ACCESS TO LAND – AN UNRESOLVED LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION FOR ZIMBABWEANS

The land question has always been topical in Zimbabwe since the coming of the colonial settlers. It has and continues to be an issue of collective consciousness and convergence permeating the social fabrics of the First Matebele War (1893-94), First Chimurenga/ Umvukela War (1896-97), Second Chimurenga/Umvukela War (1967-79) and the Third Chimurenga (2000). In October 2024, the Government of Zimbabwe announced a new policy aimed at enhancing security of tenure of beneficiaries of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme who are holders of 99-year leases. Notably, the new policy was promulgated following conclusion of the Zimbabwe Land Report by the Zimbabwe Land Commission, a report that was aimed at giving a clear picture on land allocation, distribution of beneficiaries by farm categories, investment, production, land management, environmental management and provision of social services (The Herald, November 23, 2023).

Land is central to livelihoods, basic human rights, decent living and dignity as well as eradication of poverty. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal Number one focuses on ending poverty in all forms and everywhere. Target 4 states that,?

“By end of 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance. “

This target resonates with the significance of land to the people of Zimbabwe. Since time in memorial, land has been a very important resource signifying individual and collective identity, belonging, factor of economic production, source of livelihood, intergenerational inheritance, independence and personal freedom, stability, dignity and most importantly, spirituality. Before the advent of colonialism, land represented the backbone of the economic and social ecosystem of the indigenous people. Productivity, trade, natural produce both flora and fauna were sustaining the lives of the blacks. Season in and season out, the land would give of its substance sustaining the livelihoods and wealth creation of the people. The dispossession of land was a major blow to the people thus fermenting dissatisfaction that inspired resistance and uprisings that culminated into the liberation struggle.?

The importance of access to land, land rights post independent Zimbabwe has been demonstrated by efforts to implement land distribution programmes through three interventions albeit without meeting the expectations of most Zimbabweans. In view of the economic value of land, the Lancaster House Agreement (1979) paid special attention to property rights with article 5, paragraph 1 of the Declaration of Rights titled Freedom from Deprivation of Property stating that,

“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 or 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 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.”

Paragraph 3 also read,

“Compensation paid in respect of loss of land to anyone who is a citizen of or ordinarily resident of 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…….”

The clauses cited above show that a robust negotiation was done to safeguard the land rights of the white farmers in terms of the process for acquisition, willingness to sell, time frames for selling, cost of acquisition to the new government, right to contest acquisition and compensation which was supposed to be prompt and remittable to any country of their choice outside of Zimbabwe.

?It is my view that this piece of legislation made it cumbersome for land redistribution to take place at the pace expected by indigenous people. It protected the rights of white farmers at the expense of the urgent need for access to land for the blacks. Moreso, one of the most significant terms of the Lancaster House Agreement was the right for all white farmers to retain their land for at least 10 years (Palmer and Birch, 1992). However, at Lancaster House, the British government had made a commitment to avail funds to support land reform in Zimbabwe. The financial support was only available to purchase land of white farmers who chose to sell with only underutilised land open to compulsory acquisition at full market value, which could be converted into foreign currency (Palmer and Birch, 1992). As Sophie Honey said on June 10th, 2004, the British government kept its promise and provided 44 million pounds for land reform from the time we attained our independence. She indicated that the United Kingdom was an advocate for effective, well managed and pro-poor land reform.

The first lap of land redistribution ran from 1985 after the promulgation of the Land Acquisition Act of 1985 which sought to intensify the resettlement programme. This intervention was aimed at tackling transitional issues arising from the war of liberation. The memories of the objects, promises, hopes and aspirations of the liberation struggle, a war fought by the people collectively were still fresh. The collective consciousness was still alive and true to the expectations of many, most of the people who were resettled were the displaced and landless people (Rukuni, 1994). This exercise ensured access to land for the previously marginalised people, thus fortifying the promises made as the people waged the war of liberation. It is important to underscore that this intervention was inclusive, empowered the landless, but sadly it benefitted only about 52 000 households (Potts and Mutambirwa, 1997).

?From the onset of the initial land reform programme, government had a keen interest in sustaining productivity. Thus, there was regulation in terms of crop production, expected production levels and farming methods. Leases could be revoked unless the new settlers carried out efficient commercial farming (Potts and Mutambirwa, 1997). The new farmers received marketing, credit, extension services and agricultural inputs (Cliffe, 1998). The agricultural marketing was dominated by 4 parastatals i.e. the Grain Marketing Board, Cotton Marketing Board, Dairy Marketing Board and Cold Storage Commission. These entities bought products from both small- and large-scale farmers. I recall that Grain Marketing Board cheques were popular with small-scale farmers, and markets for sale of cattle and other animals which were commonly known as “Mariketi”. Indeed, black farmers were enjoying the fruits of the liberation struggle through inclusion in the agricultural value chain fully and fairly. During the colonial era, in as much as some black farmers were productive, their produce was unfairly graded thus they did not get equal value for money for their efforts. However, in Matabeleland, where the legacy of the Southern Rhodesia Land Apportionment Act had disadvantaged blacks more than any other part of the country, the people felt that the national leaders had not fulfilled the promises of the liberation struggle (Dzimba, John, 1998). The government was aware of the need to sustain resettlement efforts and in 1986, they cited financial constraints and drought as major factors that slowed down the pace of land reform (Drinkwater, Micha?l, 1991).

The second phase of land redistribution was done in the 1990s premised on the National Land Policy of 1992 which paved way for compulsory acquisition with little compensation and limited rights of appeal to the courts (Palmer and Birch, 1992). This stance was a response to counteract the slow pace that had resulted from the willing seller principle. ?Notably, emphasis was on resettling of black farmers who had a proven record of competence and productivity as well as other trained agricultural people so we could have an increased number of blacks in commercial farming (Colin Poulton et al, 2002). This phase was driven by meritocracy, quest for economic contribution and entrepreneurship development. The government was pursuing stimulation of production, food security, economic empowerment and sustainable development. This phase was informed by empirical data from extension services. During this phase, the government also set up extensive Agricultural Extension services to support farmers with technical knowhow so the farmers could flourish as businesspeople. The resettlement schemes were popularly known as “Minda Mirefu”. While this approach was commendable, the only constraint is that there remained a big number of indigenous people who were still landless and waiting earnestly to benefit from the land reform. However, resettlement was very slow prompting 15 major land invasions in 1997 and 1998 (Moyo et al, 2000). In 1999 there were some occupations that also took place as the war veterans felt that the process of land reform was slow.

In 2000, a draft constitution which included a clause that would allow “easier” compulsory acquisition was rejected in a national referendum for other political reasons that this article will not focus on. This angered the war veterans who together with other landless rural citizens took issues in their own hands and began to invade large scale farms. (Moyo et al, 2000). As a response to the land invasions, the Land Acquisition Act was amended as well as the constitution so government would have the right to acquire farms without compensation (Meldrum and MacAskill, 2000). It is estimated that 80000 families were resettled between June and December 2000 (Lupiya and Hakata, 2001). As the generality of the population saw their fellow compatriots benefitting from the exercise, applications for resettlement soared up (Shoko, 2003). By August 2002, the late former President Robert Mugabe declared that the Fast Track Land Reform was over, and that government would focus on capacitating new farmers to be productive (Astill and Palmer, 2002) An estimated 210 520 families benefitted from the programme. It was during the advent of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme that economic sanctions were imposed on Zimbabwe as the programme was deemed to have violated property rights. Internally, the programme was also criticised that it did not benefit many people with allegations of multiple farm ownership, cronyism, partisan distribution and patronage characterising the process. Some of the allegations were confirmed to be true after the Land Audit that was carried out. The United Kingdom government refused to finance the Fast Track Land Reform as it violated the principles of order, respect of property rights, structure and human rights abuses.?

?One of the criticisms of this intervention was that a big number of the beneficiaries did not understand farming as a business that they ended up stripping assets off the farms. For those who absorbed previous farm workers, conditions of employment fell drastically with some employees going for months without wages. Although the government made efforts to support the new farmers with agricultural inputs and equipment, there was minimal production as some of the farmers did not have the patience and business acumen to run the farms as viable enterprises. As most of the farms were underutilised, government commissioned a land audit exercise to inform policy implementation and redistribution of land to people with capacity to utilise the land. The major lesson from this programme was that access to land does not translate to economic prosperity as agriculture is not a short-term investment, requiring sound business models, business systems, technologies and financing. There is a school of thought that the programme was a failure mainly due to lack of finance as the 99-year leases were not bankable while most of the farmers did not have collateral. While there is an element of truth in this assertion, it is important to note that government injected substantial funds to assist the new farmers with the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe even implementing programmes like Farm Mechanisation in 2007 among other interventions. There are stories of gross abuse of the assistance programmes by political elites and connected persons. The poor performance of the economy and hyperinflationary environment also made it difficult for borrowing as the financial sector was collapsing and is still to recover even to the present day.

?The latest land tenure policy announced in October 2024 has sparked debate and received criticism even from war veterans who are usually known to support government programmes. The policy is seen as an avenue for personal enrichment of a few connected individuals as they sell land they did not buy and most importantly do not have title to. This shift comes at a time when some ordinary citizens were hoping to benefit from redistribution of idle land that was identified by the land audit. The proposition of selling of land amongst us, especially land that one did not buy has been perceived as betrayal of the ideals of the liberation struggle. There have been societal pressures that reflect that many people are landless with developments like Sabhuku deals, wherein Headmen were selling land to land seekers was outlawed by government.? In the urban areas, there are so many stories of land barons who have robbed people of their life savings as they sold land illegally to home seekers who will have formed cooperatives. Besides Operation Murambatsvina of 2005 through which people were forcibly removed from slums, year in year out, local authorities demolish illegal settlements. In effect, some politicians exploit the housing need as a campaigning tool consistently, demonstrating the vulnerability and desperation of many people to have a piece of land they have title to.? It is unfortunate that 44 years into our independence, one of the driving desires of the liberation struggle remains unresolved.

?Zimbabwe is an agricultural country which was known as the breadbasket of Southern Africa in the past. Considering the high levels of unemployment in the country, it is vital that government commits to increase access to land so people can have sustainable livelihoods as the agriculture sector has potential to accommodate many people along its value chain. Even without much capital injection and mechanisation, Zimbabweans have demonstrated capacity to produce food such that even food security can improve. The land question is a values-matter that runs deep in the hearts of many Zimbabweans. It is also a value issue in terms of wealth creation, legacy, belonging and self-worth. In ordinary conversations when people meet, one of the questions that is asked has to do with one’s roots or origins (Ekhaya/ kumusha).? It is also a value creation issue as land is a factor of production that provides space, point of reference, residence, entrepreneurial facilities and capacity to trade. Long ago during the barter trade era, people would exchange produce from their land as currency. Our forefathers only started seeking gainful employment when their land size had been reduced, herd size of animals regulated so they could afford the taxes that the colonial masters had introduced.? Before being dispossessed of their land, they were self-reliant and sufficient as their economic and social ecosystem had not been disrupted.? The government needs to look at the needs of the entire population and tailor make an inclusive resettlement intervention so a comprehensive arrangement can be put in place.??

?This article represents the personal views of the author.