Locals to take shares in irrigation schemes

Kisesa MP, Luhaga Mpina

Locals whose lands are taken up for large-scale irrigation schemes can now have sharing agreements with potential investors.
This is contained in the National Irrigation Bill 2013 whose debate was concluded in Dodoma yesterday after several MPs threatened to shoot down the Bill tabled in the House on Thursday by the Minister for Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives, Christopher Chiza.
Strong arguments from a section of MPs argued against a number of sections in the proposed Bill, forcing the government to make several amendments, notably on indigenous villagers holding shares in irrigation lands.
It wasn’t easy as Chiza, his deputy Adam Malima, Attorney General Judge Frederick Werema and at one time Minister of State responsible for Good Governance, George Mkuchika, took turns to give clarifications following threats from MPs to reject the Bill.
And in a situation rare in the House, most of the opposing legislators were from the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM). Even the three out of four amendments moved by the MPs came from CCM lawmakers -- Luhaga Mpina (Kisesa constituency), Selemani Jafo (Kisarawe), Murtaza Mangungu (Kilwa North) – while the fourth was moved by Habib Juma Mnyaa (Mkanyageni- CUF).
Although Werema and Chiza looked set to down play the amendments moved by the four legislators, a section of MPs clearly expressed displeasure at the way the AG wanted the Bill to read, and was finally forced to bow down as the legislators looked ready to shoot it down.
The most contentious were sections 4(1), 17(1 and 5), and 18.
Originally, Section 4(1) stipulates that “subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission may be itself or in collaboration with the private sector, invest in the irrigation ¬development as the Commission may from time to time vary, withdrawal or realize any such investments”.
Section 17(5) stipulates: “Where any declaration referred in sub-section (1), affecting the existing land rights, the holder of such land shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the relevant land law or as my be agreed upon.”
The section 18 says “ where it is necessary for better achievement of the objectives of this Act, the Minister may, upon consultation with the Minister responsible for Land and Minister responsible for Local Government , advise the President to acquire , subject to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act any land or any estate for the purpose of irrigation development.
Section 18 was amended after the AG agreed that advice to the President should incorporate consultations with the villagers through their village general assemblies.
Debating on Section 17(5) Jenister Mhagama suggested that the section should reflect that the land holders should be allowed to be shareholders in the investment with an option to of compensation or both as it was suggested later by Hamad Rashid Mohamed, MP for Wawi (CUF).
On his part, Ole Sendeka said if the major three contentious section were to be passed, the Bill would defeat the whole purpose of Irrigation Act: “As it stands this Bill would result to Tanzanians becoming slaves in their own country, this House is not ready to become a place to approve matters containing ill-will intention, we are ready to shoot it down so as it be re-drafted”
Esther Bulaya argued that the purpose of enacting the Irrigation law was to ensure that Tanzanians benefit from irrigation schemes.
However, Halima Mdee queried: “How can we have a law that enslaves Tanzanians to investors … especially foreigners … in an ideal scenario priority should be given to Tanzanians, and let the Bill read in accordance to the level of understanding of our people if we really want this Law to serve them”
She claimed that the proposed Bill was a result of the SAGGOT (Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania) programme.
However, that claim was refuted by Chiza, who said the Irrigation Bill was in the pipeline even before the formulation of the SAGGOT programme.
And in an unprecedented scenario, AG Werema told the House that he was happy to see that the Parliament was a real debating chamber because the legislators were indeed using their thinking ability in presenting their argument on key matters.
“The voices have been heard … I concur with those who moved for amendments.”
The Bill was finally passed accommodating all moved amendments.