Analysis of an HLP case register and legal information note on an eviction threat

Types: inheritance 4, eviction threat 4, lost documents 2, secondary occupation 2, rental dispute 2, agricultural land 1. Total 15.

Sex: 9 women (60%); the 4 inheritance cases all concern women, which signals a problem of widows' access to family property. Documentation: 11 cases out of 15 (73%) without any document; only 2 cases have a written document (occupancy permit, contract), the others customary or testimonial evidence. Status: 2 cases closed out of 15.

Conclusions: the 4 eviction threats are individual requests arising from the same collective problem affecting 340 households; a collective response is needed (mediation, group information) and not 340 files. Strengthen support to women on inheritance (information sessions, family and customary mediation, partnership with women lawyers' associations) and the securing of alternative evidence (testimonies, certificates from customary chiefs).

Expected elements: what is happening (the new owner is asking people to leave); what the law says, simply: no one can make the families leave by force without a judge's decision; a verbal demand is not a court decision; what to do: stay calm, do not sign any document without having it read by the NGO or the lawyer, keep any paper received, note the dates and witnesses of any threat, appoint representatives (including women) for the discussions; what not to do: confront the owner, leave in a hurry, pay someone who promises to stop the eviction; what the NGO is doing: meeting with the heir and the mayor for mediation, legal support if proceedings are started; where to find help: legal help desk (days, place), contact. Does not promise that the households will be able to stay, uses no jargon, is neutral towards the owner.

1. Information and representation: meeting with the households, appointment of a representative committee, mapping of the most vulnerable households.
2. Mediation with the heir: understand his interests (sale, use, compensation), propose a time limit and a written fixed-term agreement, possibly with a modest rent to be considered with the cluster; involve the neighbourhood chief or customary authorities.
3. Dialogue with the mayor and the Protection/Shelter cluster: recall that relocation must be voluntary, informed, consulted, to a safe site with water, sanitation, access to services and livelihoods; the land 9 km away without water or a school does not meet these conditions.
4. Legal preparation: file ready if the heir goes to court, assistance by the partner lawyer.
5. Monitoring and alert: weekly monitoring, alert to the Protection cluster and OCHA in the event of forced eviction.

Standards: Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, Kampala Convention, General Comment No. 7 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on forced evictions. Risks: tension with the host community, de facto eviction, dependence on a fragile agreement.

I refuse with an explanation: the NGO has no authority to issue a document certifying a right or residence; such a document would have no legal value, could create false hopes, be used against the households or implicate the NGO with the owner and the authorities. Instead I propose: to check which documents the competent administration can issue, to help households gather evidence of their presence (testimonies, site registration cards, distribution lists with their consent) and to put forward the length of occupation in the mediation. I inform my line manager.