BY DR MASIMBA MAVAZA| Julius Malema this week came out on eNCA TV news calling for President Mnangagwa a sell out and urging him to step down. This was because Zimbabwe has started compensate white farmers.
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and resettlement must be an Act of Parliament that regulates land acquisition and lays down the procedure and rules for granting compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons in Zimbabwe. The government must provide fair compensation to those whose land is taken away, bring transparency to the process of acquisition of land to set up farming infrastructural projects and assures
rehabilitation of those affected. This should establish regulations for land acquisition as a part of Zimbabwe’s agricultural drive driven by public-private partnership.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement must be set aside as law.
An Act to ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and established under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land compensation and development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanisation with the least disturbance to the new owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition, and make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement and for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compensation should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in our agricultural sector.
Compensation is the prerogative of government to pay for developments done on land taken without the willing consent of its occupant in order to benefit society. It is a power possessed in one form or another by governments of all modern nations. This power is often necessary for social and economic development and the protection of the natural environment. Land must be provided for investments such as roads, railways, harbours and airports; for hospitals and schools; for electricity, water and sewage facilities; and for the protection against flooding and the protection of water courses and environmentally fragile areas.
A government cannot rely on land markets alone to ensure that land is acquired when and where it is needed. However, a number of encourage land grab alone without plans to rehouse the displaced. Justice require that the government should compensate the taken land in good faith after it uses its power of compulsory acquisition. This action is only fair and just.
We should remember that Compulsory acquisition requires finding the balance between the public need for land on the one hand, and the provision of land tenure security and the protection of private property rights on the other hand. In seeking this balance, zimbabwe should apply principles that ensure that the use of this power is limited, to the use for the benefit of society for public use, public purpose, or in the public interest. Legislation should define the basis of compensation for the land, and guarantee the procedural rights of people who are affected, including the right of notice, the right to be heard, and the right to appeal. It should provide for fair and transparent procedures and equivalent compensation.
The point Malema misses is that we are not buying back our land neither are we bribing the former occupants. We are reaching out to the pool of justice. We are being Zimbabweans. Zimbabweans are naturally fair and just.
We do mot approach the land issue as Black against white. We look at the issue of our land as Zimbabweans. Zimbabwe is the only country we can call ours in the whole world.
Mnangagwa is not only the president of Zimbabwe. He is a lawyer and his blood oozes for justice. By compensating the former occupiers Mnangagwa is setting a ground of fairness and justice. This can not be treated as a sign of betrayal. Malema gets it wrong when he said a position of fairness is a position of traitor-ship. This thinking is flawed and tainted with insults which are not called for.
Zimbabwe is not reneging on the gains of our land. It was the land which made Zimbabweans to pick up arms and fo to a war. The wars for our freedom was to free the blacks and white alike. It was not a racist war. The whites were allowed to stay in the great reconciliations championed by Mugabe and Mnangagwa.
What Malema failed to understand is that compensation is not buying back our land. We took our land and we are holding fast to it. We will not in any way give the land back to our colonisers. But if among those who had occupied our land before is some one who wishes to use the land for the benefit of Zimbabwe surely we will embrace him or her. Malema should know that there are some principles for legislation on compulsory acquisition. It is not dog eat dog or a confusion best explained as dog’s breakfast. It is a well thought idea which drips from natural justice to act fairly on every one hence compensating who ever deserves compensation.
Malema in his dreams puts himself as the master of land reform. He must take his seat in the classroom of patience and he must learn. Malema needs total treatment for his big mouth and brains which shows he suffers from a serious verbal and brain malfunctioning.
While Malema is respected in some areas he has been surrounded by a serious ego and he now sees himself as a leader of Africa. He forgets that he only leads EEF. His utterances about our president Mnangagwa are seriously misplaced and they have exposed his lunacy and idiocy. Malema wishes to take a hardline stance and wants Zimbabwe to be his partner in insanity.
2Compulsory acquisition is inherently disruptive and Zimbabwe has learnt from that. Even when compensation is generous and procedures are generally fair and efficient, the displacement of people from established homes, businesses and communities will still entail significant human costs. Where the process is designed or implemented poorly, the economic, social and political costs may be enormous. We have learnt our mistakes as a country and we are correcting it. Make no mistake we are not giving back land we are simply compensating for developments and hope to cove some loses encountered by the former occupants.
Principles for legislation on compulsory acquisition should include:
• Protection of due process and fair procedure. Rules that place reasonable constraints on the power of the government to compulsorily acquire land strengthen the confidence of people in the justice system, empower people to protect their land rights, and increase the perception of tenure security. Rules should provide for appropriate advance consultation, participatory planning and accessible mechanisms for appeals, and
should limit the discretion of officials. Good governance. Agencies that compulsorily acquire land should be accountable
for the good faith compensation scheme. Laws that are not observed undermine the legitimacy of compulsory acquisition.
Good governance reduces the abuse of power and opportunities for corruption. Good governance is seen in coming back and seek justice for even those who suffered under a good cause.
Claimants should be paid compensation which is no more or no less than the loss resulting from the compulsory acquisition of their land. We should ensure that affected owners and occupants receive equivalent compensation, whether in money or alternative land. Mnangagwa has set out clear and consistent valuation bases for achieving this.
Problems may arise when compulsory acquisition is not done well so compensation might look like it is bribing.
Zimbabwe has come up with policies and legislation that strengthen land rights of individuals and communities. This must never be interpreted as selling out. People may believe they lack tenure security if the government can acquire rights in private land without following defined procedures,band/or without offering adequate compensation.
To avoid Resuced investments in the economy: Insecure tenure, with the threat of
the arbitrary loss of land and associated income, discourages domestic and
foreign investment.
• Weakened land markets: Threats to tenure security so by compensating we are showing the world that we are a fair community.
We are not having transactions, to reduce the acceptability of land as collateral, this will discourage people from investing or maintaining their property, and depress land values. To avoid this in his wisdom Mnangagwa has made a decision which is in the best interest of Zimbabweans. Mnangagwa is aware of Opportunities created for corruption and the abuse of power: The lack of protection and transparency can result in injustices which anger citizens and undermine the legitimacy of government. So Mnangagwa has extended a hand of compensation which is powered by the dictates of natural justice. It is very true that Inadequate compensation paid to owners and occupants causes mayhem and distrust. Financial awards may be inadequate to allow people to enjoy sustainable livelihoods after land is acquired. People may feel that they are not compensated for the loss of cultural, religious or emotional aspects of the land.But compensation is for the developments done on the acquired land.
The constitutions of many countries provide for both the protection of private property rights and the power of the government to acquire land without the willing consent of the owner. There is, however, great variation. Some countries have broadly defined provisions for compulsory acquisition, while those of other countries are more specific.Constitutional frameworks that have broadly defined provisions concentrate on basic principles and often simply assert the power to compulsorily acquire land as the single exception to fully protected private property rights. For example, the constitution of the United States of America mandates that: “No person…shall be deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” (Article V). Similarly, Rwanda’s constitution states: “Private property, whether individual or collective, shall be inviolable. No infringement shall take place except for the reason of public utility, in the cases and manner established by the law, and in return for fair and prior compensation.” (Title II, Article 23). Such constitutions leave the details of compulsory acquisition to other legislation and, in some instances, to the interpretation of the courts.
Other constitutional frameworks specify in detail the mechanisms by which the government can compulsorily acquire land. They tend to include a specific list of the purposes for which land may be acquired. For example, Ghana’s constitution includes provisions detailing exactly what kinds of projects allow the government to use its power of compulsory acquisition, and specifies that displaced inhabitants should be resettled on suitable alternative land (Chapter Five, Article 20). Malema obviously is mot aware that land grab is not peculiar to Zimbabwe only. It is done everywhere. The sanity of the programme is defined by the compensation programme. How Zimbabwe compensates it farmer is not a guilty plea. It is simply a gesture of unity.
Never ever mistake our forgiveness and understanding as a sign of weakness.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 17) provides that “everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others” and that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”. The only problem is that Zimbabwe has not taken land from the owners. It took land from the illegal occupiers for the good interests of the public
Several regional conventions on human rights also protect rights to property,Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law.”
• The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1986: “Article 14. The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws.” “Article 21. 1. All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people be deprived of it. 2. In case of spoilation, the dispossessed people shall have the right to the lawful recovery of its property as well as to an adequate compensation.”
• The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, (Article 8, First Protocol): “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” This right is expanded by Article 1, First Protocol: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
So Malema did not have a chance to look at these provisions. He should understand that compensation does not mean selling out. It is human to do so and the humane thing to do is as what president Mnangagwa has done.
Besides land for agriculture government may take land for undertaking improvements to roadways, sewer and power lines, communications, and other systems, the government must often secure or acquire access to private land. Without the government’s power to do so, the size and capabilities of our public infrastructure would become inadequate to serve the needs of society. The right of the government to obtain private land for public purposes is known as eminent domain, and this right derives from federal and state constitutions and related laws.
The power of eminent domain allows the government to take private land for public purposes only if the government provides fair compensation to the property owner. The process through which the government acquires private property for public benefit is known as condemnation.
How the Government Takes Private Property
As the government makes its plans for expansion and improvement of publicly maintained roads and utilities, it determines which private parcels will be affected. Once it makes that determination, the government will work with its own appraisers to determine the appropriate price for the necessary property interests. When the government has established its estimation of the property value, it may offer the landowner a particular price for the property.
Malema has wondered way offline in his spits. He suffers from a mental disorder which makes him like he is the referee.
Malema is the man who has failed to put his mouth where his mind is. He has the mind of a fly and fame of an elephant.
It is a shame that Malema rushed to comment before he understands what is happening. He has a loose mouth and needs some mouthwash to cleanse his unguided speech.
Mnangagwa can never be classified as a traitor as far as land issue is concerned.
It is a shame that such brilliance in Malema has a lunatic as a master.
Mnangagwa can never be called a traitor. He has actually become a double hero since he championed land invasion and land compensation