Back to Index

Real, positive values - Interview with Professor Reginald H Austin
Upenyu Makoni-Muchemwa, Kubatana.net
June 16, 2010

Read Inside / Out with Reg Austin

Professor Austin is a Zimbabwean law professor who was active in the liberation struggle and a member of the legal team at the independence negotiations at Lancaster House in London in 1979. He worked with the United Nations in several of their Election Observer Missions and has successfully organised elections in Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands. Source: www.sardc.net/board.asp

More recently Professor Austin was appointed Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.

You were part of the legal team at the Lancaster House negotiations, what were the issues surrounding land then?
I was working with the ZAPU Delegation. Our position was that we wanted to have an agreement, which would enable radical land reform to take place. There were various models in mind at that stage; one for example was the Kenyan Million acre scheme. There were certain bottom lines that we had in terms of negotiations. For example, it was suggested that as compensation for land that might be taken, the level of compensation be similar to that provided in the Protocol for the European Convention, which is fairly straightforward. But that was unacceptable to the British. They were absolutely adamant that there must be severe and extreme protection of white owned commercial land. So we had section 16 (of the Lancaster House Agreement forced on us). The land issue was a break issue, and it was only saved by pressure upon the Liberation Movement from its friends, the frontline states and promises by the British and the Americans who indicated that a radical land reform programme could be carried out, even under the difficult circumstances because the money would be made available. That was the offer that was made at a stage when the Liberation Movement was ready to break the conference. What we were faced with as the Liberation Movement was that for the past fifteen years, at least, there had been a very significant slogan: "The Land belongs to the People" and we needed somehow to come out of the conference with an agreement which showed that the land did belong to the people. In fact as it happened with a very different arrangement. That the Land would have to be paid for in foreign currency and it had to be on a willing buyer willing seller basis. It was a bitter disappointment without a doubt.

What are your thoughts on the current issues being debated regarding land tenure in Zimbabwe?
What we basically had was a revolution within a revolution. The land aspect of the revolution broke a very basic principle of the previous system which was land tenure, sale purchase and registration. Those titles, which historically are the basis of lending money etc, have been undermined. The only way to get back a situation where those in possession of the land are able to use it productively by having money will be for a going back to basics. Finding a new basis for the ownership of land. It means that at some point there will need to be a going back to the basic principle of compensation, which was the principle that we started with. The question is how do we get the compensation? Part of the solution was that there would be money made available from those who had taken the land right up to the 1950s. All that period was a period when legal responsibility rested with the British Government - they were seen as an essential part of the solution. We have to get back to a state of stability. How to get back to that is going to be a very big problem. It-s going to require some very tough negotiations and solutions.

You were appointed Head of the Human Rights Commission in March. What is the Commission-s mandate?
The mandate is set out very briefly in Section 100R of the Amendment to the Constitution that is basically to create a commission that will promote and protect human rights; it will have powers of investigation and cooperate with both the authorities and civil society. Its very basic, it needs a great deal more detail. That will be provided, as in other countries by a Human Rights Act, which will set up in detail the status and mandate of the institution. Until we have that act we will not know precisely what our mandate is, and the public will not know precisely what our powers are. It-s a matter for Parliament to decide what kind of institution we will be, whether we will work towards national reconciliation, whether we will become a forward looking institution, particularly when changing or developing a culture. That will depend also upon the Constitution that we have. Our Constitution will tell us, and the other state institutions, what our principles or basic values are. So the Constitution making process is very important to the Human Rights Commission and other state institutions.

What kind of future would you like for Zimbabwe?
I would like a future for Zimbabwe which is based on, what I believe, are the real positive values that Zimbabwean people have. They-re very conservative, but based on the ideal respect. That sort of value system is to be shared not just by the people but also by the institutions that governs them. That would produce what I have always thought to be a pretty fantastic country.

Visit the Kubatana.net fact sheet

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