Tear Gas, Arrest As Court Moves To Resolve 26-Year Arua Land Dispute
Police uses tear gas to dispurse the angry Ayibiri cell residents on Tuesday Photo Credit Andrew Cohen Amvesi
ARUA CITY – Police on Tuesday fired tear gas to disperse locals resisting a court-ordered locus visit, which they claimed was being conducted in the wrong cell.
Angry residents of Ayibiri cell, Onzivu ward in Ayivu Division, Arua City, attempted to block Her Worship Hellen Amweno, the Arua Grade One Magistrate, from proceeding with the visit in their area. They insisted she should instead go to the neighbouring Ocolini cell in Bunyu ward, where they say the disputed 8-acre piece of land lies.
The confrontation followed days of protests against a demolition notice issued after the conclusion of land civil suit No. 005 of 2006 between Adonge Sally and Bithum Charles, which was ruled in favour of plaintiff Adonge Sally.
Police fired tear gas to disperse the crowd, and one Geoffrey Onoba was arrested and detained at Arua Central Police Station.
Once calm was restored, Magistrate Amweno proceeded with the locus visit, accompanied by court bailiffs, the Deputy Resident City Commissioner (RCC) in charge of Ayivu Division, and the plaintiff. A surveyor took coordinates of the contested land.
After the exercise, Her Worship Amweno noted that there was a dispute suggesting that the suite land was none existent.
“This is a case that was heard by the Magistrate’s court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and they all confirmed the case in favour of the Plaintiff, Adonge Sally. But at the end of the case, the defendant seems to be suggesting now that the bailiff seeks to execute a different land from that one which was in court.
To us we thought that was something that can be verified by the court considering the fact that at the time the first trial court had this case they came and confirmed that the land existed and a map was drawn,” Amweno said.
She affirmed that this was an exercise to just conclude and enable the Bailiff to identify the land which has been authorized to deliver a vacant possession for the Plaintiff.
Godfrey Jonah Mbigiti, the Arua Deputy RCC in charge of Ayivu Division, said the matter had dragged on for 26 years, forcing the state to enforce the rule of law.
“Some people, well knowing that this matter was in court, started buying parts of the land. They went to court and lost. So, we had to enforce the rule of law,” Mbigiti said.
Henry Odama of Odama and Company Advocates, representing Adonge Sally, expressed satisfaction that his client would finally get vacant possession of the land after years of delay.
However, Samuel Ondoma of Alaka and Company Advocates, representing the aggrieved locals, described the exercise as unjust.
“This exercise was a complete and total injustice to the innocent poor people in Ayibiri cell,” Ondoma said. “By the time I arrived, the exercise was already ongoing, and the place where the Magistrate, police, plaintiff, and bailiffs stopped is actually in Ayibiri cell.”
Ondoma criticised the process for failing to involve both parties and their lawyers adequately, noting that only Adonge Sally was allowed to identify the land. He also questioned the involvement of a surveyor, saying it was not mentioned in the RCC’s letter requesting the repeat exercise.
He further argued that the two Local Council One (LC1) chairpersons of the neighbouring cells should have been involved to clearly establish the boundary between Ayibiri and Ocolini cells.
“Before the exercise started, they threw tear gas to chase away the real stakeholders. Police used force, and the land was surveyed using force. Do we really have rule of law, justice, and fairness here?” Ondoma asked. “My clients are suffering a lot of injustice. They are treated as if they are not Ugandans, as if they are not human beings. For me, all this was a planned move.”
In response, Adonge Sally maintained that the land legally belongs to her.
“I grew up on that land and land cannot change or move,” she said. “They can claim boundary issues, but what I know is that this is the land I was raised on and it has not gone anywhere. It is time for me to get back possession of my land.”
She observed that she had won the case right from the LC1 level up to the Court of Appeal and so, there is no reason to deny her the right to use her land.