« Prev Next » What
is the evidence on the ground? By
early October, 30 new farm invasions had been
reported after the Abuja Agreement was signed without any State attempt to
stop them. More settlers were also reported on over 200
previously-invaded Beatrice, Concession, Karoi, Matobo, Mazowe, Mvurwi,
Mwenezi, Norton and Nyamandlovu farms. Various Cabinet ministers denied
these reports. They accused farmers of provoking trouble to discredit the
agreement. Some farmers reported increased
hostility toward themselves and their workers after Abuja. Among the farming areas most severely disrupted after Abuja was Marondera. On 4 October 18 farmers here obtained a High Court order from Justice Chinhengo, requiring Police Commissioner Chihuri, Provincial Governor David Karimanzira, provincial and district administrators, the CIO and named individuals to curb lawlessness and allow normal farming operations. The police did act, but not very effectively, against the violence. In neighbouring Hwedza district, only four of its 35 commercial farms were operating.
Even The Herald reported
that on 25 September 2001 a CFU survey had found that 1 948 of 3 829 farms
were still occupied. Of the 3 555 remaining members of the CFU, 350 (10%)
had closed down, while another 550 (14%) were operating only partially.
The Agricultural Labour Bureau said 950 of 1 150 occupied farms were
unable to continue normal production and confirmed 350 had ceased
operating. On 570 farms, tobacco production was reported to have been
stopped by farm occupiers.
Colin Cloete, chairman of the CFU, was quoted by The
Daily News as saying: ‘What’s
happening on the ground and what’s happening at the political level are
two different things. The chaos carries on ... The police are not being
helpful.’ After Abuja and the start of the new crop season, 65 000 tonnes of potential tobacco on 26 000 ha, valued at Z$12,5 billion, was lost. Farm occupiers uprooted the seedbeds or forbade planting.
The National Land Committee chaired by Ignatius Chombo said
conservancies must not
be designated or occupied. But occupiers increased
on Save Conservancy farms, despite an eviction order and Government
promises to comply. Masvingo Governor Josaya Hungwe reportedly admitted
that he personally had ordered the acquisition of two Save Conservancy
farms. Governor
Hungwe appears to have deliberately breached both Government policy and
the Abuja agreement. There have been no reports that Governor
Hungwe has been censured.
African Rights complained in writing to SADC chairman President
Muluzi of Malawi about these violations, which it had monitored from
London.
Violence and lawlessness also continued off the farms, in Mount
Darwin, where illegal road blocks were mounted by Zanu-PF. Midlands gold
mines were invaded and gold panners extorted. A new wave of violent political discrimination was launched against rural professionals - doctors, nurses, teachers and civil servants. This violence, in direct contravention of Abuja, violated its victims’ human and constitutional rights. By mid-October, after Government had frozen the prices of foodstuffs and other basic commodities, ‘war vets’ had also invaded more urban companies. In language contradicting both Abuja and our own Constitution, President Mugabe again threatened the owners of capital with loss of their property rights. He was quoted as saying: ‘We
will, as the State, take over any businesses deliberately closed down …
After all, the assets belong to the people of this country and those tired
of doing business here can pack and go. Government will vigorously enforce
the gazetted prices…’
Two days later ‘war vets’ threatened these businesses (especially those owned by Asian and ‘British’ investors). Stick to the prices proclaimed, or face seizure of assets and deportation, they were told. Brian Raftopoulos was cited as saying the seizure of companies was illegal and breached the spirit of Abuja, but was an attempt ‘to arm-twist London to release funds when Harare has failed totally to even start fulfilling the agreement’.
The internationally-respected (British)
Weekly Guardian agreed:
‘Neither
Mr Mugabe nor any other cabinet minister has publicly urged a halt to the
violence or farm invasions. The
foreign minister, Stan Mudenge, said … that as soon as Britain provided
funds for the purchase of the farms the violence would stop of its own
accord’. Abuja
and the presidential election Many
of those allocated land had not taken it up by the 15 September deadline.
Government threatened they would lose their allocations, unless they had
‘convincing reasons’ for absence, such as ‘soldiers on national duty
in areas such as the DRC, members of the ZRP in Kosovo, as well as private
citizens who may be out of the country for one reason or another’. Such
people seem unlikely to be as serious about farming as those whom they
might replace.
Following the failure of other ‘fast-track’ settlers to occupy
their land, the Government sent audit teams to count occupants and
‘assess development’ on occupied farms. ‘We are actually anxious to
see whether the resettled farmers are preparing for the coming season or
not’, Ignatius Chombo was quoted as saying, as the food crisis hit us
big-time.
We assume that Government gave settlers this ultimatum to occupy
their land or lose it because the voter registration exercise for the
presidential election was launched in mid-October. Zanu-PF wanted
fast-track settlers (which it regarded as loyal beneficiaries) registered
in their new constituencies. It also wanted antagonistic farmworkers out
of theirs. ‘Anyone
who thinks the so-called Abuja and SADC summits could lead to
something positive or peaceful is either a hypocrite or a simpleton
… President Mugabe has been redistributing people, chasing those
potential opponents [farmworkers] from their usual homes to disable them
as voters. This will continue until election 2002’ (Arufeya Gungumakushe). ‘With
Abuja all but dead because of the continuing and widening lawlessness, it
does look as if Zimbabwe’s presidential ballot will indeed be held –
if it is held at all – under the most testing of times. Whether
Zimbabweans and the international community will accept the verdict of
elections held under chaos remains to be seen...’ (Financial
Gazette Editorial 18 October 2001). Abuja
and ‘terrorism’ President Mugabe clearly benefitted from the world’s attention being refocussed on international terrorism after 11 September. Zimbabwe’s rural terror dropped way down the international agenda, despite locals renaming the ruling party ‘Taliban PF’. ‘The
irony is that while the whole world is fighting terrorism, Mugabe is
promoting terrorism by incorporating untrained war veterans into the
police force and then arming them’ (Giles Mutsekwa, MDC shadow minister
for defence). ‘Since
the signing of the Abuja agreement in September, government has
intensified its terror campaign against members of the opposition and
commercial farmers’ (The Standard). ‘It
is hypocritical for President Mugabe to express his outrage at the
terrorism which struck America while he accepts terrorism as a political
tool at home… The Government is using terror as a means of coercion
against the rural and urban population to force its political viewpoint’
(Learnmore Ndlovu). While not accepting any of these criticisms, the state-controlled media were quick to condemn as ‘terrorism’ the assaults on Zimbabweans living in South Africa. Official reports missed the parallel between these assaults and what has been happening since March 2000 on Zimbabwe’s own commercial farms. Independent papers and cartoonists identified this terror many months ago. Human Rights Generally This
month, to show comprehensively what has happened after Abuja, our usual
review of human rights’ violations counts publicly-reported violations
from 7 September, the date on which the Abuja agreement was signed, to the
end of October. 1.
Civil rights
There
were 26 published reports of civil rights’ violations. Among these
reports, 18 came from towns and seven were rural. |