If we elect good men into the august house, they will fix the min and max land one can own. So far, the inclination is to cap the limit at 10,000 acres but no one will be forced to have sell to keep within the limits. What will happen is an economic factor. Those with over 10,000 acres will be taxed upwards of 30% the value of the land. So, owners of such land will be forced to be enterprising enough to make the 30% and more or sell the land to those who can achieve better. This will create employment for the masses as todays huge idle tracks of land will finally be put into use.

On the other hand, if the over 10,000 acre landowner feels he will make more money by subdividing the land, he will do so. This is expected to be the most likely scenario. At the end of the day, land will be far much affordable.

The other side of the xoin involves discouraging further subdivision of land below an acre in rural areas as teh more you split land, the more it becomes had to practice commercial farming or use of machinery in farming. Use of machinery in farming makes it cheaper to produce food.

Remember, the more you split land, the more you create access feeder roads which eat up farming land.

So, minimum land will not mean those who have little parcels will be taken away and given to those who have more. It will mean no more subdivision ones a piece of land get to the min but those who have less will keep them but be encouraged to merge with a neighboring piece.

Community land is like that of Njuri Njeke, Maasai grazing land, Ogiek forest land as far as they wont start cutting down the trees, Cheptais sacred forest, Kaya bombo forest etc.

However, Maasai will not be entertained when they argue that Nairobi was their ancestral land or Kalenjins claim RiftValley is their ancestral land. That would go against standing orders which allow anyone to own land anywhere after paying for it as far as new terms were in place and the land was not taken away by force while being ancestral land.

If we have a No Proponent, please comment on @Surealligator's explanation.

And, what about Kadhi courts, dear Yes'sers?

At the risk of sounding pessimistic, I would like all those who have become so passionate and enamored about the proposed constitution to realise that its not the be-all and end-all. Experience from other countries show that constitutions in situations of dire widespread poverty, continuing economic and social upheaval and national bewilderment, are meaningless documents, whose provisions are not durable and only hapharzadly practised.

These same emotions were whipped in Weimar Germany and a lot of factional violence occurred. That constitution lasted only 15 years. This same pattern has played out in various banana republics in latin America in the past 200 years.

So whether you support or oppose it, realise that if history is correct, any constitution enacted under prevailing social and economic conditions will necessarily not survive intact the next two decades.