EFFICACY OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS IN PREVENTING AND RESOLVING CONFLICTS ON STATE LAND IN ZAMBIA

Abstract

There are public institutions mandated to prevent and resolve conflicts on state land in Zambia. Public institutions which are supposed to prevent conflicts included the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR) and Local Authorities (LAs) while those which are supposed to resolve conflicts were general courts (such as Subordinate and High Courts) and Lands Tribunal (specialised land court). However, MLNR and LAs were unable to adequately prevent land conflicts and thus conflicts on land in Zambia were occurring with greater frequency. On the other hand, general courts and Lands Tribunal were not operating efficiently and effectively and therefore unable to adequately resolve conflicts on state land. This study aimed at investigating the common types of conflicts occurring on state land, investigating the challenges hindering public institutions from preventing conflicts on state land, investigating the challenges hindering the general courts and Lands Tribunal from resolving conflicts on state land effectively and efficiently, and suggesting how the challenges can be addressed. The research incorporated the use of both primary and secondary data collected between May and September 2023. Secondary data were obtained through documents which include peer-reviewed journal articles, theses, books, electronic media, Zambian land laws and government reports, and technical reports. Secondary data was supplemented by primary data obtained from four purposively selected institutions: Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, Kitwe City Council, Lands Tribunal, and Zambia Land Alliance (Kitwe office). The study established that the common types of conflicts on state land included invasion of idle or undeveloped private or public land, double or multiple allocations of land, eviction by private land owners, and eviction by government agencies. Moreover, MLNR and LAs were unable to adequately prevent state land conflicts due to various challenges which included poor coordination between them, poor land record keeping, inadequate monitoring of land use, and corruption. Further, general courts and Lands Tribunal were unable to adequately resolve land conflicts due to various challenges. General courts were faced with challenges which included inadequate numbers of judges and magistrates, inadequate court buildings, and insufficient funding from the government while the Lands Tribunal challenges included inadequate funding from government, inadequate staff, poor conditions of service for members of the Tribunal, centralised operations, and low public awareness of the Lands Tribunal. In view of the forgoing, the study recommends that MLNR and LAs may prevent land conflicts by ensuring proper coordination between them; improve land record keeping by digitisation of land record management in local authorities; ensuring effective monitoring of land use; and zero tolerance to corruption. In addition, to decongest the general courts, there is need to enhance the effectiveness of the Lands Tribunal through transforming it into the only court which should handle land conflicts like the Industrial Relations Court which handles labour conflicts or the Family Court which handles family matters and decentralising its operations.

Keywords

• General court, land conflict, public institution, specialised land court