Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page


This report focuses both on the violence that has accompanied the land occupations of the last two years, and on the adverse effects that the fast track land reform process has had for the one of the constituencies it was supposed to benefit: the rural poor. The report does not describe general violence against the political opposition, except insofar as it is related to the fast track reforms.

Violence and Intimidation in the Course of Land Occupations

Eye witness testimony collected by Human Rights Watch in July 2001 confirmed reports collected by journalists and other human rights organizations concerning violence that had taken place in the context of land occupations. According to the Commercial Farmers' Union, which represents (largely white) farm owners, at least 829 "violent or hostile" incidents had taken place on commercial farms up to the end of September 2001.78 This violence has been worst in Mashonaland Central.

Assaults Against White Farm Owners

War veterans and Zanu-PF militia occupying commercial farms have intimidated, assaulted, and in some cases killed white farm owners. These assaults have been widely reported, both in Zimbabwe and internationally. According to human rights groups and the Commercial Farmers Union, at least seven farmers have been killed in political violence since the beginning of 2000.79 Many of the farmers targeted have been prominent supporters of the MDC: the farm of MDC MP for Chimanimani Roy Bennett, for example, has been occupied by police and army troops. Farm owners have been assaulted and threatened and their farms occupied whether or not their farms have actually been listed for acquisition by the government. President Mugabe has repeatedly singled out white Zimbabweans as enemies of the state.

The first two farmers were killed in April 2000. David Stevens was shot dead at point blank range by settlers who had occupied his farm at Macheke, south of Harare. A few days later, the farm of Martin Olds, in Nyamandlovu, near Bulawayo, Matabeleland, was invaded by more than one hundred Zanu-PF militia led by war veterans. According to a spokesperson for Zanu-PF, Olds opened fire, hitting five of the invaders with shotgun pellets, who then fired back. Neighboring farmers, who came to the scene after Olds radioed for help indicating he had been shot, but could not gain access, insist that Olds was defending his house as the intruders attempted to break into it. Police arrived at the house while the gunfight was ongoing but did not intervene. When the house was set alight, Olds was forced outside, and was shot twice in the head at close range. The intruders then left the farm, not seeking to occupy it. In July 2000, Olds' widow fled Zimbabwe and applied for asylum in the U.K. In March 2001, Olds' mother, Gloria Olds, was shot dead on the same farm, which she had refused to leave.80 The most recent farm owner killed was Robert Fenwick, from Kwekwe, in the Midlands, in August 2001. No arrests have been made in connection with any of these murders.

In some cases, white farmers have assaulted those occupying their land. In one prominent case in July 2001, farmer Philip Bezuidenhout, of Odzi, near Mutare, allegedly deliberately ran over and killed Fabian Mapenzauswa, a settler on his farm.81 Bezuidenhout was arrested and charged with murder. The case has not yet come to court. In other cases, farm workers have themselves organized to drive away the settlers, and injuries have occurred in the context of these clashes.

Overt attacks on white farmers-which have attracted greater international and national publicity than those on black Zimbabweans-have reduced in recent months. However, extortion of money from commercial farmers has increased, with the implied threat of violence behind the demands for money.82 Throughout the process of land occupation, however, most victims of the violence have been poor, rural, black Zimbabweans.

Assaults Against Farm Workers

In June 2000, the National Employment Council for the agricultural industry (a tripartite body of government, employers, and unions) published a report noting that, as a result of the farm occupations, at least 3,000 farm workers had been displaced from their homes, twenty-six killed, 1,600 assaulted, and eleven raped. The majority (47.2 percent) were supporters of the MDC; nearly as many (43.6 percent) had no political affiliation; a few (4.7 percent) were Zanu-PF supporters.83 Farm workers have continued to be the victims of violence during farm occupations: the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum documented the deaths of four farm workers (including security guards and game scouts) and numerous assaults during 2001.84 The CFU reported twenty farm workers killed as of May 2001.85

As in the case of violence against white farm owners, violence against farm workers is linked to the support given to the MDC by commercial farmers and, by perceived implication, by their workers too. In many areas, it seems that farm workers have been targeted for violence both so that the assailants could take over their homes, and in order to deprive the white farm owner of numerous potential allies who have a stake in keeping their jobs and might therefore support the farm owner in resisting government policy. Weaknesses in the organizational representation of farm workers have also made them vulnerable to assault and intimidation.86

One male farm security worker described how he was threatened and assaulted:

They came to my house on 27 February this year [2001]. The first thing they wanted was for me to get out of my house. They came at twelve at night. They were six, one war veteran who was acting as the leader, the others were even younger than me. They told me to move out. They told me to shift everything by the morning so that they could come. During the night when they came they said, `we know that all of you people that belong to that farm are MDC.' I came here for work [the next morning]. They followed me here. I was standing outside here close to the window. They grabbed me by the hand and then they hit that hand off the window bar. Whoever felt like they wanted to hit me was hitting. They forced me to go to the house. They drove me to the house. Whoever felt like it was clapping [hitting] me. I was clapped at least seven or eight times. They were saying I should give the keys [of the house]. I lied and said my wife took the keys and I don't know where she's gone.87

A woman nurse at a clinic on one commercial farm was beaten by war veterans who were looking for the farm's office:

I was coming from the store, then I saw plenty of people coming, boys and women. Then they said, where's the office. Then they said, you are very slow in telling us. Then they beat me with a stick on my arm. They took us here to the yard. They were saying, `Pamberi ne Zanu-PF, pasi ne MDC.' [Forward, Zanu-PF, down with MDC.] After some seconds they took another boy and they beat that boy thoroughly. Then they went off.88

Interviews by Human Rights Watch confirmed numerous other reports that the occupiers of farms force farm laborers and their families to attend political meetings and demonstrate their support for Zanu-PF, on pain of assault if they refuse. A farm worker described this:

They stop all the workers from going to work. They say there's no work. They tell the workers to go and sit in the compounds. Maybe twice a week in the evening they make meetings. Those times those war veterans bring their heads, the commanders. They beat someone who won't come and say they are MDC, that's why they won't come. At least five people including the foreman were beaten. Some had bad injuries. Two had to go to hospital. The meeting is at their camp which is next to the compound. The meeting takes an hour or more, people singing or making slogans, Tsvangirai ucharowa chete nevakomana [Tsvangirai-the leader of the MDC-will be beaten by the boys].89

Even where there is not overt violence, farm workers are intimidated:

The farmer came to us and told us what he had been told. Those who work on this side [of the farm] should wind up their operations. When we finish now, we don't know what is going to be our fate. They pegged the area [i.e. marked out plots for the new occupants] and left. They gave us that last warning, that they didn't want to see us on that side of the farm. They just told us, without threats, but they know we are afraid of them.90

There are also cases in which farm workers, communal area residents, or MDC supporters have attacked and beaten those occupying a farm. Such incidents have often resulted in reprisals, in some cases reportedly including police.91 Monitoring of reported cases by human rights groups indicates that the majority of victims continue to be opposition supporters; however, each and every case of violence deserves equal investigation.

Human rights NGOs report continued violence connected with farm occupations since the visit of Human Rights Watch to Zimbabwe in July 2001.92 Similarly, on December 10, 2001, the Commercial Farmers' Union reported that, since September, "the situation on commercial farms has continued to deteriorate, with ongoing incidents of violence, intimidation, extortion and disruption to farming activities."93 Some human rights groups noted a shift in patterns of violence away from commercial farms to the communal areas and towns by early 2002, and a UNDP technical team commented that "acts of lawlessness on large-scale commercial farms now appear to be decreasing."94

Use of Farms as Bases to Harass Opposition Supporters

An ongoing feature of violence in the rural areas is the systematic harassment, intimidation, and assault of opposition activists, primarily supporters of the principal opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Human Rights Watch obtained numerous testimonies confirming reports of Zimbabwean human rights groups to this effect. Farms have been among the locations targeted for such assaults, since white farm owners are among the prominent supporters of the MDC and their financial resources have been deployed on behalf of the opposition:

We were campaigning for the MDC in March this year. The constituency results are in dispute and are being contested. The owner of the farm is an MDC member. He's the one who used to give us money and the directions of the operations...We could write posters and go where we see many people and leave them some posters to read. One day we went to [the farm].... As we left the farmer's house and entered the main road, we collided with the war veterans, about seventy of them. We were only fifteen. We decided to run away. As we decided to run away, one of the war veterans was armed with the 303 rifle normally kept by the farmer...Two young boys were captured. We saw them being beaten while we hid in the bush. They took the two [boys] into the bush, some had hoe handles, some with axes, some with sticks. One of them [the boys] was hit by a hoe in the head...One took a hoe handle, hit one of them on the back. They were asking him, do you think this is going to be successful? Because I promise you are going to die.95

Many rural people from communal areas and farms also reported to Human Rights Watch that there is a chain of command that operates amongst the war veterans and their supporters. War veterans and youth supporters form a gang or militia with a structure of command when they invade a farm. A war veteran is appointed as the base commander for a zone of the occupied farm. People in the area have often known these war veterans for a long time and are able to identify them. The war veteran is accompanied by other Zanu-PF supporters, usually young men. The youth are under the instructions of the war veteran whose base becomes a site for control of inhabitants in the resettled area; in some cases, training of youth by veterans is reported.96 These war veteran militias use tactics of terror, force, and intimidation to gain and retain access to a farm. The farms that have been seized are then used as bases for war veterans to assault and intimidate perceived opposition supporters in surrounding communal areas or on neighboring farms.

In Mashonaland East, elderly women and their families were the target of war veterans militia based on an adjacent commercial farm. These villagers from communal areas have been subjected to repeated beatings and cannot return to their homes because of the presence of war veterans. A former resident described this:

We were living at our home until a group of Zanu-PF came to our homes in the communal areas around April [2001]. They came from the farm nearby. About 250 were beating us, [saying] `You are forming some other parties which we don't want in this country.' Myself, my husband and my son and his wife, they know we are the ones who are affiliated to the U.P. [United Party, an opposition party] They came around 2 in the morning. First when they got to our home they told us to lie on the ground and beat us with sticks. Even now my spine isn't working. I am old and I am now sick from the beatings.97

Several people from the same village reported that they could not return to their farms because there were war veterans militia living on the farms and they had a base there. Other villagers told how they had been held hostage in such camps.

I spent two to three months in the camp. There were three of us from our area but more than one hundred in the base camp. I had an MDC t-shirt and party card which were taken away. Most of those in the camp were Zanu-PF. About ten of them I know were really forced to go. The base commander and the war veterans were saying that if they see anyone belong to MDC, this country does not belong to MDC, it belongs to Zanu-PF. At the camp I was not abused but the most disappointing thing was the period of holding me which made me lose my job. There was no way to escape. The war veterans were manning the gates. If you went out, they were there.98

In other cases, the war veterans militia living on farms cause problems in a less directed way: "the war veterans are causing trouble around here. They come from the farm that has been resettled during the day to the bottle [liquor] store, and in the evening they start up trouble. We try to get help from the police, but they do nothing."99

Reports of the training of ruling party militia have increased in recent months; as have reports of the terrorization of anyone believed to be a potential opposition supporter, whether in rural or urban areas. Human Rights Watch is concerned that an infrastructure for ongoing political and criminal violence has been laid. It will be much harder to restore peace than it has been to mobilize violence for political purposes. An end to impunity is urgently needed.

Police Failure to Protect Victims

Although the Zimbabwean government has called for peaceful coexistence between farm owners and the new settlers, it has dismissed violence against farm workers and farm owners as an unfortunate cost of long-overdue land reform that has been obstructed by white farm owners. Rural militias led by the war veterans can usually count on noninterference or limited intervention by the police when they commit acts of political violence.

On October 6, 2000, President Mugabe, using his presidential powers, issued an amnesty for politically motivated crimes committed between January 1, 2000 and July 31, 2000, the period of the campaign for the February 2000 referendum and the June 2000 parliamentary elections. The amnesty did not cover murder, rape, and robbery.100

Some victims of violence who had returned home during the period of relative calm that followed the June elections were again victimized by people who had been arrested and were then released following the amnesty. One displaced women of fifty-four described how she and her family members were beaten and driven from their land in Mashonaland East in June 2000. "A group of Zanu came, some from the nearest farm and some from the locality, beating people up and saying `you people are supporting other parties, we only want one party in this country.'" She said the police were initially very unresponsive but eventually arrested six people, and the woman and her family, who had fled to Harare, returned home. "Then after the amnesty they started coming back saying we don't want you here."101 Accordingly, they were forced to leave again.

The government dismisses allegations of police failure to act. A senior official in the Department of Land stated to Human Rights Watch that: "I'm not aware of any dereliction of duty on the part of the police.... you can't have a police post on every farm."102 Yet human rights groups report that the police have become increasingly partisan.103 In January 2001, police commissioner Augustine Chihuri, who had initially adopted the attitude that farm occupations were a political matter which could not be handled by the police, stated, "I support Zanu-PF because it is the ruling party."104 In December 2001, Chihuri accused the opposition of involvement in terrorism.105

Political interference in police work has been reported by opposition parties and human rights groups, as well as by some current and former police officers. Amnesty International researchers interviewed one former police officer who described his experience:

I had twenty years of service, but I was fired because I was accused of supporting the MDC... I liked my job, I was loyal, I was proud to be a policeman to serve my nation, and now it hurts me to see the police officers are working for a political party, not the nation... The police are frightened of the war veterans, they have their own command structure, and if you arrest them, they will get them out of jail. If one is an ex-combatant, one can be promoted to take your position. Only ex-combatants are promoted. We're at the worst stage now, when everyone is doing what he wants.106

One resident of a communal area in Mashonaland East described what happened when he reported a crime carried out by war veterans and Zanu-PF supporters based on a nearby farm:

I went to the police the following day. They police came and the CIO [Central Intelligence Organization, the security police] came and took pictures of the burnt houses and told me there's nothing they can do as they are also being beaten. They arrested four youth.107

The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum reported a similar case in which a special constable attempting to carry out an arrest was assaulted:

I was working as a special constable at Karuru village. On 22 July 2000 I went to [a farm] with my partner to arrest [someone] who had stolen some maize from this same farm that they had invaded. When we arrived we were beaten together with our suspect. They alleged that we were MDC supporters and [said] we should not interfere with anyone at their base. Also they said that we should not support white people and instead we should leave anyone who steals from the farms. We were forced to roll in the mud and about twelve buckets of water were poured on us. We were also threatened with death. They threatened to burn down our homes. The police came after our torture but took no action and instead [the police inspector] blamed us for interfering with the people at the base. We suffered bruises all over our bodies.108

A farm foreman told Amnesty International that:

All these guys [a group of five other men] have been beaten. The war veterans said the cops are ours, they do what we tell them to do. Four police officers, then another, came out ... but they didn't stop the beating. The war veterans beat us with sticks and sjamboks [leather whips], we were beaten one by one, being accused of being MDC supporters for [the farmer].109

There are numerous reports of police failure to apprehend perpetrators of violence, or to arrest suspects only to release them without charge and without registering the case number and providing it to the complainant. Even when police have intervened to protect those threatened by violence, few arrests have been made of the alleged perpetrators since the amnesty. In repeated cases, farm workers and opposition activists told Human Rights Watch how police said the assaults were "political" and that as a consequence they would not intervene. Among the complaints they made were:

· When we went to report it at the police, he said, `that is your own business. You need to talk to your party leader. Go and fight back.'110
· It was difficult to report to the police because we were just told to go back, it is difficult to sort these things out. They didn't give a docket number. Running away and coming here was our only rescue. We didn't report to the DAs [district administrators] and Rural District Councils because they are all sanctioning the beatings.111
· It's useless to go to the police because they do nothing. All the police are ZANU. We did not go there.112
· We went to report at K...police. It was useless. I spoke to the officer in charge. He said I must go back. He never wrote anything. We never saw any police after that. Four of them were arrested. But they paid fines and were released.113
· The police were here. They were the ones who took me to hospital. I had my statement taken to the police. They [the assailants] were not arrested. When the police were here, they took them on one side, talked to them and I don't know what they were saying. Then the police just left.114
· After we five farmers filed a joint application in court to declare the police commissioner and the war veterans in contempt, that was when the violence increased. I was held in my house on October 30, 2001. The police were waiting a kilometer away. My mechanic saw them sit there for two hours. The police officers waited until the war veterans went away. Then they came.115

These reports are supported by some individuals who have worked in government. One former district administrator, who said he had resigned because he did not like the increasing lawlessness of government policy, commented:

I've seen a lot of that violence in Shurugwi where farmers have been beaten. Dockets have not been opened. The law enforcement agencies have been helpless. You get cases where they loot the homestead dry.116

By early 2002, there were also increasing reports to human rights groups of beatings and torture carried out by the police.117 Generally, impunity seemed to continue unabated; though human rights groups had been able to obtain court orders for the police to arrest known perpetrators of violent crime, with success in getting the police to act in some areas (notably the Midlands).118

By contrast, where MDC activists have been accused of perpetrating violence, including in cases where they are alleged to have retaliated against harassment by war veterans, police action has usually been swift, especially by contrast with the inaction against Zanu-PF supporters alleged to have committed offenses.119 Several white farmers have been arrested on various criminal charges following clashes with people occupying farm land.120 In one case noted by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum:

It was on 2 August 2000 at around midnight when people came to sing Chimurenga [liberation war] songs at my place. They banged on my door several times but I did not respond. They went away and took my foreman who persuaded me to come out. When I did they started demanding MDC t-shirts and they started beating me. This group of war vets was being led by a man called [name] who is the one who assaulted me with booted feet and a whip. He ordered me to roll in the mud and poured water over me. The torture lasted for about two hours. They left and threatened to come back and kill me. I suffered facial and bodily injuries. I am currently experiencing problems with my teeth, one of which broke during the assault and my right leg is painful even if I walk a very short distance. The gang leader came back threatening me with death several times. I reported the matter at Karoi but Sgt. [name] attended to me and told me to go back home and that the police would come and attend to me. This was on 4 August 2000. On the 6th the police came and arrested me for assaulting one [name] who was part of the group but I denied the charge. At one time they came to the farm numbering more than 100 demanding to see me and declared that no activity was going to take place at the farm but the police came to our rescue. I will be going for trial on the 17 October 2000 despite the fact that I was the one who was assaulted.121

In some cases, there are allegations that police have worked with war veterans in carrying out land occupations. One worker who described being held hostage by war veterans militia on a farm for a number of months claimed that the Central Intelligence Organization was involved in directing the war veterans.

I only saw CIOs, Bvu Mukumbe and another woman, Jiri. I think the CIO is the link between the [Zanu-PF] MP and the war veterans. The MP could give instructions to the war veterans via the CIO.122

Reports to human rights NGOs and journalists describe the involvement of police and soldiers in assisting some land occupations, and in some cases in looting of commercial farms.

Journalist Basildon Peta of the Independent (London and Johannesburg) told Amnesty International:

It was common knowledge that this was not spontaneous land invasions. The army led the invasions in [military] vehicles. They were used by the police and army to shift goods, loot farms. I saw them with my own eyes. The farms that were along the road, you'd see the army vehicles parked out there. When the invasions began last year [2000] you could see army vehicles going along the Bulawayo road to Kadoma.123

A former army officer, who said he was forced to leave the force because of his opposition to Zimbabwe's intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo, told human rights researchers how the army had been involved in fast track land reform. In addition to senior army officers being involved in the official land acquisition coordinating committees, he said:

Resettlement is led by the army. Agritex, the [government] agricultural technical services arm, identifies land for resettlement, and sub-divides it. Then army coordinates the activities of the war veterans occupying the land. Officers are given leave to help coordinate, they are told they must dress in civilian clothes.124

Even when farms have never been designated for acquisition, or have been delisted following negotiations between the farm owner and the government, or where courts have ordered evictions, police have often not removed occupiers from the farms unless given instructions to do so by political authorities backed by Zanu-PF. The UNDP technical team noted that it had been presented "credible evidence" that the toleration of the police of occupations of farms in violation of the law had substantially reduced in the last quarter of 2001.125

Discrimination in Land Allocation

The government states that the process of fast track land reform is designed to meet the needs of disadvantaged black Zimbabweans. The desire for land is evident from numerous testimonies, including from people who support opposition parties which have officially opposed the process of fast track reform. As one thirty-nine-year-old villager who supported an opposition party, said: "Do I want land? Yes, I will run. We like that so much. We want to plow because we have poor soils."126

Yet, testimony from witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch raises serious doubts as to whether those benefiting from the fast track program are those who are supposed to be first in line according to the government's stated development plans. The first problem witnesses identified was the party-political channels for access to the forms for applying for land and discrimination in the allocation of plots. The second problem was the key role of the war veterans militias in distributing and allocating land, the same militias that villagers, opposition activists, and farm workers claim are responsible for violence and intimidation. In practice, the official structure for allocating land through civil service and elected officials (such as the rural district councils), is often superseded by informal processes governed by the war veterans and their associated ruling party militia. Because these processes are effectively unregulated, beneficiary selection can become highly politicized.127

The blunting of the distinction between government and the ruling party in the structures responsible for allocating land under the fast track program poses further problems. This overlap between the ruling party and government has been a feature of Zimbabwean politics for some time now, as reflected in an interview with a senior government official.

I don't separate the government from Zanu-PF. Zanu-PF is the ruling party. It is the party that is in power. Zanu-PF is the one that is driving the manifesto and championing the resettlement program.128

The perception among many people interviewed by Human Rights Watch was that land allocation was tied to support for the ruling party.

At district level there can also be tension between elected and appointed government officials and the war veterans and other structures put in place for the fast track process. A councilor in Chimanimani, Manicaland, told Human Rights Watch that:

We are twenty-three councilors in Chimanimani, we are the policy makers; but the land reform program is happening without us, it is not us who requested it, but a government issue...I don't know what criteria are being used to select farms for resettlement, I've heard that it is land that is not being utilized; but that is not the case, and you find land that is already being utilized being taken.129

The councilor suggested that an initial emphasis on fairness from the district administrator (DA) had in practice yielded to political considerations in implementation:

When the land program was announced, the DA's emphasis was that although council members were mostly Zanu before MDC was formed, we don't want Zanu only to benefit; he said it was not a party thing but a government program. But when it comes down the chain some councilors, most of whom are Zanu, don't do what they were told by DA and it happens that the people to be resettled are only Zanu. I know it happens, a particular individual is doing such a thing.130

In some cases, the political function of the war veterans appears to override the administrative role of local government, influencing the selection criteria for beneficiaries of land redistribution along party-political lines. An ex-district administrator claimed that party-political control of land allocation undermines local government authority:

In practice it's the war veterans and Zanu-PF who are running the show, doing the selection procedure, deciding which farms to invade...It's not a committee. It's a rally.131

Testimony from rural people showed a widespread perception that the dominant role of Zanu-PF and the war veterans in the process made support for Zanu-PF a criterion for beneficiaries. It is also clear that the local government structures are not in full control of the war veterans directing land occupations. In some cases, when the official structures have ruled that occupiers should leave a farm, since the occupation was against the official criteria set down, police charged with ensuring that the occupiers leave have been forced to back down in face of threats from the war veterans militia.

In addition, many fear the consequences of becoming involved in a process in which a substantial role is played by people responsible for visiting violence on them and their neighbors. Many villagers from communal areas said they needed land but felt that it was difficult for them to apply now because they did not feel comfortable with the central role of the war veterans in allocating land. Some opposition supporters indicated that they would like to get land under different political circumstances but couldn't participate now given the political violence in the country. A thirty-three-year-old woman villager who had been beaten by war veterans said she wanted land but did not feel she could apply:

We are scared that we might be settled near those war veterans. The war veterans are still around. If it were safe, I could go running. [Did you ever apply?] No, we are just afraid because it's a Zanu-PF thing.132

Another respondent told how opposition supporters felt they could not approach the war veterans for land:

The war veterans clearly show us that they don't want to include us in the process. It is against our party [the U.P.] policy because the way they are attacking the farms, that is not our policy. They clearly told us that we from other parties are not eligible.133

Most respondents said that land was offered via meetings run by war veterans. "The channel is the war veterans, that is the framework."134 In some cases Zanu-PF cards were required:

We tried to get some land in October 2000 at the Charter Estate. This is a resettlement farm.... You go through the gate and there's an ex-combatant in charge of land occupations there. They said they want data forms and a Zanu-PF card. We didn't have those. They said we should go and come back some time when we had the necessary forms.135

MDC activists felt that they would not be eligible to get land because they supported the opposition:

Yes, I heard about it [land resettlement] but I did not go to register. If they know you are MDC they do not give you land. Known MDC activists cannot go. In our area almost three-quarters do not want to go.136

In several areas, according to cases reported to Human Rights Watch, the "fast track" plots were being handed out not only to landless people from the communal areas or war veterans (for whom government policy officially reserves 20 percent), but also to the police, army, CIO, civil servants such as agricultural extension workers (who are involved in demarcating plots), and traditional leaders. A former district administrator described this:

They allocate land to their supporters. We are asked to transport them to the farms, then we just sit back and let them do their thing. When one local administrator didn't provide transport to war veterans, she was kicked out. It becomes untenable to witness a process that's very illegal...We are not resettling the landless peasant, who is being sidelined. We are resettling ourselves.137

An MDC activist from the Chimanimani constituency told Human Rights Watch how he applied for land. He said he was happy to do so, despite his party's opposition to the fast track program, since the land in question was a planned resettlement scheme and not a farm occupation. He said he was rejected because of his opposition affiliation:

We thought that because the government is saying that land is not a political issue then let's also register for land to see what would take place. I went through all the procedures: I registered through my councilor, submitting all my particulars, curriculum vitae, national ID number and so on. The names given to the councilor were taken to the DA's office. My name was called during the day when land was distributed. I was number ten on the list, but people started shouting: `Oh, he's opposition he doesn't deserve that. He's not eligible because he's supporting Mr. Bennett [the MDC MP for Chimanimani]. If you want land you must go to Mr. Bennett.' The DA was there, the councilor, and even a number of war vets, about 150 people altogether. Others were given land but not me. The Zanu people and war vets were shouting; the DA and councilor were not involved. I recently consulted the DA to find out what had happened to my claim, and he was saying `just leave it, because its very sensitive and political. If you are not given land that is now a political issue so better leave it like that for your own safety.'

They are now following up and trying to find out how many members of the opposition were given land so that they can regain it and give it to Zanu-PF people. I heard from war vets that they are reallocating the plots. Their first efforts were haphazard and now they are saying they are going to do it the right way...My friend was lucky in the first round and he was allocated land on the first day. Now they are saying to him that they don't think he will use that land and they want to take it away. He supports the MDC, that's the reason.138

Many NGO experts made similar claims of party-political allocation of land:

Beneficiary selection is highly politicized. There is no doubt that this is a politically motivated process, by war veterans and Zanu supporters. Land occupations were orchestrated. These people were genuinely in charge of land occupations. They mobilized people and did it themselves. They were looking for their own faithfuls...There is confusion on who should be in charge of the process, and different people are on the RDC lists from the war veteran lists. Certain people could jump the queue, those with political clout, who were close to the war veterans, so it became automatic for them to get land faster.139

Discrimination in selection of beneficiaries is facilitated by the fact that there are no published records of deliberations or of the reasons for selection or rejection of applicants for land at each step in the formal process. The process is not transparent, and there is no provision for an appeal if an application is rejected.140

The government has in some cases halted land occupations undertaken in the context of the general endorsement of land redistribution, but not orchestrated by its supporters, and expelled the new settlers. Police have evicted settlers on the Matopos Rhodes Estate, a state-owned national park in Matabeleland South. The land was previously Zapu property and is claimed by the members of Inqama, a movement to restore the capital of Mzilikazi, the founder of the Ndebele kingdom. According to one new settler there, war veterans led the invasion of a former farm, and after they had occupied the area tens of other families joined them, only to be removed by police:

When the opportunity came for us to grab the farms, we grabbed them...The February [2000] occupations were led by the war veterans and the government gave in because they were war veterans. To be honest Zanu-PF took advantage of the situation because that was the only tool left to them to gain support after the rejection of the draft constitution, but they empowered us by so doing. The majority [occupying the land] were urban, landless people, though the people invading were veterans...Things were quiet until September when [the police] came down and destroyed our shacks. I was there when the police came. They burnt our shacks. There were three `santanas' [police vehicles] and about twelve policemen. No one was arrested, no one was beaten. We were going to beat them if it was a fight. But we decided it was best to play it cool. At first we stopped them but they said they were calling the army and the Support Unit, so we left. Since then two of the farms have been launched...[but] we were advised by the government not to put up permanent structures.141

In August 2001, police again forcibly evicted settlers on the Rhodes Estate.142

Many of those taking advantage of the fast track land reform program are individuals or families who have a genuine need of land to cultivate. According to press reports and other anecdotal evidence, it seems that discrimination against those who have not demonstrated loyalty to Zanu-PF may have decreased, as the fast track program has progressed. However, the testimony collected by Human Rights Watch and other organizations reveals that in many cases others who have equal or greater needs were not benefiting, because they were frightened of violence from the war veterans militia, or because they were not prepared to show support for the ruling party.

Gender Issues in Allocation of Land
Women play a key role in subsistence agriculture in Zimbabwe. Women form 52 percent of the population of the country, and 86 percent of them depend on the land for the livelihoods of themselves and their families. They are the main providers of labor for farming (approximately 70 percent) and are the primary managers of homes in communal areas, given that many men are migrant workers in the cities or in other areas away from their homes. Nevertheless, rural women living in the communal areas are largely treated as dependants of men, not as landholders or farmers in their own right. Section 23 of the Zimbabwean constitution prohibits discrimination, but recognizes exceptions to this general principle in issues relating to, among other things, adoption, marriage, divorce, burial, devolution of property on death or other matters relating to personal law, and the application of African customary law. In April 1999, the Supreme Court, basing its judgment on this exception, ruled in Magaya v. Magaya that a woman could not inherit land from her deceased father. The Administration of Estates Act of 1997, passed after the events on which the Magaya case was based took place, has changed this position in relation to inheritance specifically, but only for deaths that occurred after November 1, 1997. Under this law, a widow retains rights to land on the death of her husband. In practice, women still occupy a subordinate position in the communal areas and in general only have access to land through their husbands. In another 1999 Supreme Court case, Mahlangu v. Khumalo, the court ruled that section 23 of the constitution still exempted African customary law from the principles of nondiscrimination, and other legislation also still discriminates on gender grounds.

A land redistribution and resettlement program should ensure that women are given the opportunity to hold land in their own right on equal terms with men. In October 2000, the government stated that it would ensure a 20 percent quota for women to benefit from the fast track resettlement program, raising hopes in this regard.143 This commitment was never implemented: there is no legal or administrative framework in place to ensure gender equality in the distribution of resettlement land. The policy documents and laws setting out the basis of the fast track program make no mention of gender issues.

Zimbabwe's Women and Land Lobby Group has criticized government policy on and the results of past land resettlement schemes from a gender perspective:

Although females heading households can access land and be given permits in resettlement areas, their married counterparts still had to access land through their husbands and have no security of tenure should their husbands die; there are not many women who own land in small scale commercial areas as most women are poor; the legal and policy framework has not incorporated inheritance rights pertaining to land for widows; the fact of women's lack of access and control over land leads to them being excluded from credit, marketing facilities, decision-making powers over agricultural production activities and benefits, negatively impacting on the productive capacity of women.144

There are no studies available of the effects of the fast track resettlement scheme on women specifically. However, the lack of infrastructure such as schools and markets in the resettled areas is likely to affect women more seriously than men, since women are the principal subsistence farmers, are less likely to have access to casual cash-paid work, and are more responsible for child care. Some accounts suggested that some of the young men who had left to take up plots in the fast track resettlement farms had abandoned their wives in the communal areas and taken new women as partners; alternatively, that women had accompanied their husbands, but finding that the situation in the resettled areas was worse then the home they had left, had returned to their previous houses.145 Because women are not regarded as having title to land they are vulnerable to men who wish to exploit their labor either in the communal or resettlement areas.

Other accounts indicated that some women seeking allocation of a plot under the fast track scheme had been forced to exchange sexual favors to get on the redistribution lists and that war veterans and Zanu-PF militia members had raped women in the course of the land occupations. In April 2000, for example, two girls aged sixteen and eighteen were raped at a school in Mutoko where war veterans and other people were gathered waiting to be allocated land. The alleged perpetrators were arrested about one week later, when the girls reported to the police. Attempts by lawyers to follow up on the prosecution of the cases with the police were met only with insults.146

The participation of women in the resettlement program, and the violence to which they have been subjected urgently needs further investigation. Impunity for sexual assault and rape must be ended, and issues of discrimination addressed.

Displacement and Marginalization of Farm Workers
In many ways, those most disadvantaged by the fast track land reform program are farm workers. Prior to the recent crisis, there 300,000 to 400,000 wage-earning workers on commercial farms, perhaps one quarter of the formal sector labor force and between 11 and 18 percent of the total population.147 Perhaps 25 percent of these are of foreign descent, mainly Malawian, Mozambican, or Zambian, though their families may have lived in Zimbabwe for several generations. Many of these do not have documents establishing Zimbabwean citizenship, either lacking papers altogether or carrying national identification cards bearing the designation "alien." Prior to the current crisis on farms, farm workers were already the lowest paid workers in the formal sector in Zimbabwe, often housed in poor conditions, and with inadequate access to schooling, health care, and other services-though, following independence, and under pressure from unions and NGOs working with farm workers, increasing numbers of farmers did improve the conditions of service for their labor.148 Farm workers are vulnerable to arbitrary eviction in old age especially, when they no longer able to work. Female farm workers, in turn, are more likely than men to be employed on short term contracts for casual work, and less likely to have permanent employment with housing included as part of the package.

The large-scale occupation of commercial farms since early 2000 has meant that workers' wage employment on the farm is often ended. In some cases, they are allowed to remain on the farm, but cannot work and are not paid; in others, they are displaced, and must find a place to shelter as best they can. As a union organizer commented, "They have been caught in between because their workplace is their home and they have no rural places to go to."149 Farm workers are also "caught in between" as regards their political affiliations: because of their dependent situation, they may feel obliged to show support for the political party favored by the farm owner, and thus become vulnerable to violence from supporters of other parties, whatever their own beliefs.

One NGO expert commented that not as many farm workers had initially been displaced as was expected, because resettlement was "largely a paper exercise in which people are allocated plots but not taking them up."150 By October 2001, however, the Commercial Farmers' Union estimated that 75,000 people (13,636 families) had been either forced off the land or laid off because of the shut down of farming operations.151 The Zimbabwe Agricultural Welfare Trust, established in late 2001, claims that between February 2000 and December 2001, about 350 large-scale commercial farms had to close operations, affecting about 15,000 farm worker families.152 The United Nations noted that by January 2002, the number of farm workers displaced was estimated at 30,000 families.153 Though all of these figures must be regarded as estimates, the problem is clearly serious.

Farm workers interviewed by Human Rights Watch reflected these concerns:

When the boss goes away, I've got no job to do. It's about 200 people working on the farm, with families it is plus 300. I can't even say it's good because I don't know what is going to happen tomorrow...They could come and say each and all of you with your boss you have to leave. The boss just says, wait and see. If they come, tell me quickly and I will tell you what to do. When the war veterans come, the boss won't do anything...We will stay on this place but we are very frightened.154

Even farm workers interviewed by Human Rights Watch who had lost their jobs showed some appreciation of the war veterans' actions in cases in which their employer had a bad record in labor relations: "The war veterans came for the land, and also they said because the farmer is not working hand in hand with his workers, the conditions of working are not good. Sometimes I agree with them, the working conditions are bad... and at other farms the situation is better."155

The Labour Relations Act has been amended and new regulations promulgated in early 2002 to provide that the owner of a farm whose land is compulsorily acquired by the government of Zimbabwe pay the benefits due to employees when they are laid off. Previously, the law required the acquiring authority to take over responsibility for the legal obligations towards workers on the farm on conditions no less favorable than those existing before.

Many farm workers who are not Zimbabweans by descent (even though they may have or be entitled to acquire citizenship) have no access to the structures that allocate plots in the communal areas. Farm workers are thus among those with the greatest need for land. Surveys suggest that most farm workers would choose to stay on the farm where they are employed, with a plot of land to which they have title, even if they also continued to work in the commercial farming sector.156 In 1999, the government land policy framework for the first time acknowledged the need for farm workers to be resettled as well as those from communal areas, and recognized that those who entered the country as indentured labor from 1953 to 1963, and their children, are entitled to citizenship.157

But farm workers have not been among the groups targeted to benefit from the fast track program. As of October 2001, official government statistics indicated that only 2,122 of the 123,979 households recorded as resettled (that is, 1.7 percent) were farm worker households.158 GAPWUZ, the General, Agricultural and Plantation Workers' Union of Zimbabwe, which claims 100,000 members, in a paper presented to a September 2001 conference, characterized the fast track land reform program as "the biggest challenge currently facing farm workers in Zimbabwe.... There are approximately 2 million people that can be labeled under the farm working community, and it is frightening to note that the land reform programme is silent as to the fate of the same."159 GAPWUZ has made various recommendations to ensure that farm workers would be protected during the fast track process, including setting aside at least 20 percent of the land acquired for farm workers (along the lines of the same quota allocated for war veterans).

Although farm workers are not precluded from applying for land under the fast track process, the problem for those who cannot prove their citizenship is that the process of registering for land formally involves registration with the council of the communal area from which they come, with no additional mechanisms put in place to enable them to access the new allocations easily.160 Moreover, those farm workers who are not of Zimbabwean descent have additional problems, since if they are displaced from the farm they have no other place to go. Zimbabweans, on the other hand, usually have the possibility of returning to their family's land in a communal area. As one farm worker commented:

I was beaten during by-elections around November last year. All of us including the farmer were supporting MDC, because we have nowhere to go. I am an alien. My father came from Malawi. We are seven born here and we have nowhere to go. Our last-born is eighteen years old. My father is here. He is a pensioner.161

Another farm worker complained at the policy of favoring war veterans:

I don't agree that the war veterans should have the land. Land might be taken and given to some one else, but if they just give land to me or other people who are not trained as farmers then we are killing the whole nation. I would be happy to have land because most of the people on the farms have no homes; every person on the farms if given a piece of land we will just say thank you. They go to meetings where they discuss land but we are forced to go and attend. But I don't know how that land is allocated. They are just taking it for themselves, not offering it to the farm workers. I think the government is not giving land to the people, just campaigning for itself...The only people who have no land are those living on the farms.162

In practice, however, some farm workers have taken the opportunity to acquire land-at least temporarily-through the unofficial systems operated by the war veterans. However, the offer of land may be tied to a pledge of allegiance to Zanu-PF:

There were regular meetings on the farm where we were offered land. They [the meetings] were run by war veterans and CIO guys. Usually the MP doesn't come. They told the farmers to use their tractors to ferry us to the meetings, Friday 1 to 4 pm and Sunday 8 am to 1 pm. We never disrupted those meetings. They would tell us that [MDC leader] Tsvangirai will never rule this country. They don't want to hear anything about MDC. Yes, they offered us land and said anyone who wants land can get. From our farm seven went, but I think some of them just go for the sake of going. Some were given land at [nearby farms]. They are living there. They are settled there right now.163

Sometimes these inducements to sign up for Zanu-PF were linked with threats of assault.

They've [the war veterans] come several times before but this time was worse than before, because now they locked him [the boss] inside. Before they came to the workers and said, you have to support the ruling party. If you don't have to support the party, they did fighting. They are just saying you ought to have your names written down. You must go and join the party.164

A woman worker on a farm in Marondera told human rights researchers:

The war vets want to occupy the farm worker's houses. They want to make sure we move out...If guys leave the farm, then white farmers won't have the manpower to stay and farm. [Why don't you get your own piece of land here, like the other squatters?] You must have a Zanu-PF card to get land. [Why don't you call the police when attacked?] It's useless because they won't do anything. You're in more shit because the police will send a message to the war veterans this one is making trouble, sort her out, and they will! I've seen policemen in uniforms coming out with government vehicles to see their fields.165

As in the case of the situation of women within the fast track program, the particular problems of farm workers need further investigation, and urgent action to redress discrimination.

Difficulties for Organizations Working in Rural Areas

The mobilization for land occupations has created problems for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and unions seeking to work with farm workers and others in rural areas. During the referendum of 2000, GAPWUZ participated in voter education, an activity which tarred them, and through them the farm workers they addressed, with the brush of support for the MDC. The union claims that GAPWUZ shop stewards have been intimidated in by-election areas.166 GAPWUZ claimed that a new government-backed union federation, the Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions (ZFTU) has deliberately undermined its efforts to organize in commercial farming areas.167

Many nongovernmental organizations that conduct development-related activities amongst poor rural people have had their activities disrupted. NGOs say that the climate of fear created by war veterans is not conducive to development and educational activities in these rural communities. As a result virtually all groups have suspended activities. War veteran militias investigate activities around fast track resettlement areas which for NGOs sometimes constitutes an implied threat.

On May 31 [2001] we had organized a district team-building meeting in Wedza and then the war veterans came and said, `Who are you and what are you doing?' ...We explained that we are in partnership with government and they sat and listened until the end of the program. They requested us to come to them and make a presentation to the bases. They gather people there forcibly. We went and said we are not political. This was at the school. They wanted us to work in party structures which we diplomatically refused. Of course, the line ministries are quite aware of the predicament we the NGOs are in.168

NGOs working on development issues or working with farm workers who have attempted to become involved in support for those who have been resettled or in the process of land allocation have been ejected or threatened.169 NGOs have been forbidden from carrying out voter education in rural areas. Zimrights, a national human rights organization, has been ordered to cease human rights education activities in Masvingo and other rural districts.170 The rights of election observers to operate freely have been greatly restricted for the March 2002 presidential elections.171

In November 2001, the government announced that humanitarian organizations would be banned from distributing food in rural areas, where there is an acute need for assistance, claiming that aid distribution would be used as an excuse to campaign for the MDC. Churches have openly defied this edict. Roman Catholic Archbishop Pius Ncube charged that "the hunger is caused by the government's hypocrisy. It wants to distribute food assistance itself, so as to buy votes. It does not care how many people die as long as it can stay in power."172

78 CFU statement, October 19, 2001.

79 Human Rights and Zimbabwe's June 2000 Election (Harare: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, January 2001); Political Violence Report December 2001 (Harare: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, January 2002); Human Rights Watch telephone interview with CFU, February 12, 2002. Another two white farmers have been killed in uncertain circumstances.

80 "Death at dawn: the agony of Zimbabwe," Guardian (London), April 19, 2000; "Hounded out of Africa," Times (London), December 18, 2000; Andrew Meldrum, "Mother killed on same Zimbabwe farm as her son," Guardian, March 5, 2001.

81 "Blacks take over white farm after murder in Zimbabwe," AFP, July 17, 2001.

82 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with CFU, February 12, 2002.

83 Cited in Cheater, Human Rights and Zimbabwe's June 2000 Election, p.34.

84 Political Violence Report January 2002.

85 Email communication to Human Rights Watch, February 14, 2002.

86 Human Rights Watch interview, union organizers, Harare, July 12, 2001.

87 Human Rights Watch Interview, Beatrice, Mashonaland East, July 30, 2001.

88 Human Rights Watch interview, nurse, commercial farm, Chimanimani, Manicaland, July 18, 2001.

89 Human Rights Watch interview, farm worker, Harare, July 18, 2001.

90 Human Rights Watch interview, farm worker, Beatrice District, Marondera West, July 26, 2001.

91 For example, police reportedly assaulted farm workers and villagers at a farm in Mhondoro after they had challenged war veterans and Zanu-PF supporters who stopped them from taking firewood. "Police attack villagers," Daily News (Harare) June 22, 2001.

92 See, for example, Complying with the Abuja Agreement (Harare: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, October 2001).

93 CFU Presentation to SADC Task Force, December 10, 2001.

94 UNDP Interim Mission Report, January 2002, p.31.

95 Human Rights Watch interview, old resettlement farm, Marondera, Mashonaland East, July 27, 2001.

96 See, for example, Political Violence Report December 2001 (Harare: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, January 2002).

97 Human Rights Watch interview, former communal area resident, Harare, July 16, 2001.

98 Human Rights Watch interview, villager, 1980s resettlement farm, Marondera, Mashonaland East, July 27, 2001.

99 Human Rights Watch interview, Chimanimani, July 17, 2001.

100 See IBA report, paragraph 8.17.

101 Human Rights Watch interview, former communal area resident, Harare, July 16, 2001.

102 Human Rights Watch interview, Dr. Vincent Hungwe, Principal Director of Land and Rural Resettlement, Harare, July 30, 2001.

103 See, for example, Enforcing the Rule of Law in Zimbabwe (Harare: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, September 2001).

104 Daily News (Harare), January 16, 2001; as reported in Politically Motivated Violence in Zimbabwe, 2000-2001, footnote 80.

105 "Police chief vows to clamp down on terror, dissent in Zimbabwe," SAPA, December 7, 2001.

106 Amnesty International interview November 30, 2001.

107 Human Rights Watch interview, communal area resident, Murerwa, Mashonaland East, July 27, 2001.

108 Politically Motivated Violence in Zimbabwe, 2000-2001: A report on the campaign of political repression conducted by the Zimbabwean Government under the guise of carrying out land reform (Harare: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, July 2001), annex I.

109 Amnesty International interview, farm foreman, Marondera, December 4, 2001.

110 Human Rights Watch interview, villager A from communal area, Harare, July 16, 2001

111 Human Rights Watch interview, villager B from communal area, Harare, July 16, 2001

112 Human Rights Watch interview, villager C from communal area, Harare, July 16, 2001

113 Human Rights Watch interview, villager D from communal area, Harare, July 16, 2001

114 Human Rights Watch interview, commercial farm, Beatrice, Mashonaland East, July 30, 2001

115 Amnesty International interview, farmer, Marondera, December 4, 2001.

116 Human Rights Watch interview, ex-district administrator, Matabeleland South, August 2, 2001

117 See Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum political violence reports for January and February 2002.

118 "Signs of progress - ZimRights," U.N. Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN), January 22, 2002; Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Zimrights and Amani Trust, February 12, 2002.

119 The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum has reported on the selective implementation of justice where crimes allegedly perpetrated by MDC members result in swift arrests while no persons are arrested or tried in the case of crimes allegedly perpetrated by members of ZANU-PF. Politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe 2000-2001. A report on the campaign of political repression conducted by the Zimbabwean Government under the guise of carrying out land reform (Harare: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum. August 2001); Enforcing the Rule of Law in Zimbabwe (Harare: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, September 2001).

120 In August 2001, twenty-one white farmers from the Chinhoyi area were arrested and charged with public violence in connection with alleged assaults on black settlers.

121 Politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe 2000-2001, annex I.

122 Human Rights Watch interview, worker, Marondera, Mashonaland East, July 27, 2001.

123 Amnesty International interview, November 30, 2001.

124 Amnesty International interview, November 28, 2001

125 UNDP Interim Mission Report, January 2002, p.31.

126 Human Rights Watch Interview, villager from communal area, Harare, July 16, 2001.

127 Sam Moyo and Prosper Matondi, "Conflict Dimensions of Zimbabwe's Land Reform Process," May 2001, p.15.

128 Human Rights Watch interview, Dr. Vincent Hungwe, Principal Director of Land and Rural Resettlement, Harare, July 30, 2001.

129 Human Rights Watch interview, councilor, Chimanimani, Manicaland, July 17, 2001.

130 Ibid.

131 Human Rights Watch interview, ex-district administrator, Matabeleland South, August 2, 2001

132 Human Rights Watch interview, villager from communal area, Harare, July 16, 2001.

133 Human Rights Watch interview, villager from communal area, Harare, July 16, 2001.

134 Human Rights Watch interview, young man, Nhedziwa ward, Chimanimani, July 17, 2001.

135 Human Rights Watch interview, Harare resident, July 16, 2001. Party cards are increasingly required even to be able to travel in the rural areas, where youth militia stage informal roadblocks and demand that travelers demonstrate their loyalty to the ruling party. See for example Basildon Peta, "Party cards run out as Mugabe enforces loyalty," Independent on Sunday (London), January 20, 2002, as well as reports from the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum.

136 Human Rights Watch interview, communal area resident, Murerwa, Mashonaland East, July 27, 2001.

137 Human Rights Watch interview, ex-district administrator, Matabeleland South, August 2, 2001

138 Human Rights Watch interview, July 18, 2001.

139 Human Rights Watch interview, NGO expert, Harare, July 16, 2001.

140 UNDP Interim Mission Report, January 2002, p.20.

141 Human Rights Watch interview, fast track resettlement farms, Bulawayo, Matabeleland South, August 2, 2001.

142 Enforcing the Rule of Law in Zimbabwe, p.24.

143 The government-owned Daily News quoted Minister of Local Government Ignatius Chombo as stating that single women would be allocated 20 percent of land acquired by the government for resettlement and that there would be joint ownership of land by spouses, in accordance with official policy statements. IRIN, October 29, 2000.

144 Women and Land Lobby Group, "Report on WLLG workshop on Women's Land Rights, held 27-28 November 2000," (Harare, WLLG, 2001), as quoted in Gender and Constitutional Issues (Harare: Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, January 2001), p.15.

145 Human Rights Watch interviews, Musasa resettlement area, July 18, 2001; communal area, Chimanimani, July 17, 2001; NGO experts, Harare, July 2001.

146 Human Rights Watch interview, NGO workers, Harare, July 12, 2001, and subsequent email confirmation.

147 Dede Amanor-Wilks, Zimbabwe's Farm Workers and the New Constitution, February 12, 2000, available on the Africa Policy Information Center home page,, accessed December 21, 2001; UNDP Interim Mission Report, January 2002, p.35.

148 Nevertheless, only 59 percent of farm workers' children attended primary school in 1997, compared to 79 percent of children in communal areas and 89 percent of urban children. Land, Power and Poverty: Farm workers and the crisis in Zimbabwe (London: Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR), 2000), p.23.

149 Human Rights Watch interview, Acting General Secretary, General, Agricultural, and Plantation Workers' Union of Zimbabwe, July 12, 2001.

150 Human Rights Watch interview, NGO worker, Harare, July 13, 2001.

151 CFU statement, October 19, 2001.

152 An Appeal for Assistance for the Beleaguered Farm Workers of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Agricultural Welfare Trust press release, December 3, 2001.

153 UNDP Interim Mission Report, January 2002, p.35.

154 Human Rights Watch interview, farm worker, Beatrice District, Marondera West, July 26, 2001.

155 Human Rights Watch interview with farm worker from Marondera area, Harare, July 18, 2001.

156 Baseline Survey of Commercial Farm Workers' Characteristics and Living Conditions in Zimbabwe (Harare: Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ), April 2000).

157 Amanor-Wilks, Zimbabwe's Farm Workers.

158 UNDP Interim Mission Report, January 2002, p.36.

159 GAPWUZ, "Zimbabwe," in Southern Africa Regional Conference on Farm Workers' Human Rights and Security, Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe, September 2001.

160 Human Rights Watch interview, Dr. Vincent Hungwe, Principal Director of Land and Rural Resettlement, Harare, July 30, 2001.

161 Human Rights Watch interview, farm worker, Beatrice District, Marondera West, July 26, 2001.

162 Human Rights Watch interview, farm worker from Marondera area, Harare, July 18, 2001.

163 Human Rights Watch interview, villager, 1980s Resettled Area, Marondera, Mashonaland East, July 27, 2001.

164 Human Rights Watch interview, farm worker, Beatrice District, Marondera West, July 26, 2001.

165 Amnesty International interview, December 4, 2001.

166 Human Rights Watch interview, Gapwuz Organisers, July 12, 2001.

167 Human Rights Watch interview, Gapwuz Organisers, July 12, 2001.

168 Human Rights Watch interview, NGO Coordinator, Harare, Mashonaland Central, July 18, 2001.

169 Human Rights Watch interviews, Harare, July 2001.

170 Loughty Dube, "War Veterans Ban Rights Groups from Districts," Zimbabwe Independent, January 4, 2002; Human Rights Watch telephone interview, Zimrights, February 12, 2002.

171 See Human Rights Watch submission to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, January 2002.

172 Alex Duval Smith, "Zimbabwe churches defy Mugabe by delivering food to starving people," Independent (London), November 29, 2001.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page