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

2.2 The Kwembe and Luguruni Land Conflicts: Expropriation of land for academic use and a new satellite town

The Kwembe land dispute

Kwembe and Luguruni settlements are located within Kibamba Ward, about 22 km from the city center. According to the 2002 National Population Census, Kibamba Ward had 17,998 inhabitants, of which 4,560 were residents of Kwembe. At present, it is estimated to accommodate over 6,000 inhabitants. While Luguruni is estimated to accommodate 2,220 people comprising about 400 households. The population of both settlements has been growing steadily over the last two decades, primarily because of immigration of people from other parts of the city. Apart from scattered residential units, the main land use in Kwembe is agriculture; Luguruni, is however, more consolidated in terms of the number residential units per hectare. A typical plot size in Kwembe is 2 – 3 acres, whilst in Luguruni, it is between quarter and half an acre.
The Kwembe land conflict can be explained and summarized in three different, but interrelated conflict phases, namely; the TPL/KABIMITA era, the TPDF phase and currently the MUHAS phase. The conflict is basically between the Kwembe residents and the Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS). Whereas MUHAS regards the residents as trespassers on the land that was legally allocated to it by MLHHSD; the residents on other hand, have refused to vacate the area because they are convinced that procedures for acquiring the land for public use were flawed. Above all, they argue that they are the rightful occupiers of the disputed land and not trespassers as MUHAS and MLHHSD claim.
Facts about the land conflicts

• 
  This land conflict goes back to 1978 when the village granted TPL/KABIMITA eight hectares of land for holding cattle before they were taken to the slaughter house at the then Tanganyika Packers Company Limited in Dar es Salaam. Then, Kwembe was a registered village with registration no. VIJ.41 of 1974. The land administration of 8,479 hectares of land under the village then was vested in the Village Council, in accordance with the Ujamaa Village Act of 1974. TPL/KABIMITA was granted the 8 hectares of land by the Village Council but on condition that the company compensates the residents whose land would be appropriated.
  
• 
  When TPL/KABIMITA went bankrupt in the 1980s, it closed operations and left the village without paying the compensation as agreed upon earlier or officially surrendering the land to the Village Council.
  
• 
  After the collapse of TPL/KABIMITA, part of the land that was occupied by TPL/KABIMITA is said to have been allocated to Tanzania People’s Defence Force, TPDF-Kisarawe division by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development, but without informing or consulting Kwembe village authorities.
  
• 
  In principle, the land that was granted to TLP/KABIMITA by Kwembe Village Council was still a legal property of the Village Council when MLHHSD reallocated it to TPDF and later to MUHAS, because TLP/KABIMITA had not settled out the outstanding third party claims. Therefore any attempt to re-allocate it to any other person, TPDF included can be construed as a breach of the agreement between TPL/KABIMITA and Kwembe Village Council.
  

Whilst it has not been possible to establish whether TPDF still has any claim over the land, in another interesting development, the same Authority (Ministry of Lands) that granted it to TPDF reallocated the same to MUHAS in 2004¹⁰. To make the matter worse, while the TPL/KABIMITA holding measured only 8 ha, MUHAS has been allocated over 3,000 ha for the construction of the new University Campus. This includes large tracks of land held by various persons including Kwembe residents and government officials. According to the residents, apart from the fact that MLHHSD has allocated the land MUHAS without consulting them; MUHAS has not shown serious desire to engage in discussions and negotiations with them.

• 
  Despite well established recognition of village authorities, the MLHHSD reallocated land to MUHAS disregarding landholders’ rights to be consulted and involved in decision matters that concern their welfare. In this respect, reactions by residents and the conflicts which have emerged cannot be considered unexpected events; for land is the key source of livelihoods for most inhabitants.
  
• 
  Some of the peace and security destabilization activities which have taken place include an incidence where the residents lost temper and threw stones to the District Commissioner when he told them to vacate the land. Another one refers to a situation where land occupiers held captive the surveyor who was engaged by MUHAS to demarcate the area, promoting police intervention.
  

The nature of the Luguruni land conflict

• 
  Unlike the Kwembe case, the land conflict in Luguruni has its background to the 1979 Dar es Salaam Master Plan, which designated the area among the four satellite towns which had been proposed to decongest the city. Like Kwembe, up to the early 1980s, the area was very sparsely inhabited.
  
• 
  After the designation of the area and approval of the Master Plan, no steps were taken to acquire the land or clear third party interests. Studies conducted in the area did not provide any evidence to suggest that landowners were involved or informed about the Master Plan proposals to change the land use of their land.
  

Despite non-involvement of the landholders, in March 1994, i.e. fifteen years later, the MLHHSD was reported to have prepared an elaborate layout plan of the proposed satellite town; again without consulting or involving the residents, although then there were already quite a number of residential houses in the area.

• 
  In January 2007 MLHHSD made an official announcement in the government gazette about its intent to acquire an area measuring about 150 ha in Luguruni, for public use i.e. specifically for the development of a satellite town as proposed in the 1979 City Master Plan. Thereafter, a process of negotiation led by a team of experts from the Ministry of Lands and Kinondoni Municipal Council started. The respondents noted that although the team visited their area and met the local leaders and residents several times, there was no consensus.
  
• 
  Despite absence of a consensus, in May 2007, the Ministry despatched surveyors to start demarcating the plot. The sitting land occupiers were however, adamant to vacant their land till an agreement was reached regarding the amount of compensation payable and land for resettlement was allocated. Concurrently, the ministry issued forms No. 69 and 70 to all the affected land and property owners in the area¹¹. According to the interviews, most residents filled the forms indicating the amount of money they expect to be paid.
  
• 
  In August 2007, the valuation exercise began, and by December 2007 it had been completed and approved and residents were notified through public media and their local leaders to pick their cheques at the Kinondoni Municipal Council offices. Upon receipts of the cheque, they were also required to sign a commitment bond that they would vacate the area within 30 days following the receipt of the cheques.
  
• 
  The public media has played an important role of reporting on the anomalies in the land expropriation process including non-involvement of the land occupiers and their local leaders in critical decision making stages, disregard of land occupiers rights to be educated on the rationale for various methods used to compute amount payable and lack of consideration for resettlement areas. Like in Kwembe, the wide coverage of the conflict by the media is one of the reasons why the conflict has been contained and thus did not turn violent. Following the frequent media coverage about corruption and other anomalies in the project, the Minister of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development has intervened and promised the residents that the entire exercise will be redone with a view to investigate the corruption charges levied against the ministry staff and ensure participation of the affected households and fairness.
  

The conflict intensified immediately when the dispossessed persons opened their sealed envelopes, only to find that the amount paid (on the cheque) was too little and was not at related to the figures they had indicated on the forms.

Attempts to solve the conflict and the actors involved

Attempts to solve Kwembe and Luguruni land conflicts have involved many actors at different decision-making levels. These have included administrators and high ranking officials from the Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements Development (MLHSD), the Regional Commissioner office, the City Directorate, the Municipal Authorities, Ward and Mtaa leadership. Politicians as well as some influential individuals have all laid their hands on the problem but in vain. Like in the Msikitini and Chasimba cases, these efforts have in most cases been of a spiral type demonstrating little or no genuine recognition and appreciation of the changed real estate landscape and rights of sitting land occupiers.
At Ward level, the residents complain that they have been received with cold shoulder. As one respondent told an interviewer “We have been told by Ward leaders not to pursue the matter because it was none of our business; it is being handled by senior governmental officials” At district level they have been told quite plainly that they have no right to the land in dispute, therefore should allow the survey work to proceed.
The Kwembe residents also complained bitterly that they have not been treated with respect as property/land owners. For instance, they noted that in a meeting which was convened on 29th August, 2007 which was attended by top senior officials from the Ministry of Lands and the City Council, they were addressed as if their land had no value. They were told by the officials that the Ministry had approved the allocation and survey of the land in question for the proposed MUHAS campus; as such they should simply vacate the area to allow MUHAS to go ahead with its plans of developing it. During the focus group discussions, one of the respondents charged: “How can somebody ignore ones right so easily, we have lived hear for years, we are citizen of this country, but somebody wants to kick us out as if we are refugees. We will not leave unless justice is done to us”
3.0 Food for the thought:Critical issues of concern

3.1 Disrespect of laws and procedures

Land expropriation and attempts to evict Msikitini, Chasimba, Kwembe and Luguruni land occupiers were done without due respect of the constitutional rights of the sitting occupiers including ensuring that they are fully involvement in the key decision making areas and taking into account their critical concerns including respect of existing agreements. The practice of evicting settlers without fair and prompt compensation as the cases show, are not isolated cases in Tanzania. Similar incidences have been reported in other areas (Ndjovu, 2003; Kombe and Kreibich, 2000).

The land conflicts in Kwembe/Luguruni and Msikitini/Chasimba areas which date back to 2002/03 and 1996 respectively were also compounded by the fact that the land acquisition processes were shrouded with non-transparent decisions making and practices. For instance, in Kwembe and Luguruni, neither the landholding households nor the local leaders at Mtaa level were consulted or involved in the decision that preceded planning and valuation of their un-exhausted improvements. The local communities in Kwembe learnt about their planned eviction at the stage when surveyors were demarcating the boundaries of land granted to MUHAS; whereas in Luguruni, they learnt about this when valuers were inspecting the area.

The respondents have invariably observed that access to and ownership of land is fundamental and indeed a raison d’etre of livelihoods. Displacing landholding communities whose safety nets are already so fragile without allowing them to negotiate for a fair compensation and or preferences for resettlement can be seen as a form of provocation, the results of which include violence as the situation was in Chasimba. Apart from unfair and inequitable monetary compensation paid to Msikitini residents that excluded the value for the land itself, it is the attempts to forcefully evict them amidst failure to provide resettlement land that triggered open conflicts and violence that erupted between the residents and the police force. In the absence of resettlement area, in an appropriate location, the spirit of the provision that requires that dispossessed households do not get worse or better of after compensation cannot be said to have been respected. This suggests that public officials have arbitrarily interpreted this provision or at best disregarded it.

3.2 Good governance and professional integrity

In Kwembe and Luguruni settlements there have been erroneous interventions by the State actors (Ministry of Lands, Housing, Human Settlement Development and Kinondoni Municipality) and the would-be large scale land developers, namely the Muhimbili University Health and Allied Services. This is particularly, with respect to land acquisition processes and involvement of the sitting land occupiers. In most cases the bureaucrats have adopted intervention strategies which do not engender collaboration and negotiation with the land occupiers. The violence that followed attempts to forcefully evict, Msikitini and Chasimba settlers and the hostility that has ensued the initiative to acquire land in Kwembe and Luguruni settlements share a common denomination of disregard of people’s rights, including the rights to be informed about what is going on or will happen to their hard earned lifetime properties. Had the residents been involved and educated, they would be aware and make their choices, prepare themselves and come to terms with the news however, sour it was. One wonders why should information and rationale for the valuation method and process used be treated a secret matters even for those who will be affected directly. Despite not involving them, the bureaucrats went ahead to commit the settlers of Kwembe, Luguruni and Msikitini to sign up official forms (Form No 69 and 70) and take their cheques without a prior allocation of an alternative resettlement area or convincing explanation to justify the valuation method used or the a amount paid. As noted, information about what plans are underway, for whom, what are the rights and obligations of sitting occupiers etc. were un available or made confidential to the general public including those who have investments and other rights on land. This sharply contradicts norms of good governance.

The Land Act 1999, has, given value to bare land; this in an about turn given our past socialist principles on land. In turn, this has accentuated commodification of land and enhanced the perceived value of land. However bureaucrats do not seem to have been touched by these developments, their practise seems to be business as usual.

An elderly respondent in Kwembe, who was complaining about the decision to evict them without consensus on the amount of compensation payable noted; “Had we not known the value our land has we would not have settled here already in the 1970s when the area was infested by wild beasts including dangerous snakes. We know they want to evict us, but not without taking these realities into account”. Another respondent added:
“This land is invaluable to us, to our lives and lives of our children, without it we can not survive, in the city where there is no employment where the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer”. A settler from Chasimba echoed the forgoing noting, “Government wants to take our land more or less freely and allocate to aliens. If we do not win the case in the court, we will fight whoever tries to evict us forcefully”.
These quotes are but snapshots of the multi-faceted position and value land has in the life of the landowners, many of which are hardly captured by public officials. The views given by a planner at Kinondoni Municipality who was responding to the question; what options are there to solve the Msikitini and Kwembe/Luguruni land conflicts further illustrates the foregoing.
“There is a rapidly growing culture of disobedience on part of city residents. In recent years we have seen people simply refusing to abide by lawful government directives. We have to act (stop) on this, otherwise lawlessness will prevail”.
These remarks suggest that the planner is taking the matter rather simplistically or with little regard to the rights and reservations of the land occupiers. Judged by the public handling of the cases, the quality of governance has been put to question, especially by the tendency among bureaucrats to over-rely on the power of the state and its coercive forces to enforce laws and regulations with little or no regard to effects they may have to those who have to abide by it.

3.3 Partisan politicisation of the conflict – a blight or blessing?

Matters pertaining to allocation and access to resources are often political matters, this is even more so in cases where there are varying powers structures among the contesting parties. In the context of the study areas, change of land use and ownership of land would imply the loss of asserts and livelihood activities from which many poor people eke a living. The change would also mean loss of wealth earned and accumulated over many years including land, houses and other invaluable possessions that individual households treasure. In other words, and as observed, many land holding households were desperate to retain their land and if need be, given it up only in exchange for a fair and equitable compensation. At the height of the land conflict in Chasimba, settler’s anxiety to get whatever support is available to pursue their cause seems to have precipitated ripe conditions for partisan politicisation of the conflict which initially was restricted to the main opposition parties the Civic United Front (CUF), Chama Cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA) and Tanzania Labour Party (TLP). However, the apparent lack of concern for the laws and regulations among the state actors and residents alike, there are various indications depicting examples of the opportunistic exploitation of the situation to suit party political interests.

Faced with the gravest problem, the community seems to have sought refuge from outside the government systems; largely because they perceived the latter to be against their interest in the land. Discussions with Wazo Hills Sub ward leaders revealed that the opposition parties, lead by CUF has fully backed their new electorates in various ways, since the political changes took place in Chasimba; this includes logistical support for the members to pursue the matter at various levels of government. It also includes services to pursue the matter with the courts of law..

Even though one cannot directly associate the decision by the Regional Commissioner and the Commissioner for Lands to intervene or influence the decision to stop execution of the ‘court order’ with partisan politics, this cannot be ruled out.
After all, their intervention came at the height of the partisan orchestrated changes in the neighbouring Chasimba area. Wazo Hill Sub-ward leaders asserted that since the government leaders stepped in to stop the execution of the court order, many people have restored their trust not only in the government but to their ruling party CCM leaders also. One of the leaders noted, “CCM is our party, we are still living here today because of the party concern and support“.

Also it could be argued that the ruling party alerted by the development in Chasimba might have decided to roll-out its operational machinery (the government) to act and offer timely intervention because the interests of their electorates were at stake. This is hardly surprising for there is a popular view in Tanzania that in so far as ruling party interests are concerned, the government and the party are one and the same thing.

From the social point of view, the conflict has tarnished the integrity of the professionals involved. Why did they ignore cardinal professional and ethnical issues, many of which were raised by the settlers, including obstruction of the right to information etc. Politically, the conflict seems to have eroded the confidence and undermined the credibility of the bureaucrats as well as governance. So far there seems to have no genuine political will and commitment to educate the residents about their statutory rights and obligations; to appreciate the changed real estate landscape following the commodification of land or desire to allow landholders to fully exercise their democratic rights viz. empower them participate directly in matters that concern their welfare.

4.