In 2000, following the rejection of the referendum by the population for a new Constitution in Zimbabwe, the ‘land grab’ began.

It was vicious and deadly, and left numerous people - both farmers and workers – dead, at the hands of the marauding war veterans (and associated body).

Under the Lancaster House agreement signed in 1979, the land in Zimbabwe was earmarked for reallocating from the commercial farmers to the ‘landless’ blacks on a ‘willing buyer-willing seller’ basis.

The land grab resembled nothing like that. Farmers and their workers were thrown off their land, many with only what they could carry… left destitute and without any hope for the future.

In many cases these seizures took on a violent nature and farmers and their workers were killed, and many of the farmhouses were destroyed and burned - thereby negating the value of the land to some extent.

The Mugabe regime has stated, many times in the last 8 years, that restitution should be paid to the farmers by the former colonial power, England, as they had taken the land without payment in the first place.

From ‘Wikipedia’: “The 1992 Land Acquisition Act was enacted to speed up the land reform process by removing the “willing seller, willing buyer” clause. The Act empowered the government to buy land compulsorily for redistribution, and a fair compensation was to be paid for land acquired. Landowners could challenge in court the price set by the acquiring authority. Opposition by landowners increased throughout the period from 1992 to 1997.

While some land was purchased by the fund, few families were resettled. Instead, hundreds of abandoned and expropriated white farms ended up in the hands of cabinet ministers, senior government officials and wealthy indigenous businessmen. Most British and Americans cut their losses and money, alleging widespread corruption. To date, fewer than 70,000 of the people of Zimbabwe have been resettled, most without the necessary infrastructure to work the huge commercial farms on the 12 hectare plots they have been allocated.

Britain withdrew aid to the land reform program, accusing Mugabe of giving the land to his “cronies”. (London now claims to have contributed £44m, but Timothy Stamps, Zimbabwe’s health minister, says only £17m was contributed by Britain).

At that time, British contribution in terms of aid to Zimbabwe stood at a half billion pounds since independence. Furthermore, £47 million of that was specifically targeted for land reform, and approximately £100 million was budgetary support which could have been used for land reform.”

Mugabe maintains that England is responsible for the compensation, neatly ignoring the fact that money was given to his government for that purpose.

As Wikipedia states, the vast majority of the seized farms have not been given to the ‘landless blacks’ but have ended up in the hands of senior members of the Mugabe administration and armed forces.

Very few of the farms are working.

Land seizures continue to this day.

Now the Mugabe regime has turned their hands to a more direct seizure.

Last week, Morgan Tsvangirai was held by police in Esigodini. And the police decided to seize Tsvangirai’s just-delivered BMW X5, motor vehicle which was ordered armoured because of a tangible assassination threat.

This week, we have read articles on how ZANU PF are now using the vehicle as their own!

Legally, the vehicle should remain with the police and the seizure needs to be on stated legal reasons. To all intents and purposes, the only query with the vehicle is that it is South African number-plated - which remains so - even in ZANU PF hands…

I s’pose what I am trying to say, is that if Mugabe wants it, no matter what ‘it’ is, if he cannot get it legally, his administration will run slipshod over any and all laws, shortcutting his way to ‘ownership’, by fair or foul means.
When does seizure, legal or illegal, become theft?

Robb WJ Ellis
The Bearded Man