[Organized Session at Conferences in Japan] “Land-related Conflicts and Traditional Authorities” (50th Annual Meeting of the Japan Association for African Studies) (Tokyo, Japan / May 26th, 2013)

Statement of Purpose: Land-related Conflicts and Traditional Authorities
Toru Sagawa (Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto University)

In conjunction with population growth, even African societies that have been characterized as being land rich are undergoing a transformation to being land scarce, leading to the emergence of land-based rivalries that act as flashpoints for conflict. In many areas, unequal land allocations that have been ongoing since the colonial period have become a major underlying factor in the occurrence of conflicts. The question of how to allocate lands to displaced persons returning following the cessation of hostilities is one of the most important political challenges facing post-conflict societies. In the context of increasingly large-scale land acquisitions by domestic and foreign investors at the turn of the millennium, residents in many areas are still being forced off of their traditional lands.

In this forum, we shine a spotlight on the ways in which traditional authorities have been involved in these land-related conflicts and their resolution. In regions throughout the African continent, many authorities regarded as “traditional” were in fact modified or created during the colonial period, gaining substance through the processes of political practice. Although many African countries attempted to suppress their influence after achieving independence, traditional authorities have acquired a position as important political actors by being granted legal legitimacy within their countries and by serving mediators in the delivery of aid by the international community in the processes of ongoing democratization and decentralization that have taken place since the 1990s.

Traditional authorities, who often hold discretionary powers over land allocation, have been deeply involved in land-related disputes. The manner of this involvement has varied, sometimes serving as an advance deterrent to conflict escalation as impartial mediators familiar with local situations, at other times exacerbating the frustrations of some residents by carrying out land allocations based on nepotism. In some cases, they have also become the target of popular ill will for transferring lands to outside investors against the wishes of some members of the local community. Their decisions function at times as drivers of conflict, and at others as a valve to check it.

In this forum, through an examination of the relationship between land-related conflicts and traditional authorities in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and Uganda, we will discuss approaches to conflict resolution in African societies where land-based rivalries are expected to intensify in future.

Traditional Authorities and the Formation of Resettlement Areas in the Context of Zimbabwe’s Land Reforms: The Case of the Masvingo District in the Central Part of the Country
Kazuhito Suga (Graduate School of Social Sciences, Hitotsubashi University)

In this presentation, I propose to clarify the processes underlying the formation of resettlement areas in the Masvingo District of central Zimbabwe. These were the product of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme initiated in 2000. In doing so, I will discuss the involvement of traditional authorities in the occurrence and resolution of conflicts over land use in these resettlement areas.

Traditional authorities in Zimbabwe were suppressed by the British South Africa Company at the end of the nineteenth century. During the colonial period, land allocation privileges were conferred under the Land Apportionment Act of 1930. However, this was the case only for the Native Reserves (known afterward as Tribal Trust Lands), which constituted twenty (later forty) percent of the national territory where living conditions were poor, and to which large numbers of black Africans were relegated. Even then, such allocations were conditional on the supervision of the colonial government.

After independence in 1980, Zimbabwe’s government suppressed the power of traditional authorities by setting up local administrative organizations such as village development committees (VIDCOs) and placing these under the jurisdiction of the ruling party, the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) in order to create a centralized regime. Moreover, the powers of traditional authorities were also restricted in the sense that their authority was not recognized in the resettlement areas (constituting eight percent of the national territory) that had been created by redistributions that had failed to fully rectify the racially unequal land allocations that had developed during the colonial period.

However, with the rise of a democratization movement in the late 1990s, in 1998, the governing ZANU-PF granted legal legitimacy to traditional authorities with the enactment of the Traditional Leaders Act, which stipulated the latter’s jurisdiction over land issues and misdemeanors in their respective community districts. This was the beginning of the party’s efforts to strengthen collaboration with local authorities as a base of local support.

Shortly afterward, in February of 2000, occupations of large commercial farms began to take place across the country in response to the rejection in a national referendum of a proposed revision of the constitution that would have granted the government the authority to forcibly expropriate lands owned by white citizens. The underlying push for land reforms was the Zimbabwean Government’s Fast Track Land Reform Programme, under which a total of eleven million hectares were to be expropriated, with nine million hectares tagged for reallocation to 170,000 households. While this largely resolved a deep-rooted source of conflict in Zimbabwe that had festered since the colonial period, traditional authorities played a major role in the land reallocation process in only a limited number of cases, which suggests that the involvement of traditional authorities was more important in conflicts over land use and their resolution after the resettlement process.

In the case of the resettlement areas in the Masvingo District of central Zimbabwe discussed here, the number of participants in the farm occupations that began immediately after the referendum increased over time. Although joined by settlers under the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, the home districts of the latter were widely scattered within a radius of a few dozen kilometers, and the traditional authorities to whom they respectively belonged held no direct claim to rights over the resettlement area. At the same time, however, another resettlement plan was undertaken to relocate residents from a diamond mine developed by the Company R. a multinational metals and mining corporation, located approximately a hundred kilometers southwest of the resettlement area. This led the traditional authorities with whom these residents were affiliated to strongly assert their rights on the basis of a claim to residence in the surrounding area since before the colonial period, complicating the conflict over these lands.

While the ensuing arbitration was extremely difficult, owing to mediation by the state government and persistent discussions among the three parties involved – farm occupiers, many of whom were army veterans, settlers under the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, and residents relocated from the mine – a working coexistence was established between the parties by extending recognition, albeit unofficial, to traditional authorities among the relocated residents, and a solution for land allocations was hammered out. However, there remained a deep-rooted sense of dissatisfaction among those who, in addition to the involuntary resettlement, had been forced to scale back their own property rights in light of this new coexistence, and conflicts over grazing land continued to occur with some frequency. Although the traditional authorities of the relocated residents were unable to secure an effective solution that addressed this situation, the residents worked to prevent the escalation of the conflict by building social relationships through their joint use of common property such as wells and mills while also bringing in traditional authorities from neighboring areas to open a window for formal dialogue, which has successfully quelled the remaining conflict.

This Land is Guarded by the Soul of a Chief Slain by the Anger of the People: The Zambia Lands Act and Traditional Authorities in Bemba Society
Shuichi Oyama (Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto University)

The duality in law of private land ownership and joint custody of customary lands dating from colonial policies represents a major challenge when discussing land problems in Africa. In Zambia, the new Lands Act enacted in 1995 recognized ownership in customary lands on the basis of joint custody. The traditional rulers of individual ethnic groups are given considerable discretion over authorizations pertaining to land ownership. In the Bemba territories of northern Zambia, joint custody of lands has customarily been observed. Based on active consideration and concern for each other, the local inhabitants have practiced a form of swidden cultivation known as chitemene on these lands. However, since 2003, in the territory of a particular chief (hereinafter chief L), those wishing to secure land ownership have been able to obtain consent after meeting with the local chief and to acquire land tenure certificates issued by the Zambian government or else land allocation certificates provided by the chief. For applicants seeking to acquire land, obtaining the consent of the chief is essential. This means not only covering the necessary expenses involved in the procedures that take place between the two parties, but also almost inevitably to the exchange of goods and money. Zambian society has elements that are very conducive to rampant corruption exercised through interpersonal ties to the wielders of authority on the basis of shared ethnicity or connections. Authorizations relating to the acquisition of land tenure or land allocation certificates require that applicants obtain approval from a chief, village head, or some other official with the relevant authority, thus the applicant and traditional authorities (e.g., the chief or village head) exchange bribes for the purpose of securing favors. Shadowy rumors relating to authorizations of land ownership that were kept hidden from the public eye spread throughout Bemba village society. In the territory of chief L, while not necessarily known to many people, two local chiefs, CP and KL, are believed to have been lining their own pockets by transferring ownership of lands to outside parties.

Confiscating land from villagers and transferring the ownership of customary lands results in the amount of available land being limited, an appreciable transformation in the lives of villagers, and a decline in their quality of life. Despite feeling angry at the transfer of lands, and their dissatisfaction at the deterioration in their living conditions, people have chosen to endure their current situation. Under these circumstances, chiefs CP and KL died unnatural deaths in 2007 and 2009, respectively. Although local residents avoid saying anything definite regarding these deaths, there are some who believe that they were brought about by the anger and frustration of their subjects. The mandate of a chief is to protect the lives of his subjects within the territory he rules so that they can live in tranquility. For such an official to abuse his own power and feather his own nest by intentionally seizing and selling livestock that villagers had left free to pasture, or else by selling off their territorial lands to outside individuals or corporations, are actions that violate the Bemba notion of umutembo (nobility). The unnatural deaths of the two chiefs are thus thought to have resulted from the greed with which they sought to enrich themselves at the expense of the lives of their subjects.

Although chiefs possess enormous power over people and lands in their home territories, when the lives of the people are adversely affected by chiefly policies, popular anger can sometimes threaten the position of the chief. The anger of the people does not last forever, however. With the death of a chief, the anger of the people gradually subsides, and the chief will be forgiven. People emphasize the importance of forgiveness (uluse), not continuing to hold on to anger (kufolwa). Thus the soul (imipashi) of the chief is believed to watch over his territory, protecting the lands of his territories and the lives of his subjects. When a new chief ascends upon the death of the old chief, his subjects expect that the policies of the new chief will improve their situation. The new chief will also seek to understand the history and present circumstances of his territory, judge situations in keeping with the Bemba sense of nobility and the life-ways of his predecessors, eliminate problems, and start a new government (kuteka). Local government can vary significantly depending on the qualities of a chief. While some may cause land conflicts and bring about a worsening in the lives of their people, it is also conceivable that a new chief will improve the situation upon his accession.

Land-related Conflicts and Traditional Authorities: The Outlook for Private Partition of Group Ranches in Maasai Society in Southern Kenya
Toshio Meguro (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science / University of Tokyo)

In the eighteenth century, the territory of the Maasai people encompassed what are now the regions of southern Kenya and northern Tanzania. At the time, Maasai society lacked any centralized political mechanisms for overseeing the whole. While spokesmen known as il-aiguenak chosen from among age groups that formed approximately every fourteen to fifteen years were recognized as having considerable authority, the management and supervision of resource utilization in the territories of the twenty or so regional groups (known as il-oshon) were performed in each territory by groups of elders. Kenya became a protectorate of the United Kingdom in 1895, whereupon a system of indirect rule began to be established. Although the colonial government signed treaties with the “paramount chief” of the Maasai in 1904 and 1911 and expropriated lands suitable for white settlement and cultivation, the “paramount chief” held to be the representative of the Maasai was no more than an authority figure created by the colonial government itself. After independence, a ranching system was introduced in the 1960s, by which group ranches were set up in various districts in a manner that subdivided the territories of the traditional regional groups. While some Maasai acquired private lands and established ranches as individuals in parallel with the group ranches, in the 1980s the private partition of the group ranches began to be advanced as a matter of public policy, and the majority of lands held in common were reorganized as privately held property. Although management committees that were established in each of the group ranches began to acquire certain rights and interests as the gatekeepers for aid and development policies, in most areas these failed to become entities that could supersede traditional authorities.

In recent years, subsistence activities other than animal husbandry have increased and diversified under the influence of various modernization policies along with the expansion of private land ownership. This has been accompanied by population increases that have included influxes of other ethnic groups. In addition to cultivation, land usages such as tourism and wildlife conservation have also become sources of conflict. In this presentation, drawing on the case of the Loitoktok Sub-Regional Group that is located in the Amboseli Ecosystem (Kajiado South Constituency, also known as Loitoktok Constituency, 6,356.3km2) in southern Kenya, I examine several examples of land-related conflicts in contemporary Maasai society and the role and involvement of local authorities in these conflicts.

The Amboseli Ecosystem is a typical Kenyan site for wildlife tourism. It is made up of seven group ranches and individual (private) ranches surrounding Amboseli National Park. On the Kimana Group Ranch, the first to have engaged in the private partition of commonly held lands, the purchase of lands by members of other ethnic groups has come to be seen as problematic, to the point that national legislators are even examining a prohibition on the resale of the lands. However, as members of the group ranch are reaping huge profits from the sale and rental of the lands, concrete regulations have not yet been introduced. Also, attempts at clan-based political mobilization around leaders have been made in response to conflicts that have arisen in relation to tourist companies that manage and run wildlife sanctuaries established on common lands. However, these problems, which have entangled not only residents who provide unconditional support to their fellow clan members, but also local leaders, were ultimately only settled through the intervention of national legislators who were not members of the group ranch. On the other hand, frictions have arisen due to differences in how contracts and land ownership are interpreted in relation to conservancies that have been established by amalgamating partitioned private lands within a small range under the leadership of international conservation NGOs, as well as in connection with the appearance of outsiders seeking to establish contact with members with the intention of pursuing tourism and resource development. Here, the situation was resolved through the acceptance by members of the principle of individual self-responsibility advocated by NGOs. It is hard to say that the powerful forces of so-called traditional authorities have come to the fore in these examples. On the other hand, however, arising from political motives, a collective Maasai identity has also come to be emphasized and accepted by many residents, as can be clearly seen from a recent case in which the existence of the national park was debated in response to several deaths caused by wild animals. As the privatization of land continues to affect Maasai society, it is necessary to examine the extent to which households and individuals who have become private land owners are able to make autonomous decisions between political leaders and external aid organizations.

The Land Issue and the “Restoration” of the Position of Chief in Northern Uganda
Hiroko Kawaguchi (Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto University)

This presentation discusses the case of land problems that have arisen between a “restored” class of traditional chiefs and neighboring residents in the Acholi community of northern Uganda with the purpose of clarifying land-mediated relationships between traditional chiefs and commoners, as well as the relationship of customary land systems to land registrations now being promoted by the state. In addition, in bringing some clarity to these two problems, I offer a perspective on the degree to which people are aware of and making use of traditional methods for dealing with land problems and state laws.

In August of 2012, in a village situated approximately twenty kilometers north of a regional hub city in northern Uganda, a disagreement over land arose between a traditional chief and a powerful clan with entrepreneurial interests in the territory in question, and a meeting was held in which local residents also took part. The traditional chief asserted rights to the land on the basis of history and chiefly authority, while the opposing clan did so on the basis of land registration. While the majority of local residents supported the traditional chief, they did so not because they necessarily agreed with his position, but rather because the clan in question had already been responsible for initiating fierce land conflicts with other neighbors. On the other hand, the traditional chief was also fully conversant with the state power to enforce the Lands Act, with a firm grasp of the Ugandan Constitution. Traditional chiefs, who serve as mediators within the local community when conflicts arise, find themselves in the midst of any conflict in the event of disagreement over land.

Traditional chiefs among the Acholi are descended from specific lineages, with a multitude of agnatic kin groups falling under the authority of a single chief. Because people owned land through their kin groups, private ownership did not exist. Descriptions found in the literature from the colonial period also reveal that because chieftainship was a hereditary position within a powerful kin group, the chief was considered to be the owner of the land. Although traditional chiefs had been replaced by political chiefs by the time of the colonial period, no records now remain to account for this major shift in land ownership, and land has come to be treated as belonging to a kin group.

In northern Uganda, armed conflict between the current regime and rebel forces has continued for over twenty years since 1986, and approximately ninety percent of the population of Acholiland has been living away from their lands as internally displaced persons (IDPs) for more than ten years. This conflict has brought devastation to people’s lives, and while land issues between neighbors, between kin groups, and between ethnic groups have arisen throughout Acholiland as a consequence of people returning to their villages, at the same time these issues have also been a factor the “restoration” of the once-moribund institution of traditional chieftainship. The Ugandan government has appointed traditional chiefs to play an intermediary role vis-à-vis rebel forces, while international NGOs and other agencies that have carried out humanitarian aid for IDPs have given active economic support to the traditional chiefs, emphasizing their role in Acholi “tradition” to facilitate the reconstruction of local communities. Under these circumstances, by the 2000s, the institution of traditional chieftainship among the Acholi had been restored, and the authority of these chiefs had been strengthened.

This situation gave rise to the land problems described above. In recent years, much attention has been focused on the role played by traditional authorities in linking local communities with external actors such as the state and NGOs and as guardians of tradition. In the case discussed here, however, the legitimacy of the authority of traditional chiefs has been brought into question, and we can see the dangers that attend their relationship with people in local communities. Moreover, in the relationship between customary land ownership and land registration by state law, the traditional chiefs cannot exceed the provisions of state law in any official sense. Finally, by looking at how people interact with traditional chiefs, and how they make use of customary land systems and systems of land registration, we may be able to gain a perspective on the relationship between traditional forms of remediation and state laws in relation to land problems, which can be expected to multiply in the years to come.