HLP case analysis, restitution, secondary occupants and women's rights

Rates: documentation 70%; secondary occupation 30%; inheritance 20%; eviction 70%; boundaries 65%; overall 599 / 1,240 = 48%.

Backlog: 1,240 − 599 = 641 open cases, i.e. about 107 per paralegal. Intake: about 207 per month; resolutions: about 100 per month. The backlog grows by about 107 cases per month.

Conclusions: the cases most serious for protection (inheritance, secondary occupation) are the least often resolved and take the longest; yet 92% of inheritance cases involve women (about 258 cases). The programme performs well on simple cases.

Changes of direction: mobile civil documentation campaigns with civil registry services (batch processing) to free up time; mediators trained in equality and power dynamics for inheritance; dialogue with traditional chiefs on women's inheritance rights; criteria for prioritising cases by risk (imminent eviction, violence); recruitment or an explicit intake cap.

Case 1: the DUAT passes without distinction of sex and custom contrary to constitutional equality does not apply (see also principle 4). First, the customary marriage must be proven (chief's register, witnesses) and the couple's occupation of the plot (neighbours, children's birth certificates mentioning the place). Options: family mediation with traditional leaders informed of the law, then the district court with legal assistance if it fails. Risks: power imbalance in mediation, family pressure, violence; safety plan and referral if necessary.

Case 2: the Momades hold a DUAT through customary and good-faith occupation since 1998 (more than 10 years), provable by witnesses: they are entitled to restitution (principle 2). The neighbourhood secretary's "declaration" does not create a DUAT and occupation since 2023 does not meet the 10-year condition. But secondary occupants are protected against arbitrary eviction (principle 17): restitution must not leave them homeless.

Solution: mediation between the two families; written agreement with a reasonable time to leave; coordination with the shelter and CCCM clusters for an alternative housing solution before departure; possible compensation for improvements made by the occupant; temporary accommodation for the Momades during that period. Referral to court only if this fails.

Checks: consultation of the cadastre and the allocation file at the district (investor's DUAT, area, date, consultation record); participatory mapping and GPS readings of the fields; witness statements on the length of occupation.

Support to the community: collective information sessions on their rights and on mandatory consultation; help in setting up a representative committee, including women; preparation of a written request to the district; possible mediation with the investor on boundaries and compensation.

Partners: legal aid organisations and public interest lawyers for a possible legal challenge; the HLP area of responsibility of the protection cluster for analysis and advocacy; district authorities.

Risks: reprisals against leaders (do not expose them publicly, protection plan); risk to the organisation's access if it appears to be a party to litigation against the State: the decision to support a legal challenge is taken at management level, with a risk analysis. Do not create false hopes.

Example: "Madam, under the law, a woman can inherit her husband's house and field, just like a man. Custom cannot take this right away from you. To claim it, you need to prove your marriage and that you lived on this plot with your husband. Documents and evidence to gather: your identity card or a document that identifies you; the record of your marriage in the traditional chief's register; your children's birth certificates; the names of two or three neighbours who can testify. Next steps: (1) we help you obtain the documents; (2) if you wish, mediation with your husband's family, with a leader you accept; (3) if that fails, we can accompany you to court, free of charge. You decide at every step. If you are threatened, call us immediately."

I respect Amina's autonomy, but I make sure her choice is informed and free: a one-to-one conversation, a reminder of her rights and of what she is giving up, a check on pressure and her safety, time to reflect.

The organisation cannot facilitate or countersign an agreement with a clause that is discriminatory and contrary to equality (loss of the right on remarriage): that would legitimise a violation. I propose renegotiating (unconditional right to the house, sharing or compensation for the field). If Amina nevertheless chooses a private agreement, she has the right to do so, but it is not presented as an outcome of our mediation.

I review with the mediator the pressure to close cases: an indicator that encourages signing bad agreements must be reported to management and replaced by a quality indicator (agreements that are durable and compliant with the law at 6 months).