Draft constitution displeases displaced farmers
http://www.financialgazette.co.zw/
Friday, 10 August 2012 10:37
Tabitha Mutenga, Farming Reporter
THE predicament of the former commercial farmers continues unabated as the
draft constitution has failed to address the issue of compensation,
stripping them of their rights to fair compensation as indigenous
Zimba-bweans.
The right of appeal is ousted and the proposed new constitution provides no
opportunity for review and until the land issue is finally and fairly dealt
with, the inherent country asset value will remain static to the detriment
of stability and development in agriculture, farmer representatives said.
According to the proposed Constitution, the terms of compensation are to be
determined by an unseen Act of Parliament. However, if such an Act is
consistent with current provisions as regards compensation, it will be
impossible to get agreement between those who have lost property and the
government.
“The draft constitution requires careful evaluation and the Commercial
Farm-ers Union (CFU) are working on a reasoned and critical appraisal.
However, in general terms commercial farmers need three things: Fair
quittance to enable them to regain lost dignity and live reasonably; an end
to discrimination; and a dispensation that treats them as equally valuable
citizens and inclusion that creates equal opportunity for a younger
generation,” Agr-icultural Recovery and Compensation manager Ben Gilpin
said.
He said the draft does not guarantee any of these three sector specific
requirements. Considering that the listing of 800 properties for acquisition
in 1997 triggered a collapse of the stock market which destroyed investor
value in a day, only a restoration of trust in property rights could deliver
real investor confidence.
Much damage has been done to the agricultural sector by the State giving
itself the right to take an individual’s property away by simply publishing
the details in the newspaper.
The draft document enshrines the right of the state to seize more land,
while also guaranteeing land invaders the right to the properties they
seized. The draft states that all agricultural land, including forestry
land, conservation land and horticultural land, among others, may be
“acquired” by the State for “public purpose.” The takeovers will also be
done without compensation, according to the new charter and compensation
issues cannot be challenged in the courts.
“The entrenchment of clauses that rely on pre-independence land issues and
an argument with Britain are clearly outside the control of farmers who are
due for compensation. This same provision in the last and rejected
constitution was used as a whip to beat us.”
“While white farmers suffered huge losses, the destruction of an industry
that employed a significant number of people and underwrote the livelihoods
of many in both down and upstream industry has been colossal. Clearly the
country’s isolation has been in part due to this and therefore dealing with
this issue is only a part of a far larger package that the nation must
deliver. The proposed provisions ensure that dispossessed farmers still
remain hostage to a side disagreement with Britain,” Gilpin said.
Besides the white commercial farmers, a considerable number of indigenous
people whose properties were confiscated will also remain significantly
prejudiced: there is no provision for restitution and while they will be
paid for land, other issues such as the consequential losses caused by
disturbance and the passage of time are not dealt with in common with other
provisions.
“We believe it is questionable to distinguish citizens on the basis of
indigenous or other criteria; since 1980 it has been anathema to regard
racist policy or behaviour as legitimate in Zimbabwe. To assess the value of
a citizen simply by colour is the direct impact of this clause and does no
good to the cause of liberation or history; the liberation war, after all,
was fought for all and not just some.”
In the chapter on agricultural land, there are restrictive clauses that
would entrench discrimination that is perceived as fair.
According to Gilpin, “the rights of occupiers are above those of farmers”.
“Clearly objective criteria should be set for the continued occupation of
current beneficiaries. Many competent farmers, agricultural graduates and
farm workers were excluded in land allocation. In addition there is no
provision for review in the case of farmers who complied with all
requirements of the land reform but who were none the less unlawfully
evicted,” he said.
The CFU bemoaned the absence of an objective review of the largely partisan
process of land allocation that has taken place. There are substantial
numbers of commercial farmers and others who applied for land in accordance
with laid down procedure; however their applications have been sidelined by
a non transparent and frequently corrupt process. Some few white commercial
farmers have been promised offer letters, but to no avail.
“Due process in the allocation to current beneficiaries has not been
transparent or accountable and no rights to current beneficiaries should
be conferred until a proper independent and comprehensive audit is carried
out. Hearings with previous owners would be a valuable contribution.
Occupations were effectively accompanied by the suspension of some people’s
rights and the condonation of impunity to others; to automatically confer
property as a reward for occupation is therefore questionable,” Gilpin
added.
Although the parties to the Global Political Agreement have missed an
opportunity to provide a sound legal framework which stimulates an enabling
business environment, investor confidence and national economic recovery,
there is still room for dialogue on an acceptable package of principles to
take the process forward to a satisfactory conclusion.
“Clearly the document has considerable faults and is at odds with many
issues raised by concerned citizens, there are constituencies far larger
than our own who will feel excluded and discriminated against as currently
constituted. Nonetheless the question will be: does this guarantee to move
us all closer to a better situation than the current dispensation?”Gilpin
said.