Land occupiers approach ConCourt

SIX Norton residents have sought the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) to challenge their arrest for illegally occupying a farm, alleging that a conviction could result in eviction from land they have occupied for more than ten years. The residents, who are being represented by Tinashe Chipfukuto of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, were recently arrested for illegally occupying Nyagori Farm in rural Norton.

Lazarus Munyama, Saul Magombedze, Jeremiah Mapeka, Esther Phiri, Frikanos Chikombe, and Zvanguzvino Murombe mentioned the National Prosecuting Authority in their application, alleging that the arrest infringed their constitutional rights. They are also accused of violating Section 3(1) of the Gazzeted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act, as well as Section 3(4) of the Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act, which prohibits them from occupying gazetted land without legal authority. They allegedly illegally occupied the farm between 2010 and 2019. The charges could result in their eviction from the farm.

The residents approached the ConCourt, arguing that there are constitutional issues that need to be addressed before trial. They argued that Section 81 of the Constitution guarantees, among other things, the right to equal treatment under the law, including the right to be heard. "The court is given legislative authority to evict anyone convicted of violating Sections 3(3) and (4) of the Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions Act). There is no room for the court to use its discretion or examine any relevant factors.

"The candidates reside with small children who are under their parental supervision. If the applicants are convicted, the youngsters under their parental care will be rendered homeless alongside the applicants, violating their right to shelter under Section 81(1)(f) of the Constitution," they claimed. They further stated that the potential eviction penalty does not provide impacted youngsters with the opportunity to make submissions and be heard. "It is thus an adverse decision being taken against children without hearing them in breach of their right to be heard which is guaranteed in terms of Section 81(1)(f) of the Constitution," they went on to say.

The applicants also stated that their request for referral was not frivolous or vexatious, and that they were relying on a constitutional provision that grants minor children rights that are threatened by the conviction of their parents or guardians. "Faced with this contradiction, the applicants have no choice but to request that this honourable court consider the constitutionality of Section 3(5) of the Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act, particularly as it relates to the applicants' children's right to shelter and the right to be heard." "The request for reference to the Constitutional Court is thus a valid request that complies with constitutional criteria. "It is not frivolous and vexatious," they added.