Lamin Coma, Former Director of Lands
By Lamin Coma, former director of lands
The social media is buzzing with a somewhat deliberate confusion about some land matters that seem to be either politicized or misunderstood.
Lands are allocated by the government in undeveloped state lands that are planned and demarcated into residential plots and are called layouts. These layouts used to be classified into low, medium and high-density layouts to accommodate the type of income group to be allocated. An example of a high-density layout is found at Kanifing, a medium layout in Fajara and low density in Cape Point and of late Brufut Heights.
Land allocations in government planned layouts are virtually free of charge with the cost limited to basic administrative fees, such as survey and registration fees and a ground rent.
The eligibility criteria for land allocation for residential purpose have been laid down. The prominent ones being the ability to build a house, the applicant must be a Gambian and does not already own a plot (a one man one plot policy). In the case of the latter criterion, it is clearly and categorically stated in and reinforced by the law under Section 5 (Regulation 6) of the Second Schedule of the State Lands Act that:
“A person who has not been allocated a plot …… but has more than one plot in his name, SHALL NOT be considered for allocation of land” my emphasis on the legally obligatory words “shall not”. There is an additional and clearly stipulated clause that a person with more than one plot who sells his plot(s) in the previous five years cannot be eligible for allocation even if he does not at that point in time have a plot. That is law not policy.
However, there is nowhere in the law or policy which says that family members of a head or minister of state, a civil servant or a businessman or politician or members of the same household should or cannot not be allocated a plot in a government layout if such persons do not already have a plot of land of their own.
Naturally, a refusal to allocate such persons may appear to be unconstitutional – i.e. denying a citizen the right to be allocated state lands because the person is related to someone with such a status.
There is an often-mentioned moral dimension – that such an allocation must not be through an undue or direct influence by a person in authority. That is why in job interviews or any selection process, a person in a selection committee will excuse himself from the process because an applicant under consideration is a relative but such an applicant is not or cannot be denied an opportunity of being considered.
The simple question is, are family members of a Head of State, Vice President, State Minister, or Civil Servant qualified to be allocated a plot of land in a government planned layout when all eligible criteria are met and where there is no proven undue influence in the process? Can such persons, when refused an allocation based on such a relationship, resort to the law courts to defend their rights as a citizen based on being discriminated against?
The characteristics of government owned landed properties are completely different from those of the planned residential layouts. The building status found in Cape Point, Fajara, Mansakonko, and so forth are total different from the undeveloped residential layouts in Kanifing, Fajara and so forth.
The former are mainly for government use as offices and residences for officials of the State. They are part of the national assets for inheritance by those yet unborn – as they say in Mandinka “Ketah-fengo” or in Wolof “lu-nyo donah”. They are not the subject of allocations such as in the government planned layouts.
Some, if not most, of such properties have been given a nomenclature for its occupant, as an official or an institution of the State, such as the State House for the President, the Vice President’s Residence, the Chief Justice’s residence, a magistrate’s quarters in the provinces, the Quadrangle offices and so forth. Such a nomenclature can change in terms of the occupant but not its ownership.
Thus, there is no lease or any form of ownership document granted to the occupant. Ownership belongs to the State – the Gambia. In other words, the State house cannot be allocated (given a lease or any other title) to the occupant nor can any other designated government landed property.
The property at South Atlantic, designated as the residence of the Chief Justice is certainly not a planned layout. It belongs to the category of government properties such as the State House, Vice President’s Residence, official residences in Mansakonko and so forth. Such properties cannot be allocated to an individual, especially to such a person who already has more than one plot of land. That is simply contrary to the law.
It is indeed unfortunate that where laws are blatantly broken, some moral or political justification is fumbled to spin a defense. The progress of any nation is hinged on having a capable state that is transparent and accountable and supported by institutions that operate in accordance with the law and under established equitable and transparent processes.
Building a state based on arbitrary and subjective decision-making processes that flout laws and are supported by institutionalized sycophancy is retrogressive, enhances inequality and erodes social cohesion. A nation cannot eat its cake and have it at the same time. It is either democratic governance within the ambit of laws and predictable policies or authoritarian rule flouting such laws and policies.
Just Thinking Aloud