawandtenureinUgandaandclosethecurrentgapandpaucityofauthoritative
worksonthiscriticalarea.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
52
SelectReferences
Anghie,Antony,‘ColonialismandtheBirthofInternationalLaw:Sovereignty,Economy,andtheMandateSystemoftheLeadofNations’(2004),34NewYorkUniversityJournalofInternationalLawandPolitics513.Bromley,DavidW.&Cernea,MichaelM.,TheManagementofCommonPropertyNaturalResources:SomeConceptualandOperationalFallacies(1989),WorldBankDiscussionPaperNo.57.Byamugisha,FrankF.K.,SecuringAfrica’sLandforSharedProsperity:AProgramtoScaleUpReformsandInvestment(InternationalBankforReconstructionandDevelopment/TheWorldBank,WashingtonD.C.,2013).Cotula,Lorenzo(ed.),Changesin“Customary”LandTenureSystemsAcrossAfrica(Stevenage,Hertfordshire,SMI(DistributionServices)Ltd,2007).Fenrich,Jeanmarie,Galizzi,PaoloandHiggins,TraceyE.,TheFutureofAfricanCustomaryLaw(Cambridge,UnitedKingdom,CambridgeUniversityPress,2011).Gilbert,Jeremie‘TheRighttoFreelyDisposeofNaturalResources:UtopiaorForgottenRight’(2013),31(2)NetherlandQuarterlyofHumanRights314–341.Harding,Garret,‘TheTragedyoftheCommons’(1968),162(3859)Science1243–1248.Knight,RachelS.,StatutoryRecognitionofCustomaryLandRightsinAfrica(FoodandAgriculturalOrganisation(FAO),Rome,2010).Migot-Adholla,Shem,etal,‘IndigenousLandRightsSystemsinSub-SaharanAfrica:AConstraintonProductivity?’(1991),5(1),WorldBankEconomicReview,155-175.Okoth-Ogendo,H.W.O,‘LandPolicyDevelopmentinEastAfrica:ASurveyofRecentTrends’(1999),online<http://mokoro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/land_policy_dev_east_africa_overview.pdf>.Okoth-Ogendo,H.W.O,‘TheTragicCommons:ACenturyofExpropriation,SuppressionandSubversion’(2003),1UniversityofNairobiLawJournal,107–117.Oliphant,Herman,‘AReturntoStareDecisis’(1927)14AmericanBarAssociationJournal71.
International precedents on the protection of the right to customary land tenure – Arcadia Advocates Revised Report to Trócaire – Uganda, 22 July 2017
53
Perell,PaulM.,‘StareDecisisandtheTechniquesofLegalReasoningandLegalArgument’(1987)2(2),LegalResearchUpdate11,asreproducedwithpermissionbyTheCanadianLegalResearchandWritingGuide,online:<http://legalresearch.org/writing-analysis/stare-decisis-techniques/>.Pienaar,Gerrit,‘TheMethodologyUsedtoInterpretCustomaryLandTenure’(2012),15(3)PER/PELJ153–183.Schiff,DavidN.,‘Socio-LegalTheory:SocialStructureandLaw’(1976),39TheModernLawReview287–310.UnitedNationsHumanRightsCommittee,GeneralCommentNo.23:TheRightsofMinorities(Art.27):-08/04/94,Onlinehttp://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f21%2fRev.1%2fAdd.5&Lang=en>.UnitedNations,UnitedNationsTreatySeries,999UnitedNationsTreatySeries171.Vattel,Emerde,TheLawofNations,Or,PrinciplesoftheLawofNature,AppliedtotheConductandAffairsofNationsandSovereigns,withThreeEarlyEssaysontheOriginandNatureNaturalLawandonLuxury(LibertyFundInc.2008),BookI.Wicomb,Wilmien&Smith,Henk,‘CustomaryCommunitiesas‘Peoples’andtheirCustomaryTenureas‘Culture’:WhatwecandowiththeEndoroisDecision’(2011),11AfricanHumanRightsLawJournal422–446.Wily,LizAlden,‘CustomaryLandTenureintheModernWorld:RightstoResourcesinCrisis:ReviewingtheFateofCustomaryTenureinAfrica–Brief#1of5’(2012),online:https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/7713/customary%20land%20tenure%20in%20the%20modern%20world.pdf?sequence=1>.