Zimbabwean white farmers' payout sparks legal fight with war vets
Zimbabwe's promise to compensate white farmers evicted under Robert Mugabe's land reform is facing resistance from some war veterans once hailed as heroes of that revolution.
More than twenty years ago, Zimbabwe's government under Robert Mugabe initiated a sweeping and often violent land reform campaign. The campaign evicted about 4 500 white farmers and reallocated their land to an estimated 300 000 black families. Officials defended the program as a necessary step to address colonial-era land inequalities.
President Emmerson Mnangagwa has pledged to pay just over US$3.5 billion (R63 billion) to more than 4 000 white farmers. The aim is to rebuild relations with Western countries that condemned the land seizures. The compensation only covers improvements made to the farms, not the land itself.
Since the plan was launched in 2020, little has happened. The government has only paid US$3 million (R56 million), covering 378 farms.
According to Zimlive , five former liberation war veterans have gone to court to block the government's compensation deal.
These war veterans include Joseph 'Ginger' Chinguwa, Godfrey 'Zvabhendazvabhenda' Gurira, Joseph 'Hitler Bazooka' Chinyangare, Reuben Zulu, and Digmore Ndiya.
The war veterans believe that the deal with white farmers is unconstitutional without new legislation from Parliament. The human rights lawyer and former finance minister Tendai Biti is representing the war veterans. They've taken their case to the High Court, seeking to have the entire deal declared unconstitutional.
In an affidavit submitted to the court, war veteran Chinguwa noted that Finance Minister Mthuli Ncube has publicly acknowledged a Global Compensation Agreement involving US$3.5 billion (R63 billion) in payments.
Chinguwa said the big issue for war veterans was the lack of detail. The government, he argued, hadn't explained how it calculated the US$3.5 billion (R63 billion). He asked whether the valuation included dams, buildings, or anything else permanently attached to the land.
The war veterans continue arguing: '…in our respectful view, anything permanently affixed to the land is part of the land… This would include, for instance, dams, buildings, fruit, coffee or tea plantations.'
Chinguwa maintained that the government ought to have tabled a clear Act in Parliament. It should have outlined the compensation formula, the scope of land and improvements involved, and the list of intended recipients.
'None of this was done. To this day, the Global Compensation Agreement is a closely kept secret. In a country governed by the rule of law and constitutionalism, this is clearly unconstitutional…'
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1.
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
It's time to talk about weaponising visas against Africans
The anti-migration regulations in Europe and the US against Africans continue to affect the sociopolitical and economic development of Africa. Thousands of Africans who apply for visas continue to have their applications rejected. Moreover, most Africans are charged exorbitant non-refundable fees when applying for visas. Millions in foreign and local currencies are accumulated by European and US embassies in various African countries from visa applications annually. African visa applicants face more severe restrictions compared with applicants from other regions, resulting in a disproportionately high rejection rate. In 2022, Africa topped the list of rejections with 30% or one in three of all processed applications being turned down, even though it had the lowest number of visa applications per capita. Africa accounted for seven of the top 10 countries with the highest Schengen visa rejection rates in 2022: Algeria (45.8%), Guinea-Bissau (45.2%), Nigeria (45.1%), Ghana (43.6%), Senegal (41.6%), Guinea (40.6%) and Mali (39.9%). The situation has become worse over the years as economic instability and conflicts continue to rage in most African countries. Some African countries have started calling for visa reciprocity against travellers from Europe and the US. The US and most European countries do not require visas to enter African countries. According to Justice Malala, a South African political analyst, in May, Namibia unveiled measures to impose entry visa requirements to more than 30 countries that have not reciprocated its open visa regime. Nigeria has threatened to impose the same measures. In the run-up to the French election earlier in July, a Chadian official told France's Le Monde newspaper that if incoming leaders block visas for Chadians, 'we will apply reciprocity'. Zambia's President Hakainde Hichilema recently raised the issue of non-refundable visa fees in his country, demanding the rules on non-refundable fees be re-examined and the visa application fees be refunded to Zambians whose applications are rejected. If his demand is accepted, this must apply to all African countries. According to European states, most rejections are based on 'reasonable doubts about the visa applicants' intention to return home'. Many Africans believe otherwise. They claim that African visa rejections are weaponised against Africans to deprive them of voices at critical political and socio-economic gatherings on global matters such as climate change, artificial intelligence, human trafficking in Europe and the US. These discussions eventually become policies that affect Africa. An increased number of leading Africans on these subjects continue to have their applications rejected. These do not sound like people who present 'reasonable doubts about the visa applicants' intentions to return home'. African News reports that African governments are building partnerships with Europe across sectors, trade, education, and technology. But the barriers to movement stand in stark contrast to the rhetoric of cooperation. The rise of right-wing politics in many parts of the world has also further complicated matters for African visa applicants. Pressure from far-right parties who are in power in half a dozen member states in Europe are outdoing each other in introducing tough anti-immigration measures. US President Donald Trump has just imposed travel bans on 12 countries, of which seven are African — Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. Travel restrictions will be imposed on people from Burundi, Sierra Leone, and Togo. Even before this measure, Trump's anti-migration political campaign and his subsequent extra-judicial expulsion of immigrants without due process now that he is in power has emboldened right-wing anti-migration politics throughout the world. The victory on Monday of the nationalist historian Karol Nawrocki in Poland's presidential election is one case in point. Nawrocki is an admirer of Trump who support by calling for tighter immigration controls and championing conservative social values in the EU. The BBC reports that Trump's administration can temporarily revoke the legal status of more than 500,000 migrants living in the US, the US Supreme Court ruled recently. The ruling puts on hold a previous federal judge's order stopping the administration from ending the 'parole' immigration programme, established by former president Joe Biden. The programme protected immigrants fleeing economic and political turmoil in their home countries. The new order puts roughly 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela at risk of being deported. It is not just the rejection of visa applications that is troubling; the non-refundable visa application fees continue to negatively affect applicants' financial status. According to the London-based research and arts organisation LAGO Collective, African countries have lost an estimated $67.5 million in non-refundable Schengen visa application fees since 2024. Africans find themselves going against the tide in a globalised world where mobility equates to opportunity. They are finding themselves locked out 'not because they lack intention or preparation, but because the system increasingly seems stacked against them'. This matter deserves a wider discussion, preferably at the African Union. The visa rejections of Africans are not only about Africans overstaying their allowed time in Europe and the US. It is about Europe and the US continuing with business as usual, particularly at multilateral level, where binding discussions without the involvement of Africans are taken. This is particularly the case regarding rare earth minerals and other metals essential to new technologies. Thembisa Fakude is a senior research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues and a director at the Mail & Guardian.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Kursk Under Fire, Truth Under Siege
By Gillian Schutte On 5 June 2025, I attended the Russian-hosted international online press symposium titled 'Liberation of Kursk Region', a teleconference convened to present first-hand accounts, evidence, and legal testimony on the attacks carried out by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) and foreign mercenaries during incursions into the Kursk Region. It was a sobering exercise in counter-memory — one that exposed the ideological filters through which Western media interprets war, and how it strategically erases certain kinds of suffering. The event brought together a panel of experts, eyewitnesses, and officials to report on the nature of these violations. Each presentation revealed both the physical damage inflicted on the Russian civilian population, as well as the deeper injury of denial — a refusal by the Western bloc to recognise the legitimacy of Russian civilian grief. The eyewitness accounts shared by three Kurskites were harrowing. One described watching elderly neighbours die when their home was shelled. Another spoke of civilians being shot at close range. A third, fighting tears, recounted the rape of women during the brief occupation of their village. These testimonies were the lived memories of war and trauma, delivered with quiet devastation. Rodion Miroshnik, Ambassador-at-Large of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, provided a comprehensive briefing on what Russia identifies as crimes committed by the Kiev regime. He detailed the shelling of border villages, destruction of non-military infrastructure, use of foreign mercenaries, and the discovery of banned Western-supplied munitions, including cluster bombs and white phosphorus, in civilian zones. Miroshnik cited ongoing investigations by the Russian Investigative Committee into violations of international humanitarian law — all allegedly ignored by the institutions tasked with upholding these laws. According to Miroshnik, several communities in the Kursk Region suffered not only bombardment but were also subject to brief occupations by AFU-aligned forces. During these episodes, civilians were reportedly displaced, forcibly taken into Ukrainian territory, and subjected to psychological trauma. Families returning to liberated areas faced destroyed homes, contaminated land, and unexploded ordnance, with little to no humanitarian intervention from the international community. Igor Kashin, Head of the Special Projects Department in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, presented a legal analysis of these findings. His tone was forensic. He itemised the breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other international protocols, explaining how evidence had been submitted to various global institutions — including the UN and the ICC — yet no meaningful action had followed. Olga Kiriy, a Russian filmmaker and documentarian, delivered a visual account of the devastation. Her footage showed razed schools, burning residential blocks, and civilians returning to ghost towns, still wearing the shock of war on their faces. In one of her documentaries she shows a Ukranian soldier admitting to the rape of women by himself and his unit. Her presentation conveyed what words could not: the raw aftermath of military violence on people who remain unseen and unspoken in the official Western narrative of the conflict. Ivan Konovalov, military analyst and historian, contextualised the attacks on Kursk within a broader framework. He explained that the AFU operations were tactical provocations — designed to destabilise border regions and provoke retaliation, which could then be framed by NATO-aligned media as further proof of Russian aggression. He pointed out that these attacks coincided with deliveries of new Western weaponry to Ukraine, raising serious questions about the complicity of foreign governments and arms manufacturers. The testimonies shared during the teleconference dismantled the binary framework imposed by Western media, where Ukraine is valorised as a struggling democracy and Russia is reduced to a caricature. The reality conveyed by the speakers was more complex and far more disturbing. Russia, too, has civilians. Its towns and villages are not abstract zones on a geopolitical map but home to people who have suffered death, displacement, and the terror of war. Yet these accounts are absent from global headlines. They are not debated in parliaments, nor dissected on primetime panels. Instead, they are swiftly relegated to the realm of 'disinformation' — a catch-all term used by liberal institutions to shut down inconvenient truths. This is the machinery of narrative warfare — where facts are not weighed for their truth, but for their utility to power. The West's information order sustains itself through omission, selective moral outrage, and the assumption that some lives matter more than others. As a South African journalist who has long documented structural injustice, I recognise this silencing. It follows a pattern familiar to the Global South — where international law is invoked as a weapon rather than a principle; where invasions by Western powers are called interventions, but defensive operations by others are framed as crimes; and where victims must pass ideological litmus tests before they are deemed worthy of empathy. The suffering in the Kursk Region demands recognition. The use of banned munitions against civilians, the forced displacement of families, and the destruction of non-military infrastructure all constitute grave breaches of international law. That these acts are committed using Western weapons, under the cover of Western media silence, reveals a moral crisis at the heart of the liberal order. The conference was more than a forum for Russian voices. It was a reminder that truth is not owned by the powerful. It must be spoken even when it is buried. The people of Kursk have lived through war. They have returned to broken homes and haunted fields. Their testimonies exist. Their pain is real. And their silence is manufactured by design. If the term 'liberation' is to have meaning, it must include liberation from the monopolies that determine whose pain is legitimate. It must disrupt the asymmetry of grief that defines the West's geopolitical posture. We owe that to the people of Kursk. We owe it to all communities whose trauma is edited out of history to suit imperial narratives. And we owe it to ourselves, if we are to resist becoming complicit in the global machinery of selective justice. *Gillian Schutte is a South African writer, filmmaker, and critical-race scholar known for her radical critiques of neoliberalism, whiteness, and donor-driven media. Her work centres African liberation, social justice, and revolutionary thought. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
Eyewitness News
4 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
'Return to your country' Kabul tells Afghans rebuffed by Washington
KABUL, Afghanistan - The Taliban government on Saturday urged Afghans hoping to emigrate to the United States to instead return to Afghanistan, after Washington tightened entry conditions. US President Donald Trump this week announced a travel ban targeting 12 countries, including Afghanistan, which his proclamation said lacked "competent" central authorities for processing passports and vetting. Commenting on the ban on Saturday, Prime Minister Hassan Akhund urged Afghans to return to their country, saying they would be protected even if they worked with US-led forces in the two-decade fight against the Taliban insurgency. "For those who are worried that America has closed its doors to Afghans... I want to tell them, 'Return to your country, even if you have served the Americans for 20 or 30 years for their ends, and ruined the Islamic system'," he said in a speech marking the Eid al-Adha holiday, broadcast by state media. "You will not face abuse or trouble," he said, making reassurances that the Taliban Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada had "granted amnesty for all". After surging to power in 2021, Taliban authorities announced a general amnesty for Afghans who worked with the Western-backed forces and government. However, the United Nations has recorded reports of extrajudicial killings, detentions and abuses. In the past four years, the Taliban government has imposed a strict view of Islamic law and restrictions on women which the UN says amount to "gender apartheid". Afghans fled in droves to neighbouring countries during decades of conflict, but the chaotic withdrawal of US-led troops saw a new wave clamouring to escape Taliban government curbs and fears of reprisal for working with Washington. The United States has not had a working embassy in Afghanistan since 2021 and Afghans must apply for visas in third countries, principally Pakistan which has recently ramped up campaigns to expel Afghans. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, Afghans have gradually seen their chances of migrating to the United States or staying there shrink. Trump administration orders have disrupted refugee pathways and revoked legal protections temporarily shielding Afghans from deportation starting in July.
