Zim fights SA ruling in favour of farmers
By Alex Bell
15 April 2011
The Zimbabwe’s government has this week resumed its fight to have three
South African court rulings, in favour of dispossessed farmers in Zimbabwe,
overturned.
Last year, several properties and other assets belonging to the Zim
government were identified for auction, as possible compensation for South
African farmers who have lost land in Robert Mugabe’s land grab scheme.
A 2008 regional ruling, declaring Mugabe’s land ‘reform’ program as
‘unlawful’ has been ignored and legally dismissed in Zimbabwe, leaving
farmers with no choice but to seek justice elsewhere. Farmers then
approached the South Africa civil rights group, AfriForum, to have that same
ruling made by the human rights court of the Southern African Development
Community (SADC), registered in South Africa.
The South African High Court last year ruled in favour of the farmers,
stating that the SADC Tribunal ruling, including a later order to pay costs
to the farmers, should be honoured.
But the attachment of the properties prompted Zimbabwe to launch its own
application to have the High Court decisions overturned, claiming diplomatic
immunity.
Lawyers for the Zimbabwe government argued this week that a South African
court did not have jurisdiction to register the SADC rulings, on the basis
of ‘sovereignty’. The lawyer said it was “not appropriate” for the court to
have granted the order, and was ‘premature’ as Zimbabwe had raised the
question of jurisdiction with SADC.
In a shock move, SADC last year effectively suspended the Human Rights
Tribunal. This came after Zimbabwe’s refusal to honour the courts rulings,
but instead of criticizing Zimbabwe, SADC decided to review the role and
function of the Tribunal, effectively suspending all further cases.
The farmers’ legal representative, Jeremy Gauntlett, meanwhile described
Zimbabwe’s application this week as “an out-of-time,
outside-the-rules-appeal-in-drag.”
“They did not think their properties and aircraft were at risk. This
application is a misconceived tactic by a cynical and confused litigant,” he
said.
The judge has reserved judgment in the case