Land Conflicts in Dar es Salaam and their Socio-political Implications

1.2 Land access, compulsory land acquisition and processes

From the early days after independence Tanzania adopted policies, principles and put in place administrative structures with the intention of enabling persons from all social groups to benefit from the national resources including land. Through the 1967 Arusha Declaration, the blue print for Socialist Transformation in Tanzania, all major means of production including land were nationalised. Land was considered a valueless but a prime resource that ought to be freely available to all. Commensurate with socialist principles, institutions to administratively allocate land were established at all levels, i.e. at village, city, municipal and town levels.

Indeed the bulk of the landholders in many peri-urban areas (especially in the former Ujamaa Villages) acquired land freely through Village Councils. In fact till the early 1980s, one could easily get land in such villages, regardless of ones social, ethnic, or economic status (Kombe, 1995). The fairly easy land access system which until very recently seems to have functioned appears to have been at least partly an outcome of the socialist legacy and attitudes towards land.

Regarding land acquisition, the most common instruments which the state has and can apply to access land required for urban growth and development are ‘negotiations and persuasions’ or ‘legalised force’ through compulsory acquisition; the latter is normally effected through the power of eminent domain. This gives the state powers to expropriate private property or land for public use without necessarily seeking the owner’s consent (Ndjovu, 2003).
The economic justification of the deployment of compulsory acquisition is to ensure that public interests or projects such as economic ventures or public trunk infrastructure development such as highways, water pipelines or electricity which cater for the wider public interest are not frustrated by individual refusal to sell land to the government at a reasonable price (Miceli and Segerson, 1999: 239 cited in Ndjovu 2003). It is therefore argued that if the public cannot access land forcefully, individuals could block social projects or demand unrealistically high sums which the public cannot pay (ibid). The use of the compulsory land acquisition tool has been, however, considered problematic as it tends to alienate the affected communities during implementation. It is also associated with poor execution of resettlement programmes, especially disregard of the social costs of the dispossessed land occupiers. Compulsory acquisition is furthermore detested although it is the most popular approach, primarily because it interferes with the property market (Farvaque and Mc Auslan, 1992:72). Several authors (World Bank, 1990; Syagga and Olima 1996) caution that development projects that uproot people involuntarily often lead to serious economic, social and environmental problems. Compensation is considered a necessary instrument to limit the property rights of the State, especially abuse of compulsory acquisition powers. It also helps to check over-regulation on the side of the state (Blume, Rubinfield and Shapira, 1984 cited in Ndjovu, 2003). Trefzger (1995) argues that compensation payment should be equitable to the price at which the owner would willingly have parted with the right expropriated.
The constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (1977) articles 24(1) and (2) explicitly provides for the rights to own property and to get state protection and fair and adequate compensation in an event of compulsory purchase:

1. 
   Subject to the provision of the relevant laws of the land, every person is entitled to own property, and has a right to the protection of his property held in accordance with the law.
   
2. 
   Subject to the provision of sub-article (1) it shall not be lawful for any person to be deprived of property for the purposes of nationalisation or any other purposes without the authority of the law which enables provision for fair and adequate compensation.
   

The Land Acquisition Act 1967 is the principal legislation in so far as land acquisition is concerned. Provisions of section (1) underscore the provisions of the constitution: “Subject to the provision of this Act, where any land is acquired by the President under Section 3, the Minister shall on behalf of the Government pay in respect thereof, out of moneys provided for the purpose by the Parliament; such compensation as may be argued upon or determined in accordance with the provision of this Act.

According to the land acquisition laws, acquisition of land or property for public use includes exclusive use by the government or general public uses, improvement of public utilities such as sanitation, including reclamation, land for planning of a new city, municipality, township, minor settlement or extension of the same. It also includes development of a port, airport, mining of minerals or oil, agriculture, etc.
Compulsory land acquisition involves four key steps, namely (i) Planning and decision to acquire land, (ii) Legal preliminaries including getting statutory authority and serving notices, (iii) Field investigations including valuation, and (iv) Payment of compensation to the would-be dispossessed. The key processes and steps are summarised in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Compulsory land acquisition steps, processes and actors - intend to omit this figure

Source: Author’s construct

2.0 Land conflicts in Dar es Salaam

2.1 The Msikitini and Chasimba Land Conflict: Expropriation of land for industrial use

The genesis of the land conflict

The two settlements of Msikitini and Chasimba are located 20km north of the Dar es Salaam city centre along Bagamoyo Road (Map 2)². According to aerial photographs and interviews with elderly settlers, until late 1960s the land that comprises the two areas was largely unbuilt with only few scattered homesteads and farms. It was mainly built up after the late 1980s, mainly by indigenous land occupiers. In 1993 the Saruji Corporation, a public institution which was operating the cement factory nearby, negotiated with the landholders with a view to acquire their land so that the Corporation could expand and diversify their operations. According to the interviews with the Msikitini Subward leaders and residents the negotiations were conducted by the local leaders, namely, the Subward, Ward and Divisional leaders on behalf of the Saruji Corporation³. Records show that in 1994 a total of 183 sitting land occupiers were paid compensation (also see Plate 1). Furthermore, the Corporation paid landholders compensation for un-exhausted improvements (including building and plants) only, i.e. excluding the land itself; this was in accordance with the provisions of the Land Ordinance Cap 113 of 1923⁴.
At present, the two areas accommodate 4,000 people living in about 800 houses. The current population however, includes many new immigrants and second generation allottees who did not own land in 1994 when the Saruji Corporation paid compensation to seating occupiers. Whilst many among the current land occupiers in the disputed area are ex–employees of the Saruji Corporation (now Twiga Portland Cement Company)⁵, a few are former tenants who migrated from other areas in the city in search of building land and employment opportunities in the nearby industries. Some of the settlers are still employed by the cement factory, but the majority work in the informal sector largely in activities related to cement production, such as loading and unloading cement from tracks, brick making, petty trading, gardening, poultry keeping and in repair and manufacturing workshops.
Key facts and observations about Msikitini and Chasimba settlements

• 
  The 1979 Dar es Salaam Master Plan designated the two areas as part of a large tract of industrial land use. However, after designation, no measures were taken to clear third party interests; Contrary to the provision in laws of the land, after the expiry of the initial declaration of planning areas, the Ministry responsible for lands and urban development did not renew the declaration. Subsequently, indigenous land occupier continued with the land development activities.
  
• 
  Whist Chasimba is a new settlement with many semi-permanent houses lacking basic services, Msikitini is an older settlement with much bigger houses and of better construction materials, finishing and several utility services including electricity and potable water supply. The two areas accommodate predominantly low income households.
  

Map 2: Location of the study settlements

• 
  According to the Msikitini Subward leaders and some TPCC officials who were willing to speak to the author (but on the condition of anonymity) and the Kinondoni Municipal officials, TPCC had successfully negotiated with the land occupiers in two settlements and paid them compensation but the dispossessed requested TPCC to continue using the land for seasonal farming until such time when TPCC would require it for the intended development. The interviewed land occupiers in Chasimba, however, adamantly denied that they were paid any compensation or granted any permission by TPCC to use their land which they claimed to have been using for many years. During the focused group discussions with Chasimba leaders in March 2008, a middle aged man charged that “compensation by the TPCC for our land is a lie. If they can show that anyone of us here did receive compensation from TPCC we will all vacate this area without any further delays⁶”.
  

This argument sounds logical if one considers the evidence given by Msikitini leaders that most of the Chasimba inhabitants settled on area after the TPCC had acquired the land in 1994. Therefore, it is likely that most the present inhabitants are invaders, as such they were not among those who were paid compensation.

• 
  Unlike Chasimba, Msikitini residents asserted that they received compensation from TPCC, but complained it was a pittance; They added that TPCC had breached an agreement to provide resettlement area/plots in Block G and F in Tegeta. Documetary evidence including minutes of one of the proceedings of one of the meetings held between TPCC and residents show that some land occupiers who had only farm land were paid as low as TShs. 1,000/= (equivalent to US$ 1.5 then-1994); whilst some of those with houses were paid TShs 36,250/- (i.e. approx. US$ 56)⁷ an amount many of the respondents argued could not resettle even the smallest household (also see appendix Plate 1- list of persons and amount paid). Asked why they did not appeal all respondents said that there was no room for discussion because they were not in direct contact with the Saruji Corporation, KMC or MLHHSD officials. Their local leaders at Mtaa, Ward and Division levels were negotiating with them on behalf of the Corporation. This apart, payments were made by the Saruji Corporation cashiers at the factory premises, without involvement of any government officials from the municipality or Ministry of Lands. Respondents noted that those who were adamant to take their cash were persuaded by the local leaders to take the money⁸.
  
• 
  TPCC processed and acquired a new title for their land holding including the disputed areas of Chasimba and Msikitini in 1994, however, it was only in 2003 that it sued the inhabitants, ostensibly because they refused to vacate the land after they were compensated.
  
• 
  The High Court labeled the sitting land occupiers trespassers who had been compensated but had resisted to vacate the land, but without due consideration to the agreement that had been reached between then settlers and TPCC to provide the displaces with resettlement plots at the nearby planning scheme - about 1.5 kilometers away.
  

• 
  The TPCC Executive Director claims that TPCC did not acquire the disputed land in 1993, and that TPCC had nothing to do with payment of compensation to the displacees as whatever their property was, it was expropriated by the Government of Tanzania, the owner of the factory then. This makes sense because TPCC did not exist then. When the predecessor of the TPCC, namely Saruji Company, was privatised in 1998, the Government was the sole owner of the cement factory⁹.
  

• 
  In March 2007, the inhabitants lost the case they had filed with the Tanzania Court of Appeal in January 2007. The judgement gave TPCC the right over the land implying that the seating occupiers could be immediately evicted. In addition the respondents were required to pay TPCC US$80,000 for damages done to their property. In order to enforce the court decision, TPCC sought the support from the riot police to forcefully evict the trespassers on their land, leading into open confrontation as police clashed with the inhabitants in an attempt to evict them. The police were forced to use tear gas to disperse settlers who were armed with sticks and stones. This incident prompted a group of women from Chasimba to organise a protest in front of the State House in Dar es Salaam in May 2007, to lodge a disapproval of the police action raiding their area and pressurise the government to intervene so as to restore peace and security.
  

• 
  In December 2007, a new Court order directed that the land occupiers continue occupying the land till their new appeal was determined. Both the Regional Commissioner and the Commissioner for Lands were reported to have stepped in at the peak of the conflict and pray for the stay of the court order so as to prevent loss of property or life, until an amicable resolution is found.
  

Critical questions and concerns

The decision by TPCC to opt for the use of force to evict people who did not have an alternative area on which to settle may sound justifiable given the order issued by the Court. However, it also raises questions related to moral justification even if the sitting occupiers especially because an agreement reached earlier had been breached.

It is also not quite clear why the TPCC applied for the change of some of the lay they were occupying use from industrial to residential, but thereafter kept it open i.e. undeveloped. Could it be that the company was interested in securing land for speculation aimed at making windfall profits at the expenses of stripping the poor?

Does TPCC really require all the land measuring 53 km2?

Why didn’t the municipality initiate action to revoke the rights given to TPCC for not developing the land granted to it for so long?

Failure to pay fair and equitable compensation and provide an alternative resettlement area at agreed time has been the major source of conflict between the residents and the TPCC. As long as procedures and laws are disregarded, the conditions of fair compensation package unfulfilled and agreements flouted it is unlikely that peace, harmony and security will be permanently restored in the area under dispute

The land conflict seems to have been temporarily averted, it may however, not be long before it resurfaces again, for the mechanism used to contain it was more of administrative nature rather than based on a legal contractual framework or negotiations and consensus building.
Figure 5: Key actors and interests influencing the land conflicts