IN July 1918, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled that: “The British Crown was the legal owner of all the lands in Southern Rhodesia as a right of conquest.” 

This effectively institutionalised the robbery of the whole of the land of Zimbabwe by the British.

However, in 1979, because they were no longer the conquerors,  the British, in the Lancaster House Carrington proposals on land,  made a complete turnaround from the right of conquest on land to ‘human rights’ on land as a ploy to protect white land owners. 

Claiming victory over Africans, the British, for 89 years, had evoked right of conquest, but in the face of the victory of Zimbabwe’s liberation forces, they evoked ‘human rights’ to protect the white land owner, as stipulated thus in the Declaration of Human Rights, Section V of the Carrington land proposals:

“Every person will be protected from having his property compulsorily acquired except when the acquisition is in the interest of … When property is wanted for one of these purposes, its acquisition will be lawful only on condition that the law provides for the prompt payment of adequate compensation and where acquisition is contested, that a court order be obtained. 

A person whose property is so acquired will be guaranteed the right of access to the High Court to determine the amount of compensation.”

Further: “The Constitution, will on the same basis as in other Declaration of Rights, make clear that a number of transactions which might be considered to involve an element of compulsory acquisition will not be so regarded for the purposes of the Declaration of Rights.”

Therefore, for 89 years, by right of conquest, all the land of Zimbabwe belonged to the British Crown but in 1979, having defeated the British, the liberation forces could not repossess the whole of the land of Zimbabwe by right of conquest, the British insisted. 

In 89 years of British rule, the human rights of the Africans were never considered. 

The British exercised the right of conquest but when blacks defeated them 89 years later, the British charged that Africans had to consider the human rights of the Europeans and never to dream of exercising the right of conquest though they were the victors.

It is instructive that the human rights clauses were exclusively for the protection of the rights of whites on land, not those of the Africans: 

λ Land could not be compulsorily acquired to settle Africans although that same land had been compulsorily and ruthlessly taken away from the Africans;

λ Where the law provided that land could be compulsorily acquired, it had to be compensated but the Africans were never compensated when this land was taken away from them;

λ The white land owner had the right to contest land acquisition, while the Africans never had any right to contest expropriation of their land.

The new Zimbabwe Government was to buy back the land for the Africans, which the Africans had liberated at the cost of thousands of lives and untold suffering. 

The hypocrisy and arrogance of the whiteman riled the liberation forces the same way it riled the Matabele in 1896 and the Patriotic Front would not entertain this extreme outrage: “If that was to be the case, then the armed struggle would have to continue until final victory,” the Patriotic Front declared.

We are faced with the most hypocritical epithets to protect the naked greed and selfishness of the British. 

He is still the predator, recognising no-one’s rights but his own. 

In July 1896, the whiteman was defeated by the Matabele warriors at Matobo, compelling him to call for an indaba, but he would not recognise nor honour the victors. 

In 1979, the whiteman, having been defeated by the freedom fighters, called for an indaba (Lancaster House Conference), but still would not honour nor recognise the victors. 

In both cases, he demanded control and ownership of the land of the Africans who had defeated him nevertheless.

On July 20 1896 when General Sir Frederick Carrington positioned his forces to assault Matabele warriors ensconced at Matobo, he failed to read the writing on the wall: ‘Game over!’ 

After one week of fighting, his reward was 20 dead, 50 injured and no casualties among Matabele warriors. 

The British went on to parcel out Matabeleland. 

When Lord Carrington, possibly a grandson to General Sir Frederick Carrington, 83 years later, set out to write the Lancaster House Conference land proposals, insisting the Africans would have to buy back their land, he too was refusing to acknowledge the writing on the wall: ‘Game over!’ The owners of the land had liberated it unequivocally. Chimurenga warriors were the victors!