At the heart of the ongoing debate of postcolonialism even in Uganda on the land question is the management of land tenure. The debate in Uganda has two sides. One proponents of world bank in Uganda argues that the customary tenant has to be emancipated from the colonial order which prevented the tenant from participating in the market of land, which prevented the tenant from selling land, from accessing credit from banks and enhancing commodification of property rights. The opposition led by many feminist and structuralist scholars have come out to challenge this kind of thinking by arguing that formalisation has instead promoted insecurity of tenure, accentuated land grabs, fuelled land conflicts and marginalised certain sections of the community especially women since private property is not interested in the rights of the marginalized groups [including ‘women’], but interested in dispossessing the such rights.  Most importantly, feminist scholars such as Ossome has argued that “arguments that favour formalization of customary land rights expose motives that are less in the interest of women’s tenure security and more inclined toward supporting commercial interests in land”.[1]  have argued that formalism has [if any] partially addressed questions of women’s land tenure rights. Women’s land rights constitute numerous contestations on land relations. Using a feminist political economy analytical and methodological lens, I seek to engage the two perspectives to analyze the ways in which the design and implementation of private property rights affect development, gender equality and status of gendered households. In engaging these debates, I also seek to deconstruct the development narrative and problematize the notion of private property rights so as to inter alia demonstrate how in practice, the formalisation and commercialization of property including rights is actually in the favour of capitalist thus demonstrating that it actually cannot promote social transformation and economic wellbeing of the marginalised sections. In illustrating how the questions of class, gender, race/ethnicity complicate land tenure rights and implications of gendered land relations on marginalised persons [including ‘women’]. The paper seeks to argue that the design and implementation of private property rights has limited if any potential to promote development, gender equality and improve the status of gendered households as women’s land rights constitute numerous contestations on land relations where land is vested in a single individual.  I situate this debate within the larger historical and political context to better understand the formalisation and commercialization of property rights raised by proponents like the World Bank.

Keywords: Land tenure, Formalisation of property rights, Women’s land rights, Feminist political economy, Gender equality.