In sum, in order to create security of tenure for bona fide and lawful occupants and to enable development, instead of adopting the proposed amendment which only reinforces the current problems, the relationship of registered owners and occupants should be fundamentally redefined and a functioning land administration and registering system established and guided by a land policy. The Draft National Land Policy already points into the right direction, it however remains vague, especially on the crucial issue of how to transform the owner­occupant relationship on mailo land. It would require further specification along the lines suggested here to allow any meaningful implementation. 2. The Land(Amendment) Bill and customary tenure a) The content of the Land Bill and the critique uttered As for customary tenure, the Bill stipulates in a new Section 32 B that“a person claiming interest in land under customary tenure shall not be evicted except upon an order of eviction issued by the court”. The order shall provide for an adequate compensation and shall only be issued after the interested persons have been heard, after a report of the land committee has been received, and after the locus in quo has been visited. Besides, it provides for a seven year jail term for any person who evicts occupants without court order. The provisions resemble those which are proposed for bona fide and lawful occupants of mailo land, except that grounds for evictions are not restricted to non-payment of rent. However, other than the provisions on bona fide and lawful occupants, theses provisions are not just a restatement or alternation of the existing law but are actually new. The main critique uttered about the provisions on customary tenure comes from the northern regions where customary tenure is predominant. Concerns are about the fact that the amendment by simply referring to“a person claiming interest under customary tenure” is open for abuse. It is especially feared that pastoralists encroaching on land, or squatters who settled on land which has been deserted for years by people living in IDP camps, could not be evicted anymore if the Bill is passed. Further, by reserving authority to issue eviction orders to courts, the Bill is said to undermine customary dispute settlement and will cause conflict and disadvantage the poor 99 . These fears are founded. I will particularly show that the fact that the Bill empowers courts is very problematic. By doing so, the Bill is likely to increase tenure insecurity and conflict and disadvantage the poor. The proposed provision contravenes widely agreed recommendations and the Draft National Land Policy(point 7.2.4, 141(iii)) according to which indigenous dispute mechanisms should be strengthened and accorded precedence in disputes involving 99 See supra, not 17, 18 and 19. 28