THE Lancaster House Conference started on September 10 1979. A series of issues were proposed and various contentious issues, that included the control of the armed forces, the police and the prison services, were resolved. (Keesings, p.30168)
Security sector
The head of the Rhodesian Security Forces, General Peter Walls, and the head of the police, Commissioner Peter Allum, led by Ian Smith, could not accept arrangements in which the incoming African Government in Zimbabwe would be responsible for security.
They preferred the existing ‘Internal Settlement’ security arrangements, where the Army, Police and Prison Service would remain ‘under European settler-control’. (Keesings p. 30168)
However, Lord Carrington, the Chairman of the Constitutional Conference, forced the Rhodesian delegation to accept his proposals under which the Army, the Airforce and any other security branch established by law would have a commander appointed by the President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. (Conference Paper No:19)
Conference Paper No 19: Transforming the ‘Right of Conquest on Land’ into ‘Human Rights on Land’
On October 3 1979, Lord Carrington, presented constitutional proposals under Conference Paper No. 19.
Interestingly, on the same day, October 3 1979, the Rhodesian Security Forces’ second attempt to assault Mavonde ZANLA HQ in Mozambique ended yet again in disaster (Moorcraft and McLaughlin, 1982: p.116), with a number of Rhodesian fighter aircraft being shot down. (Keesings p.30073)
The raid, code-named ‘Operation Miracle’ had been planned to weaken Cde Robert Mugabe’s bargaining power at the Lancaster House Conference, particularly in view of the serious differences on property rights, (particularly the rights of white commercial farmers to land) that were beginning to emerge.
Given the foregoing circumstances, the most contentious clause in Carrington’s Conference Paper No. 19 became the one dealing with ‘Rights to Property’ in particular, the Right to Land.
Under the heading ‘Declaration of Human Rights’, Section V of the proposals stated:
V(1). Every person will be protected from having his property compulsorily acquired, except when acquisition is in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning, the development or utilisation of that, or other property in such a manner as to promote the public benefit or in the case of under-utilised land, settlement of land for agricultural purposes. 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.
V(3). Compensation paid in respect of loss of land to anyone who is a citizen or ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe (or to a company the majority of whose shareholders are such persons) will, within a reasonable time, be remittable to any country outside Zimbabwe, free from any deduction, tax or charge in respect of its remission…
V(4). 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.
These Rights were only to be amended by unanimous vote in the Zimbabwe House of Assembly of 100 seats, of which 20 were to be reserved for European settlers, most of them, land owners.
A 10-year period was to expire before any amendments could be instituted by the Zimbabwe Government.
Thereafter (after 1990), amendments to the Rights, particularly on land and property, could only be carried out in the Zimbabwe House of Assembly by a two thirds majority.
The Patriotic Front found the land proposals extremely outrageous.
What they saw in front of their eyes was a British attempt to compel the African people of Zimbabwe to buy back all the agriculturally rich land that Britain had taken from their ancestors and parcelled out to various generations of European settler-farmers as a right of conquest since 1890.
The vow by the Patriotic Front leaders Cde Joshua Nkomo and Cde Robert Mugabe was, not surprisingly, that African people in Zimbabwe would never buy their own land from the European settler-farmers.
If that was to be the case, then the armed struggle would have to continue to intensify until the final victory on land was achieved.
It must be borne in mind that by the end of 1979, there were 6 000 European settler-farmers in Rhodesia (Keesingsp.30168) which was 0.0857 percent of an estimated population of seven million.
The 6 000 European settler-farmers had a land holding of 39 percent or 37 440 000 acres (14 976 000 hectares) out of 96 000 000 acres (38 400 000 hectares) of the total land in Zimbabwe. This was against the almost seven million African people living on 39 360 000 acres (15 744 000 hectares/41 percent) in the Tribal Trust Lands in 1979. (Stiff 2000: p. 295)
That meant that 6 000 European settler-farmers occupied almost the same size of land as the seven million African people. (Stiff 2000: p.295)
More importantly, the 6 000 European settler-farmers held 90 percent of all arable land, (Keesingsp.30168) on the Zimbabwe Highveld, with rich agricultural soils and high rainfall and the Matabeleland region four which was suitable for cattle ranching.
The seven million African people had been forced to settle on sandy soils of the southern Sabi/Limpopo Valley and in the northern tsetse fly and mosquito-infested regions of Zimbabwe ever since 1898, after conquest by the British. (Palmer, 1977: pp.68-70)
The Patriotic Front asked the chairman, Lord Carrington, to allow them to thoroughly study the contents of the Constitutional Conference proposals as contained in the Conference Paper No:19, and then give their measured response to it. (Tongogara-Briefings)