Shiri denies returning land to whites

Harare (New Ziana) – The government on Friday dismissed opposition and social media claims that it was returning appropriated land back to former white commercial farmers, clarifying instead that it was only paying compensation for farm improvements as provided for in the constitution, and restoring ownership on properties covered by inter-state bilateral investment agreements.

Government recently enacted Statutory 62 of 2020 which stipulates that indigenous farmers whose farms were compulsorily acquired under the land reform program had an option now to apply to repossess their land and forgo monetary compensation.

Farms which were protected under Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreements could also be returned to their previous owners upon application for repossession.

The new laws prompted unfounded allegations, fueled by the opposition and social media, that the government was reversing the emotive land reform program.

Lands, Agriculture, Water and Rural Resettlement Minister Perrance Shiri said the SI in question was guided by several constitutional provisions, including Section 295 which provides for the compensation of indigenous Zimbabweans whose agricultural land was acquired, and persons whose agricultural land was protected by government-to-government investment protection agreements at the time of acquisition.

He said Section 293 of the constitution also provided for the alienation of land by the state, including the alienation of value, transfer of ownership and lease of agricultural land.

“As we are all aware, there are a number of farms belonging to indigenous individuals that were acquired under the land reform program, by indigenous individuals we are making reference to people of native Zimbabwean origin who were previously marginalised before 1980 and had acquired land either through direct purchase or through government commercial farm schemes before the advent of the land reform program,” he said.

“These are entitled to full compensation for land and improvements as stated under Section 295(1) of the constitution. The same Section in Sub-Section 2 also provides for the full compensation of persons whose agricultural land was acquired yet it was protected by a government-to-government agreement.”

Shiri added: “SI 62/2020 provides for the alienation of land in lieu of compensation to only those two categories of farm owners whose right to compensation for land and improvements is enshrined in the constitution. It is thus false to say that there is an intention to return land to previous white commercial farmers and reverse the gains of land reform.”
He said the land reform program was final and irreversible and sentiments to the contrary were false.

“It is equally false to state that the SI is designed to evade paying compensation to indigenous farmers, rather it creates an avenue for these farmers to exercise the option to acquire title and continue with farming activities or opt for compensation,” he said.

Shiri said a committee would be put in place to process applications for compensation.

The committee, he said, would consider whether or not there were people settled by government on the farms in question, whether or not the applicant is in occupation of the farm or part of it and whether granting the application would be contrary to the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, regional and town planning or the general public interest.

“The alienation of land in lieu of compensation is not an automatic right and each application will be considered on a case by case basis. The alienation or disposal will only be recommended in cases where it is only reasonable and appropriate to do so. The SI only expands the options open to government in the compensation of the mentioned two categories,” he said.
New Ziana