Posted on 08/14/2002 5:08:20 AM PDT by Clive
In the Middle Sabi farming area 475 kms from Harare in Zimbabwe, a group of up to 17 people, comprising Land Committee members, visited four farms on Saturday afternoon. The group was made up of soldiers armed with AK 47 assault rifles and armed members of the police force.
The leader of the group, a woman who refused to identify herself, told the farmers that they were to leave by the next morning - Sunday. Two of the farmers visited (Farms 19 and 34), told the group that they were not under compulsory acquisition notices but had only received Section 5, preliminary orders. This did not seem to deter the group who told both farmers that the acquisition orders would be upgraded soon.
One of these farmers was told that he would be arrested immediately for arguing that the farm was only under preliminary notice. He declined to be arrested saying the he was a Police Reservist, whereupon they requested his Police Identity card and confiscated it telling him he was 'discharged' from the force on their say so. He was however not arrested.
In this wheat producing area, there are nine farmers under compulsory acquisition. Despite these orders, these farmers were granted permission by the District Administrator (DA) to grow food crops with the assurance that they would be allowed to continue farming. The permission to plant had come in writing and was stamped with the official Government stamp. The farmers then used the written authorization to seek finance from their bankers and when it was granted, they planted 1025 ha of wheat, 160 ha barley, 20 ha tomatoes, 10 ha of Litchi trees and 40 ha of Citrus. The approximate market value of this produce is in excess of Z$500 million. It is normal practice for farmers to obtain such documentation and present it to bankers when requesting financing. The farmers met after the incident to exchange notes and decided that for safety reasons they would relocate to neighbouring farms for safety. Of major concern was that there have been other incidents whereby 'youth' in an inebriated state have arrived and intimidated families.
The farmers decided to avoid violence at all costs and elected to relocate those viewed as vulnerable to surrounding farms. This strategy proved fruitful, as there were no further intimidatory incidents over the weekend.
A further development on Monday - the farmers were revisited and told to meet the Land Committee on their respective farms. Fearing illegal arrest, they declined and it then transpired that a group meeting was held at a neutral venue.
The Land Committee members have further confirmed in a meeting earlier Tuesday, that whilst they acknowledge the stamped and signed letter granting the right to farm and harvest, orders have come from a 'national directive' and the previous permission is therefore rescinded. No explanation was given. The farmers then pressed for direction as to what to do with the employees still resident on the farms numbering 630 and their family members. There are also over 3500 people employed during the cotton- picking season. Clarification was sought by the farmers as to the continued irrigation and care of their crops. The Land Committee group were divided on how to respond to these questions and seemed to have no directive to follow.
The farmers await a return to normal office hours to be able to obtain legal counsel on the way forward. The farmers remain united but they have no assurances that any agreement reached will be honoured by this Land Committee as the members refused to identify themselves.
Funny you mentioned that. As I was reading this, I couldn't help but think of this possible headline: "Environmental Activist Group, Supported by Armed USFS Officers, Serve Compulsory Acquisition Notices to Nevada Cattle Ranchers."
Nah...that could never happen in the USA(?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.