The Zimbabwe government’s recent announcement that it will offer land back to dispossessed farmers protected by Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreements (BIPPAs) and to indigenous black farmers is a move that, while decades overdue, must be welcomed.
For too long, the sanctity of property rights in Zimbabwe was treated as a secondary concern to political expediency.
By finally invoking Section 295 of the constitution and Statutory Instrument 62 of 2020, the administration is acknowledging that the restoration of title is a legal necessity rather than a political choice.
The scope of this policy shift is significant. While local white farmers remain excluded from land restoration—only eligible for compensation for improvements—the government is addressing the 153 farms protected by international treaties, 116 of which were acquired for resettlement. Additionally, the policy targets 440 black-owned farms affected by land reform.
This is not merely an act of contrition; it is a pragmatic response to the staggering financial liabilities incurred at international tribunals.
The massive US$25 million owed to Dutch farmers, highlights the high cost of ignoring international obligations.
As the late Agriculture minister Perrance Shiri rightly noted, a country that "changes goalposts" becomes a pariah with whom no one wants to do business.
However, this shift in policy must be motivated by more than just a desire to appease foreign debtors or avoid burgeoning legal liabilities.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
True economic stability requires a wholesale, non-negotiable commitment to the rule of law.
Protecting the investments of foreign citizens through Bippas—which include agreements with countries like Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands—is an essential start.
Yet, the government faces significant internal skepticism as indigenous farm owners, represented by figures like Fred Mutanda, remain wary, noting that the cash-strapped state offers no guarantee of actual payment.
If this restoration is truly the beginning of a genuine commitment to constitutionalism, it must signal an end to the era of arbitrary evictions and "revolutionary" shortcuts.
Investors will only return when they are certain that international obligations are honoured and that property rights are shielded from political whims. This move should not be a selective olive branch to the powerful, but the foundation of a new, law-abiding era that protects the rights of all Zimbabwean citizens and investors alike.
Consistency is the only way to restore the national credit and dignity.
