decision of the Minister. Thus there is no authority which could control how the Minister is exercising his power. Given that the Constitution guarantees a“hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law” for the determination of any civil rights (see Article 28 of the Constitution), this lack of judicial remedy in both the current and the proposed law is clearly unconstitutional. Lastly, constitutional concerns are to be raised about the provision empowering“courts” to issue eviction orders. In case the term“court” is read in a way which includes courts other than Land Tribunals, this provision conflicts with Article 243 of the Constitution. This Article provides that jurisdiction of a Land Tribunal shall include the determination of disputes relating to the grant, lease, repossession, transfer, or acquisition of land, and the determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for land acquired. Even though this provision does not explicitly name“evictions” as falling under jurisdiction of the Tribunals, eviction if carried out by the owner, constitutes a case of“repossession”. Thus, cases involving evictions fall under the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and may not be transferred to other courts. If the term“courts” as used in the Land(Amendment) Bill means courts other than Land Tribunals this is in breach of the Constitution. Further, by not funding Land Tribunals, government violates the constitutional Directive Principle number VIII on the“provision of adequate resources for organs of government” which stipulates that the distribution of powers and functions provided for in the Constitution among various organs and institutions of government shall be supported through the provision of adequate resources for their effective functioning at all levels. One could argue that the term“courts” can also be understood as meaning Land Tribunals. But if that is the case, why not state it clearly? In order to erase any doubt as to which kind of courts could be meant, the Bill would need to be changed so as to clarify that it is the Land Tribunals which have the jurisdiction in eviction cases. j) The way forward and the suggestions made by the Draft National Land Policy aa) Redesigning the landlord-occupant relationship Since the proposed provisions about bona fide and lawful occupants do not address the real problem of conflicting rights of landlords and tenants and are partly unconstitutional, the question remains about what should be done to solve the deadlock. In order to create tenure security, solve the land impasse, and ultimately foster development, it will be necessary to fundamentally redesign the system of mailo tenure and bona fide /lawful occupancy. Several reports on the land sector, among them the Report of the Odoki Commission of 1992, have recommended that mailo land should be transformed into freehold 23