Thecountry constantly wakes up to issues of land tenure, which are more pronounced in farm evictions. This is a recurring issue that requires a long-term solution given the vitality of land in ensuring economic protection, social value, a sense of belonging and shelter, a basic human need. When His Majesty recently intervened to halt farm evictions, many saw it as a humanitarian gesture. Yet the decision carries a deeper economic logic: Are the costs of forced evictions greater than the fiscal burden of government land acquisition? In Eswatini, where rural livelihoods remain fragile, this question is not only moral but profoundly economic.
Land tenure
The kingdom’s land tenure system complicates this debate. The country operates under a dual framework: Swazi Nation Land (SNL), held in trust by the King and allocated through chiefs and Title Deed Land (TDL), privately owned under statutory law. These systems often overlap, creating friction. Traditional land sometimes encroaches on privately owned farms, while farm boundaries can expand into customary areas. This overlap fuels disputes, as residents on SNL may suddenly find themselves treated as squatters on TDL, while private farmers complain of encroachment by traditional homesteads.
The economic implications are significant. Encroachment undermines investment confidence, discouraging both commercial agriculture and household improvements. Farmers hesitate to expand production when tenure security is uncertain, while households avoid investing in permanent housing if eviction looms. The result is underutilised land, reduced productivity and costly disputes. Resolving these tensions requires a coherent land policy that balances customary rights with private ownership, ensuring that both systems contribute to national development rather than conflict.
Hidden costs of displacement
Evictions are often framed as a matter of property rights, but their hidden costs ripple far beyond the immediate loss of shelter. Families forced off land abandon crops, livestock and investments in housing, destroying capital that contributes to national wealth. Displacement pushes households into poverty, increasing dependency on State or NGO support. Children pulled out of school suffer long-term setbacks, weakening future labour productivity. Health deteriorates under stress and poor living conditions, raising public healthcare costs. What looks like a private dispute quickly becomes a national economic liability.
Governments rarely account for these indirect fiscal burdens. Relief aid, resettlement programmes and expanded welfare spending all strain public finances. Legal disputes over compensation drain resources, while unrest triggered by evictions demands costly policing. Far from saving money, evictions often saddle the state with hidden liabilities that exceed the upfront price of land acquisition.
Land acquisition as capital investment
By contrast, solving the land issue and offering relief to farm dwellers is a direct increase in government expenditure on land purchases, which represents a capital investment. Acquiring farmland and converting it into SNL secures tenure for residents, enabling them to build permanent homes, connect to utilities and invest in agriculture. Stability encourages household investment, strengthens local economies and expands the tax base. Families with secure tenure require less emergency aid, reducing long-term fiscal pressures. Permanent settlements attract infrastructure, roads, schools and clinics that stimulate growth. In short, land acquisition transforms a potential liability into an asset.
The comparison is stark. Evictions destroy household capital, erode productivity and deepen inequality. Land acquisition demands upfront expenditure but generates multiplier effects that strengthen the economy. While eviction may appear cheaper in the short term, it is economically irrational in the long-run. The destruction of livelihoods and the fiscal burden of displacement outweigh the costs of purchasing land.
Case for land reform
The country requires comprehensive land reforms to resolve the tensions between SNL and TDL. The dual system has created overlapping claims, with traditional land encroaching on commercial and private farms expanding into customary areas. This lack of clarity undermines investment confidence, discourages both household improvements and commercial agriculture. Reform must establish transparent boundaries, harmonise customary and statutory rights, and create mechanisms for fair compensation when land is acquired or converted. Economically, such reforms would reduce costly disputes, unlock productivity and provide households and investors with the security needed to commit resources to housing, farming and infrastructure. Without reform, Eswatini risks perpetuating cycles of conflict and underutilisation that erode national growth potential.
Eswatini’s recurring land disputes reveal that evictions are not simply legal matters but economic setbacks with lasting social scars. Each forced removal destroys household capital, weakens productivity and burdens the state with hidden costs that far outweigh the price of acquisition. By contrast, government land purchases, though expensive upfront, secure tenure, encourage investment and strengthen the fiscal base. The King’s intervention highlights that stability is both a humanitarian necessity and an economic imperative. Yet lasting progress requires comprehensive land reform to harmonise SNL and Title Deed Land, ensuring clarity, fairness and productivity. Without reform, cycles of encroachment and conflict will persist, eroding growth potential. With reform, Eswatini can transform land from a source of dispute into a foundation for inclusive development, resilience and longterm prosperity. Land sustains the economy and dignity of our people.
Leave a comment