Harare — LAWYERS representing former commercial farmers in the landmark case challenging the compulsory acquisition of their farms by Government at the Sadc Tribunal in Namibia yesterday conceded that the agrarian reform was essential and irreversible.

Advocate Adrian de Bourbon admitted during his submissions that given the colonial injustices, it was fundamentally important that the land be given to landless Zimbabweans.

He also conceded that the land issues was racial but sought the nullification of Constitutional Amendment No 17 and urged the Sadc to intervene and order compensation to the farmers whose land was acquired by Government.

One of the farmers Ben Freeth appeared in court in bandages in a wheel chair in a move the Zimbabwean Embassy in Namibia said was meant to dramatise the case and stage-manage allegations of violence.

"Freeth, in dramatic fashion, came to court bandaged, limping and on a wheel chair to demonise the Government and attract attention on alleged political violence against whites and opposition figures," said the Embassy in a statement.

Adv de Bourbon is assisting the lead defence counsel Advocate Jeremy Guantlet in the case while Deputy Attorney General (Civil Division) Adv Prince Machaya assisted by the Director (Civil Division) Mrs Fatima Maxwell and Adv Martin Dinha is representing the Government of Zimbabwe.

Earlier on, the Sadc Tribunal judges were forced to throw out an application for contempt of court by the white farmers alleging Government was not complying with the interim order granted to them last year.

The farmers also demanded to have their case referred to the United Nations Security Council.

The Tribunal was forced to throw out the application following a strenuous protest by the lawyers representing the 345 beneficiaries of the land reform programme.

The lawyers had insisted that the intervener application filed by the beneficiaries should be heard first before any inquiry into the alleged contempt of court by the Government of Zimbabwe. The 345 resettled farmers who were affected by the interim order granted to white former commercial farmers by the Sadc Tribunal filed a substantive intervener application with the regional tribunal last month.

This was after 77-other white farmers had filed intervener applications that have now been consolidated against the Government to lend weight in the case brought by Michael Campbell to the regional tribunal.

The case opened in October last year and Campbell, the former owner of Mount Camel Farm in Chegutu, successfully obtained an interdict blocking Government from acquiring his farm. The tribunal yesterday deferred the hearing of the intervener application to sometime in September.

But the tribunal proceeded to hear the main application in circumstances which legal experts described as strange and unprocedural.

Once the tribunal set down the intervener application for hearing in September it meant the main case was supposed to be determined after the interlocutory application.

The tribunal cannot determine the main case unless it wants to hear the arguments and reserve its ruling until it hears arguments from the intervener before making a proper decision.

However, the beneficiaries were consoled by the fact that the contempt of court application was thrown out and now have a good chance to present their case.

It is reported that when it appeared the tribunal was ready to hear the contempt of court application, lawyers representing the beneficiaries demanded to see the judges in chambers, which then triggered a U-turn that resulted in the judges dismissing the urgent application by the white farmers.

In their application, the beneficiaries are arguing that they have a right to be heard in accordance with principles of natural justice on a matter that affects their peaceful and lawful occupation of the farms allocated to them.

On the other hand, the farmers claim that Section 16B of the country's constitution constitutes a breach of the rule of law and human rights and violates provisions of the Sadc Treaty.

The section states that in the event that the Minister of Lands compulsory acquires land, the decision to acquire that land cannot be challenged in court.