Zimbabwe farmers' group rejects compensation deal for past land seizures
The group has criticized the compensation that some farmers have accepted as 'token' amounts.
There was little sign Wednesday that the government of the southern African nation would reopen talks. It has said the compensation deal represents closure.
About 4,000 white farmers lost their homes and swaths of land when the Black-majority country's then-president, Robert Mugabe, launched the redistribution program in 2000. Mugabe pointed to the need to address colonial-era land inequities after the southern African nation gained independence from white minority rule in 1980.
Zimbabwe's finance minister, Mthuli Ncube, last week announced that the government had started paying compensation to white farmers who lost land and property during the reforms. He said the government had approved the disbursement of $3.1 million, equivalent to 1% of the total compensation claim of $311 million.
According to the deal, the farmers would receive 1% of their claim in cash, with the balance settled through the issuance of treasury bonds over 10 years.
A first batch of 378 farmers has already been paid out of 740 farms approved for compensation, a move confirmed by Andrew Pascoe, who represents the beneficiary farmers. He said they were 'extremely grateful.'
The dissenting group representing nearly half of the 4,000 commercial farmers asserted that those accepting the payments were doing so out of desperation.
'The limited number of farmers who have accepted the government's revised deal have generally done so because they are destitute and require urgent funds for food, accommodation and healthcare,' representative Deon Theron said.
He called the government compensation 'a tiny fraction' of the $3.5 billion to be paid in cash over five years that was agreed under a deal between white farmers and President Emmerson Mnangagwa in 2020.
The compensation deal is part of conditions of a debt resolution and international re-engagement strategy by Zimbabwe after years of sanctions and isolation by the United States and other Western countries over alleged rights abuses against perceived critics of the government.
A few thousand farmers had owned most of Zimbabwe's prime farmland before the land reform, which saw about 300,000 Black families resettled on the acquired land, according to government figures.st
Theron said most of the white farmers are now in their 70s and 80s and are unlikely to benefit from the issuance of the treasury bills.
'They are going to their graves without receiving any compensation. They need cash, and it has to be paid while they are still alive,' he said.
He added, however, his group would not take legal action. He said efforts by his group to meet government officials have been unsuccessful.
Land ownership is an emotive topic in Zimbabwe and neighboring countries such as Namibia and South Africa, a result of colonial land conquests that dispossessed local Blacks.
In South Africa, a new land expropriation law has attracted criticism from U.S. President Donald Trump, who views it as a rights violation against a white minority who owned huge swaths of land. South Africa has rejected Trump's claims.
© Copyright The Zimbabwean. All rights reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Syria orders full body swimwear for women on public beaches
Syria's Islamist-led government has decreed that women should wear burkinis or other swimwear that covers the body at public beaches and swimming pools, while permitting Western-style beachwear at private clubs and luxury hotels. The tourism ministry decision issued this week marks the first time the Damascus authorities have issued guidelines related to what women can wear since Bashar Al Assad was toppled in December. During the Assad family's rule of Syria, which was shaped by a secular Arab nationalist ideology, the state imposed no such restrictions, though people often dressed modestly at public beaches, reflecting conservative norms. The new requirements were set out in a wider decree dated June 9 and which included public safety guidelines for beaches and swimming pools ahead of the summer, such as not spending too long in the sun and avoiding jellyfish. It said that beachgoers and visitors to public pools should wear "appropriate swimwear that respects public decency and the feelings of different segments of society," requiring "more modest swimsuits" and specifying "the burkini or swimming clothes that cover the body more." Women should wear a cover or a loose robe over their swimwear when moving between the beach and other areas, it said. Men should wear a shirt when not swimming, and are not allowed to appear bare-chested "in the public areas outside the swimming areas - hotel lobbies or ... restaurants", it said. The decree added that "in public areas outside the beaches and swimming pools", it was preferable to wear loose clothing that covers the shoulders and knees and to avoid transparent or very tight clothing. It offered an exception for hotels classed as four stars or above, and for private beaches, pools and clubs, saying "normal Western swimwear" was generally permitted, "with adherence to public morals and within the limits of public taste." Since Sunni Islamist-led rebels overthrew Assad, fliers have appeared urging women to cover up, but the government has issued no directives ordering them to observe conservative dress codes. A temporary constitution passed earlier this year strengthened the language on the role of sharia (Islamic law) in Syria. Interim President Ahmed Al Sharaa, who led an al Qaeda group before cutting ties with the jihadist network, has sidestepped interviewers' questions on whether he thought Syria should apply sharia, saying this was for experts to decide. Reuters
Gulf Today
17 hours ago
- Gulf Today
This is how Trump has become America's bully-in-chief
Eric Lewis, The Independent The Trump administration makes clear nearly every day that the rule of law is for chumps. It has been nearly three months since they deported 137 Venezuelans without hearings to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, where they are being held indefinitely in horrific conditions. Others have been deported to third countries with which they have no connection. Many have been deported in clear violation of federal court orders enjoining the administration from doing so. Judges have repeatedly held that deportation without notice and a hearing is illegal. The administration has claimed to have no power to obtain the return of people sent, even in defiance of court order, because they are no longer in the United States. Eight detainees were being sent to South Sudan, one of the world's worst conflict zones. A Boston judge said it was "unquestionably in violation of this court's order". Rather than returning them, the Trump administration diverted the plane to another African country wracked by conflict, Djibouti, where they are held in a shipping container. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Venezuelan that the administration admitted had been deported by mistake, and had been cleared to remain in the United States because of a legitimate fear of gang violence, was accused by Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, of being an MS-13 gang member himself. Secretary Noem declared that he would never return to the United States. On Friday, the Trump administration were somehow able to obtain the consent of El Salvador's President to send him back, but only after a quick indictment was obtained accusing him of being a human trafficker, based on a 2022 traffic stop where other migrants were in his van. For more than three years Garcia checked in monthly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), who knew of the traffic stop and saw no wrongdoing. This is the backdrop of the protest and violence that has erupted in California in recent days. It appears to foreshadow the next stage of lawlessness and a movement toward governing by emergency decree. Unlike the January 6 riots at the Capitol, the protests in Los Angeles were largely peaceful. To be sure, there were incidents of violence, a classic situation calling for police intervention. Five LAPD officers suffered minor injuries, none life-threatening. No ICE injuries were reported. That was not good enough for the Trump administration, which nationalized the California National Guard over the objections of the governor and mayor of Los Angeles and now Trump has called in the Marines. It is unclear how they will deployed and under what authority. The Trump administration is simultaneously seeking to suppress dissent with massive force, escalate and provoke confrontation and argue that blue state officials are too incompetent or too "woke" to enforce the law. As Trump wrote on Truth Social, "Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!" He tried to mobilize the military during the George Floyd protests, but the Secretary of Defense declined. Not so today. For Trump, the military is being transformed into an extension of domestic political power, not a force to defend the country against outside enemies. The consistent thread is hostility to any alternative center of power. The administration has already arrested a judge, a mayor and a member of Congress — and Trump stated that he would support arresting California Governor Newsom. Trump's "big, beautiful bill" contains a provision depriving courts of jurisdiction to hold executive branch officials in contempt of court orders, so the judiciary can be ignored with impunity. Trump and his spokespeople have attacked judges who have decided cases against him as "USA-Hating" "monsters" who want the country to "go to hell." He cannot conceive that the 185-plus rulings against him so far were based on the law rather than inherently treasonous conduct by judges, including judges he appointed, requiring impeachment or worse. It is all an elaborate dance to intimidate the judiciary into avoiding a full-our war with the administration. Last week, the head of the FBI ordered a major diversion of investigative resources because his predecessor posted a photo of rocks on social media that formed the numbers 8647 (86 being a restaurant term meaning removed from the menu and 47 being President Trump's Presidential number). FBI Director Patel said: "Do you know how many agents I've had to take offline from chasing down predators, fentanyl traffickers, terrorists because everywhere across this country, people are popping up on social media and think that a threat to the life of the president of the United States is a joke and they can do it because he did it?" He seemed unaware that his job was to investigate serious crimes, not to suppress the political opinions of his adversaries by suggesting that their anti-Trump posts were homicidal threats. All of these actions are of a piece to undermine the rule of law, a principle that should not be controversial. It is an age-old, essentially conservative principle not tied to specific ideology. Judges are to apply the facts to clear and accessible laws and to apply them without bias for or against any litigant. It only requires a judicial and legal function that are independent from executive power or interference. But even the most minimal check on executive power is anathema to the Trump agenda. Since the early days of America, the judiciary has had the critical role to "say what the law is," and it has often taken very conservative, indeed at times reactionary views, upholding slavery, segregation and internment of citizens. Conservatives have poured billions of dollars into vetting and ensuring a conservative judiciary. But that is not good enough; this administration needs complete control and to win every case. Leonard Leo, the arch-conservative who has done more than anyone to pack the courts with conservative judges, was called out by Trump as a "sleazebag" who "hates America" because many of his touted appointees actually felt compelled to follow the law. The rule of law — a set of guardrails for neutrality, honesty and judicial independence — is the precondition for avoiding tyranny. As Benjamin Nathans wrote in his Pulitzer Prize-winning 'To The Success of Our Hopeless Cause,' there were 753 trials of Soviet political dissidents during the Brezhnev years that resulted in 753 convictions (and no acquittals). For Trump, a 753-0 record in political trials raises no questions; it is how the system should work. This destruction of rule of law infrastructure is a feature, not a bug, of ambitious authoritarians. Go after the judges; go after the lawyers; and use the power of investigation and criminal indictment as yet another chainsaw, not just to put your political enemies in jail if you can, but to intimidate your opponents into silence. And bring out the big guns, to show everyone who controls the most massive fire power the world has ever known. This is where we are today. The rule of law is the last impediment to absolute power. And it is now under siege. It will be difficult to put this bedrock structural principle of justice back in place when he is done.
Gulf Today
20 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Iran threatens to target US bases if conflict breaks out
Iran threatened on Wednesday to target US military bases in the region if conflict breaks out, while President Donald Trump said he was "less confident" about reaching a nuclear deal. Iran and the United States have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord that Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. Since returning to office in January, Trump has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran, backing nuclear diplomacy but warning of military action if it fails. "All its bases are within our reach, we have access to them, and without hesitation we will target all of them in the host countries," Iran's Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said in response to US threats of military action if the talks fail. "God willing, things won't reach that point, and the talks will succeed," the minister said, adding that the US side "will suffer more losses" if it came to conflict. The United States has multiple bases in the Middle East, with the largest located in Qatar. Iran and the United States have recently been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment, with Tehran defending it as a "non-negotiable" right and Washington calling it as a "red line". In an interview published on Wednesday, Trump said he was "less confident" the United States and Iran could reach a deal, in response to a question on whether he believed he could stop Tehran from enriching uranium. Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 per cent, far above the 3.67-per cent limit set in the 2015 deal and close though still short of the 90 per cent needed for a nuclear warhead. Western countries, including the United States and its ally Israel, have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons, while Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. Last week, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said enrichment is "key" to Iran's nuclear programme and that Washington "cannot have a say" on the issue. During the interview with the New York Post's podcast "Pod Force One", which was recorded on Monday, Trump said he was losing hope a deal could be reached. "I don't know. I did think so, and I'm getting more and more -- less confident about it. They seem to be delaying and I think that's a shame. I am less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago," he said. "Something happened to them but I am much less confident of a deal being made... May be they don't wanna make a deal, what can I say? And may be they do. There is nothing final," he added. On May 31, after the fifth round of talks, Iran said it had received "elements" of a US proposal for a nuclear deal, with Araghchi later saying the text contained "ambiguities". Iran has said it will present a counter-proposal to the latest draft from Washington, which it had criticised for failing to offer relief from sanctions -- a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years. On Monday, the United Nations nuclear watchdog began a Board of Governors meeting in Vienna that will last until Friday to discuss Iran's atomic activities and other issues. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting followed a report issued by it criticising "less than satisfactory" cooperation from Tehran, particularly in explaining past cases of nuclear material found at undeclared sites. Iran has criticised the IAEA report as unbalanced, saying it relied on "forged documents" provided by its arch-foe Israel. Agence France-Presse
