Advertisement

Bill seeks better terms for expropriated landowners

Saturday October 25 2014
Biruta

Natural Resources Minister Dr Vincent Biruta. PHOTO | CYRIL NDEGEYA | NATION MEDIA GROUP

Owners of land earmarked for expropriation might get a relatively fair price for their property if a Bill that was recently approved by the chamber of deputies gets presidential assent. The Bill relating to expropriation in public interest embraces a number of changes that parliamentarians believe will allow citizens fair compensation.

Property owners in areas where the government has expressed interest to compulsorily acquire their land for investment have been raising unease over the current law No.18/2007 of 19/04/2007 relating to expropriation in public interest. One of them is the compensation rate. They have consistently claimed that the money paid to them does not reflect the existing market force.

The review is expected to ensure that expropriation will be based on updated land market prices. The prices being applied date from 2010 from ministerial orders determining the reference land prices in the City of Kigali and outside the capital.

“The list of the land prices shall be reviewed every year by the Institute of Real Property Valuers in Rwanda,” the explanatory note of the draft law reads.

Valuation of land and property thereon and award of fair compensation are two segments to face the changes of the proposed law.
The Bill also seeks to transfer valuation power from the government to a private entity.

“The valuation of land and developments over land is carried out by certified valuers who are members of the Institute of Real Property Valuers of Rwanda,” a provision of the Bill stipulates.”

Advertisement

Minister for Natural Resources Dr Vincent Biruta told the parliament early this week: “This will solve the issue of prices, which has been observed during expropriation in public interest because the valuation will be done by an independent organ with proper expertise.”

This is different from the current and past practice, whereby the organ that requested for expropriation would be the same one to carry out valuation.

Should any to objection to the value given to their land arise, property owners would be allowed to appoint another valuer to for a second opinion. Unlike the current law, the Bill provides for a timeframe for acceptance of appeal and also the provision of alternative value.

The proposed law also brings about a new idea concerning properties that are valued during expropriation. While the current law only considers land and activities that were carried out on the land – including crops, forests, buildings or any other activity aimed at efficient use of land or its productivity – the Bill adds compensation for the inconvenience related to relocation.

“The compensation for disturbance due to relocation shall be equivalent to five per cent of the total value of the property expropriated,” the Bill provides.

The motive behind this compensation is moral and takes into consideration frustration that may result from moving even after someone is compensated for expropriated land and developments over it.

“Relocating somebody goes with loss of connections – such as land of the ancestors, friends in the neighbourhood, small business with clients that are used to the relocatee’s business and so forth,” Dr Biruta stated.

There has been recurrent retraction of the expropriator and many cases of delay in paying just compensation, which triggered irritation on the side of property owners. The Bill seeks to put an end to this in a punitive way.

“Any expropriator that retracts from expropriation after valuation of land and activities developed on land or doesn’t pay fair compensation within the agreed period shall pay five per cent (5%) of just compensation agreed or awarded to the expropriated person,” it reads.

Initially, there was no time limit allocated to the valuation but the Bill seeks to introduce a timeframe to remind the organ that requested for expropriation to expedite the valuation. “The exercise of valuation of land and activities developed on land shall be completed within thirty (30) days,” it stipulates.

But, however much change the Bill is bringing, analysts say, it leaves untouched a number of differences between the Rwandan legislation and the World Bank policy on involuntary resettlement. The key differences relate to the general principles for resettlement, including income restoration.

The World Bank requires that persons to be displaced should be actively consulted and should have opportunity to participate in planning and designing the resettlement programmes. The proposed Bill, as well as the current organic law on expropriation, simply stipulate that affected people be fully informed of expropriation issues.

The law also conflicts the very purpose of consultation and involvement by prohibiting any opposition to the expropriation programme if considered to be under the pretext of self-centred justification, which might not be the case.