Categories

Zimbabwe: Supreme Court Allows Ongoing, Unlawful, Farm Invasions

WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.

Original Post Date: 2010-11-30 Time: 09:00:02  Posted By: News Poster

By Alex Bell

The Supreme Court has effectively given the all clear for unlawful land invasions to continue across the country, after dismissing an urgent application for a moratorium on farm seizures to be put in place.

The application was filed by the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) in an attempt to halt the land seizures, by asking the Court to stop the ongoing prosecution of white farmers, whose only crime has been to remain on the properties they own. The CFU’s President Deon Theron explained to SW Radio Africa on Monday that there are only a handful of white farmers left in Zimbabwe, and the moratorium was to give them breathing space until the land issue in the country was sorted out.

The remaining commercial farmers have been under almost constant siege despite the formation of the unity government, which promised to protect the property rights of all Zimbabweans. Farmers have continued to lose land and have been hauled before the courts time and time again, facing accusations of refusing to leave so called ‘State land’. Theron said the situation has become “straight persecution not just prosecution anymore.” He said it is clearly a “racial issue, because only white farmers are being targeted in this way.”

But on Friday Supreme Court Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku dismissed the CFU application with costs, saying the applicants had failed to prove the racial grounds behind the appeal for a moratorium. He also said that CFU could not prove that any black farmers were staying on their land ‘illegally’.

“They cannot be heard to complain that only white commercial farmers are being prosecuted. What is the Attorney-General supposed to do if it is only white farmers who are breaking the law?” Chidyausiku said.

He added: “It is an abuse of court process for the applicants to approach this court seeking an interdict against the AG in these circumstances.”

Chidyausiku said the farmers should simply obey the law by vacating ‘acquired’ land.

“If they have any legal claim to the acquired land, or arising from the acquired land, they can launch proceedings after vacating the acquired land as is required by law. I, therefore, find that the applicants’ complaint has no substance,” he said.

The Chief Justice also made it clear that the 2008 regional ruling, declaring the land grab campaign unlawful, held no power in Zimbabwe, saying the Supreme Court’s decision was final and was not bound or influenced by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal.

The Tribunal in 2008 ordered the government to compensate farmers who had lost their land because of the land grab. The government was also ordered to protect the property rights of the remaining commercial farmers, saying in its ruling that the land grab was inherently racist. But the government has openly dismissed the Tribunal’s judgments, calling them ‘null and void’, despite being bound by SADC Treaty law to respect the court. SADC leaders meanwhile earlier this year chose to stand by their allegiance to Robert Mugabe by not taking action against Zimbabwe for refusing to honour the Tribunal. The Tribunal, instead, was effectively suspended.

The CFU’s Theron said on Monday that he is not surprised by the Supreme Court’s decision, saying “we knew that the same attitude would persist.” But he said their lawyers are examining the official court documents, and “we will continue to seek legal recourse, even if the courts no longer respect the rule of law.”

Meanwhile, a high court judge has been challenged to admit that he occupies former white-owned land seized part of the land grab, which has benefited only Mugabe’s friends, family and loyalists.

Lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa said that high court judge Chinembiri Bhunu had been asked to confirm if he had been allocated one or more farms under Mugabe’s land grab, and to supply details of how long he had been in occupation. He had been also asked to disclose if the former white owner had been compensated.

Original date published: 29 November 2010

Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/201011300505.html?viewall=1