Zimbabwe war veterans lose court bid to block compensation of white ex-farmers

The High Court has dismissed an application by a group of war veterans seeking to block the Government from compensating white former commercial farmers whose land was repossessed during Zimbabwe's Fast-Track Land Reform Programme.

The War Veterans Pressure Group had challenged the legality of the US$3.5 billion compensation agreement - known as the Global Compensation Deed (GCD) - arguing that it was unconstitutional, discriminatory, and failed to acknowledge the historical injustices faced by black Zimbabweans under colonial rule.

However, in a judgment delivered by Justice Rogers Manyangadze, the court ruled that the GCD does not violate the Constitution and is a lawful mechanism for compensating dispossessed farmers for improvements made on the land, not the land itself.

"It is, therefore, not correct that the Global Compensation Deed violates Section 295 (4) of the Constitution," ruled Justice Manyangadze.

"In the circumstances, the application to have the deed declared invalid and set aside cannot succeed."

The judge noted that the Zimbabwean Constitution provides for compensation to former landowners only for improvements to the land, unless exceptions are clearly provided. The compensation deal, signed on July 29, 2020, aligns with this requirement and is being implemented under the Land Acquisition Act, a statute already in place before the current Constitution was enacted in 2013.

"The Global Compensation Deed is valid in that it will be implemented in terms of the Land Acquisition Act," Justice Manyangadze stated.

The court also rejected claims that the deal sidestepped Parliament's authority, stating that the relevant legislative framework already empowers Government to undertake such agreements.

The War Veterans Pressure Group had argued that the compensation deal unfairly prioritised white farmers while ignoring broader reparations for colonial injustices. However, the court found that these broader demands were not supported by constitutional provisions and that the group's approach to litigation was flawed.

Justice Manyangadze criticised the group for attempting to act both in their personal capacity and on behalf of the public - a move that violates established legal principles regarding standing.

"A person cannot approach the court alleging infringement of fundamental rights both in their individual capacity and in the public interest," he said, citing previous Constitutional Court precedents.

The court concluded that the war veterans' application was "fatally defective" in both form and substance.

"The respondents are mandated by the Constitution to compensate the white former farmers for improvements. This is what they have set out to do, and they are doing so within the legislative framework available," the judge said.

The application was dismissed without costs, meaning each party will bear its own legal expenses.

The ruling reinforces the Government's stance that the GCD is a constitutionally compliant instrument aimed at closing a contentious chapter in the country's land reform history, while also sending a clear message that demands for broader colonial reparations must follow appropriate legal channels and frameworks.