EDITORIAL COMMENTARY

TAITA TAVETA, Kenya – The unfolding debate over the survey and subdivision of Kishamba B Community Land in Taita Taveta County has reached a critical moment—one that requires sobriety, transparency and, above all, a commitment to protecting the interests of ordinary community members.

At the centre of the controversy is the reported cost of approximately KSh581 million for the land survey exercise, a figure that has generated questions among members over its basis, procurement process, value for money and the extent to which the community was involved in arriving at the decision.

Questions raised by community members and stakeholders have included whether there was adequate public participation before surveyors were engaged, what criteria were used to select the survey team, whether competitive quotations were obtained and whether a detailed work plan and budget were presented to and approved by the community.

They should not be interpreted as an attack on individuals or community leadership. On the contrary, asking questions about the management of community land and community resources is an essential part of responsible leadership.

Against this background, the reported intervention by the Government to assist with the survey presents an opportunity that Kishamba B should seriously consider.

If government agencies are willing and legally mandated to participate in the demarcation and surveying of community land, there is a strong public-interest argument for exploring that option—particularly where it could significantly reduce the financial burden on community members.

The strategic questions presented by stakeholders note that government surveyors can undertake or verify community land demarcation, subject to the applicable legal and administrative procedures, including community resolutions, applications to the relevant lands offices and public participation on boundaries.

The issue, therefore, should not be reduced to a contest over who initiated the Government’s involvement or who deserves political credit.

The real question should be: What option best protects the interests and resources of Kishamba B members?

If Government assistance can achieve the intended survey and titling objectives without requiring ordinary members to finance a KSh581 million exercise, then rejecting that assistance would require a compelling and transparent justification.

There is, however, an equally important principle that must not be forgotten: the community must remain at the centre of decisions affecting its land and money.

The Community Land Management Committee is a management and administrative institution. It does not replace the community’s collective ownership or democratic voice.

The supporting governance analysis of Kishamba B correctly raises the distinction between the Community Land Management Committee and the wider Community Assembly, noting that the committee manages community land on behalf of the community and that community participation and accountability are central to its mandate.

If there are officials who believe that Kishamba B should proceed with the privately selected survey arrangement and use community funds to finance it, then the most appropriate forum is not confrontation, political mobilisation or competing accusations.

Members should be given an opportunity to examine the proposed cost, procurement records, quotations, work plan, survey methodology, available community resources and alternatives.

They should then make an informed decision.

That is how community governance should work.

KSh581 million demands extraordinary accountability

A reported expenditure of KSh581 million is simply too significant to be treated as an ordinary administrative matter.

Whether the figure is ultimately justified or not should be established through documentation—not speculation.

The community deserves answers to straightforward questions:

• How was the KSh581 million estimate calculated?
• What procurement procedure was followed?
• Were alternative quotations obtained?
• Who selected the surveyors?
• Was the expenditure approved through the appropriate community structures?
• What funds does the community currently hold?
• What proportion of those funds would be consumed by the survey?
• What cheaper and legally compliant alternatives are available?
• If Government assistance is available, why should community funds still be committed to the same exercise?

These questions should be answered openly and respectfully.

The earlier formal inquiry by Infonile Communications Limited similarly sought clarification on public participation, surveyor selection, the basis of the KSh581 million figure, value-for-money alternatives and approval of the work plan and budget.

That demonstrates that the concerns are fundamentally about governance and accountability, rather than personalities.

Community resources should benefit the community

If Government assistance ultimately covers the survey, Kishamba B should seize the opportunity to rethink how its own resources can deliver lasting benefits to its members.

Instead of spending hundreds of millions of shillings on a process that may potentially be supported by Government, community resources could be directed towards tangible projects.

These could include community tents and chairs, a public-address system, education bursaries, support for vulnerable members, youth empowerment and livelihood programmes, environmental conservation, tree planting, water projects and stronger financial management.

The objective should be simple:

Community resources should produce visible community benefits.

Money belonging to the community should not be treated as an unlimited fund for administrative expenditure. It should be preserved, invested responsibly and deployed where members can see and measure the benefits.

Leadership must not become ownership

There is also a broader lesson in the Kishamba B dispute.

Community leadership is a position of responsibility—not ownership.

The Community Land Management Committee should not be confused with the community itself. The governance material on Kishamba B makes this distinction forcefully, arguing that the committee is a manager and representative of the community interest rather than the proprietor of the community mandate.

That distinction matters because land is not merely an economic asset.

For many families, community land represents heritage, identity, security and the future of generations yet unborn.

Any process that affects it must therefore be handled with the highest standards of transparency, participation and accountability.

Where disagreements arise, the answer should be more dialogue—not intimidation.

Where members demand information, the answer should be disclosure—not hostility.

Where there are competing proposals, the answer should be evidence—not factionalism.

And where Government offers assistance that could reduce the financial burden on vulnerable community members, the first responsibility of leadership should be to examine that assistance objectively.

This should not become a battle for credit

Kishamba B does not need another battle over personalities.

It needs a solution.

Whether one stakeholder initiated a petition, another engaged Government, or the leadership had already developed its own survey plans is secondary to the interests of the community.

The ultimate test should be whether the people of Kishamba B obtain secure land documentation through a lawful, transparent, affordable and participatory process.

The community should therefore resist attempts to divide members into rival camps.

Those who support Government assistance should not be branded enemies of community leadership.

Those who question the Government proposal should equally be allowed to explain their position without intimidation.

But every position must ultimately withstand scrutiny from the community itself.

The way forward

Prime Africa believes the most constructive path forward is clear.

The Kishamba B Community Land Management Committee should convene a properly constituted community meeting and place all relevant information before members.

Government representatives and relevant land officials should, where appropriate, explain the proposed assistance, the legal process, the responsibilities of the community and the expected outcome.

The committee should disclose the survey proposal, costing, procurement documentation, available community funds and any alternative options.

Members should be given adequate time to interrogate the proposals.

And after hearing all sides, the community should make an informed decision through the appropriate democratic structures.

That is not a defeat for leadership.

It is leadership.

Kishamba B belongs to its members. Its resources exist for their collective benefit. Its leadership exists to serve them.

The current dispute should therefore become an opportunity to strengthen—not weaken—community governance.

The goal should be a properly surveyed and documented Kishamba B Community Land, protected community resources and a transparent leadership culture that future generations can trust.

Let Government assistance be assessed on its merits. Let community money be protected. Let members be heard. And let the interests of Kishamba B come before personalities, factions and the pursuit of credit.

That is the standard the community deserves.

About The Author