State Security and Lands Minister was in 2007 in the final push to evict the remaining 350 white farmers. There had been about 4 500 white farmers when the concerted land reform programme began in 2000.
The Commercial Farmers Union had documented about 50 incidents since the end of August where farms have been invaded, eviction notices served, arrests made, or farms visited in anticipation of future action.
Mutasa has publicly announced his intention to leave no farms in white hands.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 07HARARE942, FINAL PUSH ON LAND SEIZURES
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
|
Reference ID |
Created |
Released |
Classification |
Origin |
VZCZCXRO2951
RR RUEHDU RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHSB #0942/01 2911202
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 181202Z OCT 07
FM AMEMBASSY HARARE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2038
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
RUEHUJA/AMEMBASSY ABUJA 1735
RUEHAR/AMEMBASSY ACCRA 1610
RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA 1739
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0376
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 1019
RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR 1368
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA 1796
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 4225
RHMFISS/EUCOM POLAD VAIHINGEN GE
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0860
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHDC
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HARARE 000942
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR S.HILL
ADDIS ABABA FOR USAU
ADDIS ABABA FOR ACSS
STATE PASS TO USAID FOR E.LOKEN AND L.DOBBINS
STATE PASS TO NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR B.PITTMAN
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/09/2012
TAGS: PHUM PGOV ECON EAGR EINV ZI
SUBJECT: FINAL PUSH ON LAND SEIZURES
REF: A) HARARE 183 B) 2006 HARARE 1492
Classified By: Polecon chief Glenn Warren under 1.4 d
——-
Summary
——-
¶1. (U) The Government of Zimbabwe, led by Minister of State
for Security and Minister of Lands, Land Reform, and
Resettlement Didymus Mutasa, appears intent on evicting the
last approximately 350 white farmers (out of approximately
4,500 farmers when land seizures began in 2000). In the past
two months the government has stepped up eviction notices,
arrests, and outright seizures. The farmers have been
challenging the GOZ’s actions on constitutional grounds in
the Supreme Court and in the SADC Tribunal. Also on the
legal front, a decision is expected soon from the
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment
Disputes (ICSID) in a claim for compensation brought by 12
Dutch farmers under the Netherland’s Bilateral Investment
Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA) with Zimbabwe.
¶2. (U) The remaining farmers have significant support among
high-ranking ZANU-PF officials other than Mutasa and from
local officials. With minimal chances of success in the
courts, their best hope of survival appears to be through
political intervention. So far, President Mugabe has not
articulated a government policy.
—————–
Recent Background
—————–
¶3. (U) According to the Commercial Farmers’ Union (CFU) (Ref
B), the majority of white commercial farmers still on the
land have complied with the GOZ’s criteria to continue
farming: they have downsized and offered land for
resettlement, and coexisted with land settlers. In the past
two months, there have been renewed and intensified efforts
to evict many of the approximately 350 remaining farmers (out
of approximately 4,500 on the land when seizures began in
2000). The CFU has documented about 50 incidents since the
end of August where farms have been invaded, eviction notices
served, arrests made, or farms visited in anticipation of
future action. Mutasa has publicly announced his intention
to leave no farms in white hands.
¶4. (SBU) David Drury, an attorney for many of the farmers,
told us the legal basis for action against the farmers is
Constitutional Amendment 17, enacted in September 2005, and
the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act (the Act)
passed into law on December 20, 2006. Amendment 17
essentially makes all farm land subject to acquisition by the
State and specifically precludes legal challenge by anyone
claiming an interest in such land. The Act requires all
farmers not in possession of an official offer letter, lease,
or permit to cease to hold or use the land as of February 3,
¶2007. Under a government moratorium introduced in January,
farmers were given temporary extensions to continue growing
crops.
¶5. (SBU) According to Drury, under the moratorium the
government was required to analyze the crops on a particular
farm and grant extensions of specific periods to allow a
gradual “wind down,” to include harvesting and sale of crops.
As a practical matter, the government in almost all cases
took no affirmative action to define the period of extension.
Farmers were encouraged by local officials and traditional
leaders, who recognized their value both in terms of
production and local employment, to continue farming; most
carried on with business as usual. Drury commented that
HARARE 00000942 002 OF 003
Mutasa’s statement and recent actions against farmers had
brought the issue of white farmers once again to a head.
—————–
The Campbell Case
—————–
¶6. (SBU) Michael Campbell, a white farmer whose farm was
identified for takeover by ZANU-PF spokesman Nathaniel
Shamuyarira, filed a constitutional challenge to Amendment 17
with the Supreme Court in April 2006. According to Drury,
who is representing Campbell, there are three core arguments:
–The provision of Article 17 that extinguishes the ability
to go to court to present a legal challenge to the State’s
acquisition of land is antithetical to the essence of the
constitution which recognizes fundamental democratic rights
and the rule of law; it also violates the doctrine of
separation of powers;
–The constitution requires compensation for improvements in
cases of acquired land. Since the government has not
complied with this requirement in any case of acquired land,
the entire acquisition process under Amendment 17 is flawed;
–Land acquisition under Article 17 is racially
discriminatory. Drury said he had surveyed other land
acquisition cases in the Chegutu district where Campbell’s
farm is located. There were no cases of appropriation of
black-owned farms.
¶7. (SBU) Drury said the Campbell case was argued before the
Supreme Court in April 2007. In August, in the absence of a
decision, he wrote to the Court asking for one. He
emphasized the importance of the issues–if he was correct on
the law, there were continuing constitutional violations; if
the Court thought he was wrong, a decision would represent
the exhaustion of local remedies to permit an appeal to the
SADC Tribunal in Windhoek. In October, with still no
decision from the Court, Drury appealed to the Tribunal and
alleged that the failure of the Supreme Court to act
constituted an exhaustion of remedies. He admitted to us
that a land case involving white rights was not ideal for the
relatively young Tribunal’s first case and he was not hopeful
of a positive result.
———————-
Current Eviction Cases
———————-
¶8. (SBU) Drury is also representing a number of farmers from
Chegutu who have been served with eviction notices pursuant
to the Act. The eviction notices were upheld by a local
magistrate and Drury is now appealing, on the same
constitutional grounds as Campbell, to the Supreme Court. He
was not optimistic when talking with us. He pointed out that
six of the seven Supreme Court justices were beneficiaries of
farms seized from white farmers.
¶9. (U) In a rare win for white farmers, a High Court judge
ruled in February that a brigadier-general who invaded the
farm of Charles Lock had not complied with the Act and
ordered him off the land. When he failed to comply, another
High Court judge in September held him in contempt.
——————–
The Dutch BIPPA Case
——————–
¶10. (SBU) In April 2005, 12 Dutch farmers who had been
evicted from 15 commerical farms filed a claim in the ICSID,
based on the Netherland’s BIPPA with Zimbabwe. According to
Boyd Carr, a Zimbabwean attorney for the farmers, the GOZ has
admitted liability–it acknowledges the BIPPA and says the
seizures were a result of spontaneous uprisings–and has
HARARE 00000942 003 OF 003
offered to return the farms. The farmers–no longer in
Zimbabwe–are not interested in restitution but want
compensation. They are seeking 36 million Euros which
includes the value of their properties and interest. The GOZ
has not contested the amount of compensation, but says that
it will pay when able. (Comment. The GOZ has paid US$
225,000 to ICSID, its share of costs. An ICSID judgment
would presumably enable the farmers to attach Zimbabwe
assets, such as planes, outside of the country. In May and
June of this year, the GOZ paid off a US$ 44 million debt to
the U.S. Export Bank to avoid this very problem. End
Comment.)
¶11. (SBU) Boyd told us that the BIPPA hearing is to take
place in Paris October 30 through November 1. He noted that
there are about 100 former Dutch farmers awaiting the outcome
of this proceeding and who could potentially file suit. A
much smaller number of former German and Danish farmers have
potential claims; their countries, according to Boyd, also
have valid BIPPAS with Zimbabwe.
————————
Politics Trumps Legality
————————
¶12. (C) While Mutasa has publicly called for the eviction of
all white farmers, the GOZ’s two vice presidents, Joice
Mujuru and Joseph Msika, acknowledging the importance of the
remaining farmers to the country’s agricultural production,
have publicly responded that evictions should stop. Midlands
governor Cephas Msipa told us earlier this year (Ref A) that
he had lobbied Msika to prevent the takeover of dairy farms
in his province which provide the bulk of dairy products in
the country. Msipa also stated Midlands’ black farmers
oppose further evictions; they are receiving both technical
and material support from the white farmers. And the CFU has
told us many of its farmers have the support of local
officials and traditional leaders.
¶13. (U) According to CFU officials, the opposition to Mutasa
on the part of other high-ranking ZANU-PF officials has
slowed the process against white farmers. But the farmers’
fate depends to a large extent on whom they know. A
connection to Msika, for example, or in some cases even
Mutasa, can result in cessation of an eviction process.
——-
Comment
——-
¶14. (C) Continuing farm evictions are clearly inimical to
what is left of the economic health of the country. The fact
evictions are allowed to continue is yet another sign of a
misdirected economic policy. And the fact that there is a
continuing schism within ZANU-PF on such an important issue
is yet another sign of the disarray within the party itself.
Whether through design (to permit continuing patronage) or
through inattention, President Mugabe has not intervened to
articulate a government policy.
DHANANI
(44 VIEWS)
0 Comments