By Princess Eugene Majuru
The recent decision by the Zimbabwean government to return 67 farms seized during the Land Reform Program of the early 2000s has reignited one of the most volatile debates in Southern Africa. For some, it is a pragmatic move toward international re-engagement and economic stability; for many others, it is viewed as a betrayal of the liberation struggle and a reversal of the gains made by the indigenous majority.
The Weight of History: Broken Agreements
The roots of this tension lie in colonial-era “agreements” that many historians and legal experts view as fundamental breaches of sovereignty. A primary example is the Lippert Concession of 1891. Originally intended as a 100-year land lease agreement, it was used by colonial forces to systematically dispossess Zimbabweans of their ancestral heritage.
Today, critics argue that returning land to those who benefited from these historical breaches—while the 100-year terms of such concessions were never properly addressed or compensated in favor of the indigenous population—is a strategic and moral error.
The Economic Argument for Indigenous Management
The narrative that Zimbabwe must rely on a minority group of commercial farmers to ensure food security is increasingly being challenged by modern African success stories.
The Burkina Faso Model: Under visionary leadership, Burkina Faso demonstrated that through careful planning, transparency, and the mobilization of local farmers, African nations can achieve self-sufficiency without external dependency.
The Rise of the New Zimbabwean Farmer: Despite challenges with infrastructure and capital, a new generation of black Zimbabwean farmers has proven their capability, contributing significantly to tobacco and grain yields in recent seasons.
Concerns Over Policy Direction
The appointment of a white Minister of Lands and the move to compensate former farmers have been met with widespread disappointment. Many citizens feel this signals a “colonial mindset”—a lack of confidence in the capacity of black professionals and agricultural graduates who are ready to drive the industry forward.
The core of the frustration lies in the allocation of resources:
Employment vs. Inheritance: While 67 farms may become hereditary assets for a few families, millions of Zimbabweans remain jobless.
Education and Investment: There is a growing call to pivot funds toward agricultural education and providing land to the thousands of qualified Zimbabwean agricultural graduates who currently lack the means to produce.
The liberation war was fought on the fundamental principle that the land belonged to the people. By reversing these deals, the government faces accusations of “ill-advised” decision-making that ignores the historical context of land theft.
To move forward, the focus must arguably shift away from restoring a colonial-era status quo and toward empowering the current generation of Zimbabweans. True economic independence is not built on the return of land to the few, but on the transparent and equitable distribution of resources to the many who have the skill, the passion, and the historical right to till their own soil.
The land issue in Zimbabwe is not merely a modern economic debate; it is a profound struggle for the restoration of a stolen heritage. The decision to prioritize the return of 67 farms to former white commercial farmers, while the original custodians of the land—specifically the Mbari Clan—remain displaced and unrecognized, highlights a significant disconnect between current government policy and the historical justice demanded by the liberation struggle.
The Historical Breach: The Lippert Concession of 1891
The primary “breach” that set this entire injustice in motion was the Lippert Concession.
What it was: In 1891, King Lobengula granted Edouard Lippert a lease intended for 100 years. This was a strategic move by the King to play Boer interests against the British South Africa Company (BSAC) led by Cecil Rhodes.
How it was breached: Rhodes secretly bought the concession from Lippert. Instead of a 100-year lease, the BSAC used it as a legal pretext to claim absolute ownership of the land.
The Consequence: The 100-year mark passed in 1991. Under the original terms, the land should have legally reverted to the indigenous authorities. Instead, the colonial structure was maintained, and the indigenous owners—including the Mbari Clan—were never compensated for the 100-year “lease” or the subsequent illegal seizure.
The Displaced Royalty: The Mbari Clan of Harare
While the government moves to compensate white farmers with billions of dollars, the Mbari Clan, the rightful traditional custodians of Harare, remains invisible in the national budget and traditional hierarchy.
46 Years of Inaction: Since independence in 1980, the government has failed to resuscitate the Harare Mbari Chieftainship. This leaves Harare as the only major city in Zimbabwe without its rightful traditional leader.
Ancestral Land Loss: The Mbari were displaced from their sacred lands (including Barapata Hill and areas south of the Manyame River) to make way for the colonial capital. Their totem, Shumba Gurundoro (The Great Lion), represents a lineage of authority that predates colonial arrival by centuries.
Spiritual and Cultural Void: Proponents of the clan argue that the lack of traditional recognition has led to a “spiritual crisis” in the capital, as ceremonies cannot be performed by the rightful sovereigns on their ancestral soil.
The Human Rights Violation: UN and African Charter
The failure to restore the Mbari chieftainship and ancestral land is viewed by many as a direct breach of international human rights frameworks:
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP): Article 10 states that indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands and have the right to “just and fair compensation” for land taken without consent.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: As a signatory, Zimbabwe is obligated to protect the right to property and the cultural development of all its people. Ignoring the Mbari Clan’s claims for nearly half a century is an ongoing violation of these collective rights.
Why 67 Farms Should Not Be Returned
The argument against returning these farms is rooted in the hierarchy of justice:
Sovereignty Over Settlement: Priority must be given to those who held the land for a millennium before it was “given” by colonial decrees. Returning land to the descendants of those who breached the 100-year Lippert agreement rewards the original violation.
Economic Exclusion: Giving land to 67 families reinforces a colonial land-tenure system that excludes the majority of Zimbabweans, including agricultural graduates who could drive a more inclusive economy.
Moral Inconsistency: It is contradictory to pay $3.5 billion to former commercial farmers while the Mbari Royal Family—dispossessed of the very land the capital sits on—receives nothing.
What Zimbabwe Should Be Doing
Prioritize the Mbari Restoration: Resuscitate the Harare Mbari Chieftainship immediately to correct the 46-year delay and restore cultural dignity to the capital.
Audit Historical Concessions: Formally address the legal breaches of the Lippert Concession and use those findings to invalidate claims for return or further compensation from those who benefited from the initial breach.
Empower Indigenous Professionals: Invest in the thousands of black Zimbabwean agricultural graduates who are currently landless, providing them with the resources that are instead being offered back to 67 families.
Comments
About Author
