People,
I have tried really hard to understand the proponents of ancestral land rights and I can summarize their argument with these two statements.
1. They find it acceptable that the likes of Delamare own 500,000 acres or thereabouts of what used to be maasai ancestral land.
2. They find it unacceptable for a few thousand IDPs to be resettled on 1,500 acres of government land bought from an individual (one Mbiu Koinange) who bought it off the government which bought it from the white settler who chose to leave Kenya in early 1960s.
Lest we forget, the IDPs were attacked, raped and killed for owning land/businesses or because they voted for Kibaki (pick one). From their petty earnings they had paid monthly installments for a period 20-30years to acquire the land/businesses. They had life long savings reduced to ashes. Some of them are fifth generation Rift Valley residents and have been there since 1890s. They are bitter, destitute and their children are not likely to get an education.The 2008 IDPs population (estimated at 600,000) is not much less than the entire population of the maasai (estimated at 800,000).
What happened in 1992/1997/2007/2008 might become the historical injustice of tomorrow.
David
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 2:53 PM, aki
<aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
@Mutinda, from what I've seen and read, the entire kenyan story is that of historical land which has some claim attached in some way so hotspots can be anywehere. I also think that all kenyan govts have entertained the historical issues for their own use/abuse thus it has become a norm to use historical issues for the fight for free land. Rather than make land reservations as was done in other countries where endangered communities were allocated land to continue their traditonal and customary beliefs while the rest of the land belonged to the country for development and commercial purposes , the kenyan story is of hyprocrisy of the republic and land laws which clearly seem to show that there is a big disconnect between the two . Therefore, you could legally and lawfully buy a piece of land from a seller only to discover later that the fore-fathers of the land should have been the ones to okay the deal and your purchase becomes void because of historical reasons. Now you will have to deal with the relatives of the seller as to who sold the land or find yourself in a very tricky situation.
I dont know what the TJRC is supposed to have done with the historical issues because clearly we have 2 situations in KE. There is the Republic and a sovereign state and then there is the land kingdoms where history dictates what belongs to whom and with its own laws. Seems we are not that sovereign in many ways. Waa......!
Me amateur thots.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Nicholas Mutinda
<mutindah@gmail.com> wrote:
what the govt needs to do is to stop resettling people in hot spots and look for available land for sale. There is a lot of land for sale around kenya, why force this people in the middle of disputed land?
_______________________________________________
Skunkworks mailing list
Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke
http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks
------------
Skunkworks Rules
http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94
------------
Other services @ http://my.co.ke