II. Perception of the Land(Amendment) Bill in public All five amendments have provoked a heated public debate, the new section 32 A and 32 B probably being the most contentious. Whereas Government and supporters of the Land Bill have pointed out the need for amendment in view of rampant evictions, often carried out with the involvement of the army 13 , opposition to the Bill comes from various sides and for different reasons. From the debate as displayed in the paper, four main points of objection can be identified: Firstly, strong opposition comes from Mengo Government and supporters of the Buganda Kingdom. Mr. Apollo Makubuya, the Buganda Kingdom Attorney General, has issued a"10­point guide" explaining why Mengo is pitted against the proposed amendment. He mainly purports that the law is not necessary since current provisions are sufficient to deal with unlawful evictions. He points out that both the Constitution and the Land Act already guarantee security of tenure and that the problem is not the lack of laws but impunity and/or corruption. He asserts that there is also no need for further criminalisation of evictions since the Penal Code already provides for adequate penalties. Furthermore, he criticises that the Bill gives power to the Minister to determine the annual ground rent, thus defying the principle of decentralisation in land administration as introduced by the Land Act 1998 14 . More generally, the Bill is criticised for being silent on the land which before 1900 had been Kabaka’s land and had been expropriated in 1967 after the abolishment of the Kingdom and which Mengo has been asking to be returned to the Kabaka since the reinstallation of the Kingdom in 1993 15 . Supporters of the Kabaka even allege that the amendment is a ploy by the NRM to grab Kabaka’s land and destroy the Kabakaship 16 . Besides, a second major opposition to the amendment comes form the northern regions where customary land tenure is paramount. Especially MPs from the Acholi, Lango, Teso and Karamajong caucus have pitted themselves against the amendment. Opposition from Acholi is induced by the fear that those currently living in IDP camps might not be able to retrieve their 13 E.g.in Busiro South district alone 120 cases can be cited where the army had participated in evictions, cf. ”Stop using Kabaka to fight NRM- Museveni”, The New Vision, February 18, 2008. 14 See Makubuya, Attorney General of Buganda Kingdom, 10 Points Why the Land(Amendment) Act Bill 2007 Should not Pass(2007). 15 Makubuya, Attorney General of Buganda Kingdom, 10 Points Why the Land(Amendment) Act Bill 2007 Should not Pass(2007) point 8 and“9,000 square miles: that land may not be there after all”, Sunday Monitor, Special Report, February 24, 2008. On the basis of what has been indicated in the 1900 Agreement, this land is claimed to include some 9000sq miles of land, some 1500 sq miles of forest and some 160sq miles of County and Sub-County Headquarters. However, new surveys have shown that it is in fact substantially less. In addition, land in Buyaga and Bugangayizi has been returned to Bunyoro Kingdom and land in Masaka, Singo and Buruli allocated under the Ranching Schemes. According to Attorney General Khiddu Makubuya, of the 9000sq. miles today only 4,638 sq. miles are left, see“9000sq miles no more...unless Buganda accepts regional tier”, Daily Monitor, March 7, 2008. 16 See Kanyike,„Why Buganda opposes the Land Bill“, Daily Monitor, February 7, 2008. 6