Govt returns black-owned farms
Financial Gazette
12/3/2020
Tabitha Mutenga Managing Editor
PRESIDENT Emmerson Mnangagwa has signalled an intention to return farms seized from indigenous farmers and foreign investors, as the government seeks to spruce up its image and has seemingly buckled under international pressure to restore property rights, analysts have said.
As South African ambassador to Zimbabwe Mphakama Mbete has led the charge and pressure on the issue of the respect of rule of law, the 76 year-old leader’s administration has surprised marry with statutory instrument (SI) 62, which seeks to honour Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreements (BI-PPA) as well as ‘compensate’ some black farmers.
“We welcome the development, as we believe there is enough land waiting to be used,” the Pretoria envoy told The Financial Gazette yesterday.
“We think the position is in line with the mantra ‘Zimbabwe is open for business’,” Mbete said.
The envoy added that commercial agriculture is now expected to grow “exponentially” as the land is being availed again to those with expertise.
“While we don’t have the numbers, in terms of those likely to benefit, we have spoken to a number of South African farmers who already have their own funding to start agriculture activity in Zimbabwe, so this decision is welcome,” he said.
* Peter Gambara, an agricultural economist, also said Agriculture minister Penance Shin’s move in gazetting SI 62 was “a positive development” that should allow the country to successfully complete its land reform programme.
“Basically, government wants to exempt any land that was designated for compulsory acquisition but either belonged to an indigenous person, person/companies protected by BIPPA or was in the process of being acquired A committee will be set up to consider appeals by such affected persons. If the appeal is successful, the owners will receive title to the land,” he said.
Rampant property rights violations began in 2000 when the government expropriated land from the 4 500 commercial farmers as a way of addressing colonial land imbalances. In the process, an estimated 300 indigenous farmers lost their farms, while 197 BIPPA protected farms were also grabbed, after government declared that all land belonged to the State.
This resulted in significant de-investment in agriculture as the only security of tenure document—the 99 year lease—failed to unlock value. Land has therefore, remained a dead asset for the past 20 years, mainly because the title system remains broken.
Meanwhile, farmers who lost land and properties during the chaotic land redistribution exercise said they were not popping the Champagne yet on the latest government decision.
“It is simply compensation to farmers for the land, which was acquired during land reform. The biggest problem is that whereas the compensation was in United States dollar now it is in Zimbabwe dollars,” Edwin Moyo, the ex-Kondozi Estate owner, said.
“So, where a farmer was originally supposed to get US$50 000, he or she will get $5000 which at the current parallel market rate is about US$1 900. Also, all those that bought land prior to the land reform programme if they were indigenous black Zimbabweans can now apply for delisting but most of those farms have already been vandalised Even if you return title it means nothing,” he added.
Apart from Moyo, another prominent local businessman to have lost their properties include Washington Matsaira—whose farm was seized by Grace Mugabe — other former bankers Chris Goromonzi, Tawanda Nyambirai, Chris Tande, Doug Munatsi, Nicholas Vingirai, and Reserve Bank governor John Mangudya
While Commercial Farmers Union director Ben Gilpin, has complained that the SI 62 was “discriminatory in that it did not seek to compensate all people who had acquired land in post-independent Zimbabwe”, observers said the current plan or initiative was also fraught with potential problems in that it relied heavily on the minister’s discretion on who gets their land back and that it was silent on reparations for loss of income productive infrastructure left.
“The legislation needs studying. Why only indigenous farmers and BIPPAs and not Zimbabwean citizens who purchased land after independence with government approval? The government has a significant liability to former farmers, it would make sense to extend this offer to others willing to reinvest,” he said.
A legal expert told Vie Financial Gazette that the statutory instrument’s intent of offering an alternative to compensation was flawed.
“The land identified in this process that became un-alienated as a result of the land resettlement exercise was never legally transferred. The sale never took place due to government’s inability or unwillingness to pay any compensation. The process of compulsory acquisition demands an obligation from government to pay prompt fair compensation. According to international law, if this does not happen, the sale must be reversed.
“This is a window dressing exercise aimed at reducing the criticism of the failed land reform programme, while at the same time reducing the demand for command agriculture funding by restoring ownership to people who will hopefully self-fund their agricultural programmes while at tlie same time increasing production,” the expert said.
A former commercial white farmer who preferred anonymity said the new law only seeks to ingratiate the government with foreign donors and indigenous beneficiaries.
“These properties even after they have been alienated again are still vulnerable to a system of dispossession under the Constitution that remains open to abuse by the government and does not promote investment, nor does it offer any greater level of security of tenure. This is primarily another initiative to reward the party faithful, this time with land that has bankable title,” he said.
The farmer, who is now based in Nigeria, added that while the SI does attempt to recognise international law and treaties, it falls far short in recognising the need to fully recognise support and protect human rights and property rights without any discrimination or favour.
“It does not fulfil the demands of the ZIDERA Act instituted by the US government regarding the demands for re-engagement. Surely, if Zimbabwe is sincere, the government must seek to uphold international law and treaties as it is doing with BIPPA agreements. These treaties, laws and agreements cannot stand alone, but form a raft of rights, linked to our Bill of Rights, that support each other to guarantee a functional democracy. The selective application of laws and rights is the foundation of discrimination,” he said.
The Zimbabwean government is currently battling with an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes 2015 ruling, which forced Harare to return Border Timbers to the Bernhard von Pezold family and reimburse plus their full legal costs and interest Failure to do that, the government was asked to pay the family US$195 million in damages.
In its award, the tribunal found that Zimbabwe had breached the bilateral investment treaties that it had reached with Germany and Switzerland when it expropriated the von Pezold’s property in 2005, and also treated the von Pezold unfairly and inequitably in regard to their foreign exchange earnings.
(See also Page 22) newsdesk@fmgazaxzn>