Mzila Ndlovu: Why compensate white farmers, not ZPRA?

Veteran freedom fighter and opposition politician Moses Mzila Ndlovu has criticised the Zimbabwean government’s move to compensate white former commercial farmers for land seized during the early 2000s, while ignoring decades-long pleas for restitution over ZPRA and ZAPU properties seized without compensation.

Ndlovu’s remarks come in the wake of the government’s announcement this week that it had made its first payment of US$3 million to white farmers under a 2020 compensation agreement.

The deal, worth US$3.5 billion, was struck to cover losses suffered by white Zimbabweans whose land was forcibly taken at the height of the controversial land reform programme over two decades ago.

According to Finance Minister Mthuli Ncube, the payment represents one percent of the initial US$311 million earmarked for the first batch of 378 farms out of a total of 740 whose compensation has been approved. 

The remainder will be paid via US dollar-denominated Treasury bonds.

However, Ndlovu, a former government minister and respected voice on issues of historical justice, said the development highlights the deep contradictions within Zimbabwe’s post-independence governance, arguing true justice remains elusive until all victims – especially those of the post-independence era -are recognised and compensated.

“It is ironic how ZPRA and ZAPU properties acquired in the open land and property market with collective demobilisation payouts were unjustifiably seized without compensation,” Ndlovu said.

“Meanwhile, most of the land seized from black people starting in 1890 by whites is now being compensated by a government claiming to be pro-justice.”

Ndlovu accused the Zanu PF-led government of hypocrisy, saying its compensation of white farmers undermines the very revolutionary values it claims to uphold while further marginalising liberation war veterans from the former ZAPU faction of the liberation struggle.

“We will keep exposing Robert Mugabe’s sellout antics since he left ZAPU,” he said. 

“Margaret Thatcher once said before the 1980 election results were announced: ‘We will not necessarily hand over power to the person who wins the vote.’ That’s because power had been grabbed by (Ian) Smith and was only forced out by ZPRA. Thatcher said this before the CIA and MI6 told her what they had planned around the rigging of those elections.”

According to Ndlovu, this moment marked the beginning of Zimbabwe’s long history of disputed elections, a legacy he claims persists to this day.

“ZAPU won the vote, but the elections were handed to Mugabe and Zanu PF. Some who have left Zanu PF have even publicly stated the party has never won an election,” he said.

Ndlovu also slammed what he called the weaponisation of land reform for political gain, noting how the same government is now compensating the very group whose land seizures it once violently justified as redress for colonial injustices.

“The land issue, which we argued was simply weaponised, has now come full circle,” he said.

“The chickens are coming home to roost as the Zanu government compensates white farmers for what they lost when the land reform programme was implemented.”

In contrast, Ndlovu noted that ZPRA’s extensive property portfolio, which included farms, buildings, and other real estate was confiscated by the state in the 1980s and never returned or compensated, despite years of lobbying.

“It is only Margaret Thatcher’s statement that explains this political intrigue and why the Gukurahundi massacres of unarmed and innocent civilians, whose only crime was to speak languages different from Mugabe, had to happen,” Ndlovu argued.

The former freedom fighter said the government’s continued silence on compensating victims of the 1980s Gukurahundi atrocities shows how deeply rooted ethnic and political exclusion remain in the country’s governance.

“It explains why Mugabe refused Joshua Nkomo’s suggestion of an inter-party investigation into the Fifth Brigade killings. It also explains why Mugabe refused to compensate the dead and living victims of his dastardly ethnic cleansing operation. These were instructions (from his foreign handlers),” Ndlovu said.

Ndlovu warned Zimbabweans not to be misled by what he called the “revolutionary rhetoric” Mugabe and Zanu PF were known for, describing it as a mask worn to appear legitimate while betraying the very ideals of the liberation struggle.

“All sellouts have to wear a mask to be attractive to the oppressed people,” he said. 

“Mobutu Sese Seko, Jonas Savimbi, Holden Roberto, Moise Tshombe, all were fiery, eloquent speakers in Robert Mugabe’s league, yet they were in the service of imperialism.”

Ndlovu questioned why Mugabe, despite frequently being labelled a dictator by the West, was never removed like Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

“He was given a soft landing, and people were sold a dummy. That was done to preserve a legacy,” said Ndlovu. 

“But that legacy is one of corruption, ethnic marginalisation of Matabeleland, political repression, institutionalised tribalism, land dispossession and displacement, and presiding over the decay of an economy while a new class of obscenely wealthy black elites – sons and daughters of liberation struggle sellouts – enjoy the spoils of our blood and sweat.”