Opinion / Columnist
Ongoing Centenary farm court case saga, test of new Zimbabwe constitution
22 Jul 2015 at 11:12hrs | Views
The ongoing harassment via Zimbabwe's highly compromised court system of commercial farmer David Conolly, the owner of Centenary farm in the Figtree district of Matabeleland South province, is impacting severely on his displaced farm workers and on agricultural production.
On August 5, 2014 Dr Ray Ndhlukula, Deputy Chief Secretary to the President and the cabinet, sent his thugs to evicted Conolly's workers and their families from the farm, rendering them destitute, despite a High Court order to block their evictions.
Conolly was then barred from returning to his farm and irrigating or reaping the 300,000 onion plants he still had in the ground. Ironically Ndhlukula was in charge of the government's ZimAsset statement of intent for food and food security, announced in December 2013 but effectively defunct.
Since June 2014, Conolly has been embroiled in a fierce legal battle with Ndhlukula, who has been trying to take over Centenary farm, despite reportedly having two other farms in Matabeleland South. These are Wilfred Hope Farm in Marula and Vlakfontein - otherwise known as Subdivision 2 of Marula Block.
Although a contempt of court case against Ndhlukula was filed at the High Court, Conolly was forced off his farm in September 2014.
In March 2015, in an unusual show of courage, a Bulawayo High Court judge sentenced Ndhlukula to 90 days in prison for defying a court order barring him from evicting Conolly and his workers. The sentence was suspended on condition that Ndhlukula complied fully with the order within 14 days.
However, in a typical about turn the same month, Conolly was himself was arrested by police who had travelled to find him in Bulawayo to charge him with illegally occupying his farm, despite the fact that the contempt ruling has been handed down against Ndhlukula.
The ongoing court saga
Conolly appeared in the Gwanda magistrate's court on June 30, 2015 as instructed, only to be told that the provincial prosecutor had referred the matter to the prosecutor general in Harare. The case was remanded to July 9.
When Conolly appeared in the magistrate's court on July 9, the senior magistrate employed various delaying tactics, eventually recusing himself with the excuse that he knew the Conollys, even though Conolly says he has never met him. A junior magistrate was assigned to the case. The prosecutor failed to arrive and so another prosecutor had also to be found.
After further delays, Conolly's lawyer proceeded to deliver his arguments and the two court orders from the High Court were filed, together with Ndhlukula's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Conolly's lawyer then applied for a stay until such time as the contempt matter had been dealt with in the Supreme Court.
Although the case had already been remanded on three previous occasions, the clearly nervous junior magistrate said she was prepared to give the prosecutor's office one last chance. The case was duly remanded for the fourth time to July 21. Furthermore, she said the application for the stay was beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate's court.
On July 10, Conolly's lawyer filed responding papers to Ndhlukula's submission which opposed Conolly's application for the contempt order and the original order which was to be implemented pending the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Conolly pointed out that Ndhlukula had been represented on both occasions and the court had ruled in his (Conolly's) favour.
Test of new constitution
The case of Conolly's Centenary farm workers against their August 6, 2014 eviction was filed at the beginning of June 2015. Ndhlukula did not respond to any of the constitutional issues raised by the workers, stating merely that they were "squatters".
This angered the workers and made them even more determined to fight the case. They filed their answering affidavit on July 13.
Conolly believes that "this is the first time the new constitution is going to be used by farm workers to uphold basic human rights, against a predatory ruling class."
Conolly has submitted a claim for his losses, including a daily loss, from May until such time as the court orders in his favour have been upheld and he can get farming again. The claim is in the form of a summons, but Ndhlukula has yet to respond.
On July 7, Conolly went to his farm to take photographs as proof of Ndhlukula's continued contempt of the court order. Ndhlukula's tractors were parked at his house, the priming pump on the irrigation pump had been broken and Ndhlukula's workers complained bitterly that they had hardly had a cup of water to drink.
Conolly confirms that no production of any sort is currently taking place, despite the fact that there is more than enough water in the dam.
"It seems that the desired outcome of the fast track land nationalisation programme - which is apparently the cessation of all production and the destruction of formal employment on commercial farms across the country - has been achieved at Centenary farm," concluded Conolly.
The El Nino threat
This description of the outcome of land reform ties in with Zimbabwean economist John Robertson's assessment of events. He points out that Zimbabwe still has a great many skilled farmers, but almost all of them have been prohibited from farming.
As a result, Zimbabwe is now almost entirely dependent on food imports and is now spending about US$1 billion a year on processed as well as basic foods that the country used to produce for itself.
The situation is predicted to worsen considerably in the coming 2015-2016 agricultural season if the mounting evidence of an impending El Niño drought proves to be a warning that should have been taken seriously.
For Zimbabwe, poor crops in 2016 could be prevented almost completely if the irrigation capacity installed on thousands of farms could be brought into use. Unfortunately, the initial waves of beneficiaries of land reform saw the irrigation pumps, pipes, valves and couplings as prizes that could be stripped out and sold.
The resettlement farmers who arrived later could make no use of the water held in storage all over the country, so today most of the dams are almost full.
However, for lack of expertise, money and security of tenure, the water in them will remain beyond reach while Zimbabwe heads into what could be yet another food crisis.
A significant difference could be made in the time left before the next growing season, but only if a few policy changes can be made to encourage - and permit - the skilled farmers to get back to work.
These policy changes have only to place the land back into the market, restore property rights and rebuild the bridges of collateral between the farmers and the banks. The responses to such changes, if made in time, would be remarkable, but it would appear that it is this level of possible success that Zimbabwe's ruling party fears the most.
According to Robertson, all the evidence suggests that the ruling party is trying to ensure that only party supporters are allowed to be successful.
On August 5, 2014 Dr Ray Ndhlukula, Deputy Chief Secretary to the President and the cabinet, sent his thugs to evicted Conolly's workers and their families from the farm, rendering them destitute, despite a High Court order to block their evictions.
Conolly was then barred from returning to his farm and irrigating or reaping the 300,000 onion plants he still had in the ground. Ironically Ndhlukula was in charge of the government's ZimAsset statement of intent for food and food security, announced in December 2013 but effectively defunct.
Since June 2014, Conolly has been embroiled in a fierce legal battle with Ndhlukula, who has been trying to take over Centenary farm, despite reportedly having two other farms in Matabeleland South. These are Wilfred Hope Farm in Marula and Vlakfontein - otherwise known as Subdivision 2 of Marula Block.
Although a contempt of court case against Ndhlukula was filed at the High Court, Conolly was forced off his farm in September 2014.
In March 2015, in an unusual show of courage, a Bulawayo High Court judge sentenced Ndhlukula to 90 days in prison for defying a court order barring him from evicting Conolly and his workers. The sentence was suspended on condition that Ndhlukula complied fully with the order within 14 days.
However, in a typical about turn the same month, Conolly was himself was arrested by police who had travelled to find him in Bulawayo to charge him with illegally occupying his farm, despite the fact that the contempt ruling has been handed down against Ndhlukula.
The ongoing court saga
Conolly appeared in the Gwanda magistrate's court on June 30, 2015 as instructed, only to be told that the provincial prosecutor had referred the matter to the prosecutor general in Harare. The case was remanded to July 9.
When Conolly appeared in the magistrate's court on July 9, the senior magistrate employed various delaying tactics, eventually recusing himself with the excuse that he knew the Conollys, even though Conolly says he has never met him. A junior magistrate was assigned to the case. The prosecutor failed to arrive and so another prosecutor had also to be found.
After further delays, Conolly's lawyer proceeded to deliver his arguments and the two court orders from the High Court were filed, together with Ndhlukula's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Conolly's lawyer then applied for a stay until such time as the contempt matter had been dealt with in the Supreme Court.
Although the case had already been remanded on three previous occasions, the clearly nervous junior magistrate said she was prepared to give the prosecutor's office one last chance. The case was duly remanded for the fourth time to July 21. Furthermore, she said the application for the stay was beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate's court.
On July 10, Conolly's lawyer filed responding papers to Ndhlukula's submission which opposed Conolly's application for the contempt order and the original order which was to be implemented pending the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Conolly pointed out that Ndhlukula had been represented on both occasions and the court had ruled in his (Conolly's) favour.
Test of new constitution
The case of Conolly's Centenary farm workers against their August 6, 2014 eviction was filed at the beginning of June 2015. Ndhlukula did not respond to any of the constitutional issues raised by the workers, stating merely that they were "squatters".
This angered the workers and made them even more determined to fight the case. They filed their answering affidavit on July 13.
Conolly believes that "this is the first time the new constitution is going to be used by farm workers to uphold basic human rights, against a predatory ruling class."
Conolly has submitted a claim for his losses, including a daily loss, from May until such time as the court orders in his favour have been upheld and he can get farming again. The claim is in the form of a summons, but Ndhlukula has yet to respond.
On July 7, Conolly went to his farm to take photographs as proof of Ndhlukula's continued contempt of the court order. Ndhlukula's tractors were parked at his house, the priming pump on the irrigation pump had been broken and Ndhlukula's workers complained bitterly that they had hardly had a cup of water to drink.
Conolly confirms that no production of any sort is currently taking place, despite the fact that there is more than enough water in the dam.
"It seems that the desired outcome of the fast track land nationalisation programme - which is apparently the cessation of all production and the destruction of formal employment on commercial farms across the country - has been achieved at Centenary farm," concluded Conolly.
The El Nino threat
This description of the outcome of land reform ties in with Zimbabwean economist John Robertson's assessment of events. He points out that Zimbabwe still has a great many skilled farmers, but almost all of them have been prohibited from farming.
As a result, Zimbabwe is now almost entirely dependent on food imports and is now spending about US$1 billion a year on processed as well as basic foods that the country used to produce for itself.
The situation is predicted to worsen considerably in the coming 2015-2016 agricultural season if the mounting evidence of an impending El Niño drought proves to be a warning that should have been taken seriously.
For Zimbabwe, poor crops in 2016 could be prevented almost completely if the irrigation capacity installed on thousands of farms could be brought into use. Unfortunately, the initial waves of beneficiaries of land reform saw the irrigation pumps, pipes, valves and couplings as prizes that could be stripped out and sold.
The resettlement farmers who arrived later could make no use of the water held in storage all over the country, so today most of the dams are almost full.
However, for lack of expertise, money and security of tenure, the water in them will remain beyond reach while Zimbabwe heads into what could be yet another food crisis.
A significant difference could be made in the time left before the next growing season, but only if a few policy changes can be made to encourage - and permit - the skilled farmers to get back to work.
These policy changes have only to place the land back into the market, restore property rights and rebuild the bridges of collateral between the farmers and the banks. The responses to such changes, if made in time, would be remarkable, but it would appear that it is this level of possible success that Zimbabwe's ruling party fears the most.
According to Robertson, all the evidence suggests that the ruling party is trying to ensure that only party supporters are allowed to be successful.
Source - SADC Tribunal Rights Watch
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.
