Back to Index

Farm evictions illegal and morally wrong
Vote Muza
October 14, 2004

http://www.fingaz.co.zw/fingaz/2004/October/October14/6807.shtml

A FAIRLY considerable time has elapsed since the controversial and anarchic land acquisition programme commenced, but the controversy primarily caused by corruption, greed, quest for political glory, indecision and poor planning continues unabated.

Whereas in the past the controversy revolved around the forceful ejectment of white commercial farmers, lately the tide has turned against some unfortunate newly resettled black farmers.

There is impeccable evidence emanating from Mashonaland East and Central provinces, which evidence is bolstered by official acknowledgement in press reports as well as several law firms handling eviction cases, that indeed government is attempting to unlawfully evict some beneficiaries of the land reform programme.

Already hundreds of families in lawful occupation of farms in Goromonzi, Macheke and Chinhoyi have been forcefully thrown out of their holdings while a few fortunate ones re-occupied their properties after the High Court granted temporary relief interdicting the Zimbabwe Republic Police and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development from evicting the newly resettled farmers.

The victims have been poor rural folk who for years dedicated their lives to giving support to government’s radical land reform programme. It is unfortunate that these poor rural folk are now being relegated to a life of victimhood because government has not attempted to offer them alternative land where they can continue their farming. This blunder has obviously led to a grave injustice because normally, and more so in the interests of justice, people must not be evicted unless there is alternative land and an order has been granted by a competent court.

Recently in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, a group of squatters re-occupied their land after the Constitutional Court held that justice would require all reasonable steps to be taken to procure a mediated solution before an eviction. It was also held that the municipality had a constitutional duty to offer alternative land to illegal land occupiers before attempting to eject them. It appears this is the position that our own High Court has taken when it granted the evictees temporary relief because government was ordered not to eject the new farmers until alternative land had been secured.

However the current victims are the same people government went to great lengths to stop their evictions by white commercial farmers who had unleashed civil suits, to eject the perceived illegal occupiers of the time. To abate the civil suits and entrench the rights of the illegal settlers, government then passed the Rural Land Occupiers Protection From Eviction Act (Chapter 20:26), which sought effectively to legitimise the land occupiers’ rights.

However, it is important to know whether government as represented by the Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Development has the legal or moral authority to evict lawfully resettled farmers.

As a matter of interest and before we venture to investigate the legality or otherwise of the evictions, it is worthwhile to note that the effectiveness of the rule of law has been undermined by government’s flouting of court orders in the past. As such the general circumstances of the latest evictions must be judged within the context of a political system that has at times been at loggerheads with the judiciary because of its perverted inclination to abandon legality in place of disregard for law and order.

The Agricultural Land Resettlement Act (Chapter 20:01) (The Act) is the statute providing for resettlement of people on land acquired through the Land Acquisition Act (Chapter 20:10).

A close perusal of the former statute will reveal that neither the President nor Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Development is empowered to retake possession of alienated land on the basis of redesigning farming structures. As a matter of fact this Act is silent about this mode of repossession of leased state land.

Section 17 of the Act only empowers the responsible minister to repossess land where a lessee has failed to comply with terms and conditions of his lease. The ground being used by Minister Joseph Made, that he needs the land for A2 farming is therefore not a lawful excuse for purporting to terminate leases with newly resettled A1 farmers.

Section 12 of the Act empowers the President at anytime, and in a manner and conditions he may deem fit retake possession of leased land. Such repossession must only be for public purposes, and only upon payment of mutually agreed compensation.

There is nothing at hand to prove that the evictions have been necessitated for public purposes like urban expansion, hospital, dam or road construction which can be held as public need. It is common cause, as indeed senior government officials have agreed, that the sole purpose of dispossessing the new A1 farmers is to give the land to A2 farmers.

The police who are carrying out the evictions are not relying on any court order, but are relying on their own powers. If indeed these cruel evictions were being carried out within the framework of the law, a proper eviction order should have been sought from the High Court to empower the responsible minister and the police retake the land. It appears the responsible minister did not seek to secure a court order first because he had no grounds at law to justify his claim to the A1 leaseholds. As such, these farm evictions must be seen from this light and also from the general trend where politicians have generally ignored the due process of law.

Other than the reasons discussed above, government currently has no basis upon which it can seek to disempower the A1 farmers who ironically were at the forefront of hitherto farm invasions that sustained the controversial radical land resettlement programme. Otherwise, the only option available for government is to amend the law to cater for the current unforeseen developments as regards farm moduling.

Some cynics may argue that what is going on is a clear case of poetic justice, but be that as it may, government must learn to respect its own laws so as to honour the constitution as well as being exemplary. It must be stated that the unwelcome culture of using the law when it suits politicians is dangerous for democracy, as well as our society’s quest for real and substantial justice.

It has been stated before that chaos in all its forms is contagious and if government continues on the path it has chosen, pandemonium shall eventually take root, and possibly culminate in civil strife.

Vote Muza is a legal practitioner with Gutu & Chikowero law firm.

Email: gutulaw@mweb.co.zw
Website: www.gutulaw.co.zw

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP