Zambia’s Proposed Land Law Sparks Alarm Over Property Seizures and Abuse of Power 

By Brian Matambo | Sandton, South Africa 

Zambia’s political climate is once again under the spotlight as concerns mount over a proposed land law that critics say will grant the government unchecked powers to cancel legally held title deeds. The bill, which has drawn condemnation from opposition figures and land rights advocates alike, would empower the Lands Commissioner, a presidential appointee, to revoke land titles without recourse to the courts. 

President Kasonde Mwenda, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), described the proposal as a “code for legalized land grabbing,” comparing its implications to Zimbabwe’s land reforms but without the racial context. “In Zimbabwe, Mugabe was taking land from white settlers. Here, the plan is to seize land from ordinary Zambians and investors alike, regardless of background, if they are not in good books with the ruling party,” Mwenda said during a recent appearance on Emmanuel Mwamba Verified. 

He warned that the law undermines the legal framework of land ownership, bypassing Zambia’s Lands Tribunal, a judicial institution established under the 1995 Lands Act to adjudicate land disputes. “It’s criminal,” he said. “This bill would strip power from the courts and place it in the hands of a politically, appointed Lands Commissioner who answers only to the President, not to the Constitution, and certainly not to the people.” 

Legal experts have also voiced unease. Under the current system, land ownership is protected by title deeds issued through a process governed by law. Revoking such documents typically requires a court order. Mwenda argued that changing this principle opens the door to widespread abuse: “If you can cancel a title deed without due process, then what protects the average Zambian from political retaliation, corruption, or economic eviction?” 

Opponents of the bill believe it will create an atmosphere of uncertainty for both local citizens and foreign investors, many of whom rely on secure land tenure to build homes, farms, and businesses. “Investors are already jittery,” Mwenda noted. “These kinds of legal shifts make them look elsewhere. And if the government can expropriate land without explanation, Zambia becomes unbankable.”  

The broader fear, he emphasized, is that such power will not only be used selectively to punish critics but could also be leveraged to consolidate political control through economic intimidation. “We are no longer talking about governance; we’re talking about executive impunity disguised as reform,” he added. 

Mwenda called on Zambians to resist the bill and demand that land matters remain under the jurisdiction of the courts. “This is not just about soil. This is about sovereignty, justice, and the soul of Zambia,” he said. 

The government has yet to provide a full response to the growing backlash. However, as opposition leaders raise alarm, civil society groups are expected to follow with legal and civic action. Whether the bill will proceed to enactment remains uncertain, but its introduction has undeniably ignited a national debate about the limits of presidential power and the sanctity of property rights in a democratic society.