WHEN mining licences are issued for land that is already being farmed, the result in Zimbabwe is predictable: acrimony, contested ministerial decisions and increasingly litigation.
The tension is not merely a clash of interests; it reveals a governance gap in how State power over land and subsoil resources is exercised.
Recent litigation shows that these are not theoretical problems.
Courts have been repeatedly asked to untangle whether the right to the surface or the right to the minerals should prevail, and what processes the State must follow before it disrupts livelihoods.
But there has not been a single, neat judicial rule that settles the matter once and for all; the picture is more nuanced than many commentators suggest.
At law, minerals are vested in the State and the grant of mining rights confers powers that allow holders to enter land for prospecting and mining.
That statutory architecture, centrally the Mines and Minerals Act, is the legal foundation for the position that mineral rights can, in specific circumstances, override a landholder’s exclusive use of the surface.
The Act and its regulations, therefore, matter greatly in disputes where mining blocks are pegged on farms.
- When minerals and farms collide: Finding a path for Zim’s land, mining disputes
- Mining firms to lose licences in new crackdown
Keep Reading
Yet the statute was written in a different era and does not neatly account for the post land reform realities in which many resettled farmers now hold de facto and de jure interests in land that government may contemplate for mineral development.
Case law confirms that the courts will give effect to statutory mineral rights, but the rulings are not uniform and often depend on the precise relief sought and the facts before the court.
A commonly cited High Court line of decisions emphasises that a farmer cannot simply bar prospectors, the right to minerals vests in the State and prospecting may lawfully occur where statutory steps have been followed.
But other judgments have stressed that even when miners hold statutory rights, they must respect property and procedural safeguards: proper notice, consultation, environmental assessment and, where appropriate, compensation.
These High Court pronouncements illustrate legal tensions, but have not produced a single binding rule that resolves the recurring disputes.
Importantly, there is Supreme Court authority on some mining questions, such as ownership of mineral stockpiles and proprietary claims, but these rulings have been narrow in scope and do not comprehensively settle the mining versus farming dilemma.
This underlines why litigation alone cannot resolve the crisis.
Environmental and social safeguards are already embedded in Zimbabwe’s legal framework: the Environmental Management Act and its environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulations require project proponents to submit EIA or environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) reports and obtain an EIA certificate from the Environmental Management Agency (Ema) before certain mining activities commence.
Developers, not Ema typically, commission accredited consultants to prepare ESIAs and environmental management plans, which Ema reviews and authorises.
Large, financed mines routinely follow this process to satisfy regulators and investors.
The problem in practice is not the absence of rules but weaknesses in sequencing, report quality and enforcement.
Studies have found that some EIA reports are deficient, artisanal and small-scale miners often evade the process and Ema’s monitoring capacity is over-stretched.
Courts have recently highlighted that failure to obtain an EIA certificate before issuing a mining permit can invalidate mining rights, signalling that compliance is not optional.
Reform must, therefore, focus on strengthening EIA quality, resourcing Ema, ensuring consistent enforcement and linking EIA certificate compliance directly to the validity of mining claims.
The crisis can only be resolved through a clear and coherent framework that harmonises land and mineral governance.
A sound model would rest on four pillars: legal alignment, institutional co-ordination, procedural safeguards and conflict resolution mechanisms.
On the legal front, amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act should explicitly recognise the coexistence of agricultural and mineral rights, mandating consultation, compensation and restoration duties before mining commences on farmland. Institutionally, a joint land-use screening system should be created between the Mines ministry and the Agriculture ministry to prevent overlapping allocations.
Procedurally, miners should be obliged to present proof of EIA certificate compliance, compensation arrangements and community consultation before being granted entry to agricultural land.
Finally, a specialised tribunal should be established to resolve disputes swiftly, drawing on technical, legal and environmental expertise.
Such a model allows the State to retain control of mineral resources while protecting food security, rural livelihoods and investor confidence.
It also reduces the burden on the courts by providing structured channels for negotiation and arbitration before disputes escalate.
If government adopts this integrated framework, Zimbabwe could avoid perpetual disputes, foster sustainable coexistence of mining and farming, and unlock the combined potential of its mineral wealth and agricultural capacity.
If it fails to act, the country risks entrenching conflict, undermining productivity and destabilising rural communities.
