 My name is Samuel and I work with an organization called TESO Anti-Corruption Organization. We are based in Uganda in a zone, a region called TESO Region in the district in Soroti. And predominantly our organization is an anti-corruption agency. But in Uganda, the story of corruption and its connection to the land is quite real. Out of every four land scandals, about three of them will be related to corruption components or practices. And so in our context there is a real link between how real corruption is in the land sector and the basic peoples awareness. So our interventions to prevent and tackle corruption in the land sector in two fronts. One, the transaction of rent, and then two, dealing with awareness and peoples rights and ability to be able to claim what is due to them. In as far as transactions are concerned, we are currently with a support from GIZ, Wilafu, implementing a program where we are supporting and promoting the government policy on systematic land immigration. And through that we target to see that by making land ownership and land transactions as transparent as possible and information about them available to different stakeholders, the chances of corruption are minimized. We already know that in the FOMO sector a lot of reforms have happened, especially with the land that is in the prehold, leasehold and milo tenure. But the challenge was in regard to land that is within the customary context where FOMO rules are not very clear. And we got to see the emergence of corruption tendencies, basically self-dealing and the outright corrupt practices by the allies invading the customary land tenure aspects as well. So our interventions are actually to promote knowledge by different stakeholders about who owns what size of land and how is it that their awareness about that can improve the overall knowledge and prevention of corruption. So that enables customary land transactions as well to come to the domain of being more transparent, to have orderly regulation and to be scrutinized by a cross-section of stakeholders. The other aspect is we typically encounter land-related corruption through the aspects of dispute resolution. And a lot of land cases in Uganda end up at the courts where again many court users will complain about different types of corruption. So through this intervention we have also been able to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution basically involving cultural institutions and current plans. But more importantly through this intervention we have been able to reduce the possibility of corruption, I mean land cases becoming points of litigation, especially customary land cases. So in that way again we reduce the different opportunities where corruption would have invaded a household, being perpetrated against a mother, invaded against a widow and married woman or other forms of marginalized groups of persons. So again we see that by intervening around the aspects of preventing corruption in the land sector we actually secure a number of people. But what needs to be done going forward, the definitions around what amounts to corruption in Uganda keeps changing. And now that we have the traditional institutions on board, their definitions around corruption might not be as formalized as those of the state actors. So there is an opportunity really to build on more to do with the social normie, how the cultural leaders understand corruption, what are their interpretations of corruption in the cultural sense and how can that be leveraged on to actually build more capacity of the traditional institutions in preventing, detecting and combating corruption.