the proposed amendment. Article 26(2) of the Constitution states that“no person shall be compulsorily deprived of property or any interest in or right over property of any description” except where certain conditions are satisfied 72 . This is to say, in order to establish an infringement of Article 26(2) it would need to be explained why the prohibition to evict a tenant without court order is a case of deprivation. It could be argued that not being able to evict tenants at one’s will is effectively depriving the owner of his rights. Given that the rent to be paid by occupants is of non-commercial nature, the prohibition of eviction except for non-payment of rent indeed means depriving the owner of the value of his land. However, an infringement of Article 26(2) of the Constitution could only be established if the owners’ rights would include the power of full disposal over the land. This is not the case. As pointed out above, the Constitution itself makes the owners’ right subject to encumbrance by guaranteeing security of occupancy in Article 237. These occupants themselves enjoy protection from deprivation under Article 26(2) since this provision protects all persons having“interest in or right over property of any description” – and thus also occupants’ rights. Correspondingly it cannot be considered as a case of deprivation of property under Article 26 (2) of the Constitution when land owners are prevented from evicting tenants even if this significantly restricts their rights 73 . There obviously is a contradiction between owners’ and occupants’ rights which is problematic as pointed out before. But it lies with the law as created by the Constitution itself. This conflict cannot be solved by challenging the provisions as unconstitutional but only by amending the Constitution itself and fundamentally rearranging the relationship between owners and occupants. i) The problem of powers being conferred to the Minister and to the“courts” (amendment to Section 31 and new Section 32 A) In contrast, the proposals referring to the rearrangement of executive and judicial powers are indeed unconstitutional. As pointed out above, in regard to the tenants-owner relationship, the main change introduced by the proposed amendment is the transferral of power to the Minister to determine the annual nominal rent in case Land Boards fail to do so. Under current law the rent is to be determined by the Land Boards with the approval of the Minister. Both the current and the proposed provision is problematic in view of Article 241 of the Constitution. Article 241(1) of the Constitution stipulates that the Land Boards have the task of dealing 72 These conditions are: the acquisition must be necessary for public use or in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health and it must be made under a law which makes provision for prior and adequate compensation and for a right of access to a court of law. 73 This view is also shared by the Uganda Law Reform Commission, see“Legal expert okays land amendment bill”, The New Vision, March 12, 2008. 21