THE discord within Zimbabwe’s land governance structures is no longer subtle, but glaring.
On the one hand, central government authorities are issuing directives to evict settlers from State land.
On the other, traditional leaders are allocating the same land to desperate citizens in need of a place to live or farm.
This contradiction is not just administrative confusion, but a symptom of a deeper policy failure.
At the heart of the problem is access — or rather, the lack of it.
Land in Zimbabwe, particularly for residential and small-scale productive use, remains largely inaccessible to the majority.
Keep Reading
- Title deeds offer was too good to be true
- Gwanda villagers demand offer letters
- The silent cost of fiscal myopia
Demand continues to surge, driven by population growth, urbanisation and economic hardships.
Yet supply, especially of affordable and serviced land, has failed to keep pace.
The result is predictable.
Informal settlements are spreading across rural and peri-urban areas, as people turn to alternative — and often illegal — means of acquiring land.
The so-called sabhuku deals, where local leaders allocate land outside formal systems, have become a lifeline for many.
They are not born out of lawlessness, but necessity.
Consider the economics.
The average civil servant earns around US$290 plus a ZiG component of about US$5 000.
Meanwhile, a residential stand in high-density suburbs such as Budiriro costs between US$8 000 and US$20 000.
Even at the lowest end, that is far beyond the reach of most households.
Factoring in rent, school fees, food, transport and other basic expenses, it becomes clear that formal land acquisition is simply unattainable for the average Zimbabwean.
In such an environment, informal systems thrive.
But the proliferation of these settlements is not just about affordability.
It is also about policy inconsistency and inequity.
While ordinary citizens struggle to access land, well-connected individuals and so-called land barons continue to benefit disproportionately from allocations.
These actors often acquire large tracts of land through opaque processes, only to subdivide and resell them at inflated prices, further locking out low-income buyers.
This creates a dual market: one formal but inaccessible, the other informal and risky.
Land barons have become a powerful, if unofficial, part of the land economy.
Their operations thrive in the gaps left by weak regulation, corruption and poor enforcement.
In many cases, they operate with impunity, capitalising on demand while offering little in terms of infrastructure, planning or legal security.
The consequences are far-reaching.
Informal settlements often lack basic services such as water, sanitation, electricity and road networks.
They pose environmental risks and strain already stretched urban systems.
At the same time, periodic evictions — often carried out without viable alternatives — disrupt lives and deepen poverty.
What Zimbabwe faces is not just a housing problem, but a policy failure.
A coherent and inclusive land policy is urgently needed — one that prioritises equitable access, transparency and sustainability.
Government must take deliberate steps to identify and gazette land specifically for low-income housing.
This includes unlocking underutilised State land and ensuring that allocation processes are fair, transparent and insulated from political or financial manipulation.
Equally important is tackling corruption in land administration institutions.
As long as land allocation remains susceptible to abuse, the playing field will never be level.
Strong oversight mechanisms, clear allocation criteria and accountability are essential to restoring confidence in the system.
There is also a need to rethink urban planning frameworks.
The rigid, high-cost models currently in place do not reflect the economic realities of the majority.
Incremental housing approaches, serviced but affordable stands and community-led development models can offer more practical solutions.
Ultimately, the contradiction between government directives and actions on the ground must be resolved.
Traditional leaders should not be left to fill policy gaps in ways that create further legal and administrative complications.
Instead, they should be integrated into a clear, co-ordinated land governance framework.
Zimbabwe cannot continue on its current path, where land remains a privilege for the few while the majority are pushed into informality.
The demand for land will not disappear, it will only grow.
The choice is clear: either reform land policy to make access fair and affordable or continue to witness the unchecked expansion of informal settlements driven by desperation and inequality.