Maravi

The Tangwena case

Since 1964, at Gaeresi Ranch, the Rhodesian Front authorities have been trying
to remove the Tangwena people and their chief Rekayi. The Tangewena country;
in the mountains of Inyanga, is rich agricultural land, and not surprisingly
250,000 acres of it was ‘sold’ in 1905 (without the knowledge of the inhabitants)
by the BSAC to the Anglo-French Matabeleland Company. The latter ceded
part to the Gaeresi Ranch Company.

The Tangwena were not made aware of this alienation until 1965, when the manager of the ranch decided in the interests of economic farming to extend his fencing to encompass them. This coincided with the death of the Tangwena chief and the election of Rekayi as his successor.

The white farmer wished to ‘rationalize’b y reducing the African population now included, and offered labour contracts to some Tangwena, expecting the rest to move to whichever ‘reserve’ the District Commissioner prescribed. Here, however, something exceptional happened : Rekayi and his people would not move. Many Africans have protested at similar moves, none with such dignity and determination.

After legitimate but vigorous protest to the authorities-even as far as the Secretary for Internal Affairs-Rekayi was given the standard treatment afforded to African chiefs who assert their people’s rights : he was dismissed. Neither he nor his people accepted this. They physically resisted eviction. They challenged its legality successfully in the law courts on the grounds that, under the Land Apportionment Act, Africans who had lived upon Crown land before its alienation are protected ‘squatters’, and could be removed only by a governmental decision in the form of a proclamation.

The Rhodesian Appelate Division underlined that the Crown’s argument on the law ‘would lead not only to absurdity but to manifest injustice’. The case had by then (June 1968) become notorious and even the white press (the Rhodesian Herakl) pleaded that the authorities (by now the illegal Smith régime) should follow ‘the humane course . . . and accept a suggestion’ (made originally by Rekayi) that they buy the land and incorporate it into the adjacent Tribal Trust lands-giving the tribe its land and the company its money.

Following instead the tradition of white governmental dealings with African land, the authorities issued a proclamation in 1969 ordering the Tangwena to leave. Legal action was followed by bulldozers, and eventually by police and soldiers. In a quite extraordinary manner the Tangwena have, however, maintained their stand and, when moved, return. By every peaceful means, Rekayi and his people continue to confront the authorities on this absolutely basic issue. It is a historic episode in the greater process of liberation.

This may be confirmed by the unaccustomed degree of restraint exercised by the régime.

There is still no compromise on the supremacy of white economic interest, whatever the consequences may be in terms of human misery, but the régime hesitates to use the full panoply of its destructive and restrictive powers. This may be due to its awareness of world attention focused upon it, or partly perhaps to a grudging admiration of the overwhelming moral effect produced by this African leader in rags. Equally, however, it may be attributed to a more Machiavellian and merely tactical move to deal relatively mildly (if the eviction of over 250 families, the destruction of their houses and crops, and the virtual kidnapping of their children can be so described) with this symbolic yet peripheral opposition, at a time when Rhodesian leaders are seeking a settlement with Britain and international recognition by the Western world at least.

The confrontation is fully described in The Ousting of the Tangwena, published by the International Defence and Aid Fund. If the statistics of distribution are the bones of the land problem in Rhodesia, the Tangwena may be seen as illustrating its flesh-and-blood reality.