Maravi

(HERALD) Land reform irreversible

Land reform irreversible

ON Monday, Deputy Chief Justice Luke Malaba reiterated once more that the Sadc Tribunal had erred when it ruled last year that it had jurisdiction to entertain an application by white former commercial farmers challenging the compulsory acquisition of farms by the State for purposes of redistribution.

There can be no denying that since the Government of Zimbabwe embarked on the fast-track Land Reform Programme around the year 2000, the majority of the white farming community have persistently tried to block this landmark empowerment exercise that is meant to right colonial wrongs.

In fact, it would be accurate to say that this community has generally opposed meaningful land reforms from 1990 when the Lancaster House-imposed moratorium on land transfers expired.

In view of the hurdles placed before the State at every attempt to create a more just and equitable nationwide land tenure system, there has been no option left but to proceed by way of legal instruments through amendments to the Constitution.

It is one such amendment to the Constitution that white farmers, initially through Mike Campbell, took to the Tribunal in what can only be realistically defined as an attempt to halt, and in some cases even reverse, the Land Reform Programme.

It is this action, and the subsequent ruling by the Tribunal, that Justice Malaba — and indeed the Zimbabwean Government — have taken issue with.

Over 70 white farmers challenged the validity of Section 16B of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (Number 17) Act of 2005 and the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land owned by the company.

But the fact is the Tribunal has no power to entertain such an action by a party against a Sadc Member State.

The applicants cannot claim that they had exhausted all national legal channels in their bid to frustrate the Land Reform Programme when the Supreme Court Bench, on which Justice Malaba sits, was still to make a determination on the constitutional challenge under Section 24 (4) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

This then raises the question of what agenda the farmers in question are pursuing when they approach the Tribunal and claim they could not find any legal recourse in Zimbabwe.

The result of the action is to delay the due process of domestic legal processes, which only serves to further frustrate the pace at which the redistribution of land progresses.

In fact, the Tribunal proceeded to act as if it knew the nature and contents of the judgment that Zimbabwe’s Supreme Court was going to make long before it was made, which is unacceptable and inexcusable legal practice.

What is particularly weird is that the white farmers who approached the Tribunal only started making noise a full year after the Constitutional Amendment came into effect and the farms acquired for redistribution by the State. All the farms in question were compulsorily acquired on September 14, 2005 when Section 16B came into effect, but the challenge only came to the Supreme Court one and a half years later.

The Tribunal also raised eyebrows by saying the farmers had been targeted because of their race or skin colour.

However, the fact is that the law was put in place at a time when most of the best land in the country was in the hands of a few white farmers who had got title to the property because of their race and skin colour.

Zimbabwe’s Parliament observed all legal processes in enacting the amendment in question and it is an indictment on the Tribunal that it failed to recognise the validity of the law and the fact that it sought to correct the skewed land ownership patterns that these white farmers seek to perpetuate.

As was noted in Supreme Court judgment S49/07, the law itself does not discriminate against a certain skin colour or race.

For the Tribunal to be seen to be siding with a claim that the law is biased against a certain race will in itself propagate racial discrimination by protecting white farmers simply because they are white. There have been too many frivolous attempts to halt, and in many instances reverse, the Land Reform Programme, and for the sake of the hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries these should not be entertained anymore.

Labels: LAND REFORM, LUKE MALABA, RHODESIANS, SADC

posted by MrK @ 4:22 AM