SADC tribunal hammers Zimbabwe’s land reform programme
The Southern African Development Community (SADC)’s Tribunal on Friday dealt a blow to the Zimbabwe government’s violent land reform programme, saying the move was racially motivated and in violation of the country’s international treaties to the rule of law and respect of human rights.
Delivering judgement in the Zimbabwe land case, the five-judge panel of the tribunal also ordered cash strapped Harare to pay compensation to white commercial farmers whose properties, including land, were expropriated by the state by June 30 2009.
In an 80-page judgement, the Windhoek based Tribunal said the Zimbabwe government’ land reform programme discriminated against white people, adding that it was in violation of Article 6 of the SADC Treaty.
Justice Louis Mondhlane said that constitutional Amendment 17 put in place in 2005 to clear the way for compulsory acquisition of land in Zimbabwe had resulted in expropriation targeting only white farmers.
“Its effects make it discriminatory because targeted agricultural land is owned by white farmers” Mondhlane said.
“Respondent (Zimbabwe) has discriminated against applicant (white commercial farmers) on the basis of race and by doing that violated its obligations under Article 6 of the SADC Treaty”Mondhlane said.
The Tribunal also ordered the Zimbabwe government, which is managing an economy mired in financial crisis, to pay for the expropriated land.
Zimbabwe had argued that monetary compensation to dispossessed white commercial is the responsibility of the British government, Zimbabwe’s former coloniser, which reneged on an agreement to fund the country’s land reform programme.
Under the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979, Britain agreed to fund the country’s land reform programme and to compensate white commercial farmers.
November 28th, 2008 17:22
Britain did not renege on its agreement. Mugabe dragged his feet for years, and then insisted on terms which created a strong suspicion – reinforced a hundred fold by subsequent events – that any further money paid would be used for the personal benefit of regime members. In these circumstances it would have been a dereliction of duty for the British government to hand over money taken from British taxpayers.
It should also be noted that the quantum of humanitarian aid given to Zimbabwe by the UK since independence – which would not have been needed if Zimbabwe had been well governed – is many times greater than the maximum ever claimed to be due for land redistribution.
November 29th, 2008 16:51
@Oliver Chettle – Quite right. Hopefully someone in the right position in Britain can substantiate this claim, which most right-minded folk believe to be the truth. What was meant to compensate farmers, actually ended up in Mugabe’s sticky claws.
Does anyone recall the issue of Time Magazine years ago which ranked Mugabe as the 8th wealthiest man on earth at the time? Accurate or not – the obviously enormous wealth he has amassed is certainly not in line with a Presidential salary – let alone the Presidential salary of a small, almost insignificant country in Africa!
Clearly he had to have stolen vast amounts money, and what better way than compensation intended for his farmers provided by a benevolent country? And presumably re-directed aid also.
Is my imagination wildly off the track, or are most folk unable to see the facts for what they are?