Private land servicing firms are here as partners of the government

A local influential Swahili daily, had, recently, on its page five, a feature titled: “Serikali yashusha rungu kampuni za urasimishaji makazi”. A rough translation of that is: “Government cracks down on settlements formalization companies”.

This is not the first time we see such a heading in the media. In April, 2021 there was a similarly headed news item: “Serikali yashusha rungu kampuni 163 za urasimishaji”. Again this could be translated as: “Government cracks down on 163 land formalization companies”. In January the same year, the then Deputy Minister, Ministry of Lands, ordered that a number of companies have their contracts to formalize settlement revoked.

A number of these companies were barred from taking up new contracts and some were submitted to other authorities, for investigation. The main accusation was that these firms collected money from land owners, but did not deliver.

In April 2019, the Minister for Lands ordered that the amount charged per plot for formalization come down from Sh250,000, to Sh150,000; since the Ministry argued that the former fee was exploitative of the people. At that session, the Minister also warned companies that delivered residential licences to the land owners instead of certificates of title.

The incidents cited above show that the relationship between the Ministry of Lands and the Private firms engaged not just in land formalization, but also in land surveying, and land use planning is far from being cordial.

While the private firms offer their services in good faith to improve the living environment (and, in the process, make a living), there seems to be a misunderstanding that their aim is chiefly to make money by swindling the people out of their hard earned money.

The Ministry has engaged in a number of meeting with these firms, but we have not read of messages congratulating them for a job well done. It is blame after blame. Their side of the story is hardly heard.

Some of the problems they face in formalization, is public mobilization. Formalisation must be done on a minimum area, say a whole mtaa. It is, many times, not easy to get all the property owners to agree, especially where contributing money is concerned. If, therefore some contribute and some do not contribute, it becomes difficult for the private firm to proceed. Those who have contributed will grow a feeling that their money had been “eaten”. Contribution become even more difficult to collect, when the public ears messages of suspicion of the work and integrity of these firms, from top echelons of government.

Again, when the Ministry intervenes, lowering the amount to be charged, it does not look into what the output supported by such lower charges is. Is it delivery of a full title or just data collection and mapping?

Much of what these private firms do has to undergo approvals at some levels. Sometimes, delays are a result of delayed approvals, but this will not be admitted in public. Instead the blame for delays is put squarely on the shoulders of the private firms.

The suspicion is not limited to land formalization programmes alone. When a few years back, an enterprising town planner organized a successful land pooling and sharing programme in a large urban areas in the southern parts of the country, officials were alarmed. This initiative was an offshoot of the 20,000 plots programme, when it was realized that money to plan, survey and title land could be realized from the land itself, by selling the plots at cost recovery or even a profit level. When the private sector engaged in such programmes, with full agreement of land owners officials raised a hue and cry that the people were being hoodwinked out of their valuable land. The entrepreneurial town planner had to resign his government job and found himself in trouble with the professional registration institution. Matters have improved since then, and we see many private firms engaging in successful land use planning and surveying programmes, delivering plots and title to the needy public. With formalization, a number of thorny issues still need to be ironed out, because also, it is a politically sensitive area. You are dealing with people who are already occupying the land, compared to new sites where you deal with land seekers.

As we know, the Ministry does not have the resources to mount large land delivery programmes. The major undertaking was that of the 20,000 plots project (2003-2008) which has not experienced a successor. Thus, the contribution of the private sector is crucial.

Among the advantages of the private sector is that it survives on performance and delivery. The government may need to sit down and work out or improve the regulatory framework that will see the private firms working as a partner of the public authorities in delivering orderly land schemes.