Lands Bill a threat to property rights – Dickson Jere

…urges Members of Parliament not to support the bill because it has the potential to disrupt the country’s financial market if allowed to be enacted into law

By GRACE CHAILE

LUSAKA lawyer Dickson Jere has strongly opposed the rushed amendment of the Lands and Deeds Registry (Amendment) Bill No. 13 of 2025, warning that its passage could disrupt the country’s entire financial market.
Mr Jere has warned Members of Parliament that Bill 13 while appearing harmless, could be politically and economically dangerous if misused and mismanaged.
Appearing before the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, Lands and Natural Resources, Mr Jere urged lawmakers to withdraw the bill, citing serious legal, administrative and economic consequences if enacted.
He questioned the proposal to empower the Chief Registrar of Lands, a position he described as largely clerical to determine disputes over land titles within 30 days.
Mr Jere argued that such a move would create chaos, as all disputes over titles would now be queued before the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources under the Chief Registrar’s office.
Mr Jere warned that if the bill passed, it would undermine legal safeguards that allow title cancellation only through a court process either in proven cases of fraud or mistaken issuance.
He emphasised that title deeds are a cornerstone of the financial sector and used as collateral in borrowing.
“If banks know that a title can be cancelled at any time by an administrative officer, they will demand insurance or personal guarantees on top of the title, making borrowing more expensive,” Mr Jere stated.
He also criticised the bill for its vague definition of “interested party,” noting that it would allow anyone to challenge valid titles without establishing legitimate interest, unlike court proceedings which require strict legal standing.
Mr Jere said that fraudulent titles should not be issued in the first place and that granting cancellation powers to the same office that issued them was a contradiction.
“This is a bad law. We should not create laws to solve isolated problems. If a specific area has a dispute, the Lands Acquisition Act should be used,” he said.
He called for meaningful consultation and broader legislative reforms, including digitalisation of land records and registration systems.
“This amendment does not address the real issues. There is no urgency. We need a well-thought-out conversation, not piecemeal changes that empower junior officers at the expense of legal certainty.”
Ends.