BEST WISHES!

94
(5) No person or body, other than parliament, has the power to make provision having the force of law in kenya except under authority conferred by this constitution or by legislation.

@Wendz

I like your optimism.
I quite appreciate the need to balance between sustainable land use to realize optimum production and letting our people be.
Agreed small paddocks wont feed the Nation effectively, neither can we export any meaningful quantities of Cash crops.
That no withstanding, lets face Kenya’s reality;
We are primarily (unfortunate as it is) a peasants economy. Our people largely depend on their land to LIVE.
In a typical family in upcountry Kenya less than 20% of the household is involved in salaried engagement. It therefore translates that 80% of their livelihood is directly drawn from harnessing their land.
That’s why the Land issue and its ownership is so emotive around here.
Now the proposed law seeks to draw a line on the minimum parcel of land that one can own legally!
In the proposed constitution, parliament has up to 5years to come up with that legislation – see fifth schedule.

Inevitably, in certain areas siblings will have to communally own land as no division is permissible under the law!!
Si mapanga hayo!!!

Until and unless Kenya gets industrialized or the economy grows in such a way that our people don’t have to rely on their land to self sustain, then land issue will remain a hyper sensitive matter.
Those of us occupying the comfort zone, need be careful as we attempt to walk the tight rope of pontificating from our armchairs in the city, on matters of life and death that touch on our brethren in the upcountry.
I am positive the balance can be found, but care is necessary more than ever before.

Arent these laws already applicable or what is ICC doing here? and by the way, international laws are important to any country if it is going relate/trade etc with other countries. that was the origin of international laws. The treaties will be deliberated by the parliament first.

Vuluku,

Supremacy of this Constitution
2.

(5) The general rules of international law shall form part of the law of Kenya.

what are they ...? can they be imposed on a country?

Read 5 and 6.... do not read selectively ...

read this article to get some light on what the spirit of art 5 was

http://anthonydamato.law...iles/a02-ox-comp-il.pdf


(6) Any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya shall form part of the law of
Kenya under this Constitution.

Ratification....[color=green]ratification[/color] must be done

After realising that there can not be any meaningful dialugue with your good self, I actually chose to stop any attempt to it.

However what is your understanding of RATIFICATION.
In your opinion has Kenya ratified any international conventions/treaties todate.

What is the fate of those after Aug 4th.

ngalaka

if you have an issue with any international law that is ratified, then you should vote wisely for your representative.

The spirit of the law allows you to state your cause in parliament and court.

So before the country's representatives rush to ratify any law, you have the right to fight it. All the way from the county level.

You are arguing a case where the present constitution the minister can go ratify any law out there without consulting anyone, especially you the voter.

I am sure you had no idea of the number of protocols Kenya has ratified thus far. Some are good for you others are not. This includes the wheat saga.

In the present law, you can do nothing about Kibaki joining the organisation of gays and lesbians on your behalf.

Read the spirit of the proposed constitution. If you are in the habit of not engaging with your leadership, then Yes, you will get some laws that you hate.

It is up to you to engage your leadership at every level to avoid this. Not me.

The gov't cannot ratify international laws that the people do not wish. that is why you have the power in the new constitution to engage gov't from the county, constituency and the senate.

@B. Timber


See this argument by @Surealligator on the thread "Should I vote Yes or No?" which seems to answer your query better than i would have.

"If we elect good men into the august house, they will fix the min and max land one can own. So far, the inclination is to cap the limit at 10,000 acres but no one will be forced to have sell to keep within the limits. What will happen is an economic factor. Those with over 10,000 acres will be taxed upwards of 30% the value of the land. So, owners of such land will be forced to be enterprising enough to make the 30% and more or sell the land to those who can achieve better. This will create employment for the masses as todays huge idle tracks of land will finally be put into use.

On the other hand, if the over 10,000 acre landowner feels he will make more money by subdividing the land, he will do so. This is expected to be the most likely scenario. At the end of the day, land will be far much affordable.

The other side of the xoin involves discouraging further subdivision of land below an acre in rural areas as teh more you split land, the more it becomes had to practice commercial farming or use of machinery in farming. Use of machinery in farming makes it cheaper to produce food.

Remember, the more you split land, the more you create access feeder roads which eat up farming land.

So, minimum land will not mean those who have little parcels will be taken away and given to those who have more. It will mean no more subdivision ones a piece of land get to the min but those who have less will keep them but be encouraged to merge with a neighboring piece."

@Wendz

On the maximum ceiling I didn’t express much apprehension.
If managed largely on the basis that he anticipates, then there shouldn’t be much ado about it.
That would however mean that the term MAXIMUM is otherwise qualified!!!

Having said that,
My fears for the upcountry folks remain unaddressed.

for the minimum capping, the only scenario that wouldn’t be adverse to them is one where the Minimum is (0) zero.
Now that would be cheeky to say the least!!!!

Of course if they subdivide their land beyond the fixed minimum, they won’t necessarily lose such land, but their ownership will be anything but legal.
Legally the ownership will remain as it was before the subdivision!
Assuming the registered owner before the subdivision is dead (a case of father bequeathing to his sons&daughters) there is no telling of the confusion that will follow.

BTW No county business here - as someomne suggested.
The law says parliament will pass a legislation to determine maximum and minimum acrearage…. Counties have no role on that.
Holding any property for which you don’t have any legal claim or ownership documents is most frustrating.
Seemingly this is going to be reality in Kenya thanks to the proposed constitution.

For those who are saying that this this is 90% good and 10% needs work. When issues emanating from it start flaring up and people dying or losing their 1/8 ac properties then it will not matter that 90% was good.

Whats the hurry cant this small stupid things such as minimum acreage be removed and then we put it in.

And why is is the US soo interested in having it passed. What do they know that we dont??

I've been wondering the same thing moreso after Ranenberger went campaigning YES in Kitale