By Princess Eugene Majuru
The unfinished question of ancestral justice, elite accumulation, and Zimbabwe’s urban land crisis
By News of The South Investigations
INTRODUCTION: A WEDDING, 33 HECTARES, AND A NATION’S OLD WOUND
In May 2026, reports circulated in Zimbabwean media and social platforms alleging that businessman Kudakwashe Tagwirei gifted his son 33 hectares of land in Umwinsidale, Harare, alongside a multimillion-dollar cash present at a wedding ceremony.
While the exact valuation and ownership details of the land remain unverified in public land registries, the reported figure—33 hectares in one of Harare’s most exclusive peri-urban zones—triggered renewed national debate about land ownership, transparency, and elite accumulation.
The controversy reopened a deeper structural question:
Who owns Harare’s land—and on what basis is it allocated, transferred, or inherited?
At the same time, Zimbabwe is pursuing one of its largest urban development expansions in decades, including Mount Hampden’s new administrative city and Mazowe corridor urbanisation, while simultaneously implementing sensitive land restitution under international agreements.
These overlapping processes expose a central contradiction:
land restitution at the international level, versus unresolved ancestral claims at the indigenous level.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: BEFORE HARARE WAS HARARE
Harare was formally established in 1890 by the Pioneer Column as Fort Salisbury under colonial rule, later renamed Salisbury, and finally Harare in 1982 after independence.
However, historical accounts and oral traditions preserved in local historiography indicate that the land was not empty prior to colonial occupation.
According to historical reconstructions of pre-colonial governance structures, the area now known as Harare and surrounding Mazowe corridors fell under the jurisdiction of Chief Mbari, whose territory reportedly extended across:
present-day Harare CBD outskirts
Mazowe basin regions
Domboshava and surrounding highlands
western boundaries toward Zvimba and Darwendale
These accounts describe a decentralized but structured system of land stewardship governed through lineage, spiritual custodianship, and chieftainship institutions.
In this framework, land was not “owned” in a modern legal sense, but administered communally under ancestral authority.
COLONIAL DISPOSSESSION AND URBAN RESTRUCTURING
Colonial settlement beginning in 1890 fundamentally transformed land tenure systems.
By the early 20th century:
Indigenous land administration systems were dismantled
Urban areas such as Harare were zoned for settler administration
African populations were relocated into designated townships such as Mbare (formerly Harari)
Mbare itself became one of the earliest African residential zones, but under strict segregation and controlled urban planning structures that limited ownership rights for indigenous populations.
The result was a dual system:
Settler private ownership of high-value land
Restricted African urban tenancy in designated zones
This structural inequality persists in modified form today through title deed systems, municipal allocations, and state land controls.
POST-INDEPENDENCE LAND QUESTION (1980–2026)
After independence in 1980, Zimbabwe inherited a deeply unequal land structure.
Key milestones include:
1980–1999: Gradual land reform attempts
2000: Fast Track Land Reform Programme
2000s–present: Mixed outcomes of redistribution, compensation debates, and legal disputes
2020s: Shift toward international compensation frameworks and investment treaty settlements
A major recent development occurred in May 2026, when government confirmed plans to return 67 farms covered under Bilateral Investment Protection Agreements (BIPPAs) to European nationals as part of compensation and re-engagement policies.
This policy shift signals a legal recognition of external land claims under treaty obligations.
However, it also raises a critical internal contradiction:
If international land claims can be legally recognised and compensated, what framework exists for indigenous ancestral claims that predate colonial treaties themselves? Why is the Mbari land dispossession and loss constantly being ignored?
CASE STUDY 1: MOUNT HAMPDEN AND THE NEW CITY PROJECT
Mount Hampden, located about 18 km from Harare, has been designated as Zimbabwe’s new parliamentary and administrative capital zone.
Recent reports indicate:
The project covers over 15,000 hectares
Approximately 48 farms and 254 properties are affected
A compensation package of around US$75.6 million is being processed
Delays in payments have slowed development progress
This transformation reflects a broader state strategy: decentralising Harare’s congestion and building a modern administrative hub.
However, land clearance and compensation processes have also triggered displacement concerns and legal uncertainty among affected landholders.
Critics argue that while compensation mechanisms exist for formal title holders, historical or customary land claims are not part of the planning framework.
CASE STUDY 2: MAZOWE CORRIDOR AND SMART CITY EXPANSION
The Mazowe region has increasingly been integrated into Zimbabwe’s “smart city” and peri-urban expansion discourse.
Reports from affected communities indicate:
issuance of relocation notices in some areas
conversion of farmland into urban development zones
lack of formal recognition of historical custodial claims
Within the Mazoe smart city project no land or amount of stands have been allocated for the Mbari Clan.
While government policy frames this as modernization and urban expansion, local stakeholders argue it reflects a continuation of historical land abstraction without ancestral restitution mechanisms.
THE LAND GOVERNANCE PARADOX IN HARARE
Modern Harare land allocation operates through:
City of Harare housing waiting lists
private developers and housing cooperatives
state land allocations via Ministry of Lands
informal land baron networks (in some cases)
Official guidance requires registration and verification through council systems to avoid illegal land sales and double allocation risks.
Yet, land disputes remain common, with overlapping claims between developers and authorities, highlighting governance fragmentation.
THE MBARI CLAN CLAIM: ANCESTRAL OWNERSHIP AND UNRESOLVED SOVEREIGNTY
Within this broader land debate, the Mbari clan asserts a historical custodial claim over Harare and surrounding regions.
Recent public petitions from Mbari representatives have called for:
reinstatement of chieftaincy structures
recognition of ancestral jurisdiction
consultation with government and traditional leadership bodies
Their argument is grounded in the principle that:
colonial restructuring did not erase ancestral stewardship rights, but merely displaced them administratively.
From this perspective, modern land allocation systems are seen as continuing a historical interruption rather than resolving it.
However, it must be noted:
These claims are not currently recognised in Zimbabwe’s formal land tenure system
They exist within cultural, historical, and advocacy frameworks rather than statutory property law
COMPARATIVE QUESTION: WHO GETS RESTITUTION?
Zimbabwe’s current land policy environment reveals a structural asymmetry:
Recognised frameworks include:
state land allocation
private property title systems
international investment treaty claims
compensation frameworks for displaced farm owners
Not formally recognised:
ancestral custodial land claims without statutory title
pre-colonial chieftaincy-based territorial sovereignty claims
This creates a dual reality:
legal land ownership is modern and documentation-based
historical land legitimacy is cultural and memory-based
THE UNRESOLVED QUESTION OF JUSTICE
The controversy surrounding elite land accumulation, peri-urban expansion, and smart city development is not isolated.
It reflects a deeper unresolved issue in Zimbabwe’s political economy:
land is simultaneously an economic asset, a political instrument, and a historical grievance.
The Tagwirei land controversy—whether fully verified in legal terms or not—symbolises public concern over how large tracts of high-value land are acquired and transferred within elite networks.
Meanwhile, state-driven development in Mount Hampden and Mazowe reflects a forward-looking modernization agenda, but one that continues to operate without integrating ancestral custodial frameworks into planning systems.
Between these two realities lies the unresolved tension:
modern legal ownership
colonial legacy redistribution
ancestral custodianship claims
Until Zimbabwe develops a unified framework that reconciles these three layers, land will remain not just a resource—but a persistent national fault line.
Comments
About Author
