“Title deeds represent ownership of a property and the permanent improvements on it. They have an intrinsic value to the holder. A bond relies on the Integrity of the issuer and does not represent any ownership of land, past or present. Acceptance of the bond will cut your umbical. cord to the land.” - Peter McSporran
The recent proposal by the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) and others including the CSC (Compensation Steering Committee) has brought much indecision and confusion into the Zimbabwean farming community, especially dispossessed title holders. This confusion and uncertainty instead of bringing unity within the community has caused the opposite creating divisions coupled with recrimination, distrust, and fear of making the wrong decision.
With the lack of transparency, the CFU is asking us to consider accepting the bond offer on the table under the mantle of the so-called GCD (Global Compensation Deed).
“The Zimbabwean government has been unable to honour bonds on maturity of substantially less value than the amount in question within the GCD. It simply rolls them over, which if you were the borrower it would be a default. For the Zimbabwean government it is normal practice.” - Peter McSporran
A recently formed group of farmers concerned with events taking place under the auspices of GCD has set up an awareness group called the CAG (Compensation Awareness Group). For myself, I have been trying to think of an analogy to describe the offer. I came up with this:
“Under the GDC payment scheme, the government is borrowing money from us to pay for our own improvements promising it may, or may not pay us back in the future using our own title deeds as collateral for the loan. The question is, would a bank lend you money to buy a farm on the back of a piece of paper stating you will repay them at a later date if and when money is available while paying an interest rate of your choosing? Until the loan is repaid you will retain the title deeds, not them.” - Peter McSporran
This like-minded, concerned group of people set about trying to understand what was on the table and are lobbying for a challenge against or at least a full independent legal review of the proposed bond payment for our permanent improvements in exchange for our title deeds. Many, if not most of us thought this was unacceptable yet the CSC and CFU are still presenting this to us in a road show. Zimbabwe Government Bonds are worthless more probably to be rolled over at maturity not once but as often as required. In promoting or at least presenting this addendum to us affected farmers the CSC and the CFU, due to the lack of their transparency have lost much of the goodwill if not the trust of the people it is supposed to be representing. The extent of this mistrust was manifested in a standing-room-only meeting sponsored by the CAG held in Harare on Tuesday. The main and only invited speaker was Dr Theo de Jager, President of the Southern Africa Agri Initiative (SAAI) which is said to already have some 600 ex-Zimbabwean farmers as members.
“Acronyms are for the young they only confuse the aged.” - Peter Mcsporran
Dr de Jager is an eloquent speaker with a broad knowledge of African Agriculture and the politics surrounding it. Further afield, he has served as a past president of the World Farmers Organisation which has allowed him to build an impressive network of global players. He has been involved for many years with land reform in South Africa and was partly responsible for bringing the Zimbabwean government to the table for discussions that culminated the GCD. In saying this, he played no part in formulating the GCD which he has aired much concern over. The latest addendum he felt was just not an option. It would have no legal recourse in the event of default by the Zimbabwean government.
He is a softly-spoken man who appears to be able to keep a level head to enable him to keep the bigger goal in focus. He alluded to a lively meeting at the CFU earlier in the day where it was reported by someone present that he was met with suspicion if not downright hostility. He has great sympathy for the farmers who lost their farms in our country and is willing, if asked, to take on a greater role in our fight for compensation. It would appear the task would be carried out under the auspices of the SAAI. Membership of SAAI costs very little. It will be the individual’s choice to either take up the offer of the GCD. The GCD precludes the CSC, CFU and Valcon to look for any alternate legal options while in force. No doubt the SAAI initiative will have the government declaring dismay due to outside interference.
The salient points of Dr de Jager’s talk, many of these actually coming out during question-time, was that the present bond deal on the table is a bad deal unlikely to be honoured. It lacks transparency and has not had independent legal scrutiny both in the inception and on presentation. Any deal must be supported by means of enforcement under international law. We know just lately a Zimbabwean judge refused to hear a land dispute between a farmer and the state declaring it was not a legal matter, despite laws governing the issue. Rather, it was a political issue. So much for the protection of the law. Simply no law on land in Zimbabwe as those of us affected well know.
He emphasised the need for unity, not just once, but many times. He used the rugby idiom, ‘play the ball, not the man’ as an example.
I was not physically at the meeting so could not tell him this:
“To get control of the ball in rugby, you often have to take the man out.” - Peter McSporran
His point was well taken and being an outsider can perhaps build bridges across the present chasms that divide us. The biggest problem I see is conflict of interest. It has been denied that a gun is being held to the negotiator's head but there are many hidden or even subconscious pressures in coming to an agreement if you are still on the land or even worse an agent of the state. Once those organisations and individuals are removed from the negotiating table and the negotiations are purely to represent those that have lost their farms or their mandated agents, trust can be restored.
The CFU and Valcon still have a role. CFU still represents farmers on the ground and many dispossessed farmers are still members. I, as a past-President, am not. In about 2003 when I was still urging the CFU to take legal action, myself and Vernon Nicolle attended a meeting where we were told by the then president and council that they were there to represent farmers still farming, not those dispossessed. Perhaps it was a statement in the heat of the moment. For myself, I heeded this and concentrated on my new life in Zambia putting the CFU behind me although recognising the Zimbabwean government and many farmers look on it as the representative of all farmers. Possibly after this, it will once again. It is a reflection of its historical standing that it is still recognised today.
As for Valcon, I believe it must revert back to its role as an excellent service provider and database holder. Their work on land recognition and valuation is unquestionably the best we could have hoped for and has received this recognition from both sides of the fence. It needs to be more transparent in its membership numbers, especially if it is used to garner the mood of its members. Otherwise announced votes unratified by independent oversight will always be disputed causing division. I am afraid it is the same as the CFU. It is unlikely the members still farming will take as hard a stand as those disposed in challenging the government for compensation.
“Are the promoters of the GCD adjusted deal the right people to adjudicate our mood towards it? I think not.” - Peter McSporran
As for SAAI I actually know very little having had no personal interaction. I have made an effort to read about them and Dr de Jager. I attended an investment conference in Cape Town some eight-odd years ago where we both spoke and I met him briefly. Other than that, my knowledge of SAAI and him is scant. There is much I would like to know about SAAI. Its membership, by country, its constitution, its office-bearing election process and as Dr de Jager is such a dominant character, its succession process. Will it die with the man?
Despite this, what Dr de Jager says makes sense to me especially as there will be no quick fix, perhaps our heirs will benefit. I am extremely interested in the idea of raising funds to support the elderly who need money now. Their desperation needs to be addressed or they will be vulnerable to all sorts of scams. After all, a drowning man will grasp any straw. That is what has got us here, along with false promises.
In summary, but not fully inclusive or verbatim Dr de Jager said the following:
Be unified. Do not attack each other. Rather challenge what is on the table.
A much better deal is required. The one on the table is unacceptable.
Negotiators need to be independent.
Be patient. No guns to the head.
Negotiators should not be conflicted.
The government thinks it has time on its side. Accept many of you will not receive your compensation in your life but try and ensure your heirs may well do. Let government know your claims will not die with you. Do not show this as a weakness.
Full disclosure of any agreement to claimants for their referral to their advisors or legal representatives for them to fully understand what is being offered.
What are the CPs and what happens in the event of default? Is it one that will stand up to independent legal review prior to seeking any mandate or referendum?
One that will be recognised in international courts.
Those representing you should be trusted.
Do not have a referendum. If you still plan to do so, not before the national elections. Nothing will happen before then anyway.
A fund should be created to support the elderly destitute. We would be required to ensure those to benefit are genuinely in need. His organisation would assist in the funds creation, administration and assist in fundraising.
I think this last point is critical even if it means the holding of the title deeds on behalf of those beneficiaries until full payment is made. It may even create a sub-market but let's not kid ourselves, it would be at a heavily discounted value. In saying that, it may be enough to make some of the more elderly comfortable in their last few years. He made the startling statement that the average age of Zimbabwean farmers at the time of the land invasions was sixty-three. That means the average age is now eighty-six if we had all been living, which we are not.
Remember we have some significant gains under our belt from twenty years ago. We have values on our improvements that have been accepted by the government. Under the GCD, they were discounted to reach an agreement which now has been broken when the money was not raised. That does not detract from the real agreed value. They have now accepted we should be paid for our improvements. They still say the British must pay for the land, which I am afraid will not happen until we have an accountable government attracting investors, no matter how hard we try. Once again, patience. Our claim is with the Zimbabwean government not the British, they must deal with the British.
If nothing else this week, we gained some good counsel, it is up to our leaders and ourselves to heed. For myself, I will take up SAAI membership. I personally will heed the good advice and not accept the bond proposal.
The strange thing towards the end of the meeting, if I heard correctly, one of the CSC members, Alan York conceded it was a bad agreement on offer.
Next week I plan to revert back to my life story and homegrown philosophy.
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Comments