Land, the important resource
THE subject of land use and ownership at once invokes feelings of great passion, on the one hand and, on the other, raises great controversy.
Also, the history of mankind is filled with accounts of someone or a group of people migrating from one area to another for one reason or another. For example, in the Book of Genesis in the Holy Bible, following a brief account on the creation of man, we are told of God’s instruction to the earthly Father of mankind, Abraham, to leave the land he was born in and to move to another land God would show him.
We are not told why God desired that Abraham migrate to another land except to note that He promised that He would make Abraham the father of many nations if he obeyed the instruction to relocate.
Although sparse in detail, there are accounts indicating the emergence of licentious living among some of the peoples in that region to the extent that God, at one point, regretted creating mankind in the first place. Could this be one possible reason why God instructed Abraham to leave the land of his birth?
Later, in the Book of Exodus, an account is given on the mass migration of the Jewish people from the land of Egypt, under the leadership of Moses, to the promised land of Canaan.
Indeed, it is from these early accounts of human history, from the Biblical perspective, that we note the beginning of a trend involving migration of a people, which has continued in a variety of ways throughout the ages to the present day.
With regard to the origins of mankind, the evolutionists maintain that after a series of evolutionary changes over several million years, from primordial unicellular to multicellular life forms following the ‘Big Bang’, modern man eventually emerged, endowed with superior intelligence to use resources available in his immediate (and, ultimately, not so immediate) environment to improve his living conditions.
At some point in the history of mankind, the creationists i.e. those who believe that mankind was created by God, and the evolutionists, reach common ground when the issue of human occupation of land comes up.
Biblical and secular accounts of the history of mankind start to converge at the point where battles are fought between nations, tribes and various population groups, concerning possession and ownership of land.
Indeed, many a military ruler considered conquest as not only defeating a military adversary but also taking possession of the conquered foe’s land.
For example, the great Southern African military ruler known as uShaka kaSenzangakhona, not only conquered surrounding tribes militarily, in the process acquiring a variety of livestock, mostly cattle and assimilating the conquered peoples into the Zulu nation, he also attached their lands.
In this way, the Zulu nation grew from a relatively obscure people in the late 1700s to a mighty nation by 1828 when uShaka was assassinated by his half-brother, uDingane, and a few other co-conspirators. In modern times, conflict involving land has resulted in several geo-political wars which are in progress even as this article is being written.
ISRAELI/HAMAS WAR
For example, the present Israeli/Hamas war in Gaza is taking an unprecedented toll on the lives of both Palestinians and Israelis, with no end in sight as the Israelis resist calls for a ceasefire and pursue the goal of total annihilation of the militant Palestinian group known as Hamas. This conflict, as most people are aware, is fallout from a turbulent historical feud between Biblical relatives concerning the desire of, and calls by, Palestinians to be ceded a piece of land which they would call their own, thereby achieving what in international political circles has been referred to as the so-called ‘two-State solution’, a political settlement vehemently opposed by the Israelis, citing concerns for their security.
In eastern Europe, the Russian/Ukrainian war also continues to take a heavy toll on both Russian and Ukrainian lives and infrastructure. Similarly, this war is about territory, with Ukrainians wanting to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Alliance in the west, while the Russians, to the east of Ukraine, see this as a threat to their security and territorial integrity.
The continued sabre-rattling between Mainland China and the island Republic of China (Taiwan), with threats of annexation of the latter by the former while promoting the concept of ‘two States under one system’, has the world watching anxiously, hoping, by some miracle, for de-escalation of tensions, involves Chinese geo-political strategic ambitions.
In the south of the African continent, we have been informed that the South African Defence Force (SADF) under the auspices of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) recently joined other East African defence forces in peacekeeping duties in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), at a cost of slightly over R2.0 billion for the coming year. In much the same way, the war in eastern DRC involves mineral-rich territory.
Closer to home, according to historian JSM Matsebula, as soon as King Sobhuza l, better known as Somhlolo, ascended to the throne as King of emaSwati in the mid-to-late 1800s, he set out on a career of conquest, a character trait he most probably inherited from his father, Ndvungunye. After a brief but non-military encounter with Zwide, leader of the Ndwandwe at the time, King Sobhuza l sent out a small expedition on a scouting mission to explore the possibility of settling on more peaceful territory to the north of his royal residence of Shiselweni.
After gradually journeying further north, Sobhuza l and his followers subsequently settled in the present day territory known as the Kingdom of Eswatini. Some of these followers comprised the Mhlanga, Madonsela, Mavuso, Fakude,
Hlophe, Mabuza, Simelane, Matsebula, Tfwala, Ngwenya, Sihlongonyane, Nkonyane and Manana peoples.
The creation of Eswatini Nation Land (ENL), it would seem, came about as a result of a compromise, which some have regarded as controversial, to say the least, between early British land concession holders, or concessionaires, and the nation of emaSwati whereby a concessions commission recommended a deduction of one third from every land concession. The one third ‘would be reserved as Crown Land and set aside for the Swazi Nation’ (Matsebula: 1976).
Worth noting is that the one third set aside for the Swazi Nation, did not belong to them but could only be used by emaSwati for purposes approved by the British administrators.
The other third belonged to the British Crown while the remaining third was to be granted freehold to the European owners (henceforth to be known as their ‘farms’) and for which they would obtain title deeds and full control over buying, selling or leasing.
ESWATINI LAND TAKEN
The recommendation of the concessions commission was brought into effect through the Partition Proclamation of 1907 issued by Lord Selborne, where history records that emaSwati complained bitterly about the way the land had been partitioned. However, their complaint proved ineffective.
Nevertheless, at independence in 1968, emaSwati assumed limited control over British Crown land which by then was governed under provisions included in the Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937. This land comprises all title deed land.
Farms remained under those to whom freehold was granted despite emaSwati complaining that the Partition Proclamation of 1907 was inconsistent with the terms of the concession granted by King Mbandzeni, who had clearly told the concessionaires at a public meeting that he had not sold them the land, but had simply given them a lease on it. The ‘Freeholders’ assumed ownership of the properties and land on which these properties were situated. The relevant question the country’s authorities now need to answer is the following:
In view of the shortage of land for emaSwati for farming purposes, when will the lease agreement King Mbandzeni signed with the then concessionaires, whose descendents are present day owners of these lands, presently referred to as farms, come to an end so that emaSwati can take back what rightly belongs to them?
More significantly, what steps will be taken by the Kingdom of Eswatini’s authorities to initiate and facilitate the peaceful transfer of the farmlands under discussion into Swazi hands?
Of equal concern is the fact that many emaSwati have been stopped from utilising vast tracts of idle land on Swazi Nation Land for agricultural purposes, the explanation being that the idle land in question belongs to the King. Is this one instance in which the King’s name has been used in vain?
This question comes up the authorities of the country are on record as having encouraged emaSwati to improve their farming methods in order to not only improve food security but to even export food to other countries. At the same time, the government has made a commendable effort in the construction of dams, the latest one being at Mpakeni. So, it is clear that government’s food security and export programme is going full steam ahead.
The question that comes to mind, then, is this: Why would the authorities send mixed signals by exhorting farmers to step up their farming while, on the other, prevent others from participating in the effort to produce more food by blocking them from access to these idle lands on Eswatini Nation Land, so to speak?
With regard to persons residing on Eswatini Nation Land, the great thing about it is that most of these families were allocated a piece of land much more cheaply than would otherwise have been the case on title deed land.
However, the fact that none of these people own the plots which they are allocated by the chiefdoms, acts as a disincentive for those who may wish to embark on commercial farming. For example, history tells us that when the Communist government in China adopted Russia’s first five-year plan for development, agricultural production doubled within two years in some cases because the peasants were allowed to own land which they acquired during the Agrarian Reform Law of 1950.
Closer to home, it is not difficult to imagine that, in much the same way, if people living on Eswatini Nation Land were to acquire ownership of the land on which they live, agricultural production would be significantly boosted overnight. Having briefly examined some of the advantages of living on Eswatini Nation Land, not withstanding some of the noted land use inefficiencies, it is, however, disturbing to read accounts of what amounts to blatant abuse of power by authorities in some chiefdoms.