The recent demolition of houses in Harare’s Ridgeview and Belvedere suburbs has ignited widespread public outcry and raised significant questions about the Harare City Council’s approach, criteria, and adherence to legal procedures.
This demolition spree, reportedly carried out under the claim that the houses were built without proper authorisation, has left many residents homeless and uncertain about the future.
Meanwhile, NewsDay’s report that the council was selective in its demolition efforts has fuelled allegations of favoritism, lack of fairness, and inconsistent enforcement of city planning regulations.
This situation calls for a closer look into the processes, transparency, and legal requirements that should govern such drastic measures and whether these were adequately followed.
Harare City Council selectively demolished houses belonging to ordinary citizens in Ridgeview and Belvedere suburbs without a court order, while sparing structures in the same areas belonging to the “rich and politically-connected” , investigations by NewsDay revealed.
While many houses were reduced to rubble during the demolitions, a few were left unscathed, with revelations that they belong to some “big fish”.
Keep Reading
- Mutorashanga residents confront authorities over shopping centre demolitions
- Evicted families brace for winter without shelter
- Editorial comment: Demolitions: Deal with the root cause
- Demolition of houses an act of inhumanity
This came at a time when the government distanced itself from the demolitions, describing the city council’s actions as “cruel and inhumane”, especially during the rainy season. Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs minister Ziyambi Ziyambi told Parliament recently the city council’s actions were illegal.
“In fact, in this particular case, where the City of Harare was demolishing houses, I checked if there was a court order, there was no court order,” Ziyambi said.
One of the most troubling aspects of this demolition operation, as reported by NewsDay, is the apparent selectivity in targeting houses.
This inconsistency undermines the council’s claim that it was merely enforcing the law, as legal enforcement must be applied equally to all parties in order to maintain credibility and avoid accusations of bias.
This selective approach could imply favouritism or other biases, such as political influence or economic considerations.
If some homeowners were able to avoid demolition due to personal connections, bribery, or political influence, then the council’s actions would not only be unjust but also illegal.
For a government institution, public trust hinges on its perceived fairness, especially in a matter as serious as forcibly displacing people from their homes.
The perception of unequal treatment here creates an image of a council that is both arbitrary and possibly corrupt, making its actions seem more like an abuse of power than legitimate law enforcement.
Demolishing homes is one of the most severe actions that any municipal authority can undertake, and it is therefore critical that such operations follow strict legal procedures. In cases like these, the council should follow a series of clearly defined steps, each aimed at ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability.
These steps include verifying whether structures were indeed built illegally, issuing adequate notice to homeowners, providing time for them to address or appeal the decision, and conducting a thorough review of each case.
Verification of Building Legitimacy: The first step should involve investigating whether each property truly lacks authorisation or was built irregularly.
Harare, like many other cities, has a complex history of urban planning issues, with many citizens often forced to navigate unclear or inconsistent bureaucratic processes to obtain permits.
It is possible that some of these properties were built based on informal approvals or because of past administrative oversights. Rather than proceeding straight to demolitions, the council should review its own records and policies to determine whether all structures were genuinely unauthorised.
Issuing notices and allowing for due process: Before any demolition can take place, it is essential to issue formal written notices to homeowners, informing them of the council’s findings and intentions.
This notice period is crucial, as it provides homeowners with the chance to appeal the decision, clarify misunderstandings, or even provide documents proving that they complied with the necessary procedures.
In cases where people have built their homes without the right permits, they should be given an opportunity to regularize their structures instead of being evicted.
The abrupt nature of the demolitions in Ridgeview and Belvedere suggests that these steps may not have been adequately followed, as many residents were reportedly left shocked and unprepared.
Transparent decision-making process: Given the allegations of selective demolitions, the council must be transparent about how it determined which houses to demolish and which to spare.
Transparency could involve publicly sharing the criteria used for demolition, explaining any exemptions, and ensuring an independent oversight mechanism. By failing to disclose this information, the council has made itself vulnerable to accusations of corruption and bias, deepening the public’s mistrust in local governance.
Social Impact Assessment and Alternatives: Demolitions have serious social and economic impacts, displacing families and leaving them without shelter.
A responsible municipal authority should consider these impacts, conducting a social impact assessment to gauge the harm that might come to vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly, and low-income families.
Additionally, alternative solutions like relocation assistance, regularisation programs, or alternative housing arrangements should be considered before opting for demolition.
Such options, however, seem to have been disregarded in this case, further underscoring the council’s insensitivity to residents’ plight. The broader context of Zimbabwe’s urban housing crisis adds another layer of complexity to this issue.
Harare has long struggled with a severe housing shortage, pushing many residents into informal settlements or unauthorised housing developments as a last resort. It is unrealistic and perhaps unjust to expect compliance with stringent building regulations when affordable housing is so scarce.
By demolishing homes without offering viable alternatives, the Harare City Council is exacerbating an already dire situation and contributing to homelessness.
Moreover, a more empathetic and pragmatic approach would focus on regularising these housing developments rather than destroying them.
Many cities worldwide have adopted regularisation programs for informal housing, working with residents to improve infrastructure and bring buildings up to code, rather than simply demolishing homes. This method not only prevents mass displacement but also ensures safer, more sustainable urban development in the long term. The recent demolitions in Ridgeview and Belvedere highlight the need for significant reform in Harare’s urban planning and governance.
First, the council must improve its regulatory framework, ensuring that housing policies are clear, accessible, and enforceable.
Proper oversight mechanisms should be put in place to prevent selective enforcement and favouritism, thereby fostering trust between the government and its citizens.
Furthermore, the council should explore options for providing affordable, authorised housing to meet the needs of Harare’s growing population. Demolishing homes without providing alternatives will only lead to more unauthorized constructions in other areas, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and housing insecurity.
Additionally, the council should engage in meaningful consultation with the communities affected by its policies.
Many residents of Ridgeview and Belvedere likely invested their life savings into building their homes, only to see them torn down without any chance to defend their rights or find a solution.
Listening to the voices of those affected and working together to find alternatives could prevent similar crises in the future.
The Harare City Council’s demolition spree in Ridgeview and Belvedere has exposed serious issues of fairness, transparency, and procedural irregularity in the city’s approach to urban planning.
Allegations of selective demolition have cast doubt on the council’s intentions, fuelling perceptions of bias and undermining public trust.
Moreover, the lack of adherence to proper legal protocols, failure to consider social impacts, and absence of transparency suggest a governance failure that goes beyond mere regulatory enforcement. In the midst of a housing crisis, demolishing homes without providing alternatives or pathways for regularisation is not only harmful but unsustainable.
Moving forward, the Harare City Council must implement fairer, more transparent, and humane approaches to urban development, with a focus on solving, rather than exacerbating,the city’s housing challenges.
A commitment to consistent legal procedures, equity in enforcement, and an empathetic approach to housing issues will be essential to restore trust and promote a more inclusive city for all its residents.
*Gary Gerald Mtombeni is a journalist based in Harare. He writes here in his own personal capacity. For feedback Email garymtombeni@gmail.com/ call- +263778861608