Complying with the Abuja Agreement: Two Months Report
In terms of the Abuja Agreement, the Zimbabwean Government committed itself to “take firm action against violence and intimidation”. This report examines whether there has been compliance with this term of the Agreement.
December 17, 2001

Commonwealth human rights standards

[go directly to Adherence to the Abuja Agreement]

[go directly to The land crisis and farm invasions]

The Harare Declaration was issued in 1991 by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Harare. This Declaration, and the subsequent amplification in the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme in New Zealand, states the Commonwealth’s standards on human rights and good governance. The Harare Declaration was based upon the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles formulated in Singapore in 1971. These Principles were drawn up in the era of Rhodesian rebellion, and apartheid in South Africa, and, to some extent reflected the concerns of that historical period. They were relatively straightforward nonetheless, and are still applicable today. Starting with an assertion that material well-being is dependent upon peace, order, economic development and the rule of law, the Principles have this to say about human rights:

“…we believe in the liberty of the individual under the law, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief, and in the individual's inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives; we recognise racial prejudice and intolerance as a dangerous sickness and a threat to healthy development, and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil; we oppose all forms of racial oppression, and we are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality…”

These are very strong principles, but were nonetheless deemed to be in need of revision and extension. The CHOGM in Harare decided to revisit the Principles and make them applicable to the challenges of the new, post-Cold War world. In 1991, the Commonwealth decided to take a more active position regarding the adherence to these Principles. It decided upon indicators of adherence. As regards human rights and good governance, these included:

·         the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth;

·         democracy, democratic processes and institutions which reflect national circumstances, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, just and honest government;

·         fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief;

·         extending the benefits of development within a framework of respect for human rights;

·         support of the United Nations and other international institutions in the world's search for peace, disarmament and effective arms control; and in the promotion of international consensus on major global political, economic and social issues.

Thus, the Commonwealth has laid out both principles and standards for good national and international behaviour, and all Commonwealth countries voluntarily agreed to be bound by these. It is pertinent to point out that virtually all SADC countries are also members of the Commonwealth, and that these Commonwealth standards must have some application in the thinking of  SADC.

The final stage of the Commonwealth human rights process has been the establishment at Millbrook in New Zealand of a mechanism to enforce these principles and standards: the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group.

At the 15th meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) in March 2001, the Ministers from Botswana, Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Canada, Malaysia, Nigeria and the United Kingdom took the step of making a statement on the current Zimbabwe crisis. In the usual mild language of the diplomat, they stated some very serious concerns:

“They recalled that at their thirteenth meeting in May 2000, Ministers had expressed concerns over a number of issues in the run-up to Zimbabwe's parliamentary elections. The Ministers were concerned that problems continue, and noted especially recent reports of intimidation of the judiciary and the media. They recalled and affirmed the principles embodied in the Commonwealth Harare Declaration to which all Commonwealth members have pledged their commitment.”

It is to this human rights background that the Abuja Agreement makes explicit reference, and to these standards that we must refer in deciding upon the Zimbabwe Government’s adherence to the Agreement. We assert that that these standards are relevant in assessing the compliance of SADC states to regional standards of human rights observance. Additionally, we would point out the development of regional standards for free and fair elections, and the quality of elections is clearly an issue for determining adherence to the Harare Declaration.

Adherence to the Abuja Agreement (and the Harare Declaration)

The Harare Declaration and the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme provide some clear parameters for assessing the human rights observance of any Commonwealth country. The Abuja Agreement made explicit reference to these standards. Violations of gross human rights, especially in pursuit of electoral dominance, strike at the heart of the Commonwealth standards.

The Human Rights Forum has repeatedly condemned serious violations of human rights over the past eighteen months. The Government has not addressed these concerns in any credible fashion. The only responses from the President and the Government have been:

·         to pass an amnesty for those guilty of political violence;

·         to attempt to prevent the courts from setting aside election results even if alleged use of

·         violence and other electoral violations were to be proven; and

·         continuously to assert, ever more vociferously, that there are no such violations and that

·         Zimbabwe is a law-abiding country.

The question is whether the Zimbabwe Government has taken firm measures to prevent political violence since the signing of the Abuja Agreement. This requires not merely an examination of human rights observance, but also an examination of the Government’s conduct as a whole. The intention of the Government to enact further anti-democratic and draconian legislation does not suggest adherence to the spirit of Abuja, nor a commitment to the spirit of the SADC Presidents’ initiative. Here we would point to the following:

·         the tabled amendments to the electoral regulations;

·         the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill;

·         the proposed Public Order and Security Bill;

·         the rejection of international monitors.

However, the public face of the crisis has been the so-called “land crisis”, and this has been at the heart of both the Abuja Agreement and the SADC initiatives. The Zimbabwe Government has made many undertakings in respect of these two initiatives, and it is relevant to examine the Government’s compliance with its undertakings.

The land crisis and farm invasions

All reasonable people fully accept that the present pattern of land distribution is inequitable and that there is a for large-scale land reform in Zimbabwe. The only dispute relates to the way in which land redistribution should take place. In the various court judgments referred to below all the judges recognise that land reform has to take place to redress inequitable land distribution.

Occupations of white owned farms commenced at the end of February. Government pretended that it did not order, organise or take part in these farm invasions. It claimed that the invasions were a spontaneous manifestation by the people of desperate land hunger and a peaceful protest against the rejection of a constitution that contained a provision allowing Government to acquire white farmland without compensation. It is clear that these farm invasions were planned and orchestrated by the leadership of Zanu (PF). A few days after the referendum results there were large-scale, synchronised invasions of farms countrywide. Government Ministers and other high-ranking Zanu (PF) politicians and local party officials linked up with war veterans during this process. There was also active involvement of intelligence and army personnel.

The farm invasions formed an essential part of a political strategy to combat the growing influence of the MDC and to win back rural support by using the promise of land resettlement. The Government also used the land issue to try to deflect attention away from other pressing problems such as the dire state of the economy and widespread, large-scale corruption within Government. After the initial invasions there was a massive and rapid expansion of the process. This process required considerable pre-planning and logistical support. There was substantial Government involvement in carrying out the farm invasions. The farm occupiers were transported in an assortment of Government vehicles to the farms they were going to occupy. Once in place the occupiers received monthly payments and regular food supplies which were delivered in Government vehicles.

The farm occupiers waged a violent campaign against the commercial farmers to drive them off the land. Some farmers were killed and many were assaulted. The occupiers also attacked farm workers and destroyed many of their houses. They drove large numbers of farm workers off the farms leaving them destitute.

The commercial farmers brought a series of court cases to try to protect their rights. A full summary of these cases is contained in Appendix 2 of this report. What follows here is a short overview of these court decisions. To start off with the commercial farmers were able to obtain High Court orders declaring the farm invasions to be unlawful and ordering the police to evict the invaders. The police refused to comply with these orders and the government maintained that it would be ill advised for the police that to intervene in a situation that was so charged with political and racial overtones. The land distribution and ownership pattern in Zimbabwe was iniquitous and it needed to be remedied in the shortest possible time. It would not promote the rule of law to enforce an inequitable ownership structure, through the application of brutal state power.

Eventually the matter came before the Supreme Court in late 2000. The Supreme Court was still headed by Chief Justice Gubbay, who was later forced to resign prematurely after government had waged a vitriolic campaign against him. The Supreme Court pointed out that land reform was required in Zimbabwe. What it took issue with was the way in which land redistribution was being effected. It found that fast track land reform had been carried out in a violent and haphazard manner in violation of the Constitution and the laws of Zimbabwe. It ordered that land acquisitions must stop until the government had devised a workable programme of land reform in accordance with the constitutional requirements and until government had restored the rule of law on the farms. However, it suspended this order for six months to allow government to come up with such a programme and to restore the rule of law on the commercial farms.

After this judgment Government passed new legislation that was fast-tracked through Parliament. This was the Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act [Chapter 20:26]. The effect of this piece of legislation was to protect from eviction for a period of six months all farm occupiers who had occupied farms in anticipation of re-settlement. It suspended the operation of court orders ordering the eviction of settlers and it precluded the courts from ordering the eviction of these occupiers. It also protected the setters against criminal and civil liability for unlawful occupation of properties and damage caused on the properties.

By the time the matter came back to the Supreme Court Chief Justice Chidyausiku in place of Gubbay and had appointed three additional Supreme Court judges. All these new appointees were widely viewed as being less independent. All four of these judges sat when the land case can back to the Supreme Court for adjudication. The only judge in this case who had sat in the previous case was Judge Ebrahim. The judges for this case were thus selected in a way that would ensure that the court would be likely to favour the Government case.

All the judges other than Ebrahim, ruled that the Government had shown that it had satisfied the conditions laid down previously by the Supreme Court. It now had in place a lawful programme of land reform that was constitutional. The actual way in which the programme was being implemented was outside the purview of the court. They also found that the Government had also restored the rule of law on the commercial farms as it had shown that the police had taken adequate steps to enforce law and order. The rule of law did not require absence of criminal violations; all it required that proper steps to taken to enforce the law. They also ruled that the Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act was constitutional.

Judge Ebrahim strongly disagreed with the majority. He found that the rule of law had not been restored and that a lawful programme of land reform had not been put in place. The real question regarding legality was whether the programme was being implemented lawfully and in accordance with legally stipulated processes. Haphazard squatting could not constituted a lawful programme of land reform. He decided that Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act was unconstitutional. In violation of constitutional rights, it deprived the landowner of his rights or interests in his land without compensation; it allowed arbitrary entry into property and occupation of that property, it deprived landowners of their right to protection of the law and the right to freedom of association.

The Government has passed further laws that restrict further the rights of commercial farmers. These include a law that says that when a farmer received notice of acquisition, he must discontinue farming his land and it is a criminal offence for him to interfere with land occupiers. He may continue to occupy his farmhouse but for a maximum period of three months. Another law has been passed that limits farm sizes of farmland to a maximum of 250 hectares in cropping areas and 2000 hectares in ranching areas. This will drastically curtail large scale commercial agriculture.

Violence on the commercial farms

The Human Rights Forum will not give detailed information on the violence on the commercial farms as this has been extensively documented elsewhere. What is clear is that the invasions of farms have not ceased since the Abuja Agreement, and the available evidence indicates that in some areas the violence may even have worsened. The Zimbabwe Republic Police submitted a report to the Abuja Foreign Ministers contradicting this view, claiming that the situation on the commercial farms had improved dramatically since Abuja. However, this highly partisan and misleading report is at variance with the evidence before the Forum.

The Commercial Farmers Union reports further farm invasions, with some farmers being driven off their farms and some farmers being violently attacked. It provides details of considerable disruption of farming activities, destruction of crops and deliberate burning of pastureland. Finally it documents the continuing violent attacks upon farm workers and the driving off farms of large numbers of farm workers and their families. The large-scale displacement of farm workers from commercial farms is of particular concern. The CFU estimated that 70,000 commercial farm workers and their families had been displaced by the end of August 2001, but this figure has greatly increased in the past few months. It is of extreme concern that no up-to-date figure is available and this masks a humanitarian crisis.

For its part the Zimbabwe Government accuses the Commercial Farmers Union of putting out false information about the situation on the farms. In the light of the claims and counter-claims, the Forum would merely re-assert its earlier statement there is a need for an independent of what has happened on commercial farms since the signing of the Abuja Agreement.

The cases reported to the Forum of violence on farms are summarized below.

Chegutu

Ø       On 30 November, farm invaders and war veterans burnt down 42 houses belonging to Asaf Jazire, Selina Mafuta, Mariyani Tenesi and other unnamed farm workers at Blackmorevale Farm. Some of the workers were beaten with chains and knobkerries while others sustained burns and were treated at Kadoma Hospital. The workers were then ordered to vacate the farm. The owner of the farm was accused of supporting the MDC and aiding gold panners in the area.

Chinhoyi

Ø       On October 9, 20 farm occupiers and war veterans slashed 1.5 ha of new tobacco crop and damaged $135 000 worth of property on Njiri Farm in Chinhoyi, an undesignated farm. The police arrived two hours after the incident and told the occupiers to stop.

Guruve South

Ø       On 16 November, a pastor, his wife, and the senior foreman at Marira Mbada Farm in Horseshoe were assaulted after they failed to produce ZANU (PF) cards and were therefore accused of being MDC supporters.

Hwedza

Ø       According to The Herald, on 15 September 2001, farm workers at Bita Farm allegedly attacked resettled farmers and ZANU (PF) supporters Fanuel Madzvimba and Alexio Nyamadzawo. Both men were assaulted and subsequently killed with axes, steel chains, spears, sticks, knobkerries and stones. They were killed when they arrived to occupy plots that had been allocated to them at the farm.

Ø       On 15 September 2001, again at Bita Farm, resettled farmers and war veteran militias burnt the huts of 60 unnamed farm workers. The arson attack was in retaliation to the killing of two resettled farmers by farm workers.

Ø       On 18 September 2001 a Daily News crew had gone to cover an incident in which two farm invaders had died in clashes with farm workers at Bita Farm. Farm invaders thought to be ZANU (PF) supporters accused the Daily News journalists, Colin Chiwanza, Mduduzi Mathuthu, Virginia Mauluka and Trust Maswela Mpofu, of being spies for the MDC and the UK Government. They were assaulted for 30 minutes by an “illegal gang camping at the [farm] entrance” permitted by ZRP and ZNA to vet visitors. A ZNA soldier firing into the air and threatening to shoot occupiers saved them.

Ø       On 15 September 2001 at Bita Farm, three lorries arrived carrying about 400 people. C.M. was in the house and heard noise outside. When he went outside to investigate, he saw people being beaten in the compound, including children. He tried to run away but a group of about 12 people cornered him and assaulted him with planks and poles. He received a blow to the head and they assaulted him all over the body. He pretended that he had passed out and the group left him for dead. As a result of the attack, he experiences dizziness, numbness and pins and needles in his arms and legs, has backache, chest pain, bruises on his back, leg, and hands.

Kwekwe

Ø       Occupiers on a farm belonging to S. Smith in Kwekwe have continued to set fires (60%

Ø       of grazing burned), fell trees, poach, snare wildlife, and have been hostile in threatening to remove the owners. Farm workers are intimidated daily. A local businessman who reportedly paid the District Administrator for the use of the land occupied one farm homestead. The ZRP have rendered no assistance.

Marondera East / West

Ø       On October 8, unnamed farm occupiers assaulted Hamish Charters of Eirene Farm with whips and sjamboks on his back and shoulders.

Ø       At Chipesa Farm, on October 11, David Kay was arrested on a charge of attempted murder when he went to report that invaders were prohibiting his farming activities. A court order from Justice Chinhengo bars such activity.

Ø       On October 13 farm occupiers from Svosve and ZANU (PF) supporters, including Edward Jera, accused five unnamed farm workers at Uitkyk farm of supporting white farmers and the MDC. The workers were assaulted with axes, knobkerries, chains and sticks. Police took all five to Marondera for hospital treatment.

Ø       The incident follows the issuing of a High Court order dated 4 October 2001 from Justice Chinhengo served on Marondera police on 9 October instructing them to curb lawlessness and enable normal farming operations on Uitkyk, Eirene, Safari, Munemo and Chance farms. Despite intervention and ferrying of the injured to the hospital, the farm owner Angus Campbell believes that ZRP Sgt. Matambanadzo failed to take action contain the situation as the violence developed.

Ø       Between October 13 and 14 Unnamed farm occupiers and ZANU (PF) supporters beat three unnamed farm workers including one pregnant worker at Uitkyk farm. The pregnant woman was repeatedly kicked in stomach until she vomited.

On November 7:

Ø       Tendai Peturo, Takudzwa Chikasha who is Peturo's son (aged 5) and more than twenty-five unnamed farm workers from Mushangwe, Eirene, Angus and Safari Farms were severely assaulted for 'siding with their masters’. Chikasha sustained bruises on his face plus a swollen mouth. The assailants were wielding sticks, knobkerries, chains and stones.

Ø       War veterans and ZANU (PF) supporters beat Nyarugumi Kamburuwa, a farm worker at Mushangwe Farm, all over his back with chains.

Ø       War veterans and ZANU (PF) supporters beat Moses Nyandoro, a farm worker at Munemo Farm, with a hoe handle. $2 300 stolen was stolen from him during the same incident.

Ø       Farm invaders in the Ruzawi River Valley severely assaulted a three-year-old child. The child sustained bruises and cuts on face. The invaders also assaulted farm workers in the Ruzawi River Valley and destroyed the workers houses in an attempt to get them to vacate their farm.

The following events, affecting farm workers, took place at Munemo Farm on November 7.

Ø       Farm invaders came to N.K’s home, kicked the door in and assaulted him with sticks.

Ø       Four farm invaders came to A.W’s house, kicked the door in and assaulted him with sticks. They also stole $1 600, a handbag and pens.

Ø       Seven farm invaders came to E.N’s  house and kicked the door in. They went to her bed and assaulted her with wire and sticks.

Ø       Nine farm invaders came to M.N’s house and beat him with sticks. Six of them took his wife and went off with her.

Ø       Farm invaders came to P.G’s house and broke his door down. He went out of his house to see what was happening and beating him with a stick.

Ø       Four farm invaders came to E.T’s house and broke the door down. They went to her bed and beat her. They also stole $8 000 and 2 blankets.

Ø       Five farm invaders broke the door down at P.N.’s house, then beat her with a chain.

Ø       Farm invaders broke into C.M’s house after by kicking the door in. They beat him with sticks and a chain.

Ø       Farm invaders kicked the door of E. B’s house open and beat her with sticks.

Ø       Two farm invaders came to B. Y’s house, kicked the door open and beat him with thick sticks.

Ø       Farm invaders broke the door to S.I’s house down and beat him while he still lay on his bed.

Ø       Farm invaders broke the down the door and window of A. C’s house and then beat her with logs.

Ø       Farm invaders broke into A.Y’s house through the window and entered the bedroom. They beat her before she escaped through the window. The invaders also stole $5 000 from her.

Masvingo North

Ø       Albert Chamwadoro, an ex-ZANU (PF) MP for Chivi North and the owner of Allandale Farm in Mashava, had the entrance to his farmhouse locked by a group directed by the supporters of Josaya Hungwe, the provincial governor. The group also threatened to kill Chamwadoro. The farm workers were chased away.
Chamwadoro is allied to Eddison Zvogbo’s faction of ZANU (PF) which is sometimes at variants with others in the party. He bought Allandale Farm from Mashaba-Shabani Mines in 2000. Black-owned farms are not supposed to be designated, but Hungwe insisted on the designation and occupation, stating that the certificate of no interest under which Chamwadoro had purchased the farm had been cancelled.

Murehwa South

Ø       On 18 September 2001, at Jibandi Farm in Macheke, six unnamed ZANU (PF) supporters assaulted the farm owner after having assaulted the farm workers and ordered them to cease work. They returned with reinforcements from Nyazema Township and assaulted the farm workers again and torched their houses. Information about this incident came from Peter Nyadembera, MDC secretary for info and publicity in area.

Ø       On 11 November, Alan Bradley, a commercial farmer, was shot at close range through the shoulder and into the chest at Royal Visit Farm and seriously injured. The farmer, his wife and their two children were returning home when they came across a log barricade on the farm road.  The farmer, who was the passenger, got out of the car to ask for the barricade to be removed.  When he was met with a hostile response, he got back into the vehicle, but was shot through the shoulder into the chest. It is not clear what type of weapons were used. The motive for the shooting is also not clear, but the farm is occupied and it is known that there is friction between the settlers, senior war vets and the farmer as the former insist that the farmer should not be permitted to continue production. The police arrested one suspect, William Nyawire.

Ø       On 14 November, Unnamed farm workers from Springdale, Craiglea and Mug Farms in Macheke were all evicted from their homes by farm invaders. The ZRP was called in but failed to resolve the matter.

Ø       Unnamed farm workers at Nyagadzi Farm in Macheke had their huts burnt down by farm invaders.

Mutare West

Ø       On October 19 at Guy Coke-Norris’ Nyatso Farm in Odzi, war veterans used a District Development Fund tractor to plough 2 hectares of high-value export flowers 48 hours before picking was due. The value of the flowers was at least $1,2 million in inputs alone. The war veterans threatened to return and destroy the remaining flower crop if he did not leave the farm immediately. They had earlier looted the garden of $1,4 million in vegetables and gum plantation for temporary housing materials, destroyed a brick-making plant and looted two farmhouses belonging to his sons. Among the illegal settlers is a top-ranking local police officer that visits the farm regularly from the ZRP base in Santana.

Zvimba South

Ø       Farm invaders abducted the farm manager of Mede Farm in Nyabira. It has been ascertained that the manager is still alive. The Nyabira police initially would not react and then did not answer their phone. Eventually a vehicle was then sent to Nyabira to collect the ZRP. It is unclear whether the farm manager has since been released.

Ø       Armed invaders from Lilfordia farm base assaulted Maggie Christian and six unnamed farmworkers of Umzuzuru farm in Nyazura. They stoned all farmhouse windows and stole two tractors. Alistair Smith (the farm owner) was not at home when the attack occurred. Umzuzuru is a large dairy farm that has recently been delisted.

Ø       As can be seen from these cases, there continues to be violence on the commercial farms. The Forum is unable to determine the complete extent of the violence, but the cases indicated above cast serious doubts upon the validity of the Supreme Court’s judgment as well as upon the assertions of the ZRP that the rule of law has been re-established on the commercial farms. It thus remains a priority that there is an independent commission of inquiry into the many aspects of the Government’s land reform and its application.

Contents    « Prev    Next »

TOP