Análisis cualitativo

Participants who contributed exposed gestures clear enough to project their inner feelings. Four of them asserted that the word ‘landowner’ was not known in the traditional society and referred to it as ‘foreign concept’ brought in from outside. For example, one of them stated:

“There wasn’t anything as ‘landowner’ in the To’abaita indigenous language since time immemorial. Despite patrilineal or matrilineal systems of land ownership; the whole tribe owns the land. Either a person is from the male line (welakwalafia) or from the female line (waikwelina), the land is tribal. This is why it is so difficult to convince the whole tribe to adopt the foreign system or to give in to accept what is known as landowner” (Kwikwisi, Interview, 26.06.07).

The participants claimed as long as a child (male or female) is conceived in a tribe, he or she is automatically having the right to use the land and its resources. They claimed, although there was a tribal leader with whom the priesthood was traced, such leading line was only responsible for prayer offering, land knowledge acquisition and other traditional leadership roles. A participant stated:

“Leading lines are not superpowers over the land. All members of the tribe have equal rights and privileges to use it” (Kaule, Interview,19.05.07).

According to the participants; this traditional prestigious leadership role is abused in the advent of the term ‘landowner’ in the current society. For example, one participant stated:

“The word ‘landowner’ is not only interpreted differently but also opposing to traditional understandings. The local people see the word as ‘power’. To assign land title to an individual is perceived as empowering that person. This prestigious empowerment is what people struggle to acquire in the current society. This struggle is known as ‘land dispute.’ People perceived, once they have that power, they will have the strongest say in any form of development on customary land. They will have the power to accept or to refuse project proposals. The introduction of capitalism is changing the concept of tribal land ownership to

personal or the first born land ownership. This would mean no matter what the person looks like (ugly, educated/uneducated, poorer etc.) he/she will overpower other fellow tribal

members upon gaining the land ownership title. The understanding is; unless you were crowned with the word [landowner] you are powerless to use the land or its resources. It doesn’t matter, whether you are a member of the tribe, what was experienced is those who were assigned as landowners always ignore other tribal members. They even did not dare to listen to other members of the tribe...eh you no any ting ..mi na boss! (heh..you are nothing, I am the boss). This is abuse of power” (Kaule, Interview, 19.05.07).

The participants commented that empowerment and assignment of title is a form of corruption at tribal level. This critique is based on experience that, forms of income generating developments; had in the past only benefited the ‘landowners’ while many others within the tribes suffered neglect. The tribal members remained as they were with their problems mounting. One participant claimed: “The word ‘landowner’ has tied up with the word ‘development’ to cause complex problems on customary land”

(Kaule, Interview, 19.05.07). Another participant stated: “I perceived the idea of ‘landowner’ as gate way to corruption because project consultations were only done between the so-called ‘landowner’ and the donors while ignoring all members of the tribe” (Kaabora, Interview, 07.07.07).

The other benefit to having the title ‘landowner’ is to utilize the name to secure funds. Kaule indicated:

“Funding groups do not recognize any one’s project proposal than the person entitled ‘landowner’s’. Although you are a member of the tribal land your application will be turned down unless the land owner’s name is on it” (Kaule, Interview, 19.05.07).

The terms primary landowners (ownership rights), secondary landowners (access rights), custodianship and trusteeship were discussed with relevant stakeholders. According to them those common law concepts have not been grasped by the public majority. One participant stated: “The legally trained and educated can differentiate, but for the majority these concepts need explaining and re-explaining” (Kiro, Interview, 09.06.07).

One participant commented that the legislature and the government have made terrible mistakes in throwing down these concepts to illiterate populace in the rural areas without explanation and without considering their side effects. He stated:

“The terms were thrown down by government into customary land with the intention of knowing which person within the tribe to consult should there be a development initiative. They throw down the words without knowing the side effects” (Kwikwisi, Interview, 26.06.07).

According to the participants negative effects surfaced negative leadership qualities which rather than developing, destroyed tribal and family bonds. Kwikwisi further mentioned: “Those who were

crowned with the word ‘landowner’ have abused its purpose and normally dictate everything on tribal land making it vulnerable to disputes” (Interview, 26.06.07). A legal practitioner appealed for the people to be clear about the issue that the person whom we called ‘landowner’ is not the owner of the land but only the ‘custodian’ over it. In rationalizing this he stated: “When we bestow someone as a landowner he or she would build up on it and become resistance to the extent where we will dispute one another within our own tribe” (Nuta, Interview, 15.06.07).

On legal perspectives the lawyer clarified ownership of land with respect to primary and secondary rights. He interpreted:

“Our land is tribally owned by people of the same tribe. Therefore all of us whom our fathers are from the tribe are owners; meaning we have the primary rights to the land. Any commercial indication of development has to be channelled through a committee which will be formed by the male line (wela kwalafia). Those from the female lines (di’i or waikwalina) have the secondary rights. Meaning they only have access to land to make gardens for family consumption and not the right to involve in any activity that domain in commercial nature”

(Nuta, Interview, 15.06.07).

The above perception surfaces the incongruence between the English common law and the customary laws. One interviewee metaphorically explained as ‘troubled marriage.’ He argued:

“For me the biggest complexity is in the often ‘troubled marriage’ between the adopted English common law perspective of land ownership and our own customary laws. I agree with critiques that some of the concepts, including primary and secondary rights, and the process of land registration and title ownership have, in my opinion, contributed towards muddying our public opinion and collective thought on land issues in our shores. As I see it, we are in limbo, as the aforementioned marriage between two sets of thinking on land has in many instances bred an off spring that is a split personality of the two. Of course culture adapts and changes with time. Our constitution already recognizes the role of customary and many of our people still claim to hold on to custom. The challenge lies in making the aforementioned marriage work” (Kiro, Interview, 09.06.07).

Another participant argued for the customary perspective that those from the female lines (wai kwalina) are equally important to them and is imprudent to classify them as primary and secondary landowners. He claimed:

“Most of this so called 'secondary landowners' are our own blood. I found it absurd to confine them to access rights only. To be frank, the secondary landowners are our sister’s sons and daughters, and why reducing their chances to equally benefit from their forefather’s land?