non-commercial nature. Only failure to pay this rent for more then two consecutive years may lead to the termination of the tenancy. Before evicting tenants, the owner has to follow a detailed procedure. This includes the need to send a notice to the tenant and the Land Committee and allow the tenant 6 months to provide good reason why the tenancy should not be ended for non-payment of rent. Only then may the owner apply to the Land Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy(cf. Section 31(6) and(7) Land Act and Section 14(c) 2004 Amendment Act). Except for non-payment of rent, the Land Act does not list any other grounds which could allow owners to evict lawful and bona fide occupants. Security of occupancy is further entrenched in the Registration of Titles Act which in its Section 64(2) stipulates that land included in any certificate is subject to the interest of any tenant even if it is not specially notified as an encumbrance on the certificate. This means that any buyer of titled land buys subject to any encumbrance on it including rights of bona fide and lawful occupants. Thus, under current law, even a purchaser of land may carry out eviction only for non-payment of rent and only upon court order. In sum, this means the proposed amendment, by stipulating that eviction may only take place on grounds of non-payment of rent and only upon a court order(new Section 32 A), does not introduce any new rights for tenants. It restates, albeit more clearly, the current law. The only new provision introduced by the Bill is that it is now the Minister alone who may decide on the amount of rent if the Land Boards fail to do so. Further, at least according to the text, it can be any“court” and need not necessarily be a Land Tribunals which decide on evictions. b) The effect on“Kabaka’s land” Against this background it is clear that the allegation that the proposed amendment is a ploy by NRM to destroy the Kabakaship and grab Kabaka’s land 29 is unfounded. It is true that the amendment by requiring an eviction order of a court and giving the Minister of Land more power to decide about the amount of rent is restricting Kabaka’s rights over the land which has already been returned. However, whereas the first part is not new, the second part is unlikely to have any major impact on the authority of the Kabaka over occupied land. According to the proposed amendment, the Minister may only determine the rent but has no say in the assignment of titles. The latter authority is and remains with the Land Boards and the Uganda Land Commission. Even today, rent is to be determined by the Land Boards with the approval of the Minister so that the change is marginal. Further, the influence of the Minister would be limited anyway, given that rent has to be of non-commercial nature. Thus it is hard to see how these provisions could allow the grabbing of Kabaka’s land or even 29 See Kanyike,„Why Buganda opposes the Land Bill“, Daily Monitor, February 7, 2008. 10