Zimbabwe’s communal land: A tale of corruption and political patronage

Land has been a delicate issue in Zimbabwe since colonisation which displaced and denied black Zimbabweans meaningful rights to their land.

However, 43 years after independence Zanu-PF continues to exploit land to the detriment of rural communities that are often involuntarily displaced from communal land to make way for mining activities and other development projects.

Zimbabwean law gives communities that have historically inhabited communal land the right to occupy and use the land.

Communal land traces its origins to colonial Rhodesia where black Zimbabweans were dispossessed of their land and restricted to native reserves (maruzevha) that were unsuitable for commercial farming.

In 1965, Rhodesia enacted the Tribal Trust Lands Act which renamed native reserves to tribal land held in trust for the occupants and gave traditional chiefs the authority to allocate such land.        

Post-colonial communal land tenure

• Zec tightens grip on voters roll
• Don’t blame sanctions only, corruption is a factor too
• Election coverage met with violence in Zimbabwe
• News in depth: Mnangagwa turns to shadowy groups to lever out intra-party disagreements

Upon independence the Zimbabwean government enacted the Communal Land Act, the Rural District Councils Act and the Traditional Leaders Act which governs communal land that previously constituted tribal land.

The Communal Lands Act gives rural communities the right to occupy and use communal land but the ownership is vested in the president.

Surprisingly, the Act retains the core features of the colonial Tribal Trust Lands Act where black people did not have ownership rights to the land although they were permitted to occupy and use it.

The Communal Land Act provides that in consultation with Rural District Councils (RDCs), the president and the minister responsible for communal land can expropriate communal land for development purposes.

The constitution and the Traditional Leaders Act give traditional chiefs an essential role in the administration of communal land, a mandate they have held since colonial Rhodesia.

The Rural District Councils Act also allows RDCs to compulsorily acquire communal land provided that the minister in charge of communal lands has consented in writing.

Additionally, the Mines and Minerals Act provides that communal land is open to prospecting for minerals and this means that communities can be removed from communal land to make way for mining activities.

Land corruption and political patronage 

Rural communities have been forced to abandon their livelihoods attached to the land and leave behind graves of loved ones which are often exhumed to pave way for mining activities or development projects. In 2009, the Marange community in Chiadzwa was displaced to make way for the Marange diamond mines. In 2010, Chisumbanje and Chinyamukwakwa communities in Chipinge were displaced to set up an ethanol plant.

In 2021, the Chilonga community in Chiredzi was threatened with displacement to make way for lucerne cultivation, later turned into an irrigation scheme. More recently, communities in Mutoko are being displaced by Chinese mining companies to make way for mining black granite rock.

After being forced to abandon their accustomed way of life and the graves of loved ones, displaced communities often do not receive adequate compensation.

The Communal Land Act and the Mines and Minerals Act provide that communities that suffer a diminution of their right to occupy or use communal land are entitled to compensation.

However, the lack of a timeframe on when compensation has to be paid leaves communities vulnerable as compensation often comes a long time after displacement, if it comes at all.

Since communities don’t own the land, they are not compensated for the value of the land but for the property investments on the land.

However, property valuation procedures are not adequately regulated and this has resulted in arbitrary compensation figures or undervaluing of property which leaves affected communities dissatisfied.

The Mines and Minerals Act provides that compensation shall be paid to the District Development Fund for communities displaced as a result of mining activities.

The  Local Government and Public Works minister is a trustee with the sole management, control and use of the fund.

This provides the minister with the incentive to support mining activities even if they have negative impact on the community as he will have sole access to the compensation paid for the displacement.

Compensation paid to the District Development Fund is also disbursed to RDCs for the benefit of affected communities.

However, due to corruption in RDCs, the compensation often does not benefit affected communities.

This is why Zanu PF and its MPs fight for the control of RDCs so that they can benefit from the commercial value of communal land.

The current communal land tenure also meets Zanu-PF’s political patronage purposes as it allows the president and his minister to give communal land to friends and business associates without much scrutiny.

In a corruption exposé by Al Jazeera, the presidential envoy and ambassador at large Uebert Angel revealed that President Emmerson Mnangagwa gave the royal family of Sharjah 30 000 hectares of land.

Similarly, Team Pachedu alleges that Mnangagwa gave Belarus 54 000 hectares of land.

More recently, the divorce proceedings between former president Robert Mugabe’s daughter, Bona Mugabe and Simba Chikore disclosed that she owns at least 24 000 hectares of land.

This goes to show just how political elites clandestinely amass so much land whereas the majority of Zimbabweans do not own any land.

 It is evident that corruption and patronage are one of the key reasons why Zanu PF chose to retain the core features of the colonial Tribal Trust Lands Act upon independence despite it leaving most Zimbabweans vulnerable.

This vulnerability makes Zimbabweans on communal land dependent on handouts from Zanu-PF in exchange for votes.

Ostensibly, it is not in the best interest of Zanu-PF for the majority of Zimbabweans to own land, despite it being the fundamental aspiration of the liberation struggle.

The current land tenure gives rise to corruption. RDCs finance themselves so there is no incentive for them to adequately represent the interests of communities affected by development projects as they prioritise attracting investors within their local areas.

RDCs are also incentivised by companies to evict communities from communal land.

Similarly, traditional chiefs are custodians of communal land as recognised by the constitution and thus they are used to advance the political and commercial interests of Zanu-PF. In 2010, Chief Garahwa in Chisumbanje had his rural homestead electrified and was given a vehicle and monthly fuel allocation to support the ethanol plant project which displaced Chisumbanje and Chinyamukwakwa communities.

Traditional chiefs also adjudicate land disputes, but when they have been bribed by mining companies, they are incapable of being fair arbiters where the interests of local communities and mining companies are at loggerheads.

This is reminiscent of Rhodesia where chiefs were figureheads of the colonial government.

Even where chiefs and RDCs adequately represent the interest of the community, rural communities have little power to push back against displacements if the President or his Minister has given a rationale and a reasonable time for eviction in line with the Communal Land Act.

Aspirations of the liberation struggle: A call to action

Rural communities are clearly vulnerable under the current law as their right to occupy and use the land can be subverted by the President at any time to pave way for development and mining activities oftentimes without any benefit to affected communities.

As of 2019, the livelihoods of at least 10.9 million Zimbabweans depended on communal land.

It is evident that the majority of Zimbabweans’ livelihoods rely on a land tenure where their rights are insecure and at the mercy of the president.

The Communal Land Act gives the president and his minister enormous power as they can acquire communal land without any restrictions, set criteria, effective oversight from Parliament or any input from the affected communities.

Sections 4 and 6 of the Communal Land Act which gives the president and his minister the power to take away communal land violates property rights enshrined under the constitution.

The constitutionality of these provisions was challenged in the High Court, however, the Court dismissed the application on the basis that it was a political question that the judiciary was not equipped to answer.

In this regard, opposition MPs should push for the amendment of the Communal Land Act to ensure that it provides a criterion to be met and parliamentary oversight before the president and his minister can expropriate communal land.

The Act needs to give affected communities the right to take the decision of both the president and his minister for review before the courts.

The Act should also ensure that there is a set timeframe for the compensation to be paid and communities can only be evicted if compensation has been paid.

Additionally, the Act should ensure that affected communities are not only paid for investments in the land but also for the diminution of their right to occupy and use the land.

Also, there should be an amendment to the Mines and Minerals Act so that compensation is paid directly to the affected community as opposed to the District Development Fund and if the fund is to be retained, then the District Development Fund Act should be amended to make parliament the sole trustee with the management, control and use of the fund as opposed to the minister.

Furthermore, there should be a straightforward procedure by an Act of Parliament on property valuation to address arbitrary and undervaluing of communal property.

The upcoming elections are an opportunity for Zimbabweans to make their voices heard and for MPs to defend the fundamental aspiration of the liberation struggle – ownership of land by the black majority.