Much of Hartley, Lomagundi and Mazowe were set aside for the British South Africa Company (BSAC) and reserved for miners until 1903, writes Dr Felix Muchemwa in his book The Struggle For Land in Zimbabwe (1890 – 2010) that The Patriot is serialising.

AS the pioneer settlers occupied land around the various forts on the Mashonaland Highveld, and ultimately achieved their objective of occupying the Mashonaland highveld in 1890, each member of the Column was granted 1 500 morgen (3 300 acres, or 1 320 hectares) of free farmland.
The total number of the Pioneer Column members entitled to free land in Zimbabwe was 1 000 and the British South Africa Company (BSAC) allowed them to peg their farms anywhere except on the gold belt which was reserved for miners.
Much of Hartley, Lomagundi and Mazowe were therefore consequently set aside for the BSAC and reserved for miners until 1903. (Palmer, 1977: p.35)
In any event, although the Pioneer Column land grants were honoured at Fort Victoria, Melsetter, Fort Salisbury, Hartley, Lomagundi, Mazowe, Umtali and Marandellas, much of the BSAC policy in the first three years was focused on the discovery and exploration of mineral resources.
Also, in a related development stemming from the pioneer settlers being beneficiaries of both land and mineral claims, the settler-miners demanded the right not to occupy the pegged farmlands.
Their insistence was that it was impossible to live on farmlands and mines at the same time, especially if they were not allowed to peg farms within three miles of towns in allowance for township development or commonage.
When an ad hoc committee led by Lionel Cripps eventually confronted Cecil Rhodes on the matter on October 18 1891, it turned out the pioneer settlers’ contract did not stipulate physical occupation of land and therefore, Rhodes, accordingly, accepted their demand and granted them permission to live off the pegged farms. (Palmer, 1977: 35)
Thus, pegging without occupation of the farms continued, with Africans having little knowledge of land-theft going on because the beacons of such farms were often anthills, rocks or some other physical features which gave no indication to the Africans that their land had been alienated and occupied, thus virtually hiding evidence of the presence of the European settlers.
However, what is most important is the recognition that from the outset of settler occupation, African land rights were completely written off and Zimbabwean land became the property and land asset of the BSAC, subject to being sold on the London Stock Exchange or property markets and to settlers on easy terms as confirmed by the BSAC Directors Report of 1889 – 1891 in the statement:
To enable the Shareholders to appreciate the value of this land grant (i.e. Lippert Concession – 1891), it may be that Matabeleland and Mashonaland cover an area of 125 000 square miles or 80 000 000 acres (32 000 000 hectares).
As these territories South of the Zambezi within the field of operations of the company are colonised and become populated by white people, it is obvious that the mere prairie value per acre of land must represent an amount largely in excess of the company’s capital of one million pounds
In essence, it was a statement of the BSAC mission in Zimbabwe to grab Zimbabwean land, particularly the Zimbabwean Highveld, from Africans.
Consequently, the land was made so cheap for the settlers that various authors have described the acquisition as a ‘colossal stroke of thievery’ or ‘a Stock Exchange Swindle.’ (Galbraith, 1970)
A farm, and the associated right to sell or buy land, was considered the absolute birthright of every European settler, and a title deed to a piece of land was the ultimate goal of every one of them.
Those European settlers who acquired immense pieces of land therefore held on to the land hard and fast.
This European land tenure system was bound to clash with African land tenure systems by 1896.
However, while for the BSAC, business had just started, for Zimbabweans, it was the start of a long struggle for African land rights and land reclamation.
Private property rights on land were unknown among the Shona and the Ndebele people and were unrecognised by the spirit mediums.
All land belonged to Mwari, and therefore, could neither be sold nor bought as an individual or communal right. (Ajayi, 1989)
Chiefs, paramount chiefs or kings only had powers to allocate land, but not to sell it, and that same power was sanctioned by the ancestral spirits through their mediums.
This meant that competition for power through succession in chieftainship or kingship was never for the right to buy or sell land, but for the right to allocate it.
In that regard, the territory for each chieftaincy or paramountcy was clearly defined by natural boundaries such as rivers, streams, mountains, hills, kopjes and specific forests and gullies and hardly any land in Zimbabwe lay unclaimed by African rulers in Mashonaland or Matabeleland. (Beach, 1969: p.25)
African people used shifting cultivation deliberately to avoid continuous land use, which caused land degradation.
This required new land for every other season and the crop rotation method of cultivation necessitated large pieces of land per family.
Grazing was equally important since both Shona and Ndebele people were largely dependent on cattle for cultivation, meat, lobola, damages for wrongs done and commercial wealth.
Therefore, no claim could be made to any piece of land as the Lippert Concession, the Rudd Concession and the Royal Charter pretended to do in Mashonaland until and unless sanctioned by the relevant chief in consultation with the relevant spirit mediums of the area.
This is what had to happen before any strangers settled in a specific territory and not what Lobengula is alleged to have done through the Lippert and Rudd Concessions.
It must be realised that when Lobengula was installed King of the Ndebele Nation, the Mwari Priests accepted him to the priesthood (spirit mediums order) by giving him the insignia of their ‘Order.’
The insignia was a black cloth which he wore around his waist, and, as the spirit medium of a ‘rainmaker’, he became part of the Mwari Cult (Bhebhe, 1979: p.49) and in that capacity, he stood to be advised by National High Priests at Wirirani in Matopo Hills (Umlugulu, the Khumalo High Priest); at Njelele (Venda High Priest); at Matonjeni (Belingwe, Shona High Priest), and at Ntabazikamambo, Inyathi (Mkwati, Rozvi Shona High Priest). (Cobbin, 1976)
Also, as king of the Ndebele nation, Lobengula always made decisions on national issues, especially on land, together with his indunas (chiefs) who took orders from regional priests (mhondoro).
It is, therefore, inconceivable that Lobengula would have made individual and personal decisions on land and mineral concessions without paying attention to the customary and religious laws of the country.
Therefore, under African customary and religious laws, the basic assumption within the Shona and Ndebele polities as Europeans entered the Mashonaland Highveld in 1890 was that land in Zimbabwe was not a marketable commodity. (Palmer, 1977: pp.27 – 28)
Later in 1918, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would acknowledge this land tenure system in making the decision on the rights of Lobengula’s subjects to land.
The Privy Council would conclude that: ‘The notion of separate ownership in land or of the alienation of land by a chief or anyone else was foreign to their ideas’. (Palley, 1966: p.27)
Over and above everything, what this means is that simple consultation with the chiefs and spirit mediums of the time (such as Sekuru Kaguvi, Mukwati and Mbuya Nehanda), had been absolutely essential when European settlers occupied the Mashonaland Highveld, if serious conflicts as eventually led to the 1896 First Chimurenga had to be avoided.