Opinion / Columnist
Open letter to all disposessed Zimbabwean farmers
09 May 2017 at 16:35hrs | Views
The Issue of Compensation, the Compensation Steering Committee and the Valuation Consortium (Valcon)
Dear All
After 17 years, the compensation issue for jambanjad (taken over by force, often violently) commercial farms in Zimbabwe is back in the spotlight.
We recently received information that John Laurie, a former president of the Commercial Farmers' Union, had addressed an "Inaugural Stakeholders Meeting" with Government on 6 April at the Rainbow Towers Hotel in Harare. The meeting catered for approximately fifty attendees and the agenda was only made available at the event. The meeting was chaired by the Government's Permanent Secretary for Lands and Rural Resettlement, Grace Mutandiro.
During his address, Mr Laurie purported to be from a new organisation I hadn't heard of until very recently, the Compensation Steering Committee (CSC). I have not seen the Constitution, the terms of reference or the mandate of this organisation, but Mr Laurie says that it is now the only body representing farmers.
I have to register my concerns:
Firstly, this new organisation is apparently conceding that there should be no compensation for the land. I object in the strongest possible terms to this concession.
One of the things we fought in the Southern African Development Community's regional human rights court, the SADC Tribunal, was the right for compensation to the land. Taking the Zimbabwe Government to court was a very risky decision and my father-in-law, Mike Campbell, paid the ultimate price for standing on this fundamental principle. Our case was subsequently joined by 77 other dispossessed commercial farmers. Using International Law and the various Human Rights Conventions that Zimbabwe is signed up to, the Tribunal deliberated on this point. It found that there should be compensation for the land! It gave a final and binding judgment to this effect.
I am therefore dumbfounded that Mr Laurie should make such a concession and claim to absolve the Government of its responsibilities. He told the meeting he accepted that there shouldn't be compensation for land and stated that the Government is not responsible for paying compensation. His actual words were: "The value of the land which is not Governments responsibility has also to be assessed."
Commercial farmers who built up ranching or wildlife operations will be very severely compromised if they are not compensated for their land.
The Von Pezold case, which was heard at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), is of particular interest regarding what the international norms are in relation to what compensation should be paid.
Secondly, the CSC purports to represent all farming bodies (and "approx. 90% of the commercial farmers") in negotiations with Government.
I can't comment about other groups but I know for a fact that the Southern African Commercial Farmers' Alliance (SACFA) never endorsed the CSC – even though John Laurie stated at the Rainbow Towers Hotel that SACFA had endorsed the CSC. I do not think the Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU) or any other groups would have endorsed CSC – and their policy to compromise on fundamental principle and go against the SADC Tribunal and International Law. It would be a sad day if they had! I maybe wrong, but I am dubious as to whether Mr Laurie has a single signed mandate from any farmers to negotiate on their behalf - and compromise on fundamental principle in relation to compensation for land.
Thirdly, if the CSC does represent 90% of the dispossessed farmers, where are their terms of reference?
If I were writing their terms of reference I would be very clear: the road to compensation must take in the full basket of international human rights breaches in the jambanja process. The human rights obligations that Zimbabwe is signed up to protect must be fully dealt with. International law must be brought into play. Comparable sales values with farms in the sub-region must be used to get a fair value for the land.
Fourth, we have a situation here where we as the dispossessed are purportedly being represented by the CSC which is negotiating with the very same thief – the Zimbabwe Government - that has dispossessed us.
This government has illegally stolen our businesses, livelihoods and homes, as well as those of our workers, wrecking countless lives and brutalising thousands in the process. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and the country's agro-based economy has been destroyed.
In our Mount Carmel farm case, the thief was the late Nathan Shamuyarira, a ZANU PF founding member and senior cabinet minister for 15 years. He sent thugs to the farm who burnt down our hay shed and safari lodge and relentlessly terrorised our families and workers. They also beat up a number of our workers very severely, some of whom were thrown into high security jails. Mr Shamuyarira subsequently stole all of our crops and equipment. In 2009, our homes were burnt to the ground and the entire Mount Carmel agricultural enterprise is now derelict. The government buried Mr Shamuyarira at Heroes Acre. Can negotiation be done in good faith with government people that have shown themselves to be so lawless?
Fifth, the thief in this case is also the judge.
This government, which is manifestly corrupt and also completely broke, is not going to give us many cents in the dollar. It's a bit like trying to play a rugby game where the referee grabs the ball from one of us, runs down the field giving yellow cards to anyone who tries to tackle him, and goes on to score the winning try. Playing a game where that is the case is not going to yield very much. The CSC, realising they might get a yellow card if they tackle the referee, is allowing this referee to score.
Sixth, Mr Laurie has described the Valuation Consortium database of each individual property and the moveable assets identified at the time of takeover as "a unique tool".
Yet in his presentation, Mr Laurie states that "We would like to make this available to the Ministry free of charge the immovable asset register (sic) as at the time of acquisition." Where is his mandate to do this?
Those who have read the story of Jacob and Esau back in Genesis will know how Esau sold his birthright to Jacob on account of being famished. He sold his entire inheritance as the elder son for a bowl of stew. I know that there are some desperate farmers who have done this already in Zimbabwe. I believe it is complete folly to encourage others to do likewise.
Yours sincerely
Ben Freeth
Dear All
After 17 years, the compensation issue for jambanjad (taken over by force, often violently) commercial farms in Zimbabwe is back in the spotlight.
We recently received information that John Laurie, a former president of the Commercial Farmers' Union, had addressed an "Inaugural Stakeholders Meeting" with Government on 6 April at the Rainbow Towers Hotel in Harare. The meeting catered for approximately fifty attendees and the agenda was only made available at the event. The meeting was chaired by the Government's Permanent Secretary for Lands and Rural Resettlement, Grace Mutandiro.
During his address, Mr Laurie purported to be from a new organisation I hadn't heard of until very recently, the Compensation Steering Committee (CSC). I have not seen the Constitution, the terms of reference or the mandate of this organisation, but Mr Laurie says that it is now the only body representing farmers.
I have to register my concerns:
Firstly, this new organisation is apparently conceding that there should be no compensation for the land. I object in the strongest possible terms to this concession.
One of the things we fought in the Southern African Development Community's regional human rights court, the SADC Tribunal, was the right for compensation to the land. Taking the Zimbabwe Government to court was a very risky decision and my father-in-law, Mike Campbell, paid the ultimate price for standing on this fundamental principle. Our case was subsequently joined by 77 other dispossessed commercial farmers. Using International Law and the various Human Rights Conventions that Zimbabwe is signed up to, the Tribunal deliberated on this point. It found that there should be compensation for the land! It gave a final and binding judgment to this effect.
I am therefore dumbfounded that Mr Laurie should make such a concession and claim to absolve the Government of its responsibilities. He told the meeting he accepted that there shouldn't be compensation for land and stated that the Government is not responsible for paying compensation. His actual words were: "The value of the land which is not Governments responsibility has also to be assessed."
Commercial farmers who built up ranching or wildlife operations will be very severely compromised if they are not compensated for their land.
The Von Pezold case, which was heard at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), is of particular interest regarding what the international norms are in relation to what compensation should be paid.
Secondly, the CSC purports to represent all farming bodies (and "approx. 90% of the commercial farmers") in negotiations with Government.
I can't comment about other groups but I know for a fact that the Southern African Commercial Farmers' Alliance (SACFA) never endorsed the CSC – even though John Laurie stated at the Rainbow Towers Hotel that SACFA had endorsed the CSC. I do not think the Commercial Farmers' Union (CFU) or any other groups would have endorsed CSC – and their policy to compromise on fundamental principle and go against the SADC Tribunal and International Law. It would be a sad day if they had! I maybe wrong, but I am dubious as to whether Mr Laurie has a single signed mandate from any farmers to negotiate on their behalf - and compromise on fundamental principle in relation to compensation for land.
Thirdly, if the CSC does represent 90% of the dispossessed farmers, where are their terms of reference?
If I were writing their terms of reference I would be very clear: the road to compensation must take in the full basket of international human rights breaches in the jambanja process. The human rights obligations that Zimbabwe is signed up to protect must be fully dealt with. International law must be brought into play. Comparable sales values with farms in the sub-region must be used to get a fair value for the land.
Fourth, we have a situation here where we as the dispossessed are purportedly being represented by the CSC which is negotiating with the very same thief – the Zimbabwe Government - that has dispossessed us.
This government has illegally stolen our businesses, livelihoods and homes, as well as those of our workers, wrecking countless lives and brutalising thousands in the process. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and the country's agro-based economy has been destroyed.
In our Mount Carmel farm case, the thief was the late Nathan Shamuyarira, a ZANU PF founding member and senior cabinet minister for 15 years. He sent thugs to the farm who burnt down our hay shed and safari lodge and relentlessly terrorised our families and workers. They also beat up a number of our workers very severely, some of whom were thrown into high security jails. Mr Shamuyarira subsequently stole all of our crops and equipment. In 2009, our homes were burnt to the ground and the entire Mount Carmel agricultural enterprise is now derelict. The government buried Mr Shamuyarira at Heroes Acre. Can negotiation be done in good faith with government people that have shown themselves to be so lawless?
Fifth, the thief in this case is also the judge.
This government, which is manifestly corrupt and also completely broke, is not going to give us many cents in the dollar. It's a bit like trying to play a rugby game where the referee grabs the ball from one of us, runs down the field giving yellow cards to anyone who tries to tackle him, and goes on to score the winning try. Playing a game where that is the case is not going to yield very much. The CSC, realising they might get a yellow card if they tackle the referee, is allowing this referee to score.
Sixth, Mr Laurie has described the Valuation Consortium database of each individual property and the moveable assets identified at the time of takeover as "a unique tool".
Yet in his presentation, Mr Laurie states that "We would like to make this available to the Ministry free of charge the immovable asset register (sic) as at the time of acquisition." Where is his mandate to do this?
Those who have read the story of Jacob and Esau back in Genesis will know how Esau sold his birthright to Jacob on account of being famished. He sold his entire inheritance as the elder son for a bowl of stew. I know that there are some desperate farmers who have done this already in Zimbabwe. I believe it is complete folly to encourage others to do likewise.
Yours sincerely
Ben Freeth
Source - Ben Freeth
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
