THE government’s decision to offer concessionary land tenure fees to liberation war veterans and civil servants raises a troubling question: why should secure land rights be reserved for a privileged few?
Land reform was never meant to benefit a select group. It was intended to correct a historical injustice and place Zimbabwe’s most important productive asset in the hands of its people.
Land is not a political reward. It is a national resource.
The liberation struggle was fought, in large part, to reclaim land. That struggle was not waged for war veterans, civil servants or any other special interest group alone. It was fought for Zimbabwe.
To structure land tenure reforms in a way that favours certain groups over others betrays the very principle upon which land reform was justified.
In fact, it risks reducing the exercise to little more than a political sweetener for a constituency that increasingly feels used and abandoned, while a connected few continue to enjoy the fruits of independence.
It also creates the impression that the government is attempting to pacify a restive constituency, particularly at a time when divisions appear to be widening over the constitutional amendment debate.
If the government’s stated goal is to strengthen tenure security, unlock investment and boost agricultural productivity, then limiting discounted land tenure fees to war veterans and civil servants is a clear policy contradiction.
- Addressing unfair trade key to transforming African food systems
- Urgent economic structural transformation necessary
- Residents finger ZETDC employees in cables theft
- Residents finger ZETDC employees in cables theft
Keep Reading
For more than two decades, thousands of farmers, who received land under the fast-track land reform programme, have lived under a cloud of uncertainty.
Their tenure has often depended less on productivity and more on political patronage. Many farmers know that a shift in political winds can result in threats of eviction or farm takeover.
Under such conditions, it is unrealistic to expect farmers to invest heavily in their land.
Banks are reluctant to extend credit where property rights remain uncertain.
Without secure tenure, agriculture cannot attract the capital it needs to grow.
Zimbabwe’s agricultural recovery depends not on political favouritism, but on confidence — confidence that farmers who work the land will keep it.
By narrowing the benefits of discounted tenure fees to specific groups, the government risks deepening divisions within the farming community and reinforcing the perception that land policy remains tied to political loyalty.
Productivity, commitment and contribution to national food security should matter far more than political credentials.
Liberation war veterans deserve recognition for the sacrifices they made to secure Zimbabwe’s independence. Their role in the country’s history is beyond dispute.
But recognition should not translate to preferential control over a national resource that serves the interests of the entire country.
Civil servants, too, deserve respect for their public service, often performed under difficult economic conditions.
Yet rewarding them by privileging their access to land tenure benefits raises uncomfortable questions about fairness and policy coherence.
Agriculture cannot be rebuilt on the basis of selective empowerment.
Zimbabwe needs a land tenure system that is transparent, predictable and fair to every farmer who productively uses the land.
Anything less undermines the credibility of the land reform programme and discourages the investment needed to revive the sector.
For a country that once fed much of the region, the stakes could not be higher.
Restoring Zimbabwe’s breadbasket status will not happen through politically selective policies. It will happen through clear rules, equal opportunity and secure property rights for all farmers.
If the government is serious about unlocking agricultural potential and restoring confidence in the land reform, then land tenure justice must extend to every productive farmer — not a chosen few.
Because when land policy favours a few, the entire agricultural sector pays the price.
The government must, therefore, go back to the drawing board and craft an inclusive land tenure framework that prioritises production, certainty and fairness for all farmers.
