In the negotiations that followed, the regents were able to convince Johnson that Buganda had a land system based on three tiers with all land being vested in the Kabaka or Sabataka as trustee for his people.

The Kabaka’s territorial chiefs known as saza chiefs held land on behalf of the Kabaka (ettaka ly’obwami) in their areas from which subjects could derive individual rights or ettaka ly’obusenze. There were also rights acquired for cultural purposes or ettaka ly’obwesenze.

After being satisfied, Johnson took a middle course in which 9,000 square miles were vested in the British Crown as trustee for people of Buganda and 8,000 square miles were reserved for Africans to be titled according to the above customary system. For this, section 15 of the Agreement provided “One thousand chiefs and private land owners will receive the estates of which they are already in possession…”

The above history, which is well-documented, gives a lie to the oft-repeated claim that the ‘British took land from peasants and gave it to chiefs.’ Indeed, in the case of Buganda, the colonialists went out of their way to protect the rights of Africans over their land against the better-facilitated non-Africans.

The Land Regulations of 1897 which came into force on July 10 of that year, authorized the Commissioner to grant to any person a certificate authorizing him to hold and occupy the portion of land described in the certificate……… However, section 8 provided: “A certificate will not be granted in respect of any land, which at the commencement of these regulations is cultivated or regularly used by any native or native tribe…….”

From 1897 to 1903, all land in Buganda was vested in the Commissioner (Governor) and from 1903, land in the whole of Uganda was vested in the British Crown under the Crown Lands Ordinance of that year. The Crown Lands (Declaratory) Ordinance, 1922, declared what was already in place.

Section 2 provided “All lands and any rights therein in the protectorate shall be presumed to be the property of the Crown unless they have been recognized by the Governor by document to be the property of a person……”

This is why in the case of Buganda once the lukiiko had established the customary right of an applicant in the piece of land applied for, he was issued with a Provisional Certificate (PC) and after the government surveyor had surveyed the land, he was issued with a Final Certificate(FC.)

Between 1900 and 1908 Africans and non-Africans had similar rights over land as long as their interests were recognized by the Governor. During this time, a good number of Africans sold their land to non-Africans, which in effect defeated the policy of protecting African land. This problem was solved in two ways.

First in 1908, the Land law was passed restricting the right of Africans to transfer land to non-Africans. Section 1 provided that this law would govern every owner of land when the government had surveyed his land and had finally recognized that the land was his by issuing to him a Final Certificate.

“To hold land in this way will be known as holding mailo and land of this description will be called mailo land.”

In view of the above, mailo land is not a land tenure as such but is a freehold with incidents restricted to Africans. According to section 2 of the law, the owner of mailo “will not be allowed to transfer it to a non-African or religious society save with approval of the Governor and lukiiko.”

Secondly, in 1915, by order of the secretary of state for colonies in London, all interests in land held by non-Africans pursuant to the provisions of the Land Regulations of 1897 or acquired by non-Africans from Africans were turned into 99-year grants, after which period the land reverted to the original African owner.

Most of such grants expired around 2010 and unscrupulous land office staff started making a fortune by selling the land to important and powerful people who were swindled by being given freehold titles over mailo land.

The clamour to abolish mailo land is an attempt to resolve a legal problem through political might as to which title shall stand. It is land grabbing by other means.

The author is a lawyer.