A recent nationwide study has revealed serious weaknesses in the way land committees are functioning across the country. Meant to serve as a bridge between communities and local authorities on matters of land use and management, many of these committees are falling short of their responsibilities.
The study by the Rwanda Governance Board (RGB) calls for a major overhaul of the whole system of land committees in some districts.
The assessment, which focused on both governance and service delivery in the land sector, highlights that land committees — which play a key role in monitoring land use and resolving disputes — are barely functioning in several districts, despite being required by law.
Rwanda’s National Land Policy, updated in 2019, sets the rules for how land should be managed and used across the country. It focuses on making land services fair, clear, and easy to access for everyone, including vulnerable groups.
The policy also encourages good planning so that land is used in ways that support development and protect the environment. One of its key goals is to bring land services closer to the people by using local committees to help solve land issues and follow up on land use.
However, the RGD study shows that many of these committees are not working well, making it harder to put the policy into action.
According to the findings, districts such as Rubavu, Rusizi, Ngororero, Gicumbi, Kayonza, Huye, Muhanga, Nyarugenge, and Kicukiro, along with the City of Kigali, are failing to monitor land committee activities.
These committees are supposed to meet regularly, submit reports, and help implement local land development plans.
However, in many of these areas, land committee meetings are not held at all, reports are not submitted, and district authorities are not following up as required.
The researchers sampled 13 districts and the City of Kigali (3 districts: Nyarugenge, Gasabo, and Kicukiro), making it a total of 16 districts assessed, not all 30.
The study found that the vast majority of land committees are inactive. In fact, across the entire country, only one cell — Kagarama Cell in Rusizi District — managed to hold the required monthly meetings throughout the year.
This situation raises questions about the ability of local governments to uphold land governance standards.
Although all districts are expected to have operational land committees, the report shows that in practice, the committees are either unknown to citizens, poorly supported, or treated as a formality.
The lack of awareness among residents and minimal engagement from district authorities make these committees ineffective in solving everyday land issues.
Despite these challenges, the report also identified a few districts showing better performance. Nyagatare, Gasabo, Musanze, and Ruhango were found to be among the few districts that are actively monitoring land committee activities.
In these areas, local authorities are at least trying to ensure committees are doing their work, holding meetings, and reporting as required.
Service delivery related to land services, such as land transfers, registration, and building permits, was also assessed.
While overall citizen satisfaction was moderate, with building permit services receiving slightly better reviews, the governance part — particularly the performance of land committees — was rated poorly across most districts.
The study calls for urgent reforms, recommending stronger monitoring by local authorities, more training for land committee members, and better communication with citizens about how to use land services.
Below is a ranking of districts based on overall performance in land governance and service delivery, according to the study:
| District | Overall Performance | Monitoring of Land Committees |
|---|---|---|
| Nyagatare | High | Yes |
| Gasabo | High | Yes |
| Musanze | High | Yes |
| Ruhango | Moderate-High | Yes |
| Nyarugenge | Moderate | No |
| Muhanga | Moderate | No |
| Kicukiro | Moderate | No |
| Gicumbi | Low | No |
| Huye | Low | No |
| Rubavu | Low | No |
| Rusizi | Very Low | No |
| Kayonza | Very Low | No |
| Ngororero | Very Low | No |
The findings show a clear need for renewed attention to land governance at the grassroots level.
While a few districts are making progress, the majority are lagging behind, threatening efforts to ensure fair, transparent, and efficient land management in Rwanda.
Here is how a typical composition of land committees at the Cell and Sector levels in Rwanda, based on the Ministerial Order No. 007/MoE/22 of 12/05/2022:
| Administrative Level | Land Committee Members |
|---|---|
| Cell Level | – Executive Secretary of the Cell (Chairperson) |
| – Land Officer (if available) | |
| – Two elected community representatives (often from different villages) | |
| – Representative of youth (optional, if structure permits) | |
| – Representative of women (optional, if structure permits) | |
| Sector Level | – Executive Secretary of the Sector (Chairperson) |
| – Sector Land Manager or Land Officer | |
| – One or more representatives of the private sector or cooperatives (depending on district) | |
| – Civil society representative (optional, if designated by district) | |
| – Technical staff (e.g., urban planner or agronomist) where available |
Note: Composition may vary slightly by district based on local by-laws or staffing availability, but the chairmanship by the Executive Secretary and inclusion of a land officer are mandatory by law.
