Zimbabwean Land Reform - Right Or Wrong?

There are many schools of thought when it comes to land reform – or, as it is known in Zimbabwe, ‘land grab’. Generally speaking, people are split into two distinct groups – those who oppose it, and those who advocate for it.

Whatever the stance, we have to look back in the history of Zimbabwe to establish just when the idea began. The Lancaster House Agreement paved the way for the rise to power of Robert Gabriel Mugabe – and with it came the demand for the expropriation of the land from the white commercial farmers.

land grab g5icZ 16744

That agreement also stated:

"1. Every person will be protected from having his property compulsorily acquired except when the acquisition is in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning, the development or utilisation of that or other property in such a manner as to promote the public benefit or, in the case of under- utilised land, settlement of land for agricultural purposes. When property is wanted for one of these purposes, its acquisition will be lawful only on condition that the law provides for the prompt payment of adequate compensation and, where the acquisition is contested, that a court order is obtained. A person whose property is so acquired will be guaranteed the right of access to the High Court to determine the amount of compensation.

2. Exception will be made for the taking of possession of property during a period of public emergency.

3. Compensation paid in respect of loss of land to anyone who is a citizen of or ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe (or to a company the majority of whose shareholders are such persons) will, within a reasonable time, be remittable to any country outside Zimbabwe, free from any deduction, tax or charge in respect of its remission, but subject always to –

a. its attachment, by order of a court, in connection with civil proceedings; and

b. reasonable restrictions as to the manner in which the payment is to be remitted.

4. The Constitution will, on the same basis as in other Declarations of Rights, make clear that a number of transactions which might be considered to involve an element of compulsory acquisition will not be so regarded for the purposes of the Declaration of Rights.

5. It will be made clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that the property covered by this constitutional guarantee includes rights, whether vested or contingent, of individuals to receive benefits under a law, contract or scheme relating to the payment of pension benefits."

It is also agreed that land appropriated by the government would be under a "willing buyer – willing seller" basis.

Twenty years after the independence of Zimbabwe, Mugabe sent his thugs in to the commercial farms to harass, bully, cajole, terrorise, abduct, beat and murder both farmers and farm workers alike.

Mugabe has often stated that any compensation is to be paid by the former colonial master, Britain, even though the Lancaster House Agreement says nothing of that nature.

Mugabe has labelled commercial farmers 'enemies of the State' and 'not Zimbabweans' – which, coming from someone who is half-Malawian, is quite absurd! Even the doctored and re-doctored Constitution of Zimbabwe does not have a provision to allow foreigners to stand for or hold the office of President of Zimbabwe…

Since the beginning of the land grab in early 2000, Mugabe has sold it to the free world as a 'correcting of the imbalances of land tenure' and states that the land is being returned to the 'landless blacks'. However, the reality is that the land is being handed out to his loyalists and senior party officials.

To the point that these new 'landowners' have seen fit to evict the people living on that land… Even land initially given to the peasants – a distinct minority of the land – is now being cleared of persons deemed 'undesirable' by those that have been looked upon favourably by Mugabe.

Whilst I recognise the need for the land appropriation exercise, I see no merit in the manner in which the land has forcibly been taken. Much of the infrastructure within the agricultural sector now either lies in ruins, is disused or lies barren and unused.

Much of the personal property of the farmers has been stolen – and very little has been done by the authorities (i.e. the police) to rectify the situation.

Mugabe may be doing the right or the wrong thing, depending upon your stance with regard to the land question in Zimbabwe, but there can be no argument that the manner in which he achieves his goals is altogether wrong and against the sensibilities of humanity.

Robb WJ Ellis

The Bearded Man