Wealth Beneath the Ground, Tears Above the Ground

Adeladius Makwega – Mbagala

"Areas rich in minerals have become oceans of grievances, endless rains of resentment, and mountains of blame."

These are neither words of anger nor an attempt to seek popularity. They are a reflection on the reality witnessed in many mining communities across Tanzania.

When one examines the recurring conflicts involving local communities, investors, and state security agencies, one fundamental question emerges:

Is the problem the people, or is it the system that governs our natural resources?

During a discussion I had with a stakeholder on 24 July 2026, I argued that the Ministry of Minerals has become part of the problem because of the way it administers mining licenses.

In my view, the ministry has focused more on issuing licenses than on establishing a system that safeguards the rights of citizens living in mineral-rich areas.

That argument was challenged. The stakeholder maintained that the real problem lies with the Ministry of Lands, which has long been associated with land ownership disputes. While that argument carries weight, it does not address the root of the issue.

It is true that land is the foundation of human life. Every home, farm, village, school, and hospital stands on land. It is therefore natural that many disputes revolve around land ownership. However, minerals are also part of that same land, and wherever valuable mineral deposits are discovered, conflicts tend to become far more intense because the value of the land changes overnight.

This raises another important question:

Who does our system really protect?

For many years, the Ministry of Minerals has continued issuing mining licenses across different parts of the country. In many cases, citizens have been shocked to learn that the land where they live or depend upon for farming and livestock keeping has already been allocated to investors.

Legally, such actions may be permissible.

But socially and ethically, are they justifiable?

Tanzania is not merely a map with borders and geographical coordinates.

Tanzania is its people.

Before approving any mining project, the system should first recognize that every piece of land has a history, families, livelihoods, and the future of the citizens who live there.

This is why the long-standing legal principle—that land belongs to the President on behalf of the nation and that all minerals beneath the ground belong to the State rather than individual landowners—continues to generate debate.

Constitutionally and legally, this framework is intended to protect national interests.

However, the real challenge begins when citizens displaced by mining activities see no direct benefit from the valuable resources extracted beneath the land they once occupied.

That is where feelings of injustice begin.

During our discussion, one stakeholder proposed an idea that, in my opinion, could mark the beginning of a lasting solution.

He suggested that if a village with 1,000 legitimate residents is relocated to make way for mining operations, then in addition to receiving fair compensation and improved resettlement housing, every household should also receive a share of the revenue generated from the minerals extracted from that land.

Such payments should continue annually for as long as the mine remains productive and profitable.

This is not an unusual proposal.

In several resource-rich countries, communities surrounding mining projects benefit directly through revenue-sharing arrangements, development royalties, or dedicated community trust funds.

The objective is not charity.

Rather, it is to recognize that national development cannot be built by leaving behind the communities that bear the social and economic costs of resource extraction.

Why should people who surrender their land for mining remain mere spectators while billions of shillings are generated from the resources beneath the land they gave up?

This question should not be answered through the use of force, arrests, beatings, detention, intimidation, or the threat of firearms.

It should be answered through fair public policies, genuine public participation, wise decision-making, and responsible leadership.

In my opinion, the Ministry of Minerals should lead these reforms.

It should no longer be viewed merely as an institution that issues mining licenses but as a ministry committed to building a lasting partnership between investment, citizens' rights, and national development.

There is no reason why citizens, investors, and the police should continue seeing one another as adversaries when they should instead be partners in development.

Minerals belong to Tanzanians.

Citizens are Tanzanians.

Police officers are Tanzanians.

The Government belongs to Tanzanians.

So where does this hostility come from?

It is difficult to justify a situation in which our natural resources continue to become sources of conflict instead of bridges to development and national unity.

The questions we should be asking are not merely whether mining generates revenue, but whether the existing system delivers justice.

Because wherever justice diminishes, conflict increases.

And wherever citizens are genuinely included and allowed to benefit, peace becomes a greater national asset than the minerals themselves.

The reforms Tanzania needs today are not reforms aimed at issuing more mining licenses.

Rather, they are reforms designed to build a system that ensures every Tanzanian affected by mining feels that the country's natural resources are part of their future—not the reason they lose their lives, homes, or hopes.

Conclusion

Mining conflicts will not end through state force alone, nor through investment alone.

They will end only when a system is established that places justice, public participation, and national interest at its center.

On that basis, I offer the following recommendations.

First, to the Ministry of Minerals: Shift from being merely a licensing authority to becoming the guardian of the rights of citizens living in mineral-rich areas. Develop policies that allow communities displaced by mining activities to benefit directly from the revenues generated by the resources extracted from their land. The success of Tanzania's mining sector should be measured not only by the quantity of minerals produced but also by the peace and prosperity enjoyed by communities surrounding mining operations.

Second, to the Tanzania Police Force: Continue fulfilling your constitutional duty of protecting lives and property with professionalism, fairness, and by prioritizing dialogue whenever disputes arise. Communities living near mining operations are not enemies of the State. They are Tanzanian citizens who deserve to be heard, protected, and treated with justice. The use of force should always be the last resort—not the first.

Third, to Tanzanian citizens: Recognize that minerals are a national resource capable of driving development when extracted in accordance with the law and principles of justice. At the same time, continue pursuing your rights through lawful means, actively participate in policy discussions, and hold leaders accountable to ensure that Tanzania's natural resources benefit both present and future generations.

Ultimately, Tanzania will not be judged by the amount of wealth hidden beneath its soil or by the stacks of money generated from it, but by how successfully it transforms that wealth into development, justice, and lasting peace for its people.

When minerals cease to be sources of conflict and instead become foundations for social well-being, only then will Tanzania have achieved genuine development.

Otherwise, the international community may increasingly question the legitimacy of the gemstone trade in much the same way it eventually rejected the slave trade and continues to combat the illicit drug trade.

If stakeholders in the mining industry fail to act responsibly, there is a real possibility that the global trade in gemstones extracted under abusive conditions could face sanctions or even prohibition.

The argument would be that minerals obtained through bloodshed, suffering, injustice, and the denial of community rights cannot be considered ethically legitimate.

Should the mining sector continue to be associated with deaths, unfair displacement, human rights violations, disregard for local communities, and persistent conflict, international calls for sanctions, stricter regulation, or consumer boycotts of such minerals are likely to grow—supported by legal, ethical, and even religious arguments.

Protecting citizens' rights and building a fair and equitable mining system is therefore not merely a moral obligation.

It is also a strategic necessity for safeguarding the legitimacy, reputation, and long-term future of Tanzania's mining industry in the global marketplace.

Remember:

"Wealth Beneath the Ground, Tears Above the Ground."

Have a wonderful day.

Adeladius Makwega

Mbagala

Email: makwadeladius@gmail.com

Phone: +255 717 649 257