Commercial Farmers' Union of Zimbabwe

Commercial Farmers' Union of Zimbabwe

***The views expressed in the articles published on this website DO NOT necessarily express the views of the Commercial Farmers' Union.***

Press Statement – CFU Supreme Court Case

Press Statement

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE CASE NUMBER SC 81/2010

 

Today the Commercial Farmers’ Union (CFU) and several of its members made application before five judges of the Constitutional Court in Harare to seek relief against a wide range of flagrant violations of their Constitutional rights.

 

The CFU considers the abuses complained of to be so serious and of such national importance that the highest court has been urged to grant a moratorium effectively preventing any further eviction of any white farmer in occupation of farm land and further preventing the acquisition of any farm equipment and material.

 

In essence the court is being asked to order that the moratorium remains in force until such time as the Minister of Lands and the other Respondents in the application, namely the Minister of Justice, The Commissioner General of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, The Auditor General, The Minister of Finance, The Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Compensation Committee can satisfy the court that the relevant laws that apply in the land reform exercise are being complied with and that the constitutional rights of the CFU’s members are being respected.

 

The broad issues raised for determination by the court include:

 

1.1       The manner in which the First Respondent allocates farming land by way of offer letters, leading to forced evictions and prosecutions of only white farmers, is not done in terms of the law as there is no statutory authority for what the First Respondent is doing, and therefore since February 2009 the implementation of land resettlement has been in contravention of section 18(1)(a) of the Constitution;

 

1.2       the continued prosecution of only white persons for contravening the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act [Chapter 20:28] is racially motivated and contravenes sections 23 and 18 of the Constitution, and furthermore seeks to achieve not the punishment for breaching the law, but the eviction order which is a consequence of such a conviction;

 

1.3       the failure to afford equal treatment to existing (or previous) occupiers of commercial farming land in the issue of offer letters and other rights of occupation of commercial farming land contravenes sections 23 and 18(1)(a) of the Constitution;

 

1.4       the seizure of farm equipment and materials with the support of Government officials is not being dealt with by the Executive in terms of existing law and this breaches the rights under section 18 of the Constitution of those from whom such farm equipment and materials are taken;

 

1.5       the resettlement of persons on State land based purely on racial considerations contravenes sections 23 and 18(1)(a) of the Constitution.

 

 

Only the Minister of Lands opposed the relief sought but does not deny that numerous acts of lawlessness permeate and prevail in the acquisition exercise. Regrettably the Minister of Lands seeks to “wash his hands” of acts of illegality and unlawfulness perpetuated by persons involved or having an interest or purporting to have an interest in the exercise including “public officers” as defined in Section 18(1)(a) of the Constitution which came into force in February 2009.

 

Because the other Respondents have not opposed the application they must be seen to agree with the relief sought. But what is most damaging, disturbing and regrettable to CFU and its members is that they have all blatantly ignored their constitutional duty in terms of Section 18(1)(a) which they have “towards every person in Zimbabwe to exercise his or her functions as a public officer in accordance with the law and to observe and uphold the rule of law.”

 

The CFU remains most hopeful that the Court will now intervene and safeguard its members’ rights by ensuring in particular that all Respondents and any other person who is a public officer involved in land matters adheres to and fulfils that duty in terms of Section 18(1)(a) of the Constitution. If public officers wash their hands of unlawfulness – even though they may not in some instances be directly involved – any hope of a restoration of law and order and the rule of law will be lost.

 

 

 

 

Deon Theron

President

Commercial Farmers’ Union

 

30th September 2010

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

SACAU Press release 12 December 2014

SACAU   Press Release                                                                                  12th December 2014   “Africa must take ownership of its agriculture” – says newly elected PAFO President   SACAU President, Dr

Read More »

New Posts: