Land, Law, and the Courts in Zimbabwe

Abstract

<p>Through a focus on land cases, this chapter looks at the place of law and the judicial system in Zimbabwean politics. To contextualize the understandings, imaginations, and invocations of law that emerged in contestations over land in the courts after 2000, the chapter first situates the law historically to examine the judicial culture that emerged from the interplay of law’s repressive and reformative roles under Rhodesian rule. It shows that under colonial rule the tensions between judicial officers’ commitment to formalism on the one hand and their efforts to deliver ‘substantive justice’ on the other, shaped the legal cultures that carried over into the post-colonial era. In response to growing opposition in the late 1990s, ZANU-PF emphasized a narrow retelling of liberation war history and turned to land for political currency. When land reform was challenged through the courts, ZANU-PF drew on its understanding of history to frame its land policies as both ensuring ‘justice’ for colonial land alienation and protecting the ‘sovereignty’ of the Zimbabwean nation. In this manner, challenges to the government’s land policies were cast as ‘unjust’. Certain legal and political actors, however, contested ZANU-PF’s interpretation of ‘justice’ by drawing attention to the judiciary’s historical commitment to ‘substantive justice’. Through public debates over whose justice the law ought to protect, the law continued to be central to state authority.</p>

“Rotten Row is Rotten to the Core”: The Material and Sensory Politics of Harare's Magistrates’ Courts after 2000

“…When I asked David how it felt to sit so close to his opposition in the courtroom, he commented that he did not mind sharing, especially as most prosecutors were "cool people" who he would meet for a beer after work. He was less comfortable, however, when the prosecutor was one of the attorney general's "good boys," meaning someone willing to obey ZANU-PF's instructions in politically motivated prosecutions (Verheul 2013). What troubled him most was not his personal comfort but rather the impression the seating arrangements made on his clients.…”

From ‘Defending Sovereignty’ to ‘Fighting Corruption’: The Political Place of Law in Zimbabwe After November 2017

“…They are also demonstrative of the ways in which law intersects with the workings of governance and authority within the Zimbabwean state to bring ZANU-PF opponents in line. While in 2000, much of these debates had centred on the question of safeguarding sovereignty (Verheul, 2020), the legality of the coup was predicated on protecting the country from 'corrupt' 'criminals'. This shift in rhetoric had been festering underneath the judicial service prior to the events of November 2017, as ZANU-PF factionalism increasingly crept into processes of judicial appointments.…”

“…They are also demonstrative of the ways in which law intersects with the workings of governance and authority within the Zimbabwean state to bring ZANU–PF opponents in line. While in 2000, much of these debates had centred on the question of safeguarding sovereignty (Verheul, 2020), the legality of the coup was predicated on protecting the country from ‘corrupt’ ‘criminals’.…”

“…Possibilities of justice emerged in the space created by public contestations over the role of law within Zimbabwean society, debates that have a long history (Alexander, 2010(Alexander, , 2011Karekwaivanane, 2017), and that, particularly after 2000, encapsulated questions of human rights and sovereignty (Verheul, 2020).…”

“…In fact, precisely this question about decisions to practise law in Zimbabwe was what had interested me – why did human rights lawyers, and their clients, continue to engage with a legal system that intended to side-line and silence them? Elsewhere, I have argued that, contrary to scholarship on the place of law in post-colonial repressive or authoritarian regimes, lawyers’ commitment and the manner in which they performed this commitment during trial proceedings, depended not merely on an understanding of law as inherently double-edged, allowing for repression and resistance to co-exist (Verheul, forthcoming). It also, and importantly, required the judiciary to work in such a manner that, occasionally, justice was seen to be done.…”