This means the only novelty introduced by the proposed amendment in this regard is that evictions could be prosecuted with a jail terms up to seven instead of two(or five) years (respectively). Given that even today people commit criminal offences when they engage in evictions but still do not hesitate to do so, simply increasing the jail term will do little to stop the evictions. As the Attorney General of the Buganda Kingdom Apollo Makubuya points out rightly, in this respect it is not lack of laws, but impunity which allows evictions 67 . In contrast, the proposed amendment to Section 92(4) of the Land Act, which tightens penalties for people who wilfully and without the consent of the owner occupy land belonging to another person, concerns an offence which is not punishable under the Penal Code. This provision would e.g. allow the punishment of pastoralists who have been encroaching on land belonging to peasants especially in the northern regions. It has been criticised both by Buganda MPs and the Technical Committee that illegal land grabbers are supposed to be liable to a four year jail term“only”, whereas a landlord who evicts squatters without a court order suffers a seven-year sentence. It has been proposed that the seven year jail term should be applied to both 68 . However, this does not address the actual problem of the provision. More generally, it is questionable whether criminal courts are the right place to solve conflicts, especially those between pastoralists and peasants. Further, it will be difficult to actually establish an offence under Section 92 Land Act. In order to establish that the person“wilfully” occupies land belonging to another person it needs to be proven that the person occupying the land positively knew that the land belongs to somebody else. Recent conflicts like the one between Balaalo and indigenous Bagungu in Buliisa District show that encroachers on land often think or at least claim that they have a right to settle(the Balaalo in Buliisa e.g. claim that they have bought the land) 69 . Thus, the effect of the amendment to Section 92(4) Land Act to actually prevent land grabbing and reduce land conflicts is likely to be limited. g) Impact of the proposal on selling and assigning agreements(amendment to Section 35 Land Act) Similarly, the proposed amendment to Section 35 is unlikely to enhance tenure security. The proposed amendment to Section 35 criminalises occupants who when wishing to assign an occupancy do not give first option to the owner. It also declares void any transaction of interest engaged in by the owner without giving first option to the tenant. Both provisions build on current law and want to secure its better enforcement. Whereas the idea behind them 67 See ibid. 68 See“Behind the scenes at the Museveni- Buganda MPs Entebbe meeting”, Daily Monitor, February 20, 2008 and“Jail land grabbers – Buganda MPs”, Daily Monitor, February 22, 2008. 69 See“High Court clears Balaalo eviction”, Daily Monitor, March 26, 2008. 18