Community A7 is one of eight villages within the Tono irrigation project. It is also one of the communities that were largely affected by resettlement to make way for the scheme. The community has land in five (5) zones in the scheme. The scheme started operations in this community in 1984. As with many of the other communities, farmer operations in the scheme lands were preceded by the allocation of lands/fields to farmers by officials of the irrigation scheme, ICOUR. By then, all lands within the scheme were managed and allocated by ICOUR. Land allocation was done as a communal project. Officials and community leaders chose a date and this was announced to the community. All members then gathered at each zone for the allocation. At the point, the owners of fields were identified and given plots. Some fields were large enough to be divided among several local farmers so that they could effectively work it. This way, some farmers appeared like guests to other farmers who were on their own or ancestral fields. Areas that were much overgrown with wild weeds and big trees were often not allocated or if allocated, farmers refused to work them because of the huge cost involved in clearing the land. As a result, large sections were left unallocated in each zone. The unallocated sections were often allocated to ‘stranger farmers’ (those who didn’t hail from the communities) who had the resources to clear them. Some of the stranger farmers were initially chosen as volunteers to arouse interest among community members. These others could come from any part of the region and many of them were contract farmers
though some operated like local farmers. As there was plenty of land and few farmers interested in working it, there were virtually no oppositions to decisions taken by ICOUR or conflicts between farmers. Most farmers had enough land to work on.
Following the Economic Recovery and Structural Adjustment Programmes of the late 1980s and 1990s, subsidies on agricultural inputs were abolished and many farmers left the project. Their fields were allocated to contract and other stranger farmers. Other farmers within the scheme were also able to increase their holdings. Also, due to massive retrenchment of workers in the public sector in the period, ICOUR lost many of its workers and suddenly found it difficult to effectively supervise operations within the scheme (staff of the Tono project dropped from 152 to 55 by 1991) (Laube, 2009). In 1987 when ICOUR started the community participation programme that left much of the scheme lands in the management and control of Village Committees (VCs), contract farmers (even those operating on VC lands) were still under the control of ICOUR. All went well in the initial years but with each passing year, individual farmers and VCs realising how much the company depended on them, grew more powerful.
From the late 1990s, the price of rice rose steeply and the interest of many farmers was revived. More and more people were drawn towards the scheme lands due to the profitability of rice farming and population growth (especially after 2000). Many small scale and contract farmers started to apply for land within the scheme. Most farmers that left their fields as well as those that did not initially show any interest in their ancestral lands within the scheme began to push for their plots. The allocated fields became too small for local farmers and through various strategies; stranger farmers were expelled by indigenes. In the meantime, a lot of middle and senior level employees of ICOUR, contrary to official regulations had become very actively involved in contract farming (Tonah, 1993 in Laube, 2009) with some owning several hectares of land, including lands on VC controlled areas. In addition, various poverty reduction interventions were introduced and targeted farmers with fertilizers, improved seeds and weedicides, in an attempt to encourage and increase food production. Project officials took advantage of these incentives and other project assets for their own benefits (Laube, 2009).
Thus it was that about 23ha of land in one of the zones belonging to community ‘A’ were allocated to two middle level employees of ICOUR in 2002. The area was said to have been overgrown with wild weeds and shrubs that were difficult to manage and expensive to eradicate. Much of the said land originally belonged to the Kantah family8 who are original settlers but had given it to the Kaba family9 several years before the scheme started (both families are from the community). Neither family were however working on those fields. The Kantahs, because they received their share elsewhere and the Kabas because they never came forward. In the last two years however, the children of the Kaba family came forward and requested for their ancestral land from the VC. The VC realised that they had no land left to allocate and could not apply for more land from ICOUR because the community owed on their water levy.
The VC chairman appealed to the farmers on the land to share with the new comers. This was however turned down by the two farmers who had the support of project management because their contracts had not yet expired. At the beginning of the wet growing season 2014, (mid- June), the Kaba family went in ahead of the two contract farmers and ploughed up the whole plot (The farmers say this strategy was often used to dislodge stranger local farmers by landowners and other ‘big men’). In this case however, the two contract farmers also went ahead to cordon off the field with red pieces of cloth and to place guards around to prevent the family from sowing seeds. They then appealed to the PM to rectify the situation. They had the support of the Kantah family who argued that the Kaba family has no ancestral claim to that land. The case took an interesting turn then and became a tussle between the Kantah and Kaba families as to who really owns the land.
To settle the dispute over the land, the matter was brought to the VC executives of the zone who brought it before the project manager (PM). The PM called all the parties involved for a meeting to trash out issues but it ended in an impasse. At this the chief of community ‘A’ requested the PM to allow him take the case ‘home’ and to settle it by customary law between the two families. The PM agreed but at the chief’s court, the matter could still not be agreed upon. Some local farmers accused the chief of ignoring the VC leaders in the process and
8
Pseudonym
appealed to the VC leaders to step in since the land was no longer customary land. This other faction was rather large, so the chief agreed that the VC executives could sit in at the hearing. They were however not recognized as key players or considered to have an input in the case. The chief and the tigatuu presided at the court and ruled in favour of the Kantah family as those with legitimate ancestral claims to the land but the Kaba family and many other farmers disagreed and refused to abide by the chief’s judgment. The VC executives especially the chairman felt disrespected and insulted and supported the Kaba family, accusing the chief of usurping his power by trying a case involving the project lands without the input of the VC leadership who according to him, are the legitimate authority over project lands belonging to the village. The chief decided to bring the case before the paramount chief of Navrongo, the Navro pio for judgment.
The paramount chief listened to both factions but refused to pass judgment on the case, arguing that the land was not under his control but ICOUR’s. He referred the case back to the PM for judgment. By this time however, it was getting late for sowing the fields so the parties and the PM accepted a temporary solution. This was to allow the two farmers to plant on their fields since they had paid the water levy. They were also to refund the cost of ploughing to the Kaba family. The case would then rest during the growing season and final judgment or solution found after the harvests. In the meantime, the whole community had become divided into two factions. These were the VC-Kaba family faction and the Chief-tigatuu-Kantah family faction. Most of the local farmers spoke in support of either faction. A power tussle between the VC chairman and the chief also ensued with the later asking for the former to be replaced although he had not completed his full term of four years.