Prosper Ndlovu
THE loud anxiety around the Government’s farm compensation programme confirms, as always, the centrality of the land resource in the Zimbabwean political economy narrative, dating back to the pre-independence era.

This time around what is more interesting is that the opposition forces, who were earlier fiercely opposed to the Land Reform Programme, have joined the party and fully accept that the Government was right in redistributing the land to the masses at the turn of the millennium. The bone of contention now is compensation for former farm owners, not for the land itself as the resource belongs to the State, but for improvements made on the concerned farms.

Government has repeatedly said that it has no intention to reverse the Land Reform Programme. However, the joint statement on Monday on the conclusion of the Global Compensation Deed has generated a lot of debate with opposition elements insinuating that the land offer as compensation to certain former farm owners, which is in line with the country’s Supreme Law in terms of upholding property rights and buttressing economic recovery under the new dispensation, were tantamount to reversing the gains of the liberation struggle. The matter spilled into Parliament this week as legislators also weighed in.

Among the critical concerns is the basis for US$3.5 billion in respect of compensation for improvements on farms and the legality of the decision as some argued that such compensation was being done outside an Act of Parliament. On Monday, the Minister of Finance and Economic Development, Professor Mthuli Ncube, and his Lands, Agriculture, Water and Rural Settlement counterpart, Dr Anxious Masuka, further announced compensation to former farm owners who were covered under Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA), as well indigenous farm owners who were affected by the land redistribution exercise. Agreements under BIPPA require that the Government pay fair compensation in currency of the former owner’s choice for both land and improvements.

However, critics’ impression of the whole debate is that the Government was acting outside of the law and seemingly seeking to reverse the Land Reform Programme. What is clear is that the whole matter has been misconstrued, said Prof Ncube and Dr Masuka in a joint statement issued Wednesday. As such it has become necessary to issue a clarification on certain aspects of this particular statement in light of evident misinterpretation.

“It is important to state that the Land Reform Programme is irreversible and this chapter is closed and will not be revisited. The statements regarding the reversal of the Land Reform Programme are misplaced and should be dismissed with the contempt they deserve,” said the ministers.

“We reiterate that the land is the birth right of all indigenous Zimbabweans and we will guard it jealously as we strive towards a highly productive agricultural sector to foster food security and the fulfilment of Vision 2030.”

Who and what exactly is being compensated for?

According to Prof Ncube and Dr Masuka’s joint statement, the return of land as compensation covers only two categories. “These are indigenous Black African Zimbabweans, whose land was acquired by the State and any person whose agricultural land was protected by Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreements (BIPPAs) or Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). It is only these two categories entitled to such compensation,” said the ministers.

“In the Statement of 31st of August 2020, Paragraphs 5-8, wherever there is reference to former farmers, this is in fact with reference to indigenous black African Zimbabwean former farmers.”

For clarity’s sake, the ministers clearly stated that there was “no intention” by the Government to reverse the gains of the Land Reform Programme. “It is irreversible,” they emphasised. They also made reference to the Constitution of Zimbabwe’s Section 72, which enshrines the right to agricultural land, adding that “this right is sacred and will be treated as such and guarded jealously”.

The ministers said all attempts to divert the farming community from their preparations for the upcoming season through misconceived and misplaced statements should be rejected. They reiterated that the Government will not be deterred in its focus on ensuring a bountiful 2020-2021 farming season.

Constitutionality and legality of the compensation deed
In responding to the above questions and concerns, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Ziyambi Ziyambi, said there was a need to clarify certain issues to put the locate Government’s decision within its proper context. He told Parliament that the issue of agricultural land was covered in Section 72 of the Constitution and Section 295.

“If you go to Section 72, it clearly spells out that agricultural land is vested in the State and it also indicates how it is acquired. It then indicates also that – if you go to Section 72, it will actually give a rider that, “subject to Section 295” … some of the provisions of Section 72 are overridden by Section 295” …,” said Ziyambi.

“The Constitution indicates that there is a need for compensation for improvements for a certain category of former white farmers, compensation for improvements only. This is the category of farmers that is covered by the Global Compensation Agreement signed in the month of August, 2020. The Hon. Members are indicating that there is no Act of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is not true.

“We have the Land Acquisition Act, which has provision for that. Perhaps the Hon. Members wanted us to have a specific Act to deal with compensation alone. That Act allows us, hence we had that particular Statutory Instrument. So, if he is not comfortable with that, that particular Act has provisions.” Minister Ziyambi was responding to a concern raised by MDC Alliance deputy president, Mr Tendai Biti.

He further clarified that all agreements including treaties were signed first before they come to Parliament. Regarding compensation of indigenous farmers and farms that were covered by bilateral agreements, Ziyambi said this also was catered for in the Supreme Law of the country.

“The Constitution clearly states that we have to pay compensation for both the land and the improvements. What we are doing is – we had an exercise; a land audit and we are saying there is an indigenous farmer whose farm was taken away. The Constitution acknowledges that the farm was not supposed to have been taken in the first place,” he said.

“In terms of Section 295, there are two categories of farmers that have to be compensated for both the land and improvements. Our thrust is on productivity on the farms and we are undertaking a land audit. What we are saying is; where it is possible to give back to the indigenous farmer that particular farm that he had, we are looking into it but where the situation dictates that it is not practical, we look for an alternative land. Lastly, we then talk about full compensation. This is our thrust; is the land still available, can we give it back, if not possible can we give an alternative land. That is in compensation for that particular land and it speaks to what the Constitution is saying.”

Minister Ziyambi explained that after independence the country sealed a number of bilateral agreements under which it gave some white farmers the land. Within this framework those farmers more or less like the indigenous farmer because they got the right to the land property. “We cannot take away a right that we gave them when they bought those farms. We are saying these BIPPA farms are about 37 and again if the farm is still available the first option is to return the farm. If it is not available, we look for an alternative. If it is not available, then we speak about the compensation process in terms of monetary value.

No one will be chased from any farm, focus on production
Given the anxiety that the land compensation pronouncement had made, the Government has clarified that it was not reversing the gains of the land reform exercise. “So, Zimbabweans must not be afraid, nobody is going to be chased away from any farm. We are following due process to say you can go back if it is possible because that black bought the farm that was stolen from his forefathers and we cannot punish that particular individual twice. That is the process,” added Ziyambi.

“The laws are there; the enabling legislation is there according to the Constitution and we are putting in place administrative processes to ensure that we move forward and we focus on productivity so that we increase our productivity and we have closure regarding this land reform process. I think it is now at its tail end and we are working towards closing this process and ensuring that it is a closed chapter.”

Indeed, the investments, which the former farm owners made on the land they occupied were real and actually a result of hard work over a long period of time hence the compensation programmes speaks to that. Government spokesperson and Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services Mr Nick Mangwana described the compensation exercise as “tidying up of Zimbabwe’s land policy”. As such he said the regularisation of legacy issues around the implementation of the fast-rack Land Reform Programme is critical and buttresses the country’s commitment to the rule of law and respect for property rights, which are key tenets of constitutional democracy.

“The New Dispensation made it clear from the word go that property rights will be respected in Zimbabwe in order to attract investment. It means that as a nation, Zimbabwe will respect conventions it is a signatory to as well as agreements it signed with other parties,” said Mr Mangwana.