A key architect of Zimbabwe's indigenisation laws, which paved the way for violent land invasions in the name of 'reform', said on Monday that the land redistribution system was 'erroneous'.
Paul Mangwana, a ZANU PF legislator for Chivhi Central and former Minister for Indigenisation and Empowerment, told an investment conference in Harare on Monday that the land 'reform' programme had essentially backfired. He explained that the campaign had been carried out in a 'revolutionary' manner, which has left the country unable to restore its breadbasket status because skilled farmers were replaced with unskilled land beneficiaries.
"The implementation of the indigenisation law has to be on a step-by-step basis rather than be in a revolutionary manner," Mangwana said. "Land reform was taken up in a revolutionary manner. Land was just taken. We don't want to walk that road again."
Mangwana had reportedly been invited by the organisers of the conference to draw parallels between the laws that ushered in land redistribution, with a new law, which requires foreign owned companies to cede 51 percent of their shares to locals. The former cabinet minister told delegates that the new investment law was conceived out of a wish to transfer the bulk of the country's prime sources of investment into the hands of the indigenous black population.
But while Mangwana's comments are said to be heartening, it will do little to reassure commercial farmers who are facing ongoing harassment and threats by land invaders. Deon Theron, the President of the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) on Tuesday said while Mangwana's sentiments are 'politically heartening', it does not change the reality that farm invasions have not stopped.
"Things are incredibly difficult for farmers right now and morale is very low," Theron said. "What would really help right now is if someone did something about it and did not just say encouraging words."
Zimbabwe, which used to be renowned as net exporter of food, is now relying on aid handouts to provide basic nourishment for nearly half of its population. But despite being classed earlier this year as the world's most food reliant nation, state sponsored land invasions have continued on the handful of remaining productive farms across the country. Meanwhile vast tracks of farmland countrywide also lie idle and barren while corrupt government officials and military chiefs continue to invade one piece of land after another.
Most recently, a South African funded seed project has come under threat because of the forced seizure of a seed-producing farm in Mashonaland East.
Farmer Dennis Lapham, whose farm produces more than 500 tons of maize seed for the Pannar seed project, has faced intimidation and threats since March by a ZANU PF supporter wielding an offer letter. The man, who has already moved onto the farm and built a house, has denied using violence or harassment to force Lapham to leave the property. The managing director of the Pannar seed project meanwhile has said that seed production is being affected by the chaos on the farm.
Lapham's situation is merely one example of the ongoing disturbances affecting food production on farms. More than 80 commercial farms have been taken over since August last year, while more than 150 farmers are facing prosecution for occupying so-called state owned land.
At the same time relations between South Africa and Zimbabwe are reportedly strained over delays in concluding the signing of a bilateral investment promotion agreement. Its has come to light that the signing of the agreement was abandoned at the last minute in March, after Zimbabwe government officials vehemently objected to a clause about land.
South Africa wants its citizens and entrepreneurs, who have invested in land and other natural resources, to be covered under the agreement to prevent disruption of their investments.
"The delays are straining relations between the two countries. The South African government is trying to help us, but we are refusing to help ourselves," said Finance Minister Tendai Biti, after holding trade discussions this weekend with his South African counterpart Pravin Gordhan and the South African Minister of Trade and Industry, Rob Davies, on bilateral issues.
"In our discussions, it was evident that the delays are affecting our relations. But it is us who are suffering as a country because we are losing out on credit lines and other business and trade opportunities," Biti said.
Comments 1 to 5 of 41 Post a comment
Lets look at the land issue. Historically the land belonged to the bushman. The guys that painted pictures on the walls of the caves. Then we had the Ndebele come up from south africa who by conquest took over large parts of southern zim and displaced the karanga and nguni decendants (Aka Shona) The Shona lived in the northern part of Zimbabwe, who had won by conquest the land from the bushmen. Now i have simplified this a bit to make it not a long discussion. Now there were estimated LESS than 200,000 of my brothers all over Zimbabwe in 1900. They did NOT take TITLE to all the land! ie for the idiots who frequent this forum that means lay claim to ownership!!!! So then the British came along and by conquest laid claim to zimbabwe as we know it today! Now NOT all the land was allocated to the WHITE BRITISH settlers and areas were left for my brothers. Then Smith came along who allocated more land to the whites. NOW a fact is being missed by all the anti whites here. IF the former governments did not allocate land to the people who could make it feed a growing Nation and left it to the blacks 80% of my brothers would not be alive today because the Brothers way of farming makes the land incapable of supporting 10 million brothers let alone more! FACT! So now we come to 1960's and Africa's failure its called Black Nationalisation. Out of this Mugabe and the likes made their mark. Seeing that black people specially in the rural areas are guillable and uneducated stir them up to take away the land. Hence we have land invasions. OH. Someone forgot that this is the land that feeds the nation. It is the land that provides work, tax and jobs to the man in the street. But as Mugabe promised way back in 1980 "No white will ever own a piece of land in zimabawe" the uneducated see it as part of their right to take land without a thought for the consequences. BUT they have SHORT memories becuase if it wanst for the white farmers they would have never been on earth in the first place. Now we can balme it all on the British and yes they are responsible for some of the mess. We can blame it on colonisation, yes it has a role too, we can blame it on sanctions, which is a Mugabe myth, we can blame it on Rhodesians which is partially correct and we can really look at ouselves and say " I blame myself" becuase I voted for Mugabe in 1980, 2000 etc. The Rhodesians are long gone 1980. The British are long gone 1960, The colony is long gone 1965. But the only remaining factor is who hasnt yet gone is Mugabe. And do we feed ourselves yet? No! Why? Because we dont know how to farm commercially and make the land supply our population needs. Why? Becuase we dont have the knowledge. Why? Becuase we chased away the people that did. Whose fault? As an African it is my fault.
Alex Bell, is at it again! The usual support for white farmers is mainly her only talk. How about the black farmers currently occupying and farming the land? So they will just give them up without a fight? Without compensation? I dont think Zimbabwean black farmers are that stupid. So, the people of Chivhu will just ask their chief to just submit to the white man? I dont think so! Land redistribution is irreversable and the MDC now also acknowledge that. Farming in Zimbabwe is very much of interest to local people and their chiefs, and I suspect chiefs will stand for their people. Zimbabwean politicians know that. White Rhodesian farmers will continue to be a liability for the country and politicians at large.
Have you ever been tested on dyslexia Phiri?It's getting clear to me you hardly have any idea of what you read and you're not capable of producing a good text either.So instead of boring other people here with your dyslexic nonsense,your mother in Bulawayo,your Alex Bell/SwRadiocomplex and your primitive views concerning western countries I suggest you better do such a test.I'm sure you can find someone who can help you to fill in the forms.Good luck.
rmkooistra, ohhh...thank you Mr. Dutchman for your rather not so intelligent comments! I love my mother and my Zimbabwe and I would fight to kill if I had to for Zimbabwe, not for white Rhodesian farmers! White Rhodesian farmers remain a liability to Zimbabwean politician and the country as a whole. I do not believe that black Zimbabwean farmers who accepted land reform will simply give their own land to Rhodesians.
Onesoulzim concur that Land reform backfired on Mugabe regime. Land reform entails land REPOSSESSION (Legislative), land OCCUPATION (Revolutionary) land REDISTRIBUTION(Administrative).
Repossession was a total success as it completed the aspirations of the native people who had waged wars for a century of years, about 85% rich fertile lands have been taken from 2% settler farmers.
Land repossession did not have any problem for it is done by the legislative arm, Land Acquisition Act of 1992 and various subsequent Chapters 5, 6,7 and 8. Total land acquisition was made possible by the expiry of a ten year Lancaster house Agreement that has frozen alterations to Land Tenure Act for 10 years since 1980 with the abolishment of compulsory 20 seats for white settlers giving 2/3 majority parliamentary requirement to change the Act.
Redistribution is a daunting ongoing process with full of errors that is here referred by Paul Mangwana. There are theories on how land was supposed to be redistributed often given by armchair analysts. It must be bone in mind that the parties to land dispute, white settler farmers and Mugabe government alike had exhausted all possible practical negotiated redistribution of land giving rise to its revolutionary occupation.
The problems to land occupation and redistribution was a direct consequence to the refusal by white settler farmers to vacate excess land they had as directed by government since 1998. Land distribution challenges were also caused by corrupt land officers in government
White settler farmers were given letters from chapter 5 advising them of governments intention to repossess access land with a period of two years to respond but the farmers refused with the land.
White settler farmers were again served with letters from chapter six of the Act advising them to seek court recourse to argue the land they would have chosen to remain with, they again refused to comply.
Letters from Chapter 7 of the act was again given to farmers to defend their farm hectare requirements according to their farming projects in yet again six months, farmers refused to be dragged to court in defiance applying the law of trespassing.
Letters from chapter 8 were finally given to white settler farmers to vacate the lands in a period of 3 months and yet again, they refused to vacate the farms.
Ample time was given for white farmers according to the Land acquisition act of 1992 enshrined in our constitution but the ex-rhodies were adamant leading to the emotional occupation based on majority militant courage to remove whoever was asked by government to share land.
Naturally, the more militant stood better grounds to occupy more farms than those afraid or aiding the farmers. Land redistribution is not a revolutionary event but land OCCUPATION to chase the white settlers so they dont come back to acquired lands. It is therefore important now to redistribute land proportionally from current chaotic occupation starting with a proper land audit.
The consequences of the whole land reform attracted the ghostly legislation ZDERA and packets of trading embargos from erstwhile colonizers who, up to this day, demand the return of pre-2000 conditions of property rights to unease sanctions. Farming projects have been under funded or never, this includes the whole economy.
The devil is quick to think that his desires will come true, that by conceding errors in redistribution of land, the nation will be made to return the repossessed land to ex-rhodies to farm again. Never again!
See All Comments